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.
2
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.
3
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
529
Chapter 29
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.