Feudalism better than capitalism?

[Beeth]

Not historically but out of curiosity, My friend wondered whether an enlightened form of feudalism would be better than capitalism. No markets, simply the masses working for the elite and the elite taking care of the masses.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There's no such thing as "enlightened" feudalism (or capitalism, for that matter).

[bcbm]

the 'code' during the feudal ages in much of europe was indeed as you say. and we can see how that turned out.

[Sidagma]

Actually, in all honesty, information about that time period from a class analysis point of view is pretty hard to come by and Marx I feel like bought into a lot of the same sort of enlightenment bullshit about how enlightened and progressive that era was as opposed to all past eras. In traditional Enlightenment view the European Enlightenment starts a period of a sort of exceptionalism where it's held as self-evident that everything following from it is inherently better than anything else.

But like, is it really? How do you defend that position?

I'm not saying that I think feudalism was great or anything but it would be lovely to see a nuanced analysis of it.

[tuwix]

Oh men!

I expected many things on this forum. There are many “geniuses” worshiping the North Korea, Stalin, etc. and now I find people considering superiority of feudalism...

Dear men and women,

Feudalism was system based on classic slavery. At least the 90% of population was a property of a feudal. A feudal could do with his property anything. He or she could kill, rape, torture, etc. And actually did it.

And knowing that and being this at least 90% of population, do you still like a feudalism?

[G-Dogg]

Of course it's not better. It blocks the development of the productive forces and thus holds back the liberation of the working class. Marx was pretty adamant that feudalism be erradicated and that the bourgeoisie should be supported in that task.

[bcbm]

Actually, in all honesty, information about that time period from a class analysis point of view is pretty hard to come by and Marx I feel like bought into a lot of the same sort of enlightenment bullshit about how enlightened and progressive that era was as opposed to all past eras. In traditional Enlightenment view the European Enlightenment starts a period of a sort of exceptionalism where it's held as self-evident that everything following from it is inherently better than anything else.

But like, is it really? How do you defend that position?

I'm not saying that I think feudalism was great or anything but it would be lovely to see a nuanced analysis of it.

its been awhile since i did much reading about the middle ages so i can't recommend anything but there are definitely some good writings on it. certainly there is a case to be made against this conception of progress. feudalism was shit for the laboring classes but early capitalism was hardly better. the argument has been made that there was less work, more freedom, etc in some places (and the threat of starvation, plague, war...) and industrialization began by enclosing common land and forcing people into the factories. today obviously much of this is still ongoing, 'progress' for some simply means shifting around the horror

[Rafiq]

enlightenment came in correspondence with the rise of the bourgeois class. dialectically, therefore, feudalism cannot coexist with an "enlightened" superstructure. what you are asking is whether feudalism is more "moral", pre supposing of course your backward and bizarre moral framework. beeth, countless times you have proven you are a closet reactionary, and your identification with Communism is not only intellectually offensive and theoretically pathetic, it is a direct product of your exceedingly limited understanding of it. feudalism was in every imaginable way inferior to capitalism. capitalism, which at the time transformed society, knocking down the barriers of feudalism rapidly and mercilessly. it's almost romantic, really. you are not only a reactionary by our standards, but by bourgeois standards as well. no marxist opposes capitalism for cheap conservativist reasons, i.e. 'greed', 'corruption' and so on. most of us worship the gods of hedonism, engage in 'western decadence' and have no problem with it whatsoever.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

its been awhile since i did much reading about the middle ages so i can't recommend anything but there are definitely some good writings on it. certainly there is a case to be made against this conception of progress. feudalism was shit for the laboring classes but early capitalism was hardly better. the argument has been made that there was less work, more freedom, etc in some places (and the threat of starvation, plague, war...) and industrialization began by enclosing common land and forcing people into the factories. today obviously much of this is still ongoing, 'progress' for some simply means shifting around the horror

after almost a thousand years of feudalism, capitalism brought 'political equality'. the new ruling classes now walked the same streets, and formally were subject to the same, universal laws. the distinction between lowborn and higherborn, washed away by the title of citizen. this is an astronomically revolutionary occurance. but like the feudalism before it, capitalism systemically carries the seeds of its own destruction, be it the proletarian class or market-systemic contradictions.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Narodnik]

There was a guy called George Fitzhugh who in the mid 19th century USA spoke and wrote against the abolitionists and in favor of slavery. Besides the basic 'arguments' about blacks being a 'lower race', he also advocated slavery for white people, and his arguments there are interesting.

He accussed the abolitionists of being racist and not caring about black slaves, and he accussed them of being inhumane, by wishing to forbid white people to sell themselves into slavery.

His argument was that capitalism is worse then slavery, and that in capitalism the rentier of the worker does not have a close relation as does the an owner of a worker, and how slave becoming employees would make them poorer, less cared for both in general and specifically in case of sickness or injurury, and less secure being that they could easily lose a job.

He asked to think which chariot would be in better shape after a number of years- the chariot of the one who owns it, or the chariot of the one who rents it, and that likewise, it is better to own people then to rent them.

He even used the Lowell Mill Girls' term "wage-slavery" to refer to capitalism.

It is interesting that his arguments against capitalism were used in the rich (libertarian) socialist press that the workers of the time published.

If someone's interested, his two books (Sociology for the South, and Cannibals All!) are available online.

[Deity]

Feudalism (like capitalism) is only enjoyable at the top. Any system that hurts the masses for the benefit of a few is a broken system.

[Drosophila]

"Feudalism" isn't really the all-encompassing system that so many Marxists make it out to be. They seem to think that, just because Marx said a few words about feudalism, it must be true. Most if not all scholars of the Middle Ages would laugh at the standard Marxist outlook on feudalism, and rightly so. The fact is that "feudalism" is only a sufficient explanation for a marginal portion of the world landscape in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Mercantile capitalism took precedence much earlier than most Marxists would like to believe.

[Emmeka]

Feudal serfs and classical craft workers were much better off before being driven to the proletariat, if that's what you mean. History shows that they more or less worked 8 hour days, had plenty of days off in the form of religious holidays, and had access to a wide array of services to improve their goods and provide for their family.

I don't think OP is actually trying to state that Feudalism is ideal, merely whether it was a "lesser evil" in comparison to capitalism. In that case the answer is yes, merely because workers were treated better.

There's a reason why groups such as the Knights of Labour promoted a return to the old feudal division of labour - workers were treated a lot better under that system. The conditions that existed for these people when they were driven to urban centres to work in factories were absolutely appalling, compared to their relatively mediocre existence under Feudalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The OP wouldn't have been made had the poster researched more into arguments against economic rent and rentier economies.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The OP wouldn't have been made had the poster researched more into arguments against economic rent and rentier economies.

Yeah op if you just knew the fucking answer you wouldn't have to ask the question. Keep this in mind for future posts.

[Let's Get Free]

Capitalism is similar to feudalism in that they both allow the rich and powerful to control labor, but capitalism does it under a much more covert, "free" form. The cover comes in the form of state protection for the rich while free-market discipline works for everyone else.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Capitalism is similar to feudalism in that they both allow the rich and powerful to control labor, but capitalism does it under a much more covert, "free" form. The cover comes in the form of state protection for the rich while free-market discipline works for everyone else.

Was the concept of labor the same for a medieval peasants vs. that of a modern wage laborer?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The OP wouldn't have been made had the poster researched more into arguments against economic rent and rentier economies.

Well, help him out with that then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah op if you just knew the fucking answer you wouldn't have to ask the question. Keep this in mind for future posts.


Well, help him out with that then.

Here's a good read: http://www.globalresearch.ca/orwellian-doublethink-nationalize-the-banks-free-markets/12418

[Astarte]

Feudalism (like capitalism) is only enjoyable at the top. Any system that hurts the masses for the benefit of a few is a broken system.

Heh, I don't even think you could consider "feudalism enjoyable at the top" seeing as though for most of the middle ages even kings and lords only lived on average into their 30's and were constantly in danger of being chopped up with a sword or axe by another friendly warlord who happened to set themselves up as a king a few miles away.

[Glyde]

I've known several people throughout my life who think feudalism was superior to the current system. They just imagine themselves leading a simpler life, working as a blacksmith or spending their days raising sheep, without taking into account the actual implications of living in a slave society.
Certainly the biggest reason anyone would think this way is because of how feudal societies are often represented in post-feudal literature and other media. In these fictional settings, feudalism is infused with many features of capitalism, out of a misunderstanding of how daily life worked back then. It leads one to believe that people had the same basic laws and social obligations, but without the billboards or nosy bosses or whatever.

[Vanguard1917]

Capitalism is 'better' from a range of perspectives. For one, that of women's role in society - seen as the 'litmus test' for how advanced a society is, by socialists from Fourier onwards. The idea that women belong by the stove and the washboard - 'common sense' under feudalism - is prevalently challenged today in even the most backward capitalist countries, at least in their urban areas.

[MarxArchist]

"Feudalism" isn't really the all-encompassing system that so many Marxists make it out to be. They seem to think that, just because Marx said a few words about feudalism, it must be true. Most if not all scholars of the Middle Ages would laugh at the standard Marxist outlook on feudalism, and rightly so. The fact is that "feudalism" is only a sufficient explanation for a marginal portion of the world landscape in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Mercantile capitalism took precedence much earlier than most Marxists would like to believe.

Mercantile 'capitalism' (mercantilism) in the west was during the later stage process of dispossession. Mercantile 'capitalism' (as you say) could not form into capitalism until the process of dispossession was mature enough to create a dispossessed class while the early bourgeois class simultaneously built their up and coming (non feudal) modern state in order to further set the stage for property based market relations.

[bcbm]

Capitalism is 'better' from a range of perspectives. For one, that of women's role in society - seen as the 'litmus test' for how advanced a society is, by socialists from Fourier onwards. The idea that women belong by the stove and the washboard - 'common sense' under feudalism - is prevalently challenged today in even the most backward capitalist countries, at least in their urban areas.

this is a vast oversimplification


Mercantile 'capitalism' (mercantilism) in the west was during the later stage process of dispossession. Mercantile 'capitalism' (as you say) could not form into capitalism until the process of dispossession was mature enough to create a dispossessed class while the early bourgeois class simultaneously built their up and coming (non feudal) modern state in order to further set the stage for property based market relations.

when/where would you say all this occurred?

[Geiseric]

Of course it's not better. It blocks the development of the productive forces and thus holds back the liberation of the working class. Marx was pretty adamant that feudalism be erradicated and that the bourgeoisie should be supported in that task.

There is no working class in Feudalism. There are however Serfs and Peasants. Feudalism isn't like Lord of the Rings. Honestly at any moment you could be stabbed by a knight if you hint at disbelieving your lord has the holy right to own you.

[bcbm]

There is no working class in Feudalism.

um yes there was definitely a working class in the cities, often organized into guilds


Feudalism isn't like Lord of the Rings. Honestly at any moment you could be stabbed by a knight if you hint at disbelieving your lord has the holy right to own you.

there was a pretty significant amount of the reverse as well, like, almost annual peasant insurrections

[Drosophila]

Capitalism is 'better' from a range of perspectives. For one, that of women's role in society - seen as the 'litmus test' for how advanced a society is, by socialists from Fourier onwards. The idea that women belong by the stove and the washboard - 'common sense' under feudalism - is prevalently challenged today in even the most backward capitalist countries, at least in their urban areas.

I don't know, the whole "women belong in the kitchen" thing was extremely prevalent in industrialized nations up until the 1970's or so. It should also be noted that female peasants in medieval feudal societies actually did work quite a lot - they were certainly not just the cooks (there wasn't much food to eat anyway).


Mercantile 'capitalism' (mercantilism) in the west was during the later stage process of dispossession. Mercantile 'capitalism' (as you say) could not form into capitalism until the process of dispossession was mature enough to create a dispossessed class while the early bourgeois class simultaneously built their up and coming (non feudal) modern state in order to further set the stage for property based market relations.

I don't know why you're putting "capitalism" in quotes; Mercantile/merchant capitalism is a widely used term in economic history, and is not necessarily synonymous with mercantilism. Yes, merchant capitalism was quite different from the industrial capitalism of the 18th century, but it did still exist in medieval Europe as early as the 1100's.

[Jimmie Higgins]

enlightenment came in correspondence with the rise of the bourgeois class. dialectically, therefore, feudalism cannot coexist with an "enlightened" superstructure. what you are asking is whether feudalism is more "moral", pre supposing of course your backward and bizarre moral framework. beeth, countless times you have proven you are a closet reactionary, and your identification with Communism is not only intellectually offensive and theoretically pathetic, it is a direct product of your exceedingly limited understanding of it. feudalism was in every imaginable way inferior to capitalism. capitalism, which at the time transformed society, knocking down the barriers of feudalism rapidly and mercilessly. it's almost romantic, really. you are not only a reactionary by our standards, but by bourgeois standards as well. no marxist opposes capitalism for cheap conservativist reasons, i.e. 'greed', 'corruption' and so on. most of us worship the gods of hedonism, engage in 'western decadence' and have no problem with it whatsoever.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Your following post to bcbm was brillient, but please don't bite someone's head off for asking a question. This is a discussion site and that is not condusive to discussion. Try and win the arguement please.

[MarxArchist]

I don't know why you're putting "capitalism" in quotes; Mercantile/merchant capitalism is a widely used term in economic history, and is not necessarily synonymous with mercantilism. Yes, merchant capitalism was quite different from the industrial capitalism of the 18th century, but it did still exist in medieval Europe as early as the 1100's.

There's a lot of things bourgeois historians and economists say. Capitalism is the property based market system with a minority class of capitalists forcing a majority class of workers into wage slavery via the process of dispossession. Actual capitalism could not exist until multitudes of millions of people had no other choice but to sell their labor to a boss in order to survive. Give this book a read:

http://libcom.org/files/The%20Invention%20of%20Capitalism.pdf

[RedMaterialist]

"Feudalism" isn't really the all-encompassing system that so many Marxists make it out to be. They seem to think that, just because Marx said a few words about feudalism, it must be true. Most if not all scholars of the Middle Ages would laugh at the standard Marxist outlook on feudalism, and rightly so. The fact is that "feudalism" is only a sufficient explanation for a marginal portion of the world landscape in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Mercantile capitalism took precedence much earlier than most Marxists would like to believe.

The Middle Ages lasted from about 600-1300 AD. Mercantilism in no way "took precedence" during any part of that time. Mercantilism develops a nation-state political system far different from the small feudal estate system.

[Drosophila]

There's a lot of things bourgeois historians and economists say. Capitalism is the property based market system with a minority class of capitalists forcing a majority class of workers into wage slavery via the process of dispossession. Actual capitalism could not exist until multitudes of millions of people had no other choice but to sell their labor to a boss in order to survive. Give this book a read:

http://libcom.org/files/The%20Invention%20of%20Capitalism.pdf

I'll check that work out. I do have to say, though, that I think it's pretty wrong to say that Medievalists are wrong in their critiques just because they are "bourgeois." That's kind of insulting to the work that they've done.


The Middle Ages lasted from about 600-1300 AD. Mercantilism in no way "took precedence" during any part of that time. Mercantilism develops a nation-state political system far different from the small feudal estate system.

Ummm, yes, I know that. Merchant capitalism =/= mercantilism, as I said before.

[Rurkel]

Even kings and lords only lived on average into their 30's.
That's not entirely correct, since it's the average between those who died when they were 5 and those who did so when they were 60. Deaths in thirties were quite rare. Large child mortality pulls the average waaay back.

The question of feudalism replacing capitalism raises the issue of stagism, though. Would you say that the almost-extermination of Native Americans was historically progressive, since it was already mostly done in the interests of Western capitalism before the date many Marxists consider capitalism to be obsolete in developing the productive forces?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

"Feudalism" isn't really the all-encompassing system that so many Marxists make it out to be. They seem to think that, just because Marx said a few words about feudalism, it must be true. Most if not all scholars of the Middle Ages would laugh at the standard Marxist outlook on feudalism, and rightly so. The fact is that "feudalism" is only a sufficient explanation for a marginal portion of the world landscape in the Middle Ages and early modern period. Mercantile capitalism took precedence much earlier than most Marxists would like to believe.

Not strictly true. Early capitalistic development did take place earlier, much earlier, than many historians of all stripes have believed. However, the dominant system was still Feudal.

Sweezy, writing in 1949, stated that the period between the 14th and 16th/17th centuries represented a transition between Feudalism and Capitalism, and concluded that the period was neither of the two but something called 'petty commodity production'. Of course, writing in 1949 as a supporter of the Soviet Union, one can see where his motivation for arriving at such a conclusion came from ;)

Actually, looking at the transition debate from that period again, Dobb's explanation - that Feudalism persisted as the over-arching social system, the mode of production that dominated society - is rather more plausible. He makes the point (ironically shared/scabbed by the right-wing new institutionalists) that feudalism, capitalism etc. are social systems, not mere economic systems; with this in mind, looking at Britain for example, the old Feudal order held political power well into the 17th century, only truly defeated by the civil war and the culmination of the 'glorious' revolution in 1688.

Not that Feudalism was a healthy system by the 17th century. Indeed, by as early as the 14th century Feudalism was a struggling system, and this led to/was helped by the introduction of proto-/petty- capitalist elements, which in turn was only made possible by the freedom from servitude of much of the peasantry in many parts of the country.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also the question of whether Feudalism is better than Capitalism is, from a class perspective, somewhat un-answerable and ridiculous. Better for who? I mean, i'd rather be a Mayor, a Knight, a Bishop or Monarch in 1400 than a Zimbabwean worker in 2013.

But then who do you compare workers to? There were, of course, no workers under Feudalism. There were (free) peasants and (unfree) peasants, but the term peasant has been observed to be as all-encompassing as the term 'Christian' (Schofield, 2003). The 'elites' were solely political elites; their was no economic justification for their power, they ruled solely by military dominion. Today the elites generally rule by economic might in the first instance, with the back-up of military dominion.

Talking about productive forces in general, capitalism is, has always been and will always be far superior to Feudalism. Feudalism was a (practically) no growth system; a subsistence mode of production. Capitalism has made things better, in a purely economic sense, for practically everybody. However, this doesn't stand up to class analysis which also deals with social and power relationships in society.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE

Ummm, yes, I know that. Merchant capitalism =/= mercantilism, as I said before.[/QUOTE]

"mercantile capitalism"....those were the words you used to describe the economic system that took "precedence" during the middle ages.

[RedMaterialist]

that Feudalism persisted as the over-arching social system, the mode of production that dominated society - is rather more plausible. He makes the point (ironically shared/scabbed by the right-wing new institutionalists) that feudalism, capitalism etc. are social systems, not mere economic systems; with this in mind, looking at Britain for example, the old Feudal order held political power well into the 17th century, only truly defeated by the civil war and the culmination of the 'glorious' revolution in 1688.



As Marx pointed out, the means of production (in this case, early capitalism) always outruns, breaks through the old "fetters" of the existing modes of production (feudal relations.)

[Comrade #138672]

Heh, I don't even think you could consider "feudalism enjoyable at the top" seeing as though for most of the middle ages even kings and lords only lived on average into their 30's and were constantly in danger of being chopped up with a sword or axe by another friendly warlord who happened to set themselves up as a king a few miles away.I don't think being bourgeois is always that fun either. You are always under threat from other competitors. Also, you can never really trust anybody, have to watch your back all the time and hope that nobody turns on you, always have to keep up social appearances, etc.

That is why Socialism would be good for the bourgeoisie as well.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As Marx pointed out, the means of production (in this case, early capitalism) always outruns, breaks through the old "fetters" of the existing modes of production (feudal relations.)

That is kinda meaningless, though. The situation between the 14th and at least 16th centuries is incredibly complex, it's really not possible to make value judgement such as 'Marx said it was so, so it was so' about such a long, complex and interesting period of history.

According to my supervisor, a study of the period would make for a challenging PhD, let alone something at undergraduate or even Master's level. Woe is me for doing this for my dissertation. :(

[l'Enfermé]

The 'elites' were solely political elites; their was no economic justification for their power, they ruled solely by military dominion. Today the elites generally rule by economic might in the first instance, with the back-up of military dominion.

Really? No economic justification? Not even, say, land ownership?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Really? No economic justification? Not even, say, land ownership?

Yes but still under feudal terms, as in most places land was still organised among feudal lines; land ownership was a landed owner - peasant relationship. Feudal rents were still extracted. To what degree is questionable but there is evidence that this continued from the 14th century for quite a while, even if there was certainly a greater number of manumissions from peasants, presumably emboldened by the revolt of 1381. It was not an economic relationship in the sense of modern economics as we know it; the relationship was one of extraction and this is the key point.

Capitalism as a form was largely present in new industry; merchant capital started to take over guilds and handicrafts and, importantly, opened up new markets for these craftsmen to sell their products. They did not, however, represent the mode of production, they were more one of many inputs into a system whose main feature was still the dominion of the military-backed, feudal landlords who kept power (and land) through extraction, rather than market mechanisms alone.

However, what I do believe is that the origins of capitalism lie deep in the high middle ages - from as early as 1381; I know arguments have also been made recently that its origin can even be seen in the 13th century. Hoskins' economic history of Wigston Carta in Leicestershire shows that, as early as the 11th and 12th centuries there, the dominant economic mode in that village/town was that of the free peasants and village markets, rather than feudal dominion.