In the early Middle Ages, a necessary condition of the feudalisation of the periphery of Western Europe was the influence of the neighbouring (already feudal) countries. Otherwise the social structure of peripheral societies would have been developing like in the Orient.

L. Vasilyev affirms convincingly that market relations in Germanic society in the early Middle Ages were suppressed by vertical (subordinating) and corporative connections. In this sense Western Europe became similar to the Orient. Nevertheless, the main difference was that private property remained in Western Europe. Private property enabled the development of market relations when civilization and technologies were restored.

Medieval cities and burghers undermined feudalism and were the first sprouts of the capitalist structure.

L. Vasilyev’s statement that capitalism is the consequence of a structural rebirth of the Antiquity is not very convincing. The structural heritage of the Antiquity was a primary stimulus during the process of a genesis of feudalism. Later the feudalism developed spontaneously and the part of the heritage of the Antiquity was only auxiliary.

It is very doubtful that the historical experiment of the structural synthesis took place in medieval Western Europe (according to L. Vasilyev’s conception it also took place in the helenistic Orient and in the Byzantine Empire). Already, during the stage of a genesis of feudalism, the social mutation (i. e. qualitative change) took place in Western Europe. So, in general there was no more structural synthesis but spontaneous development. On the other hand, the mentioned L. Vasilyev’s conception was not adapted to much more perspective cases like Philippines and especially Latin America.

Įteikta 2004 10 15

Priimta spaudai 2004 12 06