Britain’s industrial bourgeoisie ruled economically while an aristocratic caste governed politically

Evidence

When Marx examined British politics in the series of articles for the New York Daily Tribune which he commenced in 1852, he had to confront the stubborn fact that, though the capitalist mode of production was fast developing, and with it an emergent industrial bourgeoisie, the latter appeared to “rule” either through a Tory party, representing the large landed proprietors, or through the Whig party, consisting of “the oldest, richest, and most arrogant portion of English landed property,” “the aristocratic representatives … of the industrial and commercial middle class.” To them, apparently, the bourgeoisie had abandoned the “monopoly of government and the exclusive possession of office.” How capital advanced through this complex political configuration-giving rise to a distinction between an “economically ruling class” and, at the level of the political superstructures, a “politically governing caste”-was a fundamental problem; for the dynamic of British politics (and the politics of the working class, which remained tied to the tail of the Whig-Radical alliance) was constantly mediated-deflected-through its structure (Surveys from Exile ). — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 511

Categorization

• XREF: The economically ruling class vs. politically governing caste distinction is the historical ground of Hall’s theory of relative autonomy and hegemony.
• SEED: A possible essay angle: how contemporary political parties camouflage capital’s rule behind symbolic masks, echoing the aristocratic ‘mask’ Marx misread.