ISML ISSUE 5

International Struggle Marxist-Leninist

ISML WEB VERSION: ISSUE NUMBER 5: 1999

The Proletariat in Britain

Introduction

The concept of social class as: " . . . a division or order of society according to status" (1) -
is a very ancient one, the English word 'class' being derived from the Latin 'classis', meaning each of the " . . . ancient divisions of the Roman people" (2).
Servius Tullius, king of Rome in the 6th century BC, organised a classification system:
" . . . which divided citizens into five classes according to wealth" (3).

The Marxist-Leninist Definition of Class

Marxist-Leninists accept the concept of social class put forward above, but hold that a person's social class is determined not by the amount of his wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labour and to the means of production:

"Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation . . . to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of their share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different place they occupy in a definite system of social economy"(4)

To Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the class to which a person belongs is determined by objective reality, not by anyone's opinion. On the basis of the above definition, Marxist-Leninists distinguish three basic classes in 19th century Britain:

"There are three great social groups, whose members . . . . live on wages, profit and ground rent respectively"(5).

These three basic classes are:
1) the proletariat or working class;
2) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class; and
3) the landlord class, respectively.

The Landlord Class

Marxist-Leninists define the landlord class as that class which owns land and derives its income from rent on that land:

"Land becomes . . . personified . . . gets on its hind legs to demand . . . its share of the product created with its help . . . rent"(6).

With the development of capitalist society, however, the landlord class progressively loses its importance, and a new class emerges -- the petty bourgeoisie.
Thus in developed capitalist society like Britain, there are still three basic classes, but these are now:

1) the proletariat or working class;
2) the petty bourgeoisie; and
3) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class:

"Every capitalist country . . . is basically divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat" (7).

The Bourgeoisie

The English word ' bourgeoisie' is derived from the French word 'bourgeoisie', meaning:

" . . .the trading middle class" (8), as distinct from the landlord class. Marxist-Leninists define the bourgeoisie or capitalist class as " . . . the class of modern capitalist, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour"(9).

The capitalist class includes persons whose remuneration comes nominally in the form of a (relatively high) salary, but who serve the capitalist class in high administrative posts (e.g., the directors of large companies, judges, the heads of the armed forces and civil service):

"The latter group contains sections of the population who belong to the big bourgeoisie, all the rentiers (living on income from capital and real estate . . . ), then part of the intelligentsia, the high military and civil officials, etc."(10).

It includes also the dependents of these persons.

The Proletariat

The English word 'proletariat' is derived from the Latin word 'proles', meaning 'offspring', since according to Roman law a proletarian served the state " . . .not with his property, but only with his offspring" (11). Marxist-Leninist define the proletariat as:

" . . . the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live" (12),

" . . . That class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital . . . .The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class" (13).

This is not essentially different from the dictionary definition of 'proletariat' as:

" . . .that class of the community which is dependent on daily labour for subsistence, and has no reserve of capital" (14).

It must be noted that Engels declares that:

" . . .the proletariat . . . .is in a word the working class"(15),

so that any attempt to present the working class as something different from the proletariat is not in accordance with Marxism-Leninism. It must be noted that Marx also speaks of the lumpenproletariat, which he differentiates from the industrial proletariat:

"The lumpenproletariat . . . form a mass strictly differentiated from the industrial proletariat, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the crumbs of society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans feu et sans aveu (folk without fire and without faith, i.e., a rabble)" (16).

However, Marx characterises the lumpenproletariat as part of the proletariat. Speaking of the Mobile Guards, recruited for 'the most part' from the lumpenproletariat, he says that

" . . . .the Paris proletariat was confronted with an army drawn from its own midst" (17).

In modern society,

". . .the proletariat is the only really revolutionary class" (18),

so that, in producing the proletariat, the bourgeoisie produces:

" . . . its own grave-diggers" (19)

which will carry through the socialist revolution under the leadership of the urban industrial workers:

"Quite a definite class, namely, the urban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of toilers and the exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital" (20)

led in turn by a Marxist-Leninist Party:

"The Party is the political leader of the working class" (21).

The Middle Class

The term 'middle class' is used by Marxists -- including Marx and Engels themselves -- in two different ways. Firstly, in the historical sense:

" . . . .in the sense of . . . the French word 'bourgeoisie' . . .that possessing class which is differentiated from the so-called aristocracy" (22).

Secondly, when speaking of modern capitalist society, with the meaning of 'petty bourgeoisie', discussed in the next section.

The Petty Bourgeoisie

Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stands the petty bourgeoisie:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeoisie has been formed" (23).

The English term 'petty bourgeoisie' is an anglicisation of the French term 'petite bourgeoisie', meaning 'little bourgeoisie'. Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production, which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their family:

"A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property" (24).

As a worker, the petty bourgeois has interest in common with proletariat; as owner or lessees of means of production, however, he has interests in common with the bourgeoisie. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie has a divided allegiance towards the two decisive classes in capitalist society, the petty bourgeois:

" . . .is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as labourer, he is his own wage-labourer"(25),

and consequently petty bourgeois

" . . .are for ever vacillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie" (26).

This divided allegiance between the two decisive classes in modern capitalist society also applies to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management, e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function to ensure that the workers produce a maximum or surplus value for the employer. Thus, on the one hand such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from which they are largely drawn); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie:

"An industrial army of workers under the command of a capitalist requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, over lookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist" (27).

"The labour of supervision and management . . .has a double nature. On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals cooperate necessarily requires a commanding will to coordinate and unify the process . . . . On the other hand . . . . this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer . . .and the owner of the means of production" (28).

Because of this divided allegiance, which corresponds to that of the petty bourgeoisie proper, Marxist-Leninists place such employees (and their dependents) in the petty bourgeoisie. For the same reason, Marxist-Leninists also place persons employed in the coercive forces of the capitalist state -- the army and police -- (and their dependents) outside the proletariat.

The Peasantry

The English word 'peasant' is derived from the Latin 'pagus', meaning a "country district" (29), and is defined as:

" . . .one who lives in the country and works on the land" (30).

If 'work' is taken to include entrepreneurship, this definition includes the rich peasant who lives primarily be exploiting wage labour, but excludes the landlord, since, even if he lives in the country, he does not work on the land but derives his income from ground rent. The peasantry do not form a social class, but consist of a number of classes which live in the country and work on the land:

"It is best to distinguish the rich, middle and the poor peasants" (31)

The peasantry is made up of:
Firstly, rich peasants or rural capitalists, who employ labour, that is, who exploit poor peasants:

"One of the main features of the rich peasants is that they hire farm-hands and day labourers. Like the landlords, the rich peasants also live on the labour of others. . . . They try to squeeze as much work as they can out of their farm-hands, and pay them as little as possible" (32).

Sometimes, rich peasants are called:

'kulaks', a word derived from the Russian 'kulak', originally meaning a " . . tight-fisted person" (33).

Secondly, the middle peasants or rural petty bourgeoisie, who own or rent land, but who do not employ labour, working the land with the aid of their families:

"Only in good years and under particularly favourable conditions is the independent husbandry of this type of peasant sufficient to maintain him and for that reason his position is a very unstable one. In the majority of cases the middle peasant cannot make ends meet without resorting to loans to be repaid by labour, etc., without seeking subsidiary earnings on the side, which partly also consist of selling labour power, etc." (34).

A middle peasant who works part-time for an employer is called a semi-proletarian: "A one-horse peasant, like a horseless one, keeps himself alive only with the help of a job. But what does this word ' job' mean? It means that the one-horse peasant has ceased to be an independent farmer and has become a hireling, a proletarian. That is why such peasants are described as semi-proletarians" (35).

Thirdly, the poor peasants, who Marx called:

" . . .the rural proletariat"(36).

The poor peasant:

" . . .has become quite propertyless. He is a proletarian. He lives . . . not by the land, not by his farm, but by working for wages . . . " (37).

'Neo-Marxism'

Revisionism is:

" . . .a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism" (38).

In other words, a revisionist poses as a Marxist, but in fact puts forwards a political line which objectively serves the interests of a bourgeoisie:

"The revisionists spearheaded their struggle mainly against Marxism-Leninism . . . . and replaced this theory with an opportunist, counter-revolutionary theory in the service of the bourgeoisie and imperialism"(39).

Despite all the torrents of propaganda levelled against it, Marxism-Leninism still retains enormous prestige among working people all over the world. It is for this reason that many modern revisionists call themselves 'Neo-Marxists', claiming that they are not revising Marxism-Leninism, but merely bringing it up to date.

In general, Neo-Marxists pay their loudest tributes to Marx's early writings, before he became a Marxist. Neo-Marxism is essentially a product of the worst kind of university lecturer, who equates obscurantism with intellectualism. Even sympathetic sociologists speak of:

". . . the extreme difficulty of language characteristic of much of Western Marxism of the twentieth century" (40).

But, of course, obscure language has great advantages for pseudo-scientists, making it easier to claim, when challenged, the challenger has misunderstood what has been said.

Much Neo-Marxism is an eclectic hotchpotch of Marxism and idealist philosophy, giving it, it is claimed, a 'spiritual aspect' which was lacking in the original. A typical example of a Neo-Marxist is the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who writes:

"I believe in the general scheme provided by Marx" (41),

"but" -- and it is a big but -- it must be Marxism liberated from:

" . . .the old guard of mummified Stalinists" (42),

and, according to Sartre, this 'liberation' is to be effected by merging it with the existentialism of the Danish idealist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard! :

"Kierkegaard and Marx . . . institute themselves . . . .as our future" (43).

However, this paper is concerned only with revisionist theories of class, which, in general, narrow and restrict the Marxist-Leninist definition of the proletariat. While they may thus still present the proletariat as 'the gravedigger of capitalism', it becomes a gravedigger equipped with a teaspoon!

The Unemployed

Some Neo-Marxists exclude the unemployed from the proletariat on the grounds that people who are not working cannot be considered members of the working class! But on this absurd basis, a worker would cease to be a member of the working class when he finishes work each day. Marx explicitly characterises the unemployed, who he calls the:

" . . .industrial reserve army" (44),

as " . . . .a relative surplus-population among the working class' (45),

and speaks of:

" . . . .the working class (now actively reinforced by its entire reserve army)" (46).

Clearly, therefore, according to Marxism-Leninism, the unemployed form part of the proletariat.

Non-productive Workers

Other Neo-Marxists exclude from the proletariat all workers engaged in unproductive labour. Certainly, Marx differentiated productive from unproductive labour, defining the former as labour:

" . . .which creates a surplus value"(47).

On this basis, the Greek revisionist Nicos Poulantzas excludes unproductive workers from the proletariat, which, he claims, is:

". . . .not defined by wage-labour, . . . . but by productive labour" (48).

Poulantzas therefore assigns unproductive workers to a:

" . . .new petty bourgeoisie" (49).

Consequently, according to Poulantzas,

" . . .wage earners in commerce, advertising, accounting, banking and insurance . . . do not form part of the working class" (50),

and " . . . .engineers and technicians do not belong to the working class" (51).

However, Marx insists that:

" . . . .the distinction between productive and unproductive labour has nothing to do . . . with the particular speciality of the labour" (52).

For example, a teacher in a private school is engaged in productive labour since his labour produces surplus value for the proprietors of the school. But a teacher in a state school, working under identical conditions, is engaged in unproductive labour, since his labour does not create surplus value. Furthermore, many kinds of unproductive labour, such as the labour of clerical workers in a capitalist production company,

" . . .while it does not create surplus value, enables him (the employer - Ed.) to appropriate surplus value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him. The unpaid labour of the commercial wage-worker secures a share of this surplus value for merchant's capital" (52).

Even Poulantzas himself admits that employed unproductive workers:

" . . . are themselves exploited, and their wages correspond to the reproduction of their labour-power"(53).

And Lenin insists that commercial workers belong to the proletariat:

"The wage worker in agriculture belongs to the same class as the wage-worker in a factory or in a commercial establishment" (54).

Thus, the question of whether an employee is engaged in productive or unproductive labour has no relevance to the question of whether or not he belongs to the proletariat. Indeed, as the American sociologist Erik Wright points out,

" . . .in the end the procedure Poulantzas adopts makes ideology itself the decisive criterion for class" (55).

The Labour Aristocracy

In developed capitalist countries,

" . . . the bourgeoisie, by plundering the colonial and weak nations, has been able to bribe the upper stratum of the proletariat with crumbs from the super-profits" (56).

Super-profits are the profits of foreign investment, profits "

. . . obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their home country" (57).

Employees in receipt of a share of such super-profits form

" . . . the 'labour aristocracy'" (58),

which consists of workers

" . . who have become quite petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in their earnings and in their outlook" (59),

and who function as

" . . .the principal social . . support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class" (60).

Already, by 1892, Engels

" . . . .distinguishes between a small, privileged protected minority . . .on the one hand, and the great bulk of workers on the other" (61).

It consists primarily of:

" . . . .skilled men who served an apprenticeship . . . who were union men" (62).

"The engineers, the carpenters and joiners, the bricklayers, . . . . .form an aristocracy among the working class" (63).

With the development of capitalism,

" . . . .the lines of demarcation between skilled and unskilled were becoming blurred in an increasing number of trades" (64),

so that:

" . . .the growth of skilled occupations which were not learned by apprenticeship reduced the importance of this method of training, previously one of the peculiar hallmarks of the labour aristocracy" (65),

and

" . . .the growth of non-apprenticed skilled work diluted the labour aristocracy" (66). Consequently, the labour aristocracy tends to shrink in size:

"The tendency of this stratum (the labour aristocracy -- Ed.) is to shrink" (67).

Some Neo-Marxists exclude the labour aristocracy from the proletariat. Thus, according to the London-based 'Finsbury Communist Association', in Britain

" . . .the proletariat consists of workers on subsistence wages or below" (68).

However, Lenin defines the labour aristocracy as a part of the proletariat, as

" . . .certain strata of the working class" (69),

as " . . .an insignificant minority of the proletariat" (70),

as " . . . .sections of the working class in oppressing nations" (71),

as " . . .the top strata of the proletariat" (72).

The Polarisation of Capitalist Society

Because of the small size of the means of production under their control, petty bourgeois are in constant danger of sinking into the proletariat: "

The lower strata of the middle class . . .sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital . . .is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population" (73).

"The working class gains recruits from the higher strata of society. . . . .A mass of petty industrialists and small rentiers are hurled down into its ranks" (74)

and the old, once highly respected petty bourgeois professions become proletarianised:

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers" (75).

Thus, as capitalist society develops, it becomes increasingly polarised into two basic classes -- wealthy bourgeois and poor proletarians:

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up . . .into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat" (76).

"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, moral degradation, at the opposite pole" (77). The proletariat is " . . .a class always increasing in numbers" (78).

The Size of the Working-Class in Britain

On the theoretical basis delineated above, it is possible to calculate approximately the changing size of the British working class. The working class changes in size through -- among other things -- what is termed social mobility -- movement downwards into the working class from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and (more rarely) movement upwards from the working class into the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Marx points out that such upward mobility strengthens the capitalist system:

"The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist . . .is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune . . . .into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever new forces for itself out of the substratum of society. . . . The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule" (79).

However, the development of modern monopoly capitalism facilitates downward social mobility, while rendering upward social mobility more difficult:

"The path to senior management via a technical career . . . is being increasingly eclipsed by the direct recruitment of graduates as management trainees" (80).

The official statistics below relate to Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 1951 and 1991 respectively:

1951:

1. Population: 1951: 48,854 thousands (100%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 7).

2. Occupied population: 1951: 22,578 thousand (46.2%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 14).

3. Unoccupied population: 1951: 26,276 thousand (53.8%); (calculated from 1 & 2 above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1951: 1,584 thousand (3.2%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 14).

5. Managers, etc.: 1951: 748 thousands (1.5%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 15).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1951: 812 thousand (1.6%0; (Census 1951: England and Wales: Occupational Tables; London; 1953; p. 2-21); (Census 1951: Scotland: Volume 4: Occupations and Industries'; London; 1954; p. 2-16).

7. Armed Forces: 1951: 827 thousand (1.7%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 103).

8. Police: 1951: 70 thousand (0.1%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 64).

1991:

1. Population: 1991: 56,207 thousand (100%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995; London; 1995; p. 4).

2. Occupied population: 1991; 27,815 thousand (49.5%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995, London; 1995; p. 102).

3. Unoccupied population: 1991: 28,392 thousand (50.5%); (calculated from 1 and 2 above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1991: 3,078 thousand (5.5%); (1991 Census: Economic Activity: Great Britain', Volume 1; London; 1994; p. 190).

5. Managers, etc.: 1991: 3,031 thousand* (5.4%); ( 1991 Census Report for Great Britain (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 188).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1991: 988 thousand* (1.8%); ( 1991 Census Report for Great Britain (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 36).

7. Armed Forces: 1991: 298 thousand (0.5%); ( Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995; London; 1995; p. 128).

8. Police: 1991: 139 thousand (0.2%); ( Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995'; London; 1995; p. 69).

*Converted from a 10% sample figure, by multiplying by a sampling factor of 10.16. ( 1991 Census Report: Great Britain: (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 337).

On the basis of the above figures and of the analysis made in previous sections of this paper, it is possible to calculate the size of the occupied proletariat in Britain in 1951 and 1991 respectively approximately as follows:

1951 1991

Occupied population 22,578 thousand 27,815 thousand

less employers and self employed: 1,584 thousand 3,078 thousand

less managers etc.: 748 thousand 3,038 thousand

less foremen, supervisors, etc.: 812 thousand 988 thousand

less armed forces: 827 thousand 298 thousand

less police: 70 thousand 139 thousand

less total: 4,041 thousand 7,534 thousand

This gives figures for the size of the occupied proletariat of 18,537 thousand (1951) and 20, 281 thousand (1991), figures which represent 82.5% and 72.9% (1991) of the occupied population.

If we assume that the proletarian portion of the unoccupied population is the same as in the occupied population, this gives us figures for the unoccupied proletariat of 21, 573 thousand (1951) and 20,698 thousand (1991).
Finally, this gives us figures for the total British proletariat of 40,110 thousand (1951) and 40,979 thousand (1991), which represent 82.1% (1951) and 72.1% (1991) of the total population.

References

1. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 3; Oxford; 1989; p. 279.
2. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology; Oxford; 1985; p. 1803.
3. New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p. 455.
4. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Great Beginning, in: Collected Works, Volume 29; London; 1974; p. 421.
5. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 886.
6. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 824 -25.
7. Vladimir I. Lenin: Constitutional Illusions, in: Collected Works', Volume 6; Moscow; 1964; p. 202
8. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. Cit.; p. 110.
9. Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204.
10. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Development of Capitalism in Russia, in: Collected Works, Volume 3; Moscow; 1960; p. 504.
11. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): o. Cit.; p. 714.
12. Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204.
13. Friedrich Engels: Principles of Communism; London; 1971; p. 5.
14. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 12; Oxford; 1989; p. 606.
15. Friedrich Engels: op. Cit.; p. 5.
16. Karl Marx: The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 211.
17. Karl Marx: The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 211.
18. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 216.
19. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: ibid.; p. 218.
20. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Great Beginning, in: Selected Works, Volume 9; London; 1984; p. 432.
21. Josef V. Stalin: The Foundations of Leninism, in: Works, Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 178.
22. Friedrich Engels: Preface to The Condition of the Working Class in England: From Personal Observation and Authentic Sources, in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Collected Works, Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; p. 304.
23. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 321.
24. Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: To the Rural Poor, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254.
25. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value' Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 396.
26. Josef V. Stalin: The Logic of Facts, in: Works, Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; p. 143.
27. Karl Marx: Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 314.
28. Karl Marx: Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 383-84.
29. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op cit.; p. 66.
30. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 11; Oxford; 1989. P. 420.
31. Vladimir I. Lenin: To the Rural Poor: An Explanation for the Peasants of what the Social-Democrats want (hereafter listed as Vladimir I. Lenin (1903) in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London 1944; p. 261.
32. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): ibid.; p. 265.
33. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p. 543
34. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Development of Capitalism un Russia, in: Selected Works, London 1; 1944; p. 235.
35. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): op. cit.; p. 267.
36. Karl Marx: The Civil War in France; in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 507.

37. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903); op. cit.; p. 265.
38. Vladimir I. Lenin; Marxism and Revisionism, in: Selected Works Volume 11; London; 1943, p. 704.
39. Enver Hoxha: Report to the 5th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, in: Selected Works, Volume 4; Tirana; 1982; p. 190.
40. Perry Anderson: Considerations on Western Marxism; London; 1976; p. 54
41. Jean-Paul Sartre: Between Existentialism and Marxism; London; 1974; p. 53.
42. Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 109.
43. Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 169.
44. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 11974; p. 592.
45. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1974; p. 518.
46. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1974; p. 414.
47. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 45.
48. Nicos Poulantzas: Classes in Contemporary Capitalism; London; 1979; p. 94.
49. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 290.
50. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 211 - 212.
52. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 250.
53. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 160-61.
52. Karl Marx. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1974; p. 294.
53. Nicos Poulantzas: op. cit.; p. 212.
54. Vladimir I. Lenin; The Trudoviks and Worker Democrats, in: Collected Works, Volume 18; Moscow; 1965; p. 39
55. Erik O. Wright: Class, Crisis and the State; London; 1978; p. 59.
56. Vladimir I. Lenin: Draft Programme of the RCP(B) in: Collected Works, Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104.
57.Vladimir I Lenin: Preface to the French and German Editions of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 12.
58. Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12.
59. Vladimir I. Lenin; ibid.; p. 12.
60. Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12.
61. Martin Nicolaus: The Theory of the Labour Aristocracy, in: Monthly Review, Volume 21, No. 11 (April 1970); p. 92.
62. Aleksei M. Rumantsev (Ed.): The Structure of the Working Class; New Delhi; 1963. p. 81.
63. Friedrich Engels: Preface to the English Edition of: The Condition of the Working-Class in England; London; 1969; p. 31
64. Charles More: Skill and the English Working Class; London; 1980; p. 231.
65. Charles More: ibid.; p. 213.
66. Charles More: ibid.; p. 231.
67. Aleksei M. Rumyantsev: op. cit.; p. 104.
68. Finsbury Communist Association: Class and Party in Britain; London; 1966; p. 4.
69. Vladimir I. Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 134.
70. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Collapse of the Second International, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p.183.
71. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism", in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 291.
72. Vladimir I. Lenin: How the Bourgeoisie utilises Renegades, in: Collected Works, Volume 30; Moscow; 1965; p. 34.
73. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 213.
74. Karl Marx: Wage-Labour and Capital, in: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 280.
75. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works. Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 208.
76. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party. In: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 205-206.
77. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 604.
78. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 715.
79. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 600- 01.
80. Bob Carter: Capitalism, Class Conflicts and the New Middle Class; London 1985; p. 102-03.

Bibliography
ANDERSON, Perry: 'Considerations on Western Marxism'; London; 1976.
CARTER, Bob: 'Capitalism, Class Conflict and the New Middle Class'; London; 1985
FINSBURY COMMUNIST ASSOCIATION: 'Class and Party in Britain'; London; 1966.
MORE, Charles: 'Skill and the English Working Class'; London; 1966.
ONIONS, Charles T (Ed.): 'The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'; Oxford; 1985
POULANTZAS, Nicos: 'Classes in Contemporary Capitalism'; London; 1979.
RUMYANTSEV, Aleksei M. (Ed.): 'The Structure of the Working Class'; New Delhi; 1963
SARTRE, Jean-Paul: 'Between Existentialism and Marxism'; London; 1974.
WRIGHT, Erik O.: 'Class, Crisis and the State'; London; 1978.
ENGELS, Friedrich: 'Principles of Communism'.
: 'The Condition of the Working Class in England'.
HOXHA, Enver: 'Selected Works'.
LENIN, Vladimir I.: Selected Works
: Collected Works'
MARX, Karl: 'Capital: A Critique of Political Economy'
: Selected Works.
: Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1.
: & ENGELS, Friedrich: Collected Works.
Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1956 & 1995.
Census 1951: England and Wales; Occupational Tables.
Census 1951: Scotland, Volume 4: Occupations and Industries.
1991 Census; Economic Activity: Great Britain, Volume 1.
1991 Census Report for Great Britain (Part 2).
Monthly Review
New Encyclopaedia Britannica; Chicago; 1994.
Oxford English Dictionary' Oxford; 1989.
(Bill Bland, for the Communist League) UK.