Great Transformation: long journey towards capitalism
(Report of the fourth lecture, delivered on June 13, 2013)
In the fourth lecture ‘Great Transformation: long journey towards
capitalism’, Ashfaq Saleem Mirza described different phases Europe
passed through and the socio-economic conditions of 16 and 17
centuries which facilitated evolution of capitalism. Europe, which
prior to the 16th and 17th centuries was primarily a feudal society,
moved upward in a spiral. He also highlighted that social organization
of the feudal society in Europe which was constituted by the lords,
vassals, serfs and slaves. Elaborating each segment of the European
society at that time, Mirza added that Lord was the one who had the
right over property and the serfs and vassal was a feudal tenant who
vowed obedience to his lord and in return held land under him. The
social organization was based on the relation of the lord to vassal and
hold of land in feud where serfs were supposed to work. Serfs were
the peasants bound to a particular lord for whom they were required
to work and to whom they owed labour, taxes and dues. A serf was
not a slave as he had his own holding whereas slaves were considered
to be private property of the lord. Most of the slaves were initially
war prisoners, owned outright by the lord, but had no right at all. The
lord had the sovereignty over the lives of the slaves and in certain
cases had the right to hang or kill them. Feudal lords were mainly
from royalty, nobility and clergy. Mirza also said that etymologically
the word ‘feud’ originated from the word ‘fee’, which later used to
denote land or other property granted by the lord as a reward for
services. In modern English it may also means payment for work
done. The hub of feudal system was manorial estate consisting of
thousands of acres owned by a feudal lord, spiritual or temporal. The
lord in the social hierarchy, after the royal authority, was not only
landlord but also protector, judge, police chief and administrator for
the public. He was also responsible for providing physical security
against brigands or other lords, as well as some economic security in
times of distress, Mirza elaborated further.
Explaining the concept property in vogue at that time, Mirza said that
concept of property, which dominated Roman private law, involved
the right to use the object in question, to receive its fruits and to
dispose it freely. Thus owner was regarded as indivisible and unique
absorbing the object owned. It was maxim that there could not be
two lords over the same object.
Later, as absentee landlords, he still received, by fix contract, his
regular yearly dues or on definite occasions and the vassals continued
to administer the land. It was usually hereditary and, in case of no
heir or on breaking the terms of contract, the land reverted to the
immediate control of the lord. But with the advent of new trade and
scientific innovations, a mercantile class emerged which started
making inroads in the old feudal system. The itinerant merchant
spread trade across the continent and introduced a spirit of owning
property. Production techniques in agriculture were improved. More
use of iron plough gave rise to new branches of field cultivation like
viticulture, wine-making and market gardening. The improvement in
livestock, husbandry and its ancillary branches like butter and cheese
production also took place. Meadows and pastures were extended
and improved. As a result, trade further evolved as new crafts like
armoury, nail-maker, knife-maker, blacksmith, shoemaker saddle
makers and others appeared. Commodity production, production of
articles for exchange based on private ownership of means of
production and personal labour gradually expanded, changing the
outlook of European feudal society altogether. This situation
introduced monetization of dues within the manorial system and
paved way for free labour, which a capitalist or a landlord could hire
in lieu of money. The people started migrating to the cities for earning
as labourers and subsequently process of urbanization took place. The
cities began growing bigger where many craftsmen under one roof
could produce different kinds of commodities for commercial use. The
Europe was in ferment as result and started changing rapidly. Mirza
further added that to meet the requirement of the craftsmen, which
were outside the ambit of manor, they were brought from the town.
The organization controlling these craftsmen was called guilds. No
business was possible unless one belonged to a guild. Guilds were a
union of managers and not of the workers. Dominant figure in the
guild was guild master. Every unit had its own guild master. Together
they made guild government, laid down the rules concerning the
internal conduct of affairs. Mirza, however, said that there was one
drawback as it lacked expansion. It contended for meager income,
certainly it was not intended to become a big businessman or a
monopolist. The rules were strict and penalties were discouraging to
support the market economy. Capitalism developed through
merchant capitalists and they began systematic buying up of
commodities from the small producers, supplying them with raw
material and advancing money to them. They brought craftsmen
under one roof in workshops or small factory where they proceeded
to work as wage workers. Thus merchant capital was transformed
into finance capital and industrial capital and merchant into industrial
capitalist.
The new socio-economic formation replaced feudalism. Capitalism is
based on private ownership of means of production. Capitalist uses it
for private gains or as Marxists says exploitation of wage workers.
Later, a participant raised a question that though there had been
strife between the old feudal system and new emerging capitalism,
but what made evolve new legal system based on capitalist economy.
Mirza said that craftsmen and new mercantile class were supported
by the royal as they brought money to the royal authority in the form
of taxes and octroi. The new legal system evolved to regulate
factories, the relationship between the factory owners and the
labourers on the one hand and finance system on the other which was
a need of the hour.
The lecture was based on the following bibliography:
1- Edited. An outline of Social Development Part II. Progress
Publishers Moscow. (Undated).
2- Nikitin, P. Fundamentals of Political Economy. Progress Publishers
Moscow 1966.
3- Beud, Michel. A History of Capitalism 1500-2000. Akkor Books Dehli
2004.
4- Taylor, David. Mastering Economic and Social History. MacMillan
London 1989.
5-Koenigsberger and Mosse. Europe in the Sixteenth Century.
Longman Essex 1987.
6- Heilbroner, R.L. The making of Economic Society. Prentice-Hall NJ,
1975.
7- Geoffrey, Treasure. The Making of Modern Europe 1648-1780.
London Routledge, 2000.
8- Braudel, F. Civilization and Capitalism-- 15th-18th centuries. Vol. I.
London, Phoenix Press 2002.
9-Hobsbawn, Eric. On History. Abacus London, 2007.