From Marxists Internet Archive
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One
Chapter Twenty-Nine: Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer
Now that we have considered the forcible creation of a class of outlawed
proletarians, the bloody discipline that turned them into wage-laborers, the
disgraceful action of the State which employed the police to accelerate the
accumulation of capital by increasing the degree of exploitation of labor, the
question remains: whence came the capitalists originally? For the expropriation
of the agricultural population creates, directly, none but the greatest landed
proprietors. As far, however, as concerns the genesis of the farmer, we can, so
to say, put our hand on it, because it is a slow process evolving through many
centuries. The serfs, as well as the free small proprietors, held land under
very different tenures, and were therefore emancipated under very different
economic conditions. In England the first form of the farmer is
the bailiff, himself a serf. His position is similar to that of the old Roman villicus,
only in a more limited sphere of action. During the second half of the 14th
century he is replaced by a farmer, whom the landlord provided with seed, cattle
and implements. His condition is not very different from that of the peasant.
Only he exploits more wage-labor. Soon he becomes a metayer, a half-farmer. He
advances one part of the agricultural stock, the landlord the other. The two
divide the total product in proportions determined by contract. This form
quickly disappears in England, to give the place to the farmer proper, who makes
his own capital breed by employing wage-laborers, and pays a part of the
surplus-product, in money or in kind, to the landlord as rent. So long, during
the 15th century, as the independent peasant and the farm-laborer working for
himself as well as for wages, enriched themselves by their own labor, the
circumstances of the farmer, and his field of production, were equally mediocre.
The agricultural revolution which commenced in the last third of the 15th
century, and continued during almost the whole of the 16th (excepting, however,
its last decade), enriched him just as speedily as it impoverished the mass of
the agricultural people. [1]
The usurpation of the common lands allowed him to augment greatly his
stock of cattle, almost without cost, whilst they yielded him a richer supply of
manure for the tillage of the soil. To this was added in the 16th century a very
important element. At that time the contracts for farms ran for a long time,
often for 99 years. The progressive fall in the value of the precious metals,
and therefore of money, brought the farmers golden fruit. Apart from all the
other circumstances discussed above, it lowered wages. A portion of the latter
was now added to the profits of the farm. The continuous rise in the price of
corn, wool, meat, in a word of all agricultural produce, swelled the money
capital of the farm without any action on his part, whilst the rent he paid
(being calculated on the old value of money) diminished in reality. [2]
Thus they grew rich at the expense both of their laborers and their landlords.
No wonder, therefore, that England, at the end of the 16th century, had a class
of capitalist farmers, rich, considering the circumstances of the time. [3]
Footnotes
1.
Harrison in his “Description of England,” says “although peradventure
foure pounds of old rent be improved to fortie, toward the end of his term, if
he have not six or seven yeares rent lieng by him, fiftie or a hundred pounds,
yet will the farmer thinke his gaines verie small.”
2.
On the influence of the depreciation of money in the 16th century, on the
different classes of society, see “A Compendium of Briefe Examination of
Certayne Ordinary Complaints of Divers of our Countrymen in these our Days,”
by W. S. Gentleman (London 1581). The dialogue form of this work led people for
a long time to ascribe it to Shakespeare, and even in 1751, it was published
under his name. Its author is William Stafford. In one place the knight reasons
as follows: Knight: You, my neighbor, the husbandman, you Maister
Mercer, and you Goodman Cooper, with other artificers, may save yourselves
metely well. For as much as all things are dearer than they were, so much do you
arise in the pryce of your wares and occupations that ye sell agayne. But we
have nothing to sell whereby we might advance ye price there of, to countervaile
those things that we must buy agayne.” In another place, the knight asks the
doctor: I pray you, what be those sorts that ye meane. And first, of those that
ye thinke should have no losse thereby? Doctor: I mean all those that
live by buying and selling, for as they buy deare, the sell thereafter. Knight:
What is the next sort that ye say would win by it? Doctor: Marry, all
such as have takings of fearmes in their owne manurance [cultivation] at the old
rent, for where they pay after the olde rate they sell after the newe — that
is, they paye for theire lande good cheape, and sell all things growing thereof
deare. Knight: What sorte is that which, ye sayde should have greater
losse hereby, than these men had profit? Doctor: It is all noblemen,
gentlemen, and all other that live either by a stinted rent or stypend, or do
not manure [cultivate] the ground, or doe occupy no buying and selling.”
3.
In France, the régisseur, steward, collector of dues for the feudal lords
during the earlier part of the middle ages, soon became an homme d'affaires, who
by extortion, cheating, &c., swindled himself into a capitalist. These régisseurs
themselves were sometimes noblemen. E.g., “C'est li compte que
messire Jacques de Thoraine, chevalier chastelain sor Besançon rent és-seigneur
tenant les comptes à Dijon pour monseigneur le duc et comte de Bourgoigne, des
rentes appartenant à la dite chastellenie, depuis xxve jour de décembre
MCCCLIX jusqu'au xxviiie jour de décembre MCCCLX.” [This
is the account given by M. Jacques de Thoraisse, knight, and Lord of a manor
near Besançon, to the lord who administers the accounts at Dijon for his
highness the Duke and Count of Burgundy, of the rents appurtenant to the
above-mentioned manor, from the 25th day of December 1359 to the 28th day of
December 1360] (Alexis Monteil: “Traité de Matériaux Manuscrits
etc.,” pp. 234, 235.) Already it is evident here how in all spheres of social
life the lion's share falls to the middleman. In the economic domain, e.g.,
financiers, stock-exchange speculators, merchants, shopkeepers skim the cream;
in civil matters, the lawyer fleeces his clients; in politics the representative
is of more importance than the voters, the minister than the sovereign; in
religion, God is pushed into the background by the “Mediator,” and the
latter again is shoved back by the priests, the inevitable middlemen between the
good shepherd and his sheep. In France, as in England, the great feudal
territories were divided into innumerable small homesteads, but under conditions
incomparably more favorable for the people. During the 14th century arose the
farms or terriers. Their number grew constantly, far beyond 100,000.
They paid rents varying from 1/12 to 1/5 of the product in money or in kind.
These farms were fiefs, sub-fiefs, &c., according the value and extent of
the domains, many of them only containing a few acres. But these farmers had
rights of jurisdiction in some degree over the dwellers on the soil; there were
four grades. The oppression of the agricultural population under all these petty
tyrants will be understood. Monteil says that there were once in France 160,000
judges, where today, 4,000 tribunals, including justices of the peace, suffice.
Transcribed by Zodiac
Html Markup by Stephen Baird (1999)
|
