Rise of the working class
Source: Labor College lecture
First published: Labor College Review, November 1986
Transcription, mark-up: Steve Painter
By the middle of the 19th century, vast changes in social development had taken place. New class relationships had sprung up resulting from the changes in the economy. Two new classes confronted each other; the capitalist class and the working class. History now became the struggle between these two classes. Thought also had changed, as ideas of socialism began to arise. We must pause here to examine some of this thought, although only in bare outline, for this subject will be dealt with in our philosophy course, where it will be seen that socialism could only be brought to light in this period of developing forces of production.
That thought is restricted to the developing forces of production and the social structure built up from it is illustrated clearly in the beliefs of the utopian socialists. To them, capitalism progressed history to the stage of the abolition of man’s tyranny over man in abolishing slavery and serfdom. Capitalism, therefore, was absolute, the horrors existing within it of exploitation could be eradicated through reforms. In other words, truth was absolute and morality permanent. Things and their mental images, ideas, are isolated, to be considered apart from each other. This led the utopians to the belief that men would arise who, through appeal to the better nature of man would force a change for the better upon society. Robert Owen, for example, appealed to Queen Victoria and the Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene against the frightful conditions of poverty existing among the working class, as well as inhuman exploitation — needless to say, the appeal fell on deaf ears. In philosophy, the utopians were characterised as idealists: that is, that ideas within many are primary and the material world secondary. That man’s ideas of what is good would ultimately change the world.
Marx and Engels were the first to discard the ideas of the utopians and to lift the thought on socialism to a scientific category. This they did first through the study of philosophy. The historic and economic writings of Marx and Engels are permeated with philosophic ideas. The philosophy in this case was derived from the dialectical method of reason of the idealist philosopher Hegel. Marx changed the method to a materialist form, which he expressed in dialectical materialism.
Unlike the stationary ideas and beliefs of the utopians, the dialectic viewed everything in motion and continual change and development. Where the utopians said: “a thing exists or does not” — it is good or it is bad, it is right or it is wrong — the dialectical method stated that these absolute statements could not be made about anything. All things change. What apparently exists in absolute form is changing every moment of its existence. What today is true can be false tomorrow. What today is good can turn to its opposite and at some stage of its existence be bad.
The dialectical reasoning takes the following form: one idea gives birth to its opposite, which arises out of it through a contradiction of it. From the conflict of the two arises amalgamation, a synthesis — a new idea. The first proposition is termed the thesis, its contradiction the antithesis, the second and the third together the synthesis. Or in other words, the positive, the negative and the negation of the negation.
For example: a grain of wheat in the soil disappears; in its place arises a plant, which is the negation of the seed. Yet the life of the grain still lives in the plant. The plant grows and produces an ear containing many ears of wheat. As soon as these grains ripen the plant dies, it is negated in its turn, but in its place are many grains of wheat. The life that was in the grain and passed into the plant is now in many grains. The grain was, was not, and now exists in increased quantity. With the human being, the boy is negated by the youth, which in turn is negated by the man. It is the same life and body — changes within the human structure, which at intervals make leaps to something new, different, yet the same life. In sociology the dialectic points to the destruction of the old by the new force developing within it. From the period of primitive communism every society has produced the seed of its own destruction. Thus feudalism (thesis) cannot exist without its (antithesis) serf, and out of the conflict develops (synthesis), the leap to something new — capitalism. In its turn, capitalism (thesis) produces its (antithesis) working class. From the conflict, mankind is faced with the leap to socialism. Thus, while there is recognition of the term evolution; it was the dialectical philosophy that first explained leaps (revolution) to the new.
In outline, we have explained the thought that arose with the development of capitalist society: the utopians with their final truths, their conceptions of right and wrong, fairness and justice, and the Marxists, with the dialectic, the science of the universal law of motion and evolution in nature, society and thought.
It is essential for students to grasp something of these thoughts, for they dominate social history today. The dialectic, which was exceedingly popular in the early stages of the 19th century was very soon discarded following the revolutionary history of the working class in 1848. Marxist thought had great influence in Europe from the middle of last century and went on to the 1917 revolution in Russia. However, after the 1930s, the murderous attack on the Marxists, who led the Russian Revolution, by its own self-styled adherents developed a void in dialectical thought, which lost many advantages to the workers in situations developing ripeness for socialism. Today, reformism, the line of the utopian socialists, is very much in evidence. With the absence of a dialectical analysis of events, the leadership of the labour movement thinks of an everlasting existence of things. It replaces the class struggle with the permanency of capitalist society, any disturbance in which can be solved in a capitalist way.
Out of Marxist philosophy comes his materialist conception of history. The theory that history is not determined by the wishes and desires of man but by the productive forces — the way in which things are produced and the superstructure built on that. It is also brilliantly illustrated in the Communist Manifesto, published by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels on the eve of the 1848 revolution in France.
The Great French Revolution (1789-94) failed to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution. After Robespierre’s fall (Thermidor) the radical measures of the petty bourgeoisie (Jacobins) began to be annulled. The forces of the petty bourgeoisie and the workers who fought with them were exhausted. The peasants, having gained in their class interests were no longer interested in continuing the struggle. The big bourgeoisie (finance and industrial) were more interested in squabbles over their conflicting interests and unable to seize the power. Finally, General Napoleon Bonaparte, through the agency of military force dispersed the Jacobin Directory replacing it by the Consulate (1799), in which he decreed himself First Consul and in 1804 was made Emperor.
Students should interest themselves fully in this event. In Marxist analysis, it is termed Bonapartism and has occurred over and over again in history. It is a situation in which neither force in society is in sufficient strength to seize the power. The power, in these circumstances, falls to the military with full agreement with the bourgeoisie, which accepts a position that forces them also from power in the belief that once order is restored by the army and the class struggle subdued, it, the bourgeoisie, will be restored to power. This was the position after the Great French Revolution and it also became the position — Bonapartism — after the 1848 events in France.
Referred to as the First Empire, Napoleon’s restoration of order enabled the bourgeoisie to determine the policy of the government. The peasantry were quietened by maintaining most of their gains won in the revolution. However, the defeat of Napoleon by the feudal coalition in Europe resulted in a restoration of the old Bourbon monarchy destroyed by the revolution. The nobles who had fled France returned and endeavoured to win back their old privileges. They received millions in compensation for their loss of property. The conflict between the industrial and financial bourgeoisie grew to further intensity with the return of the Bourbons and in July 1830 it resulted in a new outbreak in which the Bourbon monarchy was replaced by a monarch of the Orleans dynasty, Louis Philippe, who represented the financial bourgeoisie: “Henceforth the bankers will rule in France,” declared the banker Jacques Lafitte.
The reason for the success of this section of the bourgeoisie rather than the industrialists can be seen by contrasting French society with British. In England, the industrial revolution had transformed the entire national economy, while France was still predominantly an agricultural country. In Britain, the peasants were 23 per cent of the population, in France 75 per cent.
After the great revolution in France, small holdings became the chief form of land tenure. The peasant burdened by taxes could not advance far on his resources; he was compelled to contract debts or rent more land and try to improve its cultivation. In either case he was compelled to resort to loans, that is mortgage on his land. Thus every year the peasant paid interest on his loans and repaid part of the original sum borrowed. By 1840, these payments amounted to 550 million francs a year — about one-third of the net income of the French peasantry. The peasant was driven to mortgage more and more land and the moneylenders made greater and greater profits. The usurer ruled in the village, while over the whole of France banker-finance capital ruled.
Another source of income for the bankers was the state budget deficit. These increased over the years as a result of prolonged wars and the numerous officials and officers required in a country of small peasants. These deficits were met by loans, which the financiers granted at very high interest rates.
The industrial bourgeoisie was not dominant because industrial development in France, although increasing, was far from the level of industrial growth in Britain. From 1839 to 1847, the number of steam engines in France increased from 2540 to 4583. Coal production in the same period increased from 18,000 tons to more than five million tons. However, there was considerable opposition to large-scale industry from the petty bourgeoisie.
The working class grew in numbers as a result of industrial development but the large majority were employed in small concerns and many worked in their homes. The idea of becoming independent businessmen still possessed a large section of workers, and with the small masters they opposed large scale industry.
Here then, is the historical materialist analysis of France on the eve of the 1848 revolution. Not only does this analysis of the productive forces explain different groupings in French society but their strivings as well as the form that the class struggle would take. The social conditions were aggravated by political manoeuvrings. Of the French population of 24 million, only 240,000, the richest bourgeoisie and landowners, were entitled to vote. The financial bourgeoisie, with their corrupt methods of enriching themselves, gave rise to general dissatisfaction. The industrial bourgeoisie was opposed to the regime, not to the monarchy but the limited franchise.
Events came to a head with the economic crisis of 1848. A comparison with the former year gives some impression of its character. Imports to France in 1847 were worth ₣1290 million; these fell to ₣708 million in 1848. Industrial production in Paris over the same period fell from ₣1463 million to ₣677 million. Figures for unemployment rose considerably — some 186,000 workers were dismissed. The conflict, which had begun as a struggle to reform the franchise, developed into revolution and on February 24, 1848, Louis Philippe was overthrown.
The purpose of the February revolution was to complete the bourgeois revolution: replace the monarchy with a republic, extend political power to the industrial bourgeoisie and aid the transformation of Europe from feudal to capitalist economy. However, the bourgeoisie confined their opposition to parliament. It was the working class that made the February revolution. In 1830, the workers played a decisive part in destroying the Bourbon monarchy, but inexperience had prevented them from proclaiming a republic. By 1848 the workers had not only increased numerically but in experience also. They were determined to make use of their victory. From Paris, the workers marched on the provisional government demanding a republic. With this demand accepted, they then raised their own class demands: abolition of unemployment and formation of a ministry of labour to enforce that. They compelled the provisional government to include petty bourgeois representatives, Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin and Louis Blanc as well as a direct class representative Albert L'Ouvier (Alexandre Martin).
Recording this episode, Karl Marx in his work, The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte wrote:
The proletariat having won it (the Republic) by force of arms, put the stamp of its class upon the new creation, and proclaimed the socialist republic. Thus was indicated the general significance of modern revolution — a significance which was, however, in this case sharply contrasted with all that was immediately practical in view of the materials to hand.
Marx’s reference to “all that was immediately practical in view of the materials to hand”, refers to the fact that industrial capitalism had not yet achieved its historic position. Capitalism, and its negation, the proletariat, had to develop further before the conditions ripened for the socialist challenge. However, the independent action of the workers changed the relationship of class forces in France. The independent action of the working class helped to cement unity among the bourgeoisie (financiers and industrialists), an important factor worthy of note because this tactic is always repeated once the dominant class finds its position challenged. As soon as there is independent class action by the workers, disagreement among the upper sections of the bourgeoisie is eliminated, and the move is made for unity of all against the workers.
As already indicated, Louis Blanqui ignored organisational questions in favour of a direct onslaught. Even though in a minority, he succeeded in whipping up support for mass demonstrations against the provisional government. This action forced the government to postpone elections to the National Assembly with a view to creating calm in which to put its propaganda to the populace. The Blanquists also forced on the government a compromise position in which representatives of the government met representatives of the workers in an endeavour to settle their problems peacefully. Blanqui opposed this compromise, known as the Luxemburg Commission, urging the workers to overthrow the government forces. Louis Blanc, however, urged confidence in the petty bourgeois and workers’ representatives to make the Luxemburg Commission work in favour of the workers. Blanc, who was made chairman of the commission, had his point of view endorsed by the workers.
The postponement of the elections was, as indicated by Blanqui, valueless to the workers’ cause. Their leaders wasted time in endless discussions, while the bourgeoisie was busy welding its united position in preparation for a frontal attack. They satisfied the interests of the financiers by paying the interest on state bonds before the date at which they were due. On the other hand, savings banks were restrained from paying out sums larger than ₣100, and direct taxation, which fell mainly on the peasantry, was increased by 45 per cent. Thus the peasantry was forced into opposition to the republic.
In March 1848, national workshops were set up as part of the plan to relieve unemployment. The work done in them was non-productive in character and it soon became obvious that unemployment — there were 100,000 employed in the national workshops by May — was being used for the purpose of discrediting this social measure in the eyes of the public, thus isolating the working class further. The government allowed propaganda slogans throughout France, such as, “100,000 idlers living at France’s expense”.
Thus, when elections to the National Assembly were held on April 23, it was easy to forecast the result. A great majority supported the bourgeoisie against the revolutionary republic. The workers of Paris responded to the result with demonstrations against the National Assembly. Their demands included support for revolutionary movements in Europe, mainly in Germany and Austria, which had become influenced by the class struggle in France. The government concentrated troops around Paris. On June 21, it suspended the national workshops and the workers responded with a call to arms. For four days (June 23-26), they fought the government forces at the barricades. Finally, the army of the National Guard under General Louis-Eugene Caviagnac, succeeded in suppressing the insurrection with great slaughter.
After the June insurrection the bourgeoisie sought to consolidate its position in the presidential elections of December 1848, but its nominee, General Caviagnac, was easily defeated by Louis Bonaparte, nephew of the first emperor. The elections reveal how, with the crushing of the workers, the old disagreements among the bourgeoisie again came to the fore. The December elections included a struggle between the peasantry and the working class, which it was feared would confiscate the land. At the same time, the election result reflected dissatisfaction with the exploiter of the peasantry, the financial bourgeoisie.
The first Napoleon had been exceedingly popular with the peasants. They considered his victories over feudal Europe had favoured them and enabled them to retain the land won during the great revolution. The mantle of glory thus descended on the nephew. The presidential elections also revealed diversity of interests between the small holder of land and the big bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie was looking for unity with the working class.
To prevent their displacement by the growing discontent, the bourgeoisie limited the franchise. By 1850, power was slipping from them to such a degree that instability was interfering with business. It is in this situation, as the bourgeoisie felt power slipping from its grasp and no single party was sufficiently developed to seize power, the bourgeoisie looked to the suspension of democracy and reliance on the military to take control and restore order for their return. This is again a reference to Bonapartism — a situation already referred to, and repeated again and again in history when capitalist regimes needed propping up. In this circumstance, the bourgeoisie withdrew support from their parliamentary representatives, who were fighting against the attempts of Bonaparte to restore the empire and install himself as dictator.
Karl Marx, in The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, brilliantly analyses this situation of Bonapartism:
Its — the bourgeoisie’s — attitude showed that the fight to maintain its public interest, its class interests, and its political power was regarded by it as undesirable, and as nothing more than a disturbance of the tranquil course of private business … the aim of the bourgeoisie was to establish a strong government, one with unlimited powers, one under whose protection businessmen could concentrate their attention upon private business affairs. Thus, the bourgeoisie declared unanimously its eagerness for abdication.
The bourgeois class, together with other classes, had to be condemned to political nullity in order that bourgeois moneybags might be saved. The bourgeoisie must be sacrificed to the crown. [Our emphasis]
In this way Bonaparte won an easy victory. On December 1851, he dissolved the National Assembly and a year later had himself proclaimed Emperor Napoleon III. “The bourgeoisie bowed to the sword,” wrote Marx.
The period commencing with 1848 is exceedingly important for labour students of history. The materialist conception of history is used brilliantly by Marx in his works: The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The class struggles in France, 1848-50. The counter-revolutionary attitude of the bourgeoisie once their power is challenged; the relationship of forces required to prevent a Bonapartist situation; the tactical measures to adopt in situations of compromise such as the Luxemburg Commission are all problems that are often misunderstood by the labour movement. Thus, ignorance has played a large part in defeats suffered by the workers on historic occasions of class struggle when independent action could well have changed the course of history.
Karl Marx, The class struggles in France, 1848-50
Karl Marx, The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte