How do we understand what is meant by the working class?

How do we understand what is meant by the Working Class? i Early Experience I was born in 1936 so that by the end of the Second World War I was forming my own ideas about the Society in which I lived. The first memory of political activity that I have is persuading my parents to put up a poster in the window for the Labour Candidate in the1945 General Election and, with the aid of my mother, noting down the results of each constituency, as they came in, on the broad sheet provided with the Daily Herald. I grew up as a working class lad in a working class community. My playground was the street, where I played football and other games with the other boys in the street. The girls did their own things of which we had no interest. The only interruption to our football was when the milkman arrived, delivering milk, with his horse and cart. There were no cars to disturb our play. In the early days the brick built, with concrete roofs, shelters still blocked the street, but these had gone by the times I mention above. But what do I mean when I speak of a working class community? There are several different aspects of this community. Most important was my family. My mam and dad both worked. My dad as a coach builder, working largely with the glass for the coach windows. My mam as a cutter in a hosiery factory. But it was not just my immediate family, the whole of my wider family, aunts and uncles, were also part of the wider working class. Next there was the street where I lived. The boys, with whom I played, all had parents who worked. It was generally agreed that all of the people who lived in our street belonged to the same Class of people. The same was true of the people I met when I went, with my older sister, to the Methodist Chapel Sunday School. As it was when I went out with my mam, on a Saturday morning, to the market in the Town Square, always calling in at the Coop on our travels. So it was when I went up the allotment with my dad, and when I went with him and my mam to the Working Men’s Club. In all aspects of life there was this common bond, never actually discussed as such, but expressed in a way of life, a culture, which was clearly defined in attitudes, expectations, and general behaviour. This is not to imply that everyone was the same, or that they consciously recognised their situation. Different people, no doubt, viewed things very differently. Now, when I talk to my sister (two years older than me), we often discuss events that took place in our younger days. It is quite remarkable how differently we often remember and view those events. In my younger days I was quite religious, but my Christianity was sharply coloured by my political views (working class rather than socialist possibly). I have discovered in old age that my sister was far more influenced by the spiritual side of Christianity, an influence she still retains and is, to my mind, even stronger now than she expressed in our younger days. For myself, I have moved in the opposite direction adding a Marxist understanding to my class instinct. ii introduction to class conflict It was when I went to Grammar School that I was first brought directly into the conflict between classes. Asked to write down my hobbies, I listed reading comics and collecting fag cards. [Note: the comics I read were full of words, not the picture type comics that are more common nowadays. I had two comics each week which I swapped with a friend who also had two different ones, so I actually read quite a lot] . I was teased by my form teacher, something to which I did not respond well. As they rejected my culture, so did I reject their culture.i was often in trouble for not reading the books they wanted me to read. I read other books. For many years afterwards I would deliberately avoid classical music for the same reason. My one boast about my school was that, despite seven years of elocution, my Loughborough accent was not changed a jot. I valued the education I received at Grammar School and have much to thank certain teachers for, including the Maths, Chemistry, Biology and Physics teachers, but as far as the social environment and the attempts to make me conform to middle class norms, these I rejected. I had good friends at school but they were a separate group from my street friends. Thus Grammar School creates a division so that you either conform and move away from your former background, or you quietly rebel, do your work and study, but inwardly reject the attempt to convert you from your own background to conformity with the middle class (capitalist) norms. Having not only a solid working class base, but also the backing of non-conformity of the Chapel, I refused to accept what they offered in social terms. The problem that one finds is that you are inevitably drawn away from where you considered yourself to belong, but are not part of what they want you to be. The path followed by my younger sister’s husband was Secondary school, apprenticeship, followed by work at an engineering firm, where he worked for the rest of his working life. He fully belonged and was part of the life of the Town. I went to University, studied Mining Engineering, which included periods spent working, underground, along side miners, both as a student and later, after graduation, as a Directed Practical Trainee. My interest in mining was as a result of my reading Page Arnot’s Miners:Years of Struggle part of his history of mine workers and their union. But I was being trained for Management. My sympathies being opposed to the direction of my training. I left to become a teacher. iii The diverse natures within the Working Class This is the background to my views on class. I have, at times, been accused of seeing the working class through ‘rose coloured spectacles’. I am fully aware of the wide diversity that exists within the working class. There are good people to be found within the clubs and pubs just as there are bad people to be found within Chapels and Churches. London dockers at one time supported the racist views of Enoch Powell, and today working people support the Reform Party and march against hostels housing asylum seeking children. Anyone who takes a close interest in working class lives knows that many things happen that we would wish not to happen. Working class crimes are often more blatant and obvious than the similar crimes committed by the middle and ruling classes, who tend to be more subtle in their criminal behaviour. iv Back to the Working Class But this is to misunderstand what is meant by the ‘working class’. Hilary, my wife, grew up on a working class estate in Medway. She remembers her early life as one living in a community, in which everyone would help and support everyone else as the need arose. She particularly remembers the support given to women who had lost their husbands in the Second World War. Again, not a perfect memory, ignoring the no doubt bad incidents that probably occurred, but one that recalled a major aspect of working class life, that of community. When we are speaking of ‘class’ we are not speaking of individuals as such. Each and every individual has their own particular and special attribute, some of which they are conscious, other influences they are not aware of. So much depends on their own particular circumstances. When it comes to consideration of the working class as an entity, we have to accept a wide diversity of behaviour, political position, and general attitude. A key aspect of our work as socialist/communists is to present those aspects of working class life which are leading to a transformation of society and to challenge those aspects which are at odds with such a transformation. v. How do we define the Working Class? These thoughts were inspired by a reading of John Rees’ Marxism and the English Revolution. In this he discusses, among other things, the ‘Middling Sort’. This group played an important part in the English Revolution. He notes that these were not one cohesive group but a diverse group coming from a variety of backgrounds and for a variety of reasons. The point that he makes is that there was not a complete, binary division within the revolution, but a whole variety of different ideas that converged. But within this the social composition within society was of great importance. A valuable statement that he makes is that “(this) requires that we see class in at least six related but distinct ways; as class location, class interest, class consciousness, class organisation, class representation, and. Lass conflict [John Rees 'Marxism and the English Revolution’ page 47]. Conditions have drastically changed since the description I have given of my youth. In those days people played together (children in the street), travelled together (on buses, there were very few cars), sang together (hymns in Chapels) drank and socialised together (Working Men’s Clubs), shopped together (markets), entertained together (football, the pictures (cinemas)) and worked together (factories and mines). In other words, working ckass society was community based. There is now a significant difference in all of these activities. How do we define the working class? One way in which I have described the working class has been as those who depend upon their labour for their livelihood . On one occasion I was giving evidence at an inquiry regarding the proposal to drive a road through a working class area of the town where I lived. As part of that evidence, I claimed to be speaking on behalf of the working class. The Lawyer, acting for the Council, asked that question, who are the working class? I gave this answer. He then asked whether he was working class? My reply was that if he depended upon his work for his livelihood then, yes, he would be considered working class. An older definition would have involved property. The division in society was between those who owned property (land, factories, means of production, tools etc and houses) and those who owned nothing except their ability to work which they had to sell in order to be able to obtain the necessities of life. The situation between World War One and Two, during which my parents grew up was a time when people depended on their work, but when work for many was not available. It was a very difficult time for the working class . The events at the end of the Second World War brought a massive change. The working class was determined not to go back to the situation that existed before that War. The creation of the Welfare States and the national health service, the building of Council Housing estates and the nationalisation of major industries led to vast improvements in the lives of working people. But, as life improved and developments in science and technology led to new opportunities and forms of living and working, in travel,in education, in entertainment and communication, new conditions were created. As more people were able to buy a car, the numbers using buses declined, with the result that bus services be ame more expensive and bus provision declined. Improved transport opportunities for one section of the working class led to a deteriorating and more expensive service for others. The same, to a lesser extent, occurred in health and medical services, despite the initial aims of the NHS with treatment available free at the point of use. The same kind of analysis can be applied to,all other areas of life, most obviously in terms of the development of computers and smart phones. A clear gap has opened up between sections of the working class. As more people were able to, forced by economic pressures to, buy their own homes the trend was accelerated by the Conservative Government, under Mrs Thatcher, decision to allow Council tenants to buy their council house at a discount, allied to the refusal of the Government to allow Councils to reinvest the money received to build more council houses. Many of these homes were later resold and returned to the renting sector, but now with private owners. The large council estate near where I live is now being gentrified as evidenced by the number of newly registered cars parked on the estate. The privatisation of such entities as gas, electricity, water, some former building societies, brought many people into share ownership, something which had previously been confined to the Upper Classes. Again, with these, shares were soon sold on in many cases, so that control remained within the Upper Classes. Alongside this transformation in ‘ownership’ came the collapse of British Industry as the Government chose to base the economic prosperity of the Nation on financial institutions rather than on production. The closure of the coal mines, hosiery and other manufacturing industries such as steel led to many communities reverting to pre war economics. A further result of the post war settlement had been the growth of social services. Along with this growth came a proletarisation of workers in those professions. Whereas teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers, even lawyers and associated groups like probation officers, had once been considered as professionals, now their structures of working had changed. What had been professional structures, with all that is contained within the meaning of that term, now became managerial structures. This affected their social status, their self esteem, the control they had over their own work, and their pay. Whereas they could think of themselves as different from the mass of working people, they now found themselves in the kind of position many of them had looked down upon. Teachers, nurses, doctors have been the main source of strike action over the past few years. vi A digression to explore the situation with regard to Education The situation with regards teachers and education provides an exemplar of these changes and so deserves some more detailed consideration. The Ruling Class has always had its schools and universities. The aim of the Public Schools has been to prepare the sons of the Ruling Class to dominate and rule. The endowed schools were first brought in to ‘educate poor boys’ but were in fact the means of educating the sons of the rising Middle Class (the Bourgeoisie, the capitalist Class). The education of the working class developed from two different aims. I wrote about this in my blog (scribrat.blogspot.com Blog5 Government Policy Documents in England and Wales 1816 - 1907). The first of these aims arose from the views of ‘respectable people’ regarding the behaviour of working class children, The belief that those people held that working class children needed to be in school in order to teach them how to behave. In other words, to discipline them to behave in the was that their ‘Betters’ believed they should behave: subservient, accepting their lot in life, conforming to middle class ideals. The second aim was that, with the development of the industrial basis of society, there was a need for a better educated workforce. The logic of this second aim ultimately led to the tripartite structure of Secondary Education brought in by the 1944 Education Act, with Grammar Schools (for the middle elite), technical schools (for control and development within industry) and Modern Schools (for the mass of the working class). There was a period in the 1960s and 1970s when a more positive view of education, generally, came into a more clearer focus. A fundamental view that learning was of greater significance than teaching. Schools exist for pupils to learn. They are educational institutions. How children learn is of extreme importance. ‘Learning’ comes most readily from ‘doing’, from practice, activity. Much learning takes place in early childhood, in the home, in the community, among their playmates, by watching, by copying, by playing, by experimenting. These were the ideas that inspired the major changes in curricula (most notable in Mathematics,the Sciences and Technology (formerly craft work like wood and metalwork)) and in examinations ( with the pupil centred, testing what had been taught of the CSE examination as opposed to the teach what is to be tested approach of the old GCE). This approach also led to the development of the Comprehensive School (to remove the selection process at 11 years of age which led to a child’s future being largely determined by a test which strongly favoured those from a more affluent and middle class background). It also led to developments within schools that were more geared to a collegiate approach to school organisations. Schools have always had a hierarchical structure with headmasters the dominant and determinant force dictating the policies that directed the work of the school. Within this, teachers did have some control within their own classroom. The new approach sought to create a structure that enabled all teachers to play a full part in all aspects of the education of young people. This included the direct classroom teaching, the organisation of the school structures, the development of curricula, and the means of assessment (not the testing and examination structures of the past and, very sadly, the even worse structures that we have now). That was the positive trend, aspects of which I studied and wrote about as part of my work for the Diploma in Educational Administration from the Institute of Education, London University (The organisation and Control of Schools in a Democratic Society, Department of Educational Administration, Institute of Education, London University 1975 (never published)). Sadly, this whole trend was ended as the Conservative Government, led by Mrs Thatcher,extended the capitalist system to Schools. The change was made from a professional approach to one of managerialism. Teachers became subject to a Manager, the Head, and Heads of Academic Departments were pressurised to become middle managers rather than senior professionals leading a team of professional teachers. The whole dynamics of the School were changed. Teachers, at all levels, have always had due regard to the needs of their pupils, a,one with their academic teaching, they also looked to the pastoral needs of pupils. This was an integral part of their work.However, along with the change to a managerial approach came a clear distinction between subject, academic, work and the pastoral care of pupils. Where once the dominant force within the school were the subject head, now the Heads of House and Heads of year became dominant. The reason for this change also had to do with the change from professionalism to managerialism. The role of the school came more clearly in line with the older concept of disciplining the working class to conform to middle class values. The role of the school as a pastoral institution is of great importance. But this instinct of teachers to care for their pupils can be used by those controlling education in order to divert that instinct from care to control. An insidious change that saw schools as a means of dealing with problems that arose from developments which were taking place in society generally. A simple example being Breakfast Clubs which are needed because pupils are going to school hungry because both parents (if indeed the child has two parents) are unable to ensure that children go to school fully prepared because they have to be at work. Such developments within school are seen as an easier alternative that producing a detailed policy that makes complete provision to meet all the needs of children and young people. The change in school structures from the control of Local Authorities, with School Governors having some links with the community they serve, to Academies, no longer accountable to those communities, was not the first cause of the problems with schools, but a consequential step along the desire of the Ruling Class to bring everything under the aegis of capitalism. I have given this detailed consideration of education because it is an area in which I have worked and witness many of the things I describe. But I have no doubt that similar analyses can be made in terms of Health, Social services, and all other sections of administration, commerce and industrial life. What we have witnessed are strikes by teachers, nurses, doctors. Often this is seen to be with regard to the restoration of levels of remuneration (pay). But also, and often more important, is the question of working conditions. There is, in all of these professions, a sense of loss of control of their own working environment. These are skilled workers who have studied and gained experience and an understanding of what their work entails. But they are unable to put that knowledge into practice in order to benefit those whom they serve and their professions as a whole. In this they are in exactly the same position as the manual labourer who, at one time, was fully in control of his work, but now finds that he is simply an operative of a machine, whose mechanical,operations dictate the actions of the operator. Work is a necessity for the vast bulk of people within society. It can be a means of personal fulfilment. But under capitalism it is just a means of exploiting people in order that a minority, who form the Ruling Class, can become even richer and live lives of greater luxury. More could be said but I believe that I have made the point that there is a common interest between the worker by brain and the worker by hand. Neither group will be able to gain full satisfaction from their Labour under capitalism . The Marxist concept of alienation, and of the means of overcoming alienation, are as relevant now as they were when Marx first expressed them. vii Fundamental changes affecting Society The fact that all of these groups, the professional classes, were part of the working class, was largely ignore by those working within them, but now the situation within those professions has forced a change. But that is not the only change that has taken place. These developments should have led to a more united, stronger, working class, with those workers by brain uniting with the manual workers by hand. But this has not happened. For this we must look to the other major change that has taken place. As mentioned earlier, a central feature of working class life was community. The sense that we all, despite our many differences, had a great many more things in common. Community (or Society to use a slightly different term) was of great importance, in fact, fundamental to everyone’s life. However, a subtle change was taking place as the Ruling Class sought to reverse the trends that was leading towards a socialisation of society. In the 1960s there was a strong movement towards a more unified society in terms of Comprehensive Schools with the hoped for demise of Grammar (and even Public Schools). The first step in the restoration of Ruling Class (Middle Class in the old sense) ideas was when Harold MacMillan argued that ‘You have never had it so good’ (in 1957). It was of course true, life had never been better for working people, but that was because of the policies brought in by the Labour Givernment under pressure from the Working Class in 1945. The Ruling Class Conservative Governments would later go on to undermine these advances. It was finally put into words when, thirty years later, Margaret That her boldly stated that ‘there is no such thing as society’. The hall mark of the Middle Class, the Bourgeoisie, the Capitalist, was individualism. It was the individual, not the community, that was of importance. The individual had to be free to develop their own interests, with no regard to how these interests affected anyone else. Here is the sharp,dividing line between the working class, for whom the community as a whole is of importance as against the individual, and the Ruling Class who stress the importance of allowing the powerful to develop their own interests, valuing competition and division. The logical conclusion of this Ruling Class approach is Capitalism, environmental disintegration and war. viii what of the Working Class Today? But how does this affect the Working Class of the present day? It is sort of recognised that many groups, who were once on,y partially recognised as being part of the working class, are now fully proletarianised: teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, and many other groups. All of the first three have resorted to strike action over pay and working conditions. But there is a difference between a coal miners or steel worker going on strike and a doctor or a teacher. For the former, the immediate effect is on the profits of the company and the economy of the Country. The effect on other workers is indirect and not immediate. For the latter the immediate effect is on the clients, the pupils or patients. The former affect the Ruling Class directly, the Working Class indirectly. For the latter the effect is reversed. This is not an argument against such strike action but a realisation that conditions have changed. Strikes always have a divisive effect in Society, witness the sharp division, countrywide, with the great coal mine strike of 1984. Along with strukecaction there has to be political arguments which make clear that the strike is simply an expression of the class conflict between the Ruling and Working Classes. The problem as I see it is that the Ruling Class has successfully rested a division within the Working Class. By successive policies, like the right to buy (Council Houses), the selling off of the service industries to create a different approach to share holding, allied to such developments as car usage, mobile phones, sake of alcohol in shops and supermarkets thus making pubs redundant in many cases, the television of sport and the access through smart phones and tablets to entertainment, has created an environment in which it appears that the individual is all important. Social measures, which on the whole have been extremely positive, such as the removal of legal bans on such things as homosexuality, the recohpgbition of gay marriage, the positive moves on transgender issues, all have created a greater freedom for individuals for whom their personal position has been a source of acute distress. However, what has also happened, in recognising the past injustice, and the need to correct the approach to such issues as racism, sexism, trans issues, there has been a danger that this approach, combined with the enormous power of Ruling Class propaganda stressing the rights of individual, has led society in general to move away from the communalism that was once the strength of the Working Class. I fear that there is a danger of the Working Class falling between a divide, on the one side that group that has gained from the post war settlement, that have been able to take advantage of the educational opportunities that opened up, and are relatively (note the term, not well paid but relatively) well paid compared to a large section of the population who have much less security and opportunity in work or in social activity. The extent to which charity has grown as a feature of life, particularly in terms of food banks, shows that the divide is real, but also not complete as we read of nurses a d teachers needing to assess food banks. The need for Breakfast lins to,feed children who cannot learn whilst feeling hungry, is a further example of how a positive move is at the same time a retrogressive step. No child should go to school hungry, it is a failure of our approach to child care. The rights of women to work on the same basis as men is obvious. But what of the rights of the child to a secure base, which includes food, home comforts, and loving relationships. ix What should Socialists/Communists argue in Modern Society All,of this raises the questions of what should socialists/communists be arguing in modern society? Is our message still relevant. The fundamental division in society, as set out by Marx is between the owners of the means of production and workers who own nothing but their ability to work, is still relevant. Bit this is obscured in modern society despite the fact that we ought to speak in terms of billionaires rather than millionaires. Whereas we once spoke of the monopoly exercised by the News Paper proprietors, now there is an even greater monopoly exercised by the large technology companies controlling social media. The class division still,exists but it has changed spatially.The division is now Worldwide. One example is that the minerals needed for, among other things, s art phones and many other technologies, are mined in Countries long distances from where they are used. The mines in Chile are operated by automatic drills and loaders, the workers divided into indigenous labour forced to do mundane work and the skilled, highly paid engineers who are on call to remedy faults when the automatic machines break down [For details see Planetary Mine: Territories of extraction under Late Capitalism by Martin Arboleda]. Given these new conditions what should our approach be? There is, without doubt, a crisis in modern capitalism. The state of international politics, the decline of the USA and the emphasis they now place on armed conflict, the many wars affecting so many different countries, the social division within countries including Britain and the USA, the threat of Nuclear War, the severe climate crisis, all evidence this crisis. There is no solution to these crises that can be found nine the expanding nature of capitalism. The fundamental directive power of capitalism is through competition, the effect of which is that the strongest few dominate by becoming fewer and richer, leaving the growing majority to become ever dominated and poorer. The only solution can come from a class that has no interest in dominating any other class. Changing leaders, but leaving the system unchanged simply leads to a continuation of present chaos. Only the Working Class, which has no interest in dominating any other class, can offer any hope of a resolution.But to what extent is this true of the modern working class? I have mentioned the divide in the class between those who have retained some of the gains from the post war settlement and those who have lost out through the closure of major industries. I have also shown that developments within the various professions has led to a close agreement between the needs of workers by brain and manual workers by hand. The danger we face, politically, is that social issues, which cut across classes, will be allowed to predominate to the exclusion of class issues. The basic ckass issue is the control of the economy. Which also means the ability of the individual to control their own life. At present there is not a situation in which Revolution is possible. The old order is collapsing but the new order is not yet born. In these circumstances we have to find ways of uniting the working class around issues that are relevant to the whole class. To support all sections of the class involved in direct struggle. To defend the principles of socialism/communism in this Country and abroad. And to give support to all oppressed groups. Whatever issue we may pick up, it is clear that only a partial solution can be found within the present system and that a complete solution requires us to go further recognising that only a complete transformation of society is necessary. Only the Working Class has the power to bring about a free, classless society in which everyone can live in peace and with complete satisfaction. Scribar 29.12.25