Capital and Mining Property Relations: Reconsidering Marxist Understanding of Feudal Mining Land

Abstract

Marxism holds that feudal mining land was characterized by production relations that gave lords the upper hand. Lacking productive capital, mining land was generally a site of coercive feudalproperty relations. The idea is indefensible, as evidence shows that mining lands triggered property arrangements antagonizing lordly power. This article discusses the labor and capital relations that transformed feudal land into mining land. It argues that this transformation challenged the supremacy of feudal lords by triggering property relations relatively unconstrained by feudal lordly power. The article concludes that mining lands were sites of antagonistic relations, were capital confronted feudal landed property, aiming at isolating lords from the gains of mines. 1 | INTRODUCTION The dominant Marxist explanation of the European transition has problems making sense of feudal mining lands. It acknowledges that mining flourished across feudal Europe, from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. But it never admits that economic and social relations inherent to feudal mining lands contributed to the European transition