The bourgeois under feudalism

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I am trying to gather some information on the condition of the bourgeois under feudalism. It is also related to something that might turn into an essay in the future.

Did the feudalist ruling class (what was it called?) supress the bourgeois?

How did they emerge victorious?

Between the rift between the ruling class and the bourgeois, what was the position of these early workers who preserved the bourgeois as a class? How were they split up between these two masters?

Is there any links or websites about the struggle between the feudalist class and the capitalist class?

What major difference and change took place after the growth of a capitalist class under feudalism?

[Shiva Star]

This is only my opinion on Human History, so I may be biased and/or wrong in some areas. FYI: Zaibatsu= The Bousoisie.


Did the feudalist ruling class (what was it called?) supress the bourgeois?


As far as I know, The Zaibatsu and The Feudalists worked together until the 1600s. Then there was a split between The Feudalists and The Zaibatsu. The Feudalists wanted to impose Absolute Monarchy, which would give The Monarchs Absolute Power. The Zaibatsu realised that it would actually cut into their profits. That culminated into wars like the English Civil War.


How did they emerge victorious?


In the England, France and other countries, The Zaibatsu promoted their version of democracy, where they would actually hold power, but the People would vote, and If The Zaibatsu don't like the vote results, they throw it out.

That's pretty much all the questions I can answer at this point of time, its getting late, and I tend not to be an expert in European History.

EDIT: Here's some links that could help get you started:
Info on Absolute Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy)
English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War)

[Red Powers]

I don't know where SHiva Star gets this meaning of Zaibatsu. The Zaibatsu are the large corporations in Japan and have nothing to do with European history.

The questions you ask are really big ones. They probably go back to the Crusades and extend throughout Europe. The Rise of the bourgeoisie covers about 500 years. To get your answer you have to do a lot of reading in European History and particularly in industrialization. But it is some fascinating stuff.

[Shiva Star]

I don't know where SHiva Star gets this meaning of Zaibatsu. The Zaibatsu are the large corporations in Japan and have nothing to do with European history.


I tend to use "Zaibatsu" to describe capitalist exploiters in general. Much like how in the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx uses Bousois to describe exploiters, so I use the word "Zaibatsu" in the same way.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:23 AM
I am trying to gather some information on the condition of the bourgeois under feudalism. It is also related to something that might turn into an essay in the future.

Did the feudalist ruling class (what was it called?) supress the bourgeois?

How did they emerge victorious?

Between the rift between the ruling class and the bourgeois, what was the position of these early workers who preserved the bourgeois as a class? How were they split up between these two masters?

Is there any links or websites about the struggle between the feudalist class and the capitalist class?

What major difference and change took place after the growth of a capitalist class under feudalism?
Order and read Leo Hubermans "Mans worldly goods". It answers all of your questions and serves as an excellent introduction to the economic history of feodalism and capitalism, all from a marxist perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0853450706/qid=1129400284/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2230954-0390421?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=%22man...oods%22&spell=1 (http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=%22man%27s+worldly+goods%22&spell=1)

Please, order it!

[Red Powers]

I tend to use "Zaibatsu" to describe capitalist exploiters in general.

I guess that's ok, but unless somebody has studied Japanese history they won't know what you're talking about. In English we use capitalists or bourgeoisie.

And the Huberman book is really a good one. Also Volume 1 of the Modern World System by Wallerstein is good. It synthesizes a vast amount of scholarship on the rise of the bourgeoisie.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:23 PM
I am trying to gather some information on the condition of the bourgeois under feudalism. It is also related to something that might turn into an essay in the future.

Did the feudalist ruling class (what was it called?) supress the bourgeois?
Politically, yes. The persecution of Protestants was one example of this, since Protestantism was an ideology of the rising bourgeoisie.

Feudalism didn't keep the bourgeoisie from getting richer, though. Slowed them down, maybe.


How did they emerge victorious?

That would be several history books, describing the great revolutions of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries among other things. The Manifesto gives a brief summary of the process.


Between the rift between the ruling class and the bourgeois, what was the position of these early workers who preserved the bourgeois as a class? How were they split up between these two masters?

The early bourgeoisie wasn't a modern industrial bourgeoisie employing large numbers of wage-workers. Merchant capital is the oldest form of capital, followed by moneylending capital.

Early manufacturing workers were artisans, owning their own tools and selling the product of the labor themselves. Or sometimes small employers - masters in a guild - would employ a few journeymen or apprentices as wage-workers, while continuing to work themselves. Industrial capitalism grew from such small beginnings.

When the bourgeoisie took on the feudal ruling classes, it was typically supported by the city laboring population as well as the peasants. The poor often took a more revolutionary position than the big bourgeoisie. The French Revolution was the ultimate example of this...the most radical phase was not supported by the big bourgeoisie.

As the bourgeoisie became richer, they also bought rural land and exploited peasants and rural laborers. On the eve of the French Revolution, IIRC the bourgeoisie owned something like 30% of the rural land.

[encephalon]

Most feudal lords didn't supress the bourgeoisie; in fact, most of them were bought by the bourgeoisie. Italian city-states, for example, were only possible with the permission of the Lord of the land, and technically the lord could have ended their self-rule under contemporary law. What stopped the Lord, of course, was the fact that they were paying him. Most feudal lords, at least on the lower end of nobility, were dirt poor despite their rank and in debt to their necks. The bourgeoisie exploited their indebtedness; in effect, they bought their freedom from feudalism.

The catholic church probably fought the rise of the bourgeoisie most of all, and for a while they had the backing of most monarchs. Eventually, however, those monarchs were bought off.

On a side note, until the past 400 in western society, the merchant was seen as even lower class than the peasant; this trend existed in the eastern world as well. I say we bring that back.

[Dimentio]

The "Feudalist Ruling class" was referred to as the "Nobility", and was basically agricultural and militarised. Where it were established, it was most often due to civil unrest in slave-based empires, like ancient Rome, which brought about dark ages.

During the period of 400-800, feudalism established itself over both post-Roman self-sufficiency in farming communities, as well as over the tribal areas. During that period, the farmers did actually manage their own defense most, but that made it harder for them to aquire time to take care for their crops, so in return for military protection, they offered some of the marauder bands access to their crops.

That established the foundation for feudalism.

[BuyOurEverything]

As far as I know, The Zaibatsu and The Feudalists worked together until the 1600s. Then there was a split between The Feudalists and The Zaibatsu. The Feudalists wanted to impose Absolute Monarchy, which would give The Monarchs Absolute Power. The Zaibatsu realised that it would actually cut into their profits. That culminated into wars like the English Civil War.




No, the fuedalists never worked with the bourgeious. Bourgeious started out, as has been pointed out, not really employing anyone, there wasn't really a free labour pool back then, just serfs and slaves. The prolatariat grew out of a bunch of other groups that found themselves in need of work (such as monoks kicked out of British monestaries after the break from the catholic church) and as industrialization required more labour and fewer manufacturers, much of the early bourgeious was prolatarianized.

Also, feudal lords didn't support absolute monarchies. Why would they want someone over top of them with absolute power?

Eventually, the industrialized production of the bourgeious reached a point where the bourgieous was just far richer than the fuedalist class, and essentially bought their rule.

[encephalon]

No, the fuedalists never worked with the bourgeious. Bourgeious started out, as has been pointed out, not really employing anyone, there wasn't really a free labour pool back then, just serfs and slaves. The prolatariat grew out of a bunch of other groups that found themselves in need of work (such as monoks kicked out of British monestaries after the break from the catholic church) and as industrialization required more labour and fewer manufacturers, much of the early bourgeious was prolatarianized.

This is false; the feudal lords were in constant debt to the new emerging bourgeoisie, and as the system of wealth changed from land to money the feudal lords exchanged autonomy to the city-states in exchange for goods that they could not afford otherwise. There were also intermarriages, although they were very rare at first. The medici family is a good example of this. The nobility also sought to educate their children in bourgeoisie schools, who as a class was much more educated.

The term "bourgeoisie" actually comes from "burgher"--germanic (i think) for city dweller. These cities were self-governed, but only with the cooperation of local landlords, and often at a hefty price.

The power of the nobility was based on military strength, bloodlines and the ownership of the land. When trade opened up again with the east, the nobility had nothing to trade of value and had to accept the bourgeoisie with little exception. The only exception to being overwhelmed by bourgeois wealth was Great Britain, who produced more wool that could be traded over long distance rather than food. This is also why the textile industry was one of the first heavy industries in capitalism.


Also, feudal lords didn't support absolute monarchies. Why would they want someone over top of them with absolute power?


You are making the same mistake that capitalists of today do: imposing our current value system on the past. Under feudalism, bloodline was far more important than wealth. To gain power, families married their daughters into higher nobility than their own title. It took a very long time to end the special consideration given to bloodline, and lasted quite visibly into Victorian GB. You might also note that England still places some emphasis on title and bloodline, if only for the sake of tradition.



Eventually, the industrialized production of the bourgeious reached a point where the bourgieous was just far richer than the fuedalist class, and essentially bought their rule.

Agreed, to an extent. It's more important to understand that the quantative measure of wealth changed from landholding to purchasing power, and that the strengthening centralization of monarchies contributed to this by creating a stable monetary system (which is why the bourgeoisie, for quite some time, worked with the monarchs enthusiastically).

[enigma2517]

The bourgeoise won out in the end because they owned the means of production. They had in their power the material basis of the state and all of its monarchs/nobility.

The nobility owned the land and had the armies. The middle class (bourgeoise) was constantly in conflict with them. There was a degree of "cooperation" but nothing to suggest that these classes were similar. They were two very groups of people with different class interests.

Stuff like the English Civil War started because the wealthy merchants were being heavily taxed (in order to maintain absolutism, monarchs often gave the rich huge tax breaks) and wanted representation in parliaments so they could have a say in how to allocate the resources.

In the end, both huge armies and all of the political and religious willpower in all of feudal society could stop the bourgeoise. They owned the means of production, thus, they ultimately got to call the shots.

Which brings me to my next point...occupy the factories!

:)

[BuyOurEverything]

This is false; the feudal lords were in constant debt to the new emerging bourgeoisie, and as the system of wealth changed from land to money the feudal lords exchanged autonomy to the city-states in exchange for goods that they could not afford otherwise. There were also intermarriages, although they were very rare at first. The medici family is a good example of this. The nobility also sought to educate their children in bourgeoisie schools, who as a class was much more educated.


OK, maybe 'never worked with' was a bit misleading, what I should have said is that they did not have similar interests and did not 'cooperate' as such, but both tried to grab power. Intermarraige is an example, feudalists would marry their daughters to bourgeious for a much needed wack of cash and the bourgious wouold in turn gain nobility. And of course the nobility wanted to educate thier children in bourgious schools, they were better! This doesn't demonstrate interclass solidarity any more than a poor family saving up to send their kid to an ivy league school does.


You are making the same mistake that capitalists of today do: imposing our current value system on the past. Under feudalism, bloodline was far more important than wealth. To gain power, families married their daughters into higher nobility than their own title. It took a very long time to end the special consideration given to bloodline, and lasted quite visibly into Victorian GB. You might also note that England still places some emphasis on title and bloodline, if only for the sake of tradition.


Yes title was important, but that's irrelevant. Fuedalism preceded absolute monarchy, and the fuedal lords did not want absolute monarchy because it would infringe on their power. Abstract concepts such as bloodlines are meaningless when a class is trying to maintain power.


It's more important to understand that the quantative measure of wealth changed from landholding to purchasing power,

More important than what? What are you talking about?