Industry and Empire
Good Fit
- Students of economic and social history and the Industrial Revolution
- Readers who want to understand the economic foundations of the British Empire
- Anyone who wants to read a historian from the Marxist historiographical tradition
Not a Fit
- Those who want light, story-like history
- Readers who tire of text loaded with statistics and economic terms
- Anyone expecting the latest research: the book was written in the 1960s
In the preface Hobsbawm writes that the book was not designed only as a textbook but that many students will read it for exams, and says it is «a synthesis rather than original research». He notes that there is no general agreement on British economic and social history, that the book reflects the interests of the 1950s and 60s, and advises approaching statistics not as «bare figures» but with their limitations.
In the introduction the Industrial Revolution is called «the most fundamental transformation of human life in the recorded history», which for a time coincided with the history of a single country — Great Britain. In this period Britain appears as the world's only workshop, carrier, imperialist and international investor; this monopoly came largely from being the «pioneer», there being no rivals. Britain, avoiding later competition, fell behind by relying on old technology and on being the centre of the world.
Hobsbawm points to two «seemingly incompatible» features of Britain: on the one hand it is the country where the peasantry has most disappeared and the share of wage-earners is highest, on the other its political and social institutions (the monarchy, ceremonies) seem least changed. He explains this as «sticking new labels on old bottles» and writes that Britain is not «more traditionalist», it merely avoided violent clashes.
The introduction asks that British history be studied not only within a national framework but as a special — first and sometimes most important — example of the global economy and of industrialisation under capitalism. The author says the British model cannot be repeated for other countries, that one can learn from it only in terms of principles, and links the book's conclusions with the later decline of the «pioneer» position in the world economy.
- The text is dense, analytical and long-sentenced; every idea rests on statistics and a historiographical debate
- The author states plainly the synthetic nature of the work and lists sources in the reading list
- The Marxist historiographical outlook is prominent but not dogmatic
- The book reflects the economic-history debates of the 1960s
The same author's history of Europe 1789–1848 — a wider frame
A popular book on the later period of industrialisation and revolution — reviewed on our site
At the end of the introduction Hobsbawm writes that British history cannot be a «model» for other countries because its early development was unique to it, and gives two main reasons for studying that history. What follows is outside the scope of this review.
If you see a problem, write to us. Publisher, author, rights holder, or just a reader — it doesn't matter. If there's something problematic about copyright in this review, if the review's author has broken the site's rules, or if you simply have a suggestion or complaint, hey@kitabdanevar.com. We'd rather resolve this between ourselves than go to court: we review requests within 48 hours and, if needed, correct or fully remove the review.
