Good, entertaining book covering both a basic history of primitive accumulation and a basic history of classical political economy, focusing on the links between the two and the ways in which political economy support primitive accumulation, often while hiding it. It feels a lot like a much extended version of Marx's footnotes against economists in the primitive accumulation section of Capital Vol 1. Lots of quotes and citations that build up a clear and fascinating picture.

It has some problems. The section that talks about the dialectic between allowing household provisioning because it reduces wages and keeping it down to a low level because if it's too successful it stops people becoming wage labourers makes sense, but the diagram it gives and the details were completely baffling - I'm sure this is probably a problem with me though. Some of the quotes are a little confusing and might have been cut up too much. Sometimes it drifts a bit too much into speculation, although I understand this is due to the absence of source material on a key subject and it's clearly marked and all seems a reasonable follow-on from the views that are sourced. Sometimes it uses Marxist/general economic terms and you'll have trouble following if you don't have a basic familiarity with them, which is annoying because otherwise it avoids being obscure and could be a good introduction.

I like it a lot, even though it's not necessarily an essential book or anything, both because it sheds light on an important topic (classical political economy is still a strong force with everyone loving Adam Smith and primitive accumulation is highly relevant to the world today) and because it's very engaging - the economists mentioned come across as real characters, even if their main trait is being giant turds with varying degrees of honesty. Adam Smith is given a lot of coverage and comes across very poorly, which is appropriate and important given his incredibly high reputation and the evil perpetuated in his name. I enjoyed reading it a lot even apart from the useful information - a lot of the quotes are evil in a sort of comic book way, and they're pretty funny in a sad way.

The last chapter is pretty short but it touches on Lenin's relationship with Smith's works and mentions Mao for a little bit. Unfortunately it's not really built on and it seems reluctant to either seriously criticise or to look to different Marxist possibilities - it just restricts itself to point out some links between them and Smith and not much else. It's still interesting although it feels a bit vestigial - I'm interested in what else he has to say on the topic.

( )

Laissez-faire for you, State Intervention for us!

This is a very good book. It is the revised edition of a book I saw sometime in the (?) eighties. This book decisively shows how the birth of capitalism required the dispossession of both small-holders and landless peasants by closing off the commons and forest areas (through Enclosures and various Game Laws, for instance) and thus removing their supply of food (from hunting and gathering) and fuel (such as wood).
This expropriation forced them into the workforce, whether as craftsmen, factory workers or mere day-laborers is a matter of little import. They were now all trapped within the Capitalist System, under the yoke of wages, with no way either back or out. Also, the Corn Laws and Poor Laws continued the "work within the Capitalist System or starve" policy by making food more expensive and curtailing the (very) little aid the poor previously had received. In Marxist literature, this expropriation of the peasantry became known as 'primitive accumulation'.
My Libertarian friends tend to think of Capitalism as the salvation of the poor. As always, they were beaten and dragged into the supposed "salvation".
The first five chapters make this abundantly clear. After this, our author discusses how early modern capitalist thinkers (David Hume, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin and so on) were well aware of all this and thought it necessary. The study of Political Economy and its relation to primitive accumulation consumes the second half of this book.
And since (as I said) early political economists were aware of the necessity (from the viewpoint of Capital) of this dispossession, many fits of indignation ensue throughout the second half of the book regarding their 'dishonesty'. Too many. Obviously, I agree that state intervention through various laws and enclosures contradicts the laissez-faire ideology of emerging capitalism. But our author should have trusted his readers to react to the evidence on their own. James Steuart, who I have never read, comes off as the most forthright of these early-modern political and economic thinkers and philosophers regarding the necessity of dispossession and impoverishment of the rural poor (to force them into the capitalist regime) at the beginning of industrial capitalism. I think reading him alongside Smith would make for a fascinating comparison.
This is a very interesting book. Even though our author is a Marxist, I think anyone interested in the rise of the modern world (especially the Anglo-Saxon world) will find this book quite useful.

"The Invention of Capitalism" by Michael Perelman is a little odd. It essentially attempts to combine two books into one: on the one hand, a book proving necessity of the process of primitive accumulation for capitalism to develop, and on the other hand, a book showing how the classical political economists were not consistent in there pretenses to laissez-faire, instead preferring to either support primitive accumulation or to ignore it entirely.

Both books are a great success in terms of proving their own case. The chapters on primitive accumulation itself, mainly at the beginning of the book, explain both the nature and the extent of this process exceedingly well and add significantly to a by now quite extensive literature on the subject. In any case it becomes clear once again that the origins of capitalism are in no way either "natural" or "voluntary". On the contrary, they involved severe collusion between manufacturers, landlords and the government, as shown in the case of Britain.

The case against the classical political economists is less clear. Perelman succeeds wonderfully in showing the hypocrisy of these early economists, in particular Adam Smith, regarding the nature of the capitalist system they intended to support as "natural" and self-propelling, and their wilful ignorance as to its origins. Nevertheless, Perelman's hatred for Adam Smith seems excessive and surely spending three chapters on a frontal assault on this thinker alone is a little bit too much in a book about primitive accumulation. There is also quite extensive use of vague references and circumstancial evidence (Robert Torrens is apparently extra evil for being a Colonel of the Royal Marines) in Perelman's accusations, which do not really strengthen these chapters' overall impression. Nevertheless, it can be considered useful as a counterweight to the often rather hagiographical neoclassical descriptions of the works of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus etc., and it also deservedly reestablishes the stature of Sir James Steuart.

Overall, Perelman's use of data and sources is very thorough and extensive, and can be considered commendable. His argumentation on primitive accumulation is fine, and even his case against the classical political economists is strong. Yet the book would have been better had it been split into two separate ones: one on the primitive accumulation itself and its extent, and the other about the 'collaboration' of Smith et al. to this. As it stands now, it is a little incoherent. ( )