Where “feudalism” refers to a specific form of society and not just “that time period”
Feudalism didn’t necessarily lay the foundation for capitalism, industrialization and the emerging global market (by which I mean colonialism and slave labor) resulted in a rapid shift in power from monarchs and feudal lords to industrialists and shipping companies. Basically it was built out of slavery, theft, and genocide.
Highly recommend checking out David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years
Different economic systems rise and collapse for all sorts of reasons throughout history, and at the end of the book he wraps it up with an answer I think you might find helpful.
The chapter in the playlist titled The Age of the Great Capitalist Empires
this makes sense to me. stuff like the East India Company
why do I sometimes hear things like “feudalism laid the groundwork for capitalism”?
It laid the groundwork for mercantilism which made way for capitalism. But there were other factors at play as well. History doesnt progress in a linear fashion along any sort of tech tree.
It’s not that the feudalist mode of production itself lays the groundwork for capitalism, but rather the appearance of mercantilism, global expansion of markets, and industrialization, combined with a bourgeoisie revolution and a change in the relations of production, that led to capitalism becoming the primary mode of production in western society.
The feudalist mode of production arises from the collapse of the ancient mode of production, barbarian invasion destroying the productive forces (Franks, Vandals, Huns, Goths et al.), suspended trades from no longer existent trade routes, the decline of the population due to disease (Antonine Plague, Plague of Cyprian, outbreaks of smallpox etc.), and the subsequent spreading out of the remaining population away from former city-states and to the country.
Marx talks about it in more detail in The German Ideology.
thanks for the helpful response!
ancient mode of production
what was this and how did it differ from production under feudalism?
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
the adoption of currency was necessary for the continued power of feudal hegemons. This currency was forced on feudal subjects who were then forced into participating in markets Feudal lords controlled.
Currency is like six thousand years old. We’ve been using coins to pay for stuff almost as long as we’ve been building cities.
check out debt the first 5000 years (linked elsewhere in this thread) - its really really good, and it goes into some depth about the various origins of monetary-type systems and currency money, but also how currency systems arose and then fell out of usage many times. in much of medieval europe, actual currency money was in very limited use except among the mercantile classes, with peasants largely taxed in kind or by corvee and having little or no interaction with formal money (this is of course a gross oversimplification). demanding taxes be paid in the currency of the realm has generally been used as a way of forcing people into interacting with markets (either by selling their produce or selling their labour) in order to obtain the currency they need to pay to their lords
thanks for the book rec
For the second question, idk, but if anyone has reading recommendations please let me know.
/u/commiecapybara’s comment touches on some factors, and recommends Marx’s The German Ideology for further reading.
but yeah i’m also interested in more reading recommendations for this topic
I should note that Marx’s writing in The German Ideology forms the basis of what would later come to be known as historical materialism, but Capital expands on it a lot, so if you’ve already read Capital you might find The German Ideology to just be a repeat of the same (and it’s not nearly as detailed in its analysis). I generally recommend it before reading Capital as I personally found it a lot easier to understand the concepts beforehand, rather than trying to tackle Capital first.
