The Transition Debate: The Dobb-Sweezy Debate

The transition from feudalism to capitalism has been the subject of

considerable writing and study in the 20th century. This, unlike the
transition to socialism, is not process that has been analysed or well
elaborated by Marx in his exposition of historical materialism. In ‘Dass
Kapital’, Marx and Engels merely theorize on the causes for such a
transition and fail to examine the specificities of the process.

In 1946, Maurice Dobb wrote his ‘Studies in the Development of

Capitalism’ which helped to clarify the nature of feudalism in the 13th
and 14th centuries, the causes for its decline, the rise of towns and
mercantilism and the collapse of the feudal structure. In 1950, Paul
Sweezy, an American economist, wrote a critique of Dobb’s thesis in the
journal ‘Science and Society’, drawing upon Henri Pirenne’s study of the
resurgence of Europe-Mediterranean trade in the 13th century. Dobb
responded to this article, triggering a debate that continued well into
the 1970’s.

While the difference between the rival explanations proposed by Dobb

and Sweezy may seem to be chiefly one of emphasis, for neither disputes
are the validity of the other’s view (choosing only to ascribe primary to
external contradictions or trade respectively), there is nonetheless a
profound methodological distance between Dobb’s analysis and that of
Sweezy. This methodological difference arises from certain assumptions
the two scholars use to formulate their theories-assumptions concerned
with the nature of the system and the precise definition of feudalism.

In his article, ‘A Critique’, Sweezy protested against the definition of

feudalism proposed by Dobb. Dobb equates feudalism with serfdom,
arguing that the essence of the feudalism mode of production is the
exploitative relationship between the producer and the landlord by
which the surplus is transferred to the feudal lord in the form of labour
service or money dues.

Sweezy contends that this is too broad a definition and fails to identify a
specific system of production. He asserts that some serfdom may be said
to exist even in systems that are not feudal. For Sweezy the defining
feature of feudalism is that the system of production is not market or
exchange oriented. Instead, it is concerned chiefly with production for
use or local consumption. At the same time he does not contend that
there existed a natural economy nor does he say that markets did not
exist.

In a capitalist system of production however, exchange is the primary

object of production. According to Sweezy, feudalism must be defined as
a mode of production where the output is meant for use. Dobb however,
focuses on the social relations of a mode of production as the identifying
factor. He argues that the coercive relationship between the feudal lord
and the serf is the feature most characteristic of feudalism. The corollary
of such a difference in approach is that while Dobb maintains that a
transition can only come about once there is a change in the social
relations of production, Sweezy asserts that the transition from
feudalism to capitalism is mirrored in the transition from production for
use to production for exchange.

Kohochiro Takahashi notes that a system of production for exchange

cannot be said to exist outside feudalism as Sweezy argues, as markets
did exist even before the 13th-14th centuries. He asserts that to regard
commodity production as external to feudalism and equate feudalism
with production for use is an overly simplistic assessment given that the
‘natural economy’ and the ‘monetized economy’ (Takahashi, pg.71) not
only coexisted but also interacted with each other.

He argues that the first thing to take into account is the ‘social existence
form of labour power’ which in the case of feudalism is serfdom. He
contends that it is inadvisable to divorce a mode of production from the
social existence form labour and like Dobb, defines feudalism by the
peculiar social relations it generates.

Sweezy characterizes the feudal system a one which is essentially

conservative and change-resisting, if not actually static. This arises from
his definition of feudalism as a system of production for use which leads
to the assumption that rents and production are limited by needs and
that there is no internal pressure to increase surplus or to bring about
improvements in the methods of production. Sweezy argues that the
impetus for increased surplus appropriator is external to the feudal
economy.

Dobb asserts that it was the inefficiency of feudalism as a system of

production in the face of the pressing needs of the ruling class for
revenue that precipitated its downfall. He challenges the school which
looks upon trade as the solvent of feudalism by demonstrating that in
some regions trade only served to intensify serfdom-particularly east of
the Elbe. Assuming that this amounted to a complete repudiation of the
effect of commerce on the feudal relations, Sweezy called upon Dobb to
prove that the ruling class’s need for revenue and the flight of serfs can
be explained as the result of forces operating within the systems.
Swezzy’s contention is that the cause for increased demands for surplus
was the rising expendiyure of the feudal ruling class on luxury goods
which appear in the market due to the recovery oflong distance trade in
the 12th-13th centuries. Moreover, he explains the fleeing of serfs as a
response to the improved social status, liberty and employment offered
by the towns. Sweezy maintains that both trade and the rise of towns
were extended to feudalism.

Dobb however adopted an eclectic position on the question of the ‘prime

mover’. While continuing to emphasize on the internal contradictions of
the feudal system, he concludes that the development of towns and the
emergence of trade were instrumental in the decline of feudalism. He
argues that if towns acted as magnets to the dissatisfied serfs, then it
was the inefficiency of feudalism in the face of the growing exactions of
the ruling class which created that discontent. Rodney Hilton argues
that the development of trade and the rise of market towns should not
be seen as external to the feudal structure. According to Hilton, this may
equally be seen as the response to a stimulus arising from within the
system. For instance, the recovery of long-distance trade could be
attributed to an increased demand for luxury goods from the rich feudal
ruling class.

Countering Sweezy’s claims, Dobb reiterates the argument that in

England, feudalism dissolved first in the comparatively backward
south-east rather than the more advanced north and west which
benefited from trade. Takahashi observes that the reason for this was
that in the south-east the ‘classical manorial system’ was not as well
established as in the north and west. Thus, while trade certainly acted as
a fragmentary force, its effect was also conditioned by the degree of
internal stability of the feudal structure. Where the feudal system was
strong, as in Eastern Europe, the rise of trade served only to consolidate
the system.

Takahashi, like Dobb, argues that while the role of trade as a

contributory factor must not be neglected, primary must be ascribed to
the internal contradictions of the system.

Dobb’s theory of the ‘Prime Mover’ is not only more convincing than
Sweezy’s trade hypothesis but also in accord with the Marxist postulate
of crisis arising from conflicts within the system rather than due to
forces external to it. Despite this, Dobb’s argument remains rather vague
as he fails to precisely identify the internal contradictions in the system
or specify what exactly the ‘prime mover’ is.

Rodney Hilton suggests that the process of surplus appropriation be

seen as the internal contradiction much as the process of capital
accumulation is seen as the contradiction in the capitalist system. Hilton
notes that surplus appropriation prevents the investment of ‘profit’ in
improving agricultural techniques, retarding production. He sees this as
a process mirroring the development of the crisis in capitalism except
for the fact that here the means of production and the labour force are
identical. Hilton argues that the main conflict arises from the tendency
of the feudal ruling class to appropriate as much of the surplus as
possible so as to meet their increasing expenditure on luxury goods
supplied through trade(as mentioned earlier, Hilton does not see trade
as a force external to the system) or costs arising from military
competition and incessant warfare. There is, amongst the peasants, a
counter-tendency to retain as much of their surplus or free labour time
as possible, which seems natural enough. The ‘essential conflict’, as
Dobb reaffirmed in his article ‘From Feudalism to Capitalism’, is the
struggle over rent. Hilton thus helps to clean up the matter of the
internal contradiction in feudalism and asserts that the ‘prime mover’ is
the issue of control over surplus, as in capitalism.

However, another understanding of the exact nature of these internal

contradictions has been supplied by the demographic model.
By the 13th-14th century, an increase in populations brought about the
disintegration of the system of demesne farming as serfs were converted
to tenants and surplus was extracted as money rent rather than labour
service. This was accompanied by the rise of commodity productions in
the countryside as well as the towns where handicraft production had
by now developed. The easy availability of labour led to the rise of a
cheap wage labour class. This was partly the result of increased
competitions for land and the creation of a class of landless labourers in
the countryside. By the 15th century, following a series of major peasant
revolts such as the Grand Jacquerie in France in 1358, feudalism
collapsed. For Sweezy, the transition to productions for exchanged for
exchange even before the peasant revolts was in itself an indicator of the
destruction of feudalism in Western Europe. However, he observes,
correctly, that capitalist production cannot be said to have emerged until
the end of the 16th century. This raised the issue of how to classify this
period. Sweezy asserts that it was neither feudal nor capitalist and
designates this intervening period as a phase of pre-capitalist
commodity production. For Takahashi, this period is still feudal while
Dobb’s position is more complex.

Sweezy’s hypothesis carries with it the implicit assumption that the

development of commodity production and the commutations of labour
services to money rent herald the demise of feudalism. Both Dobb and
Takahashi note that money rent in this period is not the same as the
capitalist ground rent and is actually only a variant of feudal rent, in lieu
labour services or rent in kind. They also dispute the contention that
commodity production cannot exist within feudalism.

Sweezy believes that the transition to capitalism in the 15th and 16th
centuries was a two-part process where in the first stage the growth of
commodity production undermines feudalism and prepares the ground
for the growth of capitalism which follows in the next stage. He does not
define any particular patterns of class relations in this period, asserting
that it would be going too far to classify pre-capitalist commodity
production as a social system.

For Dobb and Takahashi however, the form of social relations defines the
character of the period. Dobb observes that the nature of rent being still
feudal, the social relations between the peasant and lord are still feudal,
the appearance of wage labour notwithstanding. Dobb asserts that this
is a period when the petty mode of production begins to emancipate
itself from feudal exploitation without being subjected to capitalist
relations of productions as yet. Moreover, as Christopher Hill also
argues, as there is no evidence of the merchant bourgeoisie controlling
state power until the 17th century, it may be concluded, as Dobb and
Takahashi go on to do, that the ruling class is still feudal. However, as
Takahashi alleges, Dobb shrinks from calling this period feudal and calls
it a ‘transitory phase’ where feudalism continued to exist but in an
‘advanced state of deterioration’. While Sweezy believes that the
development of capitalism had nothing to do with feudalism which had
long since folded up, Takahashi maintains that it emerged from within
feudalism. Dobb chooses to argue for a distance between feudalism and
capitalism by asserting that the feudal system was almost dead by the
15th century.

In response to Dobb and Takahashi’s argument for a feudal ruling class,

Sweezy postulates that in the 15th and 16th centuries there might have
been several ruling classes, each contending for supremacy. Christopher
Hill dismissed this theory as a logical absurdity because it assumes that
each of these classes were in a position to control the state. Hill
concludes that while the state was still feudal, society was becoming
increasingly bourgeois while bourgeoisie continued to be politically
inert, the state would occasionally intervene on behalf of this class.

Giuliano Procacci, like Takahashi, asserts that the 15th and 16th centuries
should not be seen as a ‘distinct transitionary period’ for bith the
relations of production and methods of surplus extraction anf the ruling
class remained feudal. He suggests that it be seen as a period which
retains its feudal character while bearing the ‘germs’ of capitalism.

Sweezy challenges the two points regarded by Dobb as important in the

rise of capitalism – the first regarding the origin of the industrial
capitalist and the second concerning the process of original
accumulation.

Marx suggests that the capitalist class may emerge in one of the two
ways-one is the ‘really revolutionary way’ in which the producer
becomes a merchant and a capitalist while in the second the capitalists
rise from the class of the merchant bourgeoisie. Sweezy disagrees with
Dobb's reading of this passage as a comment on the social origins of the
capitalist class and asserts that it may also be interrupted to mean that
in both cases, the capitalists rose from the same class. The real
difference between the two, according to Sweezy, is that in the first the
rising capitalist class circumvents the putting-out system whereas in the
latter case, the capitalist rise through the putting-out system. Thus, as
Procacci observes for Dobb the difference lies in the fact that the two
ways were promoted by social forces with distinct interests and policies
while for Sweezy the difference consists in the distinct types of
productive processes.

Here Takahashi makes a significant contribution by arguing for an

opposition between the two ways in Marx’s tract. Thus, while the first
way sees the subordination of commercial capital to industrial as the
production of the rising capitalist class in not limited by the market he
can top as a merchant, in the second way production is dependent on
the market. This mean that it is the first way which necessarily leads to a
rupure with feudal relatios of production.

The second point raised by Sweezy is concerned with Dobb's theory of a

two stage process of primitive accumulation by which the bourgeoisie
first acquires ownership of land and other assets and then realizes its
wealth by selling it off to acquire the required capital. According to
Sweezy there is no evidence of this second stage. He disputes Dobb's
theory that in order to acquire capital the bourgeoisie would have to
dispose of its assets by suggesting that a banking and credit system had
by then developed. Dobb replies to this by arguing that a credit system
does not emerge until the 19th century. Finally he asserts that the 17th
century witnesses a shift from investment in real estate to investment in
production. Therefore, the postulate of a realization stage remains valid.

The demographic or ‘ecological’ model as Hilton clubs it, offers an

alternative perspective on the internal contradictions that precipitated
the downfall of feudalism. This theory was put forth by scholars like
Emmanuel L. Ladurie, Peter Bowden and most prominently, M.M.
Postan. This model understands the transition from feudalism to
capitalism as the result of two population cycles over the 10th-17th
centuries. These cycles are characterized by a long term increase in
population followed by a decline, creating conditions with which the
feudal system was ill-prepared to cope. According to Postan, as a result
of greater food security the 12th-13th centuries witnessed population
growth. This meant an increase in the rural work force and the surplus
labour could no longer be gainfully employed o small peasant holdings.
Those who could not find work began to move to the towns but a class of
landless agricultural workers had emerged leading to the development
of wage labour. Now, as mentioned earlier, the demesne came to be
fragmented into small holdings, labour service was commuted to money
rent and commodity productions began. This was a side effect of the
increase in the supply of labour power. It was accompanied by the
growth of a class of wealthier peasants - Takahashi’s ‘kulaks’ who could
afford to employ hired labour. Postan maintains that the feudal economy
remained technologically stagnant and thus, failed to improve
agricultural productivity. As the population increased, there were
diminishing returns in agriculture owing to the declining soil fertility
and the occupation of marginal lands. The neo-Malthusians contend that
in accordance with the logic of demand and supply the power of the
feudal lords over the peasants increased. Competitions for land
depressed the status lf the peasants forcing them to submit to increasing
arbitrary taxes and labour service on the demesne(where this
institution still exists).

By the beginning of the 14th century, there was a serious scarcity of food
surplus all over Europe. As a result of widespread famines and the
plague epidemic called ‘The Black Death’ which ravaged Europe from
1348-51, by the end of the 14th century, the population of Europe was
forty percent lower than what it had been during the first half of the
century.

While a decline in population logically brought about a decline in rents

and in the power of the lords to restrict peasants’ mobility, this did not
stop the lords from attempting to increase their control and limit
mobility, considering the relative scarcity of labour. The peasants
rebelled against the seigniorial reactions leading to peasant revolts such
as the Grand Jacquerie and the Peasant Revolt of 1381 in England. These
revolts loosened the bonds of serfdom in western Europe. As both Dobb
and Sweezy would testify, by the 15th century feudalism was on its way
out.

Similarly, the neo-Malthusians invoke the theory of another population

cycle to account for the development of the Second Serfdom in Eastern
Europe and the collapse of feudalism in this region of the 17th century.

Postan’s approach is criticized by Brenner for its assumption that trends

associated with the economic base can be studied and analyzed
meaningfully in abstraction from the working of legal and social
institutions. He asserts that while examining long term movements in
income distribution and economic growth it is also necessary to study
the relations of productions. Brenner emphasizes on the need to explore
the nature of the contract between the peasants and the landlord-the
issue of fiscal rent, the extent of extra-economic coercion, the control
over land transfer, etc. in understanding the impact of changes in the
economic base upon the superstructure and the system of production in
general.

Other than this methodological critique, he also subjects the

demographic model to an empirical investigation in a comparative
perspective.

According to Brenner, most of the postulates of the demographic model

break down in a comparative analysis. He demonstrates that the
deterioration in the peasant’s status in the 13th century due to the
increase in population in western Europe is arrested in the region
around Paris where an opposite movement to establish peasant freedom
is set in motion by the end of the century. Here, according to Brenner,
the landlord had failed to successfully legitimize his right to impose
arbitrary terms or charge more than a fixed rate. In the 14th century,
attempts to demand entry fines and tolls met with strong opposition in
the Paris region, aborting the process in eastern Europe, the peculiar
character of class relations resulted in the failure of peasant revolts and
by the end of the 14th century when feudalism was tottering to its
demise in western Europe, the decline in population was accompanied
by an ultimately successful attempt to impose extra economic controls
on the peasantry.
From this Brenner concludes that the determination of the impact of the
pressure of the population on the land was subject to the prior
determination of the character of the peasant – landlord class relations.

Thus, the transition debate is still under contention. But we can

conclude by saying that the Marxist and the non-Marxists have divided
themselves into two water tight compartments. While the Marxists
continuously look for the internal contradictions in feudalism, the
non-Marxists look for external factors that lead its demise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Hilton, Rodney (ed), 1978 : The Transition from Feudalism to

Capitalism
- Hilton, Rodney – Introduction
- Sweezy, Paul – A Critique
- Dobb, Maurice – A Reply
- Takahashi, Kohachiro – A Contribution to the Discussion
- Dobb, Maurice – A Further Reply
- Hilton, Rodney – A Comment
- Hill, Christopher – A Comment
- Giuliano Procacci – A Survey of the Debate

2. www.wikipedia.com
3. class notes