Was feudalism inevitable? A critique of K.G. Persson

Abstract

In a recent article,¹ K.G. Persson has raised a number of interesting problems concerning the tenability of some of the main theses of historical materialism as embodied in G.A. Cohen's defence of the Marxian theory of history.² In particular, Persson addresses the historical materialist view that feudalism was an inevitable stage in the development of the forces of production. He accepts Cohen's position that purposeful human action can be compatible with the concept of inevitable events in that something may be said to be inevitable if rational individual actions are bound to be such that the specific event will necessarily follow.³ The problem with this concept of inevitability is that it is easy to see its analytical value in a world of perfect knowledge and no uncertainty, but Persson does not exploit this weakness and focusses instead on two other aspects of the issue: first, does inevitability, understood as the outcome of rational (but uncoordinated) individual actions, mean optimality? And second, is there a tension between this idea of inevitability and the principles of historical materialism? The first is easily disposed of. If game theory has shown nothing else, surely it has demonstrated that individual rationality does not necessarily bring about socially optimal outcomes.⁴ The second issue is somewhat more complex and deserves greater attention, because in addressing it Persson revives an important model of the feudal economy that can yield some considerable insights.⁵ I will present Persson's discussion of the tensions between historical materialism and inevitability briefly in the next section, but will concentrate mainly on the model of the feudal economy he builds. In Section III I will offer what I hope will be some constructive criticism of this model. A brief conclusion is presented in Section IV.