peasants and lords

Dear all esp Dave B,

Regarding your post below, I'm not sure what your problem is with Engels. 
(There are problems, but not these ones).

                "In mediaeval society, especially in the earlier centuries, 
production 
was essentially directed towards satisfying the wants of the individual. It 
satisfied, in the main, only the wants of the producer and his family. Where 
relations of personal dependence existed, as in the country, it also helped 
to satisfy the wants of the feudal lord."

Ahh, I see Fred, so the Lord of the Manor was a "personal" dependent, like a 
young child or one of your own kids with a big appetite. Like a cuckoo in 
the nest. Because the workers are stupid enough, like now,  to feed it of 
their own free will, it is not exploitation.

SIMON: What he would seem to be saying is that peasants are personally 
dependent on the feudal lord for protection, and the feudal lord is 
personally dependent on the peasants for upkeep. This is not to say that the 
peasants had an equal or superior position in this relationship: it is to 
say that it *is* a relationship. The point is that the bonds are personal 
ones, not the impersonal ones of capitalism: peasants do not produce for the 
feudal lord for money, but *because he is their feudal lord*.

                "In all this there was, therefore, no exchange; the products, 
consequently, did not assume the character of commodities."

No! just a straightforward case of robbing the stupid, again, a bit like 
now.

SIMON: Thus the business of not producing commodities. Production was not 
other directed, towards money: it was direct, even if the personal relations 
were oppressive. It is a capitalist conceit to think that peasants in 
feudalism are just capitalist workers under an extra layer of servitude - 
that rather than capitalism being a new system, the character of capitalism 
is democracy, liberation of people who produced for money anyway to do so 
freely. Thus capitalism seems to apply in all times and all places: modern 
capitalism is a political move, a liberation of producers. Nothing could be 
further from the truth, and this, it would seem, is what Engels was trying 
to draw out.

                "The family of the peasant produced almost everything they 
wanted: 
clothes and furniture, as well as means of subsistence. Only when it began 
to produce more than was sufficient to supply its" the peasants  "own wants" 
...

                "That  " payments in kind to the feudal lord "became 
"commodities"

BOLLOCKS !!!

SIMON: Hmm ... I'd have to read the book, but this seems to be cobbled 
together from 2 passages. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of 
peasant goods were produced, if not themselves, then within a village of 
peasants with an extended family relationship. Division of labour does not 
automatically entail commodity production.

Not knowing the context of your 'bollocks!' I would argue that when payments 
in kind to the feudal lord became more than sufficient to satisfy the lord's 
own wants, then the excess became commodities. The lord would dispose of 
such excess to merchants, within a money rather than personal relationship. 
Commodification of relations also occurs when, for example, military service 
to a liege lord is substituted by 'ship money', or otherwise money in lieu 
of service (to allow the king to recruit his own troops or mercenaries).

Simon Wigley (WSM Member)