ABSTRACT
Like in the United States, the landscape of British economics is a contested one. Beginning in the 1870s, classical political economy came under increasing criticism from adherents to the heterodox historical political economy school and the emerging neoclassical school. Moreover, the rise of interest in socialism and land nationalization by the working class and accompanying interest in Marxian economics and Georgism produced a significant negative response by the capitalist class and social elite. In particular, the interplay between working-class interest in Marxism and the upper classes efforts to rid the workers (and other interested people) of this pernicious interest produced an extraordinary contested history of heterodox economics in twentieth-century Britain up to 1970. On the one hand, there was the forty-year attempt to establish a community of independent working-class education with Marxism as one of its key components that was organizationally grounded and had teachers, students, books, and schools; and then there was the fortyyear effort by the upper classes to prevent such a community from existing. At the same time, there was effort among academic economists to exclude Marxism and other heterodox approaches from taking hold in university economic departments and being taught to students. Thus by the 1950s, neoclassical economics dominated both the instruction to workers and university departments, although there were some rumblings of opposition. But the 1960s saw cracks in the status quo, a crisis in economics, and the beginning efforts to create anew a community of heterodox economists, the fruits of which will be shown in the following chapter. The rest of this chapter will embellish the above historical sketch of the contested landscape of British economics, starting with a prologue on working-class education, Marxism, and upper-class reaction in the three decades prior to the twentieth century. Adult education was a feature of British society since before 1800; how-
ever, working-class education was another matter. The political agitation of the 1790s lead to workers reading, thinking, and discussing among themselves, the outcome of which, in the early 1800s, contributed to the emergence of the English working class and the perception that their interests were
different from their social-economic betters. Thus education within and for the working class consisted of obtaining “really useful knowledge,” that is knowledge that both educated and contributed to their social and economic emancipation. Such knowledge, which could only come from workers themselves, was an embedded concatenation of political knowledge that explained everyday experiences such as why the state attacked trade unions, a social explanation of society, and political economy that included both the study of economic history and economic principles that addressed such questions as poverty, exploitation, and co-operation. In contrast, the upper classes feared the consequences of workers obtaining really useful knowledge.1 Thus they thought that workers should be educated to understand that their interests coincided with their interests and that workers and capitalists were engaged in a cooperative venture; and the teaching of political economy was considered one way to achieve this. The adult school movement from 1800 to the 1840s was carried out with this in mind, while from 1820 to 1850 Mechanics’ Institutes were established throughout Great Britain with the intention to produce in a round-about-way a more skilled labor force that would identify with the interests of the upper classes. The 1850s marked the emergence of secularism in Britain, a movement con-
sisting of the working and lower middle classes whose mission was a radical restructuring of society by peaceful means. The fundamental view held by secularists was that religion was nonsense and promoted social practices and mores that were exceedingly harmful to men, women, and children. Thus, their aim was to discredit Christianity and those social institutions that depend upon it. Questioning a central pillar of society lead to two related outcomes: the first was the questioning of other central and sacred pillars of society and the second was a powerful desire to be educated. Freethought and educationa deadly combination for the status quo. Therefore, secularists formed secular and freethought societies throughout Britain where weekly lectures were held on wide-ranging topics and libraries were established for members’ use. In the early 1880s, membership in the societies reached its peak, for another cause that excited the working classes began to emerge-that is socialism. Initially they co-existed in that secularists could either be in favor of socialism or individualism; and given their adherence to freethought, they invited champions of both views to debate their merits at their meetings while also ensuring that their libraries stocked their books.2 However, the aims and objectives of secularism, while compatible, were different so eventually there was a split with the former fading into the background. Still it was due to their inquisitiveness and adherence to freethought that secularists, through their societies, enabled socialisms to be introduced to the working classes3
(Johnson 1979; Shapin and Barnes 1977; Tyrrell 1969; Fieldhouse 1996a; Royle 1980; Simon 1965; Macintyre 1980). The last twenty years of the nineteenth century witnessed the rise of trade
unionism, working-class politics and a drift of workers away from the Liberal Party, and consequent interest in socialism (and in Georgism and land
reform). As part of the process, there was an emphasis on education as a way to change workers’ outlook on the economy and their position and role in society, which included learning about Marxism and socialism. One venue was lectures (outdoors and indoors) given by members of the Socialist League, Social Democratic Federation, Fabian Society, and various local socialist societies to working-class audiences across Britain. In addition, publications on Marxism and socialism directed at the working class became widespread.4
With the availability of literature, it was not long thereafter that socialist groups revived the tradition of independent working-class education and formed discussion and study classes whose texts included Capital, Wage, Labour and Capital, and The Socialist Catechism. What drove many to take up studying Marxism was the need for economic knowledge that would enable them to direct their own trade-union activities without depending on the mainstream political parties for guidance and most importantly to challenge capitalism in the workplace and work for revolution and the emergence of socialism. Reactions to the spread of Marxism (and Georgism and land reform) among
workers varied among the upper classes. Attempts were made by the authorities to directly prevent freedom of speech and assembly relative to open air lectures, but in the end they failed due to protests by the working class. Another approach was a sustained effort to discredit Marxian theory (and its Ricardian foundations), especially the labor theory of value and its corollary that the origin of profits was in the exploitation of labor, and replace it with theories whose central tenet was that exchange value was determined solely by utility or demand. The critique was largely aimed at the educated classes and the labor aristocracy, as it was carried out in journals that were too expensive for most workers to purchase.5 Thus, it had one significant outcome in that Marxian theory was largely dismissed as a legitimate theoretical account of capitalism and hence it should not be taught as part of regular instruction at universities and university colleges, although many of them had lectures on the history of socialism and on the shortcomings of Marxism. As a result, the way was cleared for the uncontested rise to dominance of the teaching of Marshallian supply and demand theory at British universities.6
