The dominant market anarchist view of property takes for granted individual, fee-simple ownership through individual

appropriation as the only natural form of property. But as Karl Hess argued, libertarian property can take on a wide variety of legitimate forms. Communal ownership of land is a legitimate and plausible model for property rights in a stateless society based on free association. Historically, the village commune and open field system were, almost universally, the dominant property model in societies which, so far in human history, came closest to approximating the libertarian ideal of statelessness and voluntary association: the neolithic village societies between the agricultural revolution and the rise of the state.

for their own benefit, to tending pri=e stoc" in enclosures for someone else's. !hey were not in the least attracted by the prospect set forth by one of the *eporters, seeing the commons 'to wave with lu(uriant crops of grain—be covered with innumerable floc"s and herds, or clothed with stately timber', since not grain, herds nor timber would be theirs. 1D1

@ritics of the %inefficiency& of the commons ignore the value of independence and self#sufficiency, the possession of sources of subsistence that could not be ta"en away at someone else's whim.
When critics of commons weighed the value of common right they did so in their own terms, the terms of the mar"et. !hey tal"ed about wage labour and the efficient use of resources. 7ut commoners lived off the shared use of land. !o some e(tent they lived outside the mar"et. !hey lived in part on the invisible earnings of gra=ing and gathering. Huch of this was inconceivable to critics, either because they did not loo" or because they did not want to see. -n their eyes commoners were la=y, insubordinate and poor. 7ut when historians come to assess these assessments we have to understand that none of these conditions, e(cept poverty, is a measure of the inade1uacy of a standard of living. Even poverty, in the case of commoners, may have been in the eye of the beholder. commoners did not thin" themselves poor. 1D?

England is not a free people, till the poor that have no land have a free allowance to dig and labour the commons. —Gerrard Winstanley 164

1)1 Tate, The !nclosure Movement, 3+ 1'6+ 1), $eeson, Commoners, 33+ *1C*,+

-t matters a great deal to the person who was robbed. in similar vein.ective. describes the s"epticism of commoners in the face of the propertied classes' visions of prosperity. /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution. Commoners.& 7ut since—as the $ustrians never tire of asserting elsewhere—utility is sub. The !nclosure Movement. %Haybe $mericans. no true patriot will mind that 77 has reduced 5er. 3uch arguments remind me a great deal of arguments for eminent domain. Hissing from all the discussion of %increased efficiency& is any consideration of 1ui bono. !hey much preferred rearing poor specimens of cattle on the commons 1'B Tate.H. %.16F !o borrow a line from @ool 0and )u"e. by which land will be put to its %most productive use. that %9c:ommoners stood in the way of national economic growth. if it means another . 3+ .ront. 3+ 1. ahem. . because where a pi"e or duc" fed formerly.o( /ews at the outset of the -ra1 War in ?GGA.ortress off the Halabar . now a bulloc" or sheep is fatted< they will be ready to return that if they be ta"en in ta"ing that bulloc" or sheep. so we can afford all those aircraft carriers.& 16 -t reminds me of a comment by some neoconservative tal"ing head on . 3+ 7.& -ndeed.uller said. %prefer to wor" longer hours and ta"e less vacation.7+ 1'( $eeson. %increased&6 the chocoration to ?G grams a wee". E.1+ .loating .wish you'd stop being so good to me. what is %efficient& is very much in the eyes of a potential user of the land. !ell the fenmen. @oase's argument that it doesn't matter who owns a resource. only for their pains of catching them'.ill. has always struc" me as nonsensical. because it will wind up in the hands of the most efficient user.& !here's also more than a little implicit collectivism in the complaint. the rich owner indicteth them for felons< whereas that pi"e or duc" were their own goods. would prosper morally and economically if they were compelled to do regular wor" for an employer.insubordinate s1uatters. 'of the great benefit to the public. in C. !ate. living in riotous s1ualor in their tumbledown hovels on the common. cap'n. who boasted of $merican cowboy capitalism's superiority to a European model that provided shorter wor"wee"s and si(#wee" vacations. /eeson's words.& he said.+ 1)> . 1DG W.

& -f e(periments with crop#rotation prove successful. and vague gra=ing rights. . 33+ . especially the 1'' -ro3ot&in. /ow.. the most unsympathetic 0ollywood portrayal of -ndians and what they did to the white man. $lthough common or collective ownership is grudgingly accepted as a legitimate—if inefficient—form of %voluntary socialism. @ertainly they would be no worse off without the largely illusory advantages of the common. !he deserving poor would find small plots in severalty. )and can only be appropriated. *ight#wing libertarian and +b. because the latter had no valid property rights. by individuals. !ate's description of the %benefits& envisioned for the poor by Enclosure advocates is very much on the mar".& and the li"e. Mutual id. !he undeserving poor. fee#simple ownership through individual appropriation as the only natural form of property.replaced the three#field system. $nd then consider the fact that all these heroic efforts at self#improvement come from a time when the peasantry still lived under heavy ta(ation to indemnify their former owners for the lands given the peasants at the time of the liberation of the serfs. 33+ . E. and built thousands of dams for ponds and dug many hundreds of deep wells in the dry steppe country.suspect those who dismiss traditional peasant property rights as an atavistic barrier to progress are close "in to the conse1uentialists who argue that technological progress would have been impossible had not the peasants been evicted from the land and driven into the factories li"e beasts. !hey had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted li"e savages. he still has a property right to it. W. $nd you're a racist if you ob. and the very real temptations to idleness which its presence entailed.& %all property rights are individual. they had predominantly nomadic .& it's ta"en for granted that such forms of ownership can only come about through some sort of special contract between pree(isting owners of fee#simple individual property.. /ow imagine what things they might have accomplished had they lived free of that yo"e in previous centuries. or that the state must promote progress and increase the ta( base by sei=ing inefficiently used property and giving it to favored business enterprises.6)C. with good reason. >ropot"in's observation that they were most li"ely to ta"e place in areas where peasants were least crushed by e(ploitation. 3ince the -ndians did not have the concept of property or property rights —they didn't have a settled society. because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. . 0e does not.ect. in regard to all the e(amples above of progressive action by peasant communes. on their own initiative. !he white man did not con1uer this country. or small pasture closes.6B+ 1') Ibid.don't care to discuss the alleged complaints $merican -ndians have against this country. $yn *and argued that it was impossible for European settlers to steal the land of $merican -ndians.ority of *ussia had been illiterate serfs in a state of near#slavery.ectivist forums are full of statements that %there's no such thing as collective property. introduced crop rotation and dug drainage wor"s in hundreds of villages in the provinces around Hoscow. in fact %we see in *ussia many village communities ta"ing the initiative of introducing the rotation of crops.. 16D *ecall. and held their land free from the e(action of tribute by the state and the landed aristocracy.6BC. the peasants %find no difficulty whatever in re#dividing their fields. . runs the usually tacit assumption. more useful than scattered scraps in the open fields.6(+ Introduction !he dominant mar"et anarchist view of property ta"es for granted individual. 3een in this light.believe. all the arguments that %the peasants were better off & or %it was necessary for progress& seem as shameful as the old arguments for the White Han's 7urden. 7ear in mind that these people lived a generation or less after most of the peasant ma. 2ou believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't "now what to do with it.& 166 !he peasant communes..

free. and it's great that some of them did. 7ut if a 4country4 does not protect rights—if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief—why should you respect the 4rights4 that they don't have or respect8 .# $ew %or&. in question and answer session following “Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Acade y at !est "oint. and >herson provinces the adoption of threshing machines came about mainly %due to the peasant associations. owing to a concurrence of favourable circumstances. March '. par"s. -t means people free collectively to organi=e the resources of their immediate community or individualistically to organi=e them< it means the freedom to have a community#based and supported .164 !he same later held true in the open fields of the *ussian mir. 5une 16. participate in the decisions affecting their lives. !he main impetus for the adoption of over fifteen hundred improved plows over a five#year period in the Hoscow district came from %those communes which rented lands as a body for the special purpose of improved culture. Hany of the e(amples referred to the efficient and progressive management of commons where they persisted in Germany. or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. cited numerous e(amples of villagers e(perimenting with new techni1ues on their common lands.& -n 3amara. !he same with schools. >ropot"in. -arl . The !nclosure Movement. e(perimented with upon on 9sic: a portion of the communal land. and even more so in 3wit=erland where they thrived in much greater vigor. !he racist -ndians today—those who condemn $merica—do not respect individual rights.udiciary where wanted. /0etter 1ro !ashington2 !here Are The S3ecifics4/ The Libertarian Forum.. -t's wrong to attac" a country that respects 5or even tries to respect6 individual rights. the living. and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. after the emancipation of the serfs. factories.16B 7ut as >arl 0ess argued in )ibertarian .41 entirely feasible within the bounds of the open#field system< it re1uired only the reorgani=ation of the arable mar" to add a fourth field. in the eighth chapter of Hutual $id. when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. -mproved steel plows spread rapidly in southern *ussia. while the individual peasant cannot. Even before the act of Iarliament in 1DDA which made it legal for villagers to do so— apparently on the assumption that unauthori=ed reorgani=ations had been legally suspects—villages had previously voted to create fourth fields for root crops. the village community becomes the very means for introducing various improvements in agriculture and village life altogether. distinct people. 3aratov. 3+ . dis#associate. 1()*+ . may voluntarily associate. you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. !he facts which we have before us show.& $nd contrary to the received wisdom from agricultural historians that %the village community was doomed to disappear& when crop rotation 1'* Tate. and wherever they find men of "nowledge and initiative among their neighbours. as they see fit.tribal 4cultures&—they didn't have rights to the land. !his means a truly free mar"et in everything from ideas to idiosyncracies. on the contrary.or their wish to continue a primitive e(istence< for their 4right4 to "eep part of the earth untouched —to "eep everybody out so they could live li"e animals or cavemen. -t opposes the right of those institutions to shape you simply because of accreted power or gerontological status. ? @ommunal ownership of land is a legitimate and plausible model for property rights in a stateless society based on free association. )ibertarianism is a people's movement and a liberation movement. %and in many cases the village communities were instrumental in spreading their use. Mutual id.orum.ess. which can afford to buy a costly engine. 7ut let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages—which they certainly were not. -f you do. non#coercive society in which the people. What were they fighting for. 7ut even in *ussia. libertarian property can ta"e on a wide variety of legitimate forms..66+ . in opposing the white man on this continent8 . )iberty means the right to shape your own institutions. laboratories. !he same with police. $ny European who brought with him an element of civili=ation had the right to ta"e over this continent. and pensions. farms. -t see"s the sort of open. that wherever the *ussian peasants.& $ plough was bought by the community. 1 Ayn Rand. and. are less miserable than they are on the average. where most historians view the alleged bac"wardness of the mir through 3tolypin's lens. 1('(.92:ou can't claim one should respect the 4rights4 of -ndians. whom the communes often aided in starting the manufacture of cheap ploughs as a village industry. none where not. hospitals. 3+ B>+ 1'6 -ro3ot&in. and the necessary improvements were indicated to the ma"ers. 3+ .

the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any centrally coordinated effort. 161 $s for the re1uirement of letting a large portion of land lie fallow. the irrelevance of Enclosure to disease is suggested by the disconnect between the chronology of Enclosure and that of %diminution of animal disease. and rams and bulls were only allowed on the common %at stated times. -n fact.&1BF .E. 33+ 17>C171+ Ibid.or e(ample..transmission of diseases li"e leptospirosis through contaminated watercourses or rodents.B+ Ibid. !ate. 6 0ong. 3+ 17>+ Ibid. pasturing them periodically with commoners' herds. . showed enterprise& in such matters as using legumes and turnips to restore the fertility of soil—suggesting that %the ancient structure was not so bac"ward nor so incapable of improvement as was once supposed.>>(>6>7>(176(@htt32@@li:ertariannation+org@a@ f77l.&A @ommon property. 7ulls were not allowed to run free.# Formulations ..(+ Ibid. -t is common for the villagers to wal" down to the la"e to go fishing. 33+ 61C6. 3+ B+ *oderic" )ong. 7 Roderic& T+ 0ong. !he cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor.. open# or common#field villages were fre1uently 1uite progressive in introducing new agricultural methods. but simply as a result of all the individuals wal"ing that way day after day.+ $eeson. -f one villager decided to ta"e advantage of the now#created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls. 3+ 1. S3ring 1(('+ !e:site offline.& Iandemics continued to decimate floc"s well into the nineteenth century. @hambers and Hingay themselves concede that %open field farmers. Commoners.& 16? Where peasants were not economically crushed by rents and ta(es.. “8n 9efense of "u:lic S3ace. he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.. accessed =ia 8nternet Archi=e 5uly '+ . accessed =ia 8nternet Archi=e 5uly '. can come about through collective homesteading. li"e individuals. in particular.# Formulations . “A "lea for "u:lic "ro3erty.1B $nother bit of uncritically received wisdom is %the 'impossibility' of improving animals on common pastures by selective breeding. .&16A $ccording to W. sheep rot—the most prominent item in the enclosers' indictment of the commons—"illed one to two million sheep in the winter of 1FAG#1FA1.>11 ?htt32@@we:+archi=e+org@we:@.4 3ince collectives. $ccording to /eeson. . collectives.uries closely controlled breeding. too can claim property rights by homestead. he says.& 16G )ords of manors and large farmers were re1uired by custom to put superior bulls out to stud. can mi( their labor with unowned resources to ma"e those resources more useful to their purposes. 3+ 171+ Cha :ers and Mingay. common#field villages in England in the period running up to Enclosure were open to innovations—for e(ample redividing the common fields for crop rotation and introducing clover as a fodder crop on fallow land —%impressive developments& entailing a %fle(ibility in agricultural practice which led to all#around increases in fertility and production long before parliamentary enclosure. the introduction of turnips as a field crop was 16) 16B 16( 1'> 1'1 1'. -n the early days of the community it's hard to get to the la"e because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way.have no interest in defending public property in the sense of property belonging to the organi=ed public 5i. %. and where some of their members had leisure to improve their minds. the state6.. @onsider a village near a la"e. 1'7 Ibid. 7ut over time.+ht lA+ * Ibid. S3ring 1((B+ !e:site offline.>11 ?htt32@@we:+archi=e+org@we:@. B 0istorically.>>(>*1'.1ree $ation 1oundation<..do not thin" government property is public property at all< it is really the private property of an agency calling itself the government.1BD Eiseases associated with wet commons and poor drainage were managed as well by commoners as by enclosers< %post# enclosure improvements in drainage came fifty years after most enclosures were complete. has argued for what he calls %public property&—as opposed to state property..>*7>B@htt32@@li:ertariannation+org@a@f67l1+ht lA + .e.& 7ut in fact village . 3+ 1. the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the first appropriation of land for agriculture was almost universally by peasant villages wor"ing as a social unit. but all of them together. in the Hidlands especially.inally. The gricultural /evolution.1ree $ation 1oundation<.

from the $gricultural *evolution until the rise of the first states.uries %used by#laws and fines to prevent the spread of disease. -t was still possible to gra=e diseased animals for a short time in %partially supervised pastures where horses or cows could be tethered. 33+ 1. could not prevent the 16* Ibid. +nly certain crops. and every seven years the usufruct land is distributed among resident families according to each family's si=e and its number of able#bodied adults. the stateless villages and small mar"et towns that e(isted in peace without paying tribute to imperial con1uerors. wherever it was found. all cropland reverts to common land where any family may glean.& !he enclosers. the dominant property model in societies which. !he most important comparison—to livestoc" management practices after Enclosure—was almost never made. @learly most of these sources of infection were not affected by separation into herds after enclosure< and the long incubation period of the disease 5AG#6G days.& -n particular. so far in human history. )et us imagine a community in which families have usufruct rights to parcels of cropland during the main growing season. typically appro(imated the hypothetical case study of traditional tenure practices described by Cames 3cott. 33+ 1. $t the highest point of human development before the rise of the state.B+ . mista"enly believed that all disease was caused by contagion and were unaware of other vectors —li"e clothing—for transmitting disease.& !hese writers assume with little ground that %little intelligent attempt was made to control animal diseases in common pasture. though.&1B4 -n fact. movement and supervision of common floc"s and herds. and the ease of detection facilitated by %the very public assembly.'C1. village . contemporary and modern advocates of Enclosure indicted the livestoc" management practices of commoners completely out of any conte(t. %unregulated mi(ing of animals in large common pastures caused contagion and made control difficult. almost universally. Gra=ing diseased livestoc" li"e mangy horses or sheep with the scab carried high fines. 3+ 1. may be planted.*C1. 6 @ommunal ownership of land was the norm in the stateless village societies of the neolithic period. as much as the commoners. the common ownership of land by the peasant commune was almost universal.& but they were only in contact with only small numbers of other animals.& Cust as much as enclosers. !he internal pattern of the village commune. li"ewise.. $fter the harvest of the main#season crop. and even plant 1uic"ly maturing. dry#season crops. but the number of ' Ca=eats on ter inology fro "+M+ 0awrence =ia 3ri=ate e ail+ centuries earlier..1B6 !he fences of enclosed farms. !he intense economic interest of commoners in preserving the health of their livestoc". %Iaid herdsmen and women almost constantly supervised common cattle and sheep. gra=e their fowl and livestoc". pro#Enclosure writers have asserted that %common pasture led to promiscuous breeding and the spread of disease..& which made it e(tremely difficult to gra=e a diseased animal without detection. came closest to appro(imating the libertarian ideal of statelessness and voluntary association.& were powerful safeguards against infection. *ights to gra=e fowl and livestoc" on pasture#land held in common by the village is e(tended to all local families.1BB What's more. and up to si( months in some cases6 made it very difficult to prevent the introduction of diseased animals into uncontaminated herds either before or after enslosure.6+ 16' Ibid.I Rise and Persistence of the Village Commune !he village commune was.*+ 166 Ibid. 7esides starvation and malnourishment. %Ierhaps the most important point to ma"e is that the limited understanding of how many diseases spread made prevention difficult both before and after enclosure. they believed that contagion from pro(imity was the source of infection. however.

. by hiring them. certainly they would stoc" the full stint. -n this as in other things. it fre1uently resulted from the political influence of a few large farmers who overran the commons with their own livestoc" and left no room for the ma. 33+ 117C11)+ Ibid. $s hunter#gatherers e(perimented with saving a portion of the grain they'd gathered.1B? $lthough pro#Enclosure writers too" such overstoc"ing as evidence of mismanagement of the commons. the village commune was actually the reemergence of a social unit which had previously been partly suppressed. %9t:hey were unli"ely to overstoc" their rights.. they might not even stoc" them fully.or e(ample. %9f :armers who could afford to buy up cottages in order to engross their rights&—were typically owners of large floc"s and herds who %might overstoc". the rich land#grabbing interests—e.ority of small owners. 16'+ Ibid. @hambers and Hingay uncritically repeated interest#driven accusations by writers two 1*B 1*( 16> 161 16. a council composed of heads of families may inventory food supplies and begin daily rationing. in the oldest areas of civili=ation. who bro"e the land for a new agricultural settlement by their common efforts. they became increasingly tied to permanent settlements. /eeson refers to many cases in which village ... 1B1 $nd once Enclosure proceedings had begun. a group of atomi=ed individuals who simply happened to live in the same geographic area and had to negotiate the organi=ation of basic public services and utilities in some ) 5a es Scott. /o commercial sale from village woodlands is permitted. no matter where they are now growing.. or stints were too generous. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed . in most places commoners regulated the commoning of livestoc" by strictly stinting their commons— restricting the amount of stoc" which each commoner might gra=e. 167 $eeson. the village commune had its origin in the settlement of barbarian tribes. 1((B<. 3+ 16'+ animals that can be gra=ed is restricted according to family si=e. 7etter#off villagers are e(pected to assume some responsibility for poorer relatives—by sharing their land. !he stoc"ing.. or by simply feeding them. -n the areas where communal tenure reemerged in Ear" $ge Europe. after the collapse of *oman power. 33+ B)CBB. rather. when humans first began to raise crops in permanent village settlements. the original.a=en and 0ondon2 %ale Uni=ersity "ress. Commoners.&14F 3he also presents numerous e(amples of effective commons management from manorial records. )and is set aside for use or leasing out by widows with children and dependents of conscripted males. and the village blac"smith and ba"er are given larger allotments.usted. as the modern town. !rees that have been planted and any fruit they may bear are the property of the family who planted them.H... in fact it was a side#effect of Enclosure itself. -t was not.misgovernment and presented a deliberately one#sided picture out of self# interest< and modern writers li"e Hingay swallowed it because it was e(actly what they wanted to hear. large farmers and lords of manors often deliberately overstoc"ed the commons in order to drive down the value of the cottagers' common rights..&14 +n the other hand.. C. 3+ B'+ Ibid. 3+ 166+ Ibid. first by the *oman *epublic in -taly and later by the Empire in its areas of con1uest6. and thereby reduce the amount of their compensation. especially in dry years when forage is scarce. 3o the village commune commonly had its origins in a group of settlers who saw themselves as members of the same clan and sharing a common ancestry.&1BG Where village institutions were unable to enforce strict regulations... 5Even in Europe. the dominant social grouping was the semi#nomadic hunter# gather group. /eeson presents evidence that cottagers didn't %gra=e the commons bare&. the hunter#gather group or the clan was a mobile or semi# mobile social unit based on common "inship relations. unabated level of stoc"ing.D !he village commune model traced its origins.g. 3+ B'+ Ibid.& %!he threat to common pasture came less from the clearly defined rights of cottagers than from the larger floc"s and herds of richer men.ar from overrunning the commons or gra=ing them bare. 7efore that time. Everyone has the right to gather firewood for normal family needs. common rights were not unlimited. 33+ 77C 7*+ . 3hould the shortage persist... -n both cases. $fter a crop failure leading to a food shortage. .1BA $ssertions by Enclosure advocates and apologists in regard to the spread of disease were similarly slipshod. bac" to the beginning of the agricultural revolution. was limited by %the common rights immemorially attached to land or cottage or residency.uries introduced stints and carefully enforced them. Even in villages where commons were unstinted..$ew . many of these arrangements are read.

Centur" o0 /evolution.manner or other.ourneying with implements from one part of the field to another< the unimproved nature of the soil. !his was necessary in order to restore fertility after two or three years of cropping. or twenty years. twelve. and. the atomi=ed groups of landless peasants which 3tolypin deported to set up new village colonies in 3iberia spontaneously organi=ed the new villages around the mir's principle of common ownership 5despite 3tolypin's vision of individual family farmsteads held in fee simple6. 33+ *BC*(+ ..... therefore. recogni=e anything of the "ind. and could not. and the dwelling#house. !he village commune was. as related.. gricultural /evolution.7 fn1+ ( Ibid. after which term they were treated as parts of the arable land held in common. -t was a settlement by %a union between families considered as of common descent and owning a certain territory in common.& -n fact. the use of clover to improve wasteland. 33+ 1. 1(>(<. in the transition from the clan to the village community.'+ $pologists for the Enclosures in England argue that they were necessary for the introduction of efficient new agricultural techni1ues li"e improved crop rotation. -t was an organic social unit of people who saw themselves.$ew %or&2 9ou:leday. 1. Mutual id: Factor in !volution . the nucleus of a newly founded village commune was fre1uently a single .ill.oint wor" of several families—always with the consent of the community—the cleared plots were held by each family for a term of four.g. in some sense. by the .. 0enry 3umner Haine argued. and the wintering of livestoc". and the ris"s of wildfire spread of disease among beasts herded together on the commons and fields.oint household or e(tended family compound. and the waste of the land in bal"s 5although these served as additional pieces of pasture as well as paths between lands and headlands for turning the plough6< the rigid rotation of two crops and a fallow< the impossibility of improving the livestoc". including cattle. there was a theoretical right for an individual to sever his ali1uot share of the common land from the rest and own it individually. !he particulars included the dispersal and fragmentation of the holdings and the time wasted in .1. pro# Enclosure writers of the eighteenth century greatly e(aggerated the e(tent of 1*' . -n some variations of the village commune. implements. $s to private property in land.F Even after the founding clan split apart into separate patriarchal family households and recogni=ed the private accumulation and hereditary transmission of wealth. 7ut this was almost never done. it does not recogni=e it now. as a rule.*C1. they soon developed a mythology of a common ancestor as a basis for social solidarity.. 33+ 1... "age D Co 3any.6C1.>C1. 1. sharing its hearth and livestoc" in common. Ierhaps the most stri"ing wea"ness of the system. generally from a 1uarter to a third. B "yotr -ro3ot&in. 3+ 16>+ 1*) Cha :ers and Mingay. e. wealth was conceived e(clusively in the shape of movable property.14D $ccording to subse1uent critics of @hambers and Hingay. !he clearing of the woods and the brea"ing of the prairies being mostly done by the communities or. at least... in -ndia and in many of the Germanic tribes. the village community did not....1G $s we shall see below.146 @hambers and Hingay enumerated a long bill of indictments against the open fields and common pastures in !he $gricultural *evolution. because it was highly impractical. of the arable land. 33+ 1. The &uestion of Efficiency in the Enclosures $nd even where a league of separate families together settled a new village. an e(ample of the "ind of collective homesteading described above by *oderic" )ong..6+ 1> Ibid. was the annual fallowing of a proportion. Haine said.7. arms..

14A Hingay might as well have boasted that horses were better off based on their comparative numbers in wild herds versus in domestication as draft animals—or the comparatively larger numbers of chic"ens pac"ed hip to hip in industrial chic"enhouses than of the wild fowl from which they descended. an Australian 3oly ath of al ost su3ernatural erudition who has :een a frequent e ail corres3ondent and co enter under y :log 3osts and online colu ns o=er the years+ 1*. -t is now "nown. $ given social system.& 7ut in any case. -t survived *oman rule in -taly. li"e plowing and harvest.&14B .0ondon2 5+M+ 9ent D Sons 0td.a ond. if the increase is appropriated by someone else.& e(ceeding the !udor era enclosures of open fields for pasturage in scale. even if participation in its institutions is formally completely voluntary and there are no coercive barriers to e(it. the universality of the village commune as a building bloc" of society. /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution. the severance of one's patrimony in the common land from the commune was viewed as a"in to divorcing oneself from an organi=ed community and setting up the nucleus of a new community alongside 5or within6 it. and scarcely contested. ncient Law . Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism.*+ 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . regardless of how many people were suffered to live off the land as laborers. the Iarliamentary Enclosures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were %the second and greater of two waves. 11 . a much larger share of the agricultural laborer's total produce was sold in the towns rather than consumed by him and his family.intensification of agriculture demanded more labour. and the normal method of organi=ing social functions presupposes that bac"ground state of affairs. 33+ 16(C1'>+ 1. and old Wales. $s agricultural wages fell after 1D6B and rents were driven up by Enclosure. the real 1uestion is how they lived.ority of a society considers common ownership as the normal way of doing things. 3+ . *ather than living with the security and independence that came with guaranteed customary access to land. the communal possession and the communal allotment of arable land by the village fol"mote persisted from the first centuries of our era till the times of !urgot.. who found the fol"motes %too noisy& and therefore abolished them. that the village community was not a specific feature of the 3lavonians. the 1uestion remains of how much wor" was re1uired for a given unit of consumption after Enclosure compared to before. 1*7 1** 1*6 .14? -n addition.enry Su ner Maine. $nd the individual peasant's subse1uent relations with the community. 33+ . $s for the increased productivity.rance. old -reland. regardless of how many people lived in the countryside. conse1uently. they were permanently relegated to the precarious status of wage laborers dependent on their employer's good will and liable to be discharged without notice on his merest whim. or a forest of one species of trees that e(clude other species by overshadowing. even in the four counties most affected. were organi=ed in part or in whole collectively. and revived after the fall of the *oman Empire. and re1uired some rather involved ceremonial for its legal conclusion.. even when there is no legal impediment whatsoever to an individual severing her share of property from the common there are li"ely to be very powerful path dependencies that ma"e it costly and impractical to do so. the 3lavonians. would ta"e on the comple(ity and delicacy of relations between two organi=ed societies.7+ Ibid+.)+ .ill. 144 $nd Eobb claimed that the total percentage of land enclosed under the !udors %never touched 1G per cent. increased output of labor doesn't matter much to the person doing the wor"..1? >ropot"in summari=ed.or one thing.1B'1<<. -t prevailed in England during both the 3a(on and /orman times. that the transaction costs entailed in organi=ing cooperative efforts between seceded individuals and the rest of the commune would have been well#nigh prohibitive. tends to function li"e ground cover plants that create an interloc"ing ecosystem and crowd out alternatives. in sweeping language. 1or this analogy 8 a inde:ted to "+M+ 0awrence. and partially survived till the last century< it was at the bottom of the social organi=ation of old 3cotland. 1('> . 3+ 7*+ 9o::.7C. 3+ . $illage Labourer. -t was the rule with the 3candinavians.11 3o many functions of the agricultural year. nor even the ancient !eutons. -n . -n the 0ammonds' view. When the great ma.. Wild sheep may have been fewer in number than their domesticated cousins in pasture< but they no doubt "ept more of their own wool and mutton.

with the tribes of -srael e(isting as an amphictyonic league centered on 7ethel or 3hiloh.F6 $n English encloser. $mong the customary by#laws regulating individual and family possessions was the allowance of gleaning. fre1uently state in so many words that customary claims were not by legal right. the @oures. Commoners.. -t's li"ely that the 7iblical accounts of a revelation from Hount 3inai performed a function similar to that of the totemic ancestor as a legitimi=ation of communal ownership. $nd in Enclosure proceedings. the "ihla#"unta6.oin house to house.4+ . and the )ives. 3ales of land were actually long#term leases. enclosure6 in violation of the law of Cubilee by the landed oligarchy. the 3oudan. .am 17 -ro3ot&in. with natives of both $mericas. @lapham argued that customary rights of common li"e turning geese onto pasture or onto the harvested fields were not actually rights at all. later said in 1uite similar language. the >abyle thaddart. who lay field to field. with the price discounted depending on how many years it was until Cubilee.&141 *egarding Hingay's contention that the countryside was not depopulated by Enclosure. !he village community in -ndia—past and present.. -t was a universal phase of evolution. !he prophet -saiah wrote in reference to land %privati=ation& 5i. legitimi=ing a 7ron=e $ge society that predated the !orah. in this passage from the 7ible.nd ed+. $s soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of mar"et transactions they begin to crumble. but merely on %sufferance. and under a variety of names in $byssinia. before this idea of right. 33+ 116C11)+ 17( $eeson. %-t is a melancholy thing to stand alone in one's country. 1AD Iro#enclosure writers.14G What customs were recogni=ed in the eighteenth century were the remnant of claims that once had been of right. whether contemporaries or historians li"e @lapham. until at last they disappear completely. %Woe unto them who .+%(. as also. a natural outcome of the clan organi=ation. -t is anterior to serfdom. Commoners.1A We see a version of this communal ownership in the Cubilee system of -srael. as it was later ideali=ed in the Hosaic )aw by the priestly and deuteronomic redactors of )eviticus and Eeuteronomy. with all those stems.. we do not "now one single human race or one single nation which has not had its period of village communities. . $ryan and non#$ryan—is well "nown through the epoch#ma"ing wor"s of 3ir 0enry Haine< and Elphinstone has described it among the $fghans. Mutual id. clan and family—to whom it reverted in the Cubilee year 5every forty#ninth or fiftieth year—there's some scholarly dispute6. till there is no place. in the interior of $frica. and before commoners would accept that privileges could be ta"en away.. 1(61<. -t is the result of military and political effort.. and the glaring fact that a peasantry had been reduced over a millennium to tenant status by feudali=ation and land engrossment. it has been upheld by violence and that alone. the Cavanese dessa. 33+ 1. at least.+ Cla3ha .ounded by violence. /owhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the wor"ings of economic forces in the mar"et. probably. of gleaning the common fields after harvest. )ord )eicester. and not a house is to be seen but mine. 3+ 1'7+ . n !conomic Histor" o0 Modern 3ritain: The !arl" /ailwa" ge (. that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earthJ& 5-saiah B. if it happened at all.the . the burden of proof was on peasants to provide documentation for their claims. and therefore should not have been compensated.inns 5in the pittaya.'H ..loo" around. 0ill responded. We also find it in the Hongolian oulous. $nd as /eeson remar"ed in regard to the right of gathering wood from private woods. $t the time of the Cudges. or play still. %2es. -n short. no matter what its origin. and even servile submission was powerless to brea" it.1A Given the history of land ownership in the countryside.e. 3+ 1>)+ 17B 5+ . which have played. 33+ )BC)(+ 1*> 0udwig =on Mises. 1(7>H re3r+ 1(6><.1C1. 3+ 7)6+ 1*1 $eeson. the burden of proof should have been on the other side. but so what8& +ne reason the population did not fall in many villages after Enclosure is that %population was increasing anyway.&1AF @ustomary rights of common were seldom preserved in official manorial records li"e rolls and field orders. was worn down into a privilege. !he ultimate ownership of land lay with the tribe. with all the small and large tribes of the Iacific archipelagos. E(tension of the cultivated area and 17) Ibid. even the so#called C and E documents li"ely e(isted as nothing but epic poetry preserved in oral form. %-t would ta"e many years. Socialism: n !conomic and Sociological nal"sis . @hambers and Hingay.+ customary regime. 1(.Ca :ridge. some part in history. $s )udwig von Hises wrote. the Halayan "ota or tofa.0ondon. and had actually e(isted to a greater or lesser degree in the period of the Cudges. .

-n effect the lord of the manor.ority of small claims—were seldom compensated.& 1D Even so..ill. 3+ 6. customary rights of common—probably including a ma. either as agricultural labourer in his village or in a factory somewhere. been engrafted on it& and %admitted to the brotherhood.ority of proprietors in favor in order to proceed. is . 3+ (>+ 16 . 9is: sometimes notoriously at variance with fact.. %9!:he simplest form of an -ndian Killage @ommunity. the heir of predecessors who encroached on perhaps a ma. 3+ 1>>+ 17' 5+ 0+ and Far:ara .. general or local.. and the most beneficent systems of government in -ndia have always been those which have recognised it as the basis of administration.& he wrote. being 1* !+ E+ Tate. !he committee sometimes chose between these measures based on which would show the highest degree of support.+ )i"e >ropot"in. as we saw above. The !nclosure Movement..& nevertheless %men of alien e(traction have always.enry Su ner Maine.& which is formed with the approval of owners of the ma. doubled in conse1uence of enclosure—all these might assist him in ma"ing his free decision. !he process was much li"e that of the modern urban %improvement district. pointed to the village communes of -ndia as the most faithful surviving version of what had once been an institution common to all the branches of the -ndo# European family. @on1uests and revolutions seem to have swept over it without disturbing or displacing it. Even in villages founded by %a single assemblage of blood#relations. writing in the nineteenth century. from time to time.&16 $lthough this process of formation of a Killage @ommunity from an e(tended body of "indred comprising several related families %may be regarded as typical. all such villages have created a myth of %an original parentage. -n whatever direction research has been pushed into -ndian history. !he personal relations to each other of the men who compose it are indistinguishably confounded with their proprietary rights.1A4 the giant of Giant @astle.& there were many e(ceptions.ority of common lands over previous centuries. cottages with rights of common.& 14 0enry 3umner Haine. 7ut coercion—oh dear noJ /othing so un#7ritish as that. it has always found the @ommunity in e(istence at the farthest point of its progress..' say Irofessor @hambers and Er Hingay reassuringly.. and subse1uently levies ta(es on advocates and opponents ali"e.& $nd there were also villages which %appear to have sprung not from one but from two or more families< and there are some whose composition is "nown to be entirely artificial. 1A6 $nd it left out the benefit. in the Hidlands at least. $illage Labourer.ob waiting for him. !he division of the common land among proprietors left out the cottagers and s1uatters who had no formal property right in the common recogni=ed by the royal courts. 7ut the possible units for tallying this figure—acreage. and have eaten up all my neighbours.oint ownership of land as rooted in its origin from a group of families sharing common descent.. !here was a .& !he village operated on the fiction of common origin. but who had rights of access under village custom—rights of access which had meant the margin for independent survival.ority of property owners in the proposed district..$ew %or&2 !al&er and Co 3any.ust such %a body of "indred holding a domain in common. Enclosure bills re1uired evidence of a three#fourths ma. total rac" rental value of land with common right—varied widely. /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution. if he could find out where to go and if he and his family could trudge there. '+nly the really small owners. 3+ .. $nd third. and with them the possible measures of support.a ond. finally offers to divide up the remaining common land according to the distribution of property resulting from those centuries of theft. which had previously accrued to the poor under the 17* ... !he Killage @ommunity is "nown to be of immense anti1uity.& even when the %assumption of common origin. the fact that rents. 3+ 16*+ 1) Ibid. The !nclosure Movement . even ta"ing at face value the claim that the commons were divided between the property owners of the manor on a pro rata basis. !he Killage @ommunity of -ndia is at once an organised patriarchal society and an assemblage of co#proprietors.1AB 3econd.. !he old saw about the wolf and the sheep voting on what to have for dinner comes to mind here. common rights. Haine saw the village commune's . the pree(isting distribution of property—as we've already seen from accounts of the enclosure of @hurch and monastic lands and of arable fields under the !udors—doesn't bear much loo"ing into.fertili=ers necessary to profit by enclosure. 1(')<.7+ 176 Tate. 33+ 16*C166+ . 3+ 167+ 1' Ibid. would be forced to sell out.. ncient Law. and to the attempts of English functionaries to separate the two may be assigned some of the most formidable miscarriages of $nglo#-ndian administration.1B -n Iarliament itself..

spend a few wee"s in )ondon and be prepared to face the wrath of the powerful men in his village. !he cottager learns that before a certain day he has to present to his landlord's bailiff. rather than the e(ercise of regulatory authority over relations between individuals.ority of small holders with rights in the common were disadvantaged in another way. such as the notorious *ussian %soul ta(. !here was no coercion. 7ut the poorest cottager was always free to oppose a Iarliamentary enclosure bill. dealt more with communities than with individuals when it came to ta(es.> Maine. $ll he had to do was to learn to read. Iarliament too" no interest in the details of an enclosure bill. we are assured. Haine saw the enactment of serfdom under the tsars as an imposition upon a pree(isting social system.either an %assemblage of blood relations& or %a body of co#proprietors formed on the model of an association of "insmen.&?G Where the village commune persisted. his lac" of capital to buy the 177 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . !rue. the state had little or no direct dealings with individuals. through the commune.. pulled his fuel out of the neighbouring brushwood.ielding and 3mollett of the reputation of lawyers for cruelty to the poor. %the ancient organisation of the village.&1F $s Haine's reference to the administration of -ndia suggests. could be disregarded. and that his father did all these things before him. namely.. @onsider how. allotting land and mediating disputes among the families. or to one of the magistrates into whose hands perhaps he has fallen before now over a little matter of a hare or a partridge. 3+ 16)+ . 33+ 166C16'+ 1( Henr" Sumner Maine# $illage%Communities in the !ast and &est + Third Edition . 2eah. or to the parson. !he only agents of ta(ation who regularly reached to the level of the household and its cultivated fields were the local nobility and clergy in the course of collecting feudal dues and the religious tithe. 1B Ibid. were actually paid directly by the communities or indirectly through the nobles whose sub.ailure to deliver the re1uired sum usually led to collective punishment. -t is significant that in the case of 3edgmoor. !he premodern and early modern state. the English gentry were good to help out that way. ncient Law.ects.. or to some solicitor from the country town. -s a cottager to be trusted to face the ordeal. referring them to be wor"ed out by its promoters. unable to read or write. priests. as described by the 0ammonds. %bud did not otherwise meddle with the cultivating societies. the procedure would have seemed to a small peasant. the village commune continued in widespread e(istence even after the rise of the state. !rue.ect his claim on the ground of any technical irregularity. )et us imagine the cottager. 33+ '7C'*+ -n such cases the commune functioned internally much as it had before the rise of the state.oying certain customary rights of common without any idea of their origin or history or legal basis.. in language much li"e the 0ammonds'.ority of small men who occupied the remaining twenty per cent. -t dealt with the peasantry only collectively. out of 4G6A claims sent in. to pic" up fuel there.1AA @hristopher 0ill. driven geese across the waste. and cut turf from the common. .guess. amounting internally to a stateless society with a parasitic layer of "ings.ects they were. 3ome apparently individual ta(es. moc"ed similar claims by Hingay that no coercion was involved in Enclosure.$ew %or&2 . 33+ 16(C1'>+ .or its part. the cost of fencing his own little allotment if he got one. or to be in time with his statement. bureaucrats and feudal landlords superimposed on it. with the additional functions of handling relations with the state collectively when a member of the commune was charged with violating one of the state's laws and assessing each family's share of ta(es imposed on the village by the state. . hire an e(pensive lawyer. 1B(><.& which was collected from all sub. !he village commune was %under the dominion of comparatively powerful "ings& who e(acted tribute and conscripted soldiers from it. Iart of that %unbought grace of life& 7ur"e tal"ed about. or to have that statement in proper legal form8 !he commissioners can re.a ond. a clear and correct statement of his rights and his claim to a share in the award. who distributed the land as they thought best. this was entirely voluntary.enry . -f he left his home after enclosure. . though the loss of his rights to gra=e cattle on the common. $illage Labourer. "nowing only that as long as he can remember he has "ept a cow. en. the wishes of the ma. the state had neither the administrative tools nor the information to penetrate to this level. )et us remember at the same time all that we "now from .. only 1D A were allowed. when the big landowner or landowners to whom four#fifths of the land in a village belonged wanted to enclose.olt and Co 3any.&1 !he state's relationship to the governed was through the village as a unit.. -n *ussia. !he ma.

&1? !he membership of the 7oard of @ommissioners that carried out an Enclosure was appointed by the big landowners who initially promoted the Enclosure.. $illage Labourer. obviously.. 3o the lord of the manor and other big owners were disproportionately represented on the 7oard. 33+ 6BC'>+ !+ E+ Tate. Maine.landlords to come to his rescue. 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . or 5 c6 the remaining proprietors. 5b6 the appropriator andPor other tithe owner5s6.1A1 !he central political conflict in the *oman *epublic. to those who ma"e a hobby of seeing .ects were observed in England. 1A? 1. 7y the time the low German descendants of !acitus' sub. 33+ *>C*1+ . 3o clearly he has been chosen to represent a particular point of view. was the patricians' attempt to appropriate and enclose—%privati=e&— common lands to which all members of the community had legal rights of access. in fact he did. Lnder this ingenious mode of organi=ation. 1AG $nd interestingly—interesting. and pasture.?? 0ere's how William Harshall described the open field system in 1FG4. virtually absolute& in regard to arbitrary assignments of land to the small owners. appropriator or vicar. !he open#field system of England. $lthough in theory a commissioner represented no particular interest. the community moved on and bro"e fresh ground. 9!:he following statement may serve to convey a general idea of the whole of what may be termed @ommon#field !ownships. made mention—albeit in a much more panglossian tone—of the same substantive fact. interestingly. with half the arable land remaining fallow each year. 3+ 1>(+ Cha :ers and Mingay. but with only a single field. !homas 0opcraft appears in five different commissions. 33+ )BCB)+ @hambers and Hingay. When the soil was e(hausted.( 17> 171 17. the commissioners were otherwise given %a free hand. lay a few small .ust how low the depths of human nature can sin"—it was common for the same names to appear on the list of commissioners in a long series of Enclosure petitions. etc. -t was a later evolution of the system !acitus had observed among the Germanic tribes. their powers. $n enclosure commissioner combined the delicate functions of advocate and .. *ound the village. and more or less in a commonable state. land agents and large farmers who were e(perienced in it. and on twelve of them represented 'other proprietors'.. however. nearly the whole of the lands of England lay in an open.1 Tate.. $illage%Communities. was another version of the same early !eutonic communal property system—the $rable Har" and @ommon Har"—whose survivals von Haurer noted in Germany.. each parish or township was considered as one common farm< though the tenantry were numerous. !hus in +(fordshire.. The gricultural /evolution 3+ B'+ . The !nclosure Movement. 1DF #1FGA. before the petition was ever publicly submitted for signatures. The !nclosure Movement.. ?1 !he $rable Har". !he conduct of an enclosure was such a comple( matter that in practice it became a professional occupation for the country gentlemen. and its English open#field counterpart. they had progressed to the full#blown three# or four#field system. -t was an open#field system with interstripping of family plots. woodlot. 3+ *6+ Ibid. always acting on behalf of rector. Cohn @hamberl5a6in sat on si(teen commissions. always as representing manorial interests< the *ev. -n this place it is sufficient to premise that a very few centuries ago. as recounted in )ivy. in which the tenants resides. !he system !acitus remar"ed on was used by the !eutons when they were semi#nomadic and had access to e(tensive land inputs.it often says. throughout England. what amounts to much the same thing—that if he 'dies. and we find the same commissioners acting at a variety of different places.udge. anyway. !his—the system li"ely first used at the time of the agricultural revolution—could only wor" with low population densities.. which was gradually eroded by enclosures of arable land 5mainly for sheep pasturage6 from the late Hiddle $ges on. Cohn 0orseman is shown nine times. .a ond. was a three# field system with interstripping of family plots in each field and a periodic redivision of plots between families. becomes incapacitated or refuses to act' he shall be replaced by a nominee of 5a6 the lord of the manor. !he @ommon Har" consisted of common waste. and the small owners poorly or not at all< and aside from the mandatory assignment of defined portions of the common to the lord of the manor and the owner of the tithes.. !he first adaptation as the tribes settled down and the amount of vacant land declined was a primitive two#field system. of which each family was entitled to some defined share of use.

ected to the same plan of management. or other stoc" which re1uired superior pasturage in summer. We might as" why were they unavailable8. and be conducted as one farm.. 33+ (>C(7+ . less adapted to cultivation.. wheat 5or rye6 and spring crops 5as barley.. !lementar" and 'ractical Treatise on Landed 'ropert".1?D $ central theme running through all Enclosure advocacy in the eighteenth century was that %commoners were la=y.. but argued that in fact it was a na"ed power grab. the arable lands. !heir la=iness becomes an indicator of their independence of the wage.a ond.. to afford a supply of hay.. and generally three in number. !hey argued that the sanction of real or threatened unemployment would benefit farmers presently dependent on the whims of partly self#sufficient commoners. 7ut in fact the formal procedure of Enclosure—behind all the rhetoric—amounted to a railroad .inclosures. or.ustification for ending common right was the creation of an agricultural proletariat. 7ut what they meant was that commoners were not always available for farmers to employ. $nd. -n fact. While the blea"est. is superimposed on the communal. whether wages were high or not..& of nearly e1ual si=e... !he appropriated lands of each township were laid out with e1ual good sense and propriety.. !his suggests that they refused to wor" because they could live without wages. were divided into numerous parcels. situated out of water's way< for raising corn and pulse< as well as to produce fodder and litter for cattle and horses in the winter season..1?F !he open#field system. where the soil is adapted to the pasturage of cattle. were left in their native wild state< for timber and fuel< and for a common pasture. wor"ing cattle.. ..& -f they persisted in obstinacy. !hey used la=iness as a term of moral disapproval.. one or more stinted pastures. or regular wages. according to C.?4 !he *ussian mir or obshchina was essentially a variant of the same primeval open#field system that prevailed in Western Europe. in constant rotation. and Co+....... !he 0ammonds described the formal process of Enclosure as it was . the triennial succession of fallow. $illage%Communities. 3+ . and most distant lands of the township.. The $illage Labourer: ()*+%(.. or hams. and 7arbara 0ammond.) Ibid.. and as baiting and nursery grounds for other farm stoc".ob. in the final award... to receive. but with a .0ondon2 0ong ans. *ound the homestall. or %fields. the .& $nd their very obsession with this %problem& is itself an indication of the economic significance of the commons. worst#soiled. .ustified in legal theory. as those who assisted it would gain. for cows and wor"ing stoc"..7 !illia Marshall. oats. ).. more particularly..)+ !hose today who minimi=e the significance of Enclosure as the margin of difference between independence and wage#slavery do so in direct contradiction to the conscious and stated motives of Enclosure advocates— which we 1uoted at length in the section on English history in the main body of this paper—in the eighteenth century. the medieval village is a free village gradually feudalised..B+ 1.. !he lord of the manor typically wor"ed out the plan of Enclosure and drafted the petition to Iarliament. or homestall..or them. $pologists for Enclosure sometimes emphasi=e the alleged due process entailed in it. 33+ 7(C*>+ . were laid out for mil"ing cows. quoted in Maine. $nd that the whole might be sub. +n the outs"irts of the arable lands. !hat each occupier might have his proportionate share of lands of different 1ualities.?A recommend the creation of complete wage dependence. they were li"ely to be warned by the landlord—1uite unofficially—that the Enclosure was inevitable. in the winter and spring months. every commoner was la=y.* 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . or grass yards< for rearing calves. lay a suit of arable fields< including the deepest and soundest of the lower grounds... was %more ancient than the manorial order. !hey said that the discipline was valuable. shooting up among the arable lands. 1(17<. the only recourse was to appeal to %a dim and distant Iarliament of great 1. !his was the common farmstead. in the lowest situation. $nd the degree of frustration critics felt when they saw this la=iness may be a guide to how well commoners could do without it. and lying in different situations... -f anyone bal"ed at the terms of Enclosure. the arable lands were moreover divided into compartments. !he manorial element.-. lay an e(tent of meadow grounds. beans and peas6..'C.& $s late as 16FB. Green. 33+ .. presenting it as a fait accompli to the peasantry only after everything was neatly stitched up.B Ibid.. and %that those who obstructed it would suffer... an estimated FBM of the surviving arable land that had not been converted to pasturage was organi=ed on the open#field model.

&1?4 7ut although modern revisionists li"e @hambers agree with the enclosers on the s1ualor and misgovernment of the commons. in part. as by a desire to improve the efficiency of e(tracting labor from the rural population. +pponents agreed on the nature of English rural society before enclosure. the description of the !eutonic or 3candinavian village#communities might actually serve as a description of the same institution in -ndia. it turned commoners into labourers. 3+ (+ 1.irst. $ll eighteenth#century commentators saw a relationship between the survival and decline of common right and the nature of social relations in England. as we saw earlier... 3+ )+ 1. $ccording to /eeson.$ lot of the trouble with twentieth century pro#Enclosure arguments li"e those of @hambers and Hingay is that.' Ibid. and had profound conse1uences.& . 1?6 state far more despotic than the Western European feudal structure superimposed on it... when in fact the latter were were—as C. lying generally on the verge of the arable mar". $s described by Haine. !heir disagreement was about the worth of each class< neither side doubted that the transformation occurred. there are the reserved meadows.* $eeson. !here is the waste or common land. /eeson pointed out—%ma"ing a case. out of which the arable mar" has been cut.. believed commoners to be numerous and well#dispersed in space and time through the country and the century< second. divided into separate lots but cultivated according to minute customary rules binding on all. $nd there is constantly a council of government to determine disputes as to custom. ?B -ndeed. by the prediction of %complete wage dependence. ..6 Maine. !he chief difference between the %$siatic mode& and the open#field system of Western Europe was that in the former case a despotic central state was superimposed as a parasitic layer atop the communal peasant society..& and of the bac"wardness that resulted from the absence of private ownership of land and the predominance of collective village ownership with the state as landlord. consisting of habitations each ruled by a despotic pater#familias. 33+ 1>)C1>B .-t becomes clear that beneath the argument between these writers lay a fundamental agreement. 3+ 1B !he %despotic pater#familias&—apparently a common -ndo#European institution. en. and also noted among the archaic )atins—is obviously something to which libertarians will have moral ob. they ta"e eighteenth#century accounts by pro#Enclosure writers at face value. but—as with the *ussian mir—with a despotic imperial state rather than a feudal system superimposed on it. Commoners.ections. they thought common right gave commoners an income and a status or independence they found valuable< third.6 Ibid.oyed as pasture by all the community pro indiviso. they agreed that the e(tinction of common right at enclosure mar"ed the decline of small farms and a transition for commoners from some degree of independence to complete dependence on a wage. Har('s $siatic mode in -ndia was essentially a variant of the open#field system. !here is the arable mar".. Har('s view of the uni1ueness of the %$siatic mode of production. many of the strongest advocates for Enclosure were deliberately and avowedly motivated not so much by a desire to improve the efficiency of cultivation and animal husbandry. rather than with their sympathi=ers today. $illage%Communities. 7ut a more democratic system of governance within the family or household would in no way affect communal tenure.. Wherever the climate admits of the finer grass crops. probably reflected the limited awareness of the time as to the e(tent to which the open#field system has persisted in the Hiddle $ges. and they agreed on enclosure's effect. what's really interesting is the areas in which the pro#Enclosure writers of the eighteenth century agreed with their contemporary adversaries. $dvocates for enclosure were e(plicitly motivated. in many regards.H. 1?B . !here is the village.many pamphleteers and most reporters to the 7oard of $griculture did 1. not conducting an en1uiry. -f very general language were employed. whereas in the latter case it was a pattern of feudal organi=ation that overlay the peasant commune. pro# and anti#Enclosure writers of the eighteenth century .

3+ .istory 16. they must be organi=ed in a manner that permits them to be identified.>'+ 1.1B>+ -+9+M+ Snell. 1?? II Destruction of the Peasant Commune by the State -t was only with the rise of the modern state. during the main period of parliamentary enclosure. the greater the legibility re1uired to effect it. Enclosure cannot therefore be said to have had a uni1uely stimulative effect on population growth... whose lands were inade1uate to procure subsistence. would hardly yield sufficient to pay the rent and "eep the family.inally. !he modern centrali=ed state was confronted with the problem of opacity. mobili=e labor. conscript soldiers. EG3lorations in Econo ic . regardless of whether the laborers themselves wanted it. gainst the Market: 'olitical !conom"# Market Socialism and the Mar5ist Criti6ue . start universal schooling—re1uires the invention of units that are visible. $s Hingay has noted in another conte(t. enforce sanitation standards.. $ny substantial state intervention in society—to vaccinate a population. the older socialist picture now seems remar"ably accurate—parliamentary enclosure resulted in outmigration and a higher level of pauperi=ation. +ne important recent study has shown that. in Cames 3cott's language. KEnclosure and 0a:or Su33ly Re=isitedL. Annals of the 0a:ouring "oor2 Social Change and Agrarian England 1''>C1((>. -t was precisely this phenomenon. that governments began to ta"e an interest in regulating the lives of individuals. and prevention of rebellion. and monitored. population rose in both enclosed and unenclosed villages. one might say that the greater the manipulation envisaged. 1?A 1.. rendering them non#viable and pushing them into wage labor. !he same study also demonstrates that there was a Spositive associationQ between enclosure and migration out of villages.. 33+ 17C1*+ Citing $+1+R+ Crafts. an %attempt to ma"e society legible. Ca :ridge2 Ca :ridge Uni=ersity "ress.. )egibility is a condition of manipulation. produce goods. Sthe very small farmers— occupiers of perhaps ?B acres and less—could hardly survive without some additional form of income< the land itself. aggregated. 2et the other means of support—farming Samply supplemented by common'—is precisely that which was being destroyed by parliamentary enclosure. conduct literacy campaigns. !he degree of "nowledge re1uired would have to be roughly commensurate with the depth of the intervention.. 1(B6.Q. !he heart of the modern liberal account has thus been refuted< indeed. Whatever the units being manipulated.7 Ibid+. conscription. 9a=id Mc$ally. recorded. it was only the modern state—at least since *oman times—that actually sought to touch individuals in their daily lives. !he impact of enclosure on small tenants. 3+ 1*+ . a definite correlation has been established between the e(tent of enclosure and reliance on poor rates. Hc/ally responded.&?6 $lthough the state has always had such concerns to a greater or lesser e(tent. 1()B. toward the end of the Hiddle $ges. Seeing Like a State. to arrange the population in ways that simplified the classic state functions of ta(ation.. 1((7<. catch criminals. $gainst arguments by Enclosure apologists that the population of the countryside increased after Enclosure. to the tune of si( million acres via enclosure $ct 5about one#1uarter of the cultivated area of England6 and another F million acres by SagreementQ.. ta( people and their property.Jerso. counted. 33+ 1()C.*+ Hc/ally also argues that Hingay neglected the e(tent to which Enclosure was a tipping point for small. forcing them into growing reliance on wage#labour—as proponents of enclosure said it should..' Scott.%employment& from the labored classes as possible. 0e goes on to point out that only in rare circumstances could such small occupiers engage in speciali=ed farming for the mar"et. can only have been dramatic. . observed.. and that the rate of growth was no faster in the former. -n other words. and became preoccupied with.. marginal tenant farmers. unless used for speciali=ed production or amply supplemented by common. which had reached full tide by the . 33+ 1)'C).

. !o be ruled is at every operation.# IoneCsf+co .>>1 ?htt32@@www+IoneC sf+co @&en acleod+ht lA+ 1. to be noted. and unrepeatability of social forms that are relatively opa1ue to the state.. to spea" broadly. -f. which in turn is less legible than private freeholding. that Iroudhon had in mind when he declared. and an overwhelming localness.. 33+ 1))C1)(+ 1.& and more recently 3oviet#style %collectivi=ation& 5i. The gricultural /evolution.> 9uncan 0awie. 7ourne thought that a commoner's sense of well#being came from a sense of ownership or possession.ob8& "now what a sense of belonging and ownership are mainly from their lac". in the specific case of property rules in land. 3tates therefore confront patterns of settlement. as entering someone else's place and being a poor relation in someone else's house.. appraised. 33+ . what Iroudhon was deploring was in fact the great achievement of modern statecraft. registered. if it wants everyone to spea" the same language or worship the same god— then it will have to become both far more "nowledgeable and far more intrusive... who e(periences cloc"ing in as cutting off a piece of her life and flushing it down the toilet. is less legible and ta(able than closed commons landholding.. admonished. inspected. sermoni=ed..ee#simple %privati=ation. s"illed.. are %younger& than the societies that they purport to administer..1(C.udgment and values at the door and becoming a tool in someone else's hand. . in hostility toward communal forms of property regulated as a purely internal matter by a village according to local custom. !hey're also rather li"e Har('s doodle about the post#class society where you could hunt in the morning. listed and chec"ed off. “&en acleod inter=iew.. comple(ity. !hat is literally what these guys are li"e. censured. counted.1?G middle of the nineteenth century. of leaving her own . fish in the afternoon and be a critic after dinner without ever being hunter.. corrected. it may not need to "now much about the society. movement. if it wants to create a literate.going to have to eat today to "eep my .>+ .?D !he imperative of rendering the opa1ue legible results. 1?1 !he commons were of value to their possessors precisely because they were trying to get shut of %volume and regularity of employment. !hey are people who've never really been hammered into industrial society and therefore have a fle(ibility.sure "nowledge of their value. %!o be ruled is to be "ept an eye on. who promoted Enclosures as a way of e(tracting as much 11( Ibid. de facto state ownership6. /eeson's description reminded me of a comment about the 0ighland crofters.open commons landholding.. by an increase in the volume and regularity of employment after enclosure. a means to someone else's ends rather than an end in her own right..e. by science fiction author >en Hacleod. 33+ 1B7C1B*+ .& -t was the propertied classes.!he highlanders are often people who own a croft. and production.& ... -f the state's goals are minimal. are both methods by which the state has destroyed the village commune and overcome the problem— from the state's perspective—of opacity within it.11 $nyone today who wor"s at wage labor. . !he result is typically a diversity. short of provo"ing a famine or a rebellion. priced.. often purposefully so.rom another perspective.& they sort of miss the point. ..1 Cha :ers and Mingay.) Ibid. estimated. fisherman or critic. redressed. regulated. however.B Ibid.... wor" for wages during the day and go poaching in the evening. !he untold millions of people who punch a time#card with a sic" feeling in the pits of their stomachs at the prospect of %0ow much shit am . -t is no coincidence that the more legible or appropriable form can more readily be converted into a source of rent—either as private property or as the monopoly rent of the state. -n both cases the village .. not to mention a natural environment. that have evolved largely independent of state plans... spied on. Host states.. a sense of belonging. the state is ambitious—if it wants to e(tract as much grain and manpower as it can. !his was not the ownership of a few acres 5though that is surely important too6 but the possession of a landscape... as we saw above.. 0ow hard#won and tenuous this achievement was is worth emphasi=ing. 3+ (B+ ..?F 3o when @hambers and Hingay refer to the loss of commons being %compensated. 7ut there is more to it than versatility and the interest it ensures. reformed. social relations. "nows e(actly what 7ourne meant. which is less legible than state ownership. transaction. and healthy population. ordered about. and who read a lot. $ lot of these highlanders are 0einlein's omnicompetent man—they can turn their hand to anything.. indoctrinated. prevented.

. has almost always been a creature of the state. !hey established connection and obligation... . !his time was never available to employers. indolence.. !hey gave commoners the fuel..AG *eplacing a society in which most ordinary people have access to the land on a customary basis. @ommoners had a variety of tas"s. commoners had a life as well as a living.. that they spent too much timme at the mar"et or going horseracing. 3+ 7(+ 7> Ibid. -n the case of common property farmland.rom this freedom came time to spend doing things other than wor". it was never purchasable. @learly sporting. also argued that the life commoners got was particularly satisfying... wage labour was a relatively recent arrival.A1 -n addition. 7ut the effect of having relatively few needs was liberating of time as well as paid labour. $s long as they had what they thought of as enough they had no need to spend time getting more. ma"es for what !illy has called the %visibility 9of : a commercial economy. a number of conditions prevail. and they had a . -n particular. many calling for s"ill and invention. by denominating all goods and services according to a common currency. +ne conse1uence was that commoners who were able to live on a little were unli"ely to develop e(pensive wants. F . pp. la=iness. who wrote most compellingly about thrift. !ime there was customarily spent on other things as well as wor" for wages. finding repair wood and thatch.. 3+ *B+ 71 Ibid. wherever it has e(isted. @apital. satisfaction came from the varied nature of the wor". celebration and recreation had economic functions as well as social. !he fee#simple model of private property.. 3cott's functional e(planation of individual fee simple ownership sounds remar"ably li"e ... !he cadastral map added documentary intelligence to state power and thus provided the basis for the synoptic view of the state and a supralocal mar"et in land. 9and: many people have claims on any particular resource 5@oercion.. as well as the ability to refuse wor".: had their origins in other things as well as a life outside the mar"et economy. and European 3tates . %-n an economy where only a small share of goods and services are bought and sold.& .. was opa1ue to the state. !his is the evidence for the accusation by critics of commons that commoners were la=y. food and materials that "ept them out of the mar"et for labour and out of the mar"et for consumption too.oucault's description of the %individualism& entailed in %panopticism. getting in a store of fuel. @ommoditi=ation in general. collectors of revenue are unable to observe or evaluate resources with any accuracy. constant employment was unnecessary were commons were rich reserves. en. lac" of ambition 5all the words are loaded with values of one "ind or another6 9the fact that most wor"ing and middle class people today share those values is evidence of Hethodism's success in reshaping consciousness in the late 1F th and early 1 th century—>.reehold title and standard land measurement were to central ta(ation and the real#estate mar"et what central ban" currency was to the mar"etplace. !he habit of living off commons made the habit of regular employment less necessary. with a society in which most of those same people must rent or purchase land in order to cultivate it. has the virtue— from the perspective of the state and the ruling economic class—of forcing the peasantry into the cash economy. $nd the more productive the common the more independent the commoners. 33+ 7')C7'B no+ (*+ the hidden wealth of commoners—they were the oldest part of an ancient economy. -t is no accident that the loudest complaints about the unavailability of commoners for wor" come from the 0ampshire downs and the East $nglian fens. )oo"ing for regular. while 1uite legible hori=ontally from the perspective of its inhabitants. which means an e(pansion of the wage labor mar"et. +n one level. forcing peasants and laborers into the cash economy means they must have a source of cash income to participate in it. 0aving relatively few needs that the mar"et could satisfy meant that commoners could wor" less.. but until they became the lion's share of income they were supplementary not central to a commoning economy. ta"ing time off. or gathering winter browse for a cow or pigs and food for the larder were other older "inds of employment. @..or commoners it was customary to ma"e a living first out of the materials on hand< after all. George 7ourne.commune.& 0e writes. the imposition of freehold property was clarifying not so much for the local inhabitants—the customary structure of rights had always been clear enough to them—as it was for the ta( official and the land speculator.oying life. FB6. the common came first. Gra=ing a cow or a don"ey. ? . -n other words. !his is not to deny the e(istence of wage labour< earning wages was necessary.( Ibid.

33+ 1B>C1B. were unable to obtain the material for participating in this gifting economy from their meager wages. Iroductive commons had always been the insurance. and its assumed yield than to untangle the thic"et of common property and mi(ed forms of tenure. )and is owned by a legal individual who possesses wide powers of use. The !nclosure Movement.. 3+ '>+ ... berrying. 3+ 1'6+ Ibid. Even for the landless.. $ccording to /eeson.airly early in Hedieval times. who had originally interstripped their domains with the rest of the holdings in the open fields.ority of land was held communally in the open fields. )ords of manors. -n short. at least for the liberal state. !he 3tatute of Herton in 1?AB recogni=ed the paramount authority of the lord of the manor over the waste. and so could no longer build the ties of mutual obligation and good will with other families which had previously served as a safety net. peating. with no access to the common waste. but the right to glean wool caught on thorn bushes and the old winter fleece that dropped off in summer was a significant source of fiber for spinning. codify.udicial and police institutions of the state. as /eeson describes it. . 33+ 1'BC1'(+ Ibid. 11* 116 11' 11) 11B Ibid. rather than by shearing. and the small e(change economy in which even landless commoners participated—%blac"berries. Ibid. each parcel of which has a legal person as owner and hence ta(payer.. of the sort >ropot"in described in Hutual $id. has typically been the heroic simplification of individual freehold tenure.. 3+ 6(+ 7* Ibid.. $ contemporary observer estimated around one half of wool from common# field floc"s was gathered in this way. 3+ 717+ Ibid. had early on consolidated them into closes. /evertheless. so long as they left a %sufficiency& of land to meet the commoning needs of the free tenants 5although the burden of proof fell on the lords6. 114 /ot only was gleaning unharvested grain a significant source of subsistence for the poorest 5at least enough to provide flour till @hristmas6 11B. 3+ 7'+ 77 Tate. harvesting and gleaning. 0ow much easier it then becomes to assess such property and its owner on the basis of its acreage. thrift.four or five wee"s' wages for an agricultural laborer. there had been a modest amount of land ownership in severalty. A4 !he first large#scale assault on the village commune was the !udor sei=ure of monastic lands—entailing around a fifth of the arable land in England—followed by the distribution of it to royal favorites among the 7. its soil class. and simplify land tenure in much the same way as scientific forestry reconceived the forest. economy. $s the village e(panded the area under cultivation into the waste. or sale and whose ownership is represented by a uniform deed of title enforced through the . $ccommodating the lu(uriant variety of customary land tenure was simply inconceivable. newly bro"en ground was usually incorporated into e(isting open fields. -n an agrarian setting. etc. or labour in carrying home wood or reeds&—both created connections between families and %bonds of obligation.AA !here were early complaints by tenants in the thirteenth century of lords enclosing parts of common lands without consent.. !he historic solution. and reducing villagers' rights of pasture.+ !he fiscal or administrative goal toward which all modern states aspire is to measure. the crops it normally bears. 7ut some families developed waste land independently and enclosed it as private holdings. seasonal shared labor li"e gathering rushes. a decided ma. and authori=ed lords to enclose the commons at their own descretion. 116 3uch rights also gave the landless %the means of e(change with other commoners and so made them part of the networ" of e(change from which mutuality grew. the administrative landscape is blan"eted with a uniform grid of homogeneous land. )iving off the produce of commons encouraged frugality. the reserves. the commons were the difference between a community of free and independent people and a collection of dependent wage laborers.A? The Enclosures in England .& Ioor families after Enclosure.11F +ne might read all this material in light of recent studies which compare the social health of communities in which farmland is widely distributed among a large number of family farms.11D !he social and economic unit thus "nit together included a significant social safety net. dandelion wine.am. rights such as gleaning and access to the common waste provided some margin of subsistence and help "nit the village together as a social and economic unit. inheritance. versus that of communities where the land is concentrated in the hands of a few giant agribusiness operations.... 3+ 16B+ Ibid.

. conversions of arable to pasture.+ Ibid. =ol+ 76 of MarG and Engels Collected &orks . Evidently critics did not "now that a waste might provide much more than fuel. 117 Ibid.& !he landless normally had customary right to pasture pigs on the common.&AD !enants not sub. and cutting peat and turves were all part of a commoning economy and a commoning way of life invisible to outsiders. the hereditary sub#tenants and threw their holdings into one.. herbs. 71. nuts or spring flowers. 3+ *>+ Ibid. even for those without common#right cottages. mushrooms.>+ 7) Maurice 9o::.. 3+ 16B+ Ibid. land rights. en masse. or sold at a nominal price to speculating farmers and citi=ens.6n+ 7B 8 anuel !allerstein. food and materials from common waste provided %variety of useful products. evictions. mushrooms or berries.&AB !he "ing's men to whom the monastic lands were distributed engaged in wholesale %9r:ac"#renting. snaring rabbits and birds. wastes and private woods enabled families in some areas to cut a year's worth of fuel in a wee"—fuel which. barley and rye—%bread corn&—to subsist %in years of dearth. $nd a cottage on the border of the waste rendered a laborer %independent of the farmers and many of the country gentlemen.. in answer to some peasants who protested at the sei=ure of their commons. '6C'). Iigs on the forests and waste and geese in the fen pastures were fre1uently sold to farmers who fattened them for the table— hence the decline in roast goose and goose down after Enclosure. %were to a large e(tent given away to rapacious feudal favourites. Frace and Co 3any.. truffles.. %that the >ing's grace hath put down all the houses of mon"s..nobility. the right to e(tract fuel. of those employed at wages. as well. would cost 1>( 11> 111 11. or wheat.'<. and small game li"e fowl and rabbits.+ Tawney.6.AF 76 -arl MarG and 1riedrich Engels. a family could raise sufficient potatoes. 3auntering after a gra=ing cow. 1(('<. Capital =ol+ 8. 7ut even small holdings. and those sei=ed of which the @hurch was feudal proprietor.*C. 3+ 1. which were held by a large portion of the rural population.. who drove out. gathering tea=les. to which the peasantry %had the same feudal rights as the lord himself &—when unable to pay them. !he new landlords were less than sympathetic to complaints from their tenants.ust a few furlong strips in an open field. .& said the grantee of one of the 3usse( manors of the monastery of 3ion. Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism ..< in which case the labour reserves thereby created would have been of comparable dimensions to that which e(isted in all but the worst months of the economic crisis of the 1 AGs. %Eo ye not "now. friars and nuns8 !herefore is the time come that we gentlemen will pull down the houses of such poor "naves as ye be.& in Har('s words. +ccupancy of an acre or even . or pasture rights of any "ind.$ew %or&2 8nternational "u:lishers.ect to enclosure under the !udors were instead victimi=ed by rac"#renting and arbitrary fines.. loo"ing for wood. coupled with a "itchen garden and common right to gra=e a few sheep. 3+ )11+ 7' R+ . salad greens.$ew %or&2 Acade ic "ress.& With only one to three acres.& 11? @ommon waste was a source of ha=elnuts.& A6 !he dissolution of the monasteries dispossessed some BG.GGG tenants.111 !a"ing it a step further..&11G !he value of the common 9according to critics: was no more than wood for the fire. watercress. 33+ . @hambers and Hingay minimi=ed the economic significance of the supposedly minimal common rights of cottagers and s1uatters. 8nc+. and. /eligion and the /ise o0 Capitalism .*C. The Modern &orld S"stem# 'art I .arcourt.. 33+ 76.$ew %or&2 8nternational "u:lishers. !he subse1uent !udor era was also characteri=ed by large#scale enclosure of open fields for sheep pasturage for the lucrative te(tile mar"ets. rushes. which fre1uently resulted in their being driven off the land—%land. 3+ )6+ Ibid.GGG tenants.11A !he right to cut wood in forests. !he estates sei=ed with the suppression of the monasteries. there was in fact still a si=able %landless& rural population with rights to the land. after Enclosure. according to /eeson. and the ensuing enclosures for pasturage through the early seventeenth century involved around half a million acres 5almost a thousand s1uare miles6 and AG#4G. 1(. crabapples. 3+ .. could be a %great advantage. were a source of considerable independence. 1G 3o in many villages that were supposedly devoid of a peasantry in @hambers' and Hingay's terms.61nH MarG quote is fro Capital =ol+ 8. 1()*<. 1(*)<. 33+ 1'(C1)>+ . Haurice Eobb argues that this might have represented over ten percent of %all middling and small landholders and 1G and ?G per cent.$ew %or&2 . fishing. 3+ )>(+ despite the concentration of land ownership.

though much diminished in e(tent. remaining in ab. around half of the population on the eve of Iarliamentary Enclosure were commoners with %rights of pasture attached to land they wor"ed or to cottages they occupied.. $nd many of the %vagabonds& dispossessed by the !udor e(propriations found a safety net in the common lands. !he legal owners of common rights were always compensated by the commissioners with an allotment of land. 3+ . even when the holder of common rights periodically used them depending on his fluctuating economic circumstances. widows with children to support. whose rights in their estates had hitherto been limited. 3+ . 1('1<.. @ustomary rights based on residence alone.at enclosure< more widely en. and sometimes a number of cottagers might split a single cottage right of common.ill. Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism. rather than ownership of cottages with common rights attached. 5!he occupiers of common right cottages. with some individual households holding half or a 1uarter suit#house cottage rights.. The Centur" o0 /evolution: (*+-%()(2 . !his was a perfectly proper distinction between owner and tenant. there were landless commoners who supplemented income from wage labor or self# employment as artisans with a small right of pasturage.ect dependence on their landlords. !he so#called land reform of 1646 5which was confirmed by the @onvention Iarliament in 166G6 abolished feudal tenures.oyed customary right was sometimes ignored. with a large number of commoners 1>* 1>6 1>' 1>) 1>B $eeson.. +ne seventeenth century pamphleteer complained of %upstart intruders& and %loyterers. an absolute power to do what they would with their own.& !he result was that such people %will not usually be got to wor" unless they may have such e(cessive wages as they themselves desire. and the proliferation of unauthori=ed cottagers s1uatting on the common. and %9gave: landowners. who who en.and @harles -. !he availability of access to the common lands in open# field villages. 3+ ))+ Cha :ers and Mingay.and the triumph of the Iresbyterian party in Iarliament.. of course. it should be noticed.$ew %or&2 !+ !+ $orton D Co+.61GB $lso unrecogni=ed were common rights claims for cottage commons which were unstoc"ed at the time of Enclosure. 3+ '7+ Ibid. 1GF $rguably such customary common rights were economically more significant to landless and land#poor peasants than to those with formal title to land in the open fields. Commoners..4? 7( 9o::.'+ *1 Christo3her ... 3+ )B+ Ibid. !he 3tuarts. liable to arbitrary death duties which could be used as a means of evicting the recalcitrant. not downwards.. The gricultural /evolution. including the right to settle the inheritance of all their lands by will. went unrecogni=ed by Enclosure commissioners.& 4G With the deposition of @harles . Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism. 3+ 1*B+ *. 8nc+. up until the @ivil War. received no compensation because they were not. !he effect was completed by an act of 16DD which ensured that the property of small freeholders should be no less insecure than that of copyholders.41 . $nd in some parishes common rights were attached to occupancy rather than ownership of a cottage.& -n addition. and with it the death duties.oyed common rights by virtue of their tenancy of the cottage.& -t converted all military tenures into freehold. was a thorn in the side to landlords who could not obtain sufficient wage labor at low enough wages so long as alternative means of subsistence e(isted.& inhabitants of unlawful cottages erected contrary to law& wherever %the fields lie open and are used in common. sporadically attempted—with only mi(ed success at best—to counter the depopulation and impoverishment of the countryside.9. @opyholders obtained no absolute property rights in their holdings. 3+ ()+ $eeson. the gentry faced considerably less in the way of obstacles to its rapacity. -t abolished the @ourt of Wards. unless supported by written legal title. 1GD -n total.ill.'+ *> 9o::. migrating into %such open#field villages as would allow them to s1uat precariously on the edge of common or waste.. Commoners. and involved no fraud or disregard for cottagers on the part of the commissioners. although arguing in other passages that Enclosure commissions sometimes recogni=ed customary right.. /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution: Social and !conomic . Christo3her .:eudal tenures were abolished upwards only.& A !he pace of enclosure slowed considerably under Cames . the owners of the rights.1G4 @hambers and Hingay conceded as much in principle.1G6 !he e(tent of common rights is also undercounted by historians because cottage rights of common were divisible.. persisted under the open#field system. and s1uatters on the waste. 3+ '*+ /evertheless the land that remained under peasant control.

ustice is not the issue before us here.& otherwise "nown as %the past BG years of scholarship. that they were of little benefit to most. %an(ious to secure 1uic" returns.&1G? Woods' overwhelming %weight of the evidence.+ .&4B *oyalist land e(propriated during the -nterregnum was typically purchased by men on the ma"e. historiography stopped with the groundbrea"ing scholarship of Hingay. Capital =ol+ 1. according to C. 1(')<. .& 7ut the left wing of the republican forces never secured a broad alliance with the peasantry.. although it sought substantial consensus. /eeson. but the peasantry secured no corresponding guarantee in the royal courts of their own customary property rights against the landlord. egalitarian and libertarian rhetoric may have been used by the Iarliamentary side to whitewash what were actually rather venal purposes. 9-:t is how nearly all social#democratic historians. and the restoration of central authority put an end to what Histor" o0 3ritain (4-+%(). or rural poverty. !his essentially eliminated all legal barriers to rac"#renting. because they did not include rights under the custom of the manor. Gerrard Winstanley and their followers bro"e down enclosures and attempted to cultivate the waste land communally—for which they earned the name %Eiggers. . The Centur" o0 /evolution. 3ome of the )eveller writers sought an alliance with the countryside and called for the tearing down of enclosures.. 3+ 1).. is whether the process was responsible for systematic dispossession. and that the English landed peasantry had already disappeared by 1DBG. !he number of common#right cottages counted by enclosure commissioners or lords of manors at enclosure gives us an estimate of the number of common#right cottagers. Centur" o0 /evolution.& turns out to refer almost entirely to the wor" of Hingay. eviction and enclosure. “"ro3aganda.+ . /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution: Social and !conomic Histor" o0 3ritain (4-+%(). .1GA Kery little of this stands up to close e(amination.&4A )andlords gained absolute ownership of their estates against previous obligations to the monarchy and aristocracy. until the weight of the evidence began to overwhelm them. @hambers and Hingay.+ . -n 164 William Everard 5%a cashiered army officer 'who termeth himself a prophett'& 4F6.ected two bills which would limit the entry fees for tenants in copyhold.ill. but it is almost certainly an underestimate. popular resistance in the countryside often chec"ed the enclosure of commons and waste. 5uly 1B.0ondon2 !eidenfeld D $icholson. . and rein in enclosures. apparently.or Woods.. $lthough @hesterton called the @ivil War the %*ebellion of the *ich.. Euring the @ivil War. /eeson have administered the e1uivalent of a curb#stomping to Hingay's reading of the history of Enclosure.ill... 1(''< .reedoms they formerly en.& in contrast to %modern research. of course. Meet Modern Research. or managed to instigate a full#scale uprising in the countryside. 3+ )17+ *' .or e(ample the e(tent of common rights was seriously undercounted in official records.H. 1(')<.. or that subse1uent critics li"e C. 3+ 1*(+ ** Christo3her . the depopulation of the countryside. $lthough republican. although much in. stopped short of unanimity6 made agriculture more efficientR. the rhetoric filtered downward and was ta"en up seriously by the laboring classes.Iarliament re..+ *B Tate. 44 Har( described the %act of usurpation& which the landed proprietors %vindicated for themselves the rights of modern private property in estates to which they had only a feudal title.0ondon2 !eidenfeld D $icholson.. that the stoc" fed on commons was poorly feed and disease#ridden.. argued that only a minority of the rural population held commoning rights. -t caused none of these outcomes.or only narrowly defined legal right was ac"nowledged 1>. The !nclosure Movement. on the grounds that they would %destroy property. Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism. the older left#wing history was %propaganda. 33+ 116C11'+ *6 MarG and Engels. 3+ 1*B+ tric"ed or forced into it.>11 ?htt32@@www+to woods+co @:log@antiCca3italistC3ro3agandaC eetC odernCresearch@A+ 1>7 5+9+ Cha :ers and G+E+ Mingay.ustice is probably concealed beneath many modern scholarsQ assurances that the process 5which. The gricultural /evolution ()4+%(. 3+ 1*)+ *) 9o::.&4D /one of this passed without opposition. -n Woods' version of things.. tried to portray matters. To !oods. Whether the process of enclosure satisfies libertarian standards of . rather. in !he $gricultural *evolution. !he 1uestion.ill.# Tom &oods. 33+ 116C11'+ *7 .oyed.H.$ew %or&2 Schoc&en Foo&s.&46 !enants of these new landlords complained that they %wrest from the poor !enants all former -mmunities and . 0e displays no awareness whatsoever that the %revisionism& of Hingay has since become the new orthodo(y.& it was in fact contested terrain. !hose of their tenants who could not produce written evidence of their titles were liable to eviction.. that they were only marginally important to the rural population.

%the law itself becomes now an instrument of the theft of the people's land.E. !hompson. had traditionally been a supplementary source of food. the Eiggers' travelling missionaries in the countryside hardened local landowners against any proposal that smac"ed even of modest land reform.& -n practical terms..4 Euring the Glorious *evolution in 16FF#16F . !his was a central socialist theme.. $+5+2 Row an D AllanheldH 0ondon2 1+ "inter.). was ta"en to pieces in the eighteenth century and reconstructed in the manner in which a *( Ibid.. and particularly made more e(ploitative than they otherwise would have been.& With the Iarliamentary Enclosures of the eighteenth century. 1(B*.Totowa.rom the beginning of the eighteenth century the reins are thrown to the enclosure movement. by the Enclosures.... Capital =ol+ 8.& B? %. apprentices. $illage Labourer. and the destruction of the -ndian village communes by the 7ritish Iermanent 3ettlement. 3+ 1*(+ 6> MarG and Engels.. Hises. 7ohm#7awer". -f anything. !hey must have been resistance there was and gave the landlords a free hand. and who have little or no understanding of the actual points at issue between them.&BA Cust as with 3tolypin's and 3talin's policies toward the mir.ectivist tradition %disproved& *icardian classical political economy—claims typically coming from people whose understanding of both the classical political economists and the marginalists is entirely second#hand..&BG !he Whig Iarliament under William and Hary also passed Game )aws in order to further restrict independent subsistence by the laboring classes. the people must not be viewed as having chosen to abandon the land for the factory. there was a reaction—centered on !he $gricultural *evolution and other wor" by C. 0unting. MarG and Engels.The Debates on Enclosure 3tarting in the 1 6Gs.E.. 3ince then. either by acting 1uasi#legally through the state by giving them away or selling them at sweetheart prices. $s the 16 ? law stated in its preamble. and the policy of enclosure is emancipated from all these chec"s and afterthoughts. it was intended to remedy the %great mischief & by which %inferior tradesmen. 3+ 76+ . it's been standard practice for anyone on the *ight grasping for a defense of the %property rights& of the landed classes to fall bac" on @hambers as having %disproved& the radical historians.. -t's 1uite similar to claims that Ceavons. Hingay—against the dominant radical criti1ue of Enclosure inherited from Har('s account of primitive accumulation in volume one of @apital and leftist writers li"e C. B1 !he enclosure of open fields under the !udors 5and on a smaller scale under the 3tuarts6 had ta"en place largely %by means of individual acts of violence against which which legislation.. the great landlords too" advantage of the power vacuum left by Cames --'s departure to sei=e @rown lands on a large scale.. and 7arbara 0ammond or E. or %even anne(ed to private estates by direct sei=ure. Classical 'olitical !conom": 'rimitive ccumulation and the Social 1ivision o0 Labour . c 1(B7<. Capital =ol+ 1. $ good recent e(ample is !homas Woods of the )udwig von Hises -nstitute. having made a rational assessment of what was best for them. or some other thin"er5s6 from the marginalist#sub. Iarliamentary $cts of Enclosure amounted to a %parliamentary coup d'etat. 3+ )16+ 67 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . Henger. !he enclosure of common forests and abrogation of access rights put an end to this. for the rural population. and other dissolute persons neglect their trades and employments& in favor of hunting and fishing.& through %decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people's land as private property. @hambers and G. fought in vain.I. for a hundred and fifty years. 3+ )1*+ 61 Michael "erel an. who dismissed as %socialist& any arguments that the -ndustrial *evolution and wage system were shaped in any way. in contrast. in 7ritain %9t:he agricultural community.a ond. 33+ *BC*(+ 6.

3+ .. denounced commons as %a plea for their idleness< 6* 66 6' 6) 6B 6( '> Ibid. in 1DDA. till our manufacturing poor are contented to labour si( days for the same sum which they now earn in four days.. and the imposition of more effective control on village society as a general benefit to the peace and order of society. in order to procure the common necessities of life'.. !he cure will not be perfect. was a public encumbrance... as in the other cases. was %e(tinguishing the old village life and all the relationships and interests attached to it.&BF 7ut the e(traction of a larger surplus from the agricultural labor force was also very much a conscious—and e(plicitly avowed—part of their motivation.ust as easily have described 3talin's motives in collectivi=ation. 3+ ()+ .&6G $rbuthnot.&B4 !he goal. !he landlords saw themselves as the bac"bone of the 7ritish way of life.& they concluded %that this old peasant community. !he landed classes bore a powerful animus against the common lands because they rendered the rural population less dependent on wage labor. /e0ormation to Industrial /evolution.....dictator reconstructs a free government. BD !he goal of the %governing class.& in language that might . 3+ . so that rural laborers were uninterested in accepting as much wor" from the landlords as the latter saw fit to offer. $ pamphleteer in 1DA argued that %the only way to ma"e the lower orders temperate and industrious.. 3+ 76+ Ibid.&B $ 1DDG tract called %Essay on !rade and @ommerce& warned that %9t:he labouring people should never thin" themselves independent of their superiors..ill. was 'to lay them under the necessity of labouring all the time they can spare from rest and sleep.&B6 !he customary rights of the peasantry hindered the landlord's power to unilaterally introduce new farming techni1ues.71+ %""endi' . with unsparing and unhesitating hand.6+ MarG and Engels. 3+ *>+ Ibid. Given their assumption that %order would be resolved into its original chaos. with its troublesome rights. but perhaps more importantly for the ease of the landed classes in e(tracting a surplus from rural labor. if they ceased to control the lives and destinies of their neighbours. 3+ 76+ Ibid.. Capital =ol+ 8. was legibility—%the simplifying appetites of the landlords&BB—not only for purposes of central ta(ation.. 33+ 7'C7)+ Ibid..

Eay labour becomes disgusting< the aversion increases by indulgence< and at length the sale of a half#fed calf.. if you offer them wor".&64 !he 1FGD Gloucestershire 3urvey warned that %the greatest of evils to agriculture would be to place the labourer in a state of independence. 3+ . in Hutual $id.a ond.. the inclosure of the wastes would increase the number of hands for labour. or perhaps. in his 1D B *eport on 3omerset to the 7oard of $griculture. say they must ta"e their horse to be shod. in conse1uence of the growth of industries. moc"ed those who defended the process of enclosure and private appropriation of the communes as %a natural death. Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism.. and the nobility had ac1uired.6? Conclusion >ropot"in. !he village communities had lived for over a thousand years< and where and when the peasants were not ruined by wars and e(actions they steadily improved their methods of culture. !he words of @ool 0and )u"e come to mind.1G1 -f there is any one lesson to be gained from all this. their children will be put out to labour early. 7ishton. re1uire constant labourers —men who have no other means of support than their daily labour.& 6B +f course such motives were fre1uently e(pressed in the form of concern for the laborers' own welfare.for.&6A Cohn @lar" of 0erefordshire wrote in 1FGD that farmers in his county were %often at a loss for labourers. Commoners.. was among the most honest in stating the goals of Enclosure. 3+ 7)+ Ibid. wrote of the pernicious effect of the common on a peasant's character. %!he use of common land by labourers operates upon the mind as a sort of independence.&61 Cohn 7illingsley. 3+ 7)+ Ibid. it is a warning against the common tendency for libertarians to conflate the private#state dichotomy with the individualPcommon dichotomy. and that subordination of the lower ran"s of society which in the present times is so much wanted. @ap'n. or hog.& !he 0ammonds estimated the total land enclosed between a si(th and a '1 '. and occasionally whole days are imperceptibly lost. Nuarter.o"e as to spea" of the natural death of soldiers slaughtered on a battlefield. in virtue of economical laws. lest being able to feed oneself too easily lead to irreparable spiritual damage from idleness and dissolution.. '7 '* '6 5+ 0+ and Far:ara . by removing the means of subsisting in idleness. that he may carry them to a horse#race or cric"et match. . some few e(cepted.& !he result of their enclosure would be that %the labourers will wor" every day in the year.B+ 9o::. it too" possession of the best parts of the communal lands. cut fur=es. a power which it never had had under the feudal system..armers. 3+ .& and another writer of that time wrote that %. -n sauntering after his cattle. they will tell you. 3+ .& -t was. he ac1uires a habit of indolence. half.. that they must go to loo" up their sheep. would be thereby considerably secured. in his 1D 4 *eport on 3hropshire..+ 1>1 -ro3ot&in. 3+ 7B+ $eeson. Mutual id. %2ou shouldn't be so good to me. get their cow out of the pound...& !he fact was simply this. furnishes the means of adding intemperance to idleness. 7ut as the value of land was increasing.. $illage Labourer... under the 3tate organi=ation. %as grim a .7'+ . he wrote. and did its best to destroy the communal institutions.

a ond. into cultivation by the colony villages of landless peasants they settled there.rance began in early modern times. !he one advantage of the form ta"en by @ornwallis's 3ettlement in 7engal. on the eve of the *evolution.<. when the order came to divide the communal lands among all commoners. %active& and %inactive.C.71+ ). in which it served the interests of the dominant families in the village to be slow and grudging in allowing the e(pansion of arable land into the waste. by erecting the Oemindars into a class of fee#simple landlords.. !he 7ritish. returned the enclosed lands to the communes.66 $ccording to the higher estimate of E. that the root of this problem was not the want of a dictatorial power to overcome customary restrictions and bring the waste under cultivation.6 $bout two#thirds of the four thousand Irivate $cts of Enclosure involved %open fields belonging to cottagers.6D $nd Haurice Eobb's figure was a 1uarter to a half of the land in the fourteen counties most affected by Enclosure. its woodlots from which its members are in the habit of gathering timber and firewood. !he Oemindars brought these wastes. Hain argued. however. Haine argued.1GG -t seems to me. $illage%Communities. -n countries with large amounts of uncultivated waste and insufficient cultivation to feed the population. was that it overcame the problem of developing the waste land.&D? -n 1D ? the @onvention. 3+ 177+ )1 -ro3ot&in.&D1 +ne of the last acts of the monarchy. %the nobles and the clergy had already ta"en possession of immense tracts of land—one#half of the cultivated area. 6F W.. Mutual id. 7y the late 1Fth century. was to replace the village fol"motes with elected councils of a mayor and three to si( syndics %chosen from among the wealthier peasants. its pastures and meadows. !he arable lands of the village. the plunder of the common lands in . freed them from all customary limitations on %their power over subordinate holders& as well as putting the wastes under their dominion at their full disposal. in the face of peasant insurrection in the countryside. Studies in the 1evelopment o0 Capitalism. The !nclosure Movement. 3+ .o:s:aw and George Rude.7>C.E.)+ '( Tate.5uly@August 1((. !ate estimates the total land enclosed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century at seven million acres. were all collectively homesteaded by admi(ture of the village's labor with the soil— as described by *oderic" )ong above. fee simple ownership by a landlord was a way to overcome traditional restrictions on waste reclamation and e(pand the area under cultivation. from coloni=ing a new village on the waste land. 33+ 1'7C1''. common land.# The !cologist . the village has no right to restrict either landless outsiders. Ibid.& and the other third involved common woodland and heath. 3+ . freed from the villages' customary controls over access. +f course all this resulted in a conflict of interest. or its own comparatively subordinate members. meadow or waste& were transformed into private fields between 1DBG and 1FBG. 0aving not homesteaded the uncultivated waste. %something li"e one 1uarter of the cultivated acreage from open field.$ew %or&2 !+ !+ $orton D Co 3any 8nc+. 1)BC1)(+ . 0obsbawm and George *ude. 33+ . 7ut land can only be homesteaded collectively by actual development in common—not simply by ma"ing claims to unused land.+ ') E+ 5+ . 1('B<. 1>> Maine.& DG France: War on the Commons by onarchy! Re"ublic and Em"ire $s in England.7>+ corporations. $illage Labourer. rich and poor ali"e. in 1D A. confirmed two years later by the @onstituent $ssembly. -t lay in the village commune's illegitimate and unlibertarian power to control access to uncultivated waste.)+ 'B 9o::. or an area over a hundred miles s1uare—the e1uivalent of eight English counties. but ordered at the same time that they should be divided in e1ual parts among the wealthier peasants only—a measure which provo"ed new insurrections and was abrogated ne(t year. 3+ BB+ )> “9e=elo3 ent as Enclosure2 The Esta:lish ent of the Glo:al Econo y. that not already enclosed before 1DGG6.& welcoming outsiders only as tenants 5thus creating the same problem of a two#tier wor"force that has plagued modern cooperatives and "ibbut=im when they've hired non#members as wage laborers6.& '' 5+ 0+ and Far:ara .fifth of the remaining unenclosed arable land 5i.e. 3+ . Captain Swing . 3+ *. according to certain estimates— mostly to let it go out of culture.

& !he villages then.III The &uestion of Efficiency $ good many of the criticisms raised of the alleged inefficiency of the open field system and common pasturage turn out. 7ut one of the more credible problems. to determine the amount )7 Ibid. )et us suppose a province anne(ed for the first time to the 7ritish -ndian Empire. and commonly cited by apologists for the Enclosures—which we will e(amine in the appendi(. but 5as during the /apoleonic Wars6 %something was snapped up each time. with three laws passed from 1FAD to the reign of /apoleon --. the pernicious effects of the 3ettlement resulted from the need—in 3cott's terminology—to render the native property landscape legible to the ta(ing authorities.%to induce the village communities to divide their estates. !hese include most of the ob. were repeatedly confiscated— declared to be state domains—and used as collateral for state war loans.& were more willing to welcome and amalgamate with outsiders.ections raised by @hambers and Hingay.+ )* Ibid. granted large estates out of the communal lands to some of his favorites. to be spurious. !he common lands.n+ )6 Scott.. 7ut each time the total acreage returned to the peasantry was further diminished in 1uantity. because they paid the ta(es on the land. they tended over time to become %oligarchies&—as Haine had observed in particular of the -ndian villages at the time of 3ettlement.7. and then returned to the communes. was honored mainly in the breach by the peasantry. and laborers lost their customary rights of access to the land and its products. and the result was social stratification based on the more prestigious families' control of access to land and the increasing deference re1uired to secure access rights.77. 3+ *B+ . subse1uently. DB $s 0enry Haine described it. literally millions of cultivators. typical of measures by %liberal& states to impose fee#simple ownership on peasant communes. owing to %the e(treme value of new labour. tenants. from 1D 4 through 1F1A. $nd from the failure to e(pand cultivation into the waste areas there followed a related set of social distortions within the village. $lthough village communes %in one stage& had been democratically governed. Seeing Like a State.7. on e(amination. land became more valuable than people. $t the same time.. %when men were of more value than land.71C.C. 33+ . raised by 0enry 3umner Haine. was that of reclamation of waste land when e(pansion of the cultivated area was an urgent necessity. -n most cases the villagers "ept undivided whatever land they manged to reta"e possession of. finally. became full owners with rights of inheritance and sale where none had e(isted earlier. !he first civil act of the new government is always to effect a settlement of the land revenue< that is. with the portion of land restored of disproportionately poor 1uality.DA $ similar process continued after the Wars. 7ut as increased population ran up against the e(isting e(tent of cultivation. the permanent settlement in -ndia created a new class who.7.& D4 The Permanent Settlement in India $ccording to Cames 3cott. . !he relative democracy of the village commune resulted from a comparatively higher %capacity for absorption of strangers& in earlier times. 33+ . %under the prete(t of encouraging perfected methods of agriculture.& /apoleon ---. the villages tended to become %close !his policy. $t the same time. admitting them to the privileges of the village brotherhood with e1ual rights of access to the land.& Each time the laws were repealed in the face of opposition in the countryside.

mining and logging. which was shattered to pieces by the 3epoy mutiny of 1FBD. what bodies.&DD !he most famous 3ettlement was that of )ord @ornwallis in )ower 7engal. $mong the many 1uestions upon which a decision must be had. +nce secured. )umberdars.. /either course was really ade1uate. or sold to white settlers.. but what are supposed to be its rights in relation to all other classes are defined..dwell on the fact that the various interests in the soil which these names symbolise are seen to grow at the e(pense of all the others. what groups. sub. Eo you. /ot that the assumption is ever made that new proprietary powers are conferred on it.will not as" you to remember the technical names of the various classes of persons 'settled with' in different parts of -ndia— Oemindars.<... and do you thin" it e(pedient to ta"e the government dues from the once oppressed yeomen8 !he result is the immediate decline.. shall be held responsible to the 7ritish Government for its land revenue8 What practically has to be determined is the unit of society for agrarian purposes< and you find that..of that relatively large share of the produce of the soil. . 'Who shall be settled with8'—with whom shall the settlement be made8 What persons. !alu"dars. on entering on the settlement of a new province... 2ou are at once compelled to confer on the selected class powers co#e(tensive with its duties to the sovereign. the one of the most practical importance is. 3uch was the land settlement of +udh. the records of the time suggested %that no ownership of -ndian land was discoverable..5uly@August 1((. find that a peasant proprietary has been displaced by an oligarchy of vigorous usurpers.. or 7arons. arrange that the superior holder shall be answerable to Government8 2ou shall find that you have created a landed aristocracy which has no parallel in wealth or power e(cept the proprietors of English soil. the commons appropriated by the colonial administration were typically leased out to commercial concerns for plantations. only recently consummated< and such will ultimately be the position of the !alu"dars.. 3+ 16*+ (( “9e=elo3 ent as Enclosure2 The Esta:lish ent of the Glo:al Econo y... or its value. 33+ 1*(C161+ )) Ibid.ect to the dominion of the 3tate.. which Haine described as %an attempt to create a landed# proprietary li"e that of this country 9Great 7ritain:. you determine everything.& by %conferring estates )' Maine. which is demanded by the sovereign in all +riental 3tates.. . of the class above them.. +f this nature is the more modern settlement of the province of +udh. and give its character finally to the entire political and social constitution of the province. 3+ 17*+ . e(cept that of the village#communities.or most of -ndia. became the new owners of two#thirds of the land.# The !cologist . among whom its soil has been divided. and out of which all the main e(penses of government are defrayed. according to Haine. Eo you. in determining it. reversing this policy.D6 the population. $illage%Communities.—but .

ust five per cent of () Ibid. 3+ ... gathering. and the local mill disappeared< in their places stood the "ol"ho= office...F1 -n the case of )ord @ornwallis in 7engal—a province where the village system had already %fallen to pieces of itself & and there was nothing that could be regarded as a real landlord class—instead of following what Haine considered the obvious course of creating a %peasant proprietary& @ornwallis %turned it into a country of great estates and was compelled to ta"e his landlords from the ta(#gatherers of his worthless predecessors. such %reserves& were %structured to allow the Europeans. !he practical effect was to ta"e a class whose rights of ownership were significantly restricted by custom. or fee simple ownership. it had created units that were ideal for simple and direct appropriation. rural fairs and mar"ets.&FG !heir motive was simply to find the class in each province which mostly appro(imated %ownership& in English terms.. the English administration e(perimented with the opposite approach in an area of southern -ndia centering on Hadras. the public meeting room.& $lthough the effects on productivity were far more favorable than those from @ornwallis's 3ettlement. as was fre1uently the case. -n place of a variety of social units with their own uni1ue histories and practices.. Where.. %the class to be 'settled with' was the class best entitled to be regarded as having rights of property in the soil. and without regard to the specific "inds of %ownership& the class in 1uestion had under native customary law. who constituted . 3+ 1>6+ Ibid. collectivi=ation can be compared to Enclosure insofar as a landed peasantry wor"ing its own allotments and appropriating a significant share of its full product was transformed into a rural proletariat wor"ing the land under the supervision of a hired overseer representing an absentee owner. and the school... 3+ 16)+ Ibid... the colonial authorities found that the lands they sought to e(ploit were already %cultivated&.& DF -n reaction against the pernicious effects of this. -n 3outhern *hodesia. it became standard practice to declare all %uncultivated& land to be the property of the colonial administration. their conception of ownership being ta"en from their own country. D . local communities were denied legal title to lands they had traditionally set aside as fallow and to the forests. $t a stro"e.17C.. !he effect of this was to create a peasant proprietary. 33+ 16. who accounted for less than one per cent of the population..-n place of a peasant economy whose harvests. to have full access to the agriculturally rich uplands that constituted ?G per cent of the country. -n >enya.& F? !here were other forces besides the 3ettlement wor"ing to undermine the property rules of the village commune. claiming uncultivated or common lands.C167. and abrogating traditional rights of assess—not to mention head ta(es to compel subsistence cultivators to enter the money economy.udgment on the implicit assumptions of English fee simple ownership. !hroughout the colonies. !he tavern. and to transform it into a class of landlords with an uncontrolled right of dominion.. 33+ 1>6C1>'+ Ibid.1*+ (B Ibid. %to recogni=e nothing between itself and the immediate cultivators of the soil< and from them 9to ta"e: directly its share of the produce. forests.ect to unlimited evictions and rac"#rent in a country where such things had previously been almost un"nown.autonomous public life had been eliminated. Ibid. white colonists. Haine gives the e(ample. it had created homologous units of accounting that could all be fitted into a national administrative grid. #ritish $and Policy in %frica 7ritish land policy in East $frica centered on %dispossessing indigenous communities of the greater part of their traditional territories&. in 7engal—the province in his own time in which the invasion of English law )B )( B> B1 B. it was a radical departure from the customary system. 1B6C1B'+ Ibid. the problem was remedied by restricting the indigenous population to tracts of low 1uality land deemed unsuitable for European settlement. the church.. the primary tendency of the English settlement policy over time was toward the creation of a landed aristocracy from those on whom the payment of ta(es was settled—%by registering all the owners of superior rights as landowners. in the land—with an at#will tenantry sub. F -f anything. and gra=ing lands as property of the colonial administration. income. 3+ 16*+ .D 7ut as Haine suggested above.1)+ in fee simple on the natural aristocracy of certain parts of -ndia. fishing and herding. 33+ .& 7ut the English commonly made this . gra=ing lands and streams they relied upon for hunting. and profits were well#nigh indecipherable.

udice of traditional common property rights of the family and village. with the obligation to wor" the "ol"ho='s fields at nominal wages under the orders of a state manager as a revived form of barschina 5feudal labor dues6. 33+ *>C*. 3cott writes... !he peasant commune had typically been the vehicle for organi=ing land sei=ures during the revolution. %the fledgling 7olshevi" state..17+ 3tolypin's attempted revolution from above met with incomplete success. and had the power—in fact if not in law—%to insult. must have been e(perienced. its illegibility to outsiders. of turning the rural population into conservative property owners. li"e Haine's e(ample of %a 7rahmin of high lineage. . as a recon1uest of the countryside by the state—as a brand of coloni=ation that threatened their newly won autonomy. the peasants were re1uired to perform annual draft labor repairing roads. as well as ma"ing it possible to permanently alienate individual holdings by sale or as debt collateral.. >ol"ho= officials. 33+ *1C*7+ . and for opposing procurements. and ecological failure. during the previous @ivil War. $ll the focal points for an (* Ibid. -n most villages a ma. 3tolypin's so#called %reforms& were aimed at rendering the peasantry more legible and ta(able. for orchestrating land use and gra=ing. e(ercised great destructive power over native property rules. to the pre. !he peasants commonly compared the new collective farm regime to serfdom. arriving as it often did in the form of military plunder. for the peasant to flee the countryside. !hey created.. independent farmsteads on what they too" to be the western European model. !he system thus devised served for nearly si(ty years as a mechanism for procurement and control at a massive cost in stagnation. demorali=ation. used peasant labor for their own private purposes. !he "ol"ho= was not..ust window dressing hiding a traditional commune. $lmost everything had changed. )i"e their enserfed great#grandparents. Seeing Like a State. by law. at least since emancipation... state#managed farms whose cropping patterns and procurement 1uotas were centrally mandated and whose population was. beat.& !he initial intent of collectivi=ation was not . 4 -n *ussia the mir was sub. waste.. !he dream of state officials and agrarian reformers.>7+ (6 Ibid. and prevailing dogma about scientific agriculture as it was on hard evidence. the mir. 3+ .ust to crush the resistance of well#to#do peasants and grab their land< it was also to dismantle the social unit through which that resistance was e(pressed. first under 3tolypin and then under 3talin. .udicial attitude toward interstripping was based as much on the autonomy of the *ussian village. from his perspective.& were using the testamentary power under English law to circumvent -ndian custom and determine the line of succession and disinherit some in favor of others—a practice entirely repugnant to native custom.-t was abundantly clear that the pre. for managing local affairs generally. by imposing fee simple private ownership on them—with the additional benefit. . in place of what they had inherited. the peasants saw their wor" for the "ol"ho=—li"e their labor obligations to the old landlord—as something to be done as perfunctorily as possible so they could get bac" to wor"ing their own "itchen gardens.FA The Destruction of the ir in Russia simple goals in mind. $ growing number of native plutocrats.& B 7ut after the brief lull of the /ew Economic Iolicy. was to transform the open#field system into a series of consolidated.rom the peasant perspective. by which individual rights to the collective property of a family are beyond the power even of a family patriarch to alter.. 6 /aturally.. a new landscape of large.. immobile.and the wea"ening of native customs of common ownership were most advanced—of English testamentary law undermining the collective property of families. -n sum. F4 !he 3oviet state collectivi=ation program amounted to a reimposition of serfdom.ority of peasants ignored the new property B7 Ibid. %collectivi=ation was at least as notable for what it destroyed as for what it built. the peasants e(perienced recon1uest and plunder in earnest. !he internal passport system effectively made it illegal.ree testamentary succession.. 3+ . hierarchical. li"e the old landlords.>'+ (' Ibid.+ B* Scott.ected to a one#two punch. as under serfdom. or deport& peasants for disobedience. !hey were driven by the desire to brea" the hold of the community over the individual household and to move from collective ta(ation of the whole community to a ta( on individual landholders. 3+ . .

appropriating.rom the perspective of a ta( official or a military procurement unit. which had 1uic"ly been coopted by the mir. the situation was nearly unfathomable. . of the 3oviet state in the agricultural sector was to ta"e a social and economic terrain singularly unfavorable to appropriation and control and to create institutional forms and production units far better adapted to monitoring. !he collective farms' lines of command cut across village boundaries. -f the mir's collective property in the land.1*+ lines laid out from 3t. it was for the most part a success at achieving its stated goals—even at the cost of mass starvation in the countryside—of increasing the efficiency of e(traction and obtaining sufficient food to support 3talin's urban industriali=ation program !he great achievement.FD $lthough many libertarians will no doubt regard the sei=ure of the separators' land as theft. proletariani=ing the peasantry.. much of the land of the gentry and church. !he very rich had been dispossessed. 33+ . Ibid. this included a large# scale rural division of labor with each "ol"ho= speciali=ing in some monoculture crop and the individual village ceasing to be a diversified economic unit. $s large a surplus as possible was to be e(tracted from the countryside in order to support industriali=ation in the cities. composed of the %surplus rural population& which 3tolypin settled in 3iberia.. and controlling from above.. dating time out of mind.socialist accumulation& directly to the primitive accumulation Har( described as a prere1uisite for the industrial revolution. ? Lnli"e the village soviets. 3+ 7'' n+ )B+ B) Ibid. which now averaged about DG acres per household. $mong other things. 3+ .1. @onfronting a tumultuous. 3+ **+ B' Ibid. if one can call it that. then it follows that 3tolypin's imposed division and alienation of parts of the mir's property through fee# simple ownership was theft from the mir.+ (7 Ibid. is regarded as a legitimate property right. managing. and that reincorporating the separators' farmsteads was a simple act of restoration..FB $nd even in the new villages.. !he collective farms were envisioned as enormous assembly lines. *ich peasants cultivating independent farmsteads 5the %separators& of the 3tolypin reforms6 were typically forced bac" into the village allotments.& with the separate sections of the "hol"o= under the control of its own state#appointed manager.>6+ . and imposing !aylorist wor" rules on the production process. !he newly reinvigorated village communes which the 3oviet state confronted were almost entirely opa1ue to it. Ietersburg and continued to practice interstripping and allot their land within the mir. and rural society was in effect radically compressed.F6 $fter the *evolution. footloose and %headless& 5acephalous6 rural society which was hard to control and which had few political assets. by 1GG percent6. !he main goal of state collectivi=ation was to ma"e the terra incognita of customary village property rules legible from above and enable the state to e(act a ma(imum rate of tribute.. it should be considered at the very least a contested issue.& had been absorbed by the peasantry. centrally controlled units with clear chains of command. the new %huge collectives& bypassed the traditional village social structures and were governed by %a board consisting of cadres and specialist. the 7olshevi"s. or smaller ones whose boundaries were drawn without regard to e(isting villages. -n fact.. 3+ . with either enormous "ol"ho=es that incorporated numerous villages. !he land#tenure status in each B6 Ibid. automatically churning out state orders li"e one of 0enry . after the collapse of the offensive into $ustria during the war and the subse1uent mass desertions. set about redesigning their environment with a few (. it involved consolidating the rural economy into gigantic. $ total of ?4F million acres was confiscated. from large and small landlords and added to peasant holdings.ord's auto factories. li"e the scientific foresters.11C. the colonists fre1uently disregarded 3tolypin's plan for new model villages with independent family farmsteads in freehold and instead settled the land as a group. the number of landless rural laborers in *ussia dropped by half. and the average peasant holding increased by ?G percent 5in the L"raine. as well as %crown land. it was a classic e(ample of a state attempt to impose legibility. and their output far less appropriable. the peasantry initiated a unilateral land reform that included fully restoring the mir as it had e(isted before the 3tolypin program. $s envisioned. with common property. almost always by local initiative. $ccording to one set of figures. A $nd if collectivi=ation was a miserable failure in terms of total output and efficiency of production. and many of the very poor became smallholders for the first time in their lives.

livestoc".>) (1 Ibid. that the decision to force %total& 5 sploshnaia6 collectivi=ation in 1 ? . if they e(isted at all.& the population's mobility and military turmoil of the period all but guaranteed that the map would have been made obsolete in si( months or sooner. of smallholdings. communal tenure. fi(ing gra=ing schedules.>6C. sei=ed the land 5including rights to common land and forests6. then. !he state's official procurement prices for grain were one#fifth the mar"et price. the peasant communes had been able to underreport the amount of arable land by about 1B percent. the village communes were pretty effective at concealing how much grain there actually was.FF function. -t was primarily the desire to overcome this peasant withholding of grain that motivated 3talin's program for forced. $fter the *evolution. they concealed the e(tent of land sei=ed from the gentry and landlords.. which were supposed to carry out this BB Ibid. its advocates 5e. 3talin's industrial program. even if it could in principle have been %mapped. !hey would not surrender this grain without a fight. operated as an impenetrable barrier to any finely attuned ta( system. were typically made up of people whose first loyalty was to the village rather than the 3oviet state. was 1uite legible hori=ontally. !he amount and distribution of land. Even before the *evolution. %Killage committees did.. -t was the first time.g.. Irior landholding records. but none of these records was made available. along the lines of military re1uisitions during the @ivil War. Every revolution creates a temporary power vacuum when the power of the ancien regime has been destroyed but the revolutionary regime has not yet asserted itself throughout the territory. more egalitarian distribution of land meant that e(tracting anything li"e the c=arist %ta"e& in grain would bring the 7olshevi"s in conflict with the subsistence needs of small and middle peasants. the villagers typically forced out or burned out the gentry. the overriding purpose of collectivi=ation was to ensure the sei=ure of grain. and forced the separators bac" into the communes. -nasmuch as the 7olshevi"s were largely urban and found themselves fighting an e(tended civil war.village had changed dramatically. organi=ing communal plow teams. "eep records for allocating allotment land. !he bul" of the remaining cultivators were consuming a much larger share of their own yield. large peasant farms and landlord enterprises had produced nearly three#fourths of the grain mar"eted for domestic use and e(port.1>+ . and not as a carefully planned policy initiative. !he state resorted to forced sei=ure. -t was this sector of the rural economy that had fed the cities. and constant change. 3+ .. 33+ . and. !he villages tended to behave as autonomous republics. F $s it had done to the tsarist state before the 3tolypin program.. to officials. of course.. $s we have seen. /ow it was gone. or men from any 1uarter. !he new. to the peasants within the village commune. 3+ . and so on. both spatial and temporal. were free to organi=e their own affairs.& G Lnder the reinvigorated communes after the *evolution. but its sei=ures were generally as ineffective as during the war for the same reason. ran up against the reduced appropriability of agricultural ouput as a serious obstacle.>)+ (> Ibid. the power vacuum in much of the countryside was unusually pronounced. 1 !he problem of opacity was intensified by the destruction of even the limited "nowledge of the local terrain possessed by the tsarist networ" of local officials and gentry. who had managed ta( collection before the *evolution. although in straitened circumstances. !he village soviets. !he combination.. 7efore 1 1D. 3cholars who agree on little else are in accord on this point. !wo additional conse1uences of the revolution in the countryside compounded the difficulties of state officials. !he second and perhaps decisive conse1uence of the revolution was that it had greatly enhanced the determination and capacity of the peasant communities to resist the state. that the villages. Each village was uni1ue in many respects. the village mir supervised something li"e the interstripping and periodic redivisions which had prevailed under the full#blown open field system. well disposed to the *eds as long as they confirmed the local %revolution... were entirely unreliable as a guide to current land claims.>'+ -n the debates leading up to forced collectivi=ation. 2evgeny Ireobra=hens"y6 e(plicitly promoted it as a form of %primitive B( Ibid. the village commune deliberately set out to obfuscate the internal economic conditions of the village and render it opa1ue to the 3oviet state. 3+ . which meant the peasants were hardly eager to part with it on such terms. -t was in the conte(t of this war over grain.. with its need for increased delivery of food from the countryside.& but strongly resistant to forced levies of grain.. total collectivi=ation...

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful