Imagine a Conservative Party intent on moving to the political centre but anxious about alienating its Right-wing by doing so. One way of resolving this problem would be to appoint as its deputy leader a wine merchant who owned a slice of Aberdeenshire, wore the finest tweeds in Westminster and spoke up for traditional values at every turn. Admired for his patrician manner, flamboyant waistcoats and fondness for the Elizabethan lute, he would be a living symbol of the fact that the party had retained its roots in tradition at the very moment it was busy scrapping much of what it once stood for.
The Labour equivalent of such a figure was John Prescott, a man who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and the shackling of the trade unions, but who did so in a Yorkshire accent which proclaimed him a man of the people. He drove a Jaguar and was touchy about his status, but who cared when he could down a pint of bitter in one go? The British love a lord, but they love a character even more, and Prescott was nothing if not that. Forthright, bellicose and bloody-minded, he catered for the British admiration for those who refuse to be anything but themselves.
English individualism is very different from the American variety. Individualism in the United States is a strenuous, muscular affair, a matter of conquest and dominion, of expanding one’s powers and flexing the will. In England, it’s a more a matter of lovable eccentricity, of doing what you like in quiet defiance of social convention. Individualists in English culture don’t blazon their name on high-risers but stand in pubs with a parrot on their shoulder (I used to know an Oxford don who did just that). They run the London Marathon dressed as washing machines or share their bed with a chimpanzee. If we feel affection for these oddballs, it’s because they vicariously fulfil our own desire to flout social convention while being too timid to do so. It was why so many voters warmed to Boris Johnson, another political jester. It’s also one of the reasons why we like toddlers, who are incapable of doing the conventional thing and are just ruthlessly, spontaneously themselves. The modern mantra “I like to be myself” is appealing because in a world of images and fantasises, so many people feel that they can’t be, or that they don’t have a definite enough identity to express. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein liked to be himself as well. Being themselves is some people’s problem.
If the political establishment indulges such idiosyncratic figures, greeting their antics with a patronising smile, it’s not least because it knows they are basically harmless. The jester may beat the monarch around the head with a bladder of dried peas, but that’s what he’s paid to do. As Shakespeare puts it in Twelfth Night, there’s no harm in a licensed Fool. Prescott’s role was to give Tony Blair political cover. While Blair and his cronies invited the rich to get even richer, the bruiser from Hull was at hand with his blustering, no-nonsense, syntactically chaotic style to make such policies sound as authentically socialist as Keir Hardie. It was as though a creature from a working-class that was rapidly becoming extinct had somehow managed to survive into the modern age, like a wolf boy discovered deep in the forest.
Prescott was so much a one-off, as a solitary plebeian character among a bunch of suave public schoolboys, that (ironically enough) he lent credence to the middle-class liberal myth that the working-class has all but disappeared. Not only the working class, in fact, but social class as such. The dressed-down mateyness of the modern office, where you call the boss Pettikins or Lover Boy, is part of a decentralised, network-based, team-oriented, information-rich, open-neck-shirted capitalism very far from the old social hierarchies and exclusions. Leftists, however, aren’t particularly concerned with whether the CEO wears sneakers to work. They are more struck by the fact that (as The Communist Manifesto predicted) capital today is concentrated in fewer hands than ever before, while globally speaking the ranks of the destitute and dispossessed continue to swell. Class is about property and power, not about whether you pronounce “basin” to rhyme with “bison”. Far from being an outdated notion peddled by a diehard far-Left, it is the dreary reality of everyday life for most citizens of the world. The fact that Etonians learn how to slur their speech, or that the European aristocracy are honoured to hobnob with Mick Jagger, has signally failed to usher in the classless society.
On a global scale, nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that class no longer matters. Most of the mega-cities of the south of the planet are stinking slums rife with disease and overcrowding — slum-dwellers represent one third of the global urban population. The urban poor more generally constitutes at least half of the world’s population. Alongside the garment makers and casual labourers there are hawkers, hustlers, sex workers, food and drink sellers and rickshaw pullers, which is to say an immense layer of unemployed or sporadically employed workers. Taken together, they from the fastest growing social group on the planet. In Latin America, this informal economy now employs over half the workforce.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI do hope Terrys’ private life has been satisfactory. His professional life has been a waste of time.
Brilliant!
You’re forgetting that he’s a greatly esteemed academic. ” By far the largest group of wage labourers in his time were domestic servants, most of whom were women”….actually this group never more than 4%. I was going to suggest he stuck to literature…hmmm
If only Eagleton could stick to the observational writing at the start of the article (really quite good). But he always triggers himself with something like “class” and gets stuck in his rat hole of Marxist-loser nonsense.
Meanwhile, in spite of Eagleton’s claims, many of these new white collar working class proletarians in the public sector (from the ever victimised trade unions) are pushing ahead to a future of four days weeks (for five days pay) and permanent working from home. But they’re still victims in Eagleton world. And the rest of us are still guilty.
I couldn’t get much further than the beginning for feeling ill.
Yes, dear Terry, those poor union barons who earn a pittance, yet wrangle 70K a year for train drivers. Never trust a Marxist. Even an ex-Marxist. Which Terry is.
As a student of history, I’m with you and will never trust a Marxist, but ex-Marxists are redeemable…see Claire Fox, for instance.
Marx of course knew all about domestic servants especially his slave which he made pregnant, Helene Demuth.
So maybe he just wished more of the working class were servant women so he could take sexual advantage of them?
David Blunkett, John Reid, Alan Johnson, Frank Dobson: suave public schoolboys! Er, really? But that’s a niggle.
What has happened in recent decades is far more complex than Prof. Eagleton let’s on. In the last thirty years, Africa’s middle class has trebled, India’s has quadrupled. The West has stagnated, whereas the rest of the world is racing to catch up.
This is inconvenient to this jeremiad to growing proletarianisation, and therefore ignored.
He’s hopelessly out of touch, still trying to fit his lifelong Marxist narrative into events with ever-increasing irrelevance.
Eagleton stands as a parody of the “right-on” Sixties revolutionary in his own lunchtime- the academic equivalent of Citizen Smith.
Far more concerned about elite over-production combined with AI eviscerating the thinking class. Working class muscularity is unrest; bitter elites is revolution and they often co-exist and the former historically provided the manpower for the latter. Fascinating watching the 4th turning start to move from naissance to emergence. The world will be a very different place by 2032.
Marx was good on the diagnosis, less so on the prognosis, but Author correct to outline elements remain as true today as in late C19th. It’s an uncomfortable fact for many on the Right that wealth and power do concentrate if left unchecked, and in western Countries insecurity has increased as organised labour has been weakened. As interestingly growth rates reduce as inequality increases.
The paradox being, of course, that the growing wealth divide and insecurity faced by the blue collar class today is almost entirely the consequence of policies pursued by the ‘left’.
In 1997 almost any young school leaver in steady employment could quite reasonably aspire to owning a home, starting a family, getting the kids into decent schools, enjoying prompt and effective health care and the rest of it. By 2010 all that was gone. Meanwhile, how much unearned property wealth did you accumulate during the same period? A million? Two?
Marx may have been wrong on the prognosis – but he sure as hell was right about false consciousness and the narcissism of the bourgeoisie.
You assume Blair et al were Left HB. Many on the Left would say they categorically were not and certainly Karl would concur.
More broadly though I think a consensus that Neoliberalism, whoever managed by, has driven this trend.
But you are a neo-liberal, JW. What is ‘free movement of labour and capital’ if it is not the essence of neo-liberalism?
You’re trying to have it both ways (which, of course, is the essence of blairism).
I thought you end up back there somehow.
Debatable actually what Karl would have said about workers ability to move to where the work was. He was a Internationalist.
But for what’s it’s worth I’ve never been full free movement even when in EU. In the latter we should have applied all the Article constraints that were permissible – minimum capital, jobs advertised locally first, benefits on rate of home country if ever claimed etc, and furthermore incentivised more training and innovation in specific sectors. We could have virtually ceased non EU migration too as that was always in our gift. We did none of that, and in fact the Tories/Right increased the reliance and expanded it to weaken workers
Was the parrot alive on the don’s shoulder?
Who is Terry talking about in the first paragraph (apologies for the ignorance)
Fictional character used as a counter-example?
“Marx himself noted this expansion in his own age, remarking ….”
Marx is not Jesus Christ
England? English individualism? True Prescott was from Hull and thus English. And: ‘Most of the mega-cities of the south of the planet are stinking slums rife with disease and overcrowding ‘ Maybe they are, I haven’t been to Australia or New Zealand for some years. Bit of insular chauvinism going on here though, I think, possibly.
I’ve been to Melbourne! It’s a beastly place!
Many teachers & nurses in this country have been working for the last 20/30 years with secured wages and a final salary pension. How has that been conducive of financial insecurity?
Go on, give him a job Kath!
I’m going to stick my neck out here, if only to counterbalance the criticism, and declare that I always enjoy Eagleton’s articles. I had an English teacher who taught in a similar way to how he writes (albeit without the Marxism), and it made things stick.
Bless
Imagine a Conservative Party intent on moving to the political centre but anxious about alienating its Right-wing by doing so. One way of resolving this problem would be to appoint as its deputy leader a wine merchant who owned a slice of Aberdeenshire, wore the finest tweeds in Westminster and spoke up for traditional values at every turn. Know ye of such a man?
Appreciate this well written analysis using Prescott as metaphor for universal experience.
One can see much truth in these words, and still be anti-Marxist. What communism does not account for is human nature. Greed, avarice, hypocrisy, violence, are perhaps more rampant in a Marxist system than a capitalist one. 20th century experience as proof Marxism cannot improve the human condition.
The wishy washy split the difference social democracy has tried to help, but has wound up with the worst of both economic philosophies. The rich get richer. The operatives crush the proles, all the while telling us life is better under their thumb.
This leaves us capitalism. No less brutal than the others. An enlightened upper class would see to it basic needs are covered for the proles. Hunger is largely nonexistent. It’s a struggle, but shelter is available to all who seek it. Other things have become entitlements, but really are not.
Making sure all citizens have a chance to climb up to a more comfortable life is essential. Here is where concentration of wealth fails. Call it the low spark of high heeled boys effect. In US very low estate tax, foundations, trusts, are all used to transfer vast fortunes to undeserving progeny. These mechanisms must be taxed to keep generational wealth from destroying opportunity.