Feudalism, Monarchy, and Dictatorship

[Comrade Martin]

Okay, two specific areas I need clarification on. They tie together, though.

First, Feudalism. Great Britain, for example, still has a Queen. Is that not a Feudalist position? Yet GB's economy is solely Capitalistic as far as production is concerned. So what would we term GB in terms of socio-economic systems?

Lastly, dictatorships. What seperates a dictatorship (Assuming the individual does have a large deal of control) from a Feudalist monarchy?

I'd elucidate more on my areas of confusion but I am pressed for time. Please try to assist me in these gray areas, comrades!

[chimx]

there is more to feudalism than the existence of kings and queens. specifically it is a decentralization of the econmy through the gifting of fiefs to vassals, who it turn often divided up this land and so on. kings, emperors, and nobles were often at the top of the food chain and were owed certain dues for the giving of fiefs, but a monarchy is not necessary for feudalism to exist.

[Comrade Martin]

And how are those classes and positions of power that you have mentioned defined as classes? To my understanding, Marxists define classes in relation to the means of production. How do we do that with Feudalism, in a fully Marxist way?

I mean, if the Queen had the ability to extract the profits from any business she wished and keep it for herself, how does that fit the class paradigm? Would it be a Feudalist extraction? And if a dictator did the same, what then?

[chimx]

rurally, lords own the land, tools, etc. serfs are tied to the land and forced to labor in exchange for the right to live on the lords property generally you had to pay taxes to the next tier in the hierarchy. not all monarchys that were feudal were absolutist. often if a king or queen demanded arbitrary taxation she would be kicked out by the nobles in charge, as was the case with the Holy Roman Empire.

[Comrade Martin]

Hmm, alright, but what of dictatorships? Bourgeois Democratic Capitalist nations tend to disapprove of and dislike Pro-Capitalist dictatorships. Why might this be, if not because dictatorships represent even more reaction (As in reactionaries, not a reaction)?

[chimx]

Enlightenment thinking birthed free market ideals in conjunction with "bourgeois democracy" and have historically coexisted. Further, arbitrary despotism doesn't lend itself to the freedom that market economics requires.

[Comrade Martin]

But this "arbitrary despotism" may in fact benefit Capitalists whenever the Bourgeois Democratic apparatus is failing to meet their needs, such as the election of a Socialist.

[Floyce White]

Comrade Martin: "Great Britain, for example, still has a Queen. Is that not a Feudalist position?"

No. The capitalist revolution occurred in England around 1640. The major social upheavals known as the Reformation and the Renaissance were part of the overall change from feudal social relations to capitalist ones. The English bourgeoisie kept the political form of rule by a king as a political expedient for the sake of stability at home versus their foreign feudal-empire enemies. As an island with no foreign invasion since 1215, the English upper class had a long tradition of working out differences through compromises and democratic forms. It had far less warfare at home than the Continent.

At around the time of the revolution, the English royalty all rushed to take family possession of crown lands, Church lands, and any common (non-royal upper-class) lands they could grab, so as to use them as sheep pastures for the woolens trade. The kings and queens were very happy to finance their primitive accumulation by hiring privateers to do piracy. Today, the British Royal Family all own stock in corporations and other forms of ordinary capital. They are all bourgeoisie--not feudal landlords over farmland and serfs. These are well-documented historical facts that you can find many, many sources to verify.

Monarchism today is a form of radical rightism. It is a conservative-oriented, petty-bourgeois attack upon the tiny number of big-bourgeois families that hold power and dominate government policy to their favor. The concept of petty-bourgeois monarchists is to confiscate the properties of the big bourgeoisie and to give ownership of it to a new "caste of royalty" as supposed "crown lands" being granted to "vassals." Of course, any of the big bourgeoisie who join with the revolution will be handsomely rewarded with their rivals' property.

As we can see in the example of Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, any preexisting royal family is a mere puppet to mouth "support" for whatever they are allowed to survive to "support." The preexisting royal family knows that they are in a unique position to bargain for terms, so they will "support" whatever keeps them in the game.

The English Royal Family are big capitalists. They are in a very strong position to keep the monarchy despite the fact that the British bourgeoisie is very unified and has not needed a monarchy in hundreds of years. Certainly the English Royal Family themselves finance the monarchy mania and most of the British monarchist groups.

chimx: "...a monarchy is not necessary for feudalism to exist."

That is not what I understand feudalism to be.

If you wish to defend your claim, perhaps you will give us examples of feudalism without monarchies? Please use examples from the West before the Renaissance and Reformation--from before the rise of capitalism within feudal society that deliberately undermined the system. Please do not choose as your examples the mercantilism of Venice or Florence. If you use examples from the East, please use China before the concessions--before the foreign undermining of the system--so that we can find many different sources to verify your claim. It would be very difficult to have a discussion if you choose little-known examples.

It seems that you are saying that there was one or more accident of history where some locality had two or more evenly-powerful landlords--none of whom could dominate the others--so the highest government body was temporarily a court of these few big exploiters. Such a case would be the exception, not the rule. Each of the landlords would plot and scheme to destroy the others and grab those families' lands and chattel. Small royals frequently joined with their former-enemy kingdoms to destroy the bigger royals they formerly served, and to crush their rivals.

I freely concede the varying forms of rule under exceptional circumstances--such as the dominance of feudal landholding at the end of the Roman Empire that was still under the political rule of a slave state. Will you concede that these are exceptional circumstances that do not define the essence of landlordship? Will you concede that a monarchy IS necessary for feudalism to function normally and continue with stability, and that feudalism without monarchy is feudalism being undermined?

chimx: "Further, arbitrary despotism doesn't lend itself to the freedom that market economics requires."

State violence is always on the behalf of a faction of capitalists. It is mistaken to look for some clever "macroeconomic" motivation that benefits all capitalists. "Market economics" is always subordinate to the property accumulation of the biggest capitalists who dictate governmental policy.

[Comrade Martin]

The question I've really been asking is, what defines the classes of Feudalism?

If it is just a Monarch, then why isn't Britain still considered Feudalist? If it is just a leader with a lot of authority, why isn't what we understand to be a modern dictatorship considered Feudalist? If it is based on who owns x amount of land, why don't we have "Feudalists" today that own large tracts of land?

All classes are defined by their relation to the means of production, to my understanding. So other than the obvious roles of slave owners and slaves (And serfs, etc.) in Feudalism, what other classes are typical of Feudalism, and how are they defined in relation to the means of production?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 17 2006, 03:08 AM
chimx: "...a monarchy is not necessary for feudalism to exist."

That is not what I understand feudalism to be.

If you wish to defend your claim, perhaps you will give us examples of feudalism without monarchies? Please use examples from the West before the Renaissance and Reformation--from before the rise of capitalism within feudal society that deliberately undermined the system. Please do not choose as your examples the mercantilism of Venice or Florence. If you use examples from the East, please use China before the concessions--before the foreign undermining of the system--so that we can find many different sources to verify your claim. It would be very difficult to have a discussion if you choose little-known examples.

It seems that you are saying that there was one or more accident of history where some locality had two or more evenly-powerful landlords--none of whom could dominate the others--so the highest government body was temporarily a court of these few big exploiters. Such a case would be the exception, not the rule. Each of the landlords would plot and scheme to destroy the others and grab those families' lands and chattel. Small royals frequently joined with their former-enemy kingdoms to destroy the bigger royals they formerly served, and to crush their rivals.

I freely concede the varying forms of rule under exceptional circumstances--such as the dominance of feudal landholding at the end of the Roman Empire that was still under the political rule of a slave state. Will you concede that these are exceptional circumstances that do not define the essence of landlordship? Will you concede that a monarchy IS necessary for feudalism to function normally and continue with stability, and that feudalism without monarchy is feudalism being undermined?

I hadn't thought of the Roman Empire's period of decline during the germanic invasions. That is a good example, but certainly is an exception. The feudal confederation under Holy Roman Empire comes to mind. Although you will no doubt argue that was a monarchy, the emperors were elected by seven electors (even more than seven--i believe--prior to the golden bull law) and were held accountable by noble councils, thus limiting the emperors power. Heredity didn't decide succession.

Of course, none of this is my point at all. Feudalism, though often (or always) ruled over by a monarch, was still an economic condition defined by a hierarchy of land holdings. This hierarchy was often headed by a king or queen, but a monarchical political system wasn't necessary for feudalism to theoretically exist. The existence of a monarchy has little if anything to do with what historians look at to determine periods of feudal rule, rather they focus their attention on the economic decentralization within the context of a specific social hierarchy.

[Comrade Martin]

None of that answered my basic question: How do we define the general classes of Feudalism, if there is general rule for Feudalist class organization, and if there isn't, why isn't there?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 17 2006, 08:21 PM
None of that answered my basic question: How do we define the general classes of Feudalism, if there is general rule for Feudalist class organization, and if there isn't, why isn't there?
I suppose one could carve out a kind of "core definition" of feudalism as a system that consists of (1) a small landed aristocracy plus (2) a large body of poor peasants compelled to work the lands of a particular aristocrat in exchange for military defense from the predations of other aristocrats.

It is a very militarized form of class society; military service is an obligation pretty much from "top to bottom".

It differs from "oriental despotism" in that there is no effective "supreme despot". There may be a "king" or an "emperor", but the aristocracy contains multiple concentrations of power and it is extraordinarily difficult (usually impossible) to get them to "pull together" in the "same direction".

All of the "lords" despoil their "serfs"...but every seriously ambitious "lord" seeks to despoil other "lords". Feudal societies, as a consequence, are not very "peaceful" as a rule.

However, when conditions arise that begin to favor trade, manufacture, banking, etc., the chronic tumult characteristic of feudalism begins to interfere with economic growth. At the same time, whatever nominal central authority that may exist will seek to use economic growth as a weapon against the insolence and perpetual violence of the aristocracy. Many countries have passed through a period of centralized despotism, the purpose of which was to curb the violent rivalries of the aristocracy "for good".

But such a despotic peace provides precisely the environment for capitalism to really "take hold" and "dig in"...which is not only more bad news for the landed aristocracy but subverts the power of traditional despotisms as well.

The bourgeoisie emerges as a revolutionary class...and regardless of what traditional institutions may be preserved (for a while), they are only "museum exhibits" and no longer count for anything in substantive political life.

Hope this makes sense. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Comrade Martin]

OKAY, thanks, but this leads in to the other points I made about dictatorships and so forth. What about when dictators come to power and appoint friends, associates, and other folks of interest in to seats of power and FORM a sort of pyramid, which hinders economic growth in a way similar to which you described?

Is that not Feudalism? And if so, it would explain Capitalist hostility to nations practicing this form, as well as why there are national rebellions which occur and often result in the replacement of that sort of government and social organization with a more Pro-Capitalist one.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Martin
What about when dictators come to power and appoint friends, associates, and other folks of interest into seats of power and FORM a sort of pyramid, which hinders economic growth in a way similar to which you described?

Despotisms are common throughout the history of human societies...and there undoubtedly are characteristics that most or all of them may share.

How one "classifies" them in the historical materialist paradigm depends primarily on the means of production and the relations of production that those despotisms are based on.

Roman Empire...based on slavery.

Feudalism...based on serfdom.

Third Reich...based on wage labor.

There is "overlap", to be sure. There were some wage-laborers in Rome and medieval England. There were "industrial" slaves in the Third Reich. I suspect that peasants in North Korea live in "serf-like" conditions...as they might also do in the really backward parts of rural China.

But we try to pick out the dominant forms of labor and exploitation in order to figure out "what's coming next". We assume a "progression": slavery -> serfdom -> wage labor. Based on the progression of technology and the means of production.

It's not "perfect", but it seems to explain more than other ways of looking at history.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Comrade Martin]

I don't know if I agree with your assertion there. While many classes may exist in any given situation, the ruling class tends to define the system itself. Given that there were wage-laborers even under Feudalism, albeit to a smaller degree than the slave and slave-owning classes themselves, means that there were, then, Proletarian wage-laborers and Bourgeois accumulators of value created through the process of wage-labor. However, at that point in time, the class in power was the Feudalist class, with its slave-owning system. Alternatively, we can look at the coexistance of Feudalism and Capitalism in America for quite some time until there was a full consumption of Feudalism by the Capitalist powers of the North.

I should think that the definining feature of the system itself is the ruling class at the time, because the ruling class expresses the dominant class usually, and if it doesn't, there needs to be a revolution to install the actually dominant class that seeks rulership.

[Floyce White]

I made a mistake. Britain was last invaded by the Normans in 1066. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215.

Comrade Martin: "The question I've really been asking is, what defines the classes of Feudalism?"

The same thing that defines class in any class society: the claim of ownership of things used by others, or the lack of any such claim. Families are either upper class or lower class. In feudalism there were castes as well that both upper- and lower-class people were born into and could not leave by any method other than military conquest or revolutionary overthrow of the society.

Comrade Martin: "All classes are defined by their relation to the means of production, to my understanding. So other than the obvious roles of slave owners and slaves (and serfs, etc.) in Feudalism, what other classes are typical of Feudalism, and how are they defined in relation to the means of production?"

You had it right with just "slave owners and slaves." Apply the very same "ownership of people" idea to ownership of tools, ownership of land, etc. There is one and only one relation to the means of production and reproduction that defines class: ownership of it. If you do, you're upper class. If you don't, you're lower class. Once you understand that the method and goal of property exchange is the accumulation of property, all the other questions get a whole lot easier to solve.

Feudalism is all about land tenure as the form of ownership and accumulation of property. The serfs, animals, grain stores, and so on, were just chattel upon the land. Whichever family owned the land, owned the chattel too.

The division of property into crown, church/censorate, and common is readily available for you to study. Same with the system of vassalage.

chimx: "The feudal confederation under Holy Roman Empire comes to mind. Although you will no doubt argue that was a monarchy, the emperors were elected by seven electors (even more than seven--I believe--prior to the Golden Bull law) and were held accountable by noble councils, thus limiting the emperors power. Heredity didn't decide succession."

Yet the princes were themselves monarchs of their respective duchies. The Emperor-designate process had to do with the German upper class staying united enough to fend off the Norsemen, Huns, and other enemies--enemies that were powerful enough to have destroyed the earlier system of dynastic succession.

chimx: "The existence of a monarchy has little if anything to do with what historians look at to determine periods of feudal rule, rather they focus their attention on the economic decentralization within the context of a specific social hierarchy."

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's possible for feudalism to be anything but decentralized. That's the natural condition of land. No point emphasizing it. The feuding process destroys centralization unless there are silver mines and coinage that inflates merchant trade.

The big feudal empires didn't have the kind of day-in, day-out presence to rule over localities that we see in today's nation-states.

redstar2000: "It differs from 'oriental despotism' in that there is no effective 'supreme despot.'"

China was somewhat of an exception--certainly due to the canals. The Censorate was also more efficient than the Church.

redstar2000: "But such a despotic peace provides precisely the environment for capitalism to really 'take hold' and 'dig in'...which is not only more bad news for the landed aristocracy but subverts the power of traditional despotisms as well."

Which is why the merchantry wanted big strong empires--to protect trade in an ever-widening area. That was my point with Chimx: the undermining of feudalism. That what the merchantry later made in big nation-states.

redstar2000: "At the same time, whatever nominal central authority that may exist will seek to use economic growth as a weapon against the insolence and perpetual violence of the aristocracy."

The purpose of property ownership is to accumulate property. When the dominant property form is land tenure, the only way to increase is to feud against neighbors and take it. That's the only economic growth that is possible. The merchantry aren't allowed to own land, so they're just an adulterating element that tries to use money to buy land and the product of land. For an emperor to use the growth of mercantilism to fight his rivals--that's the long, slow process of imperial decline.

Comrade Martin: "...when dictators come to power and appoint friends, associates, and other folks of interest in to seats of power and FORM a sort of pyramid...[is] that not Feudalism? And if so, it would explain Capitalist hostility to nations practicing this form..."

No, every clique of the ruling, biggest property-owning families appoints its business partners to high government positions. That occurs in bourgeois democracies just as well. The US is rich enough to buy every seat in every government body in the world--and to overthrow every government that doesn't go along. The Euros and Japanese aren't. That's why US capitalists want and get "free elections."

redstar2000: "We assume a 'progression:' slavery -> serfdom -> wage labor. Based on the progression of technology and the means of production."

YOU assume so. I don't.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 21 2006, 05:19 AM
Yet the princes were themselves monarchs of their respective duchies. The Emperor-designate process had to do with the German upper class staying united enough to fend off the Norsemen, Huns, and other enemies--enemies that were powerful enough to have destroyed the earlier system of dynastic succession.
Then look to the Charlemagne Dynasty that dominated Frankland, N. Italy and Germany. The decentralization of power away from the monarch to the nobility didn't occur until the 9th century with the Treaty of Verdun and the Treaty of Mersen. Monarchical power wasn't what designated the rise of feudalism in the 9th century, but rather the undermining of Monarchical power. The historical distinctions between the rise of both feudalism and monarchism imply that it is possible for both to exist autonomously from eachohther.