General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZombie-eyed Granny Starving, 2.0
By Charles P. Pierce
Between 1750 and 1860, the British Parliament passed a series of laws called The Inclosure Acts. The point of these laws was to repurpose open fields that had heretofore been treated as part of the Commons by the British peasantry. Traditionally, the peasants were able to farm these large areas and graze what animals they had there. They were also allowed to range freely over what were called "wastes," which were swampy, unproductive places in which the rural poor could fish, or gather firewood, or do whatever they needed to do to keep body and soul together.
(In an informal way, this had been going on for years, as had ineffective attempts by the peasantry to assert their traditional rights. Kett's Rebellion of 1549 was a protest against the enclosure of common land by the gentry and it was centered in the unfortunately named town of Mousehold. The Midland Revolt in 1607 also had the enclosure of common land as its casus belli.)
The Inclosure Laws ended all that, destroying part of the idea of the Commons along the way. The fields were fenced in, and the most productive of them parceled off to wealthy landowners and to those with serious political connections. This was great for agriculture and a lousy deal for the peasants, who were left with a series of unpleasant options. These included emigration, or internal migration to cities that were rapidly becoming hopelessly overcrowded and in which the luckier ones among the displaced would find work in the dark, Satanic mills that were just then accelerating toward the Industrial Revolution, or, finally, grubbing out a life as a tenant farmer for the rich people to whom what previously had been common land had been parceled off. Among other things, this set in stone a grotesquely unbalanced landlord-tenant system throughout the agricultural economy of the United Kingdom. This, as we know from our history, worked out splendidly in Ireland. The basic philosophy of the Inclosure Acts was applied generally throughout the British Empire. The effect on indigenous populations was not a good one.
(A lot of the peasants who emigrated came to America, to which they brought a deep distrust of distant autocratic power. This came in handy in 1776.)
If the peasant wanted to continue to farm any land at all, he often had to sign a contract with one of the wealthy landowners to do so. This pretty much made him a serf. (In fact, some historians have likened the Inclosure system to a rudimentary experiment in what Stalin eventually would do with his collective farms.) His livelihood, and that of his family, depended on the landlord's whims. The peasant essentially was paid (poorly) in the crops he grew, and not in actual money. In 1770, Oliver Goldsmith wrote the epic poem, The Deserted Village, in which he described the effect of enclosure on the people who had lived off the land.
more
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-new-scam
The last para is worth noting:
Paternalism doesn't change through the ages. It just dresses differently. And there, ultimately, is Paul Ryan's new political persona. He's the poor person's landlord, enclosing the fields. He's the man who brought sharecropping to the welfare state.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Whose ancestors came because the political systems where they came from had become too calcified and autocratic to offer them a future, I am surprised so few seem to recognize that the same thing is happening here now. Only this time, there is no New World to which they can emigrate.
REP
(21,691 posts)My ancestry isn't that diverse, and my maternal and paternal lines are people with long histories of getting screwed (and not forgetting about it; if grudge-holding were an Olympic event, my family could take gold). But in this melting pot, someone with say German/Irish and English/French parents may not hear the stories of their great great grandparents.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Yes, we can be exceedingly good at holding grudges.
tea and oranges
(396 posts)being taken from people & handed to private interests to do w/ as they please for profit.
Let's also include the airwaves, net neutrality, personal privacy, air quality, & water quality.
roody
(10,849 posts)Charlie Pierce always hits the mark.
Thanks for posting.
BainsBane
(53,055 posts)along with forms of economic exploitation. In fact paternalism is largely absent in our current system. The market is seen as a virtue onto itself. Paternalism, or acting as a father to those beneath one in standing, was a product of pre-capitalist and early capitalist moral standards. The Enclosure movement was a key step in the development of capitalism, and it actually ended feudalism rather than imposing it.
The same ethic of improvement could be used to justify certain kinds of dispossession not only in the colonies but at home in England. This brings us to the most famous redefinition of property rights: enclosure. Enclosure is often thought of as simply the privatization and fencing in of formerly common land, or of the open fields that characterized certain parts of the English countryside. But enclosure meant, more particularly, the extinction (with or without a physical fencing of land) of common and customary use-rights on which many people depended for their livelihood.
The first major wave of enclosure occurred in the sixteenth century, when larger landowners sought to drive commoners off lands that could be profitably put to use as pasture for increasingly lucrative sheep farming. Contemporary commentators held enclosure, more than any other single factor, responsible for the growing plague of vagabonds, those dispossessed masterless men who wandered the countryside and threatened social order. The most famous of these commentators, Thomas More, though himself an encloser, described the practice as sheep devouring men. These social critics, like many historians after them, may have overestimated the effects of enclosure alone, at the expense of other factors leading to the transformation of English property relations. But it remains the most vivid expression of the relentless process that was changing not only the English countryside but the world: the birth of capitalism.
Enclosure continued to be a major source of conflict in early modern England, whether for sheep or increasingly profitable arable farming. Enclosure riots punctuated the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and enclosure surfaced as a major grievance in the English Civil War. In its earlier phases, the practice was to some degree resisted by the monarchical state, if only because of the threat to public order. But once the landed classes had succeeded in shaping the state to their own changing requirementsa success more or less finally consolidated in 1688, in the so-called Glorious Revolutionthere was no further state interference, and a new kind of enclosure movement emerged in the eighteenth century, the so-called Parliamentary enclosures. In this kind of enclosure, the extinction of troublesome property rights that interfered with some landlords powers of accumulation took place by acts of Parliament. Nothing more neatly testifies to the triumph of agrarian capitalism.
So in England, a society in which wealth still derived predominantly from agricultural production, the self-reproduction of both major economic actors in the agrarian sectordirect producers and the appropriators of their surpluseswere, at least from the sixteenth century, increasingly dependent on what amounted to capitalist practices: the maximization of exchange value by means of cost-cutting and improving productivity, by specialization, accumulation, and innovation.
This mode of providing for the basic material needs of English society brought with it a whole new dynamic of self-sustaining growth, a process of accumulation and expansion very different from the age-old cyclical patterns that dominated material life in other societies. It was also accompanied by the typical capitalist processes of expropriation and the creation of a propertyless mass. It is in this sense that we can speak of agrarian capitalism in early modern England.
https://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the-agrarian-origins-of-capitalism/
Uncle Joe
(58,404 posts)Thanks for the thread, n2doc.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth