Philosophy Class Conflict Essay Research Paper Class

Philosophy: Class Conflict Essay, Research Paper

Class Conflict

“Class conflict has gradually been diluted by growing affluence.”

“The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class

struggle.” This famous opening line from Marx Communist Manifesto

refers to the struggle between the labouring, working classes and the

bourgeoisie owners of the means of production. The proletariat are

exploited by the capitalists for profit and are therefore forced to

live in poverty and dire conditions. Marx predicted that eventually the

proletariat would overthrow this capitalist system and replace it with

a system which is often referred to as Communist – whereby the workers

have control. Today, whenever the words ‘class’ or ‘class conflict’ are

mentioned people usually turn to Marx definition and picture the poor

worker fighting for better pay, better living and working conditions.

The typical class conflict is typified as workers versus the owners, or

bourgeoisie.

In Britain this struggle did not develop in the way that Marx predicted

- there has never been a genuine proletariat revolutionary threat. In

its place has been a tradition of reformist socialism with the Labour

Party and the Trades Unions being the main campaigners. In Britain the

traditional class conflict is often depicted as Labour Party versus

Conservative Party. The Labour Party have fought for workers rights and

have been supported at elections by the working class, whereas the

Conservatives have drawn most of their support from the middle classes.

It is argued that today this traditional class conflict, depicted in no

better fashion than the Miners’ Strike of 1984, has been diluted by

growing affluence. In otherwords the working class have become

economically better off. They were given the right to buy council

houses, to own shares and have, it is argued, become more middle class.

The working class today have a lot more to lose in a fierce class

struggle and are therefore happy to uphold the system. The huge decline

in the traditional industries, such as coal, has coincided with a rise

in the size of the non-manual, service industry – the sphere in which

the ‘middle classes’ tend to be employed. In 1964 50% of the workforce

were employed in the manual sector, compared to 36% in 1992. These

figures coincide with a 15% rise in the non-manual, ‘petty bourgeoisie’

jobs.

Whilst there may be some truth in this ‘embourgeoisement’ theory,

there is also no doubting the fact that it is an exaggerated view. To

say that ‘we are all middle class’ (Blair 1998) is an absurdity. Class

conflict may have been subdued but not only because of growing

affluence. The capitalists have managed to silence what was once a

noisy class. They have succeeded in converting some workers into their

own middle classes and at the same time have managed to push many out

of the system all together. Those who do not have the luxury of being

working class now have no voice. The unemployed and the homeless have

been completely alienated from the system. If the capitalist system had

not advanced to the complex system it is now – whereby employers enjoy

the luxury of a surplus of labour – then class conflict would still be

prevalent.

The dilution of traditional class conflict can in part be explained by

growing affluence. The Thatcher reforms of the 1980s have enabled some

individual members of the working class to better themselves. The

selling of council houses gave people a stake in society for the first

time. The privatisation of many industries, such as British Telecom

gave employees shares for the first time. Once people gained this stake

they would be less inclined to ‘bay for revolutionary blood.’ (This

idea can also be found today under New Labours plans for a stake holder

society and is directly mentioned in the new clause IV). Thatchers

belief in ’self help’ and Classical Liberalism meant that individuals

had to take greater responsibility for themselves. They had less state

welfare and there was greater emphasis on self provision. As a result

some became more affluent. This individual affluence then meant that

the traditional working class spirit of community and sticking together

was eroded and with it the threat of unified discontent. The working

classes were now pitted against each other not for each other.

To credit the demise of class conflict to growing affluence alone is to

miss other significant reasons, however. The 1980s saw an incredible

ideological clash which saw the New Right come out on top. Thatcher

despised socialism and the Trade Union ‘dinosaurs’ and waged a war

against all that they stood for. The defeat of the Miners in 1984 and

the anti-Trade Union legislation which followed (e.g. the banning of

secondary picketing) meant

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать