The Development of Capitalism

PERSPECTIVES ON WORK. WELFARE AND SOCIETY SERIES EDITOR: IAN CLEGG

The Development of Capitalism Si man Clarl<e

P[RSI'ECTIVES 01'1 WORK. WELFARE AND SOCIF.TY

The Developlnent of C�r.t�li�'n Simon Clarh�

The Pcr.'1paclive hooklets give simple introductions, in convenient form, to the workings of key areas of British society, such (IS the unions, housing, the law, together with the general background of class-structure, capitalism, relation to the third world. EssE,ntial data and informed argument from a broadly left-wing standpoint, together with book-lists for further study. provide a unique aid for students of economics, politics, sociology and for the general reader.

The Development of Capitalism illl"lyses, in a lucid and compelling way, the economic and politic,,1 factors th"t brought into being (or failed to bring) capitalist o rgani ; at io n of society '

in specifk historical sitllations, togethe r with those r"ctors that continue it in heing through its different modifications.

ISBN

7220

7402

6

40p non-net

Sheed and Ward Ltd. 6 Blenheim St, London WIYOSA.

Perspectives Oil work, welfare and socidy Series editor: Ian Clegg TilE

DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM Simon Clarke

I

Sheed and Ward· London iii

First published 19H

Shecd and Ward Ltcl, (j IUelllll�ill1 Street, I,uncloll WI Y OSA © Simon Clarke 197·1

This honk is sct in

I I Oil II point Baskerville I\lade ,mel printcd in Grc�al Britain hy Ey re & Spollisw()odc Limited a I G rOSH'nor Prl'ss, Pori smnllth IV

Contents

Introduclion I Early c api t ali sm (I) A capitalist class (2) Tlw d ecay of fcudal s ociet y (3) A new class (4) The rise of capitalism in England (5) The failurc o f the new class to arise 2 Later capitalism (1) The context trans formed (2) Investment oppor tunities (3) TIl' l market (4) Frcc labour (5) Agricu ltural revolution (6) The s tate Bibliography

1

7 7 10 15 17 20 27 27 34 37 43 47 50 55

Introduction

In this booklet we are concerned with the developme n t o f capi tal ism. B u t we are not concerned to st udy the historical developme n t of capitalism in any parlicular country. I nstead we arc concerned with the most �eneral fea tures of the development of capi talism, and III par ticular we arc concerned with the cond i tions which mus t be sal is fied if capitalism is to develop at all. If we are n o t s tudying the developmen t of capitalism for a h istor ical purpose why are we studying i t? For essent ially two reasons. Firs tly, and quite simply, because the study o f the origins of capitalism can throw considerable ligh t on the nature o f capitalism itse l f and so on con temporary society. In this hooklet we do not draw conclusions about the nature of capitalism, largel y for reasons o f space, hut the reader may care to think about the implications of the points made for the analysis o f contemporary socie ty. Secondly we arc interested hecause. for good or ill. a large propor t ion o f the underdeveloped cOlin tries today are trying to develhp their economics along essent ially cap i talis t l ines, albeit with suhsta n l ial state intc lven tiun. So I he historkal eltperienn" o f capitalist development will inevi t ahly be o f vital impor tance to an unders ta nding of the problems which sllch develop· ment confro nts in thl' underdeveloped cou n tries. Th is is discussed in a complementary booklet in this s(�ries.

Problems 0Igrmullt in tilt' third world.

What do we mean hy ca pitalism? We do not mean simply production for the marke t , or even prodl\(: t ion for profit; nor du we mean the lending of money for interes t . These arc charactl"r is l ics, essen tially. of any lIloney economy and , as such, are found as much in ancie n t Rome as they are in modern Bri tain. We want

the tl'rlll ',�apitalislll' to dcsl'ribl' a particular type of socil,ty, the typr whkh Britain, Fralln'and the United Slales have bl'en since Ihe end .of the eighteenth ccntmy, A Iype of snciet y in which l.he wlwle snciety is acljuslec\ and adapted to a parlinllar Iypc of pro­ duction. This typl' of production, called l"<Jpilalist produclioll, is that in which the labourer cloes nol own his nU'ans of production ;lI\(l the oWlll'r of the lIIeans of prOdUl"lioll dOl'S nol labour, '1'1,,' Iabuurer works fllr a wa�e; Ihe oWIll'r of the means of production, of machines ;lI1d raw malerials, sels the worla'r to work with thl�se means of produci ion, selling till' prmluci OIl a profit. A capitalist sm:iety. is onc dominaled by such a typc "I' production, a sociely in which OWI1 12

under local protec t ion, which mea n t that they were under the con trolu f the local landowning da!!s. On the other hand in coun tries where the local poli tical authority was relatively weak and the central au thority stronger the towns tended to pu t themsclves IInder the pro tec tion o f Ihe crown. The former si tllal ion parI iCII' larly characlerist'd I taly and Germany, tilt' laller mort' France and England. The dirrerent nature of Ihi!! alliance in di fferent countries sen-cd tn i ncrca!!e still fur ther the dominance o f local powers in the former case and o f the na tional power in the laLLer. And these power!! were nece!!!!arily po tent ially in conrlict in a feudal society, since each competed for a share of the fixed surplus. This connict came ou t into the open where the monarchy managed to establish an independent basis for pol i t ical power. In Engl;md the crown lands gave the monarch sllch a basis from the hegin n ing, and the same was the case i n Tokugawa.J apan. In other coun tries the alliance (I f the crown w i th the towns gave the crown i ts independent posi tion (I f power, a position from which it could assert i ts own interests against the local interes ts of the landowners. The period of alliance between monarchy and the urban merchant class, in whidl the monarchy depended financially 011 loans from the merchants, while it gra n ted pro tec t ion and monopoly privileges in re turn, WitS the period o f absolutism, shown in its classic form in France. This played an importa n t part in preparing the grollnd for capi talism by u n i fy ing the nation and the national market and by a!!serling the au thority o f thc s t ate ovcr the whole na tion. On Ihe other hand where the towns were IInder Ihe sway o f the local lilndowners the loam; of the merchant class st�rvcd to prop lip the local landowning class and to endorse its IO('al dominance, and so strengthened still fur ther the reJ{ionalism which necessarily impecled the development of eapilalism. The merchant!' had risen to their posit ions oC strength on the basis oC the economic embarrassmen t oC the land()wnin� class. and in the gap crea tc(1 hy the

intl'rnal divisions of fl�IHlal soci'�1 y. Bl'cause of this weakness and I hesl' divisions Ihe landowning class was nol ill a position to impl'de 1111' hJ'fOWlh of Ih(' merchanl class nor assert Ihl'ir ullchall('n�ed Olulhnrity over the tOWIlS, ,kspil(' the fael Ihat lh(' mere-himls' surplus was d('riv('d ult illla Id y aI Ilwir l'x perlS('. Ihough foreign pllllllkr oftl'n ,"onlrihul('d hrrl'atly 10 its incr('ase. But the nwrchants wer(' forc('d 10 sl'('k proll'ction of the local land(lwnl'r or t hl' sta 1(' nol only a�ainsl potelltial rivals who might ("hallen�l' hard-won mOllopoly posilions. bUI also agaiml Ihe oth('r ur ban classes, particlliarly Ihe craflsl1ll'll. It did not lak(' long for the merchanls to assume political control of the h>1..ilds, and so 10 cOlllrol the h'llild rq�lIlalions. At first thl' restrieliOlls represellt,'d by Ih"5(, regula! ions were in lhl' merchants' OW11 interests, restrit:ting and controll· ing producl ion, and so l'lilllinating competilion. But once in powl'r 511111(' of Ilw l11l'rl"ilants reilh5ed that they could enlarge their profits slill further by securing Ihe products in whidl thry traded al r('duce(1 prices. And Ihis they could only do hy Ilnillillgguild regulations­ hy employin� l ahour at low wages which had nol completed proper apprrnticeship. OfIen �lIch labour wOllld '-'e found ill Ihe cOlllltrY5id(', where Ihe guild allthorilY did Ilot rUIl. Th(,merchantsccrtainly did Ilot oppos(' gllild restriction, Ihey merely suught to operate il to their advantage. This devl'i0pllwnl, by which prl'viously independent crafl produclion, carried on hy th(' craflsman with his own tools, was sllhordinate,l to capilal, ("'11"ri('d out hy wage l ahour ming tools and raw malerials owned hy lhl" Jll('rThanl, Of wilh produclion soldy nmlrolled hy the markel. rl'prl'senls lh(' wry hq;inning of capitalist ('nl(�rprise, 01" produclion by wa/-:(' la),u\If. Hut as yet this was only a rormal d('vdo»menl; Ihe Glpitaiisl could only ('xpluit lire work('r because (lr his monopoly »O\vcrs. This development is first ohs('rved in Ih(' Ncthcrlall(\s and It.lly around the Ihirtc('nth ccntury, in England not unlil lh(' fiflel'nlh cenlmy. With it an exlcll(kd strtlg�le hetw('('n merchanl and craftsmen

over coni rol of the gu i lds and implemental ion of guild regulations developed. In Italy and the Netherlands it was this conflict that forced the merchant class to rely politically on the local landowners. In Britain and France the al l iance was bel ween the large merchant and the state. Although borrowing from the merchant classes could stave off disaster for the landowners it could no t poslpone it inde fini tely. The dehts had to be repaid or the estates loslo So ultimatdy the resort to the loan and the morl.gage only servt:d to weaken the landowning class s t i l l further. Politically it derived streng th in some countries from its a l l iance with and power in the local towns. Somet imes landowners would themselves derive �reat riches from t rade by this means. Bu t in those countries in whidl the towns served only t o strengthen the monarchy aga inst the local landowner, political dec line for the la l l er was as rapid as econom ic. In such countries the landowners were in no posi tion to p revent the dirrere n t ia t ion o f the peasan t ry, which led on Ihe one hand I () a class of i mprov i ng yeoman farmers and on the other to a rural semi-proletariat. And when i t s resources ran out it was in no position 10 preven t the merchants foreclosing on the morlgages il had raised and taking possession of the estates.

(3) A N I�WC I.M;S Bllt still this dt�cline or t he aristocracy, Ihe rise o f com mercial activity and the merchant class. did not surfice 10 lead 10 Ihe development of capilal ism. If it had England wlluld cerlainly not havt: been the first capital ist cOlln t ry. The real dlallenge to the old order can only come from a new d'L"s. We ohviously canno t expect the feudal landowner to havl' in it iated that capi talist development whkh finally undermined h is posit ion Nor did they have the resources, as their income was lwavily committed to ost entatious· con· sumptioll, political advance, feuding and warfare. Some did make improvement s to their l'states. fol low.

15

ing the example (If the ,.,'1"owing yeomanry and of the merchant investors or the lanel. Some even invested in capitalist induslry once it was well estahlislll'd. Until all hop e was losl, and oftt'll even he y one l , Ilw)' dung to the dream of resurrecting the old order . But what ahcml the mC'rt'hant class? We have se'en that as early as Ihe thirtC'C'lIth ("entury this class was investing its capital in production. Was Ihis the bc�innil1� of capitalism? The answer is I lut it was not. The reason, as we have already seell, is Ihat the capitalist system only really ta kl' s off with the intro' duction of fa(�tory produclion. It is unly with this devcloplllent that the system "('(Iuires its own dyna m it-. The slIhnrdination of product IO n 10 capital in thir· teenth -century Italy aml lhe Netherlands was pili to an end, Ihough only temporarily, with the resistann' of the crartsmen. This suhordination depended essentially on the merchants' desire to conlrol and restrict production, while the clevelopment (If capit alism re· quireel the expansion of production to sudl a level Ihal new me lhoels hccame possihle and pro/'itahle. The merchant saw the SOIlf('C of profil in Ilw diITcrrllce

bcLween the huying and selling price, ,md in the exploitation of ,. monopoly situation. For the capi. talist, profit lay in the steady expansion of produc tioll unbounded hy any legal or administraliVl" f("llers. '1'11(.' capitalist was concerned wilh the introduction of new techniques of product ion. wit h transforlllatioll of the con ditiolls of production. Thr merchant knrw nothing of p ro dudion, and where he controllec\ it Ill' IIsecl the tradit io n al lll et hods. though he derived sOllie advantilgl' from concentration and rationalisation of p roduction. He was more conce rn ed wilh acquiring and exploit ing a mo nopoly position th"n with the relatively pelly gains to be m ade from ec.onomi('s in prodllction. For this rea.'Ion the transformation which made the develop. ment of capilillism an irreversihle prn('c�� had to he effected by a new c 1as� , a class of men more closely engclgcd in production than was the merchant. Although the merchant played an important part in

III

preparing IhC' ground lor GlplLanSI Ul;Vl '''I'........ .... a ltho l lgh once Ihat development was uncil-r way, once hi!' monopoly position wa!' undermined, he WilS likely 10 invesl in tha i developmcnt himself, if hc had not been mined hy ii, he was nol the man to crfC'('t 11ll' transformal ion. In fact, prt'cisdy uec:llIse the develop. mcnt of the IIlll"ellered prodm'lion of capitalism IIndermined his monopuly, tIll' merrhanl opposed thaI developmcnt as stron�ly "s he was ahlc. And he defended not only his own int l'rc sls bill thosC' of thl' 01 her dominant class of relldal sodet y, thc landowners, and the feudal statc as well. The merchanl class is always p arasitic.: on the dominant modc' of prodllction. His trade is with thl' dominant classes of Ihat modl' of production. In fC�lIdal society he sold aimosl entirely to court and landowner, his traell' centring on luxury gouds and military supplil's. Thc interl'st on his loans derivcd from thc feudal state, Ihe fl'mlal landowncr and the oppressed feudal pcasanl. So the story of Ihe devclopmC'nt of capilalism depencled in tlw end nn the rise 01" a new class from illlWllg the ranks of Ihe produl'l'rs. Allhongh Ihe merchanl class, and merchanL capital, dev"loped in a ll feudal socicties, it was only in some thai the new class developed, and only in a few thaL it rose to dominance. Foremost among such countries was England. L,

_

(4) T i l E RISEOFCAPITAUSM IN ENGLAND In England Ihe rl'udal decline slarled earlier and went further than it did elsewhere. The wcakness of the feudal ordl'r allowcd a new class to emerge which would eventually play thc decisivc rolc in the inslal· lation of capitalism. This new class had Iwo l' ss ential sources, one a ncw stratum or capitalist farmers, the other a new slratum of l:apitalist produc�rs. In thc countryside the diITercntiation or lhc peasanlry and C'feation or a class of yeoman farmers on Ihe one hand and rural workers Oil the other took plalT (lver il long l i m c and prc cc ckd the collapse (lr feu d a lism . Indeed it.

17

was a major agcllt (lr that cnllap�l" It is IIl1t surprising that the aristocracy could do nothing to suppress this dass, which mallagl'd to acquire:- all aJ.rricullural surplus through ill' improvecl productivity, and a share or the

landlord's surplus through price changes which had thr erfed of reducing real rellts. The f(,lIllal aris\c)(Tacy was ddlilit at ('t1 by centurics or almost cont inuous war ran', hy cxpcnsivl' living, hy shortage' of lahour, hy economil­

crisis. Econoll1it-ally up to its ('OIlS in clcht, politically it raccd a rchellious tenantry and a JIIonarchy which had a powerful ally in the urhan lI1C'rchant class. The class of capitalist farmers steadily wew at thc

expense or the:- sImI II landholder ancl the cO.nmon lands, which W(,rl� rndOSl'(1. Arter I Ill' gains rwm sC'alc� and the

gains rrom raLionalisation had hCl'n l'xhaustl�d ncw techniques hegan Lo be introduced which re to fort y di fCerent people in receipt of di rreren t sorts o f income from one piece or land. In this sort oC s i t ua t i o n , where Lhe surplus is spread t h inly, a process o C concentration of land ownership and so concen tra t io n of surplus would be necessary prior to, or alongside, a process of pri m i t ive aC(�umulation. Such a conccn t ra tion of ownership would also be expec ted to l ead to a ra t ionalisation of production and so to an increase in s u rplus, a stronger class of landowners and so, most l i k el y , t o an increased rate of exploitat ion. Those c o u n tries which Caih.'d t o develop capi t al ism failed fur d i f feren t reasons, In some, such as A frica south of t he Sahara, t rihal society clearly offered no prospect o f capi talist developmen t . In I ndia hy con­ tras t t h e s t rength of the dominan t (-lasses was sufficien t to preven t a n y compe t i t or emerging. India, in the seventec n t h and eigh teen t h centuries, was renowned as a land o f fabulous weal th, though the wealth was largely t h a t o f those merchan t s who monopol ised the t rade w i t h o t h er countries. She had a rich merchant and la ndown i n g class. Uut the merchant class was totally subord i n a t e t o t he landowners, and tended t o hecome absorbed i n t o i t . The econumic system on the land, wi t h i t s ne('d for extensive irriga t ion. and the cons tan t need for ddence against invaders from the nor t h meant that the s ta tes were very powerful and the princes astunishi ngly rich. Thus state and ruling class es e rfec­ t ively furmed a mono l i t h ic hlock against which any new class that mi ght have emerged would have s t ood no chance a t al l . I n fact no new class could ("merg(' : in the c ountrysid(' t here was vl'ry l i l l i e prndlll"tioll for the market , aJ most all being for res tricted exchange by barter wi t h i n t he vil lage economy. Thus the small producer had nei t her incen t iv(" for, nur possibility o f,

24

('xpandi ng his product ion. lie could not acquire' land, because i t was not a com mod i t y , nor was t here lahour to he hired. The handicraft proelucer, too, was hound into the natural economy or the vill ..ge by t h e cas te system. L astly the towns remained firmly a nd securdy under the con trol of t h e state. The Indian s i t u a t ion w..s Iypical of most of Asia. Th('re is consider .. hle evidenl'e that, in India al leas l , the so calle d Asiatic m ode of produc t ion had hy ahou t the six tee n th or seventeent h cen t ury given way 1 0 a system much more like Lhat of feudal Europe. And it is dear that the merch ant class during t hose cen t uries, l ike its contempor.ny in Europe, was inv('s t ing i ts capital in the rinance of production. There is some evidence that craftsmen were alst) turning to I he employment uf wage labour. Whether such .. devdop ­ ment would have ever led to the indigenous develop­ men t or capi talism in India nohoely can say, for hdore it had time to nourish the Brit ish had arrived in force and d es t roye d all indigenous indus t ry. B l l t slIch evidence docs deal a r.. irly crushing hlow 10 Weher's identification of t h e h indu ideology as the virt llal an t i t hesis or the protes t ant ethic, .. nd as t h e main reason why capi talism had failed to develop i n India. I f i t is t rue that t he h i ndu ethi(� is ullcollducive t o I h e development of capi tal ism, a s Weher dilimed. t h ollgh others have contes t ed, then i ndigenol ls Indian capi­ t alist developmen t must be pre l ly concl usive e\'id('n('e ror t he m inor si","ni ficancc or ide .. s as a call sal r.. c t or in the developmen t o f capi t alism. -

2 Later capitalism ( I ) TIlE CON TE XT TRANSFORMED The rise of capitalism in one country transformed the whole situation. I n countries where the prospects of capi talist developmen t were previously apparently remote, the capitalist mode of production came to dominate in a mal ler of years. In Germany and Japan, in Russia and I taly the dominan t c1a.�ses of the old order themselves played a leading role in the develop. ment of capitalism, using the state as their agent, as the seal on an all iance with the class they had previously tried to suppress. This apparent paradox is resolved when we realise that the risc of cap i t al ism in one country, Britain, profoundly affected both the condi tions and the prospects of capitalist development in other cou n tries. Let us examine this transformation. The growth of capitalism in Britain initially had a twofold impat:t on the rest of the world. Firstly Britain began to supply cheap goods to the world and, in particular, sought markets for these goods wherever and however she could. This meant that Britain began to undercut indigenous handicraft producers and drive them out of business. Often this undercu tting involved the use of political, military and administrative measures, especially in the colonies. Often it wa.� purely economic. The effect of the weakeni�g or destruction of h andicraft was to precipitate a crisis in peasan t and feudal agriculture the world over. Peasants, who had sough t relief from their crushing exploitative burdens by enga� ing i n cottage industries, were forced below the subSistence level when these were destroyed. The result was widespread peasant unrest on the one hand

a n d a red l l c t i o n o f t h e surp ills avai lahle rl lr t he s t a t e .lIld t h e (Io m i n a n t classes l in t h e ot her. S o t h e rise o f ca p i t alism in England s t n lck a t t h e ("1m' of feudal and peasan t hOi sed soci l, t i es. Secondly Brit a i n 's r'l p i d ly i ncreasing weal t h carried with it a rapi dly i ncreasing m i l i t a ry power. To coun t e r such pllwrr a n y p rospel"t iv(' u p po l l e n t or Bri t ain was cOll l pel ird t o ( x p an d m i l i tary ex p e nd i t urr l�llOrmolisly, p i l I t ing sl ill l a rger hurdl'ns on t h e revenue. So the i m pac t of t he rise (If capi t a l ism in Bri t ain, and st ill more when c api t a li sm was ex tended to other cou i l l ries, was to precip i t a l l' pe as a n l IInn'st as handi­ cra ft was destroyed, to p re c i p i t a t e a crisis' i n t he s t a t e rinances a s sources of revenlle declined while needs rl lr ex pend i t ure i n cre as ed , and t o undermine the base of the indigl'nous monopoly merchants as capi talist pro­ duct s drove I he m from I he ma rke t . To a l esser ex ten t agricu l t ure t oo was h i l hy com pe t i l ion from I he produc l S of capi t al ist agricul l ure elsewhere, and t o s o m e exten t t h is a l so reduced rl'n t s. The re ac l inn to t h is crisis in di fferen t cou n t r i e s fu nda men t a l ly det er­ m i ne d t heir subsequent econom i c and pol i t ical de­ '

velopmen t. Alt hough the devdopm en t of ca p i ta li s m elsewhere mean t t h a t product ion uni t s in l at e comers had to be t ha t mu ch larger and more advan 1 soon hreaks down. generally OVl'r qucs t ions Slid. as l ahour law, lanel law and I hl' pricing of agricu l t ur a l �oods, T h i s con fl i c t h a d an i mport a n t part to play in the cil-velop mcn l o f fascism in I i aly and Gcrmany, Thc s t un l ed growth of I he hO llle market also mealls t ha t I II(' cap i l a l i !> l s sCI'k forC'igJl m:lI'kets ('or I he i r p rodllct s a l l I he more ('nCl"gl,t ical ly, T h u s i t is 110 chann' I 'hellollll'l\on t h a i I l aly, C ;ermany and J apan h ave been I he 1lI0 s t ('J1 ('rgl' l k, t h ough not I h e most

slICC('SSfl l l .

imperialist

powers.

�()

the apparen t ly

peaceful revolu l ion from ahov,' wrough t ill I hose cOllJ1tries ill which the landowning class plays a leading roll' in t h e developJllent of cap i l al ism serves o n l y to pos l pone I he h i l l er poli t ical dash wh ich is incv i t ahle, In I he coun l ries wh il'h fa iled 10 develop l'ap i t a l ism, the fai lure 10 develop a h o me market ill Ihe elld came dowII to the s t a t i c social anel prodllct ive rela t ions in the cou n t ryside : t hosl' same ('())ldit iolls whit-h i mpecll'd Ihe process of primi I i ve accu m u l a tion, /\ s u hsist('IH,(, sys l e m o f ilgricull ure prcvai led, wi l lt I hc mass of the pop u l a l ion having access 10 I h e land t h rough t ri hal coopl'ra l in', shan" cropping, or (�s l a l e sys l l'ms o r produci i o n , Such a syst ell1 was ma i n ta i nC'd bccause w i l h poor cOll1 l11unica l ions. and low pro­ clUe! ivit y , sllpplies of llIarkd a hk goods and so prkcs Wl'rl' l'x l n'mel y crra l it'. Thus all)' l"Olll m i l mell I I I I t ill' market was f(lol h a rdy, Whl'rc allY I hrca l til I he s y s t e m arose I here w('re always t hC' rural nwrchall ts

and landlords to do all in in thrir pl lwer t i l suppress it. The underdeveloped world had to wai t for the arrival o f imperialism t o see t he po t en t ial o f their markets developed. When it came, this dcvdopment was in the in terests nflt o f indigenous capital hu t of imperialism. The rapidity w i t h which the market was develnp(�d tes t i fies, however, to the immense power of developed cap i t al ism to cre a t e i t s own market once it is orr the grou nd. But each individual market represented for i m perial capi tal only a part o f the whole. Thus the exploi tat ion o f the empire helped to rocket England to preem inence by boost ing the dom inan t industries, first tex t i les, then railway equipmen t , a t j u s l the right time, allowing them to expand without any barriers. Taken separately i t is doub t fu l whet her any one of these, singly, could have provided a sol id enough base for the developmen t of capi talism. For, lar�cly for pol i t ical rcasom, imperial cap i t ol l left the sodal and product ive relat ion!i in the coun tryside much