ProletariatPower
30th May 2014, 01:05
This is a post regarding Chartism, a chapter in British history that is arguably very significant to the nation's Revolutionary movements. In Britain we are often taught to admire the Chartists as free-thinkers and radicals who were ahead of their time. However, in this post I seek to attack Chartism as a movement, a movement in my opinion, served to weaken the Socialist movement in Britain and has a lasting impact on this country. Not only that but I'm going to offer my personal perspective of why the movement failed to be a truly revolutionary movement.
Following the 'Great' Reform Act of 1832 by the Whig government, which simply gave minor concessions to the Middle Class the radical movements in Britain were weakened in unity, with genuine Radicals terming it "The Great Betrayal" (Henry Hunt). This Great Betrayal was followed in two years by the introduction of Workhouses into Britain under the guise of 'Utilitarianism', these facilities served to oppress the Proletariat. These workhouses, coupled with the Great Betrayal caused widespread resistance in Northern England in particular. Groups such as the London Working Mens' Association were established in the South with strictly Working Class membership (although in general the movement was lead by Middle Class Radicals).
The movement has often been praised for it's 'Democratic' policies, which were summed up in 'The People's Charter' which included demands for Universal Male Suffrage. However, these policies were in reality merely established to meet the needs of the disenfranchised poor - starvation etc. as it would theoretically provide them a way to choose their leaders, MPs who would meet these demands.
The movement though rejected revolution and when events like the Newport Rising took place, the Chartists would leave the Revolutionaries to their fates, ultimately I would consider the group reactionary, it failed to meet it's aims, and while perhaps they could be considered 'Radical' for the time they rejected Socialism outright, while early Utopian Socialist movements were beginning to form in Britain the workers were misled by the Chartist leadership to reject such notions.
Where does the blame lie in this groups failure to develop into a truly revolutionary movement? Some may consider it to be the result of bourgeoisie influences such as the pacifistic values of William Lovette. However, I would regard this explanation as rather simplistic, in my view the failure of the group lies in that it was Paternalistic in it's principles. Power would maintain in a selected few, even if 'elected' by the workers. This is why almost all pre-Marxist Radical movements were in my opinion so flawed, because they clung to an old society, unable to recognise potential. As a result they saw the problems of the Proletariat as...problems, rather than seeing their situation, the very system in itself as a problem.
The lesson from this chapter in history is that movements should aim to give the people direct power, and not simply meet the demands of the time. The Chartists wanted to give a degree of limited power to the workers, so that they could elect leaders to meet their needs. However, this would maintain the existing establishment and power would remain in the hands of the Bourgeoisie, with the expectation being maintained the the workers are lower than the bourgeoisie, and need the leaders to meet their demands. It is no wonder the bourgeoisie teach us to praise such a failure of a movement, minor movements like this are flawed, and a way of maintaining the illusion that the people hold power in our current Capitalist Democracy.
What we really need is for the people to become the leaders of society themselves. That is true revolution. That is Marxism.
These were of course just my thoughts, and I'd be curious to hear other Marxist / Leftist perspectives on the failure of these early 'radical' movements.
Following the 'Great' Reform Act of 1832 by the Whig government, which simply gave minor concessions to the Middle Class the radical movements in Britain were weakened in unity, with genuine Radicals terming it "The Great Betrayal" (Henry Hunt). This Great Betrayal was followed in two years by the introduction of Workhouses into Britain under the guise of 'Utilitarianism', these facilities served to oppress the Proletariat. These workhouses, coupled with the Great Betrayal caused widespread resistance in Northern England in particular. Groups such as the London Working Mens' Association were established in the South with strictly Working Class membership (although in general the movement was lead by Middle Class Radicals).
The movement has often been praised for it's 'Democratic' policies, which were summed up in 'The People's Charter' which included demands for Universal Male Suffrage. However, these policies were in reality merely established to meet the needs of the disenfranchised poor - starvation etc. as it would theoretically provide them a way to choose their leaders, MPs who would meet these demands.
The movement though rejected revolution and when events like the Newport Rising took place, the Chartists would leave the Revolutionaries to their fates, ultimately I would consider the group reactionary, it failed to meet it's aims, and while perhaps they could be considered 'Radical' for the time they rejected Socialism outright, while early Utopian Socialist movements were beginning to form in Britain the workers were misled by the Chartist leadership to reject such notions.
Where does the blame lie in this groups failure to develop into a truly revolutionary movement? Some may consider it to be the result of bourgeoisie influences such as the pacifistic values of William Lovette. However, I would regard this explanation as rather simplistic, in my view the failure of the group lies in that it was Paternalistic in it's principles. Power would maintain in a selected few, even if 'elected' by the workers. This is why almost all pre-Marxist Radical movements were in my opinion so flawed, because they clung to an old society, unable to recognise potential. As a result they saw the problems of the Proletariat as...problems, rather than seeing their situation, the very system in itself as a problem.
The lesson from this chapter in history is that movements should aim to give the people direct power, and not simply meet the demands of the time. The Chartists wanted to give a degree of limited power to the workers, so that they could elect leaders to meet their needs. However, this would maintain the existing establishment and power would remain in the hands of the Bourgeoisie, with the expectation being maintained the the workers are lower than the bourgeoisie, and need the leaders to meet their demands. It is no wonder the bourgeoisie teach us to praise such a failure of a movement, minor movements like this are flawed, and a way of maintaining the illusion that the people hold power in our current Capitalist Democracy.
What we really need is for the people to become the leaders of society themselves. That is true revolution. That is Marxism.
These were of course just my thoughts, and I'd be curious to hear other Marxist / Leftist perspectives on the failure of these early 'radical' movements.