Answer one of the following questions
Part VIII of Capital provides, in 8 chapters, an account of the rise of capitalism as a social, i.e., as a new way of organizing society.
1. In this account Marx provides an analysis of the coming into being of both the working class and the capitalist class. A) In what sense might these emergences be seen as spontaneous, in what sense imposed? B) What evidence does he present to support the thesis that force played a dominant role in the emergence of capitalism? C) What evidence does he present that the rise of capitalism was an international phenomenon?
A) Marx's "secret" of primitive accumulation is that it doesn't occur spontaneously with lazy rascals becoming workers and frugal fellows becoming rich capitalists but rather through struggle. In Marx's account, the processes that might be called spontaneous concern the activities of capitalists as they struggle for dominance over the old landed elite. They arise as a class in a hostile environment --antagonistic workers below and antagonistic landed aristocracy above and have to gather more and more of the former under their control as the contest with the latter for control over the state. It is not clear that the term spontaneous applies here given that both of these struggles requires considerable planning and coordination --especially vis a vis the state, both for its conquest and for its use, i.e., getting the right laws passed. Such things don't "just happen". The creation of the working class is certainly not at all spontaneous according to his account. Chapter 27 describes people driven from their lands and tools and Chapter 28 describes people subjected to vicious punishment for resisting selling themselves on the labor market.
B) The evidence of the central role of force primarily concerns the creation of the working class via driving people of their land and destroying their tools and the bloody legislation against the expropriated. In both of the chapters that deal with these phenomena Marx cites a variety of specific incidences to illustrate the general thesis. The Dutchess of Sutherland in Chapter 27, a variety of punishments in different years in England in Chapter 28. But his discussion of the role of force also includes and international dimension, especially colonialism and slavery both of which required enormous violence to subject foreign peoples to Brtitish (and other) capitals. While there is no attempt to quantify the size of the "role of force" vis a vis other mechanisms, e.g., national debt, more concrete evidence is provided for it than almost anything else.
C) International phenomenon? Most of this is to be found in Chapters 31 and 33. In Chapter 31 on the rise of the Industrial capitalists, Marx describes not only the quasi-enslavement of workers/children at home, but the colonial subjection and enslavement of foreign peoples. The sweep of his account ranges from imposition of the Spanish and Portuguese yoke on the Americas through British Imperialism in the 19th Century. All along the way he illustrates the violence involved and the havoc wrecked on the local populations. But what happened at home and abroad were part of the same phenomenon: the rise of capitalism. Colonialism provided cheap raw materials --through imposition of work on the colonials-- and outlets for commodity exports and direct stimulus for growth at home through state financing of the Royal Navy and Army necessary for the conquest and continued control of these lands.
2. Apply Marx's theory of primitive accumulation to history of the United States. A) What parallels do you see between the process he described in England and American history? What differences? B) In the study guide Cleaver gives material on the anti-vagrancy laws that followed the Civil War. Can this period be considered as one of primitive accumulation considering it dates so long after the formation of the country? Why or why not? C) Which elements of primitive accumulation can you see still in play in contemporary capitalist development in the United States?
A) Parallels: in terms of the creation of the working class, the pushing of people off the land in England was paralleled in the United States through the expulsion of the indigenous population and then later --on the same land-- of those who had expelled them, i.e., the family farmers who had fled the factories of the Europe and the East Coast to take land and seek independence. These parallels to the history recounted in chapter 27 were discussed in class along with examples of farmer resistance --including two songs from the U.S. "The Farmer is the Man" and "Rain on the Scarecrow." On the other hand, other than the brutality against the Native American population, there was not much discussion of "bloody legislation" of chapter 28, except for the anti-vagrancy material which I'll discuss under point B). There was, however, some discussion of resistance to the use of forced prison labor as scabs in Tennessee coal mining. One might consider the current wave of repressive law against the homeless and street people examples of "bloody legislation" but it's not clear this "primitive accumulation" see next section. As for the capitalist class, there is some discussion in the study guide chapter 31 about Vietnam and Mexico and the role of the state in making the rise of the capitalist class possible --by making cheap labor possible as in chaps 27 & 28. While Marx emphasizes colonialism as playing a role in the massing of wealth and the US has not done too much of that, many do claim that US domination through neo-colonialism in the Americas and elsewhere played the same role. Perhaps, but we didn't discuss it in class. Other answers dealing with other aspects are possible.
B) Anti-vagrancy laws and their enforcement after the Civil War (ending 1865) certainly occurred some 90 - 100 years after the inception of the country (1776) but "primitive accumulation" is not defined in terms of "country" formation. It is defined in terms of the formation of classes. Those who were the primary target of the anti-vagrancy legislation were primarily ex-slaves, roaming the South looking for "40 acres & a mule." We can say that they had already long since been incorporated into the North Atlantic working class --slaves produced cotton for Northern & European textile industry. Therefore the reconstruction laws were not a case of primitive but of on-going accumulation, of managing a working class in the wake of the collapse of a previous institutional order that had controlled and exploited them.
C) People continue to be pushed off the land --as the recent American Farm Movement reminded us all. Severe penalties continue to be meted out to those who don't play by the rules of the game, especially those on the margins as in central city ghettos. The state continues to act in the interests of business enforcing laws that constrain the working class (against unions) while ignoring those which constrain business (Reagan's non-enforcement of environmental law). The management of economic policy today is organized and justified on blatantly pro-capitalist free market lines (neoliberalism), and so on and on. Many different things from chaps 26-33 can be discussed.
Answer one of the following questions
The concept of "class" which is central to Marx's discourse and analysis has been much debated and attacked in modern social science literature. Marxists have also staunchly defended it in various ways.
3. There is a sociological concept of class that has seen the rise of the "middle class" as ending the relevance of Marx's bipolar class analysis of capitalism. a) Provide an explanation of the reasoning that would lead to such a conclusion and then b) provide a Marxist rebuttal to this argument.
a) Explanation of reasoning: If class is thought of as a set of people with certain characteristics then in Marx's day the plethora of people working in factories and the few people owning them were easy to count and a bipolar class analysis made some sense. But with the rise of the middle class --people between blue-collar factory workers and factory owners-- the reasoning goes, the bipolarity disappears. The abandonment of "class" is no problem because we can still talk about the "strata" of income levels with blue collar workers tending to be on the bottom and white collar middle class people higher up, but still beneath the wealthy capitalists.
b) Marxist rebuttal: "class" was not defined in terms of income or even ownership. The key issue is the control or lack of control over the means of production: who works and who controls. Income strata can't substitute because we lose the key issue. But the rise of the wage hierarchy that stretches from the bottom (and might even be seen as including the unwaged) to corporate excective/ceo level raises issues of activities for and against this organization of society. People may play dual class roles --most likely in the middle of the hierarchy. But whatever the ambiguities class remains defined over the organization of society. Cleaver argues that because the key social relationship is imposed work the class distinction in Marx turns on this issue. To the degree that people impose work on others they act as capitalists (or "functionaries" of capital); to the degree they work & resist work they act as workers.
4. In Cleaver's exposition of Marx's concept of class he discussed the notions of class-in-itself and class-for-itself which is a distinction that Marx is famous for having used in discussing the French peasantry in the 19th Century. Discuss these concepts as applied to the two primary classes of capitalist society. He also argued that the working class for-itself not only struggles for more power but also for varieties of self-development, which may transcend its own class status. What might such self-development involve and how might it be recuperated by capital?
Class in-itself: defined by a set of characteristics; e.g., working
class in-itself = those upon whom work is imposed, those who do not own/control
the means of production; capitalist class-itself = those who impose work
on others, who impose the social organization of life around work, who
own/control the means of production.
Class for-itself: defined by activities undertaken to defend/elaborate
its own interests; e.g., working class for-itself = those workers who struggle
against the capitalist organization of society and sometimes for alternative
ways of being/living/relating (note this has both a positive and negative
dimension); capitalist class for-itself = those who elaborate new ways
of imposing work and resist worker efforts to reduce the subordination
of their lives to work (on the job or off) and seek the instrumentalization
of innovations that might otherwise escape integration within capitalism.
The notion of workers struggling for forms of self-development with the character of transdending (however briefly) capitalism Cleaver sees as integral to the notion of working class for-itself. Such self-development might involve a wide variety of life styles in which one works to live rather than living to work. It might also involve the elaboration by whole communities of sets of social relationships geared to meeting the communities needs in ways that involve minimal work, no profit-maximization, etc. We can also see such "lines of flight" in cultural areas such as music when people try to break out of the commercialization of music (e.g., punks) --all too often eventually recuperated. "Recuperation" means successful reintegration of some activity which has escape the bounds of the rules of the game. Like early punk music which eschewed commercialization. Once those who create it are tied to record labels and it has become a whole new wing of the industry it has been effectively recuperated. Similarly, indigenous communal ways of life if limited to being tourist attractions within a capitalist marketing, profit making process have been recuperated. Because the working class is the sole source of innovation institutions are shaped to capture and integrate such efforts in ways that keep them within the system.
5. In discussion of the use of the term "class" today, Cleaver suggested that it is more useful to think in terms of the roles people play vis a vis the system and its rules. For example, in considering someone's "class" status to what degree to do his or her actions reinforce those rules (e.g., imposing work on others) or resist them. This analysis was oriented primarily toward the evaluation of people's actions rather than their consciousness. However, he also provided some discussion of the implications of this duality for understanding individual psychology. Give an account of that discussion and critique it (i.e., describe both its advantages and its limitations.)
Account: Cleaver argued that just as most of us find ourselves playing dual class roles --sometimes acting like workers (struggling against work and for other ways of being) and sometimes like capitalists (imposing work on others or ourselves) so do these action produce a tension in our minds and feelings. To the degree that we have internalized the values of capital we feel/think that we need to show up for work on time (e.g., at office, factory or class) but to the degree that we react as workers we resist this imposition (even on ourselves) and are thus torn between two forces, sometimes without recognizing the tension.
Advantages: to the degree that we can identify such tensions within us, this analysis may make them clearer. The focus may be on work so far but its easy to imagine that there are as many ramifications as there are dimensions in society that have been shaped by capital. In the sense of Laing and Cooper we are often faced with a double bind situation in which we are torn between two mutually exclusive options and can only react in ways that appear illogical. Given the discussion of men-women-capital in that of syllogistic mediation we might suspect that this analysis could be brought to bear on some classic issues that are not normally related to the class relationship --like the Oedipus complex. (Other discussions quite possible)
Limitations: Presumably, this analysis only touches those parts of our psychology that hav been shapred by capital. We can easily imagine that there are other aspects/dimensions that have not been and thus would have to be subjected to a different kind of analysis. There is also a presupposition here that people's "natural" reaction to imposition is resistance while I find it possible to imagine situations (say of young children who still identify with their parents) in which imposition is not perceived as imposition and accepted without resistance. To whatever degree such phenomena may exist this analysis wouldn't help very much. (Other discussion possible.)
Answer one of the following questions
The purpose of the sketch of the Marxist tradition provided in the introduction to RCP and in class lectures was to give you a clearer view of how Cleaver's interpretation of Marx is situated in that tradition.
6. Take what you have studied and write a short essay in which you do just that: situate Cleaver's brand of Marxism within the over all Marxist tradition. Explain it as you would to your parents or friends.
I've got this professor who teaches Marxism but not your usual everyday variety. That is to say, he isn't in what you might call the mainstream orthodox tradition that we usually associate with the Soviet Unions and all those varieties of Marxism it spun off. Instead, he situates himself in a minority current or thread that he calls "autonomist" Marxism. The "autonomist" designation comes from the centrality in his theory of the ability of workers to take the initiative and think and act for themselves. Whereas, as everyone knows, the Soviet-type Marxists priviledged the Communist Party and Party led unions, Cleaver --and the kind of Marxists he identifies with-- priviledge the rank and file. And not just factory workers mind you; he's not stuck in that rut. His notion of the working class includes just about everybody who resists the business organization of life. It includes waged workers but also unwaged ones, like peasants, housewives, students, professors, etc. Another odd thing, even though this is a course in Marxist "economics" he claims that there is no such thing, that Marxist theory, although it deals with the economy is not an economics. He calls it an analysis of the economy (and of society more broadly) designed to reveal both its bad points (e.g., exploitation) and its weaknesses to facilitate its overthrow. So he's real critical of varieties of Marxists who read Marx as if he were an economist and those who read him without seeing the centrality of workers struggles to both the development of capitalism and its possible transcendence. He keeps arguing that all the concepts we've been studying denote aspects of our own lives and that if we can't see the connection we haven't grasped the theory. Some of it --like his discussion of school is pretty clear-- but some of it is not. (Lots of variations possible).
7. In the course of sketching how his interpretation of Marx differed from that of many other threads of the Marxist tradition, Cleaver critiqued several of those threads. Take one of those critiques, explain it and then discuss its advantages and limitations.
The most obvious "threads" to take are those of "political economy" and "philosophy" which were justaposed to a political reading of Marx. Others are possible.
Political Economy: the main thrust of this critique was that Marx was being read as if he were an economist, Capital as a work in economic theory. This kind of reading Cleaver argued saw/sees only the dynamics of "capital" conceived independently of the working class. In this kind of theory the "laws of motion" are sought in competition among capitalists and workers appear only as victims of the juggernaut, not as significant historical actors. So the basic critique is that the reading is one-sided focused on capital rather than on workers and is blind the to the latter's power.
Philosophy: Two examples were used in the critique: Althusser the French Communist theoretician and Critical Theory. Althusser was presented as just having updated orthodox theory with a little structuralism and a little Freud and thus subject to the same critique as earlier orthodoxy: ignoring the working class and its role in the class struggle which drives capitalist development. The Critical Theorists were praised for extending Marxist analysis from the realm of the factory and the "economy" to culture but critiqued for, once again, looking only at the mechanism of capitalist domination rather than workers' struggle and the development of their power.
Answer one of the following questions
The labor theory of value, whose exposition begins in Chapter One, is the theoretical core of Marxist work. We read this section after Part VIII hoping that the experience of having studied Part VIII would make it easier to see the abstractions of Chapter One in class terms.
8. Discuss the meaning of Marx's concept of "abstract labor" in class terms. A) How did he derive it formally? B) What gives political significance to the concept beyond any formalism? C) Which of the various aspects of work/labor under capitalism can the concept be seen as denoting? D) Which of these does Cleaver argue is most important? E) At what point in the process of primitive accumulation does concrete labor take on the character of "abstract labor"?
A) Formal derivation: looking at an exchange, say xA = yB, Marx asked what could be the basis for such an exchange because A and B are two different things. On what basis could one speak of equality between different kinds of things? To find out he follows the same method as Hegel in his examination of "being", he strips away particularity after particularity until he gets to the fundamental "substance". In Hegel's case he gets to "nothing" but Marx gets to "labor", labor abstracted from all particularity, abstract labor.
B) Political Significance: The fact that labor is the most fundamental form of social organization in capitalism. As some have said, Marx might have arrived at some other common ingredient, i.e., energy. But he wanted a social theory so his substance is a social one: labor.
C) Which Aspects? Abstract Labor thus denotes that aspect of all particular, concrete, useful labors which provides the capitalists with a vehicle of social control. In other words the capitalists organize society principly by putting people to work, the kind of work is secondary. So abstract labor expresses this concern for work which abstracts from its particular content. As such virtually any human activity can be converted to work if it can be turned into a profitable commodity producing form of labor. Marx also talked about how with the development of more and more machinery and the deskilling of labor, labor itself was tending to become "more abstract" in the sense that it was simpler and had fewer determinations. Finally this kind of abstraction is associated with the tendency of capital to move workers among jobs, hired here, fired, hired there, or shifted within a plant. This is only possible because of the simplicity of their work. If it was not simple such moves would require training and/or long practice to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills.
D) Most important for Cleaver: the use of any old kind of labor as a means of social control, of the organization/domination of society.
E) Concrete to abstract labor? Capital comes into a world in which people are already toiling in myriad ways. What it does is to harness that work in a new way, and in the process change its character. From being something one does to obtain some desired end, it becomes an end in itself: the means of social organization. That means is subject to conditions, of course, like profitability, but as soon as some labor begins to serve this general social purpose it acquires this "abstract" character.
9. In laying out his analysis of the "form" of value (exchange value) we discover two kinds of mediation, the first within the simple form the second within the general form. A) & B) Provide an analysis of these two kinds of mediation within the context of the class relationship (which obviously contains the exchanges of the labor market and of consumption markets). C) In expositing this part of the theory Cleaver suggested that similar forms of mediation exist in many kinds of social relationships. Take one of the examples he suggested and critique it, i.e., discuss its advantages and limitations.
A)Reflective Mediation is first presented within the simple form. Class: Labor market, consumption markets.In the case of the labor market workers sell their ability and willingness to work to business. For xA = yB, write LP - M where LP = labor power and M = money or the wage. LP in the relative form finds M (its [universal] equivalent) as an expression of its value, i.e., in this case the value of a worker measured by business, through the existence & size of the wage. In other words business mediates workers relationship to themselves --they are validated qua worker by getting a job and being paid. This can, of course, be reversed so that capital with its money M finds itself validated as such by its ability to hire workers LP. A business without workers is no business at all. Over time as workers shift employers and employers shift their labor force, both experience a reinforcement of their roles. The kid that gets a first job in daddy's store may doubt his or her value as an employee. After a few jobs the doubt is gone. An employer able to hire and fire at will discovers a generalization of the experience of command. In the case of consumer markets, workers spend their wage M for the means of subsistence C(MS) while the capitalists realize the value and profits of their enterprise by finding consumers interested and able to buy their stuff. Without buyers businesses cannot continue to be businesses. Without buying in consumer markets workers (at least the bulk of them --with no access to subsistence agriculture) cannot reproduce themselves and their families. In these markets they reproduce themselves as workers --as those dependent on the wage-- and not with much in the way of independence. These situations, however, by no means exhaust the experience of reflective mediation. Unwaged wives may see themselves devalued in their relationship with their husband --who reflected back to them an image of a dependent-- and with business --which may barely recognize their existence because it doesn't (as a rule) have to deal with them. The family wage earner may want the experience of a reflexive mediation of him or herself as responsible worker but may get something quite different, e.g., as neglectful father and husband, or as obsessed workaholic.
B) Syllogistic mediation is first presented within the general form. Class: Labor market, consumption markets. In the case of the labor & consumer markets workers find their relationship both to consumer goods and to other workers mediated through money --the wage. In the absence of collective bargaining, the worker negotiates directly with the capitalist and each worker does so separately. Their only relationship comes from their parallel relationship with the boss. Business tends to cultivate direct worker-worker relationships only in so far as they relate to productivity, i.e., are not really direct but involve the mediation of common employment. And so on.
C) As Cleaver pointed out, however, such mediation may exist in many other, unwaged or partially waged domains of capitalist society, .e.g., Men-capital-women, men-women-capital, etc. or student-professor-administration and so on. Lots of examples possible. Forms of critique: just because capital tries to mediate doesn't mean it succeeds. People can bypass or rupture mediation; there are other aspects to these relationships that this one doesn't grasp, e.g., direct, unmediated aspects.
10. To what degree and in what ways does Mary Barton give us glimpses of the processes of primitive accumulation which we have studied in part VIII of Capital? Think about this both in terms of the structure of English social relations and in terms of the psychology of the characters.
In terms of the structure of English social relations: this would refer to to the repeated juxtaposition of industrial Manchester and the rural areas from which some of the characters come. In terms of characters, certain ones represent the old classes, e.g., Alice who came from the country, Mary and other young people who have never known anything but the industrial towns. The point is to draw on the concrete material of the novel to talk about this dichotomy as moments of the transition from pre-capitalism to capitalism. Probably the most striking is the sense of "enclosure" in the novel, the loss of contact with the land, the confinement of workers lives within tiny, damp, unhealthy spaces. There is little of the "bloody legislation" as this novel takes place latter in the process. There is a bit of the ideology of capitalists as those who save and invest --in the portrayal of the central factory owner. There is definately plenty of material to illustrate Marx's dicussion in chapter 31 about laws against combinations and the pitting of workers against each others, e.g., strikebreakers. In what follows, I give you some examples of the kind of the material out of which the first kind of answer could be shaped:
From Chapter 1: Old (Rural) England vs New (Industrial) England: This chapter sets up a dichotomy between the attractive countryside and the more ominous urban society of work which England is becoming. The dichotomy begins with the motto at the beginning of the chapter: "wandering through field and briery lane" is juxtaposed to "tis hard to be working the whole of the live-long day" -which is life in industrial Manchester. Charming rural area through which the workers are walking, with its "pleasant mysteries" and "delicious sounds", its clear pond, its quaint farm house and garden and its wild flowers are juxtaposed to the "busy, bustling manufacturing town". The rural girls are also juxtaposed to the city/factory girls: the rural girls, e.g., those from Buckinghamshire, "wenches with such fresh rosy cheeks, or such black lashes to gray eyes" versus the factory girls, who were "not remarkable for beauty; indeed they were below the average, . . . sallow complexions and irregular features". Similarly, Gaskell's description of John Barton portrays one physically marked by his work ("stunted look about him; and his wan, colourless face"). Yet, at the same time, Gaskell speaks of the factory girls having "an acuteness and intelligence of countenance" as opposed to the rural girls who might have a "fresh beauty" but also "the deficiency of sense" which "is likewise characteristic of the rural inhabitants". She also speaks of Barton as "earnest", "resolute" "latent, stern, enthusiasm . . . one from whom a stranger would have asked a favour with tolerable faith that it would be granted."
From chapter 2: Old (Rural) England vs New (Industrial) England: The dichotomy set up in the first chapter is continued in the second with, on the one hand, the description of the Barton's court and house (and its juxtaposition to the recently quited, pleasant fields) and on the other, the description of Alice's herb gathering in the countryside. "Although the evening seemed yet early when they were in the open fields - among the pent-up houses, night, with its mists, and its darkness, had already begun to fall." Barton's house is one of many in tiny winding streets awash with "household slops, washing suds, &c." It is small and dark, even with the fire stirred up ("ruddy glow") and a candle lit ("coarse yellow glare"). The same is true at Alice's basement home which, although "scrupulously clean", was "so damp that it seemed as if the last washing would never dry up." Alice's "considerable knowledge of hedge and field simples" and associated herb gathering -for "drinks and medicine" is clearly a healthy rural tradition carried into the much less healthy environment of the city. Not surprisingly Alice, the country woman, is also a sick nurse and healer for those suffering from the unhealthy confines of the factories and houses.
From chapter 4: Old (Rural) England vs New (Industrial) England: Alice's memories of her country youth which she shares with the two girls emphasize the same pastoral beauties evoked in the earlier chapters: the "hills there as seem to go up into the skies", a cottage situated among giant grey rocks all covered with yellow and bown moss, "the ground between them knee-deep in purple heather, smelling sae sweet and fragrant" etc. Juxtaposed to her tiny, damp cellar which is described in the chapter, the contrast is striking.
11. In Marx the self-constituting activity of the working class for-itself sometimes takes the form of the kind of combinations typified by trade unions (or later industrial unions). a)How does Elizabeth Gaskell portray the relations between the self-activity of workers and the unions in Mary Barton? b) Does her portrayal/understanding conflict or overlap with Marx's? To what degree or in what way might they be compatible?
Gaskell's portrayal of the relationship between the self-activity of workers and unions in Mary Barton tends to see the two as exterior to each other. While her portrayal of the situation of the workers during a period of high unemployment and starvation is very sympathetic, that of the unions is much less so. Her first apparent reference to trades unions (p. 61) suggests that they "find it their interest to cherish such feelings [of vengence] in the working classes; who know how and when to rouse the dangerous power at their comand." Later, she sees trade union militants mostly as outside agitators. For example, when she describes the arrival of a trade union delegate in Manchester during the strike, she does so in a way which makes him (and by implication all his ilk) appear manipulative and disreputable. She refers to him as "the gentleman from London" (the big town agitator acting upity vis a vis the workers) and describes him as "far from earnest", like a "disgraced medical student", or a "unsucessful actor" or a "flashy shopman". He "smirks", he buys off the workers with liquor and tobacco, he is dishonest about the power of businessmen, he "dictates" resolutions, placard messages, slogans, and buys all with gold coins! Thus he is obviously not a man of the people, not a workers among workers but one come to manipulate them to his own ends, the increase of his own power and that of his institution. She goes on to blast the "real wrong-doing of the Trades' Union" -namely their opposition to and attacks on scabs brought in by the companies against which the workers are on strike. Those workers she paints as sympathetically as as she does those on strike, e.g., "poor depressed men tramping in . . . to work at the condemned 'Starvation Prices'" (p. 223) but the damns the "awful power" of the "combination" which not only is "capable of almost unlimited good or evil" but is used for evil in this case by pitting strikers against strike breakers. This evil she paints vividly in John Barton's account of the horrible consequences he observed from a striker having thrown vitriol in the face of a knob-stick or scab, e.g., "not a limb, nor a bit of a limb, could keep from quivering in pain"(p. 240), and the conclusions he draws are Gaskell's own: "w han all on 'us been more like cowards in attacking the poor like ourselves; them as has none to help. but mun choose between vitriol and starvation".(p. 241) But of course the follow up is no better, instead of attacking the workers the unionists decide to kill a capitalist and the rest of the book demonstates the folly of that decision.
b) Thus in its general tone and detail of exposition, Gaskell's treatment would seem diametrically opposed to that of Marx which treats trades unions more as an outgrowth of workers struggles than as something exterior to it. Yet, it is also true that Marx saw that trades unions while expressions and vehicles of struggle were not adequate and could, in some ways, be contrary to workers interests if they only focused on narrow "economic" interests and did not see or act to obtain the general class interests. So that even for Marx, to be an outgrowth, an organization al solution perhaps appropriate at the moment, never meant that workers and trades unions were coincident and no conflicts could arrise. Surely, it has become commonplace in the 20th Century for Marxists to critique the evolution of trades unions away from being organizations of workers to being organizations designed to manipulate and control workers by rich bosses in the union as well as in the companies. Thus, Gaskell's vision of the fundamental common character and interests of the strikers and the strikebreakers was very similar to Marx understanding of the "class" character of workers. Moreover, her graphic description of the divide and conquer tactic of the employers in offering jobs to the starving to undercut their old workers can be seen as a vivid illustration of Marx repeated discussion of the division of (once)waged (strikers) and unwaged (reserve army)(more on this later in Chapter 25) that he often discussed in terms of the English and the Irish (who were often brought in as strike breakers). [FYI: in one of her other novels, North and South, Gaskell deals again with the issue of strikebreaking and in that case with the importation of Irish workers.]