The War Against the Commons — Study Notes (Bullet Points)

Systematic Theft of Communal Property (Original Expropriation)

Core thesis: The separation of workers from the means of subsistence (land, common rights) is not natural or universal; it is the product of historical enclosures and class struggle that created and sustained capitalist relations.
The transfer from common land to private property happened in England and Scotland through enclosure and was justified by state power, legal reform, and market needs.
Marx’s framework (as contextualized by Ian Angus): Original expropriation is the primary mechanism by which capitalism extracted the means of subsistence from the many to empower the few with capital and private property.
The sword and the law: Enclosure combined violence, fraud, and legal procedures to privatize common resources, forcibly transforming peasant livelihoods into wage labor.
Human history aside: The text emphasizes that wage-labor became universal only in the last few centuries; self-provisioning was typical for most of human history.
The book’s focus: The War Against the Commons centers on the enclosure of the English and Scottish commons (England: enclosure; Scotland: the clearances) as the decisive early phase of capitalist development.
Periodization of the study: Late 1400s to mid-1800s, with a brief discussion of modern times in the final chapter.
Three parts of the book:
- Part One (Expulsion and resistance, 1450–1660): first wave of enclosures, dispossession, the emergence of a landless proletariat, and the state’s coercive work discipline; ends with Gerrard Winstanley’s revolutionary ideas.
- Part Two (Expansion and Consolidation, 1660–1860): second wave of enclosure, political-economic backing by the state and capitalist interests; slavery and colonial plunder as supports for land expropriation; Scotland’s 1760s–1860s clearances.
- Part Three (Consequences): challenges to claims about enclosure, hunger as a political tool to secure labor, the town-country separation in Marx/Engels, ongoing dispossession and resistance; chapters on enclosure’s effects and the revolutionary potential of peasant institutions.
Appendices overview: misconceptions about Marxism; Russian peasant communes; contemporary peasant movements fighting enclosure; a timeline of key events.
Key takeaway: Enclosure was not merely a rearrangement of land; it was a deliberate, organized project to redefine property relations in order to create a capitalist economy.

Turning Point (Rhythms of Enclosure and Early Modern Capitalism)

In the early 1500s, capitalist agriculture was new; many landowners supported enclosure in pursuit of profit despite early resistance from peers who defended traditional village life.
The sermons defending old village order warned that private acquisitiveness threatened the whole commonwealth by reducing self-reliant producers who paid taxes, served as soldiers, relieved the poor, and supported state structure.
The Crown and Parliament: while anti-enclosure laws existed, many such measures were temporary or ineffectual; over time, the Parliament became more aligned with landowners’ interests.
Raleigh (1601) argued in Parliament for broader freedom to use land as one sees fit; a large minority in the House of Commons supported this view.
The transition included a decline of feudal restraints and a move toward market-minded land management, with a growing class of capitalist farmers and larger estates.
The 16th–17th centuries featured rising rents and depopulation pressures as enclosure spread, with rents often doubling, tripling, or quadrupling, signaling a massive redistribution of income toward the landed class.
By the 1400s–1500s, England saw a coexistence of two agrarian approaches: subsistence-oriented farming and profit-oriented farming; capitalist farming gradually displaced subsistence-based farming.
The combination of new capitalist agriculture and aggressive land expropriation laid the groundwork for a social order in which the majority became landless laborers tied to wage-work.

A Plain Enough Case of Class Robbery (Parliamentary Enclosure and Its Legal Machinery)

The enclosure process was formalized through parliamentary acts that privatized previously common land.
Timing and mechanism:
- In the early 1700s, enclosure often proceeded via private bills following petitions to Parliament.
- Parliament could override unanimity requirements among tenants and confirm enclosure through acts, often ignoring the smallest landholders’ claims.
- From the 1730s to 1840s, Parliament passed more than 4{,}000 enclosure acts, affecting over 6{,}000{,}000 acres, i.e., about 0.25 of cultivated land.
- The peak occurred in the early 1800s with more than 100 private enclosure acts per year.
The three-part commission for dividing land: a landlord’s representative, the tithe-owner, and another large landholder; this setup ensured landlords’ interests dominated the awards.
The process: after petitions and committee reports, royal assent made the act law; enforcement depended on a legally defined division of land, rights, and provisions for roads and hedges.
Winners and losers: the winners were typically those who already controlled the most land; the losers included cottagers and those with common rights who could be left with too little land for subsistence or faced prohibitive enclosure costs.
The rhetoric of legality: enclosure was framed as productive and necessary; however, Marx and critics described it as a legal mechanism for expropriation by the property-owning class.
Famous critique lines: enclosure acts produced a “den of thieves” atmosphere among enclosers and lawmakers, as observed by contemporaries and later historians.

The Mechanics of Enclosure (From Piecemeal to Parliamentary Acts)

Piecemeal enclosure: gradual consolidation by refusing to renew leases, foreclosures, buying out freeholders, or coercing tenants to leave; it was expensive and uneven but laid groundwork for larger acts.
The role of theater and culture: literature and drama such as Massinger’s A New Way to Pay Old Debts (first performed 1625) depicted the predatory logic of enclosure and provided moral narratives about property seizure.
Parliamentary enclosure (late 18th–early 19th centuries): more systematic, faster, and legally secure than ad hoc consolidations; by 1830, nearly all open-field farms and most common lands were enclosed.
How commoners fared:
- Enclosure often negated existing common rights, such as grazing, fuel gathering, and field resources; many cottagers received little or no compensation.
- When some compensation was provided, it was usually insufficient to offset the loss of subsistence rights and the high costs of enclosure.
The social verdict on enclosure: two classes were especially harmed and largely ignored by the process: cottagers with common-rights and squatters without formal rights; both were treated as marginal or criminal if they resisted.
E. P. Thompson and others challenged the claim that enclosure protected property rights; instead, enclosure redefined the nature of agrarian property and undermined customary rights.

Resistance and Counter-Mobilization (Local Struggles and Riots)

Legal avenues were limited for commoners: counter-petitions to Parliament were possible but rarely successful due to cost, travel, and political power of enclosure interests.
Informal resistance existed widely: non-compliance, foot-dragging, mischief, and deliberate circumvention of surveys.
Notable local actions and riots (examples across villages):
- West Haddon commoners burned £1,500 worth of posts and rails after a counter-petition was defeated.
- Wilbarston residents opposed fencing of common land; Raunds petition dismissed, residents responded with riots and resistance actions.
- Hardingstone opponents conducted a long-running campaign of fence-breaking, tree-barking, and other forms of direct action against enclosure.
- In Wood/landed areas, arson and tearing down fences were common tactics to impede enclosure and defend common rights.
The state’s response: enforcement costs and legal penalties increased; in 1753, peasants and laborers who attacked enclosed estates could be legally prosecuted; nonetheless, legal outcomes often reinforced property rights over common rights.
The Uxbridge example: a landowner responded with eviction and expensive lawsuits after commoners attacked encloses; the court case established precedents that suppressed common rights (e.g., a court ruling that a commoner could not destroy a lord’s estate to defend his own small right of common).
Overall assessment: resistance persisted but enclosure and the associated legal framework prevailed, enabling a transition to a capitalist landholding regime.

Consequences and the Modern Transformation of Agrarian Life (Part III)

The three-tier social structure by the early 1800s: a few thousand landowners leasing to tens of thousands of tenant farmers, who in turn employed hundreds of thousands of farm laborers.
The broader claim about enclosure and production:
- Marxist accounts question assertions that enclosure increased production or reduced hunger; instead, enclosure often reinforced hunger to secure a cheap and controlled labor supply for industrial needs.
The moral and political implications:
- Enclosure redefined property rights as legal entitlements that could override traditional village customs.
- The state and the moneyed classes used Parliament, laws, and enforcement to secure private property at the expense of subsistence rights and local autonomy.
The connection to the Industrial Revolution:
- Enclosure generated a class of landless workers who could be employed in factories, mines, and urban enterprises, thus fueling industrial growth while also creating widespread social dislocation.
The broader historical significance:
- This process illustrates how capitalism requires not only the accumulation of wealth but also the separation of the means of subsistence from the producers themselves.
- The struggle over the commons reveals the enduring tension between collective rights and private property, a theme that remains relevant in modern debates over resources, environment, and public goods.

Post-1800s and Modern Reflections (Towards the End of the Book's Arc)

The narrative moves toward later centuries, showing that dispossession and resistance did not end with the formal enclosure era.
The book flags that the struggle over common land, resources, and livelihoods continues in modern forms, including the persistence of dispossession, struggles for land reform, and fights to preserve or restore some form of common rights.
The historical memory of enclosure—its tactics, laws, and social impacts—remains a lens for analyzing contemporary economic inequality and the power of capital over land and subsistence.

Numerical References, Dates, and Key Facts (Quick Reference)

Enclosure acts: > 4{,}000 acts (1730–1840), affecting > 6{,}000{,}000 acres (roughly 0.25 of cultivated land).
Peak tempo: more than 100 enclosure acts per year in the early 1800s.
Land and population metrics:
- In many regions, enclosure concentrated landownership among a small elite; large estates expanded while small farms declined.
- By the early 1800s, a three-tier system had formed: landowners, tenant farmers, and farm laborers.
Voting rights in eighteenth-century Britain: roughly 3 ext{ percent} of the population could vote; property qualifications ensured ruling class dominance in Parliament.
Major years and milestones:
- 1597 famine year; 1608; 1621; 1624: hints of enclosure policy shifts under early Stuart monarchs.
- 1688–1689: Glorious Revolution; landowners gain political power and institutional control.
- 1689–1832: long eighteenth century politicized around property and enclosure; 1832 marks a significant reform in the political landscape.
- 1760s–1770s: wave of enclosure accompanied by conversion of arable land to pasture.
- 1793–1815: wars with France, a period when privatization of common land intensified.
Notable historical episodes:
- Kett’s Rebellion (1549): mass peasant action against enclosure, capturing Norwich; used to illustrate widespread resistance to enclosures.
- Winstanley and the Diggers: critical early radical voices advocating for the commons during and after the enclosure era (rediscovered in the 1880s).
- Parliamentary enclosure acts were often driven by a coalition of landlords and tithe-owners, with a legal framework designed to support property accumulation.

Key Takeaways for Exam Preparation

Original expropriation is a central mechanism by which capitalism separated workers from the means of subsistence, transforming social relations and creating wage labor.
Enclosure was not just a reform; it was a structural transformation that redefined property rights and centralized power in the hands of landowners and the state.
The process combined force, fraud, and legal institutions to privatize common lands, often with minimal protections for those who depended on common rights.
Resistance to enclosure occurred at local levels (riots, sabotages, counter-petitions), but it largely failed to stop the trajectory toward capitalist agriculture.
The consequences included a three-tier social structure, increased hunger manipulation to secure labor, and the urban-industrial link that fed the Industrial Revolution while displacing rural livelihoods.
The history of enclosure is a foundational case study in Marxist analysis of capitalism, illustrating the concept of primitive/original expropriation and the transformation of social property norms.

Appendices and Related Concepts (Mentioned Textual References)

Appendix 1: Why Marx used the term "original expropriation" instead of "so-called primitive accumulation".
Appendix 2: Marx and Engels’s views on the revolutionary potential of the Russian peasant communes.
Appendix 3: A manifesto by peasant organizations fighting enclosure today.
Appendix 4: Timeline of key events discussed in the book.

Cross-References to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

Foundational principle: Private property and market relations can be built upon and legitimized through state power and legal systems, often at the expense of traditional, community-based resource use.
Real-world relevance: Debates about land reform, property rights, and access to common resources continue in modern contexts (forests, fisheries, common-pool resources, and urban commons).
Ethical and political implications: The text raises questions about justice, distributive outcomes, and the role of law in protecting or privileging certain social groups; it also highlights the potential for organized resistance to reframe property rights in more communal terms.

Quick Glossary (from the Transcript Context)

Original expropriation: Marx’s preferred term for the process by which common means of subsistence are privatized and workers are separated from the land.
Enclosure: the legal and social process of enclosing common land, removing customary rights, and converting it into privately owned property.
Parliamentary enclosure: enclosure acts passed by Parliament to formalize and accelerate the privatization of common lands.
Piecemeal enclosure: gradual enclosure through successive actions (leases not renewed, foreclosures, buyouts).
Diggers / Gerrard Winstanley: radical voices advocating for a society based on the commons during the enclosure era.
Common rights: rights to use land or resources (grazing, fuel gathering, peat, etc.) that were traditionally shared by local communities.

Notes on Language and Citations in the Text

The narrative uses direct historical quotes (e.g., from William Harrison) and paraphrase to frame the historical debate around enclosure and labor.
The author emphasizes the continuity between past expropriation and modern forms of dispossession, linking centuries of class struggle to contemporary concerns about the control of resources.

Summary Sentence to Remember

Enclosure was a deliberate, state-backed system of privatizing the commons that transformed rural life, created a wage-labor economy, and laid the social and political groundwork for modern capitalism, while provoking widespread resistance and ongoing debates about property, rights, and the commons.