Were the political classes right to be concerned with the potentially revolutionary consequences of radicalism?
In the comfortable knowledge of hindsight it is very easy to see the past as inevitable and thus, that it was inevitable that the radicalism of the first half of the 19th century would become moderated and would never pose a serious threat. However, as can be seen by the study of contemporary sources this was not the view at the time and it should not be assumed that with different leaders, different harvests or different pamphlets the revolutionary radicals would not have fulfilled Marx and Engels predictions in making England the first communist state. Therefore, to judge the potential danger of the radicals their aims must be taken into account along with their organisation and methods. The aims of the radicals differed according to their allegiance, which broadly speaking can be taken as Chartist, Trade Unionist, or Owenite. The Chartists were by far the most revolutionary and their primary aim was to push through parliament the Six Points, however, Chartism also embodied an intellectual movement, which rejected the middle class ideology being forced upon them. The six points in themselves were not a huge threat to the political classes, (as can be seen by the relatively uneventful passing of five of them) however, the wider aims, which essentially involved a new social order were hugely threatening. Similarly, the rejection of authority inherent in Trade Unionism and Owenism was a threat to the strictly defined social order so crucial to the survival of the political classes. Yet, other than the six points the movements largely lacked a specific programme, did not represent a united working-class movement and were on the whole not advocating violence in order to achieve their aims. Thus whilst, in practical terms the radicals posed little threat, the possibility of revolution, as had been experienced on the continent, and the ideological threat to middle class authority, show that the political classes were right to be concerned with the potentially revolutionary consequences of radicalism.
The traditional interpretation of working class radicalism was that there was a ‘Swift transition from militant working-class radicalism in the 1830’s and 40’s to the relative quiescence of the age of equipoise’1 It was believed that the working class submitted to the middle class and their ideology. However, newer interpretations cite that the radical ideas remained but they were now working within society, rather than attempting to overthrow it. To see this phenomenon as an inevitable occurrence is to prove determinist and deny the impacts of chance. For example, if the economy had not improved, therefore allowing the emergence of a labour aristocracy then their moderating effect on the movement would be removed, making more drastic outcomes possible. Nevertheless whilst the mellowing of the radical movement was not inevitable, it was likely, due to the lack of a coherent set of aims which encompassed the entire of the working classes, and the fact that most of the leaders did not incite violence. Chartists’ clearly laid out their Six points, however, this was by no means the limit of their ideology, they were against the oppression of the working classes by the political classes not just for economic reasons, but also for moral ones. They believed that oppression prevented people from reaching their full potential and thus that the moral relationship between the political classes and the working classes was fundamentally wrong. Chartists set about remedying this by setting up schools to improve themselves and were so confident in the progressive nature of knowledge that they hoped to eventually persuade the middle classes through reason. In this way, the paradox emerges whereby their fundamental rejection of the current oppressive social and political order is their most radical and concerning document for the
