Guilford Press

Feudalism-to-Capitalism Revisited
Author(s): Paul M. Sweezy
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 81-84
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40402685
Accessed: 12/12/2010 15:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Guilford Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science & Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Science6f Society,Vol. L, No. 1,

Spring 1986, pp. 81-95

COMMUNICATIONS
The HistoricalMaterialism
Discussion

FEUDALISM-TO-CAPITALISM

REVISITED

Maurice Dobb's Studiesin theDevelopment

of Capitalismdealt, interalia,
withone of the most importantproblems of modern historiography,
the transitionfromthe predominantfeudal systemof the Middle Ages
to the capitalistsystemof modern times. My reviewof Dobb's book in
Science & Society (Spring, 1950) had the good luck to be published
shortlyafterthe Second World War at what turned out to be just the
right time to focus attentionon this "problematic"in the form of a
debate whichproved to be both searchingand of lasting,even growing,
interestin the years to follow. I am glad to see that some fortyyears
later the editorsof Science & Society have opened theirpages to further discussion of this subject by a new generation of historiansand
analysts.That they have asked me to participatealong with younger
colleagues is a source of additional gratification.
First,I would like to correctan apparentlycommon misinterpretation of my position as presented in the reviewof Dobb's book. David
Laibman (S&S, Fall 1984, p. 289n) calls this "Sweezy's original view"
and givesthe followingsummary:"capitalismis the outcome of the dissolving effectof trade upon any precommerciaisocial organization."
What I did argue is somethingquite different,i.e., that trade (and of
course itsconcomitantcommodityproduction)did indeed play a major
role in underminingWestern European feudalism and at the same
timeestablishedthe necessarypreconditionsfor the rise of capitalism.
The actual emergenceof capitalismin itsultimatelypredominantform,
81

82

SCIENCE

& SOCIETY

however,did not occuruntilsome twocenturiesafterthe disintegraconnectionbetween

tionof feudalism.There was thusno significant
on the
of feudalism
decline
thetwophasesof thetransition
process
one hand,and riseof capitalismon the other.I was carefulto stress
thatin holdingthisviewI was in completeagreementwithDobb. The
issueoverwhichwe disagreed,and whichI thinkis fairto saywas the
main bone of contentionin the ensuingdebate,had to do withthe
causes of the declineof feudalism.Dobb had argued thatthe weakto
of feudalismresultedfromcausesinternal
eningand disintegration
thesystem(mainlytheneed of thelordsformorerevenue,leadingto
was thatthedomiof theserfs),whilemycontention
overexploitation
to thefeudalsystem(therevivalof longnantcausalfactorwasexternal
distancetrade in the laterMiddle Ages followedby the accelerated
of marketrelationsbetween
growthof townsand the proliferation
I did notdenytheneed of thelordsformore
townand countryside).
revenue,but arguedthatthisneed stemmednot fromeconomiclaws
of new
peculiarto the feudalsystembut ratherfromthe availability
and moresophisticated
luxurygoods (includingarms),arisingin the
stimfirstinstancefromtherevivalof long-distance
trade,and further
ulated by the spread of commodityproduction,divisionof labor,
etc.
money-lending,
in
this
argumentbut never,as far as I can remember,
Implicit
debateis a viewwhichI nowconsidercruin
transition
out
the
spelled
of historical
cial to a properunderstanding
materialism,
namely,that
recordedsocialsystemsonlycapitalismis subjectto
of all historically
I was
whatcan reasonablybe called"laws"of motionor development.
to
in
his
contribution
that
see
to
therefore
RogerGottlieb,
verypleased
the reneweddiscussionof the feudalism-to-capitalism
theme,makes
view,
thispointas a majorpartof hisargument.In Gottlieb's
precisely
or tobase
feudalsociety;
corewithin
itis a mistake
totrytofindan economic
tocapitalism
andtransition
internal
ofthatsociety's
an understanding
dynamic
The
or "contradictions."
"lawsof development"
of itseconomy's
on analysis
of
to
Marx's
of
of
a
"Marxian"
theory
comparable
theory feudalism,
pursuit
of
feuoffer
a
not
.
.
.
did
Marx
misconceived.
is
theory
capitalism,
competitive
becausehe perceived
of capitalism
to thetheory
dalismcomparable
partly
theoretiwhichMarxist
The mistake
is possible.
thatno suchtheory
(rightly)
ofcapitalMarxprovided
thatthekindoftheory
cianshavemadeistobelieve
liesinfailTheirmistake
ofanysociety.
ism... isthepropermodeloftheories
not
lies
of
account
Marx's
of
the
success
to
that
realize
justinhis
capitalism
ing
- butintheuniquehistorically
ofcompetitive
features
"method"
capispecific
talism
as well.1(S&S, Spring1984,pp. 1,4.)
1 See also my Four Lectureson Marxism(New York, 1982), Ch. 1; "AfterCapitalismWhat?", MonthlyReview,July-August1985; and "Rejoinder" to Charles Bettelheim,

HISTORICAL

MATERIALISM

83

debate
A dominant featureof the original feudalism-to-capitalism
was that it concentratedalmost exclusivelyon WesternEurope. There
were several reasons for this: the cultural bias of most of the participants; their conviction,inheritedfrom a long tradition,that Western
European feudalismwas the archetypeof this particularsocial formation; and of course the factthatWesternEurope was where capitalism
as we know it today actually emerged. These factorstaken together
narrowedthe scope of the debate to a quite extraordinarydegree. Not
onlywas attentionfocussedgeographicallyon thisone small portionof
the globe; even more important, an unexpressed (and quite likely
unconscious) assumption pervaded the whole discourse, namely, that
what happened in thatarea was largelyuninfluencedby developments
elsewhere. This assumption appeared in an abstracttheoreticalguise,
the presumed basic Marxian principlethatchange in any social formation derives its directionand strengthfrominternalforces.
Here I must interjecta personal note. I had long been fascinated
- the origins of the early civilizaby certain broad historicalthemes
of
Africa
and Asia, the decline and fall
tions in the great rivervalleys
of
nomadic and settledsocieties,
interaction
of the Roman Empire, the
in the course of these
writers
encountered
and the like. Among the
favorites
were Pirenne and
two
of
my
wanderings through history,
a
home
point totallymissingfrom
Toynbee. Each in his own way drove
the cut-and-driedversion of European historyI had been exposed to
in formalhistorycourses: Western Europe, far frombeing the center
backwateron the
of the universe,was in realitya relativelyinsignificant
world.
When the
ragged edge of the major civilizationsof the ancient
- a story
cruciallyimportantMediterraneantrade links were severed
excitinglydramatizedin Pirenne'sMohammadand Charlemagne Western Europe sank into the morass of the feudal Dark Ages. Againstthis
background,the theoryof Western Europe's revival several centuries
later, with the re-establishmentof trade links with the economically
more advanced East and South playingthe major role, appeared both
logical and convincing.
I cite these reminiscencesof a dabbler in historynot to argue for
theirscientificvaliditybut simplyto conveyan idea of the stateof mind
in which I approached the task of reviewingDobb's Studiesin theDevelof Capitalism.The whole notion of feudalismas a mode of proopment
duction with an independent existence and its own internal laws of
motionseemed to me such a violentabstractionfrom- and hence distortionof - realityas to be quite useless as an aid to historicalinter"AreThereEconomicLawsof
Review,
September1985;also HarryMagdoff,
Monthly
Review,
Socialism?",
JulyAugust1985.
Monthly

84

SCIENCE

& SOCIETY

pretation.As faras I can now recall,I was notconsciousof violating

of historical
materialism,
petty
anyfundamental
propagating
principles
to view
like.I was onlytrying
or
the
circulationist
heresies,
bourgeois
thesubjectof Europeanfeudalismin a broaderand morefruitful
perspectivethanWesternMarxistsweretheninclinedto entertain.
wasclearly
As faras theensuingdebatewasconcerned,thiseffort
in persuadingtheotherparticI don'tmeanunsuccessful
unsuccessful.
ipantsto acceptmyview;thatwouldhavebeen expectingtoo much.I
That
mean unsuccessful
in gettingthemto give it seriousattention.
was
occur.
did
not
misunderstood,
misrepresented,
Myposition
simply
and dismissed.The quotationfromDavid Laibmancitedabove accuin theoriginal
ratelysummedup thethoughtof theotherparticipants
debate.
of
Muchhas happenedin the last40 years,and the parochialism
WesternMarxism,while still much in evidence, has come under
increasing
challengeand, at leastone mayhope,is graduallylosingits
An
potency. encouragingsign pointingin thisdirectionis the inclusion,in thisreneweddiscussionof thefeudalism-to-capitalism
problem,
of SamirAmin's"Modesof Production,
Historyand UnequalDevelopis
ment"(SOS, Summer1985).ForAminWesternEuropeanfeudalism
of
of
modes
one
of
a
member
designated
production
only
largefamily
betweenan
as "tributary"
and locatedin the generalsweepof history
earliercommunitarian
stage.Weststageand thesubsequentcapitalist
of thetributary
farfrombeingthearchetype
ern Europeanfeudalism,
whichneverattainedthematumode,wasa lateadditionto thefamily
the fully
thatcharacterized
kind
of
the
of
a
centralized
rity
empire
world
rest
of
the
in
of
the
much
societies
formedtributary
(including
of the RomanEmpire
WesternEurope itselfbeforethedisintegration
and absence
in theWest).In thisviewit was therelativebackwardness
of
thetribuversion
in
Western
of centralizedauthority the
European
in
firm
that
foothold
to
a
region
tarymodethatallowedcapitalism get
and eventuallyto expand to the restof the world,buildingits own
centralizedstatesand empiresin the process.
(capitalist)
withthepositionI took
All this,it seemsto me,is quiteconsistent
in the originaldebate,and in factrepresents
a logicaland mostwelcome developmentof that position.I believe that furtheradvance
along the same generallinesis bothpossibleand muchneeded.
PAUL

New York
Larchmont,

M. SYVKKZY