Thoughts on Linebaugh and Harvey

Linebaugh argues that enclosures in England paved the way for capitalism. They were “not the only force in the creation of the land market but they destroyed the spiritual claim on the soil and prepared for the proletarianization of the common people” (51). Forcing the indigenous people of England to leave their ancestral lands led to their move to urban areas, alienation from labor, and commodification, all of which was necessary before capitalism could occur. It also, he says, paved the way for slavery. Arguably, it is a form of internal colonization in England by the aristocracy--indigenous peoples were stripped of their lands, just as the British empire would--not very much later--strip others of theirs. So I cannot help but wonder: what is the connection between the enclosure movement, between the loss of the commons, and imperialism? The loss of the commons displaced a great many people in England, many of whom must have been eager to acquire lands of their own. It does not seem like much of a stretch to argue that this must have been at least a factor in the emigration of various commoners from England to America. They suffered the loss of their lands, and, in their quest to reacquire what they had lost, subjected others to the same loss. I am rather curious as to why Linebaugh never touched on the obvious connection between the two, given that it's an interesting one. He does point out that the commodification of laborers made possible the mindset that led to imperialism and slavery--but he does not discuss the effect of the enclosure movement on imperialism.

On the topic of Mexican ejidos--David Harvey argues that their loss was the product of neoliberalism. Bit of historical background: Carlos Salinas de Gortari, president of Mexico at the time, decided that the communal lands of owned by tribes in Mexico were not producing enough--and so he took their lands from them and sold them, generally, to foreign investors. What is interesting about this, however, is that it was not the first time. Under President Porfirio Diaz in the nineteenth century, precisely the same decisions were made, and they led rather directly to the participation of indigenous peoples in the Mexican Revolution, mostly led by Emiliano Zapata, and eventually to the creation of Article 27, which is precisely what Salinas de Gortari did away with, and which then resulted in the Zapatista Rebellion. The rights gained during the Mexican Revolution were thus lost as a result of neoliberalism. Also, I can't help but think that this deterritorialization is possible nowadays only because cultural genocide is not recognized as a violation of human rights. The culture of these indigenous groups depends at least partly on their interaction with the land, and with each other as co-residents/owners of this communal property. Without the land, the groups lose coherence, and the culture is at least severely damaged. But it also reveals at least one of the reasons why it was not included in the UDHR--it would stand in the way of capitalistic enterprises.