Kiev Communard
21st September 2010, 18:57
Note that the article assumes that the readers know some basics of the 16th century history. However, I've made my known notes in case some of you would need the clarification of some concepts - Kiev Communard)
A.N. TCHISTOZVONOV
The Historic Place of 16th Century in the Development of Capitalism in Europe
(The article was originally published in Srednie Veka (“Medieval Studies”) scientific journal, Vol. 38, in 1975 – Kiev Communard)
It is not an easy task to determine correctly the historic place of 16th century in the process of genesis of capitalism on the European continent. The 16th century itself does not constitute any independent and closed phase or stage of the aforementioned process. It is rather an important, even critical point of divergence. In generally historical sense the importance of the 16th century was rather pointedly highlighted by Karl Marx, who stressed that, even though the first vestiges of capitalist production may have been found sporadically in some towns of the Mediterranean as far back as the 14th century, the “beginning of the capitalist era dates back only to the 16th century. In the countries where it commenced the serfdom had long ago been destroyed, and the glory of the free towns of the medieval times faded” [1].
The last line of this Marxian definition contains, therefore, quite substantial limiting criteria, warning against the wrongfulness of extending the term of “era of capitalism” to all European countries of that time. In a number of their other works dealing with this particular problem the Founders of Marxism {official designation of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Soviet literature – Kiev Communard} provide a lot of valuable generalizations and conclusions on the essential and historical character of the manifold phenomena connected with the process of genesis of capitalism. However, they did not create any completed synthesized work on this issue. This was caused mainly by the narrow character of research resources for such a work’s creation, as the in-depth study of economic history began only in the second half of the 19th century and was conducted within the framework of such bourgeois historiography’s currents as Positivism, Economic Materialism, Social Darwinism, etc. In general, for good reasons such studies were almost exclusively conducted by the bourgeois historians and economic historians, which were, nevertheless, under some influence from Marxism. Therefore the aspect of historiography looked rather complicated, even in its part tied with the simple quantitative estimations of importance of capitalist relations in different spheres of life of European society of the 16th century.
In the works dealing with the problems of economic history of the late 19th – first quarter of the 20th century written by such researchers as H. Hauser (France), H. Pirenne (Belgium), N. Posthumus (the Netherlands), A. Doren and J. Strieder (Germany) the tendency towards the modernizing and exaggeration of level of development and the degree of maturity of the 15-16th centuries capitalism is quite articulate. On the contrary, the works of bourgeois economic historians of the 1930s – 1950s are marked by the critical attitude towards the exaggeration of the “bourgeois character” of the 16th century, by the calls for more careful and serious scientific and economic analysis of socioeconomic life of European countries of that period. J. van Dillen criticized the modernizing tendencies and the exaggeration of the degree of maturity of capitalism in various branches of the Netherlander industry of the 16th and the 17th centuries, in particular, in fundamental work of N. Posthumus on wool weaving in Leiden [2]. E. Coornaert reasonably dismissed not only the particular views of H. Pirenne and J. Epiné concerning the socioeconomic structure of different branches of medieval Belgian wool weaving but, as a matter of the fact, the whole Pirennian periodization, previously regarded as classical one in the bourgeois literature. This being said, E. Coornaert turned from skepticism to dismal pessimism, claiming that everything done in this field by the previous researchers should be “rendered null and void”, and rejecting the very possibility of any generalizations [3]. The skeptical attitude of the later French historians and economists towards Hauser’s exaggerations is well-known.
H.A. Enno van Gelder made an effort to re-evaluate all the assessments of the 16th century that proceeded from the exaggeration of its “bourgeois character”. His conclusion was as follows: “That period belonged neither to the Old, nor to the New Regime, but to both” [4]. Such a viewpoint has become quite widespread in the post-war West-European historiography as well. For instance, F. Mauro in his generalized work not only characterizes the 16th century as the period of the specific synthesis of feudalism and capitalism, but as the century of peculiar “merchant capitalism” [5]. In this regard the point of view of F. Mauro is close to the concept of M.N. Pokrovsky, long rejected by the Soviet historians {under the influence of Stalin – Kiev Communard}, of “merchant capitalism” as the specific formation {In my view, the “merchant capitalism” could be thought of as one of the modes of specific Absolutist paraformation existing in West and Central Europe in the 16th - early 19th centuries, distinct both from “classic” feudalism and “classic” capitalism and constituting the transitional period from the former to the latter – Kiev Communard}. In general, the discussion on the degree of “bourgeoisification” of the 16th century, both as a whole and in the context of particular countries, continues. For instance, the debates among the Italian historians on the level of capitalist development of Italy had been keeping on until recent years, which is attested by Sandra di Mayo’s think-piece [6].
All of this, as well as the rapid development of the studies in economic history of Europe in the 16th – 18th centuries, the introduction of new historic sources, the perfection of the methods of their studies, allowed giving almost comprehensive analysis of the phenomena of economic life of that period. In the end, the logical constructs gave way to more balanced and cogent arguments, the overdone enthusiasm to skepticism. This has not done away with the contest of viewpoints to the present day, but in the whole “the capitalist splendor” of the 16th century has faded.
The present article does not pursue the objective of making pragmatic and statistical conclusions on the “relative weight” of capitalism in the 16th century in socioeconomic regime of Europe as a whole and in each and every of its countries. This is the task of special summary and country studies. The objective of this essay is more limited, that is, to turn the attention of specialists towards: a) the factors, criteria, approaches and methods of studies of genesis of capitalism in Europe in the 16th century, taking into account of which would allow to establish the “relative weight” and the level of development of bourgeois forms of production and exchange more precisely; b) the consideration of the correlation between the “national-state” and “formation-systemic” components of the process in question in their interrelation and mutual influence.
The actualization of the problem of the history of genesis of capitalism, made relevant by the problem of choice by the modern “developing” countries of capitalist or non-capitalist (Industropolitarist, as I prefer to call the Soviet paraformation – Kiev Communard) way of development, led to the emergence of the new “capitalist boom” in historiography in the works of the ideologues of modern imperialist bourgeoisie. The theories of “eternal character of capitalism”, of its “benefits” for the expropriated are insistently postulated on the pages of the works of such representatives of “business school” as N. Gras [7], F. Hayek [8], and the others.
The question of the level of maturity of capitalist relations and their “relative weight” in economy and social order of various European countries and the continent as a whole in the 16th century is not solved in a uniform manner in modern Marxist studies. Among the Soviet historians, there is a substantial disagreement over the issue of the timeline of emergence of bourgeois relations and capitalist mode of production in Russia – chronological datings vary from the 16th to the late 18th centuries {the latter one is more correct, in my view – Kiev Communard}, as the materials of the all-Union discussion of 1965 on the transition from feudalism {more precisely – Russian variant of Absolutism – Kiev Communard} to capitalism in Russia [9]. However, the further debates, in particular the prolonged discussion on absolutism in Russia, summed up in History of USSR Journal (1972, # 3), testify to some convergence of the viewpoints of the contesting parties, but it is still a long time before the consensus may be reached.
The discrepancies in views regarding the level and degree of maturity of capitalist relations in the 16th century European countries are widespread among the Soviet experts on General History either, as the 1966 discussion on the theoretical problems of genesis of capitalism in Europe showed [10].
The views of the GDR historians on the timeline, level and degree of maturity of capitalist relations in German territories in the late 15th – early 16th century, as well as on their dynamics after the defeat of the radical currents of Reformation and the Great Peasants’ War, are also quite diverse. This is confirmed by the manifold publications issued in GDR in last two decades. The materials of the national and international sessions, symposia and other academic conventions that took place in the GDR in 1954 – 1969, as well as of V Congress of Historians of GDR (1972), support this thesis.
The list of such examples could be continued but it is not necessary here.
In Soviet Union the problem of genesis of capitalism belongs to the list of complex problems, the studies of which are coordinated at the all-Union level. For the time elapsed we have accumulated a significant experience in presenting and solving the complicated key aspects of this problem.
The main principle of our studies of this matter is to find the ways of complex solution of the problems of genesis of capitalism not on the path of confrontation of conflicting viewpoints, but through the mutual creative search for scientific truth by scientists of different branches of historical and economic sciences following different personal viewpoints not contradicting the Marxism-Leninism {this last part of the phrase is more of a ritual incantation – Kiev Communard}.
If one is to outline briefly the general methodological criteria allowing the objective determination of the level and degree of development of capitalism in this or that European country during the first phase of manufacture capitalism period, that is, in the 16th century which encompasses its main part, one may point at the following. First of all, one should draw a qualitatively dividing line between medieval burghership embodying feudal forms of commodity production and exchange (craft guilds, municipal protectionism, merchant guilds and Hanses, etc.), which were based on the estate forms of ownership and capital, and the nascent bourgeoisie embodying the future capitalism with all its categories. One should strictly draw the line between the categories of simple commodity production and capitalist economy, as well as the forms born by the decay of feudal mode of production and the forms generated by the ascendant capitalism as such. It is necessary to differentiate between the phenomena deriving from the primitive accumulation of capitalism and the genesis of capitalism proper. It is counterproductive to conflate the merchant capital with the industrial one, the formal subordination of labor to capital with the real one.
In studying the processes of emergence of national markets, one should avoid the identification of intestate ties within the boundaries of common ethnogeographical region, even if under the conditions of superimposed elements of political unity (Holy Roman Empire, Italy), with the establishment of national markets in the centralized nation-states of Europe. The researchers of the national markets’ evolution should strictly distinguish its specific stages: a) as categories of simple commodity economy; b) as categories of capitalist economy; as well as take into account the criteria allowing to do this. For the second stage these criteria, prima facie, include: 1) the transformation of labor power into commodity and its circulation on the market in the quantities enough for its systematic use on the national scale; 2) the mass intake of the means of production, including the land, into the sphere of market exchange; 3) the transformation of national market into the integral component of insipient world capitalist market. According to K. Marx, “the world trade and the world market open the new history of the capital in the 16th century” [11]. Finally, it is useful to bear in mind that, depending on the overall socioeconomic structure of this or that country, the national market may be and is formed by different social strata: either by the enterprising merchants, manufacturers, capitalist farmers, or by “pure” merchants, by commercially inclined serf-owning feudals, by the holders of Meierpacht {the hereditary leasehold of the more affluent peasants in late Medieval Germany – Kiev Communard}, by Grossbauern {rich peasants similar to Meiern – Kiev Communard} of Prussian kind, by the Russian-style kulaks, etc. Depending on this fact, the economic face of the market, its economic and social functions undergo profound changes.
The character and the level of development of the national market exert strong influence upon the type of inflationary trends prevailing in this or that country. The modern bourgeois historians describe two types of inflationary trends taking shape in the 16 -17th centuries European countries, namely productive and commercial ones [12], – the former in England, the latter in the Netherlands. Such an approach ignores the problem of the market character and inflationary trends in the centralized states, where the establishment of “second serfdom” {the market-connected form of serfdom, in many case resembling the Southern States’ plantation slavery, which prevailed in East Europe until the early 1800s, in Russian Empire – until 1861 – Kiev Communard} took place. If the phenomena in question were widespread there, could it be that in that case the specific type of inflationary trends did emerge, for instance, “merchant-feudal” or any others? Of course, this is merely the operational hypothesis, put forth for the clarification of the problem never before solved or even brought up for the discussion.
In the end, in elucidating the levels of development of capitalist forms of production and exchange, especially the volumes of their reproduction in this or that country, one should take into account the “regulatory” influence of political superstructure. Through the system of direct and excise taxes, customs tariffs, transportation and other charges, as well as of forced loans, the feudal state could “re-distribute” revenues between the different fields of economy, classes and social strata, substantially altering the real relative weight of capitalist forms of production and exchange, aggravating and deforming the “natural” process of their reproduction. The fact that the state power, embodied in many 16th century European countries by absolutism of different kinds, had a real and varied impact, through its taxation and overall economic policies, on the course of economic development of the respective countries is no longer to be disputed in the light of recent studies.
Considering the phenomena of genesis of capitalism in the agrarian sector, it would be wrong to perceive and interpret the existence of moneyed forms of the rent, rental relations, sharecropping system, and occasions of hiring of agricultural labor as the symptoms and factors of emergence of capitalism, as these facts can be observed in these or those proportions and combinations during the whole course of the Medieval Age {emphasis mine – Kiev Communard}. As K. Marx underscored, the phenomena in question lead to the emergence of capitalism in European agriculture of the manufacture period only provided that: a) the capitalist relations have already development outside the agrarian sector, that is, first of all in industry; b) the countries in question have already assumed a dominant position on the world market that is taking shape or is already constituted [13].
For his part, V.I. Lenin placed an emphasis of anyone studying the history of emergence and consolidation of bourgeois forms of production and exchange on the fact that the theoretically substantiated conclusion on their existence can be made only if the socioeconomic structure of economy, its economic base, commercial ties, the relationships between different sectors of capital, etc. are researched [14].
It is very important to take into account the processes of primitive accumulation and emergence of capitalism are complex and all-encompassing. Therefore the assertion of their existence is reasonable only if their effects are demonstrated in all spheres of economy of this or that state. Separate local phenomena and examples that do not constitute a system per se may not be the grounds for such an assertion. In addition to the factors of “nation-state” character, there existed also a number of factors that brought their changes into the potential and real possibilities for genesis and development of capitalism in each and every European country of the 16th century. Among them one needs to mention the dominant position of merchant capital as separate and independent sector of capital, which was typical for the manufacture period as a whole; the increased importance of the world market under such circumstances, which was still in its early formation stage and yet performed a number of important functions. The latter was more and more being converted into the centre for the re-distribution of all kinds of profits, the transfer of the resources of European countries and conquered colonies alike into the reservoir of bourgeois development of the dominant powers was conducted through it, – to the detriment of the countries that were subjugated or became mere objects of mercantile and colonial expansion of Europeans; the world market played its role in the beginnings of the systematized and steady international division of labor; it acted as a synthesizing category of world system of capitalism, which was still in its infancy; the process of formation of the latter still seemed to be a kind of “summing up of national variants” of capitalist development.
Under the conditions of the manufacture period, especially of its initial phase, as K. Marx stressed, the future of development of the capitalist manufacture, of bourgeois evolution of agriculture, of bourgeois development of the nation as a whole depended on the fact whether or not the nation played a dominant role at the world market [15]. However, for this the latter had to be present in the first instance. This has to be taken into consideration most seriously when evaluating the prospects of progressive development of the German states, which was stopped just on the verge of formation of the world market. The precise specification of the chronological border that heralded the beginnings of development of the world capitalist market is essential aspect as well. Sometimes the attempts are made to “lower” the chronological limits of this phenomenon form the 16th century, as K. Marx defined them, down to the last decades of the 15th century, that is, to include into the world market the Great Geographical Discoveries, as well as disparate and still ineffective commercial plundering expeditions of European merchants to newly discovered lands, not as its prerequisites, but as its integral components. However, these events, while important in themselves, should be considered elements of pre-history, not of history of the world capitalist market per se. An important manifestation of the emergence of the latter was the beginning of reshuffle of world trade routes, which is regarded as lacking the connections with the emergent process of the world market formation.
The weak state of the national resources of each individually taken European country in the 16th century, the pressing need to guarantee the expanded reproduction of the bourgeois forms of production in proper scope using only its own resources, the absence of world capitalist system resulted in incertitude of irreversible variant of genesis of capitalism in European countries at that moment [17]. At the same time this scantity of resources objectively ensured the victory of capitalism only in separate cases {just as with Socialist movements in the 20th century – Kiev Communard}. In other words, at that time the closest interrelation existed between the internal reasons for the reversibility of genesis of capitalism in this or that country and the objective resources of the continent. Therefore, for instance, the defeat of peasant levies during the Great Peasants’ War of 1525 in German lands, the restoration of the Spanish rule in Belgian provinces in the 1580s, or the defeat of Czech army in battle of Biala Góra in 1620 {the important battle during the Thirty Years’ War which marked the end of independent political and economic development, including the possibility of the capitalist one, in Bohemia – Kiev Communard} were pre-conditioned not only by internal reasons but were to a certain extent determined by the objective resources that the whole potential of European continent could provide to the forces of the progress. In other words, were not these “accidents” the form of manifestation of logic of necessity?
It looks as if only taking into consideration these and the other circumstances, one could appraise the place of the 16th century in the genesis of capitalism with all its complicated character and manifold manifestations. That was not a simple “accident” that led to the defeat of Reformation and Great Peasants’ War in enormous, but frail Holy Roman Empire, and that was not an “accident” either that the Netherlands, miniscule in comparison with the former, but playing the dominant part on the world market, were able to carry out the first successful bourgeois revolution and undermine, after the many years of uneven and epic struggle, the power of mighty Spanish Empire.
The historical heterogeneity of the 16th century can be appreciated out of the fact that, while the first half thereof was marked by the dynamic expansion of capitalism almost in each and every European country, its second half went by under manifestly different conditions. The forces of feudal reaction, still dominant at that time, understood, more intuitively than rationally, that the further successes of bourgeois development were threatening to undermine the foundations of Ancien Regime, and responded with the frontal counteroffensive {that could be in some aspects likened to Neoconservative resurgence in the 1980s – Kiev Communard}. It was not a characteristic feature of the 17th century only, as the proponents of the theory of “general crisis” of feudalism in the 17th century routinely claim. It began in the second half of the 16th century. The result was the victory of the feudal reaction and Counter-Reformation in most states of Holy Roman Empire, in Spain, Belgium, Italy, while France entered the period of bloody and devastating civil wars, which put into question its very prospects of further progressive development. All of Central and East Europe, meanwhile, became the arena of spread of “second serfdom”.
In general, K. Marx’s thesis on the beginning of capitalist era in Europe in the 16th century still retains its importance. However, when some historians extend in a mechanic manner the aforementioned Marxian conclusion to the whole of the continent, then such a simple “superimposition” without taking account of stadial-chronological factor seems to be theoretically unsound, in view of the foregoing. It is even more understandable that in specifically historical dimension the socioeconomic character of this concrete period of history of Europe looks even more complicated.
References:
1. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 728.
2. J. van Dillen. Leiden als industriestad tijdens de Republiek. – Tijdschrift voor Geschriedenis, d. 59, 1946, blz. 50-51.
3. E. Coornaert. Draperies rurales, draperies urbaines. L’évolution de l’industrie flamande au Moyen Age et au XVIe siécle. – Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, t. XXVIII, #1, 1950.
4. H.A. Enno van Gelder. Is de zestiende eeuw modern? – Tijdschrift voor Geschriedenis, 1931, Jg. 46, blz. 160.
5. F. Mauro. L’expansion europeéenne (1600-1870). – Paris, 1967, p. 291.
6. Sandra di Mayo. Rinascimiento e declino economico dell Italia secondo Armando Sapori e Roberto Lopez. – Economia e storia, 1967, #3.
7. N. Gras. Business and Capitalism. – New York, 1959.
8. F. Hayek. History and Politics. / Capitalism and Historians. – Chicago, 1954.
9. Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in Russia. – Moscow, 1969.
10. Theoretical and Historiographical Problems of Genesis of Capitalism. – Moscow, 1969.
11. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 157.
12. H. Van der Wee. The Growth of the Antwerp Market and the European Economy, vol. II. – Louvain, 1963, blz. 422-424, 435.
13. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 25, part II, p. 363.
14. V.I. Lenin. The Complete Works. – Vol. II, p. 386
15. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 764.
16. A.N. Tchistozvonov. The Notion and Criteria of Reversibility and Irreversibility of Historical Process. – Questions of History, 1969, #5.
A.N. TCHISTOZVONOV
The Historic Place of 16th Century in the Development of Capitalism in Europe
(The article was originally published in Srednie Veka (“Medieval Studies”) scientific journal, Vol. 38, in 1975 – Kiev Communard)
It is not an easy task to determine correctly the historic place of 16th century in the process of genesis of capitalism on the European continent. The 16th century itself does not constitute any independent and closed phase or stage of the aforementioned process. It is rather an important, even critical point of divergence. In generally historical sense the importance of the 16th century was rather pointedly highlighted by Karl Marx, who stressed that, even though the first vestiges of capitalist production may have been found sporadically in some towns of the Mediterranean as far back as the 14th century, the “beginning of the capitalist era dates back only to the 16th century. In the countries where it commenced the serfdom had long ago been destroyed, and the glory of the free towns of the medieval times faded” [1].
The last line of this Marxian definition contains, therefore, quite substantial limiting criteria, warning against the wrongfulness of extending the term of “era of capitalism” to all European countries of that time. In a number of their other works dealing with this particular problem the Founders of Marxism {official designation of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Soviet literature – Kiev Communard} provide a lot of valuable generalizations and conclusions on the essential and historical character of the manifold phenomena connected with the process of genesis of capitalism. However, they did not create any completed synthesized work on this issue. This was caused mainly by the narrow character of research resources for such a work’s creation, as the in-depth study of economic history began only in the second half of the 19th century and was conducted within the framework of such bourgeois historiography’s currents as Positivism, Economic Materialism, Social Darwinism, etc. In general, for good reasons such studies were almost exclusively conducted by the bourgeois historians and economic historians, which were, nevertheless, under some influence from Marxism. Therefore the aspect of historiography looked rather complicated, even in its part tied with the simple quantitative estimations of importance of capitalist relations in different spheres of life of European society of the 16th century.
In the works dealing with the problems of economic history of the late 19th – first quarter of the 20th century written by such researchers as H. Hauser (France), H. Pirenne (Belgium), N. Posthumus (the Netherlands), A. Doren and J. Strieder (Germany) the tendency towards the modernizing and exaggeration of level of development and the degree of maturity of the 15-16th centuries capitalism is quite articulate. On the contrary, the works of bourgeois economic historians of the 1930s – 1950s are marked by the critical attitude towards the exaggeration of the “bourgeois character” of the 16th century, by the calls for more careful and serious scientific and economic analysis of socioeconomic life of European countries of that period. J. van Dillen criticized the modernizing tendencies and the exaggeration of the degree of maturity of capitalism in various branches of the Netherlander industry of the 16th and the 17th centuries, in particular, in fundamental work of N. Posthumus on wool weaving in Leiden [2]. E. Coornaert reasonably dismissed not only the particular views of H. Pirenne and J. Epiné concerning the socioeconomic structure of different branches of medieval Belgian wool weaving but, as a matter of the fact, the whole Pirennian periodization, previously regarded as classical one in the bourgeois literature. This being said, E. Coornaert turned from skepticism to dismal pessimism, claiming that everything done in this field by the previous researchers should be “rendered null and void”, and rejecting the very possibility of any generalizations [3]. The skeptical attitude of the later French historians and economists towards Hauser’s exaggerations is well-known.
H.A. Enno van Gelder made an effort to re-evaluate all the assessments of the 16th century that proceeded from the exaggeration of its “bourgeois character”. His conclusion was as follows: “That period belonged neither to the Old, nor to the New Regime, but to both” [4]. Such a viewpoint has become quite widespread in the post-war West-European historiography as well. For instance, F. Mauro in his generalized work not only characterizes the 16th century as the period of the specific synthesis of feudalism and capitalism, but as the century of peculiar “merchant capitalism” [5]. In this regard the point of view of F. Mauro is close to the concept of M.N. Pokrovsky, long rejected by the Soviet historians {under the influence of Stalin – Kiev Communard}, of “merchant capitalism” as the specific formation {In my view, the “merchant capitalism” could be thought of as one of the modes of specific Absolutist paraformation existing in West and Central Europe in the 16th - early 19th centuries, distinct both from “classic” feudalism and “classic” capitalism and constituting the transitional period from the former to the latter – Kiev Communard}. In general, the discussion on the degree of “bourgeoisification” of the 16th century, both as a whole and in the context of particular countries, continues. For instance, the debates among the Italian historians on the level of capitalist development of Italy had been keeping on until recent years, which is attested by Sandra di Mayo’s think-piece [6].
All of this, as well as the rapid development of the studies in economic history of Europe in the 16th – 18th centuries, the introduction of new historic sources, the perfection of the methods of their studies, allowed giving almost comprehensive analysis of the phenomena of economic life of that period. In the end, the logical constructs gave way to more balanced and cogent arguments, the overdone enthusiasm to skepticism. This has not done away with the contest of viewpoints to the present day, but in the whole “the capitalist splendor” of the 16th century has faded.
The present article does not pursue the objective of making pragmatic and statistical conclusions on the “relative weight” of capitalism in the 16th century in socioeconomic regime of Europe as a whole and in each and every of its countries. This is the task of special summary and country studies. The objective of this essay is more limited, that is, to turn the attention of specialists towards: a) the factors, criteria, approaches and methods of studies of genesis of capitalism in Europe in the 16th century, taking into account of which would allow to establish the “relative weight” and the level of development of bourgeois forms of production and exchange more precisely; b) the consideration of the correlation between the “national-state” and “formation-systemic” components of the process in question in their interrelation and mutual influence.
The actualization of the problem of the history of genesis of capitalism, made relevant by the problem of choice by the modern “developing” countries of capitalist or non-capitalist (Industropolitarist, as I prefer to call the Soviet paraformation – Kiev Communard) way of development, led to the emergence of the new “capitalist boom” in historiography in the works of the ideologues of modern imperialist bourgeoisie. The theories of “eternal character of capitalism”, of its “benefits” for the expropriated are insistently postulated on the pages of the works of such representatives of “business school” as N. Gras [7], F. Hayek [8], and the others.
The question of the level of maturity of capitalist relations and their “relative weight” in economy and social order of various European countries and the continent as a whole in the 16th century is not solved in a uniform manner in modern Marxist studies. Among the Soviet historians, there is a substantial disagreement over the issue of the timeline of emergence of bourgeois relations and capitalist mode of production in Russia – chronological datings vary from the 16th to the late 18th centuries {the latter one is more correct, in my view – Kiev Communard}, as the materials of the all-Union discussion of 1965 on the transition from feudalism {more precisely – Russian variant of Absolutism – Kiev Communard} to capitalism in Russia [9]. However, the further debates, in particular the prolonged discussion on absolutism in Russia, summed up in History of USSR Journal (1972, # 3), testify to some convergence of the viewpoints of the contesting parties, but it is still a long time before the consensus may be reached.
The discrepancies in views regarding the level and degree of maturity of capitalist relations in the 16th century European countries are widespread among the Soviet experts on General History either, as the 1966 discussion on the theoretical problems of genesis of capitalism in Europe showed [10].
The views of the GDR historians on the timeline, level and degree of maturity of capitalist relations in German territories in the late 15th – early 16th century, as well as on their dynamics after the defeat of the radical currents of Reformation and the Great Peasants’ War, are also quite diverse. This is confirmed by the manifold publications issued in GDR in last two decades. The materials of the national and international sessions, symposia and other academic conventions that took place in the GDR in 1954 – 1969, as well as of V Congress of Historians of GDR (1972), support this thesis.
The list of such examples could be continued but it is not necessary here.
In Soviet Union the problem of genesis of capitalism belongs to the list of complex problems, the studies of which are coordinated at the all-Union level. For the time elapsed we have accumulated a significant experience in presenting and solving the complicated key aspects of this problem.
The main principle of our studies of this matter is to find the ways of complex solution of the problems of genesis of capitalism not on the path of confrontation of conflicting viewpoints, but through the mutual creative search for scientific truth by scientists of different branches of historical and economic sciences following different personal viewpoints not contradicting the Marxism-Leninism {this last part of the phrase is more of a ritual incantation – Kiev Communard}.
If one is to outline briefly the general methodological criteria allowing the objective determination of the level and degree of development of capitalism in this or that European country during the first phase of manufacture capitalism period, that is, in the 16th century which encompasses its main part, one may point at the following. First of all, one should draw a qualitatively dividing line between medieval burghership embodying feudal forms of commodity production and exchange (craft guilds, municipal protectionism, merchant guilds and Hanses, etc.), which were based on the estate forms of ownership and capital, and the nascent bourgeoisie embodying the future capitalism with all its categories. One should strictly draw the line between the categories of simple commodity production and capitalist economy, as well as the forms born by the decay of feudal mode of production and the forms generated by the ascendant capitalism as such. It is necessary to differentiate between the phenomena deriving from the primitive accumulation of capitalism and the genesis of capitalism proper. It is counterproductive to conflate the merchant capital with the industrial one, the formal subordination of labor to capital with the real one.
In studying the processes of emergence of national markets, one should avoid the identification of intestate ties within the boundaries of common ethnogeographical region, even if under the conditions of superimposed elements of political unity (Holy Roman Empire, Italy), with the establishment of national markets in the centralized nation-states of Europe. The researchers of the national markets’ evolution should strictly distinguish its specific stages: a) as categories of simple commodity economy; b) as categories of capitalist economy; as well as take into account the criteria allowing to do this. For the second stage these criteria, prima facie, include: 1) the transformation of labor power into commodity and its circulation on the market in the quantities enough for its systematic use on the national scale; 2) the mass intake of the means of production, including the land, into the sphere of market exchange; 3) the transformation of national market into the integral component of insipient world capitalist market. According to K. Marx, “the world trade and the world market open the new history of the capital in the 16th century” [11]. Finally, it is useful to bear in mind that, depending on the overall socioeconomic structure of this or that country, the national market may be and is formed by different social strata: either by the enterprising merchants, manufacturers, capitalist farmers, or by “pure” merchants, by commercially inclined serf-owning feudals, by the holders of Meierpacht {the hereditary leasehold of the more affluent peasants in late Medieval Germany – Kiev Communard}, by Grossbauern {rich peasants similar to Meiern – Kiev Communard} of Prussian kind, by the Russian-style kulaks, etc. Depending on this fact, the economic face of the market, its economic and social functions undergo profound changes.
The character and the level of development of the national market exert strong influence upon the type of inflationary trends prevailing in this or that country. The modern bourgeois historians describe two types of inflationary trends taking shape in the 16 -17th centuries European countries, namely productive and commercial ones [12], – the former in England, the latter in the Netherlands. Such an approach ignores the problem of the market character and inflationary trends in the centralized states, where the establishment of “second serfdom” {the market-connected form of serfdom, in many case resembling the Southern States’ plantation slavery, which prevailed in East Europe until the early 1800s, in Russian Empire – until 1861 – Kiev Communard} took place. If the phenomena in question were widespread there, could it be that in that case the specific type of inflationary trends did emerge, for instance, “merchant-feudal” or any others? Of course, this is merely the operational hypothesis, put forth for the clarification of the problem never before solved or even brought up for the discussion.
In the end, in elucidating the levels of development of capitalist forms of production and exchange, especially the volumes of their reproduction in this or that country, one should take into account the “regulatory” influence of political superstructure. Through the system of direct and excise taxes, customs tariffs, transportation and other charges, as well as of forced loans, the feudal state could “re-distribute” revenues between the different fields of economy, classes and social strata, substantially altering the real relative weight of capitalist forms of production and exchange, aggravating and deforming the “natural” process of their reproduction. The fact that the state power, embodied in many 16th century European countries by absolutism of different kinds, had a real and varied impact, through its taxation and overall economic policies, on the course of economic development of the respective countries is no longer to be disputed in the light of recent studies.
Considering the phenomena of genesis of capitalism in the agrarian sector, it would be wrong to perceive and interpret the existence of moneyed forms of the rent, rental relations, sharecropping system, and occasions of hiring of agricultural labor as the symptoms and factors of emergence of capitalism, as these facts can be observed in these or those proportions and combinations during the whole course of the Medieval Age {emphasis mine – Kiev Communard}. As K. Marx underscored, the phenomena in question lead to the emergence of capitalism in European agriculture of the manufacture period only provided that: a) the capitalist relations have already development outside the agrarian sector, that is, first of all in industry; b) the countries in question have already assumed a dominant position on the world market that is taking shape or is already constituted [13].
For his part, V.I. Lenin placed an emphasis of anyone studying the history of emergence and consolidation of bourgeois forms of production and exchange on the fact that the theoretically substantiated conclusion on their existence can be made only if the socioeconomic structure of economy, its economic base, commercial ties, the relationships between different sectors of capital, etc. are researched [14].
It is very important to take into account the processes of primitive accumulation and emergence of capitalism are complex and all-encompassing. Therefore the assertion of their existence is reasonable only if their effects are demonstrated in all spheres of economy of this or that state. Separate local phenomena and examples that do not constitute a system per se may not be the grounds for such an assertion. In addition to the factors of “nation-state” character, there existed also a number of factors that brought their changes into the potential and real possibilities for genesis and development of capitalism in each and every European country of the 16th century. Among them one needs to mention the dominant position of merchant capital as separate and independent sector of capital, which was typical for the manufacture period as a whole; the increased importance of the world market under such circumstances, which was still in its early formation stage and yet performed a number of important functions. The latter was more and more being converted into the centre for the re-distribution of all kinds of profits, the transfer of the resources of European countries and conquered colonies alike into the reservoir of bourgeois development of the dominant powers was conducted through it, – to the detriment of the countries that were subjugated or became mere objects of mercantile and colonial expansion of Europeans; the world market played its role in the beginnings of the systematized and steady international division of labor; it acted as a synthesizing category of world system of capitalism, which was still in its infancy; the process of formation of the latter still seemed to be a kind of “summing up of national variants” of capitalist development.
Under the conditions of the manufacture period, especially of its initial phase, as K. Marx stressed, the future of development of the capitalist manufacture, of bourgeois evolution of agriculture, of bourgeois development of the nation as a whole depended on the fact whether or not the nation played a dominant role at the world market [15]. However, for this the latter had to be present in the first instance. This has to be taken into consideration most seriously when evaluating the prospects of progressive development of the German states, which was stopped just on the verge of formation of the world market. The precise specification of the chronological border that heralded the beginnings of development of the world capitalist market is essential aspect as well. Sometimes the attempts are made to “lower” the chronological limits of this phenomenon form the 16th century, as K. Marx defined them, down to the last decades of the 15th century, that is, to include into the world market the Great Geographical Discoveries, as well as disparate and still ineffective commercial plundering expeditions of European merchants to newly discovered lands, not as its prerequisites, but as its integral components. However, these events, while important in themselves, should be considered elements of pre-history, not of history of the world capitalist market per se. An important manifestation of the emergence of the latter was the beginning of reshuffle of world trade routes, which is regarded as lacking the connections with the emergent process of the world market formation.
The weak state of the national resources of each individually taken European country in the 16th century, the pressing need to guarantee the expanded reproduction of the bourgeois forms of production in proper scope using only its own resources, the absence of world capitalist system resulted in incertitude of irreversible variant of genesis of capitalism in European countries at that moment [17]. At the same time this scantity of resources objectively ensured the victory of capitalism only in separate cases {just as with Socialist movements in the 20th century – Kiev Communard}. In other words, at that time the closest interrelation existed between the internal reasons for the reversibility of genesis of capitalism in this or that country and the objective resources of the continent. Therefore, for instance, the defeat of peasant levies during the Great Peasants’ War of 1525 in German lands, the restoration of the Spanish rule in Belgian provinces in the 1580s, or the defeat of Czech army in battle of Biala Góra in 1620 {the important battle during the Thirty Years’ War which marked the end of independent political and economic development, including the possibility of the capitalist one, in Bohemia – Kiev Communard} were pre-conditioned not only by internal reasons but were to a certain extent determined by the objective resources that the whole potential of European continent could provide to the forces of the progress. In other words, were not these “accidents” the form of manifestation of logic of necessity?
It looks as if only taking into consideration these and the other circumstances, one could appraise the place of the 16th century in the genesis of capitalism with all its complicated character and manifold manifestations. That was not a simple “accident” that led to the defeat of Reformation and Great Peasants’ War in enormous, but frail Holy Roman Empire, and that was not an “accident” either that the Netherlands, miniscule in comparison with the former, but playing the dominant part on the world market, were able to carry out the first successful bourgeois revolution and undermine, after the many years of uneven and epic struggle, the power of mighty Spanish Empire.
The historical heterogeneity of the 16th century can be appreciated out of the fact that, while the first half thereof was marked by the dynamic expansion of capitalism almost in each and every European country, its second half went by under manifestly different conditions. The forces of feudal reaction, still dominant at that time, understood, more intuitively than rationally, that the further successes of bourgeois development were threatening to undermine the foundations of Ancien Regime, and responded with the frontal counteroffensive {that could be in some aspects likened to Neoconservative resurgence in the 1980s – Kiev Communard}. It was not a characteristic feature of the 17th century only, as the proponents of the theory of “general crisis” of feudalism in the 17th century routinely claim. It began in the second half of the 16th century. The result was the victory of the feudal reaction and Counter-Reformation in most states of Holy Roman Empire, in Spain, Belgium, Italy, while France entered the period of bloody and devastating civil wars, which put into question its very prospects of further progressive development. All of Central and East Europe, meanwhile, became the arena of spread of “second serfdom”.
In general, K. Marx’s thesis on the beginning of capitalist era in Europe in the 16th century still retains its importance. However, when some historians extend in a mechanic manner the aforementioned Marxian conclusion to the whole of the continent, then such a simple “superimposition” without taking account of stadial-chronological factor seems to be theoretically unsound, in view of the foregoing. It is even more understandable that in specifically historical dimension the socioeconomic character of this concrete period of history of Europe looks even more complicated.
References:
1. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 728.
2. J. van Dillen. Leiden als industriestad tijdens de Republiek. – Tijdschrift voor Geschriedenis, d. 59, 1946, blz. 50-51.
3. E. Coornaert. Draperies rurales, draperies urbaines. L’évolution de l’industrie flamande au Moyen Age et au XVIe siécle. – Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, t. XXVIII, #1, 1950.
4. H.A. Enno van Gelder. Is de zestiende eeuw modern? – Tijdschrift voor Geschriedenis, 1931, Jg. 46, blz. 160.
5. F. Mauro. L’expansion europeéenne (1600-1870). – Paris, 1967, p. 291.
6. Sandra di Mayo. Rinascimiento e declino economico dell Italia secondo Armando Sapori e Roberto Lopez. – Economia e storia, 1967, #3.
7. N. Gras. Business and Capitalism. – New York, 1959.
8. F. Hayek. History and Politics. / Capitalism and Historians. – Chicago, 1954.
9. Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in Russia. – Moscow, 1969.
10. Theoretical and Historiographical Problems of Genesis of Capitalism. – Moscow, 1969.
11. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 157.
12. H. Van der Wee. The Growth of the Antwerp Market and the European Economy, vol. II. – Louvain, 1963, blz. 422-424, 435.
13. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 25, part II, p. 363.
14. V.I. Lenin. The Complete Works. – Vol. II, p. 386
15. K. Marx, F. Engels. The Complete Works. – Vol. 23, p. 764.
16. A.N. Tchistozvonov. The Notion and Criteria of Reversibility and Irreversibility of Historical Process. – Questions of History, 1969, #5.