Feudalism

[Leo]

Feudalism is a phenomenon specific of Europe and Japan (perhaps a valid case can be made for the existence of a Tibetan feudalism, or a Hawaiian one; a case study would be necessary). The whole of the American continent, the whole of Africa, the whole of the "Muslism world", the whole of Australia, and most of Asia, never experienced feudalism.

With regards to Africa (except North Africa), the American continent and Australia, this is what I more or less know, but I certainly am not an expert on those places.

However, I don't think that is the case with the most or maybe half of Asia, and it definately is not the case with the Muslim world in the classical meaning of the term. Also, many consider what is called the Asiatic mode of production a variant of feudalism, which certainly expands the mode of production.

But anyway, this doesn't have to do with your point against stageism, which I agree with.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 11:31 am
However, I don't think that is the case with the most or maybe half of Asia, and it definately is not the case with the Muslim world in the classical meaning of the term.
Do you think there was a feudal society in medieval Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, etc?

I don't think so; the characteristic feudal landed nobility was absent in those places, where the agricultural land was always a monopoly of the State.


Also, many consider what is called the Asiatic mode of production a variant of feudalism, which certainly expands the mode of production.

Sure, but this is playing with the words. If we define "feudalism" as anything that is post-primitive communism, pre-capitalist, and not based on slavery, then of course everything is feudal between Jericho and Manchester, except Greece and Rome - including the Mayan cities, medieval China, the Ottoman Empire, and medieval Zimbabwe. What the point is, however, of a concept that, meaning everything, means nothing? And why should we call it feudalism, if for the most part it simply doesn't involve feuds? It would make more sence to say that feudalism is a particular case of a more general cathegory that includes the "Asiatic" mode of production as well.


But anyway, this doesn't have to do with your point against stageism, which I agree with.

Yes, I think this is the main point in discussion here. However, it seems that some of our members are so willing to take at face value wild assertions about societies that they have not studied at all, that telling them to read a little bit about that subject isn't misplaced here...

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Do you think there was a feudal society in medieval Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, etc?

Turkey and Persia, yes. I am not that sure about Egypt and India however.


I don't think so; the characteristic feudal landed nobility was absent in those places, where the agricultural land was always a monopoly of the State.

In Persia and Turkey, the system of land lordship existed. For example there was a time in which Anatolia was divided into different lordships ruled by independent feudal lords. One of them, the Ottoman lordship, unified them in a rather bloody manner.


Sure, but this is playing with the words. If we define "feudalism" as anything that is post-primitive communism, pre-capitalist, and not based on slavery, then of course everything is feudal between Jericho and Manchester, except Greece and Rome - including the Mayan cities, medieval China, the Ottoman Empire, and medieval Zimbabwe. What the point is, however, of a concept that, meaning everything, means nothing? And why should we call it feudalism, if for the most part it simply doesn't involve feuds? It would make more sence to say that feudalism is a particular case of a more general cathegory that includes the "Asiatic" mode of production as well.


Fair enough. Perhaps we should come up with a good word for that general category then.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 19, 2007 10:57 am

Do you think there was a feudal society in medieval Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, etc?

Turkey and Persia, yes. I am not that sure about Egypt and India however.


I don't think so; the characteristic feudal landed nobility was absent in those places, where the agricultural land was always a monopoly of the State.

In Persia and Turkey, the system of land lordship existed. For example there was a time in which Anatolia was divided into different lordships ruled by independent feudal lords. One of them, the Ottoman lordship, unified them in a rather bloody manner.


That is new for me. As far as I was informed, in Turkey land was a monopoly of the monarchy, and the local managers were rather servants of the State than independent nobles.

I would like to remark that I don't think feudalism is equivalent to disorder; various small principates warring each other do not constitute feudalism where there is not a hierarchy of vassalage.


Fair enough. Perhaps we should come up with a good word for that general category then.

I think that they are all "pre-capitalist non-slave class societies" or "class societies based on the exploitation of peasantry". But I think this debate would be better dealt with in a different thread, probably in the History forum.

Luís Henrique

[Guest1]

Actually, Marx addressed this, he considered india, ancient egypt, etc... and much of asia to be under a system where the state took collective stewardship of the lands (irrigation, etc...).

I haven't gotten too much into it, but it's a pretty low-development system, where villagers could be in one empire one day, another the next, a thousand years could pass and they would be handed from one to another, and nothing changes for them.

Anyways, it's called Asiatic Despotism. Some, such as the ottoman empire, were a mixture of Asiatic despotism and feudalism. Russia was as well, to a certain extent.

[Leo]

As far as I was informed, in Turkey land was a monopoly of the monarchy, and the local managers were rather servants of the State than independent nobles.

Later on, of course, most of them became very loyal to the central authority. But so did the feudal landlords in Europe, towards their monarchs, as soon as the kings had the power to crush them.

Still, there were quite striking exceptions. For example the ruler of Egypt was both militarily and politically almost independent from the Ottoman empire, and he even established a monarchy of governorship of his own.


I would like to remark that I don't think feudalism is equivalent to disorder; various small principates warring each other do not constitute feudalism where there is not a hierarchy of vassalage.


Various feudal lordships emerging does not mean disorder by itself either. It rather means a political and military structure in which alliences and wars are based on the relations of different feudal landlord families. Such extreme structure was tried to be prevented by the central authority Ottoman Empire later on by different manners, but the essence of the feudal land relationships were necessarily preserved. Indeed the current bourgeoisie in some parts of Middle East today, especially in Kurdistan, was built upon the former feudal landlord families. Now those families all became huge corporations or lead political parties and governments, still most still do have some sort of private armies.

[Luís Henrique]

I split the posts above from the "What Kind of Marxism is Leninism" thread, so that the discussion on pre-capitalist modes of production can continue without harming the topic there.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

What hasn't been mentioned here is the relative lack of economic and cultural interaction between the various societies around the world during this period. This, in large part, explains the diversity of social systems that erupted after "primitive communism" (and I don't know what to call the social system of the Native Americans in both North and South America).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 22, 2007 05:12 am
What hasn't been mentioned here is the relative lack of economic and cultural interaction between the various societies around the world during this period. This, in large part, explains the diversity of social systems that erupted after "primitive communism" (and I don't know what to call the social system of the Native Americans in both North and South America).
The usual position is that Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs had an Asiatic/tributary mode of production (this superceeded the notion that their societies were feudal), while most people in North and South Americas (Navajos, Tupis, etc) lived under primitive socialism.

Whether the "Asian mode of production" of Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas is truly a single mode of production, not to speak whether it is the same as India's under the Mogols, medieval Persia, or China, is a different, and unsolved, issue.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 22, 2007 01:00 pm
while most people in North and South Americas (Navajos, Tupis, etc) lived under primitive socialism.
I think you mean primitive communism, as socialism implies a class-society, the exact thing that was lacking in those societies.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 22, 2007 02:49 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 22, 2007 02:49 pm)
Luís [email protected] 22, 2007 01:00 pm
while most people in North and South Americas (Navajos, Tupis, etc) lived under primitive socialism.
I think you mean primitive communism, as socialism implies a class-society, the exact thing that was lacking in those societies. [/b]
Maybe, though I have been acquainted to the following relationship:

Hunter-gatherer paleolithic societies -> Primitive Communism
Herder-farmer neolithic societies -> Primitive Socialism

Not sure if the choice of words is good, but the distinction is certainly necessary.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 22, 2007 03:10 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 22, 2007 03:10 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 22, 2007 02:49 pm

Luís [email protected] 22, 2007 01:00 pm
while most people in North and South Americas (Navajos, Tupis, etc) lived under primitive socialism.
I think you mean primitive communism, as socialism implies a class-society, the exact thing that was lacking in those societies.
Maybe, though I have been acquainted to the following relationship:

Hunter-gatherer paleolithic societies -> Primitive Communism
Herder-farmer neolithic societies -> Primitive Socialism

Not sure if the choice of words is good, but the distinction is certainly necessary.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Why is the distinction necessary, in terms of class-relations?

The development of society might have been different (the latter being more advanced), but both lacked a class-system, so I believe primitive communism suffices to cover both of them.

When one wishes to go more in-depth into the question, then the distinction could be made of Hunter-gatherer and Herder-farmer societies.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 22, 2007 03:22 pm
Why is the distinction necessary, in terms of class-relations?

The development of society might have been different (the latter being more advanced), but both lacked a class-system, so I believe primitive communism suffices to cover both of them.

When one wishes to go more in-depth into the question, then the distinction could be made of Hunter-gatherer and Herder-farmer societies.
I think that Neolithic societies had already the elements for bearing forth social classes, because they effectively had common property of land. While Paleolithic societies had no land property, and so could have not split into classes.

Luís Henrique

[kromando33]

I actually consider this to be an especially important area of discussion, and am preparing a post for this thread on it.

[black magick hustla]

LH actually, you can make the argument that alot of mexican tribes like the aztecs were slave based economies. i am straining really hard to remember my mexican history classes, but i think the buildings were mostly made by slaves. the lands of the noblemen were treated by slaves, while peasant land was owned collectively.

furthermore, boh colonial and postcolonial latim america had very feudalistic modes of production. the virreinato of nueva españa, i believe, was a very traditional feudalistic mode, while post-colonial mexico was dominated by hacendados and caciques who owned most of the land, while the state was extremely fractured and its only prescence was the military.

[kromando33]

Well Africa never fully had a feudal period, the Arab areas did under Ottoman influence, and I believe a small amount did under other European influence. But for the most part it was primitive communalism, this was replaced by the bourgeois in the form of colonialism. These days Africa is ruled by the local bourgeois created by the industrialization under colonialism. I think because of this it's important to let the African proletarian movements develop on their own, and not impose on them a centralized 'internationalism' at the behest of first world communist movements, that stinks to me of imperialism and the kind of social-imperialism engaged in Africa by the Soviets and Cubans.

In my defense of 'Socialism in One Country' I just posted I deal with this, but my point is that proletarian development over the world is horribly uneven, so naturally nations will have to develop their own socialism after revolution based on their own national conditions and degree of proletarianization. Either way it matters little, the bourgeois must bring the peasants and other classes into the cities and make them proletarians, that is the only way they can keep up that level of overproduction. On the other hand if the socialist revolution happens when the proletariat is very small (as in Russia and China) then the incoming proletarian state simply must take measures to increase their own numbers through industrialization, and thus protect their own classocracy.

[Devrim]

That is new for me. As far as I was informed, in Turkey land was a monopoly of the monarchy, and the local managers were rather servants of the State than independent nobles.

Technically you are right, but when the task of managing becomes, as it did, a hereditary post, you get something very close to feudalism.
Devrim

[chimx]

Anyways, it's called Asiatic Despotism. Some, such as the ottoman empire, were a mixture of Asiatic despotism and feudalism. Russia was as well, to a certain extent.

How is Asiatic Despotism distinct from feudalism in terms of class relations and production?

[Luís Henrique]

How is Asiatic Despotism distinct from feudalism in terms of class relations and production?

In "Asiatic despotism" all land is the monopoly of the State, and is managed by a State bureaucracy. In a feudal society, there is a chain of vassalage relationships among the nobles, that ties them to the suzerain above them. The positions within the vassalage chain are hereditary, and, in principle, cannot be taken back arbitrarily.

Also, in a feudal society, the peasantry under the nobility's power normally consists of separate families, with no tribal or clanic links to each other, while in "Asiatic despotism" the peasantry often consists of clans and tribes still behaving as a primitive commune in most aspects. Similarly, the State bureaucracy are often clanic or tribal and maintain communal ties among them.

The concept of feudalism is much more precise than that of "Asiatic despotism", which quite probably refers to more than just one mode of production.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

In "Asiatic despotism" all land is the monopoly of the State, and is managed by a State bureaucracy.

How would you say that bureaucracy tends to run? As was mentioned, the Ottoman empire ran this bureaucracy through hereditary positions. In other situations was management taken from a pool of an aristocratic class, or was there a meritocracy system that allowed for upward social mobility?

If its the former, than is the way the system of Asiatic Despotism really that different in practice; that is, in terms of production relationships?

[proleterian fist]

There was a feodalist order formerly and I think that it was a different type of capitalism.
Rich class produces nothing but takes all of the product and gives villager what he needs for not do die.Villager was just like a slave.
Atatürk has started a war against feodalism,too. and we can consider that he won it.