The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and a…
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.