The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism

Source: Excerpts from "The Origin of Capitalism" by Ellen Meiksins Wood, Chapter 5: The
Agrarian Origin of Capitalism

Author: Ellen Meiksins Wood

Main Theme: The central argument of this chapter is that capitalism, with its inherent
drives for accumulation and profit maximisation, originated not in cities or through the
expansion of trade, but in the countryside, specifically in England, and relatively late in
human history. This development required a fundamental transformation of social relations,
particularly the relationship between producers (peasants) and appropriators (landlords).

Key Ideas and Facts:

1. The Uniqueness of Capitalism's Origins:

Capitalism is not a natural or inevitable progression from pre-existing market
activity. It represents a "complete transformation in the most basic human relations
and practices, a rupture in age-old patterns of human interaction with nature."
The defining feature of capitalism is the market dependence of both capital and
labour for their basic reproduction. Workers must sell their labour power to survive,
and capitalists must buy labour power and the means of production, selling their
output for profit.
This market dependence creates unique systemic compulsions: "the imperatives of
competition, accumulation, and profit-maximization, and hence a constant systemic
need to develop the productive forces." This leads to capitalism's inherent tendency
for constant expansion.

2. Pre-Capitalist Appropriation vs. Capitalist Exploitation:

In pre-capitalist societies, surplus was typically appropriated from peasant
producers through 'extra-economic' means – direct coercion, political power, legal
privilege, and military force wielded by landlords or states. Peasants generally had
direct access to their means of subsistence.
The example of early modern France, with its system of peasant owner/occupiers
and appropriation through politically constituted property (taxation and office),
illustrates a non-capitalist path. "Office became a major means of extracting surplus
labour from direct producers, in the form of tax; and the state, which became a
source of great private wealth, co-opted and incorporated growing numbers of
appropriators..."
Capitalism, in contrast, is characterised by the complete dispossession of direct
producers, who are legally free but propertyless. Their surplus labour is
appropriated through purely 'economic' means – the wage relationship within a
market system.
3. The English Exception: Agrarian Capitalism:
England, by the sixteenth century, was developing in a unique direction within the
pre-capitalist European economy.
The English state was exceptionally unified and centralised early on, leading to a
different relationship between political and economic power compared to
continental Europe (e.g., France, Spain). "The autonomous powers held by lords,
municipal bodies, and other corporate entities in other European states were, in
England, increasingly concentrated in the central state."
The English aristocracy, demilitarised earlier than their continental counterparts,
possessed less 'extra-economic' power but held highly concentrated landownership.
This facilitated the development of 'economic' powers of surplus extraction.
English landlords had a strong incentive to compel their tenants to increase labour
productivity due to market-based ('economic') rents, unlike rentier aristocrats who
relied on coercion. "Agrarian landlords in this arrangement had a strong incentive to
encourage - and, wherever possible, to compel - their tenants to find ways of
reducing costs by increasing labour-productivity."
A market in leases developed, subjecting tenants to competitive pressures not only in
consumer markets but also for access to land. This market dependence drove
productivity improvements. "It was, in other words, not the opportunities afforded
by the market but rather its imperatives that drove petty commodity producers to
accumulate."
This system led to the emergence of the "famous triad of landlord, capitalist tenant,
and wage labourer" and a highly productive agriculture capable of supporting a
non-agricultural population and creating a domestic market for cheap goods.

4. The Rise of Capitalist Property and the Ethic of 'Improvement':

By the sixteenth century, English agriculture in certain regions was oriented towards
profit, with landlords and tenants preoccupied with 'improvement' – "the
enhancement of the land's productivity for profit."
The very word 'improve' shifted in meaning to be linked with monetary profit and
the productive cultivation of land.
'Improvement' involved not just new farming techniques but also new conceptions of
property, particularly the elimination of customary practices and common rights
that hindered profitable land use.
Enclosure, the extinction of common and customary use rights, was a key aspect of
this transformation, facilitating exclusive private ownership and capitalist
accumulation. Thomas More famously described it as "'sheep devouring men'".
The Parliamentary enclosures of the 18th century, enacted by acts of Parliament,
represent the triumph of agrarian capitalism.

5. Locke's Theory of Property:

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" is seen as emblematic of rising
agrarian capitalism.
 Locke's argument for private property is based on the idea that individuals own their
labour and acquire a right to property by "mixing his labour" with something to
improve it and make it productive.
He emphasises that most of the value of land comes from labour and improvement,
not nature. "'tis labour indeed that puts the difference of value on everything'". He
even suggests that labour contributes 99/100 of the value.
Locke's concept of value is linked to exchange value and profit. Unimproved land is
considered "waste".
His theory justifies the appropriation of land for profitable use, even if it involves
employing the labour of others. "'the Grass my Horse has bit; the Turfs my Servant
has cut; and the Ore I have digg'd in any place where I have a right to them in
common with others, become my Property...'"
Wood argues that Locke's theory, while seemingly based on labour, is fundamentally
about the productivity of property and its application to commercial profit,
reflecting the interests of improving landlords.
Locke's ideas also had implications for colonialism, justifying the expropriation of
indigenous lands deemed 'unimproved'. "'In the beginning all the World was
America'", implying a state of undeveloped potential awaiting European
improvement.

6. Class Struggle and Bourgeois Revolution:

The development of capitalist property in England led to new forms of class struggle,
distinct from those in France.
In France, class struggle revolved around 'extra-economic' exploitation and access to
politically constituted property (state office, privileges).
In England, conflicts over property rights and the meaning of property (e.g.,
resistance to enclosure, defence of customary rights) were central.
Wood questions the traditional concept of 'bourgeois revolution' as the driving force
behind capitalism. She argues that in England, the revolution primarily consolidated
the power of a landed class already moving towards capitalist agriculture.
She suggests that the English Revolution was not primarily a struggle between
bourgeoisie and aristocracy but involved a ruling class against subordinate popular
forces whose interests often conflicted with capitalist development.
While the French Revolution better fits the model of a struggle between bourgeoisie
and aristocracy, its connection to the development of capitalism is less clear, with
the revolutionary bourgeoisie often focused on non-capitalist forms of appropriation
and civil equality. "'it is tempting to say that the French bourgeoisie was
revolutionary precisely because, and to the extent that, it was not capitalist.'"
The English Revolution, despite not being a classic 'bourgeois revolution', had a more
direct impact on promoting capitalism through the advancement of capitalist
property relations.

Conclusion:
This chapter compellingly argues that capitalism's origins are deeply rooted in a unique
transformation of agrarian social relations in England. The shift from 'extra-economic'
appropriation to 'economic' exploitation, driven by market imperatives and facilitated by
specific political and property structures, created a dynamic system of accumulation and
competition. The concept of 'improvement' and the evolving understanding of property
rights, as exemplified by Locke's theories, were crucial ideological and practical components
of this historical development. The chapter also challenges conventional understandings of
class struggle and the role of 'bourgeois revolution' in the emergence of capitalism.