Was the development of absolutism a response to the rising capitalist class and/or republicanism? My knowledge of late medieval history is really not as strong as it could be so I’m interested to hear what people think
Was the development of absolutism a response to the rising capitalist class and/or republicanism? My knowledge of late medieval history is really not as strong as it could be so I’m interested to hear what people think
It’s been a few years, but I don’t think Federici explicitly placed it as “feudalism in decay.” I also don’t agree with that take because capitalism is more progressive than feudalism in a Marxist sense.
I see the point you’re making, how Federici characterizes the violence against women as a necessary bludgeon against the peasant class to proletarizse them, but it’s not for the same materliast reasons that fascism utilizes violence.
If we were to continue with this line of thought, I could say that capitalism was born in the dying body of feudalism. However, I think the transformative nature of feudalism–> capitalism is much different than liberalism --> fascism. That’s because fascism’s goal is essentially to destroy proletarian power to bring capitalist order back. That is to say, fascist violence is to preserve capitalism while the violence in Caliban and the Witch is to part of the transformation into capitalism.
Federici is a great read, but I think she has her gaps for historical materialism.
I see your point on the transformation part, but I still think the analogy is relevant. In both cases (transformation from feudalism into capitalism and capitalism into fascism) you’re seeing a shift in relations born from the reaction of the ruling class to a crisis. Capitalism was born out of the desire to preserve feudalism that was untenable; so fascism arises when preserving the existing capitalist relations is the desired goal but the outcome is no longer possible.