Industria e Imperio

by Eric J. Hobsbawm

El profesor Hobsbawm analiza en este libro 250 años de historia económica y social de Gran Bretaña: el origen de la Revolución industrial allí iniciada, su papel pionero en la economía mundial, su conversión gradual en agente de intercambio económico entre los países desarrollados y los atrasados, los industriales y los productores de materias primas, las metrópolis y las zonas coloniales o semicoloniales del mundo entero, y su posterior decadencia durante el siglo XX debida, precisamente, a su temprana eclosión como potencia industrial mundial.

Genres: History, Economics, Nonfiction, European History, British Literature, World History, 19th Century

380 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

Eric John Ernest Hobsbawm was a British historian of the rise of industrial capitalism, socialism and nationalism. His best-known works include his tetralogy about what he called the "long 19th century" (The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848, The Age of Capital: 1848–1875 and The Age of Empire: 1875–1914) and the "short 20th century" (The Age of Extremes), and an edited volume that introduced the influential idea of "invented traditions". A life-long Marxist, his socio-political convictions influenced the character of his work.
Hobsbawm was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood mainly in Vienna and Berlin. Following the death of his parents and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, Hobsbawm moved to London with his adoptive family. After serving in the Second World War, he obtained his PhD in history at the University of Cambridge. In 1998, he was appointed to the Order of the Companions of Honour. He was president of Birkbeck, University of London, from 2002 until his death. In 2003, he received the Balzan Prize for European History since 1900, "for his brilliant analysis of the troubled history of 20th century Europe and for his ability to combine in-depth historical research with great literary talent."

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 3 out of 5]

صنعت و امپراتوری ، کتابی ایست از اریک هابسپام ، مورخ مشهور انگلیسی . او در این کتاب کوشیده شرحی نسبتا جامع از چگونگی صعود بریتانیا به قدرتی جهانی در طول انقلاب صنعتی و سپس نزول آن از قدرت در قرن های آینده را بیان کند. هابسپام تحول کشور را از جامعه ای عمدتاً زراعی و روستایی به اولین قدرت صنعتی جهان بررسی کرده و نیروهای اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی را که این تحول بی سابقه را به حرکت درآوردند، مورد بررسی قرار می دهد.
هابسپام ، تاریخ انگلستان را به دو دوره اصلی پیش و پس از انقلاب صنعتی شدن تقسیم کرده ، به بیانی بسیار ساده در دوره پیش از صنعتی شدن ، انگلیس یک کشور کشاورزی بود که اقتصاد آن بر پایه کشاورزی و تجارت قرار داشت. این دوره از قرن یازدهم تا قرن هجدهم ادامه داشت. جمعیت عمدتا روستایی ، طبقات اجتماعی سنتی ، قدرت اشراف و کلیسا را می توان از ویژگی های این دوره دانست .
اما در دوره صنعتی ، انگلستان ، ابتدا به یک قدرت صنعتی و سپس به امپراتوری و یک قدرت امپریالیستی تبدیل شد. این دوره از قرن هجدهم تا قرن بیستم ادامه داشت. در این دوره اقتصاد بر پایه صنعت و تجارت قرار گرفت ، جمعیت به سمت شهرها مهاجرت کرد ، جامعه دچار تحولات اجتماعی و سیاسی شد و البته قدرت در دست دولت قرارگرفت .
اما پرسش مهم از نگاه هابسپام این است که انقلاب صنعتی چرا در انگلستان رخ داد و نه در کشور دیگری مانند فرانسه ؟
اوشرایط انگلستان را مساعد انقلاب صنعتی می داند ، شرایطی مانند وجود منابع طبیعی فراوان، به ویژه ذخایر زغال سنگ و آهن، که برای توسعه صنعت ضروری بودند و هم چنین وجود حکومتی نسبتاً پایدار و قانونمند، که از سرمایه گذاری و تجارت حمایت می کرد . هابسپام معتقد است که این شرایط در هیچ کشور دیگری در آن زمان وجود نداشت. به همین دلیل، انقلاب صنعتی در انگلیس رخ داد و این کشور به یک قدرت صنعتی و امپراتوری تبدیل شد.
اثرات انقلاب صنعتی بر انگلستان
انقلاب صنعتی تأثیرات عمیقی بر جامعه انگلیس گذاشت. این تأثیرات را می توان در زمینه های مختلف اجتماعی و سیاسی مشاهده کرد. در زمینه اجتماعی، انقلاب صنعتی باعث تغییرات زیادی در جامعه انگلیس شد. جمعیت انگلیس به سرعت افزایش یافت و از روستاها به شهرها مهاجرت کرد. این امر باعث رشد شهرهای انگلیس و ایجاد مشکلاتی مانند فقر و آلودگی شد. در زمینه سیاسی هم، انقلاب صنعتی باعث تقویت قدرت دولت شد. دولت برای تنظیم و کنترل صنعت و تجارت جدید به قدرت بیشتری نیاز داشت .
این تغییرات را می توان به دو گروه تغییرات اجتماعی و سیاسی تقسیم کرد ، تحولات اجتماعی افزون بر افزایش جمعیت به سبب بهبود تدریجی وضعیت اقتصادی و شرایط بهداشتی و مهاجرت از روستاها به شهرها و شهر نشینی گسترده و البته ایجاد مشکلاتی مانند فقر ،بیماری و آلودگی ، سبب پیدایش طبقه کارگر و افزایش نابرابری اجتماعی و سپس مبارزات گسترده کارگران علیه صاحبان ثروت ، یعنی مالکان کارخانه ها شد .
تحولات سیاسی هم در کنار تقویت قدرت دولت ، اصلاحات تدریجی سیاسی و سرانجام پیدایش احزاب سیاسی گوناگون را سبب شد .
انگلستان پس از صنعتی شدن ، چگونه یک قدرت امپریالیستی شد ؟
هابسپام معتقد است که صنعتی شدن باعث افزایش نیاز انگلیس به منابع طبیعی و بازارهای جدید شد. این نیاز باعث شد که انگلیس به دنبال مستعمرات جدید در خارج از کشور باشد.
هابسباوم معتقد است که صنعتی شدن انگلیس به سه طریق منجر به امپریالیسم این کشور شد:
نیاز به منابع طبیعی
انقلاب صنعتی باعث افزایش نیاز انگلیس به منابع طبیعی، به ویژه مواد خام مانند نفت، زغال سنگ و آهن شد. این منابع در مستعمرات انگلیس یافت نمی شد. به همین دلیل، انگلیس به دنبال مستعمرات جدید بود تا بتواند به این منابع دسترسی داشته باشد.
نیاز به بازارهای جدید
انقلاب صنعتی باعث افزایش تولید محصولات صنعتی در انگلیس شد. این محصولات باید در بازارهای جدید به فروش می رسیدند. مستعمرات انگلیس بازارهای بالقوه خوبی برای محصولات صنعتی انگلیس بودند. به همین دلیل، انگلیس به دنبال مستعمرات جدید بود تا بتواند محصولات صنعتی خود را در آنجا بفروشد.
نیاز به سرمایه گذاری
انقلاب صنعتی باعث افزایش سرمایه گذاری در انگلیس شد. این سرمایه گذاری ها باید در جایی بازدهی داشته باشند. مستعمرات انگلیس فرصت های خوبی برای سرمایه گذاری بودند. به همین دلیل، انگلیس به دنبال مستعمرات جدید بود تا بتواند در آنجا سرمایه گذاری کند.
بنابراین عوامل فوق سبب شد که انگلیس به یک قدرت امپریالیستی تبدیل شود. امپراتوری انگلیس در قرن نوزدهم و اوایل قرن بیستم بزرگترین امپراتوری جهان شد. این امپراتوری شامل بیش از ۴۰ مستعمره در سراسر جهان بود !
در طول دوره های مختلف امپراتوری انگلیس، کشورهای زیادی قربانی این امپراتوری شدند. برخی از مهم ترین کشورها عبارتند از:
آمریکا، کانادا، مکزیک، جامائیکا، باربادوس، ترینیداد و توباگو ، سنت لوسیا، سنت کیتس و نویس، دومینیکا، آنتیگوا و باربودا ، هند، پاکستان، بنگلادش، سریلانکا، نپال، بوتان ، مصر، کنیا، تانزانیا، آفریقای جنوبی، نیجریه، غنا ، استرالیا، نیوزیلند، سنگاپور، مالزی، برمه و هنگ کنگ
این کشورها در طول امپراتوری انگلیس تحت سلطه و کنترل انگلیس قرار داشتند. این سلطه و کنترل تأثیرات عمیقی بر این کشورها گذاشت .
افول امپراتوری بریتانیا
هابسپام در پایان به دلایل افول و سرانجام سقوط امپراتوری پرداخته ، از نگاه او، عوامل متعددی مانند ظهور قدرت های صنعتی جدید مانند آلمان، ایالات متحده و ژاپن در قرن بیستم به عنوان قدرت های صنعتی بزرگ و به چالش کشیدن برتری اقتصادی بریتانیا ، چالش های حفظ امپراتوری در برابر جنبش های ملی گرایانه و آشوب های اقتصادی و اجتماعی مانند دو جنگ جهانی، رکود بزرگ، و تحولات اجتماعی و اقتصادی قرن بیستم موقعیت جهانی بریتانیا و سرانجام امپراتوری آن را از بین بردند.
هابسپام همچنین معتقد است که خود بریتانیا نیز در افول خود نقش داشت. او استدلال می کند که بریتانیا از نوآوری و انعطاف پذیری لازم برای رقابت با قدرت های صنعتی جدید برخوردار نبود. علاوه بر این، بریتانیا از نظر اجتماعی و سیاسی در حال تغییر بود، و این تغییرات به ثبات و یکپارچگی ملی که برای یک قدرت جهانی ضروری است، آسیب رساند. بنابراین هابسپام ترکیبی از عوامل داخلی و خارجی را سبب افول بریتانیا به عنوان یک قدرت صنعتی و امپراتوری می داند .
در پایان هدف اصلی کتاب صنعت و امپراتوری را باید یک روایت جامع و بینش آموزنده و البته خسته کننده و نه چندان جذاب از صعود، تحول و سرانجام زوال بریتانیا به عنوان یک قدرت صنعتی و امپراتوری دانست. هابسپام عوامل متعددی را که به این تحولات منجر شدند را با دقت بسیار مورد بررسی قرار داده است .

[Elentarri]

I was looking for a book on the industrial revolution. This was supposed to be it. It wasn't, or at least I did not find it to be what I was looking for. The book is also not very well written or organized and tends to waffle. The Charles Dickens novel I am reading concurrently with this economic history book is more succinct! I gave up at around Chapter 5.

Note: I "read" the second, revised edition.

Date: 28 February 2024

[Michael Burnam-Fink · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book hoping that it might serve as an anchor for a class on technological change. I cannot in good conscience advise this book for anyone. Hobsbawn offers an account of an industrial revolution that is almost absent of technology, or of change. Rather he describes Britain's preeminance as a result of its martime power, leveraging historical dominance in textiles to absolutely superiority in all manners of shipping and goods.

Britain undoubtedly won the first industrial revolution of water-powered spinning jennies and automated looms, but fared less well in the second industrial revolution of steam-engines and railroads, losing in relatives terms to America and Germany. For a supposed Marxist, Hobsawm seems fuzzy on the generational shift from rural agricultural laborers to an urban and industrial proletariat, or the relationship between scientific knowledge and technological progress.

Decent charts, and a mass of words that signify little and explain less.

Maybe I just don't like economists.

[Ali.n · Rating 3 out of 5]

نویسنده شهیر مارکسیست این کتاب نگاه جامعی به وضعیت انقلاب صنعتی و تاثیر آن بر ساخت اقتصادی و اجتماعی بریتانیا دارد. همچنین بنا به مشی ایدئولوژیکش نگاهی به طبقات مختلف جامعه بریتانیا در طول چند قرن گذشته می‌اندازد. او بخشی از تاریخی را که در این کتاب روایت کرده، زیسته و از نزدیک با آن مواجه بوده است.
مطالعه کتاب در بعضی فصول نیاز به اندکی دانش پایه اقتصادی داشت. همچنین در بعضی مباحث آمار و ارقام و جزئیات بیشتر از آن بود که بتوان به راحتی کلیت ماجرا را دنبال کرد. با اینحال اکثر مطالب کتاب برای خواننده عادی قابل استفاده است. ترجمه اما هرچند ادبیاتی جدید داشت، در بعضی جملات به سختی و با دوباره‌خوانی مفهوم بود.

[Walt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is it obligatory for folks to praise famous academicians and their seminal works? Based on Hobsbawm's reputation, I was expecting a brilliant analysis of the Industrial Revolution. Instead, I got a full dose of arm chair scholarship. Rambling chapters, awkward organization and structure, poor citation, poor analysis, and few (if any definitive) conclusions. I deserve a prize for finishing.

When I was in grad school I was scandalized at how much the faculty relied on student labor to supply them with raw data for their own research. I came to accept it as faculty were increasingly acknowledging that contribution in their acknowledgements. That trend apparently did not exist, or was not accepted by Hobsbawm, in the 1960s. Huge tracts of the book loosely refer to scattered data sets that almost certainly appeared in student research. The idea is that these data sets would support a large narrative and thesis. That is not the case here.

Hobsbawm sets out to explain why the Industrial Revolution kick-started in Great Britain in the late 1700s. It is a noble research question, but bizarrely seems to wonder around the whole issue of war (he admits that it really took off after the Napoleonic Wars....), before deciding that cotton farmers in Lancashire had a little extra money and time, so they invested in new technologies....It is definitely anticlimactic. Hobsbawm does make a steady case that the Lancashire cotton farmers had considerable pull in the government; but to conclude that some extra leisure sparked the Industrial Revolution while ignoring the elephant in the room (military buildup) is disappointing.

Middle chapters of the book were almost intolerable as he described the rise and apogee of British industry ca. 1800-1860. Lots of vague statistics with very little analysis or discussion are supposedly to convince readers...what? A chapter on standards of living was so full of statistics and academic prose that it was difficult to discern the human misery of the Victorian slums. And yet, readers looking at birthrates and deathrates for the cities of Sheffield and Nottingham, might think that these were glorious year. Hey! They were great years for those towns....Had I not already possessed familiarity with the Victorian slums, I would know nothing about living standards from this book. If I managed some knowledge from the text, I could very likely have a very wrong interpretation of life in the Victorian cities.

Two factoids that I question from the book are: 1) that Great Britain never had a trade surplus ca. 1750-1914; and that intellectuals believed that Britain was in decline as early as the 1850s and 1860s. Even with the data that Hobsbawm presents, these generalizations appear to be highly suspicious. Then again, somehow the East India Company imploded. If statements like these are crucial to the narrative and raise red flags, then there should be further discussion. Hobsbawm moves on to something else. In a way this book strongly resembles the writing styles of quasi historians like Gavin Menzies and Graham Hancock - they overwhelm the reader with data and say "case proved!" In this case, the statistics do more harm than good because the key messages are lost in the deluge.

The book is loosely based on chronology, 1790-1965. Within that basic framework, Hobsbawm has chapters on industry, commerce, social conditions, agriculture, "decline," "long boom," and "the other Britain" - Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. These chapters leapfrog through time at a frustrating rate, so much so that I think Hobsbawm gave up trying to ground the reader in any sense of time and space. A painful section on automobile production spans much of the Twentieth Century while Hobsbawm argues about a decline (transformation?) in industry. The long boom simultaneously talks about poverty and leisure. The following chapter on the Irish, Scots, and Welsh only talks about their plight during the same era, well, I think it is the same era....

Overall, I do not recommend this book for anyone. 100 years ago, it may have (somehow!) been considered a major work that spawned the field of economic history. The strange writing, poor documentation, and casual conclusions (such as they are) do not make for riveting reading or education.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hobsbawm at, if not his rhetorical best, then at least his most convincing. This book tracks not only the birth of the industrial revolution, but also the postnatal effects the revolution had on British economics and society over the next two hundred years.
Hobsbawm argues that an aggresive governmental policy of war-for-profit that allowed the British to capture large markets and resources in the tropics was the kickstarter for the industrial revolution. However, over time the British then refused to adapt their business/ industrial models, as it was always easier to exploit the empire than it was to compete with new industrial powers. After the great depression and two world wars, the British system collapsed entirely and she adopted a planning-economy until 1979. The Conservative Party in that year went against their principles to radically change (as opposed to conserving) British society- Hobsbawm thus has little truck with British notions of conservatism, seeing them as shorthand for vested-interests.
Writing in 1999, Hobsbawm was optimistic that the election of Blair two years previous signaled a change in British society, a move away from neoliberalism. As we now know, this was not the case, and the recent unrest in the country over the decision to leave the European Union means that the comfortable future that Hobsbawm predicted for my people may not, after all, come to pass.

Quotes:

1.
“Britain always had a line of retreat open when the challenge of other economies became too pressing. We could retreat further into both Empire and Free Trade- into our monopoly of as yet undeveloped regions, which in itself helped to keep them unindustrialized, and into our functions as the hub of the world’s trading, shipping and financial transactions. We did not have to compete but could evade. And our ability to evade helped to perpetuate the archaic and increasingly obsolete industrial and social structure of the pioneer age.” (xii)

2.
“I do not wish to deny the autonomous power of accumulated and fossilized institutions and habits to act as a brake upon change. Up to a point they have this power, though it is counteracted, at least potentially, by that other ingrained British ‘tradition’, which is never to resist irresistible changes, but to absorb them as quickly and quietly as possible.” (xvii)

3.
“The grandees of Britain were not a nobility comparable to the feudal and absolutist hierarchies of the continent. They were a post-revolutionary elite, the heirs of the Roundheads.” (10)

4.
“The Industrial Revolution is not merely an acceleration of economic growth, but an acceleration of growth because of, and through, economic and social transformation.” (12)

5.
“Conquering markets by war and colonization required not merely an economy capable of exploiting those markets, but also a government willing to wage war and colonize for the benefit of British manufacturers… Here the advantage of Britain over her potential competitors is quite evident. Unlike some of them (such as France) she was prepared to subordinate all foreign policy to economic ends.”
“Unlike all its other rivals, British policy in the eighteenth century was one of systematic aggressiveness- most obviously against the chief rival, France. Of the five great wars in the period, Britain was clearly on the defensive in only one.” (27)

[Fran Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yea there are problems with this book but I jsut love his writing style too much!

[Diego · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eric Hobsbawn hace un intento por explicar los orígenes de la Revolución Industria partiendo de 3 hipótesis generales, que ocurrio una gran crisis en la economía feudal del siglo XVII prologada por la Guerra de los Treinta Años. Qué las élites económicas comenzarón a invertir más en tierra y con ello detuvieron la acumulación de capital en las ciudades y mantuvieron a parte de la población fuera de trabajos asaliarados. Finalmente una mezcla del poderio naval primero holandes y luego britanico y el consumo conspicuo de la burguesia que termino por favorecer la aparición de mercados para manufacturas que sustivieran producción masiva.

El problema con las hipotesis de Hobsbawn no es que esten completamente mal, aunque en cierta medida si lo están, sino que aunque algunas de ellas pueden encajar con las explicaciones más sofisticadas que tenemos, el llega a ellas por las razones equivocadas. Por ejemplo, habla de caida de la población del siglo XVII pero descarta que parte de ella, sobre todo en el sur de Europa, se le pudiera atribuir al resurgimiento de la peste bubónica en el perido. Hoy sabemos que en Italia por ejemplo la población no se recupero en cerca de 100 años. No le da un rol a la energía o a la sustición de trabajo por capital que ocurria. Omite que en parte de Europa ya existian algunas instituciones capitalistas desde el siglo XIII. Para Hobsbawn los factores principales fueron el colonialismo, los esclavos y las actitudes burguesas hacia el consumo.

Aunque las actitudes de la burguesia pueden encajar en la teoría de Jan de Vries sobre la revolución industriosa, Hobsbawn no elabora en ellas. El libro no es malo, pero si es anticuado, muestra una perspectiva sobre la Revolución Industrial producto de su época la década de 1970. Aunque si lo considero una historia económica es una que no presenta mucha evidencia cuantitativa y más bien parte de un analísis basado en las ideas del estructuralismo frances con la teoría marxista sobre el cambio de modo de producción feudal a capitalista.

Es un libro que recomendaria leer para tener una idea de que tanto ha cambiado el entendimiento sobre la Revolución Industrial y en los últimos 50 años.

[Gabriel Gomide · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dos livros de história que eu li (e admito que não foram muitos), este é especialmente materialista, com páginas e mais páginas de diagramas em sua última seção, e incontáveis citações de tabelas e dados demográficos. Mesmo assim, não por isso o texto foi menos compreensível, e sua leitura menos fluida. Na verdade, Hobsbawm, com essa abundância de dados, só faz do aprendizado do processo de industrialização britânico mais claro.

Os pontos altos pra mim foram (em nenhum ordem específica):

- A explicação do surgimento do método industrial na ilhas britânicas e em nenhum outro lugar, não por algum conceito abstrato de qualidades do homem britânico, mas estritamete pelas condições econômicas e sociais do país.

- A mudança de mercado do industialista britânico, de exportador para depois ter seu foco no consumo interno, e como isso só foi possível pelo "apoio" exercido da metrópole sobre os territórios imperiais.

- As movimentações sociais e surgimento da classe média. O maior peão para os interesses políticos do capital.

Obs.: Não estava esperando que a review fosse se encaminhar para comentários a respeito de marxismo ("a ciência imortal do proletariado"). Bem, Hobsbawm foi um marxista (talvez porque em seus estudos percebeu que o capitalismo é baseado em mitos e contradições. Tá, pronto! Chega, Gabriel. Cristo!), mas não se engane leitor, este livro não pode ser, em momento algum, confundido com propaganda. O livro é uma análise da história econômica da Grã-Bretanha entre os anos de 1750 até 1960, contada tendo como base dados materiais e não quaisquer especulações ideológicas.

[Michelle Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 4 - The Human Results of the Industrial Revolution 1750-1850

[Leo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eric Hobsbawm wrote the first edition of this book in 1968, but then returned to revise it in 1999, adding new material on developments since the first edition and revising and supplementing some of the original material. Unfortunately, Hobsbawm's analytical and literary powers had declined considerably in that 31-year period, as I think had the intellectual self-assurance that his politics still gave him in the 60s. There is the additional fact that Hobsbawm was undoubtedly more at home in the history of the 19th century than the 20th, for a host of reasons. The result is that the earlier chapters of the book covering the period up to the First World War are far better than those covering the postwar period, although the postwar chapters are still good until we get to 'A Harsher Economic Climate', dealing with the crisis of the 70s and the Thatcher years.

His explanation for why the industrial revolution happened in Britain first is compelling, and his explanation for the subsequent pathologies of the British economy is ultimately that, as first to industrialise, Britain did not have to go through certain processes of political and social modernisation, and economic and organisational rationalisation, which other major economies generally did in order to catch up to Britain. (Although his rejection of explanations which also emphasis the importance of aspects of Britain's class structure is not wholly convincing.) Within his account, the role of the City is key. It is therefore a weakness of the book that, while it contains excellent chapters on agriculture, industry, social change and Britain's position in international trade, it doesn't contain a condensed account of the arc of the City's role in the British economy. Instead, this account is spread across several quite separate chapters, and there is disappointingly little on the development of finance in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It is also striking, given the book's title, that there is not really an extended account given in any one part of the book of the full function the empire played in Britain's economy and society, although the importance of British manufacturers being able to retreat from international competition into the 'safe' and 'easy' world of the domestic and colonial markets is constantly stressed.

The chapter covering the 70s and the Thatcher years is a real disappointment when set next to the earlier chapters. Unlike them, it fails to even describe the social forces which supported the Thatcher project, let alone explain why they turned to such an extreme political project. The 1972 and 1974 miners' strikes, for instance, which did so much to radicalise opinion in the Tory party, are not even mentioned. The other major dispute of the 1980s beside the 1985-6 miners' strike - the Wapping dispute - is also unmentioned. The attitude the Labour party took to Thatcherism in the 1980s also goes entirely unmentioned, and there is no discussion of its mid-90s embrace of key Thatcherite tenets. In general there is a gradual shift away from explanation towards mere description, where the earlier chapters of the book combine both winningly. The earlier chapters are marked by those acerbic, confident, exact observations that make reading Hobsbawm's best works a pleasure, but the chapter on the 70s and 80s reads like Hobsbawm has had not just the hope and life sucked out of him, but the anger and contempt too. There are none of the earlier chapters' sharp observations on how the changing economy generated important social changes, or the apt quotes from primary sources that give a sense of the texture of life at the time.

Contrast two passages:
- From 'The human results: Industrial Revolution 1750-1850': "What the radicals of the time attacked as 'Old Corruption' could generate quite dramatic wealth - the number of millionaire judges dropped sharply after it ended. The Church and the English universities slumbered on, cushioned by their incomes, their privileges and abuses, and their relations among the peerage, their corruption attacked with greater consistency in theory than in practice. The lawyers, and what passed for a civil service, were unreformed and unregenerate."
- From 'A Harsher Economic Climate': "Overall, the arms trade yielded a surplus on its balance of trade (£140.5 million in 1974, £1,736 in 1989); but it remained a controversial area, especially in the business of supplying landmines."

However, since the most recent decades are more well-known than the period Hobsbawm originally sought to describe - 1750-1960 - the weakness of the later chapters shouldn't make you reluctant to pick up this book. If you want to understand the history of the British economy, this is still an excellent book to read.

[Joschka · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first book I’ve read by this acclaimed historian. A great resource to understand how the Industrial Revolution unfolded in Britain, and just how unique Britain was in its precociousness in this regard (with the partial exception of Belgium, perhaps?). I learnt a lot, e.g., that there were two phases of the Industrial Revolution; an initial “low-tech” revolution, the archetype of which is the Lancashire textile mill, and then a second phase, characterised by steel, coal and railways.

Britain as the first and for a while only workshop of the world could undersell anybody early on and needed other countries to sell to Britain so they had the money to purchase British goods, explaining the Victorian sanctification of Free Trade. As British industries started becoming increasingly uncompetitive (in large part by the very virtue of having been a pioneer and sticking by its antiquated structures, in a similar way as the Tube is now old and rickety precisely because it is the first metro) from the middle of the 19th Century onwards, Free Trade became less straightforward a goal, and the British increasingly turned to the Empire as a protected market. Of course, this only nurtured the inefficiency of their industries.

Get to the early 20th Century, and the export-orientated Victorian industries are basically killed off, Free Trade is dead, but actually living standards are raised and a new economy arises which is more centred around domestic demand. But fundamentally Britain continues to decline in relation to its peers, for various complex reasons I sometimes struggled to follow. Just by way of example, one reason proposed is the failure of the state to make proper use of the nationalised industries, as in France. Also something about devaluation of the pound (while an artificially propped up pound was in many ways bad for industry). Then after the Long Boom following the World Wars, monetarism arises as the first big effort to get out of the decline Britain seems to have experienced by some measures since the 1850s (again, the living standards story is more complex). Hobsbawm then makes an interesting point that the return to Victorian laissez faire in the 80s and 90s did not actually reduce public expenditure, it simply shifted ways of raising revenues to less transparent means, such as economically regressive indirect taxes.

The latter parts of the book are a bit less interesting because they would be better informed if the authors had known what was to come with the Great Recession, Brexit, COVID, etc. At the end of the 20th Century, Hobsbawm wrote that nobody seriously envisaged a future outside the EEC in the UK.

[Adam Calhoun · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had though that this book was going to be a history of the industrial revolution. It is not - it is more a political and social history of the British Empire from the industrial revolution up to almost the present day. It is partly about how each successive historical period changed the social organization of the country, it is partly about the economic effects, it is partly about the political ones.

Kind of interesting, but not what I was looking for. Still, a good primer on some of the social effects of industrialization and its history.

[David]

Perhaps one day I'll enjoy a Hobsbawm book. Not today, though.
This book reads like a textbook and in that capacity, it's effective and useful. But it's not a pleasant read, and it feels like a summary of the secondary literature. On the plus side, this book offers an effective survey of 150+ years of British economic history, and it presents a complex and nuanced account of the changing dynamics of this crazy little island.

[Minister Jane Trivigno · Rating 4 out of 5]

great in-depth look at the Industrial Revolution ( and its consequences ) from the perspective of Britain and a great Marxist Perspective. An important consideration is that Marx was writing about the first, more tame Industrial Revolution more focused on textiles and the foundation, not the second that was more contemporary of the Gilded Age and harder machinery with Coal and Iron and later Bessemer Steel

[Rhys Morris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting stuff on progress from industry into (relative) decline at time of writing (1960s). Enlightening on most fronts, considers social change and even in a modern context provides some insight into industrialisation / our current service economy. Made me appreciate economic history more than I had done

Can be quite tough going though which made it take longer to get through, despite only being 300 or so pages.

[Bryan Alcazar]

Fundamental para comprender cómo eso que la historiografía llama la revolución industrial se pudo llevar a cabo. Si bien el autor no profundiza en los puntos más álgidos, nos deja su análisis sobre la caída del feudalismo y cómo posteriormente la crisis del siglo XVII contribuyó al cambio económico y geográfico para la aparición de un sistema que paulatinamente cambió al mundo.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only complaint I have with this book is that the title seems misleading. Sure, Hobsbawm does nice work at the beach setting forth the conditions that allowed for the Industrial Revolution to sprout first in Great Britain and then moves on to lay out the how this led to Empire. So far so good. But then book seems to turn into a general economic history. That's fine, but rather unexpected.

[Erika Moreno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un importante factor para los libros que tratan temas históricos, es la manera en la cual lo harán ñ, de forma que el lector logre comorender y mantener el interés durante la lectura. Afortunadamente, esta libro cumplió con ello.

Un factor agregado es que cuenta con imágenes de los temas que se están tratando, fscilitando la visualización y el reconocimiento de las referencias.

[Ali Fallahi · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب سودمند و خوبی درباره چرایی و چگونگی پیدایش انقلاب صنعتی در انگلستان و پیامدهای آن انقلاب در این کشور تا میانه دهه ۱۹۶۰ . در انتهای کتاب نیز بخش کوچکی به اسکاتلند و ولز و تا اندازه کمی ایرلند اختصاص داده شده است. ایرادی که به کتاب می توان وارد این است که فقط به انقلاب صنعتی در انگلستان پرداخته است . هرچند گهگاهی نویسنده به مقایسه با آلمان و ایالات متحده اشاره های گذرایی دارد.‌

[Christian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough analysis of the the effects of The Industrial Revolution on Britain and her Empire, Hobsbawm provides his usual flair and flourish to what is a somewhat dry economic history. Of course his anthropological analysis is present just less than his more well known works. I enjoy his writing but I'm not sure I can enjoy 300 pages of it on such a singular topic.

[Odhran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good brief overview of the development of British capital.

[Vikas Erraballi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lucid writing that doesn’t get lost in details - history elevated to artistry.

[Dr Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was looking for some background reading for an historical novel I'm writing. This was very information and a pleasure to read.

[Carolina Tulia · Rating 5 out of 5]

hobsbawm, it's always a pleasure.

[Meltem Kora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eric Hobsbawm... How he made all history clear and discoverable as well as interesting to an unfamiliar mind as mine...

[Chris Lira · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF around page 150 or so. Really not very interesting to me.

[Sanaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

هر چند که توی بعضی قسمت ها خیلی از نظر اقتصادی تخصصی میشد ولی بنظر من اگر کسی به تاریخ و یا حتی تاریخ کمونیسم و چگونگی تشکیل حزب کارگر علاقه داره کتاب خیلی خوبیه

[Grindy Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reads like a textbook, which isn’t a bad thing. Author places the Industrial Revolution in Britain on a nice timeline, and explains why industrialization began when and where it did.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 4 out of 5]

While short, this essay gets the job done.

Classic Hobsbawm.