----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I am rather puzzled by Michael Perelman's defence of his book in reply  
to Greg Clark's review. I should admit that I haven't worked over the  
book thoroughly yet, so I am basing myself on Michael's mail to this  
list. 
 
First, if the game laws are to be counted a significant part of  
primitive accumulation in the Marxist sense, that is, of forcing people 
into the capitalist labour market, it would have to be the case that  
hunting was a significant potential means of support taken away by the  
game laws. But surely we know that hunting and gathering can only  
support very low density populations, far less than the density in  
England in the industrial revolution. It is hard to see that the  
availability or otherwise of hunting could affect labour supply  
significantly. 
 
More important, if classical economists are to be blamed for not  
emphasising this alleged function of the game laws we must first think  
how it would have looked to them. They saw population as endogenous, so 
even if hunting could support significant numbers they would surely say 
that in the long run population would increase if hunting were freely  
allowed, with no reduction in labour supply in the formal (capitalist)  
labour market. 
 
Michael's defence mainly consists of a description of the damage done  
to agriculture by game animals and by hunting (this is hunting by  
oppressive capitalists and landlords within the game laws, not by free  
peasant-worker-poachers outside the laws). This is even more puzzling.  
If the game laws allowed or encouraged this damage, how can capitalism  
possibly gain from a reduction in agricultural productivity? (I assume  
that capitalist farms were not selectively exempted from damage - most  
farms were capitalist at the date concerned.)  
 
Again, how would the classics have seen it? In a Ricardian framework,  
(regular and predictable) damage on marginal land will lower the  
general profit rate while damage on intramarginal land will reduce  
rents. Unexpected damage will be a loss to the (normally capitalist)  
farmer. It is hard to see how this could benefit capitalists or  
capitalism, or what motive the classical economists would have had for  
condoning it if they had really thought it significant. 
 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]