Ellen Meiksins Wood, 1942-2016

by Corey Robin on January 14, 2016

I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood’s work late in life. I had known about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist, who was constantly urging me to read Wood’s work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman​. I read her The Origins of Capitalism. It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak—not to just to me but to many others—at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward. Just last week, I had started reading Citizens to Lords, and I’d been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person. Now she’s gone. The work continues.

{ 42 comments }

1

Chris Bertram 01.14.16 at 7:54 pm

I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen’s somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she’d probably have said “political”) constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from “paleo-Marxism” (by which they meant Ellen) or from “Croatian nationalism” (by which they meant Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen basically wrote the statement here:

http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=17413

I last saw her at an Oxford Political Thought conference a few years back and we had a friendly chat.

2

Neville Morley 01.14.16 at 8:15 pm

Great regret that I never managed to meet her – understandably but sadly from my point of view, she declined invitation to a workshop I organised on Marxism and Classical Antiquity on grounds that this wasn’t her current interest. Peasant Citizen and Slave remains, twenty-five years on, an essential work for thinking about slavery in Athenian economy and society, and the radical nature of the Athenian system; Democracy Against Capitalism includes some incredibly useful reflections on Marx and Weber; other stuff always interesting and provocative.

3

Paul 01.14.16 at 9:06 pm

” I read her The Origins of Capitalism. It was one of those Aha! moments “

Same here, amazing book. Everyone should read it.

What a loss…

4

Gary Othic 01.14.16 at 9:38 pm

Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies. Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…

‘The Origins of Capitalism’ was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner’s work, and the debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another piece that I really liked.

5

Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm

@1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management, the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.

Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy’s Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster’s leadership decided to return to Sweezy’s economics rather than Robert Brenner’s, which Wood had been defending during her time at the helm.

For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. This applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations and wage repression.

For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner’s theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched by Brenner’s work and Wood’s critical defense of it.

6

Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:02 pm

Robin: “She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy).”
This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries. Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson, Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.

7

Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:06 pm

I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the “force” of economic competition in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.

8

RHB 01.14.16 at 10:56 pm

@1 Curious what elements of Lukacs you see in her work. I think the upshot of her (and Brenner’s) position on the origin of capitalism would cast doubt on the kind of expressive identity between German idealism and the commodity form that you find in History and Class Consciousness (and GL’s more general conflation of modernity, bourgeoisie, and capitalism).

9

Stephen D. 01.15.16 at 12:07 am

I don’t claim to be an expert, having only read ‘Citizens to Lords’ and having the sequel on Kindle. But that’s enough for me to conclude that 2016 is now taking the piss and ought to knock it off.

10

Corey Robin 01.15.16 at 2:17 am

Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I’m not sure I really understand your comments, but to the extent that I do, you’re wrong that Wood didn’t think force, both political and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it’s that unlike feudalism, the moment of appropriation of the workers’ surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, here’s what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: “surplus extraction is purely ‘economic’, achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely ‘economic’ COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production.” (Origins of Capitalism, 56)

11

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 3:43 am

Corey, let’s define terms so we can understand each other.
We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions.

You say that for Wood the system depends on “‘economic’ COERCIONS”. Yes, agreed.

To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from “force”, defined as the use of violence to compel labor.

Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way.

You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on “the appropriation of surplus” being “separate from the moment of coercion.”

One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system depends on “‘economic’ COERCIONS”.

What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood’s focus; her differentia specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.

Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit, and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).

Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.

So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.

Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France) but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe). Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity growth and capital accumulation.

This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.

But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).

12

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:01 am

Robin writes: “Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy).”
Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.

1. What do you mean by force?
2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me, yes.
4. Does “force” include for you “‘Economic’ coercions”? For me, no.
5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
7. Do you agree with Wood’s explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.

13

Chris Bertram 01.15.16 at 7:45 am

@RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism. Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but that doesn’t necessarily make her wrong about history.

14

magari 01.15.16 at 9:42 am

Major loss. Origins is a great text, and I’ve been very intrigued by her recent series of books reinterpreting Western political thought.

15

Anderson 01.15.16 at 1:05 pm

Idk why Corey affected not to understand Rakesh, who was perfectly clearly not talking about “purely economic coercions.” Unless the slave driver’s whip is now “purely economic,” which is easier to think if you’re not the one feeling the whip.

16

jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm

Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating “force” and “coercion” is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much “force” as it is “coercion”. Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus, if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution. Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.

17

LFC 01.15.16 at 3:41 pm

The basic ‘model’ or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly) is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are ‘forced’ to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10 thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own means of production) are ‘coerced’ in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) ‘primitive accumulation’. The historical accuracy of this is a separate question; but it’s what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)

18

Anarcissie 01.15.16 at 4:12 pm

Not having read Wood’s works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately found ‘The Politics of Capitalism’ (Monthly Review, September, 1999 — http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and ‘market socialism’ than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….

19

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:16 pm

In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being “forced” to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more concerned about the how English tenant famers’ dependence on the market for agricultural leases and inputs (including labor power) “forces” them to recover their costs through the market and thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.

Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated via market activity.

And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate a surplus.

For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but Wood reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how capitalism really does depend on force.

In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.

Here are some problems with the story.

On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for the new industries.

It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization, and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England as Wood did.

Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and “exorbitant” wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.

20

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:19 pm

typo in above:

For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how capitalism really does depend on force.

21

LFC 01.15.16 at 6:57 pm

As I said, I haven’t read Wood; and as it happens I don’t have much time today for this thread.

But I’d point out that acknowledging the role of force in “setting dynamics in motion” is not the same as “displacing” its role. Maybe Wood does focus too exclusively on England and downplay too much the role of slavery and mercantilist war; I don’t know. But everyone acknowledges that enclosure occurred and that it was sometimes violent; whether those displaced from the land mostly became beggars and vagabonds rather than furnishing the waged workforce for new industries is not all that relevant here. The fact is they were displaced (and tenant farming, as you say, as opposed to freeholds became more common as a result). It’s not an either/or, in the sense that violence can set the stage, set the dynamics in motion for a process that would not have occurred in the same way without it. It’s no accident that Barrington Moore called the first chapter of his Social Origins “England: The Contributions of Violence to Gradualism.”

22

LFC 01.15.16 at 7:02 pm

p.s. though Moore was concerned there with somewhat different, albeit related, questions about the course of political evolution and how (what he argued was) the destruction of the English peasantry as a class via the enclosures took the prospect of a social revolution a la France 1789 off the table.

23

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 7:16 pm

Here is Robin again: “Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy).”

Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have “coercion” and then the two forms of coercion: “economic coercion” and “extra-economic coercion” or “force”. Coercion that operates through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.

To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism, Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is summarizing her.

The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle in the English countryside in Wood’s account which is basically Brenner’s simplified; after that, force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.

The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early landless proletariat is basically also ignored.

It’s highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is based on force.

24

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 7:21 pm

LFC, are you a political theorist by any chance?
And as for this: “Maybe Wood does focus too exclusively on England and downplay too much the role of slavery and mercantilist war; I don’t know.”
But would you like to know?

25

Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 8:02 pm

Also why the Robin formulation is wrong: Wood focuses not just on force in the concentration of land but also the absence of sufficient force to “re-enserf” the peasantry in England. So this is not right: ““Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force…”
I am saying that it was to a greater extent that Wood claimed.

26

LFC 01.15.16 at 8:26 pm

LFC, are you a political theorist by any chance?

My ph.d. says ‘international relations’ but, for purposes of answering your question, the best answer would probably be that I’m not anything (i.e., I don’t have an academic job). I’m interested in political theory but am not a credentialed political theorist and have not read my way through the whole canon, by any means, the way you have to to get a degree in political theory.

27

Plume 01.15.16 at 10:01 pm

Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear, and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.

Pair it with Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism, and you’ve got a highly accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism — what it does, where it came from — and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.

Again, sad news.

28

Ronan(rf) 01.16.16 at 12:59 pm

Following Corey’s links, I was going to ask is “Peasant Citizen and Slave ” worth reading but Neville morley seems to have answered that. I’ve been intending to read somethin on ‘classical Greece’ or Athenian democracy or whatnot (I know nought about this so apologies for the terminological vagueness ) and was going to settle on “the rise and fall of classical Greece” by josiah ober , but applying game theory and the rational actor model to the era seems a bit faddish to me.
To get to a point, what does the research say on this stuff these days, and who’s worth reading ?

29

anonymousse 01.16.16 at 2:06 pm

“capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy).”

or, more simply, NOT FORCE.

as one of your commenters said:

“This is not force as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.”,

or, more simply, NOT FORCE.

anonymousse

30

Neville Morley 01.16.16 at 3:51 pm

Happy to recommend stuff on ancient Greece if you give me a sense of your particular interests, and how much you’d like reasonably academic stuff or general introductory works. Research on Greek politics tends to focus on Athens (or to a lesser extent Sparta); economic and social history can take broader view but still tend to end up focusing on Athens. Ober is definitely reading alongside others – and looks beyond Athens – but, yes, comes to topic with specific set of assumptions and methods that then yield the results they’re expected to.

31

Neville Morley 01.16.16 at 3:59 pm

Trying to encapsulate debates in a nutshell (and obviously I do have my own axes to grind…). Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern, and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations – Ober is one of those seeking to squash them. May or may not be helpful to note that someone like David Graeber can find Greek specialists whose ideas are congenial but then skips Rome almost entirely.

32

bob mcmanus 01.16.16 at 4:00 pm

GEOFFREY ERNEST MAURICE DE STE. CROIX

33

Ronan(rf) 01.16.16 at 7:03 pm

Neville Morley, thanks. I’d skew towards more academic stuff, though if there’s a relatively complex general introductory history (something like hourani’s a history of the Arabs? Thematically structured rather than a straight narrative) that could be good.
As for particular interests, I guess I’d be more interested in social history rather than economics or politics at this moment in time, and low culture (including military cultures) rather than high, but I’m open to anything. Anything speaking to the question” how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern”, perhaps giving a fair representation of both sides arguments(which was what caught my eye with obers book initially)? Does that make enough sense? (As I said I’m pretty ignorant on the topic, though don’t let that overly influence any recommendations, and only really developed an interest after reading up on Greek history during the Eurocrisis!)

Bob, thanks. Looks interesting

34

phenomenal cat 01.16.16 at 7:31 pm

“Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern, and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations.” Neville Morley @ 30

Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the axes you’re grinding?

35

Neville Morley 01.16.16 at 7:54 pm

No problem; give me a couple of days, as I have pile of exam scripts on Late Antiquity to mark by Monday…

36

Rakesh Bhandari 01.17.16 at 7:48 pm

Neville,
This seems very interesting, no?
Journal of Interdisciplinary History 34.4 (2004) 513-538
The Labor Market of the Early Roman Empire
Peter Temin

37

Neville Morley 01.17.16 at 8:19 pm

Oh, don’t get me started… ‘Interesting’ as an enterprise, but in my view completely wrong. Will try to work it into the response I promised above, as I think it’s difficult to explain why Temin wrote this, in the way he did, without wider context.

38

Louis Proyect 01.19.16 at 11:51 pm

39

Richard Seaford 01.20.16 at 3:51 pm

‘Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations – Ober is one of those seeking to squash them.’ Neville Morley.

See my review – in the forthcoming Literary Review (February) – of Ober’s most recent (very odd) book, in which ancient Athens is made to look astonishing like California today (where he works).

40

Rakesh Bhandari 01.21.16 at 2:59 pm

It would be wonderful if somehow Seaford and Morley could find something to discuss together here.

41

Neville Morley 01.21.16 at 8:47 pm

I *am* going to answer the questions raised above, honest, it’s just been a horrendous week. In the meantime, if anyone’s interested, I’ve written something slightly longer about Ellen Meiksins Wood and ancienr history over at my blog – thsphinxblog.com.

Now very much looking forward to Seaford on Ober…

42

Neville Morley 01.21.16 at 8:48 pm

Bloody soelling.

Comments on this entry are closed.