History of British Class Struggle?

[Sirion]

Wow... I remember I was reading this forum everyday and posting quite often quite some time ago (I cannot exactly remeember how long it is since). This place has really changed.

Anyway, to the question. In my english we should be writing a text about British History, and I've decided to write about class struggle in Great Britain, with the focus on why, despite the proising prerequesites, there never were a revolution, and what the workers movement DID archieve.

Anyone got some good webpages or other information on this subject?

[James]

Personally, i'd pick the C19th - otherwise you are looking at a massive period of time.

[Sirion]

Yep, that was my plan as well... I will write about the class struggles after Karl Marx put them into theory.

[Funky Monk]

I was thinking slightly before that, early 19th Century....

[monkeydust]

Don't listen to them.... :P

Surely you have to write up to WW2, or at least up to 1930 or so.

The 1926 General strike was arguably the single most important event in the History of British class struggle, in some ways it is a lens by which class differences can be seen.

[James]

I'd say chartism was the closest England came to revolution. Thats 1830s/40s

[James]

Just been typing up some revision notes for my chartist exam; they may be of use to you (then again, they might not). I imagine FM (was going to send this to you over MSN but you'd just gone offline) will be able to add to this list.

(Why Chartism Failed)

Failure of Chartism
The main problem was how to achieve a revolutionary goal by constitutional means.
• It failed to obtain parliamentary support for the Charter.
• The middle-classes either ignored, shunned or condemned Chartism.
• Chartists were divided among themselves.
• Government handled the movement firmly and calmly; in two ways. Repression and Concession (the use of the telegraph, railways, better equipment, discipline, legal system AND by taking the teeth out of Chartism by initiating reforms - The 1847 Factory Act introduced shorter working hours for all workers; The 1848 Public Health Act made some improvements in town conditions; various financial reforms helped to reduce the price of food and improved the economy of the country)
• Chartist demands were “too drastic” – could never “win”?
• There was too much diversity in the intellectual and ideological aims of Chartism; Lovett emphasised education; Vincent and Lowery emphasised teetotal Chartism; Scottish Chartists emphasised Christian Chartism; O'Connor spent more time on his Land Plan; Others went into Owenite Socialism, the A.C.L.L., trade union activity and local government activity; Sturge advocated co-operation with middle-class radicals and dissenters in the Complete Suffrage Union. This collapsed.
• Poor leadership (by 1842 was totally divided and the leaders went in different directions – see above) and organisation
• Other movements offering more immediate and tangible benefits attracted chartists. E.g. Anti Corn Law League
• The socio-economic position improved after 1842. Prosperity eliminated mass support.
• Chartism and the Chartists were made to look ridiculous after Kennington Common, and the failure of the Land Plan.
• Lack of resources
• Under represented in London

[Funky Monk]

Fluxuating membership?
Regional variations in policy and organisation?
(As part of the government response) selective improisonments, arrests of key personnel at key moments.
Unwillingness to cooperate with Middle Class when opportunities arose.
Relatively little (especially compared to France pre-revolution) government/aristocratic repression
The Stamp Duty.

Thats all i can think of for the moment

[James]

moral/physical force problems. Divided the movement, therefore helped to destroy it

[Louis Pio]

You should check out this book In the Cause of Labour - A History of British Trade Unionism (http://www.marxist.com/hbtu/article_socapp.html)

Not all of the chapters are online yet though

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:46 AM
Wow... I remember I was reading this forum everyday and posting quite often quite some time ago (I cannot exactly remeember how long it is since). This place has really changed.

Anyway, to the question. In my english we should be writing a text about British History, and I've decided to write about class struggle in Great Britain, with the focus on why, despite the proising prerequesites, there never were a revolution, and what the workers movement DID archieve.

Anyone got some good webpages or other information on this subject?
You will want to investigate the chartist movement, during the times of Peel etc.

In short the great debate was should the Chartist movment be revolutionary or peaceful. The more influencial members of the chartist movment, such as William Lovett, who were peaceful. They formed the LWMA (London working mans assosiation). The other side was centered around the man Fergus Oconnor, who formed the Northern Star.

The chartist movment is undoubtedly the single largest movment in the history of britain, and is at least in part responcible for a deal of the greater improvements for the lower classes politically.

Another figure you may want to investigate is Robert Owen, perhaps one of the few examples of a truly selfless individual, and one of only a small few to create a working socialist system.

An excelent site on Chartism. (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/chatopic.htm)

A not so great site on Owen (http://www.che-lives.net/users/ak47/biography.html)

The links on the page may have some Java script errors, etc. Its been a fair while sinse i've updated it.

James I disagree with your analasys that Chartism had "a revolutionary goal", I believe that this is not the case, the likes of Lovett and Thomas Attwood.

[Funky Monk]

I think some aspects of it were revolutionary Enigam, what about the Newport Uprising? Or The Birmingham Riots? Or The Sheffield Disturbances?

You have to recognise revolutionary potential in at least some of these.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 10 2004, 09:44 PM
I think some aspects of it were revolutionary Enigam, what about the Newport Uprising? Or The Birmingham Riots? Or The Sheffield Disturbances?

You have to recognise revolutionary potential in at least some of these.
What about the massive peaceful rallies where in some cases millions of signitures were cast in a clear sign of peaceful protest, and moral force?

I believe that the Newport Uprising, etc, was mearly an exception to the general nature of the chartist movment.

Just to quote my own sig: -

He held in his hand a list of two hundred and fourteen towns and villages, in different parts of Great Britain, where the petition had been deliberately adopted and signed; and it was now presented to that House with 1,280,000 signatures, the result of not less than 500 public meetings, which had been held in support of the principles contained in this petition. At each of those meetings there had been one universal anxious cry of distress - distress, he must say, long disregarded by that House, yet existing for years - distress which had caused much discontent amongst the working people, and which discontent was created by the long sufferings and grievances which that class of the people had endured, and so long utterly disregarded by the people's representatives in that House.

Extract from description of Attwood's speech on presenting the 1839 Charter to Parliament, 14 June 1839

[James]

"The main problem was how to achieve a revolutionary goal by constitutional means."

Personally, i think the 6 points of the charter - and what they meant - were revolutionary for the time.

[Funky Monk]

I think it is difficult to lump Chartism as one movement, as James pointed out, splits in the leadership and the moral/physical force question indicates that the movement contained different aspects.

It is my opinion that the majority of members were inclined to try either technique if it meant achieving their goals.

[James]

I think this expands upon the two concept of two different forms of chartism...

Artisan Chartism
> moral force
> political and prosperous
> peaceful, constitutional and educational (manifestos and committees)
> southern: London and Birmingham
> worked with the middle classes
> potentially proto-liberal
> leaders: Lovett, Place, Attwood, Sturge

Weaver Chartism
> physical force
> economic 'hunger' Chartism
> violent, conspiratorial (arming and drilling)
> northern industrial towns
> class-conscious
> Potentially proto-socialist
> leaders: O'Connor, Harney, Taylor, O'Brien


But... again;
"This view is too simplistic. Regional studies show that the divisions were not so clear-cut as the model suggests."

from here (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/chartism/divchar.htm)

[Sirion]

Thanks a lot to all of you... this will certainly help

[trotsky1917]

Although only a relatively minor event in the whole scheme of things, you could consider mentioning the Merthyr Rising (Merthyr Tydfill, South Wales) of the early 19th century (the exact date escapes me). Allegedly this was the first appearence of the 'red flag' in a workers protest.