S&S Quarterly, Inc.

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: 09/06/2014 14:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:48:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 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 fur-
ther 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 misinterpreta-
tion 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 dis-
solving 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

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:48:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

however,did not occuruntilsome twocenturiesafterthe disintegra-

tionof feudalism.There was thusno significant connectionbetween
thetwophasesof thetransition process - decline of feudalism on the
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 weak-
eningand disintegration of feudalismresultedfromcausesinternal to
thesystem(mainlytheneed of thelordsformorerevenue,leadingto
overexploitation of theserfs),whilemycontention was thatthedomi-
nantcausalfactorwasexternal to thefeudalsystem(therevivalof long-
distancetrade in the laterMiddle Ages followedby the accelerated
growthof townsand the proliferation of marketrelationsbetween
townand countryside). I did notdenytheneed of thelordsformore
revenue,but arguedthatthisneed stemmednot fromeconomiclaws
peculiarto the feudalsystembut ratherfromthe availability of new
and moresophisticated luxurygoods (includingarms),arisingin the
firstinstancefromtherevivalof long-distance trade,and further stim-
ulated by the spread of commodityproduction,divisionof labor,
money-lending, etc.
Implicit in this argumentbut never,as far as I can remember,
spelled out in the transition debateis a viewwhichI nowconsidercru-
cial to a properunderstanding of historical materialism, namely,that
of all historically recordedsocialsystemsonlycapitalismis subjectto
whatcan reasonablybe called"laws"of motionor development. I was
therefore verypleased to see that RogerGottlieb, in his contribution to
the reneweddiscussionof the feudalism-to-capitalism theme,makes
precisely thispointas a majorpartof hisargument.In Gottlieb's view,
itis a mistake totrytofindan economic corewithin feudalsociety;or tobase
an understanding ofthatsociety's internal dynamic andtransition tocapitalism
on analysis of itseconomy's "lawsof development" or "contradictions."The
pursuitof a "Marxian" of
theory feudalism, comparable to Marx's theory of
competitive capitalism,is misconceived. . . . Marx didnot offer a theoryof feu-
dalismcomparable to thetheory of capitalism partlybecausehe perceived
(rightly)thatno suchtheory is possible. The mistake whichMarxist theoreti-
cianshavemadeistobelieve thatthekindoftheory Marxprovided ofcapital-
ism... isthepropermodeloftheories ofanysociety. Theirmistake liesinfail-
ingto realize thatthe success of Marx's account ofcapitalismliesnotjustinhis
"method" - butintheuniquehistorically specificfeaturesofcompetitive capi-
talismas well.1(S&S, Spring1984,pp. 1,4.)

1 See also my Four Lectureson Marxism(New York, 1982), Ch. 1; "AfterCapitalism-

What?", MonthlyReview,July-August1985; and "Rejoinder" to Charles Bettelheim,

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:48:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 83

A dominant featureof the original feudalism-to-capitalism debate

was that it concentratedalmost exclusivelyon WesternEurope. There
were several reasons for this: the cultural bias of most of the partici-
pants; their conviction,inheritedfrom a long tradition,that Western
European feudalismwas the archetypeof this particularsocial forma-
tion; 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 forma-
tion derives its directionand strengthfrominternalforces.
Here I must interjecta personal note. I had long been fascinated
- the origins of the early civiliza-
by certain broad historicalthemes
tions in the great rivervalleys of Africa and Asia, the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire, the interactionof nomadic and settledsocieties,
and the like. Among the writers encountered in the course of these
wanderings through history, two of my favorites were Pirenne and
Toynbee. Each in his own way drove home a point totallymissingfrom
the cut-and-driedversion of European historyI had been exposed to
in formalhistorycourses: Western Europe, far frombeing the center
of the universe,was in realitya relativelyinsignificantbackwateron the
ragged edge of the major civilizationsof the ancient world. When the
- a story
cruciallyimportantMediterraneantrade links were severed
-
excitinglydramatizedin Pirenne'sMohammadand Charlemagne West-
ern 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 theDevel-
opment of Capitalism.The whole notion of feudalismas a mode of pro-
duction with an independent existence and its own internal laws of
motionseemed to me such a violentabstractionfrom- and hence dis-
tortionof - realityas to be quite useless as an aid to historicalinter-

Monthly September1985;also HarryMagdoff,

Review, "AreThereEconomicLawsof
Socialism?",
MonthlyReview, August1985.
July-

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:48:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 SCIENCE & SOCIETY

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

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

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:48:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions