- Information
- AI Chat
Dobb Sweezy Debate
BA (Hons.) History
University of Delhi
Recommended for you
Preview text
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 14 th 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 13 th-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) 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
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 15 th 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
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. 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- 13 th 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
- 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
- wikipedia
- class notes
Dobb Sweezy Debate
Course: BA (Hons.) History
University: University of Delhi
- Discover more from:BA (Hons.) HistoryUniversity of Delhi999+ Documents
- More from:BA (Hons.) HistoryUniversity of Delhi999+ Documents
