Transition to Capitalism: Theoretical Issues
In Chapter 3, I raised certain issues pertaining to theories of transition from feudalism to capitalism. I considered this process only in terms of problems arising from neglect of the role of class struggle, rather than confronting head-on questions posed by the ernergence of capitalism. At the time I merely observed that the dominant Marxist response has been to introduce capitalism as an untheorised external agent. Traditionally, Marxists have analysed the transition from feudalism to capitalism as a linear succession, making no analytic distinction between mode of production and social formation as concepts. This view of transition generated auto-effective conceptions of change, either in the form of internal dissolution (Dobb) or external dissolution (Sweezy), in which a theoretical linearity corresponds to a linear chronology in history. In linear conceptions of transition the role of capitalism remains untheorised, as I have shown. This inherent theoretical uncertainty and ambiguity is reflected in Dobb’s and Sweezy’s writings. Dobb is unable to integrate his otherwise excellent studies of elements of capitalism into his analysis of transition.1 For him, merchant capita1 was parasitic upon and integrated within feudalism, its existence was predicated upon feudal extraction of surplus and rested upon the institution of feudal monopolies over trade. Similarly, petty-commodity production was a ‘subordinate element’ in feudalism, even in the period of interregnum – the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Feudal monopolistic contro1 in the form of guilds was implemented over craft production, while in the agrarian sphere petty-commodity production was directly assimilated into the feudal system by the exertion of feudal power.
KeywordsEurope Posit Undercut Bali Monopoly
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 9.9. K. Tribe voices such a criticism of Marxists who look at English development – ‘Capitalism and Industrialisation’, Intervention, vol. 5 (1975).Google Scholar
- 10.10. This feature is emphasised by P. Anderson in ‘The Origins of the Present Crisis’, NLR, no. 23 (1964).Google Scholar
- 14.14. Here, see the now-classic debate between Miliband and Poulantzas, contained in brief in R. Blackburn (ed.), Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory (London: Fontana, 1972).Google Scholar
- 15.15. See P. Hirst’s lucid critique of Anderson for this point – ‘The Uniqueness of the West’, Economy and Society, vol. 4, no. 4 (1975).Google Scholar
- 17.17. E. K. Trimberger, ‘State Power and Modes of Production: Implications of the Japanese Transition to Capitalism’, Insurgent Sociologist, vol. 7, no. 2 (1977).Google Scholar
- 19.19. M. Kimmel, ‘Absolutism in Crisis: the English Civil War and the Fronde’, in W. L. Goldfrank (ed.), The World System of Capitalism: Past and Present, vol. II: Political Economy of the World-system Annuals (London: Sage, 1979).Google Scholar
- 20.20. T. Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge Uhiversity Press, 1979) pp. 24–33.Google Scholar
- 21.21. H. Draper, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, vol. I: State and Bureaucracy (New York: Monthly Review, 1977) pp. 475–83.Google Scholar
- 22.22. A. D. Lublinskaya, ‘The Contemporary Bourgeois Conception of Absolute Monarchy’, Economy and Society, vol. 1, no. 1 (1972).Google Scholar