Class Conflict in Britain :: Politics Political

Class Conflict in Britain Class conflict has gradually been diluted by growing affluence. The tale of all hitherto existing societies is the history of partstruggle. This famous fountain line from Marx Communist Manifestorefers to the struggle between the labouring, working markes and the bourgeoisie owners of the means of production. The childbed atomic number 18exploited by the capitalists for profit and ar therefore forced tolive in poverty and dire conditions. Marx predicted that eventually theproletariat would overthrow this capitalist agreement and replace it witha system which is often referred to as Communist - whereby the histrions restrain control. Today, whenever the words syndicate or class conflict arementioned people usually turn to Marx definition and picture the poorworker fighting for better pay, better living and working conditions.The typical class conflict is typified as workers versus the owners, orbourgeoisie.In Britain this struggle did not fall apa rt in the way that Marx predicted- there has never been a genuine proletariat revolutionary threat. Inits place has been a tradition of reformist fabianism with the LabourParty and the Trades Unions being the main campaigners. In Britain thetraditional class conflict is often depicted as Labour Party versus conservativist Party. The Labour Party have fought for workers rights andhave been supported at elections by the working class, whereas theConservatives have drawn most of their support from the middle classes.It is argued that now this traditional class conflict, depicted in nobetter behavior than the Miners Strike of 1984, has been diluted bygrowing affluence. In otherwords the working class have becomeeconomically better off. They were given the right to defile councilhouses, to own shares and have, it is argued, become more middle class.The working class straightaway have a lot more to lose in a fierce classstruggle and are therefore happy to bear upon the system. The h uge declinein the traditional industries, such as coal, has coincided with a organizein the size of the non-manual, service industry - the sphere in whichthe middle classes tend to be employed. In 1964 50% of the workforcewere employed in the manual sector, compared to 36% in 1992. Thesefigures coincide with a 15% rise in the non-manual, petty bourgeoisiejobs.Whilst there may be some truth in this embourgeoisement theory,there is also no doubting the fact that it is an exaggerated view. To imagine that we are all middle class (Blair 1998) is an absurdity. Classconflict may have been subdued but not only because of growingaffluence. The capitalists have managed to repose what was once a