Following Ed Dutton’s video making the distinction between the working class in Britain and indeed, the underclass, I thought I would type a few thoughts.
I see this a bit differently. I grew up in a council house in East Ham. My dad was from Poplar. He lost his own father at five in 1952 and used to pull wood off bomb sites and sell it so his mum, brother and sister could eat. From that start he worked all over the world as a telephone engineer. My brother is a stockbroker, my sister a legal secretary, and I’m self‑employed.
When people talk about “underclass”, “benefits” and “council estates”, it’s easy to forget they’re talking about the streets and families that actually built England and kept it running. I’ve done the Haven/Butlins holidays too, and it’s always struck me that if we’re all in the same caravan park with our kids, the lines between “decent working class” and a supposed “underclass” can’t be as clear‑cut as they look from a distance. We weren’t a client population being paid to breed; we were the people who fixed the phones, kept things working and raised kids who went into the professions.
That’s why I’m uneasy with dividing people into “decent working class” and a supposedly less intelligent “underclass”, and with folding “large Islamist families” into the same picture as a demographic problem. It flattens stories like my family’s into a stereotype and lets the British Establishment off the hook for decades of decisions on industry, housing, immigration and education that hollowed out those same communities. By all means criticise bad incentives, but once we start talking as if whole sections of our own people are a different breed, we stop seeing who really built England – and who is actually responsible for running it into the ground.
That distinction goes at least as far back as Marx, who distinguished between the "proletariat" and the "sub-proletariat."
Indeed one may argue that there is an overlap--not an identity--but a conceptual overlap between the proletariat/sub-proletariat and the Victorian concept of the "deserving/undeserving poor."
The working class (not the underclass) tend to be based. Their eyes are open to reality but they’re also non resentful, resourceful people. Their concerns are legitimate. Something I think that the term woke right undermines. I no longer support that term.
I see this a bit differently. I grew up in a council house in East Ham. My dad was from Poplar. He lost his own father at five in 1952 and used to pull wood off bomb sites and sell it so his mum, brother and sister could eat. From that start he worked all over the world as a telephone engineer. My brother is a stockbroker, my sister a legal secretary, and I’m self‑employed.
When people talk about “underclass”, “benefits” and “council estates”, it’s easy to forget they’re talking about the streets and families that actually built England and kept it running. I’ve done the Haven/Butlins holidays too, and it’s always struck me that if we’re all in the same caravan park with our kids, the lines between “decent working class” and a supposed “underclass” can’t be as clear‑cut as they look from a distance. We weren’t a client population being paid to breed; we were the people who fixed the phones, kept things working and raised kids who went into the professions.
That’s why I’m uneasy with dividing people into “decent working class” and a supposedly less intelligent “underclass”, and with folding “large Islamist families” into the same picture as a demographic problem. It flattens stories like my family’s into a stereotype and lets the British Establishment off the hook for decades of decisions on industry, housing, immigration and education that hollowed out those same communities. By all means criticise bad incentives, but once we start talking as if whole sections of our own people are a different breed, we stop seeing who really built England – and who is actually responsible for running it into the ground.
I’ll keep your comment in mind for future posts. Thanks again.
Interesting. Thank you. This adds much needed nuance to the topic. Whereas I think Ed Dutton was too simplistic in his analysis.
That distinction goes at least as far back as Marx, who distinguished between the "proletariat" and the "sub-proletariat."
Indeed one may argue that there is an overlap--not an identity--but a conceptual overlap between the proletariat/sub-proletariat and the Victorian concept of the "deserving/undeserving poor."
Thank you. This rings a bell..I remember reading about this.
The working class (not the underclass) tend to be based. Their eyes are open to reality but they’re also non resentful, resourceful people. Their concerns are legitimate. Something I think that the term woke right undermines. I no longer support that term.