Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
A People's History of England Paperback – June 1, 1989
by
A. L. Morton
(Author)
|
A. L. Morton
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length485 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherLawrence And Wishart Ltd
-
Publication dateJune 1, 1989
-
Dimensions5.75 x 1.25 x 8.75 inches
-
ISBN-100853157235
-
ISBN-13978-0853157236
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Tell the Publisher!
I'd like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
I'd like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Lawrence And Wishart Ltd; 3rd edition (June 1, 1989)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 485 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0853157235
- ISBN-13 : 978-0853157236
- Item Weight : 1.35 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.75 x 1.25 x 8.75 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#2,262,570 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #5,555 in England History
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
4.8 out of 5 stars
4.8 out of 5
17 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on January 28, 2014
Verified Purchase
Written from a left and "from below" perspective. I acknowledge I'm partisan. Aside from it's content, it's approach has served as a model for Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," Harman's "A People's History of the World," and Connor's "A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechanicks." All are worth-while reads that will broaden perspective beyond hubristic "End of History" party line.
10 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on October 1, 2018
A.L. Morton, who wrote A people’s History of England, graduated from Cambridge University in 1924. He joined the British Communist Party in 1929, after becoming a Marxist.
Factory workers sometimes support Marxist political parties. They rarely become Marxists. Those who do become Marxists are usually college students who doubt that they have much to look forward to after graduation, and college graduates who discover that little is waiting for them.
I am not sure what motivated Morton to become a Marxist. There were other avenues in which one could act on sympathy for the working poor. Nevertheless, the Great Depression, which quickly followed 1929, reinforced his decision. He was unable to become a teacher, which was his chosen profession, and had to take odd jobs.
But his bad fortune is our good fortune. A People’s History of England is written with the erudition and gracefulness we can expect from a Cambridge graduate.
The difference between this book and what Morton would call “a bourgeois history” is the attention he gives to the status and political behavior of various social classes. Karl Marx believed that if you know the source and amount of a person’s income you can predict the person’s political beliefs and behavior with near 100% accuracy.
In the United States we are more likely to think of the various groups who are prone to support the Republicans and the Democrats. For example, the Republican Party has become the preferred party of whites of all income levels. Among whites, those more likely to support the Democrats tend to be better educated, less religious, and more urban. These are tendencies, rather than hard and fast rules. There are poorly educated, religious, and rural whites who vote Democrat. There are well educated, urban, secular whites who vote Republican.Of course, there are well educated religious people who live in rural and urban parts ot the United States, and who vote for either party.
Marx held that there has been a natural progression from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism. He believed that there would be a natural progression from capitalism to socialism to pure communism (i.e. his classless society.)
Morton acknowledges that slavery was never widespread in England, so he describes the transition from primitive communism (i.e., tribalism) to feudalism, to capitalism.
When the tribe was the most important political unit in England, there was a loose division between men who enjoyed combat and the thrills of the battlefield, and those who preferred to tend crops and livestock. There was social mobility between these groups. When the tribe was at war farmers left their plows and joined the fray. When the tribe was at peace many warriors put their weapons aside,for agricultural tools. Nevertheless, farmers and fighters were the two main classes.
As tribalism evolved into feudalism social mobility declined. Fighters became knights, barons, and other noblemen. Farmers became serfs.
Around about the thirteenth century a new class emerged, the class of merchants. This class gave ambitious young men a road to riches that did not involve the dangers of the battlefield.
The merchant class became the bourgeoisie at about the same time that the serfs became land owning peasants, tenant farmers who rented farms from large estates, and landless farm laborers. Serfdom was not ended by government edict. It just withered away.
The closest England came to a violent class conflict was the civil war between the supporters of King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell during the seventeenth century. Morton’s sympathies are with Cromwell. Nevertheless, he admits that the poorer parts of England supported the King. It may be that the poor of England liked for there to be a power above the people who were their main problem.
Cromwell won the civil war, but the English monarchy was restored soon after his death. However, from henceforth the English monarchs had less power, and the Parliament acquired steadily more.
When the industrial revolution began factory owners were assured a ready supply of factory workers by the enclosure movement. This was a movement by wealthy landlords to become richer by usurping rights to land that had been collectively owned by peasants. Because he is a Marxist Morton draws attention to times in English history when the rich became richer at the expense of nearly everyone else.
Nevertheless, Morton acknowledges that during most of England’s history the movement to a more equalitarian economy was not possible because the English economy was insufficiently developed, and because most of the English industrial and agricultural laborers were illiterate and needed, but lacked, the leadership of an educated elite.
Morton claims the revival of slavery in the Americas was an American form of feudalism. Actually, it is evidence that social progression from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism is not inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about feudalism. It is what happens when an urban civilization collapses. Feudalism existed in Greece from the collapse of the Mycenaean Empire in the twelfth century BC to about the eighth century BC.
Similarly, there is nothing inevitable about the transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialism is a choice we can make. It requires a well functioning government. Where that does not exist, as it does not in Venezuela, there will be a reversion to capitalism.
At times Morton does not seem fair. He claims the British prohibition of the slave trade in 1807 and the liberation of slaves in the British Empire in 1834 happened because slavery was no longer economically viable. In the same paragraph he acknowledges that as slavery was outlawed in the British Empire it was becoming more profitable in Cuba and Brazil.
The truth is that England took the lead in ending an evil institution that had existed from at least the beginning of civilization. England did so with the best of intentions, not from selfish motives.
Morton complains that the importation of cheap manufactured goods from England to India put Indian craftsmen out of work. He ignores the fact that the low cost of these goods made them affordable to Indians who previously could not have owned them.
Morton justly condemns the imperial rivalries that led to World War I. In condemning the complicity of every socialist party but the Bolsheviks in Russia for supporting the war he does not mention that at the beginning of the conflict the war was popular among the working classes of the belligerent countries. A socialist party that refused to contribute to the war effort would have probably lost many of its working class supporters.
A People’s History of England was first published in 1938. By then it was obvious to perceptive observers that the Bolsheviks created a worse tyranny than the Czarist government they had helped to overthrow. If Morton had doubts about the Soviet government he kept them to himself. He did serve in the British Army during the Second World War.
I wish Morton had given more attention to the causes and results of the Great Depression. Nevertheless, A People’s History of England is a valuable look at English history through a different perspective than most of us are likely to find elsewhere.
Factory workers sometimes support Marxist political parties. They rarely become Marxists. Those who do become Marxists are usually college students who doubt that they have much to look forward to after graduation, and college graduates who discover that little is waiting for them.
I am not sure what motivated Morton to become a Marxist. There were other avenues in which one could act on sympathy for the working poor. Nevertheless, the Great Depression, which quickly followed 1929, reinforced his decision. He was unable to become a teacher, which was his chosen profession, and had to take odd jobs.
But his bad fortune is our good fortune. A People’s History of England is written with the erudition and gracefulness we can expect from a Cambridge graduate.
The difference between this book and what Morton would call “a bourgeois history” is the attention he gives to the status and political behavior of various social classes. Karl Marx believed that if you know the source and amount of a person’s income you can predict the person’s political beliefs and behavior with near 100% accuracy.
In the United States we are more likely to think of the various groups who are prone to support the Republicans and the Democrats. For example, the Republican Party has become the preferred party of whites of all income levels. Among whites, those more likely to support the Democrats tend to be better educated, less religious, and more urban. These are tendencies, rather than hard and fast rules. There are poorly educated, religious, and rural whites who vote Democrat. There are well educated, urban, secular whites who vote Republican.Of course, there are well educated religious people who live in rural and urban parts ot the United States, and who vote for either party.
Marx held that there has been a natural progression from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism. He believed that there would be a natural progression from capitalism to socialism to pure communism (i.e. his classless society.)
Morton acknowledges that slavery was never widespread in England, so he describes the transition from primitive communism (i.e., tribalism) to feudalism, to capitalism.
When the tribe was the most important political unit in England, there was a loose division between men who enjoyed combat and the thrills of the battlefield, and those who preferred to tend crops and livestock. There was social mobility between these groups. When the tribe was at war farmers left their plows and joined the fray. When the tribe was at peace many warriors put their weapons aside,for agricultural tools. Nevertheless, farmers and fighters were the two main classes.
As tribalism evolved into feudalism social mobility declined. Fighters became knights, barons, and other noblemen. Farmers became serfs.
Around about the thirteenth century a new class emerged, the class of merchants. This class gave ambitious young men a road to riches that did not involve the dangers of the battlefield.
The merchant class became the bourgeoisie at about the same time that the serfs became land owning peasants, tenant farmers who rented farms from large estates, and landless farm laborers. Serfdom was not ended by government edict. It just withered away.
The closest England came to a violent class conflict was the civil war between the supporters of King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell during the seventeenth century. Morton’s sympathies are with Cromwell. Nevertheless, he admits that the poorer parts of England supported the King. It may be that the poor of England liked for there to be a power above the people who were their main problem.
Cromwell won the civil war, but the English monarchy was restored soon after his death. However, from henceforth the English monarchs had less power, and the Parliament acquired steadily more.
When the industrial revolution began factory owners were assured a ready supply of factory workers by the enclosure movement. This was a movement by wealthy landlords to become richer by usurping rights to land that had been collectively owned by peasants. Because he is a Marxist Morton draws attention to times in English history when the rich became richer at the expense of nearly everyone else.
Nevertheless, Morton acknowledges that during most of England’s history the movement to a more equalitarian economy was not possible because the English economy was insufficiently developed, and because most of the English industrial and agricultural laborers were illiterate and needed, but lacked, the leadership of an educated elite.
Morton claims the revival of slavery in the Americas was an American form of feudalism. Actually, it is evidence that social progression from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism is not inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about feudalism. It is what happens when an urban civilization collapses. Feudalism existed in Greece from the collapse of the Mycenaean Empire in the twelfth century BC to about the eighth century BC.
Similarly, there is nothing inevitable about the transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialism is a choice we can make. It requires a well functioning government. Where that does not exist, as it does not in Venezuela, there will be a reversion to capitalism.
At times Morton does not seem fair. He claims the British prohibition of the slave trade in 1807 and the liberation of slaves in the British Empire in 1834 happened because slavery was no longer economically viable. In the same paragraph he acknowledges that as slavery was outlawed in the British Empire it was becoming more profitable in Cuba and Brazil.
The truth is that England took the lead in ending an evil institution that had existed from at least the beginning of civilization. England did so with the best of intentions, not from selfish motives.
Morton complains that the importation of cheap manufactured goods from England to India put Indian craftsmen out of work. He ignores the fact that the low cost of these goods made them affordable to Indians who previously could not have owned them.
Morton justly condemns the imperial rivalries that led to World War I. In condemning the complicity of every socialist party but the Bolsheviks in Russia for supporting the war he does not mention that at the beginning of the conflict the war was popular among the working classes of the belligerent countries. A socialist party that refused to contribute to the war effort would have probably lost many of its working class supporters.
A People’s History of England was first published in 1938. By then it was obvious to perceptive observers that the Bolsheviks created a worse tyranny than the Czarist government they had helped to overthrow. If Morton had doubts about the Soviet government he kept them to himself. He did serve in the British Army during the Second World War.
I wish Morton had given more attention to the causes and results of the Great Depression. Nevertheless, A People’s History of England is a valuable look at English history through a different perspective than most of us are likely to find elsewhere.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Top reviews from other countries
James Best
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 10, 2020Verified Purchase
Far better than the other general english history books I have read. This book is not just a list of kings and queen, and their petty rivalries. Morton explores the material living conditions which shape the structure and composition of society, and how those components clash together resulting in change. Highly recommended.
Rodney G Raw
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great find for me through Amazon
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 24, 2018Verified Purchase
This book was published originally in 1938 and was written by a member of my family.
Great to be available through Amazon at a a good price and quickly.
Great to be available through Amazon at a a good price and quickly.
Clifton
4.0 out of 5 stars
Solid history
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 24, 2012Verified Purchase
Very good background history book with a "people" slant that acts as a great basis for later more detailed histories.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Nomaad
5.0 out of 5 stars
History that makes sense
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 11, 2015Verified Purchase
Best history of Britain, capitalism and the modern world up to decolonization.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Announciata
4.0 out of 5 stars
Four Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 1, 2014Verified Purchase
Arrived in very good condition as promised.

