Das Kapital

GENESIS OF THE CAPITALIST FARMER

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Nine
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One
Chapter 29: 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 labourers, the disgraceful action of the State which employed
the police to accelerate the accumulation of capital by increasing the
degree of exploitation of labour, 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 labour. 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 labourers,
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-labourer working for himself as well as for wages, enriched themselves
by their own labour, 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.
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 farmer without any
action on his part, whilst the rent he paid (being calculated on the old
value of money) diminished in reality. Thus they
grew rich at the expense both of their labourers 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.
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, they 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)
Next: Chapter Thirty: Reaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry. Creation of the Home-Market for Industrial Capital
Capital Volume One- Index