Class Conflict in Britain :: Politics Political

Class Conflict in Britain Class affair has graduall(a)y been cut by growing affluence. The history of all notwithstanding existing societies is the history of kinspersonstruggle. This famous opening line from Marx communist Manifestorefers to the struggle between the labouring, working shapees and thebourgeoisie owners of the means of production. The parturiency areexploited by the capitalists for profit and are at that placefore coerce tolive in poverty and dire conditions. Marx predicted that eventually theproletariat would misdirect this capitalist system and replace it witha system which is often referred to as Communist - whereby the workers ache control. Today, whenever the words class or class conflict arementioned people normally turn to Marx definition and picture the poorworker fighting for remedy pay, better living and working conditions.The typical class conflict is typified as workers versus the owners, orbourgeoisie.In Britain this struggle did not develop in the mood that Marx predicted- there has never been a genuine proletariat revolutionary threat. Inits place has been a tradition of reformist socialism with the Labour companionship and the Trades Unions being the main campaigners. In Britain thetraditional class conflict is often depicted as Labour fellowship versusConservative 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 today this traditional class conflict, depicted in nobetter fashion than the Miners Strike of 1984, has been diluted bygrowing affluence. In otherwords the working class have departeconomically better off. They were given the right to buy councilhouses, to own shares and have, it is argued, make up more middle class.The working class today have a lot more to lose in a fierce classstruggle and are therefore happy to uphold the system. The huge e xasperatein the traditional industries, such as coal, has coincided with a risein 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 withal no doubting the fact that it is an exaggerated view. Tosay that we are all middle class (Blair 1998) is an absurdity. Classconflict may have been subdued only if not only because of growingaffluence. The capitalists have managed to silence what was once a