Class Conflict in 19th-Century England: Shelley, Carlyle, and Ruskin

Introduction: Modernization and Social Conflict

Modernization and industrialization inevitably led human society toward unprecedented social, economic, and intellectual progress; however, their emergence also produced worsening social conditions. As Karl Marx proposed in the Communist Manifesto, the development of capitalism — which gave birth to modernization — deepened the poor conditions in which working people lived. Moreover, capitalism and modernization created a wider gap between the elite and working classes, wherein the elite controlled and exercised power over those beneath them.

The theme of social conflict was evident in the literary works of English writers during the 19th century, a crucial period in which Western societies rapidly shifted from agricultural and traditional arrangements to capitalist and modern ones. Works by Percy Shelley, Thomas Carlyle, and John Ruskin demonstrate how English society experienced the detrimental effects of modernization on humanity. This paper discusses how each writer's work reflected the widening gap between the rich and the poor — that is, the worsening conflict between the elite and working classes as human society moved forward through socio-economic and intellectual progress. The central argument is that Shelley, Carlyle, and Ruskin's literary works portrayed modern society as intellectually progressive yet socially handicapped and morally regressed.

Shelley and the Tyranny of the Elite

The class conflict between the elite and working classes is addressed directly in Shelley's "Song to the Men of England," in which he expressed dismay over the tyrannical social order prevailing in modern English society at the turn of the century. This awareness of social conflict is made explicit in the following passage, which highlights the plight of the working class under elite control:

"The seed ye sow, another reaps; the wealth ye find, another keeps; the robes ye weave, another wears; the arms ye forge, another bears."

Carlyle's 'Past and Present' and the Anomaly of Oppression

The stanza captures the fundamental injustice of a system in which laborers produce all material wealth yet retain none of it — a condition Shelley viewed as a defining feature of modern English society.

In his discourse Past and Present, Thomas Carlyle acknowledged that the social order of modern society had changed in ways that privileged the elite while further oppressing the already dire circumstances of the working class. Describing the elite as the "unworking aristocracy," Carlyle lamented what he saw as the seemingly unsolvable problem of oppression among the poor, which he termed the "Anomaly." For him, social conflict was the "Fate" to which the working class was inevitably subjected — a condition that could only result in either continued "Existence or Annihilation" for working and poor people. Continued tolerance of oppression meant continued existence, while protest against it would end in "annihilation," or the further suppression of working people's freedom by the privileged elite class.

Conclusion: Progress Without Moral Advancement

Shelley, Carlyle, and Ruskin each portrayed modern society as intellectually progressive yet socially handicapped and morally regressed. Together, their works reveal a civilization advancing materially while failing its most vulnerable members. Where Shelley voiced the working class's exploitation through protest poetry, Carlyle diagnosed oppression as a structural and seemingly inescapable fate, and Ruskin turned to aesthetic theory to articulate what a truly egalitarian society might look like. Taken as a whole, these three authors offer a sustained literary indictment of the social costs of modernization in 19th-century England.