Where “feudalism” refers to a specific form of society and not just “that time period”
It depends (because the “ancient” mode of production is kind of vaguely defined, had less surplus and was less global so varied more from local conditions, also Marx describes an “asiatic mode” that today we’d say is a conflation between his poor understanding of Asian Feudal/Ancient states, and his poor understanding of the Bronze Age-era Theocratic Command Economies)
But in general we’re talking about the post-Bronze Age semi-market based slave economies in Europe, and similar economies elsewhere, where the three classes were patrician, plebian, and slave (or Spartan, Perioikoi, and Helot) This is of course kind of a partial explanation since Marx heavily biased his analysis to Greco-Persian and Roman Societies.
The chief distinction between Ancient and Feudal is that slavery is the key basis of the system, far more so than even the imperial capitalist economies and that class conflict is primarily between the two non-productive classes over control over the productive class. This conflict develops a social contract and a rule of law that is more collaborative than the previous Warrior-Theocratic systems, and also a more individualistic market economy as a result, as the rich plebians seek direct control over their slave surplus.
However in the late mode of this society this creates a new tension, where the plebian and patrician classes merge under the legal frameworks, but richer members of both classes begin to dominate the economy entirely as power concentrates, to the extent they are independent of the political centre. Additionally, new technological developments allow self-sustaining rural economies with similar surpluses from smaller political units.
Add a cascade failure or two from famine or war to this tension causing communication networks to break down and substinance agriculture to return, and the landowners (or their deputies, or their deputies deputy) become the ruling class of the new system, with the bonds of land ownership merging with the civil/legal bonds to create ties of obligation. Because there are no central legions to slap down slave rebellions, the landowners are forced to rely on a small group of personal companions and yeomen to keep order, which requires progressively giving the slaves more legal rights in order to maintain control.
Meanwhile the poorer urban classes, losing their surplus, are forced to become productive in their own right, forming the core of a merchant/craftsman class that becomes our Bourgoise/Proletariat.
That was a fascinating read, thank you!
could you elaborate on why
concentration of power under rich members of both classes, independent of the political center
destabilizes this system?
also, could you clarify what you mean by this:
new technological developments allow self-sustaining rural economies with similar surpluses from smaller political units
and this:
causing communication networks to break down
Sure. This is going to turn out rather long.
I’m going to use Rome here since it’s the “standard” case but other civs developed quite differently, especially China which depending on who you ask had Feudalism very early (or around the same time, some might call the Three Kingdoms era a feudal transition). In addition, Rome in North Africa and Rome in West Germany were two very different places. But if you look you’ll find similarities in most transitions.
Concentration under the Latifunda (massive plantations) was a continual process. The Patrician senatorial families were socially prevented from working, even in merchant careers, so continual purchase of land and stocking with slaves was a key activity, and rich Plebian merchants would generally attempt to get in on the system where possible. This system operated differently in different areas (as a plantation in Libya and Egypt, but with soldiers who came under tough times and became tenant farmers elsewhere, especially in the north) but the result was similar to our network of large, vertically integrated companies that ostensibly operate in a market system. It was the largest agricultural surplus the world saw before the 1500s
The integrated nature of these communities firstly translated into political power in the centralised system, and infighting in the great families and their attempt to exclude the plebs from economic activity even as the plebs gained control of trade directly contributed to the fall of the republic. Augustus and the early empire attempted to dilute this power by consolidating political power in Rome into the military and granting conquered land to soldiers, but this only drove the centre of economic power away from Rome, as eventually all those freehold plots would be bought up, and the Senate was less powerful than buying out the provincial governor.
Crisis of the Third Century ended with Diocletian worsening the problem with his military state, by crippling the cities with taxes and allowing the large estates essential autonomy as long as they churned out supplies to the army. Then came the ending of the Classical Warm Period and a severe reduction of surplus, along with migrations.
The great estates folded in on themselves, those that weren’t taken over by (mostly romanised) frontier tribes. The cities starved and taxes dried up, Because the army relied on the estates to feed itself they began to be either dissolve or become local field forces. Since the landowners owned the economic base of the army, they could just ignore the imperial core and began to operate independent of it.
For agricultural developments, crop cycling, plow innovations, and a lot of agricultural cross pollination (some literally) due to the various groups of the migration period increased yields without requiring global trade networks or complex military engineering. This was not enough to increase surplus to the former level, but was enough to keep people fed.
For communication, remember that while most of the Romanised tribes could speak some latin, they couldn’t read it as well. Diocletian hollowed out Roman trade networks by turning them into military convoys, meaning a great deal of communication went through the provincial palace first. Finally, war, migration, and the reduction of urban populations meant that the infrastructure needed for messages to be passed were reduced. People simply needed to focus on the conditions around them to stay fed.
One lesson to take from this is that while the economic tools and systems and even theory is in place well before a mode of production falls, it usually takes a major multi-level crisis like the Migration Period or the “little ice age/wars of religion” to kick things off properly. Good thing we don’t have any of those looming.
hexbear educating me goes brrrrr
i really enjoyed reading this, thank you. absolutely fascinating.
as i was reading this, i kept thinking about the dinosaurs. a sophisticated dead end. i know the dinosaurs were only a dead end in retrospect and din’t exactly sow the seeds of their own destruction like the roman did, but i still get the same feeling, i guess the feeling is “sophistication does not mean nature favors it or that it will last.”
and now im gonna pass out and sleep. i wont say what timezone im in but i shouldnt be up lol. thanks again for writing this up
