資本論 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.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.2Thus

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.3

NOTES:

1Harrison

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.\"

2On

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.\"

3In

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

Besanon

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

Besanon,

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.