The Working Class in the Nineteenth Century¶
Core Argument¶
In the nineteenth century, the British working class developed along a path markedly distinct from its continental counterparts, shaped by the early and overwhelming success of British capitalism. Chartism had exhausted itself a full decade before the First International emerged, its radical edge blunted by a series of material concessions. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, the explosive industrial expansion that made Britain the workshop of the world, the enactment of the ten-hour day in 1847, the mass emigration of Irish labour to America, and the extension of the urban suffrage in 1867 all served to improve conditions for the upper strata of the proletariat. This era of “possibilism”—a conscious adaptation to the framework of national capitalism—opened for British workers two decades earlier than for workers on the continent. British trade unionists initially joined the International not out of revolutionary solidarity, but as a defensive measure against the importation of continental blacklegs during strikes.
The fundamental basis of this development was imperialist plunder. Britain’s capitalist growth was built upon the robbery of the world, which granted the upper proletariat a tangible economic stake in global dominion. The working class consequently confined itself to pressuring bourgeois parties, becoming habituated to the exploitation of backward countries. An independent working-class policy began to stir only as Germany began to squeeze Britain from world markets. Britain thus became the most conservative country for proletarian revolution. Its early capitalist development and world robbery created privileged positions for both the bourgeoisie and a section of the workers. Insularity spared Britain the militarism of a land army, while its naval militarism required no universal service. The bourgeoisie used these conditions to separate the skilled labour aristocrats from the lower strata, instilling a narrow trade-union caste spirit. Parliamentary rivalry between Liberals and Tories provided safety-valves, supplemented by the systematic bribery of worker leaders.
Trotsky argues that British working-class consciousness is backward relative to its advanced capitalist technique because bourgeois culture has exercised a prolonged, hypnotic influence over the workers and their leaders. The powerful British bourgeoisie trained a layer of labour leaders who became servile and patriotic, praised even by bourgeois newspapers like The Sunday Times. This was achieved through constant pressure: the press, churches, and social life all enforced bourgeois norms, while open irreligion required extraordinary courage. Consequently, British Menshevism (reformism) is strong and communism weak. This is not a sign of high civilisation but a dialectical combination of advanced technique and political backwardness. Trotsky contrasts this with Russia, where a weak bourgeoisie and a proletariat without craft traditions allowed rapid revolutionary development. He concludes that while the British proletariat will find it harder to seize power than the Russian one did, once it does, socialist construction will be far easier and quicker due to Britain’s higher economic base. The relationship between economic base and political superstructure is thus complex: a powerful bourgeois superstructure can delay the development of a revolutionary proletarian party, but the base ultimately prevails.