The development of capitalism has often been discussed by historians who focus on the factors that could lead to the decline of the feudal society and emergence of the new socio-economic system. Much attention should be paid to the so-called Brenner debate because this discussion can throw light on various models that can explain the transformation of European societies.
This debate revolves around the claims made by Robert Brenner who emphasizes the idea that new class and property relations resulted in the development of capitalism. In turn, this debate is critically evaluated by other historians. On the whole, it is possible to argue that a single approach cannot account for the dramatic transformation that different countries underwent.
Much attention should be paid to the arguments advanced by Guy Bois who combines the elements of the demographic and class models. On the whole, it is vital to focus on such factors as the property relations between various economic agents, demographic trends, as well as the increase in the productivity. These are the main issues that should be examined in great detail.
It is possible to examine the arguments put forward by Robert Brenner who argues that the transformation of European societies can be explained primarily by the changing class structures1. In his opinion, much attention should be paid to the property relations. The capitalist system of production could emerge provided that economic agents such as peasants could secure their property rights.
This privilege can be viewed as a good incentive for increasing the volume of production. One should keep in mind that Robert Brenner rejects the demographic model according to which social and economic breakthrough were driven by population fluctuations. It is vital to remember that demographic patterns could significantly affect wages and the demand for products.
However, this model does not explain the differences in the socio-economic development of various countries. These are the main points that Robert Brenner makes. Overall, his work stimulated additional research on this topic. The validity of these claims should be discussed more closely.
Some of Brenner’s arguments are supported by other historians. For instance, it is possible to mention to mention Guy Bois who also examines the limitations of the demographic model2. In his opinion, this approach to the socio-economic development is too deterministic, and it cannot reflect the decisions of separate people. Moreover, this framework lays too much stress on such a factor as the struggle for resources.
Nevertheless, Guy Bois mentions that Brenner underestimates the importance of such a factor as productivity. In particular, he notes that the increase in productivity led to the surplus of goods. More importantly, this factor contributed to the intensification of trade between and within communities. In this case, one should not speak only about the adoption of new technologies.
One should also pay much attention to the way in which labor was organized. To a great extent, this view of the formation of capitalism is supported by Rodney Hilton3 who focuses on the pre-requisites for the development of the new socio-economic system. In his view, the differences in the productivity led to the accumulation of capital and the development of new institutions. This is why this notion should not be overlooked.
It should be mentioned that other historians such as Postan and Hatcher argue that Robert Brenner lays too much stress on political power of different economic agents. Nevertheless, one should not overlook the influence of such factors as inheritance customs or attitudes to innovation, or military confrontations4.
The main argument is that the economic stagnation of the feudal societies can be attributed to a diverse set of factors. Moreover, one should not suppose that the influence of demographic trends can be easily measured with the help of exiting research methods that require the study of quantitative data. The main problem is that these data are not always available to scholars.
Additionally, historians such as Emmanuel Ladurie5 argue that the bargaining power of peasants can be explained by the population trends. In particular, the surplus of labor could strengthen the position of landlords. In the long-term, these trends could result in the formation of serfdom. This is why the validity of the demographic model cannot be fully rejected.
Demographic trends are vital for showing how the bargaining power of different economic agents could change. For instance, the decline of the population could increase the wages of servants, as a result; these people could have more opportunities for accumulating capital. Similarly, the increasing population could contribute to increasing demand for various goods. Thus, the demographic model should not be disregarded.
Overall, the socio-economic advance to capitalism cannot be attributed to only one factor such as new property relations or the changing demographic patterns. The development of the new political and economic system is not a deterministic process that can be easily predicted.
More likely, researchers should pay attention to such factors as class relations, new forms of property, demographic trends, and the changes in the productivity. Robert Brenner’s views on the formation of capitalism are important because they can show how the bargaining power of producers could increase with time passing. These are the main details that can be singled out.
Bibliography
Bois, Guy. “Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy.” In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 107-119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Brenner, Robert. “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre- Industrial Europe.” In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 10-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Hilton, Rodney. “A Crisis of Feudalism.” In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 119-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Ladurie, Emmanuel. “A Reply to Robert Brenner.” In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 101-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Postan, Michael and John Hatcher. “Population and Class Relations in Feudal Society.” In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 64-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Footnotes
1 Robert Brenner, “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre- Industrial Europe,” in The Brenner Debate, ed. Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 30.
2 Guy Bois, “Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy,” in The Brenner Debate, ed. Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 112
3 Rodney Hilton, “A Crisis of Feudalism,” in The Brenner Debate, ed. Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 120
4 Michael Postan and John Hatcher. “Population and Class Relations in Feudal Society,” in The Brenner Debate, ed. Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 66.
5 Emmanuel Ladurie, “A Reply to Robert Brenner,” in The Brenner Debate, ed. Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 103.