How do you define feudalism?

[Dimentio]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1812976&postcount=13

I use a very narrow definition when I want to understand what feudalism is, since the broad definition used by so many people here seems to reduce almost all pre-industrial societies into feudal societies.

How do you define feudalism?

[mountainfire]

It's first useful to consider how one should define modes of production in the abstract. Cohen, in his seminal restatement of the Marxist theory of history, entitled 'Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence', argues that different modes of production can be understood in terms of the extent to which the producers exercise control over the non-labour means of production and their own labour power. What distinguishes capitalism from feudalism according to this analytical framework is that under the latter the producers exercised only partial control over their labour power in that they did not have the ability to sell their labour power to any member of the ruling class or to switch from one member of the ruling class to another but were instead tied to a particular ruler in the form of the local manor or religious institution, being threatened with physical harm if they sought to flee from their ruler, and that the producers also suffered a denial of autonomy in other ways, in that they were obligated to work for a certain number of days each year on the land of their ruler, and to perform military service, for example. At the same time, the producers also retained partial control over the means of production in the form of land, in that the lord could only dictate their activity for part of the time. In this sense, producers under feudalism experienced partial control over both their labour power and the non-labour means of production. The proletarian, by contrast, does have total control over their labour power, in that they can freely sell to whichever member of the ruling class they choose, at least in the formal sense, which is the same as saying that labour power exists as a commodity and that capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production, but also experience a total lack of control over the non-labour means of production.

The slave, as should be obvious, experiences a total lack of control over the non-labour means of production and their own labour power. It should also be apparent from the above that feudalism has been wholly eliminated as a social formation because labour power has been transformed into a commodity everywhere - in no society are producers still tied to a particular member of the ruling class on a generalized or permanent basis.

The relevant section of Cohen's book, incidentally, is Chapter III: The Economic Structure, (1) Ownership Rights in Productive Forces, and a fairly decent preview is available here (http://books.google.com/books?id=xmdltABRd2MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=karl%20marx's%20theory%20of%20history%20a%20def ence&source=gbs_book_other_versions#v=onepage&q&f=false).

[Dimentio]

At the same time, there hasn't been a linear development from slavery to feudalism to capitalism. Some regions have not experienced neither slavery or feudalism, and some have only experienced one of them.

Take like Sweden and Finland for example. Feudalism never existed in these two countries. The majority of the population was either free peasants or more often workers for free peasants (and those rural workers could change their employers quite freely). That was under the middle ages and later, at least after Magnus Ladulas abolished serfdom in the 14th century.

Other countries have seen feudal systems been established before for example slavery - the Hittites for example.

[A.R.Amistad]

At the same time, there hasn't been a linear development from slavery to feudalism to capitalism. Some regions have not experienced neither slavery or feudalism, and some have only experienced one of them.

Take like Sweden and Finland for example. Feudalism never existed in these two countries. The majority of the population was either free peasants or more often workers for free peasants (and those rural workers could change their employers quite freely). That was under the middle ages and later, at least after Magnus Ladulas abolished serfdom in the 14th century.

Other countries have seen feudal systems been established before for example slavery - the Hittites for example.

In terms of historical materialism, society has not developed in a linear fashion. For example, the cultures of the Americas never made it beyond a slave society. And in more remote places, like Northern Canada/Alaska, the Native Peoples of that region have never made it past primitive or basic communalism. Geographic factors play into history as well, since they too form the material base. One cannot develop a printing press let alone agriculture in a place where the ground is frozen solid year-round and the only reasonable form of subsitence in that area is hunting and gathering. The linear development from feudalism to capitalism was just an explanation by Marx and Engels how western capitalism, the dominant capitalism of today, came into being. This development was not universal, for example in Africa and Eastern Asia.

[Dimentio]

In terms of historical materialism, society has not developed in a linear fashion. For example, the cultures of the Americas never made it beyond a slave society. And in more remote places, like Northern Canada/Alaska, the Native Peoples of that region have never made it past primitive or basic communalism. Geographic factors play into history as well, since they too form the material base. One cannot develop a printing press let alone agriculture in a place where the ground is frozen solid year-round and the only reasonable form of subsitence in that area is hunting and gathering. The linear development from feudalism to capitalism was just an explanation by Marx and Engels how western capitalism, the dominant capitalism of today, came into being. This development was not universal, for example in Africa and Eastern Asia.

Yeah, but in some areas feudalism actually preceded or intejected despotism or slavery. Like, the Hittite empire existed 3300 years ago.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I think "feudalism" is a term generally used to describe a decentralized, agrarian state ruled by an aristocratic class. The classic Frankish feudal system was a synthesis of Roman infrastructure and Germanic tribal hierarchy, although not every feudal society shared all its characteristics.

I think that Persia and Japan developed feudal systems independantly of European feudalism (Persia had it before and Japan after), and shared characteristics of having a ruling aristocratic class that had its own military force to enforce its rule: knights in medieval Europe, Samurai in feudal Japan and the cataphracts in Persia. These military units raised from the nobility were used especially in Europe to crush peasant rebellions.

[Jolly Red Giant]

It is fundementally about the ownership model of property and the means of production - but put very simply:

slave labour - to - bonded labour - to - wage labour

slave - to - serf - to - worker

[Dimentio]

It is fundementally about the ownership model of property and the means of production - but put very simply:

slave labour - to - bonded labour - to - wage labour

slave - to - serf - to - worker

In fact, that is very much a generalisation.

Not all workers in the ancient world were for example slaves. Most were substinence farmers who barely produced enough food to survive. In Sweden, serfdom was abolished already in the 14th century.

[Jolly Red Giant]

In fact, that is very much a generalisation.

I did say 'very simply' - and very simply put, it is accurate.

[JazzRemington]

I don't care for the term "feudalism." Most definitions are too vague or too narrow to be of any use. If I recall, Marx defined feudalism as being an economic system where the ruling class controlled arable land and exploited peasants through enforced labor obligations. I've only read a little bit of it, but Susan Reynold's "Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted" is a powerful, if highly specialized, destruction of models of feudalism. She somewhat accepts Marx's definition, but considers it reductionist.

The OP's conception of feudalism is a little too vague. It ignores the social realities of the era. It is true that landowners (using the term vaguely, because ownership was a completely different concept from what it is today) had a great deal of politico-legal autonomy with their holdings, but whether they did or did not have indiscriminate authority over them depended upon their relation to whomever gave them the land. The Duchy of Normandy, while nominally subservient to the king of France, was effectively free from most, if not all, obligations because they were strong enough to ignore the king (apparently Rollo, a viking who basically founded Normandy, knocked King Charles III down, after kneeling before him to receive Normandy as a fief). They didn't openly rebel against their king or try to depose him, because there was a strong sense of respect for the law, regardless of who was king.

On the other hand, post-conquest England was marked by a very centralized government. The crown exercised very tight legal control over the vassals because William (king of the English but still duke of Normandy) saw that the French king had a hard time controlling Normandy. One of the first laws William passed was one that effectively banned the building of unapproved castles and fortifications. In order to reduce the chances of any one vassal being too powerful to ignore him, he also distributed the land granted to them on opposite sides of England. This prevented his vassals from consolidating their power too much.

[Dave B]

The economic assessment is best wrapped up below

Capital Vol. III Part VI
Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent
<H1>Chapter 47. Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent</H1>



II. LABOUR RENT



If we consider ground-rent in its simplest form, that of labour rent, where the direct producer, using instruments of labour (plough, cattle, etc.) which actually or legally belong to him, cultivates soil actually owned by him during part of the week, and works during the remaining days upon the estate of the feudal lord without any compensation from the feudal lord, the situation here is still quite clear, for in this case rent and surplus-value are identical. Rent, not profit, is the form here through which unpaid surplus-labour expresses itself.

To what extent the labourer (a self-sustaining serf) can secure in this case a surplus above his indispensable necessities of life, i.e., a surplus above that which we would call wages under the capitalist mode of production, depends, other circumstances remaining unchanged, upon the proportion in which his labour-time is divided into labour-time for himself and enforced labour-time for his feudal lord. This surplus above the indispensable requirements of life, the germ of what appears as profit under the capitalist mode of production, is therefore wholly determined by the amount of ground-rent, which in this case is not only directly unpaid surplus-labour, but also appears as such. It is unpaid surplus-labour for the "owner" of the means of production, which here coincide with the land, and so far as they differ from it, are mere accessories to it.


That the product of the serf must here suffice to reproduce his conditions of labour, in addition to his subsistence, is a circumstance which remains the same under all modes of production. For it is not the result of their specific form, but a natural requisite of all continuous and reproductive labour in general, of any continuing production, which is always simultaneously reproduction, i.e., including reproduction of its own operating conditions. It is furthermore evident that in all forms in which the direct labourer remains the "possessor" of the means of production and labour conditions necessary for the production of his own means of subsistence, the property relationship must simultaneously appear as a direct relation of lordship and servitude………….. etc etc


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm)

It evolved out of the division of labour of primitive societies and development of a specialised military class to protect the agricultural communities from armed robbery etc.
They later turned their talents to organised extortion and protection rackets on those they were supposed to protect. The organisation of the Mafia may give a good example of it in a modern context I think.

Land the principal or only means of production was entailed whereby ownership was hereditary and could not be obtained by accumulating monetary profit to purchase it. Hence farming for profit to accumulate more ‘capital’ and economic power ie means of production and land was not an incentive.


The confiscation of church land in England by Henry VIII to sell it for money loaned to entrepreneurs from the accumulated money capital of Merchants to be repaid at interest may well have triggered the development of capitalist farmers in England and capitalism itself.

[A.R.Amistad]

I have to say that some Marxist interpretations seem to label Feudalism after Rome as a progressive movement, but I can't see it that way. Sure, some new types of plough's were created, but in comparison to Rome it seems like a regression of society, even if capitalism and the pre-conditions for socialism eventually arose from feudalism.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I have to say that some Marxist seem to label Feudalism after Rome as a progressive movement, but I can't see it that way. Sure, some new types of plough's were created, but in comparison to Rome it seems like a regression of society, even if capitalism and the pre-conditions for socialism eventually arose from feudalism.

Maybe if you were a Roman aristocrat.

[A.R.Amistad]

Maybe if you were a Roman aristocrat.

I'll admit that feudalism did bring about decentralization.

[JazzRemington]

I think the main reason why something like "feudalism" is progressive compared to, say, the Roman Empire is because even the lowliest peasant has some freedoms guaranteed to him, whereas a slave doesn't.

[ComradeOm]

I have to say that some Marxist interpretations seem to label Feudalism after Rome as a progressive movement, but I can't see it that way. Sure, some new types of plough's were created, but in comparison to Rome it seems like a regression of society, even if capitalism and the pre-conditions for socialism eventually arose from feudalism.You just answered yourself

Nobody is going to argue that history is a story of strictly linear progress or that the fall of Rome was not an enormously destructive event that plunged Europe into centuries of ignorance. However it has to be noted that the Roman slave/spoils economy had effectively run its course and was no longer capable of sustaining itself. In contrast the 'Barbarian' tribes (whose influence on European history is of a far greater magnitude than that of Rome) brought with them the concept of free labour, basic rights, and the seeds of capitalism


On the other hand, post-conquest England was marked by a very centralized government. The crown exercised very tight legal control over the vassals because William (king of the English but still duke of Normandy) saw that the French king had a hard time controlling Normandy. One of the first laws William passed was one that effectively banned the building of unapproved castles and fortifications. In order to reduce the chances of any one vassal being too powerful to ignore him, he also distributed the land granted to them on opposite sides of England. This prevented his vassals from consolidating their power too much. Yet how many would really argue that England, however centralised, was not a feudal society? Its also worth noting, with regards the vassal/lord relations that characterised feudalism, that even as King of England, William remained technically a vassal of Philip I of France when serving as Duke of Normandy. Carrying on from the French example, France did not become significantly 'less feudal' as the Crown drastically expanded its powers (particularly under Philip II and his successors). It merely emphasises that in a feudal society even the position of the Crown is dependent on land holdings (William's position of strength in England can be largely attributed to the vast lands seized by force as he set about removing the English nobility)


I don't care for the term "feudalism." Most definitions are too vague or too narrow to be of any use. If I recall, Marx defined feudalism as being an economic system where the ruling class controlled arable land and exploited peasants through enforced labor obligations. I've only read a little bit of it, but Susan Reynold's "Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted" is a powerful, if highly specialized, destruction of models of feudalism. She somewhat accepts Marx's definition, but considers it reductionist.As much as I like academic history, you will always find those historians who delight in knocking holes in general themes by pointing out differences in regions/times/etc. They're almost always factually correct of course, and feudalism is indeed a reductionist label, but that does not necessarily discredit or render useless the original concept. So of course its reductionist to describe a mode of production that spanned centuries and a continent, but that doesn't detract from its usefulness as a broad category

[JazzRemington]

Yet how many would really argue that England, however centralised, was not a feudal society? Its also worth noting, with regards the vassal/lord relations that characterised feudalism, that even as King of England, William remained technically a vassal of Philip I of France when serving as Duke of Normandy. Carrying on from the French example, France did not become significantly 'less feudal' as the Crown drastically expanded its powers (particularly under Philip II and his successors). It merely emphasises that in a feudal society even the position of the Crown is dependent on land holdings (William's position of strength in England can be largely attributed to the vast lands seized by force as he set about removing the English nobility)

My entire point was that the criteria based on "unlimited jurisdiction" was faulty, as it was hardly ever the case in those parts of Europe that were traditionally considered feudal. Please go back and read what I have written, because it's obvious you've never done that (I already pointed out that William was king of the English but still a duke to the French king) But thanks for proving just how vague "feudalism" is in the traditional sense: two countries with different socio-political structures are part of the same phenomenon! Further more, the traditional concept implies a clear hierarchy, which hardly ever existed in Europe. Most of the time, people had more than one lord from whom they received whatever land or goods that were becoming them due to their relationship.


As much as I like academic history, you will always find those historians who delight in knocking holes in general themes by pointing out differences in regions/times/etc. They're almost always factually correct of course, and feudalism is indeed a reductionist label, but that does not necessarily discredit or render useless the original concept. So of course its reductionist to describe a mode of production that spanned centuries and a continent, but that doesn't detract from its usefulness as a broad category

Broad categories are only as useful as the evidence that supports it. The Marxian conception of feudalism only works comparatively - whereas capitalism is based on control of capital, feudalism is based on control of arable land. By itself, outside of comparisons, the Marxian concept falls apart quickly. It, like other models of feudalism, are based on outdated and incorrect scholarship. Just because it vaguely describes a period of history doesn't mean it's useful.

[ComradeOm]

But thanks for proving just how vague "feudalism" is in the traditional sense: two countries with different socio-political structures are part of the same phenomenon!Shocking, I know. Next people will be arguing that both Ireland and Singapore are capitalist! Actually I might run with that below


Further more, the traditional concept implies a clear hierarchy, which hardly ever existed in Europe. Most of the time, people had more than one lord from whom they received whatever land or goods that were becoming them due to their relationship.One might take the existence of lords (and a clear hierarchy of lords at that) to comprise a hierarchy. Nobody has ever pretended that this was particularly transparent or fixed (feudal relations being notoriously complex and murky) but to question its existence seems bizarre. Although it does re-emphasise the primacy of land, which generated both rights and obligations to different sectors, in the feudal mode of production


Broad categories are only as useful as the evidence that supports it. The Marxian conception of feudalism only works comparatively - whereas capitalism is based on control of capital, feudalism is based on control of arable land. By itself, outside of comparisons, the Marxian concept falls apart quicklyUnlike the exceptionally broad category that we call 'capitalism'? You know that there will be future postgrads pointing out the absurdity of considering the wildly differing conditions in China and the US to be part of the same system. They'd be entirely right, from an exceptionally narrow point of view. That in no way invalidates the use of the term or the broader view that seeks similarities between different cases


Just because it vaguely describes a period of history doesn't mean it's useful.Useful for what? For delving into the intricacies of HRE politics? Probably not. For discussing a mode of production whose features marked almost every European nation to some degree, emphatically yes

I've encountered this tendency before, most notably in discussing the early 19th C. In purely academic terms Hobsbawm's 'dual revolution' model is pretty reductionist and a whole body of postgrads has been chipping away at it for decades now. They can show that it doesn't hold entirely true for this nation or that time, etc. All factually correct. But the focus on specifics has greatly hindered (if not made impossible by definition) the creation of an alternate model for studying the spread of industrial and political reform in Europe. They can criticise but the original model, no matter how reductionist, still holds true (more or less) and is still of great use. The same applies to the above

[Dave B]

I would say feudalism was based on an economic system where land or the means of production can not be accumulated or obtained by buying it and is subject to entail;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail)

And where the labourers are not free to sell their own labour power as a commodity.


The political superstructure on which that is based, in Marxism, are allowed to vary somewhat due to various circumstances. eg

Engels to J. Bloch In Königsberg London, September 21, 1890




According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.

The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree. Etc etc


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm)



I think I would agree with comradeOm that sorting out what actually went on is a difficult and murky task, as objective contemporary accounts are unavailable.

Even now it is not easy to make a 'political analysis' of the inner workings of say North Korea or Saudi Arabia.



There is in addition the confusing issue of the separate role of religious institutions and the priest class in Feudalism as the ‘manufacturers of consent’.

.

[JazzRemington]

Shocking, I know. Next people will be arguing that both Ireland and Singapore are capitalist! Actually I might run with that below

Red herring, we aren't talking about capitalism. The problem with feudalism is that no one in Europe in the middle ages used the term "feudalism." The term originates sometime in the 16th century, well after the time of "feudalism." Like I said, the traditional model of feudalism is based on a decentralized authority with a weak monarchy at the top. This was not the case in post-conquest England, which was vastly different in other cases as well from France and Germany. But yet, for some reason, England is considered feudal by such a model.


One might take the existence of lords (and a clear hierarchy of lords at that) to comprise a hierarchy. Nobody has ever pretended that this was particularly transparent or fixed (feudal relations being notoriously complex and murky) but to question its existence seems bizarre. Although it does re-emphasise the primacy of land, which generated both rights and obligations to different sectors, in the feudal mode of production

But yet, the traditional model of feudalism as being a set of vassal-lord relations has always implied a clear hierarchy. Most writers on feudalism up until around the 1990s even suggested it. Most published, mainstream history books even suggested it.


Unlike the exceptionally broad category that we call 'capitalism'? You know that there will be future postgrads pointing out the absurdity of considering the wildly differing conditions in China and the US to be part of the same system. They'd be entirely right, from an exceptionally narrow point of view. That in no way invalidates the use of the term or the broader view that seeks similarities between different cases

Unlike feudalism, people DO use the term "capitalism." Plus, capitalism has always been defined economically, not politically. This is because capitalism is a mode of production and not a government or a kind of State. If there is surplus labor being appropriated in the form of surplus value, labor being utilized to reproduce and circulate capital, the primary good being produced and circulated commodities, and probably a few more I've missed, then the economy is capitalist. This is the same reason why we can say all pre-industrial economies are agrarian - they are based on control and use of arable farmland. This is the reason why "capitalism" is a broad term: there are lots of different countries that fall under the term "capitalist" because their economies run the same way.


Useful for what? For delving into the intricacies of HRE politics? Probably not. For discussing a mode of production whose features marked almost every European nation to some degree, emphatically yes

Well, fine. Define "feudalism" as a mode of production that has never occurred in any other point in time. Because while particular features of capitalism have existed historically from time to time, nothing like capitalism, as a whole mode of production, has never occurred anywhere in the past.


I've encountered this tendency before, most notably in discussing the early 19th C. In purely academic terms Hobsbawm's 'dual revolution' model is pretty reductionist and a whole body of postgrads has been chipping away at it for decades now. They can show that it doesn't hold entirely true for this nation or that time, etc. All factually correct. But the focus on specifics has greatly hindered (if not made impossible by definition) the creation of an alternate model for studying the spread of industrial and political reform in Europe. They can criticise but the original model, no matter how reductionist, still holds true (more or less) and is still of great use. The same applies to the above

I don't know anything about Hobsdawm. But, as I've said, the traditional models of feudalism have been repeatedly shown to be out of date and completely inaccurate. Marx's concept only works comparatively, when it does work. The term "feudalism" is based on outdated and inaccurate scholarship. If anything is based on scholarship that is outdated and/or inaccurate, it follows that the result is more or less also outdated and/or inaccurate.

[JazzRemington]

I would say feudalism was based on an economic system where land or the means of production can not be accumulated or obtained by buying it and is subject to entail;

Well, the problem with this is that there are numerous accounts of people buying land from landowners. It's unknown to what exact extent this occurred, but it happened quite a lot, especially by the central middle ages. In fact, some of these people were taxed just as hard and subject to the same abuses as the serfs. Sometimes, even more so.


And where the labourers are not free to sell their own labour power as a commodity.

This was true to a large extent with serfs, but there were some peasants who were basically free laborers.


The political superstructure on which that is based, in Marxism, are allowed to vary somewhat due to various circumstances. eg

If we go by the Marxian analysis, then we only care about the economic-structure. The socio-political structures are largely irrelevant. As I've said, traditional models of feudalism are based, using the Marxist term, on the socio-political structure - relationships between vassals and lords, members of the nobility or landowners. It largely ignored the relations between lords and peasants.


I think I would agree with comradeOm that sorting out what actually went on is a difficult and murky task, as objective contemporary accounts are unavailable.

The irony is that I'm the one suggesting this. There isn't a lot of records from the early middle ages but by around 1000ce, there was a large explosion of records because of a general shift toward writing records and a less reliance on spoken agreements. Many lords had very detailed records of who lived in their villages and what they owned and owed. While I haven't looked at them myself, there were lengthy and detailed records in post-conquest England detailing much of this (both the Domesday book and other texts).


Even now it is not easy to make a 'political analysis' of the inner workings of say North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

The main difference is that this difficulty is based on the information being state secrets. In the middle ages, they either didn't make records (for whatever reason) or they were lost or destroyed.


There is in addition the confusing issue of the separate role of religious institutions and the priest class in Feudalism as the ‘manufacturers of consent’.

Well, the clergy during the middle ages of Europe were the first to spell-out the Three Estate concept, as it applied to Europe at the time. They thought the Warriors were protectors of the peoples' physical well-being, the Priests were protectors of the peoples' souls and spiritual well-being, and the Peasants (early on just "peasants" but by the 13th century it was expanded to include other professions) were basically a supporting class that worked to feed the Warriors and the Priests. By their logic, the clergy were mostly concerned with salvation than anything else. While they did actively campaign against violence and warfare, they were in support of war that was for a just cause - mainly the defense and expansion of Christianity.

[ComradeOm]

Like I said, the traditional model of feudalism is based on a decentralized authority with a weak monarchy at the top. This was not the case in post-conquest England, which was vastly different in other cases as well from France and Germany. But yet, for some reason, England is considered feudal by such a modelI'm sorry but you have your definitions 'wrong' or have adopted a far too strict interpretation. Knowledge of the centralisation of the English state is not new development in medieval studies and yet this has always sat quite comfortably with the traditional understandings of feudalism

But then, as I've noted, this academic tendency to break down or refine definitions until they only fit a single country (or even province) at a particular period in time is a relatively recent development in academia. Probably comes from a post-modernist rejection of traditional 'great history' and it definitely does have its uses. I freely admit that 'feudalism' is not particularly important when studying the minutiae of English history but I also remain convinced that the term still has a use, particularly when looking at the broader picture


I don't know anything about Hobsdawm. But, as I've said, the traditional models of feudalism have been repeatedly shown to be out of date and completely inaccurateLet's not pretend that Reynolds' thesis is orthodoxy. It has its supporters but is certainly not uniformly accepted

[JazzRemington]

I'm sorry but you have your definitions 'wrong' or have adopted a far too strict interpretation. Knowledge of the centralisation of the English state is not new development in medieval studies and yet this has always sat quite comfortably with the traditional understandings of feudalism
As I've said, for a dozen or so times, the traditional model of feudalism was based around a decentralized authority and vassal-lord relations. England is considered feudal but without any good reason based on this model. Most of the texts I've read consider England a unique case with feudalism "imported," rather than having it "develop naturally." From what I can gather, William just took over the existing government institutions and actually did little to change them. This is based on the traditional model of feudalism.
But then, as I've noted, this academic tendency to break down or refine definitions until they only fit a single country (or even province) at a particular period in time is a relatively recent development in academia. Probably comes from a post-modernist rejection of traditional 'great history' and it definitely does have its uses. I freely admit that 'feudalism' is not particularly important when studying the minutiae of English history but I also remain convinced that the term still has a use, particularly when looking at the broader picture
Where did I say "feudalism" only fits one country? All I've been arguing is that the traditional model only fits France. Most of the criticisms of "feudalism" are based on careful analysis of historical documents, not just blanket rejections based on some vague, nonsensical notion. This is how historical knowledge and sciences develop, out of criticisms and re-evaluation of sources. For "feudalism" to be a mode of production, there has to be a unique combination of productive forces and production relations. Capitalism has this, but what about "feudalism"?
Let's not pretend that Reynolds' thesis is orthodoxy. It has its supporters but is certainly not uniformly accepted
[/quote] What sort of criticism is this supposed to be? Most theories, scientific or otherwise, have their supporters and ditractors. That is how science develops.

[Dimentio]

Actually, the Romans themselves did not really have a slave-based economy by the fourth century. Diocletian had made a few reforms which basically had turned all farmers and city-dwellers of non-aristocratic origin into serfs of the state.

[JazzRemington]

Well, the trick is to find both those forces of production and production relations that are either predominate during a time in history and/or are unique to such period (ignoring the question as to whether or not one period during the middle ages were representative of the entire period, or whether there was enough similarities to warrant calling ~450ce to ~1450ce as being part of the same phenomenon). During the central middle ages, there were a wide variety of such things. It's hard to tell which were predominate or unique, because there's conflicting secondary sources that talk about the nature of the lord-peasant relationship and many of the primary sources are not available to the general public. Marx said something somewhere about how tedious scientific research is, and unfortunately this is one of those instances.

As for the Romans and serfdom, I think I read something about that. I don't have much knowledge on Roman political-economy, but from what I understand this accelerated the tendency toward localism, where landowners the provinces outside Italy began to break away from the Romans and side with the Germans because of a lack of State protection.