The birth of a new feudal system was accompanied by an intensive increase in the economic power of large landowners, who ensured an increase in the total volume of production in the country, and at the same time the selfish appropriation of all income. The strengthening of the economic power of the feudal lords was simultaneously accompanied by the strengthening of the political positions of landowners, who subordinated the structures of executive power to themselves and significantly influenced the determination of the military policy of the state.

Conscious of themselves as a class, landowners gradually created their own corporate system. Let's call it feudal law. However, in different countries it is referred to by different terms. Thus, in Germany the term “feudal law” is used ( German"lehn" - piece of land). In Russia, the term “local law” has taken root, derived from the word “estate”, which was the name of a plot of government, state land given by the sovereign for personal possession. service man for service. However, this does not mean that only this form of land ownership existed in Russia. No, there was patrimonial land ownership, and after the peasant reform In 1861, peasant land ownership and others began to appear. Local land ownership, however, was the most typical for Russia.

The designation of feudal law in different terms is only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying part, which is much more voluminous, is the different nature of feudal corporate norms in different countries. That is why a review of feudal corporate law (as well as other estate law corporate systems) can only be given the most general and fragmentary. Let us point out some general features of feudal corporate law that existed in any traditional society.

1. Subject of feudal law. Feudal (local) law regulated procedure for acquiring land ownership and relationships between land owners. Of course, the backbone of feudal law was the first group of relations.

There are many differences between the procedures for acquiring land holdings in Western Europe and in Russia. The main difference is that in Western Europe it was based on a system of patronage and the principle of subfeudalization, according to which every land holder must have a lord (otherwise on the principle of “there is no land without a lord”), while in Russia the land was recognized as the property of the sovereign and he was free to dispose of it, bestowing certain parts of it “to his servants,” i.e. people in his service. This fundamentally affected the character political system in Russia. For this reason, the development of democratic principles in Russia, compared with Western European states, was delayed by many centuries. However, what was common to all countries was that feudal law enshrined exclusive privileges of feudal lords, nobility, and then clergy on land. Free peasant ownership of land, which existed in reality early stage the emergence of the feudal system, including during the period of the disintegration of the Roman Empire, practically disappeared. True, feudal property rights were combined with elements of communal peasant land use (forests, meadows).

Feudal law secured and fragmentation of land ownership. According to its norms, land was not in the unlimited ownership of one person, but acted as the property of two or more feudal lords and/or as the property of the state (sovereign). At the same time, the lord, the sovereign retained certain administrative and judicial rights and control over the disposal of the transferred plot of land. Only later did the right to own land begin to transform into ownership and inheritance. This happened when a rule appeared in feudal law establishing the limitation of possession of land (in different countries the limitation period was different - from 10 to 30 years). In a word, feudal law consolidated the hierarchical structure of feudal land ownership and, accordingly, the structure of the feudal class.

The relations between the feudal lords were also important, during the implementation of which numerous disputes arose. If in Russia all these disputes were settled by the powerful and harsh hand of the tsar (all feudal lords were considered servants of the sovereign!), then in Western Europe the situation was fundamentally different. Often, controversial issues between feudal lords were settled by force, and the king’s “decree” was nothing for many feudal lords, since some large feudal lords were much more powerful than him.

2. Contents of feudal law. Its main backbone consisted of various types of personal duties of feudal lords to masters(senior, sovereign). Later they turned into property obligations. Thus, direct economic domination took the form of taxes, which were levied on food, furs, etc. This gave the vassals much more personal freedom and economic independence.

What personal duties did feudal lords have to bear in relation to their lords?

There were many of them: the obligation to perform military service, the right of a lord to marry the daughter of a vassal or give her in marriage, the right of a lord to personal assistance vassal if needed, etc.

The content of feudal law fully corresponded to its main goal. The main goal of feudal (manorial) law was protection of land tenure. Thus, gathering for their congresses, Western European feudal lords formulated their demands royal power, agreed to bear certain duties to the state and stipulated, and tried to do this in writing, the obligation of the royal power not to establish new duties for them without the general consent of the feudal lords. In Russia, the nobility fought for a long time to transform local land ownership into hereditary one, and only in the 18th century. this rule was finally established. The regulations of 1831 gave noble societies the right to make representations to the higher authorities not only about their class needs, but also about stopping local abuses and generally eliminating inconveniences noticed in local government, and thus made the provincial noble society intercessor about the needs of the entire province .

3. Form of feudal law. Many feudal norms were unwritten character. And this is not surprising. Feudal law grew out of customs. An example is the establishment of fief holding by taking an oath. It went like this: With his hand on the Bible, the vassal swore allegiance to his lord. Often after this, the lord handed him some object, for example, a flag, cross or key, which was supposed to symbolize the establishment of fief tenure, i.e. feudal grant.

Also used contract form settlement of rights for the transfer of land ownership, which took place, as a rule, between equal feudal lords and often meant nothing more than the purchase and sale of land. Agreements were also concluded for the acquisition of certain legal status(an oath of allegiance agreement or an oath of allegiance agreement without an oath of allegiance). Although it must be said that the content of the oath agreement itself, i.e. his rights and obligations were again prescribed by common law and could not be changed at the will of the parties. Only consent to enter into this kind of contractual relationship was a contractual aspect here. Moreover, the covenant of fidelity could not be terminated by mutual consent of the parties because it was based on a sacred vow of lifelong commitment.

Subsequently government takes on himself written recording of the rules acquisition and implementation of land ownership. Later, the norms of feudal law began to be written down in many charters and city statutes. Over time, feudal customs, both unwritten and written, came to the attention of Western legal scholars, who sought to determine their basic principles. So, between 1095 and 1130. The Milanese consul Umberto de' Orto wrote a book called "Customs of the Feuds", where he tried to systematically present feudal law. As an example of a written statement of the norms of feudal law, one can cite Cathedral Code(1649), which prohibited people of non-service classes, such as boyar serfs, from buying and mortgaging land.

4. Justice in feudal cases. It wore collective, and class character. This applies to both Western Europe and Russia.

Locals in the West public assemblies began to be replaced feudal courts, which were headed by lords or their representatives (seigneurial courts). These courts tried dependent vassals. In practice, it looked like this: in the event of any dispute, the lord summoned all his vassals (holders). Presiding over such a meeting, the lord exerted a significant influence on all those present and, of course, tried by any means to carry out his decision. In addition to controversial situations, feudal courts also considered other issues common to all. It turned out that justice was a way of governing land ownership, and the management itself took the form of exercising jurisdiction through court hearings.

However, if a vassal disagreed, he could file a complaint in his master's court. The emerging hierarchy of judicial jurisdictions in Western Europe, it was reinforced, as G. Berman believes, by a love of litigiousness, which was considered an indicator of valor 1 . Subsequently it played important role in the formation of the legal consciousness of the West, which differs from the legal consciousness of many countries, and especially Russia, in its strong commitment to the formal protection of rights as a way of resolving disputes.

In Russia, the judicial power separated from the administrative power very late. The first such attempt was made by Peter I. Then judicial power was returned to governors and governors. Only under Catherine II was separation carried out judiciary and class courts were introduced at the lower and middle levels. In a word, in the administration of justice the principle was enforced: only courts of equals can judge.

The tradition of collective justice is quite deeply rooted, while the tradition of professional legal proceedings is legally constituted officials there was almost none (in Western Europe until the 12th century, and in Russia much later). Feudal courts were not simply bodies for resolving disputes. These were a kind of assemblies that advised and made decisions on many issues of general class interest, and not just bodies that resolved specific disputes. For example, a seigneurial court might be asked to determine the amount of payments made by vassals to support a military campaign, or to declare rules for the use of common fields and forests, or to agree to the granting of a new fief to the holder, or to expel another for failure to fulfill obligations. The collective nature of feudal courts was partly due to the peculiarities of the evidence taken into account, such as, for example, judicial combat and trial. During their implementation, controversial issues arose. A jury was often appointed to resolve them. The procedure was oral and informal and required a sufficient crowd of people to record its results.

Thus, feudal (local) law was an independent legal system. It, of course, was objective in nature, since it followed from the existing economic conditions life of society. As it gradually began to acquire a written character and then become systematized, it began to grow. The specificity of its norms increased, the uniformity of its principles gradually absorbed local differences. And finally, then it organically merged into whole system national rights.

1 See: Berman G. Western tradition of law: the era of formation. M., 1994. P. 294.

8.4. Manorial (serfdom) law

Feudalism is a socio-economic formation that established itself and existed in Western Europe in the V-XVII centuries. Feudalism is considered a universal stage through which almost all peoples have passed, but in its most classical form it manifested itself in Western Europe.

The main features characteristic of European feudalism:

1. Agrarian type of economy.

2. Foundation economic system constitutes a large feudal landholding, which is of a privileged nature.

3. The main classes are feudal landowners and dependent peasant producers who have their own farms, are dependent on the landowners, are holders of the master's land, and pay land rent.

4. Social heterogeneity of society, which is manifested in the division into noble and ignoble, laity and church ministers, as well as townspeople and peasants.

Class affiliation arose from birth and determined a person’s status in society: the principle was enshrined in law social inequality, numerous class restrictions, privileges, monopolies.

5. Hierarchy of the feudal class - the vassal-seigneurial ladder, which included the noble (service) class, while lower vassals were subordinate to their superiors. The top of the vassal-seignorial ladder is the head of state (emperor, king, prince). Subordinate vassals were bound to superiors by an oath of allegiance, the obligation of military service, and the right to hold land.

The feudal structure was formed, as a rule, over a long period of time and significant remnants of the slave system remained in it for a long time (for example, serfs in France).

Ways of formation feudal relations:

1. Synthetic path: feudal relations are formed on the basis of the decomposition of the slave system (Italy, Southern France, Spain) - an accelerated path of development of the feudal formation, the preservation of individual elements of the slave system.

2. Non-synthesis (pure path): the feudal system was formed on the basis of the decomposition of clan (community) relations (Northern and Eastern Europe). Characterized by long-term preservation of the community.

The following factors contributed to the development of feudal relations:

The fall of the Western Roman Empire, the formation of numerous barbarian kingdoms on its territory;

Christianization European countries(V-VIII centuries);

Wars of conquest.

More on the topic §1. General characteristics of the feudal system, ways of its formation:

1. End of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century. The state-political flourishing of Ancient Rus', the consolidation of the feudal social system and the formation of the preconditions for feudal fragmentation.

Feudal social system, which replaced the slave system ( Or the primitive communal system (in countries where there was no slave system).), existed for many centuries - more than 1200 years. In some countries, for example in England and France, the era of feudalism began immediately after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (5th century), and ended during the period of bourgeois revolutions (in England in the 17th century, in France in the 18th century). In other countries, the beginning of the feudal system dates back to a later time. In Russia, for example, feudalism existed since the 9th century. before the peasant reform of 1861; in Central Asia - from the 7th century. up to 1917 various countries feudalism had its own characteristics, but in general almost all countries went through this phase of social development.

In this chapter we will touch upon the development of science and technology in the Middle Ages, i.e., a period that mainly corresponds to the time of feudalism in Western Europe (late 5th - mid-17th centuries). Last centuries of feudal social formation, when the development of productive forces had already outgrown the framework of feudal public relations, are described in the next chapter. The Renaissance is a transitional period from medieval culture to the culture of modern times and, what is especially important for us, the period of the birth of modern science.

At first glance, it may seem somewhat strange that the feudal system, with its natural scattered economy, low and slowly developing technology, turned out to be more progressive compared to the previous social system, under which the largest state in the history of mankind was created - Ancient Rome, which existed for many years. centuries.

But such doubt would be the result of an insufficiently deep, hasty approach. In fact, the feudal system was truly a step forward compared to the slave system. Its main advantage is the significantly greater interest of the direct producer in the results of his own labor. That is why the feudal system was the next stage of social development after the slave system. The production relations of the era of feudalism were more consistent with the level of development of productive forces achieved at that time. Further growth of productive forces within the framework of the feudal system inevitably led to bourgeois revolutions, to the replacement of feudalism with capitalism.

Under the feudal system (the name “feudal system” comes from the Latin feodum - land granted by a lord to his vassal, feo-dalis - owner of a fief), the owner of the land, the feudal lord, was the full owner of the land and the partial owner of the dependent or serf peasant. The feudal system is characterized by the following features. The land belonged noble class- large landowners, and its use was carried out on small peasant plots, which were provided to the peasants by the feudal lords under certain conditions. The peasants - the direct producers - were attached to the land, became enslaved, and their dependence on the feudal lords increased; Coercion was used to force peasants to work for the feudal lord. The feudal economy was subsistence and closed. The majority of the population lived in the village, engaged mainly in agricultural labor, as well as home craft production, primarily in the processing of agricultural products. The technology of agricultural and handicraft production was low.

Under the feudal system, there were two main classes: the ruling class of feudal lords and the class of the peasantry exploited by them. The feudal lords, depending on the size of their wealth (the amount of land they owned), occupied a very specific position on the steps of the then existing hierarchical ladder. At the top step of this ladder stood the main feudal lord - the monarch. Following the monarch, at lower levels, stood the largest feudal lords, and lower - smaller ones. A higher-ranking feudal lord was a patron (senior) in relation to a lower-standing feudal lord - a vassal. Vassals helped their lords in case of war (and wars happened often). A privileged social stratum was formed - knighthood, on the basis of which the class of nobility subsequently arose.

The entire feudal hierarchical ladder was, of course, based on the exploitation of the peasants. The exploitation of peasants initially most often took the form of working for the feudal lord (corvee labor): for the use of the land, the serf peasant was obliged to work part of the time for free for the owner, on his land, using his own tools of production. In this case, the peasant was interested in working with the greatest efficiency (highly productive) only when he worked for himself, on his land, but when he worked for the master, he had no interest. Even the introduction of brutal means of coercion did not achieve the goal.

Later, another, “more perfect” form of exploitation was used - quitrent in kind. The peasant worked only on his own farm, and gave the feudal lord part of the resulting product in its natural form. In the last period of feudalism, when trade and money circulation were widely developed, quitrent in kind was completely or partially replaced by cash.

The main purpose of the state in the era of feudalism, as in all others historical periods, characterized by the existence of antagonistic classes, was the protection of the interests of the exploiting class, in this case the feudal landowners, strengthening its power over the exploited class - the peasants. Although the main function feudal state remained unchanged, the form of government underwent changes. From large, early feudal monarchies through small, fragmented states (principalities) - to centralized states - absolute monarchies.

The description of the feudal system will be incomplete if we ignore the role of the church. There has never been a time in the entire history of mankind when the importance of the church was so great. The Church was then the largest landowner; numerous monasteries owned vast lands. The clergy, together with the nobility, constituted the ruling class. Religion had a privileged position in the sphere of spiritual life and ideology. Morality, philosophy, and art were subordinated to the theological worldview. It was the church that created the shameful (hard to say otherwise) institution - the Inquisition (from the Latin inquisitio - search), the purpose of which was to eradicate heresy; convicts were publicly burned at the stake.

During the era of feudalism, major popular, mainly peasant, uprisings and wars took place. The disenfranchised, oppressed peasantry repeatedly rose up against their enslavers. The largest peasant uprisings were: Jacquerie (from the French Jacques Bonhome - Jacques the Simpleton - a nickname that was given to the peasant by the nobles) - a peasant, anti-feudal uprising in France, XIV century; peasant uprising led by Wat Giler in England, XIV century; peasant war in Germany, 16th century; peasant uprisings in Russia, led by I. Bolotnikov and S. Razin, 17th century; E. Pugachev, XVIII century.

IN feudal cities most The population consisted of workers and craftsmen, as well as residents engaged in trade. There were also frequent uprisings of the exploited, poor part of the population against the urban rich. Over time, cities grew, craft production developed more, trade became an independent industry, and the wealth and power of merchants increased.

Despite the slow increase in the technical level of production and the equally slow increase in its scale, over the long years of the feudal system the productive forces developed much more than in a slave society. In agriculture, the three-field system, advanced for that time, became widespread ( With a three-field farming system, arable land is divided, as is known, into three fields: winter crops are sown in one of them, spring crops are sown in the second, and the third remains free (fallow). The zeros are rotated annually.); grapes, cotton, vegetables, and fruits began to be grown on a large scale (except for grain crops); agricultural production tools such as a plow made of iron and other iron products were used, and livestock farming became more developed.

The production of metals (especially iron) and metal products increased significantly, blast furnaces appeared, the water wheel became widespread as an engine, the weaving loom was invented, and much more. Handicraft production became increasingly developed, manufactory (an enterprise where division of labor and handicraft means of production were used) appeared, trade and usury expanded.

In a word, the possibility and necessity of replacing feudalism with capitalism was created.

A necessary prerequisite for the emergence of capitalism is, as is known, the initial accumulation of capital - historical process, which has two sides: 1) the education of a large number of people deprived of their own means of production, for whom the only way existence - work for hire (selling one's labor); 2) accumulation by a small number of people (primarily merchants and moneylenders) great wealth sufficient for the creation of capitalist enterprises. The initial accumulation of capital occurred in Western Europe mainly in the 16th - 18th centuries.

On this occasion, K. Marx wrote: “The process that creates the capitalist relation cannot be anything other than the process of separating the worker from ownership of the conditions of his work - a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of production and means of subsistence into capital , on the other hand, are the direct producers of hired workers. Consequently, the so-called primitive accumulation is nothing more than the historical process of separation of the producer from the means of production" ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 23, pp. 726 - 727.).

And further: “The discovery of gold and silver mines in America, the extermination, enslavement and burial alive of the native population in mines, the first steps towards the conquest and plunder of the East Indies, the transformation of Africa into a reserved hunting ground for blacks - such was the dawn of the capitalist era of production. These idyllic processes are the main moments of primitive accumulation" ( There, p. 760.).

We have cited, or rather recalled, the main features of the feudal system in order to better trace the development of science and technology during this period.

Feudalism (French féodalité, from Late Latin feodum, feudum - possession, estate, fief) is a class antagonistic socio-economic formation, representing the middle link of an integral dialectical process of change of socio-economic formations: the era of feudalism lies between the slave system and capitalism. In the history of many peoples, feudalism was the first class-antagonistic formation (that is, it directly followed the primitive communal system).

The economic system of feudalism, with all the diversity of its forms in different countries and at different times, is characterized by the fact that the main means of production - land - is in the monopoly ownership of the ruling class of feudal lords (sometimes almost completely merging with the state), and the economy is carried out by forces and technical means small producers - peasants, one way or another dependent on land owners. Thus, the feudal mode of production is based on the combination of large land ownership of the feudal class and small individual farming of direct producers - peasants, exploited with the help of extra-economic coercion (the latter is as characteristic of feudalism as economic coercion is for capitalism).

Thus, the most important relationships The feudal mode of production is land relations. Land relations form the basic production relation of the feudal mode of production. Feudal land relations were characterized by the monopoly of large land owners - feudal lords - on land.

Most of the land owned by feudal lords consisted of many plots of land that were used by peasants, which gave them the opportunity to conduct their own individual farming on this land. The allotment nature of peasant land use is an important feature of land relations under the dominance of the feudal mode of production. Since the land was the property of the feudal lords, the peasant could be driven off the land at any time. However, feudalism was characterized by a tendency to attach the peasant to the land. Allotment land use of peasants was in most cases hereditary. Thus, in feudal society the direct producer was not the owner of the land, but only its holder, he only used it, processed it.

On the lands of the feudal lords there were not only numerous villages and hamlets, but also a significant number of cities. Therefore, not only peasants, but also urban artisans fell into the sphere of exploitation of the feudal lords. Feudal property meant the complete dominance of the feudal lord within a certain territory, including power over the people inhabiting this territory. Feudal land relations were inextricably linked with relations of personal dependence.

Relationships of personal dependence permeate the entire socio-economic system of feudalism. “...We find people here,” K. Marx pointed out, “who are all dependent - serfs and feudal lords, vassals and overlords, laymen and priests. Personal dependence is characterized here as social relations material production, as well as areas of life based on it.”

The relationship of personal dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords (landowners) acted as an inter-class, antagonistic relationship, pitting direct producers against the feudal exploiters.

Under feudalism, the nature of relations of dependence was already different than under slavery. The dependent peasant was not the full property of the landowner; he could work part of the time on his plot of land, working for himself and his family. The peasant owned the means of production, agricultural and craft tools, working and productive livestock. Urban artisans also had their own means of production. Both peasants and artisans had their own housing and outbuildings. Some means of production, such as wells, roads, and sometimes pastures for livestock, were in some cases used by the surviving rural community.

The method of connecting the direct producer with the means of production under feudalism is characterized by a certain duality. The direct producer - the peasant, on the one hand, having his own small farm, was interested in labor on this farm, and, on the other hand, his work for the feudal lord took the form of forced labor of the exploited for the exploiter. Non-economic coercion of the direct producer to work for the feudal lord had as its economic basis and condition the feudal lords' monopoly on land and was a means of realizing feudal property in the production process.

Thanks to a different way of connecting the direct producer with the means of production than under slavery, under feudalism his attitude to work changed, and a certain incentive to work appeared. Here the antagonism between the direct producer and the tools of labor that took place during slavery is overcome. Since the tools of labor belong to the direct producer under feudalism, he, despite his dependent, oppressed position, took care of their preservation and improvement.

Non-economic coercion (which could range from serfdom to simple class lack of rights) was a necessary condition for the feudal lord to appropriate land rent, and independent peasant farming a necessary condition its production.

The well-known economic independence of the peasant, established in the era of feudalism, opened up some scope for increasing the productivity of peasant labor and developing the productive forces of society, and created more favorable conditions for the development of the individual. This, ultimately, determined the historical progressiveness of feudalism in comparison with the slaveholding and primitive communal system.

2.3. Forms of feudal production and feudal land rent. Feudal exploitation

Feudal production was carried out in two main forms: in the form corvée economy and in shape quitrent farming. What was common to both forms of economy was that: a) the direct producer was personally dependent on the feudal lord (landowner); b) the feudal lord was considered the owner of all the land on which agricultural production was carried out; c) the direct producer - the peasant - had in use a plot of land on which he ran his individual farm; d) all agricultural production was carried out with the labor and tools of labor (living and dead implements) of peasants; e) the peasants expended surplus labor and created a surplus product for the landowner as a result of non-economic coercion.

Corvee farming

At corvée economy the entire land of the feudal estate was split into two parts. One part is the lordly land, on which the labor and equipment of peasants produced agricultural products, which were completely appropriated by the feudal landowner. Thus, the expenditure was carried out on the lord's land surplus labor peasants, production surplus product.

The other part of the land is peasant land, called allotment land. On this land, the peasants farmed for themselves, created required product, i.e., a product necessary for the existence of the peasants themselves and their families, as well as for the restoration of the worn-out part of live and dead agricultural equipment.

Under corvée surplus labor was given to the landowner in its natural form as a certain number of corvée days. The necessary and surplus labor of the producer exploited by the feudal lord were here separated from each other in space and time: necessary labor was spent on the peasant's allotment field, surplus labor on the lord's field. Some days of the week the peasant worked in his field, and others in the master’s field. Therefore, under corvée, the distinction between necessary and surplus labor it was physically tangible.

Surplus labor was appropriated during corvee labor in the form of working rent.

Surplus labor under corvee differed little from slave labor. The product of all the labor spent on corvée was appropriated by the feudal landowner; the direct producer - the peasant - was not at all interested in the results of this labor; his coercion required a lot of labor to supervise. Therefore, feudal landowners transferred their peasants to quitrent.

Obroch farming

With quitrent farming, almost all the land was transferred to the peasants as an allotment. All agricultural production was carried out on the farms of peasants who were on quitrent. One part of the product created on the farm in the form of quitrent was transferred by the peasant to the feudal landowner, and the other part remained with the peasant as a fund for the reproduction of his labor force and for maintaining the existence of his family members, as well as as a fund for the reproduction of peasant equipment, living and dead.

In many feudal estates, a mixed system was used: along with corvée, peasants had to provide quitrent. It happened that in some estates corvee prevailed, in others - quitrent.

Under the quitrent system of farming, all the peasant's labor - necessary and surplus - was spent on the peasant's farm. Surplus labor was given not in its natural form, but in the form of a product. Therefore, here the difference between necessary and surplus appeared physically tangible. product: what the peasant gives to the feudal landowner in the form of quitrent is a surplus product. That part of the product that remains on his farm constitutes the necessary product.

Under the quitrent system, surplus labor is appropriated by the feudal lord in the form of surplus product. This form of feudal rent is called annuities by products. “Product rent,” wrote K. Marx, “implies more high culture production from the direct producer, therefore, a higher level of development of his labor and society in general; and it differs from the previous form in that surplus labor must no longer be performed in its natural form, and therefore no longer under the direct supervision and coercion of the landowner or his representative; on the contrary, the direct producer must carry it out on his own responsibility, driven by the force of relationships instead of direct coercion and the decree of the law instead of the whip.”

Over time, quitrent in kind began to be combined with quitrent in cash, or was completely replaced by money. And the peasant had to not only produce a surplus product, but also turn it into money.

If the quitrent is established in money, then the surplus labor is appropriated by the feudal lord no longer in the form of labor and not in the form of a product, but in the form of money. Transition to cash rent occurred as a result of the further growth of the division of labor, which caused the development of exchange and the gradual spread of commodity-money relations in society.

Features of rent relations in Eastern countries

A certain uniqueness in the development of forms of feudal land rent and forms of dependence of direct producers on feudal lords existed in many countries of the East.

Since in the East the feudal state acted as the main owner of land and irrigation structures, a large master's economy did not develop here for a long time.

The predominant form of feudal land rent in most countries of the East was not corvee, but product rent, and partly cash rent, which was collected from peasants by government officials. Usually, the state allocated a significant part of the collected funds (in kind or cash) to the feudal lords in the form of a kind of salary.

Natural form of feudal production

Feudal estates, within which the production process was carried out, were characterized by isolation and isolation of economic life. Personal consumption of feudal lords and peasants, as well as industrial consumption, was ensured mainly due to what was created in each estate by the labor of direct producers.

Feudalism was characterized by the combination of agriculture as the main branch of production with household crafts playing an auxiliary role. In that era, household crafts provided lordly and peasant households with most of the necessary products of handicraft labor. Only certain products that could not be obtained locally for various reasons, for example, some metal products, jewelry, salt, etc., were usually delivered by visiting merchants. The consequence of this was that the economy of the feudal estate was characterized by a closed, self-sufficient character.

The products created by the labor of direct producers in the process of feudal production were consumed for the most part within the feudal estate itself by feudal landowners and serfs in their natural form.

The surplus product took a commodity form only with money rent, which already corresponded to the period of decomposition of feudalism.

The necessary product, even under conditions of cash rent, especially under conditions of labor rent and product rent, in most cases remained in kind and did not become a commodity. And this was of great importance, since the necessary product represented a very significant part of the produced product.

The various duties performed by serfs at all stages of the development of feudal society were also of a natural nature. Thus, a characteristic feature of feudal production was that it had a natural form.

2.4. Basic economic law of feudalism

The goal of feudal production was to create a surplus product, which was used for the direct consumption of feudal lords, acting in a specific socio-economic form of feudal rent.

The essence of the basic economic law of feudalism was that the surplus product produced as a result of forced labor of peasants personally dependent on the feudal lords was appropriated by the feudal lords in the form of feudal land rent to satisfy their needs.

2.5. The contradictions of feudalism

All stages of the development of feudal society, which passed through successively replacing each other forms of feudal production and feudal exploitation, are characterized by the presence of numerous contradictions. The large property of the feudal lords is opposed to the small individual property of direct producers personally dependent on the feudal lords, on which their small dependent production was based; large feudal economy - small peasant land use; non-economic coercion of direct producers to work for the feudal lord - the possibility of them running their own farm on the basis of personal labor; the class of land owners and bearers of non-economic coercion - feudal lords - to the class of peasants personally dependent on them.

The contradictions of feudalism were generated by duality, an internally contradictory way of connecting the direct producer with the means of production.

2.6. Feudal reproduction

The determining factor was the reproduction that took place in the peasant economy. Peasant labor reproduced not only the products used to satisfy the personal needs of the feudal lords (surplus product) and the producers themselves (necessary product), but also the conditions for the subsequent continuation of the production process in the peasant’s household.

The peasant had to carry out economic work that ensured the continuity of production: repairing tools, replacing worn-out tools with new ones, creating reserves of seed grain. “...The product of the serf,” wrote K. Marx, “should be sufficient here to, in addition to the means of his subsistence, compensate for the conditions of his labor...”.

The source of any increase in production is surplus product.

Therefore, expanded reproduction could only be carried out if some part of the surplus product was directed from time to time to expand and improve production. This happened sporadically and mainly in cases where, due to the presence of previously fixed duties, which were usually established for quite long time, the feudal lord did not have time to fully appropriate all the results of the growth of labor productivity in the peasant economy.

2.7. Feudal city

Feudal relations covered not only the village, but also the city. The cities were inhabited mainly by artisans and traders. Craftsmen, who made up the majority of the urban population, were recruited mainly from among former serfs who fled to the city from their landowner or were transferred to the city by the landowner himself.

Having freed themselves from serfdom in the countryside, the former serfs, who became urban artisans, again found themselves in fact under conditions of feudal oppression. Taking advantage of the right of owners of the land on which the cities stood, the feudal lords established a system of personal dependence in the cities and forced the townspeople to perform various kinds of duties.

Guild system

In cities, a specific feudal form of organization of crafts took shape in the form of so-called guilds. The workshops were associations of artisans of a certain branch of handicraft production living in a given city.

Full members of the guilds were guild foremen - owners of their own workshops. In addition to himself, several apprentices and apprentices worked in the workshop of the guild master. A characteristic feature of medieval workshops is strict regulation of production and sales conditions (determining the quality of raw materials and finished products, volume of production, time and order of work in the workshop, etc.). This ensured the monopoly of the workshop in the production of a particular product and prevented competition between artisans.

Under the conditions of the guild system, apprentices and journeymen were exploited by guild foremen. Since the master himself worked in the workshop, he was more high position in relation to journeymen and apprentices was based not only on private property on the means of production, but also on his professional skill. When teaching a student who came to him, the master did not pay him any remuneration, although the student brought a certain income with his work. Apprentices, who were already essentially skilled artisans, received from the master known fee for your work.

Merchant guilds

The cities were the center of concentration of the merchants, who carried out both domestic and international trade. Trading capital played very significant role under feudalism. Small commodity producers were not always able to sell their goods due to the fragmentation of production and the remoteness of sales markets. Merchants took on the role of intermediary in the sale of their products. They appropriated a significant part of the product of direct producers. Merchants sold luxury goods, weapons, wines, spices, etc. to the feudal lords, purchased partly within the country and partly on foreign markets. The profit they received as a result of resale of goods at higher prices contained part of the feudal land rent.

Weakness central government the feudal state, its inability to provide personal and property protection to traveling merchants prompted the latter to unite for self-defense in a guild. Guilds fought competition from outside merchants, regulated weights and measures, and determined the level of sales prices.

As monetary wealth accumulated, the role of merchant capital changed. If at first merchants were only occasional intermediaries in exchange, then gradually the circle of producers selling their goods to one or another merchant became permanent. Merchants often combined trading operations with usurious ones, issuing loans to artisans and peasants and thereby further subordinating them to themselves.

The accumulation of significant sums of money in the hands of the merchants turned them into a major economic force, which became the basis for the dominance of the merchants in city government. At the same time, the merchants gradually became a force capable of resisting the feudal lords and striving to free themselves from feudal dependence.

The contrast between city and countryside

Under feudalism, the village politically dominated the city, because the cities were owned by the feudal lords. The townspeople were obliged to bear certain duties in favor of the feudal lord, the feudal lord was the supreme judge for the townspeople, and even had the right to sell the city, pass it on by inheritance, and mortgage it. However, the economic development of the city significantly outpaced the economic development of the village.

The growth of handicraft production and the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of moneylenders and merchants created the preconditions for the economic dominance of the city over the countryside. “If in the Middle Ages,” noted K. Marx, “the village exploits the city politically everywhere where feudalism was not broken by the exclusive development of cities, as in Italy, then the city everywhere and without exception exploits the village economically with its monopoly prices, its tax system, its the guild system, its direct merchant deception and its usury."

The power of feudal lords hindered the development of crafts and trade. Therefore, the cities waged a fierce and constant struggle with the feudal lords for their liberation. They sought political independence, self-government, the right to mint coins, and exemption from duties. Due to the fact that significant sums of money were concentrated in the hands of merchants, moneylenders and wealthy craftsmen, cities often managed to pay off the feudal lords, buying their independence with money. At the same time, cities often achieved their independence by armed means.

2.8. Commodity-money relations under the feudal mode of production

As a result of the growth of productive forces and the deepening of the social division of labor under feudalism, commodity production and commodity circulation received a certain development. Commodity production in the era of the development of feudalism was subordinate to natural economy and represented only a separate structure of the feudal economy. It served feudal production and played a supporting role, especially in the early feudal period.

As a result of the expansion of trade between peasants and feudal lords, on the one hand, and urban artisans, on the other, internal markets emerged. Through trade, the economic connection between agricultural and handicraft production is established and strengthened.

Merchant capital under feudalism was primarily an intermediary in the exchange of surplus product appropriated by the feudal lords for luxury goods imported from other countries. Merchant capital also acted as an intermediary in the exchange of products between peasants and urban artisans. The trade profit received by merchants was formed as a result of unequal exchange, that is, buying goods at prices below cost and selling them above cost. The source of trade profit was ultimately the surplus product created by direct producers (peasants and artisans), and in some cases, part of their necessary product.

The process of development of commodity production and circulation is enhanced by the expansion of foreign trade. International trade was already relatively developed during the slave era. During the transition from slavery to feudalism, international trade died down somewhat. As production grows and commodity-money relations spread, it revives again.

The growth of domestic and foreign trade led to the development of monetary circulation, an increase in the amount of money in circulation, and an improvement in the minting of coins. However, medieval trade, despite its significant development, was still limited. It existed under conditions of the dominance of natural production, feudal fragmentation, lack of roads, imperfect means of circulation, the absence of uniform measures of weight and length, a unified monetary system, and frequent predatory attacks by feudal lords on merchants.

With the growth of commodity-money relations in feudal society, usurious capital develops. Money loans were issued by moneylenders to feudal lords, as well as to artisans and peasants. The source of usurious interest, as well as the source of trade profit, was the surplus product created by peasants and artisans, as well as part of their necessary product.

As commodity-money relations grew, the feudal estate was increasingly drawn into market circulation. By purchasing luxury goods and urban handicrafts, feudal lords are increasingly in need of money. It becomes profitable for them to transfer peasants from corvée and natural rent to cash quitrent. In this regard, peasant farming was drawn into the market.

3. Decomposition of feudalism

3.1. The growth of commodity relations and the decomposition of subsistence farming

The feudal organization of handicraft production in the form of a guild system with its strict regulation of the volume and technology of production, with a guild monopoly, limited the possibilities for significant and consistent progress in production technology and an increase in the volume of marketable products. Feudal Agriculture with the fragmentation of allotment land use of small producers, forced crop rotations within the community subordinate to the feudal lord, hindered the increase in labor productivity and the consolidation of the size of the farm. At the same time, self-sufficient natural economy limited the capacity and capabilities of the domestic market and hampered the development of commodity exchange. Feudal relations of personal dependence prevented the influx of labor into the cities, without which commodity production could not expand further. Craftsmen and peasants were kept in the feudal production system by non-economic coercion. Even persons who had accumulated significant monetary wealth (merchants, moneylenders, wealthy artisans) could not essentially organize large-scale production in a city or village, since there was not a sufficient amount of free labor. In this situation, the method inherent in feudalism of connecting the production worker, the direct producer, with the means of production began to increasingly hinder the further development of the productive forces of society.

The development of production inevitably led to an aggravation of the contradictions inherent in feudalism: between the economy of the feudal lord and the individual economy of peasants and artisans, between physical and mental labor, between city and countryside, between the natural nature of production organically inherent in feudalism and its growing marketability.

An irreconcilable contradiction arose and began to intensify between the new productive forces, requiring enlarged forms of organization of labor and production in the form of cooperation of specialized producers and a new way of connecting the labor force with the means of production, on the one hand, and the old production relations based on the personal dependence of producers from land owners, feudal lords, on the other.

A conflict is brewing between productive forces and production relations, objective preconditions are being created for a deep socio-economic revolution, for replacing feudal production relations with new production relations, for the transition to a new, more progressive mode of production. Thus, a social need arose for the elimination of feudal relations of production, to replace them with new relations that would correspond to the level and nature of the growing productive forces.

These new relationships were capitalist relations of production, which assumed the replacement of non-economic coercion of direct producers to work on the basis of their personal dependence with economic coercion through the system of using hired labor of producers in production.

3.2. Property and social stratification of commodity producers

With the deepening of the social division of labor and the expansion of the sphere of commodity-money relations, the property stratification of commodity producers and the social stratification of commodity producers are intensifying. In the conditions of growing market relations between commodity producers, a fierce competitive struggle is unfolding, which led to an ever greater deepening and property stratification between the poor and the rich, both in the city and in the countryside.

The process of stratification of the peasantry in the countryside was significantly accelerated by the transition to cash rent. Thus, new conditions and factors for the development of social production lead to overcoming the limitations of the feudal era, to the disintegration of the guild system in the city, to the social differentiation of producers - peasants and artisans - both in the countryside and in the city.

Thus, conditions are objectively developing for the emergence of a new way of connecting direct producers with the means of production. The increasingly significant use of wage labor in production meant that a new way of connecting producers with the means of production was emerging. Simple commodity production, based on the producers’ own means of production and their own labor, creates the conditions for the emergence of a new, capitalist form of commodity production, and increasingly develops into this new form.

3.3. The emergence in the depths of feudalism of the capitalist form of commodity production. Initial accumulation of capital

Capitalist commodity production, which arose in the depths of feudalism, differed from previous forms commercial farming forms of commodity production as large-scale production, using the cooperation of hired labor of many producers.

The development of trade (merchant) and usurious capital was one of the necessary historical conditions for the emergence and development of capitalism. Merchant capital flowed in many cases into industry, and the merchant then turned into a capitalist-industrialist. Moneylenders, using the money they had accumulated, sometimes also became capitalist-industrialists, or turned into capitalist-bankers. But neither commercial nor usurious capital by themselves could cause a radical revolution in production relations. They only contributed to the creation of conditions for the emergence of capitalist forms of production.

Workshops based on simple cooperation of wage labor and merchant manufactories were the first embryos of large-scale capitalist production. They arose in Europe in the 14th-15th centuries, first of all in the city-republics of Italy, and then in the Netherlands, England, France and other countries.

The establishment of the capitalist mode of production presupposes, firstly, the transformation of the mass of producers into proletarians, personally free and at the same time deprived of any means of production, and secondly, the concentration of monetary wealth and the means of production in the hands of a minority. The creation of these conditions is the essence of the so-called initial capital accumulation, which represented the prehistory and immediate starting point of the formation of the capitalist mode of production.

Characterizing the essence of the initial accumulation of capital, K. Marx wrote: “The capitalist relation presupposes that the ownership of the conditions of labor is separated from the workers... Thus, the process that creates the capitalist relation cannot be anything other than the process of separation of the worker from the ownership of the conditions of his labor, a process that transforms, on the one hand, social means of production and means of subsistence into capital, and, on the other hand, direct producers into wage workers. Consequently, the so-called primitive accumulation is nothing more than the historical process of separation of the producer from the means of production."

3.4. The role of violence in the development of capitalism

Bourgeois historians and economists portray the history of the emergence of capitalism in an idyllic way. They claim that the accumulation of wealth occurred in ancient times as a result of the “hard work and frugality” of some, the “negligence and wastefulness” of others. In fact, the production relations of capitalism arose and then became dominant due to the objective laws of social development. But the initial accumulation of capital was facilitated and accelerated by the use of direct, undisguised violence.

A classic example of this were those dramatic events that took place in the 16th-17th centuries. in England, where capitalist production reached significant development earlier than in other countries. Here, the bourgeois nobility forcibly removed peasants from their lands, who had by that time freed themselves from serfdom. The peasants, deprived of their land, having lost the opportunity to run their own farms, were forced to hire out to the capitalists. In parallel with this, the process of education of capitalist farmers - agricultural capitalists - was going on in the countryside. The dispossession of agricultural producers and their expropriation constitute the basis of the entire process of primitive capital accumulation. “...The history of this expropriation of theirs,” wrote K. Marx, “is inscribed in the annals of humanity in the flaming language of blood and fire.”

Thus, the new class - the emerging bourgeoisie, on a large scale, used violent methods of forcing proletarians to work in capitalist enterprises, violent methods of creating a new labor discipline to subjugate producers to capitalist wage slavery. State power, with the help of legal legislation against the “homeless” and “vagrants,” forced disadvantaged people to go to work for capitalist enterprises.

Violence was also an important means of accelerating the process of concentrating wealth (money, means of production) in the hands of a few. A significant number of capitalist enterprises were created through savings that were concentrated in the hands of traders and moneylenders. But, as already noted, other methods of accumulating wealth using violence also played a major role, as well as the system of colonial robbery of peoples, colonial trade, including the slave trade, trade wars, the system of government loans and taxes, and the protective customs policy of the state.

In Russia, which began the transition from feudalism to capitalism later than many other European countries, the process of forced separation of direct producers from the means of production began intensively only in connection with the abolition of serfdom. The reform of 1861 was a grandiose robbery of the peasants. As a result of its implementation, the landowners seized two-thirds land, the most convenient lands for use were in their hands. Defining the nature of the peasant reform of 1861, V.I. Lenin pointed out: “This is the first mass violence against the peasantry in the interests of emerging capitalism in agriculture. This is the landowners’ “land cleansing” for capitalism.”

Through robbery, the violent ruin of the mass of small producers, and the brutal enslavement of colonial peoples, the creation of conditions for the dominance of the capitalist mode of production was accelerated.

3.5. Class struggle in feudal society and bourgeois revolutions

The decomposition of feudalism was an inevitable process that unfolded due to the operation of objective laws economic development. This process was accelerated by the widespread use of violence as a means of initial capital accumulation.

The foundations of feudalism were increasingly shaken under the blows of the intensifying class struggle in feudal society, under the influence of mass uprisings of peasants against their oppressors. In the XIV century. An uprising of English peasants broke out under the leadership of Wat Tyler and an uprising of French peasants (Jacquerie). In the 15th century Peasant wars broke out in the Czech Republic under the leadership of Jan Hus. XVI century was marked by a broad peasant movement in Germany under the leadership of Thomas Münzer.

The serfdom system of Russia was the cause of large peasant uprisings under the leadership of Bolotnikov (XV century), Stepan Razin (XVII century), Emelyan Pugachev (XVIII century) and others.

Peasant uprisings were the harbingers of bourgeois revolutions. Peasants, as well as artisans, made up the bulk of the fighters during the bourgeois revolutions. But the bourgeoisie took advantage of the fruits of their struggle and victories, seizing state power into their hands. For the first time, bourgeois revolutions took place in the Netherlands (XVI century) and England (XVII century). The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was of great importance for overthrowing the rule of the feudal lords and establishing the power of the bourgeoisie in Europe. Later, bourgeois revolutions occurred in other countries.

Bourgeois revolutions completed the collapse of the feudal social system and accelerated the development of bourgeois relations.

3.6. "Second edition of serfdom"

The long-term feudal reaction, which took the legal form of the “second edition of serfdom,” triumphed during the period of late feudalism in the countries of Central and of Eastern Europe. The political expression of the feudal reaction was the developed system of an undivided noble dictatorship (the political dominance of the magnates and gentry in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, tsarist autocracy in Russia). In the countries of the “second edition of serfdom,” feudalism assumed a stagnant character, only gradually giving way to embryonic forms capitalist relations. Their development under the cover of feudalism proceeded through a painful restructuring of the landowner economy for the peasantry on the basis of bonded, semi-serf forms of wage labor, which personified the so-called Prussian path of development of capitalism in agriculture; in industry, the use of hired labor was long combined with the use of forced labor. The stage of late feudalism continued in this region until the middle and even the second half of the 19th century, and after that significant feudal remnants remained (especially in agrarian relations, in the political superstructure).

4. Remnants of feudalism in capitalist and developing countries

Several centuries have passed since the fall of feudalism in many countries. However, its remnants and survivals persist in the modern capitalist world. Thus, in Italy, with a high level of capitalist development, large noble landownership still continues to exist. The sharecropping system is widespread here, in which the owner of the land is paid a portion of the harvest in the form of land rent. In essence, this is nothing more than a remnant of feudal relations.

There are remnants and vestiges of feudalism in a number of other capitalist countries in Europe, for example in Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

There are remnants of feudalism in a number of developing countries. Significant remnants of feudalism in the form of large land ownership and remnants of pre-capitalist forms of rent have been preserved in countries such as India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and in some Arab countries, and other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

I'm falling behind economic structure A number of developing countries use the monopolies of imperialist states to enrich themselves. The remnants and vestiges of feudal economic forms impede the progress of the peoples of developing countries, hinder their struggle for true freedom, for national revival and economic independence.

The attempt to prove the eternity of capitalist relations leads bourgeois economists to the other extreme. They strive to identify capitalism with those forms of production that existed before it, to attribute a capitalist essence to feudalism, and to deprive it of its own socio-economic content. A number of bourgeois economists and historians limit themselves only to the political and legal definition of feudalism, without revealing its socio-economic content, thereby turning one or another “secondary” feature of the feudal system (derived from economic basis) into the determinant. Based on the eternity of capitalism, they portray feudalism as a time of immaturity and underdevelopment of capitalist forms of economy, as a kind of “rudimentary capitalism.”

Being on idealistic positions, bourgeois ideologists deny the class struggle during the period of feudalism, ignore the role of the masses as the decisive force of social progress, and overestimate the importance of individual historical figures, characterize the feudal state as a body standing above society and allegedly ensuring “social peace”. These kinds of provisions have nothing in common with a real analysis of the process of emergence, development and death of the feudal mode of production.