英国工人阶级的形成（上下） 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

作者选取英国工业革命时期的工人为考察对象，用阶级分析和阶级斗争的观点解释历史，阐述了他关于阶级和阶级“形成”的理论。

上册

前言

第一部 自由之树

第一章 成员无数

第二章 基督徒与地狱魔王

第三章 “魔鬼之窟”

第四章 生而自由的英国人

第五章 栽培自由之树

第二部 受诅咒的亚当

第六章 剥削

第七章 农业工人

第八章 工匠及其他

第九章 织工

第十章 生活水平和经历

第十一章 十字架的转换力

第十二章 社会

汤普森（Edward Palmer Thompson）1924年出生在英格兰，父亲是作家兼诗人，在印度殖民地从事过教育工作，同情印度的民族独立运动，与尼赫鲁等国大党领袖颇有私交。父母的思想对幼年汤普森很有影响；中学时期，他在一所卫斯理派私立学校读书，然后考进剑桥大学学习，这时，他加入了英国共产党。第二次世界大战爆发后，他应征入伍，先后在北非、意大利和法国作战。他的哥哥也是一名共产党员，作战很英勇，晋升到上校，后来在战争中牺牲。哥哥对他的影响很大，战后，他曾与母亲共同写了一本追念哥哥的书，题名为《一个幽灵在欧洲徘徊》。（这是《共产党宣言》中的第一句话，用在这里，是一语双关。）战争结束后他回到剑桥大学继续学业，同时也积极参加党的活动，并到南斯拉夫、保加利亚等国协助当地的战后重建工作。1956年，由于不满苏联对匈牙利问题的处理，他和其他一些历史学家如罗德尼·希尔顿、克里斯托弗·希尔等共同退出共产党，这以后，他成了独立的“马克思主义者”，主张“社会主义的人道主义”。他对政治活动一直很有兴趣，曾参与起草“1968年五一宣言”，反对工党政府实行向右转政策。70年代，他又积极投入和平主义运动，是欧洲反核运动的领导人之一。

汤普森的著作除《英国工人阶级的形成》之外，还有两本历史学专著，一本是《威廉·莫里斯：从浪漫主义到革命》，写的是英国社会主义运动领导人威廉·莫里斯的生平；另一本是《辉格党人与猎人》，剖析18世纪英国社会冲突中一个典型的现象：偷猎活动。汤普森还发表过一些重要的历史学论文，它们虽然篇幅不大，但分量很重，并不亚于专著。它们多数涉及18世纪英国的社会问题，在历史学界很有影响。这些论文中特别重要的有：《时间、劳动纪律与工业资本主义》（1967），《18世纪英国民众的道德经济学》（1971），《贵族的社会、平民的文化》（1974），《民间文学、人类学和社会史》（1978），《18世纪英国社会：没有阶级的阶级斗争？》（1978），这些论文后来收归为一本书，题为《乡规民俗》。此外，汤普森还写了许多政论文、时事评论等，撰写过反战、反核武器的书。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：英国工人阶级的形成（上下）在线阅读

在线听书地址：英国工人阶级的形成（上下）在线收听

在线购买地址：英国工人阶级的形成（上下）在线购买

我想把那些穷苦的织袜工、卢德派的剪绒工、‘落伍的’手织工、‘乌托邦式’的手艺人，乃至受骗上当而跟着乔安娜·索斯科特跑的人都从后世的不屑一顾中解救出来，他们的手艺与传统也许已经消失，他们对新出现的工业社会持敌对态度。这看起来很落后，他们的集体主义理想也许只是空想，他们的造反密谋也许是有勇无谋；然而，是他们生活在那社会剧烈动荡的时代，而不是我们；他们的愿望符合他们自身的经历。如果说他们是历史的牺牲品，那么他们现在还是牺牲品，他们在世时就一直受人诅咒。

的暴民就更重要。伦敦暴民始终存在于18世纪的政治史中，而威尔克斯在18世纪60年代竞能完全消除政府代理人对他们的控制。从某种意义上说，这是一种处于演变中的暴民，正在成为具有自我意识的激进群体，非国教和政治教育的酵母已在产生作用，使得人民倾向于维护大众自由，对抗当局和参加“社会抗议运动，而运动中潜在的穷人与富人之间的冲突…已昭然若揭了…”②斯皮特菲尔兹的丝织工和他们的学徒长期以来一直以其反政府骚动而著称。吕德博土在他的《威尔克斯与自由》一书中注意到工业冲突曾多次转变为威尔克斯信徒的示威，示威者的口号也转变为共和或者革命口号，比如“让国王见鬼去吧！让政府见鬼去吧！让法官见鬼去吧！”，“史无前例的、最光荣的发动革命的时机到来了！”等等。在将近十个年头里，伦敦和南方似乎（按一个评论家之语）是“一个无人管辖的疯人院，一伙赤贫的、闲散的和发狂的暴民成了它的主宰，而激励他们的仅仅是威尔克斯这个字眼…”这些人是威尔克斯的支持者，他们

这样一种论点是用未来的收益去轻视一代人所经受的痛苦。对于受尽苦难的人们来说，这种回顾的欣慰却是令人心寒的。

工人们就这样超越了自身的经历，他们借助于自己含辛茹苦所获得的不规范的教育，形成了有组织的社团，这是最重要的政治现象。

我想把那些穷苦的织袜工、卢德派的剪绒工、“落伍的”手织工、“乌托邦式”的手艺人，乃至受骗上当而跟着乔安娜·索斯科特跑的人都从后世的不屑一顾中解救出来。他们的手艺与传统也许已经消失，他们对新出现的工业社会持敌对态度。这看起来很落后，他们的集体主义理想也许只是空想，他们的早饭密谋也许是有勇无谋；然而，是他们生活在那社会剧烈动荡的时代，而不是我们；他们的愿望符合他们自身的经历。如果说他们是历史的牺牲品，那么他们现在还是牺牲品，他们在世时就一直受人诅咒。

书籍介绍

作者选取英国工业革命时期的工人为考察对象，用阶级分析和阶级斗争的观点解释历史，阐述了他关于阶级和阶级“形成”的理论。

• 作者：MR.Mao♈︎Ⓜ︎ⓐⓞ 发布时间：2022-06-22 22:30:27

  我相信每个人都梦到过自己从高空坠落，梦到过自己被人或物追却跑不掉，梦到过那些怀念的害怕的焦虑的热爱的，梦对于我们来说到底意味着什么？

  这是我第一次认真思考这个问题，但我看完还是没有明白。这本书7次将我带入梦里，给了我7个梦，认真地看完了还是没有给我答案。

  书挺难懂的，很多观点我也并不认同。解梦，从周公就开始做的事情，千百年来没人能说得清，这样一来我也就释怀了。

  时代不同了，每个时代的人事物等一切都完全不同，所以我很确信，每个时代里的人梦到的东西都是不一样的，凭什么能凭借梦就能知道梦背后的东西？凭什么通过梦就能知道一个人对现实的理解？更别说预测未来了，我真不太信。我相信梦与潜意识有关系，梦也是我们大脑的一个信息输出，我们的大脑是和宇宙一样的深渊，也许很多年以后我们才能真的搞懂梦是怎么回事吧。

• 作者：Julia 发布时间：2016-10-05 09:28:54

  受不了下面某位同学，都不知道你有没有看完这本书就瞎逼逼。你说18到19世纪工资上涨，请问是谁的工资上涨？是占人口最多的一般工人？还是有技术的工匠？还是工厂主？恐怕你连他们的工资是怎么算出来的都没弄清楚吧？

• 作者：zxit2 发布时间：2017-12-24 21:58:36

  阶级意识的觉醒是阶级形成的标志。英国工人阶级的斗争，不单单是为了改善福利，还希望恢复劳动的成就感以及恢复对家庭的支配权。换句话说，一个是追求事业的成就，一个是追求家庭的幸福。这两种自主权，实际都是对自由的向往| 道德经济学：在分析具体经济问题的时候也要把当时人们的道德观念考虑进去 | 你在一个群体里有强烈的归属感，而且这个群体足够大，那就离阶级不远了。这个观点和多数马克思主义学者的解释不同，它不那么强调阶级的经济地位和政治地位

• 作者：狂而无依 发布时间：2015-02-16 02:41:59

  虽然有些地方对于非专家来说过于细节了，但学历史的人都该读一读。

• 作者：辄馨 发布时间：2012-03-22 09:48:32

  “我们不应该仅仅把工人看作是永恒的失败者，他们的50年历程以无比的坚韧性哺育了自由之树。”——工人运动是对社会变迁的回应，欧文主义在福利国家复活永生

• 作者：胖达叔 发布时间：2017-04-12 17:48:15

  实在是太过驳杂，厚度实在也是惊人，以至于一旦中间隔了几天没读，再就接不上了，所以最终我也没能读完，一脸懵逼地读了一半多。而且核心的思想和基本脉络一定得读钱乘旦书后的介绍。

• Book Review: E.P.Thompson, The Making of English Working Class(NYRB/HNET)

  作者：by 发布时间：2011-10-19 11:15:32

  此书蒙多年前湘姐推荐，稍有接触。但生性懒散，迟迟未毕。近日幸为作业所迫，得以阅毕。间有不解，复览而明。

  想我国朝新时代之工人阶级渐次形成，蚁族工蜂、白领蓝翔，不绝于耳；血泪呼号，不减英伦。二十年目睹之怪现状，不禁掩卷为之恻然耳。

  公元两千零一十一年十月夜，记于合众国圣路易。

  公元两千零一十二年秋改毕。

  E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books, 1963. 848. Pp.

  “Nevertheless, when every caution has been made, the outstanding fact of the period between 1790 and 1830 is the formation of ‘the working class.’ This is revealed, first, in the growth of class-consciousness,” and “second, in the growth of corresponding forms of political and industrial organization” (p.194). E.P. Thompson’s book tells us about how the English working class coalesced in the period from the 1790s to the 1830s. Thompson provides us with abundant details about the varieties of lived experience of the English workers at that time to show how they could come to regard themselves as sharing a common “experience.” He sketches a scene of the struggles of these workers, revealing their screams, their cries, and their history, which was full of blood and tears. Based on the focus of “traditional” cultural issues and class-consciousness, the author makes a case for class as a historical relationship in a way that departs from “orthodox” Marxism.

  The book begins with “The Liberty Tree,” the culturally available resources left by British history. These include the tradition of Dissent, which included dominations such as the Independents, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Baptists (modified by Methodist revival), which could “combine political quietism with a kind of slumbering Radicalism” (p.30); the traditional notions of the “birth-right” of Englishmen; and the ambiguous tradition of the eighteenth-century “Mob” (pp.24-25). Riots, the mob, and popular notions of “free-born” rights are viewed as “sub-political” traditions (p.59). Thompson finds that the London crowd should not be simply identified as ruffians or a part of criminal element, but he also emphasizes that we can observe the crowd well from concrete issues. For example, the Gordon Riots of 1780 clearly showed the three phases that popular agitation would pass through (p.71). Beside the agitated institution, the obscure feeling of defending rights is also crucial. In this section, the influential views of Thomas Paine play a key role: “We can almost say that Paine established a new framework within which Radicalism was confined for nearly 100 years, as clear and as well defined as the constitutionalism which it replaced” (p.94). However, with the suppression of the revolutionary Jacobins, the disorganized and persecuted working people struggled to hold their organization, thus societies such as Sheffield, including their rights-claiming etc. are discussed in the book.

  Part Two, “The Curse of Adam,” examines some personal/private experiences (living standards: goods, homes, life, childhood) of different kinds and groups of workers. Their achievements and their painful lives reflect new kinds of working disciplines and working characteristics. Unlike the Dissenting sects, the Methodists “contribute” to the formation of the working class in a special way: In addition to the forms of popular meetings they provided, Methodist practices included the “collection of penny subscriptions and the ‘tickets,’ so frequently borrowed by radical and trade union organizations, but also an experience of efficient centralised organization” (pp.43-44).

  The third part, “The Working-class Presence,” covers the varieties of riots and movements, relating to the people who engaged in them: Chartists, Owenites, Radical Westminster Committee, Edward Despard, Informers (turncoats or mercenary volunteers, nit an organized group though), Croppers, Stockingers, etc. Thompson finds that the secret political tradition, suffering from its weakness in propaganda (secretive and small-scale) and suspicious environment, could not survive unless it joined with the secret industrial tradition (p.494). And of course the Luddite movement should be highly noticed as this kind of joint character, given its organization. The sources of Thompson’s narrate are appealing: it is based on an abundant source base of pamphlets, archives, public and governmental records, periodicals, etc., and a theoretical perspective expanding the classical Marxism theory. The interpretive framework of the book, with the depiction of details which were supported by the documents and resources, becomes very powerful.

  In what follows, I would like to analyze three aspects of Thompson’s book. First, from a theoretical perspective, Thompson’s revision of Marxist theory (or the context of Marxist doctrine), which innovates on the historical phenomenon and the outcome of experience away from an economic-determined explanation, should be deeply affirmed. It could be viewed as an alternative way of analyzing social transformation. Many scholars find that Thompson abandons the economic determinism of traditional Marxism, in favor of what could be called a kind of cultural Marxism. I would argue that even cultural and political determinisms are rejected by Thompson. The historically-conditioned relationships that inform experience and the formation of class consciousness are of crucial importance for Thompson. William H. Sewell, Jr. points out that Thompson adopts a much looser theoretical model of the relationship of economic conditions to social experience and consciousness. (“How Classes Are Made: Critical Reflections on E. P. Thompson’s Theory of Working-Class Formation,” in Harvey J. Kaye and Keith McClelland eds. E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1990, pp.50-77.) Sewell, however, also finds that Thompson fails to face the productive relations in which the working class actually existed. In so doing, Thompson implicitly affirms what he wants to deny: the class, which is economically structured, is independent from the workers’ consciousness. As a way of moving past the problem of the class struggle and productive relations, I would like to argue that class could be regarded as a kind of personal identity, which is not fully generated by productive relations. The common experiences of workers, as Thompson argues, will lead them to “feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves.” (p.9) While Raymond Williams defines culture as a whole way of life, Thompson views it as a struggle of different ways of living. It is in this meaning that the common experience and identity of workers are formed.

  Second, by highlighting this kind of identity and daily life, Thompson actually keeps on inaugurating a new kind of historical writing, which would later become known as the “New Cultural history.” (Lynn Hunt ed., The New Cultural History. University of California Press, 1989.) The influence of Thompson’s work on the development of the new cultural history is significant. On the one hand, in the wake of scholars such as Richard H. Tawney, “history from below” had become a pursuit for British historians. On the other hand, cultural history borrows from the older tradition of German historiography known as “Kulturgeschichte.” Jacob Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy shows various lives in the Italian cities during the Renaissance. Johan Huizinga’s The Waning of the Middle Ages had already shown the importance of cultural mentality in an age. The study of collective memory was on its way to prominence (and was largely developed by the French scholars). At this point, the work of Thompson leads and enhances the trend toward the study of daily lives, memory and popular culture.

  The studies about construction of custom, culture, mentality, crowd, and class were raised in the next several decades following the publication of Thompson’s work. Thompson’s work also has had a deep influence on German scholars’ interest in the cultural dimensions of the daily lives of historical subjects (e.g. class relations) by cultural perspective (e.g., H. Medick, A. Lüdtke, D. Sabean, G. Sider). The 1960s were a period dominated by structuralism, but Thompson tries to save the stockingers, croppers, weavers, and artisans from an unfair historical ideology by depicting specific activities of the workers who assembled to criticize the Bible in the factory, to discuss politics in the pub, to form their own organizations, etc. Sewell finds that Thompson actually uses synchronic depictions broadly but that he disguises them within an explicitly diachronic approach. It could be argued, however, that Thompson actually finds structure to exist in the historical progress. His insistence of explicating diachrony should be viewed as a rebellion against the form of structuralism popular at that time, rather than an approach that he really ignores or rejects.

  Third, the evidence Thompson supplies lends considerable support to his overall framework. Thompson reveals the relative poverty of workers during the “Industrial Revolution,” for instance, even the cotton-spinners in 1818 Manchester, who, after their payments were deducted, were only left with 18s. 4d. (pp.243-244). Beginning with the miserable story of Thomas Hardy, the author rescues the working class status from what he calls the “condescension of posterity” (p.12). As Chengdan Qian has noted, the discourses of Fabianism and liberalism influenced the pessimistic historical views towards the English working class in the industrial process. (“From Weber to Thompson,” History of the World 6, 1984) Liberal historians would even contend that the Tory government appealed to the illusory threat of “violent revolution” in order to justify to the suppression of the political reforms.

  In fact, Thompson compels us to notice two different kinds of the eighteenth-century riots in Britain: “spontaneous popular direct action” and “the deliberate use of the crowd as an instrument of pressure, by persons ‘above’ or apart from the crowd.” (pp.62-63). “Traditional” Marxists, for their part, tend to ignore the role of British traditions. Against whom is Thompson arguing? It is obviously that the New Left tries to reinterpret the experience of social development in England. The Whigs’ clichés that lower people and the riots are meaningless should be abandoned. The focus on the working-class movement supplied by Fabianist historians and liberal historians’ sympathy toward workers’ resistance (against economic exploitation and political oppression) are inherited by Thompson. At the same time, he quarrels with the trend of obscuring the agency of workers and their contributions: “There is the Fabian orthodoxy, in which the great majority of working people are seen as passive victims of laissez faire, with the exception of a handful of far-sighted organizers” (p.12). In addition, “there is the orthodoxy of the empirical economic historians, in which working people are seen as a labour force, as migrants, or as the data for statistical series” (p.12). Thompson also resists what he regards as the error of reading history “in the light of subsequent preoccupations”: “There is the ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ orthodoxy, in which the period is ransacked for forerunners” (p.12). Or, from another perspective, when “the Industrial Revolution was encountering the problems of ‘take-off’,” “the generations of workers between 1790 and 1840 sacrificed some, or all, of their prospects of increased consumption to the future” (p.204). We cannot sacrifice the experience of the individual workers in the interest of “improvement” or “progress” based on economic developments at that time. Nor can we obscure differences out of regard for the welfare state or the happiness of “majorities.”

  In addition to the classified analysis, Thompson is also concerned with showing how the religious or spiritual concerns affected class consciousness and class formation. What role did Methodism play in the “making” of the working class? Thompson denies that at first “Methodism was no more than a nursing-ground for Radical and trade union organizers” (p.41). But at another level, “Methodism was indirectly responsible for a growth in the self-confidence and capacity for organization of working people,” as Sauthey indicated in 1820. Thompson goes on to argue that “throughout the early history of Methodism we can see a shaping democratic spirit which struggled against the doctrines and organizational forms which Wesley imposed” (p.42). Organizational function seems to be crucial in distinguishing Methodism from other religious sects, given “the temporary permeation of Methodism by some of the self-governing traditions of Dissent, and the transmission to working-class societies of forms of organization peculiar to the Methodist Connexion” (p.43). Even if the function of Methodism in shaping the working class is obvious, Thompson still does not attribute all the efficacies of class forming to Methodism. He cites Sauthey to reveal that the Methodists made of religion “a thing of sensation and passion, craving perceptually for sympathy and stimulants.” Of course, he argues that compared to other religious, Methodist theology “was better suited than any other to serve as the religion of a proletariat … to feel themselves to be ‘elected’” (p.362). From the case of Methodism, we can see Thompson in fact shows the procedures that “make” class by both organizational manipulation and spiritual foundation. These two parts show both economic and cultural influences; Thompson’s “making” theory is therefore not just a simple “determination” or “cultural Marxism.”

  Thompson’s narrative abounds with individuals full of emotion and unique experience, real men and women, and concrete daily lives. He punctuates his narrative with dramatic plots. Dissatisfied with the fact that “nearly all the classic accounts by contemporaries of conditions in the Industrial Revolution are based on the cotton industry,” (p.192) Thompson, with the ambition of “seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ‘obsolete’ hand-loom weaver, the ‘Utopian’ artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott” from “the enormous condescension of posterity,” (p.12) seeks to discuss these kinds of workers one by one. Yet, only the weaver and the artisan are discussed specifically, thereby leaving the stockinger and the cropper in relative obscurity, even though he argues for their historical significance. The categories of workers surely influence the organization of their movements and their political tendencies. As Thompson observes, “Jacobinism…struck root most deeply among artisans. Luddism was the work of skilled men in small workshops. From 1817 onwards to Chartism, the outworkers in the north and the Midlands were as prominent in every radical agitation as the factory hands” (p.193). It is therefore crucial to distinguish between those categories. It is also curious that Thompson does not explore the division found in the master-servant relationship that he established before. Categories of servants included farm servants (hired by the year or the quarter), regular labour-force (more or less fully employed the year round), casual labour (paid by day-rate or piece-rate) and more or less skilled specialists (might contract to job) (p.215). Although this would make Thompson’s task much more difficult, describing these hinds of workers one-by-one would produce a more convincing result, whether from a statistics standpoint or from a more qualitative perspective.

  Thompson argues that “collective self-consciousness was indeed the great spiritual gain of the Industrial Revolution” (p. 830). Hence, the Chartists, never forgetting to get the vote, served as the key points of political power or social control. So I insist on the useful conception of “experience,” which indicates the way of understanding the rise of the working class’s self-consciousness. Collective experience is not the only factor in deciding the formation of class, but it is nevertheless a basic factor. Why did workers view themselves as a new class? The benefits, the ways of life, the degree of education, and broad connections (and if there were political organization things will be better) could propel a “class” from “experience” (social being) to “consciousness” (social consciousness). Thompson’s work indicates a “conscious” realm and an implied “agency” by emphasizing the feeling and identity of workers and their activities/practices. He mentions in many places to express his opinions of those kinds of feelings: “When we speak of ‘imagery’ we mean much more than figures of speech in which ulterior motives were ‘clothed.’ …The imagery is itself evidence of powerful subjective motivations, fully as ‘real’ as the objective, fully as effective, as we see repeatedly in the history of Puritanism, in their historical agency.”…“It’s the sign of how men felt and hoped, loved and hated, and of how they preserved certain values in the very texture of their language” (p.49). He uncovers workers’ voices by engaging the concrete experience of ordinary people. Radicals, journalists, workers, and Owenites all vividly wrote and read, from newspapers to pamphlets, to handbills. That is the reason why small groups or communities could finally become a real class. That is the difference between Thompson and Louis Althusser. Only based on the confidence of “agency,” we can find, as the workers themselves announced: “That the number of our Members be unlimited” (p.21).

  Boyi Chen(Department of History,Wash U)

• 工人阶级这样走上历史舞台

  作者：唐山 发布时间：2013-04-12 00:37:49

  本书是历史学家E•P•汤普森的代表作，这部巨著1963年出版时，他还不满40岁。

  本书聚焦于英国工人阶级形成的过程，汤普森从一个全新的角度来理解阶级：阶级是一种关系，而非简单地等同于经济基础。事实上，两个穷人并不必然走到一起，除非他们接受了自己的阶级身份，并相信他们有共同的利益。

  汤普森这样来理解阶级，因为当时太多人将阶级的概念庸俗化，将其简化为经济实力的差别，于是，人类中的一部分（穷人）天然成了正义者，而另一部分人（有产者）天然成了坏蛋，不论后者做了什么，前者都有权力惩罚他。

  在汤普森看来，阶级是一个文化的过程，是人们接受阶级概念并为它奋斗的经历。于是，英国近代史不再仅仅是民主进化史，它也是阶级萌芽、成长和斗争的历史，两者互相激荡，历史不再呈现为线性发展那么单调、优美和富于逻辑了。

  那么，这个文化过程是如何开始的呢？汤普森认为英国工人阶级有四个奶妈，一是非国教传统，一是英国人“生而自由”的观念，一是民众自发反抗，一是法国大革命的影响。正是它们的合力，才让那些分散在各地、从事不同工种、彼此竞争的人们，真正发现了他们的阶级属性。

  1792年3月，8名工人在小酒吧里讨论了生活的艰难，每人出了一便士，形成了第一个工人阶级组织，他们认为议会也应该倾听他们的意见，几周后，这个组织壮大到几百人，接着他们以谋反的罪名被逮捕，差点上了断头台，但最终被宣判为无罪释放。几名发起者很快就在记载中销声匿迹，但无产阶级却从此走上了历史舞台。

  事实上，工人阶级并非某个先知点化而成，它完全是自发秩序的产物，它最初要求如此含混，甚至将经济目的和政治目的混为一谈，但很快它就校正了方向。因为，钱权结合让当时的英国如此堕落，在号称世界上最富的国家中，劳动者生活极为艰难，看上去仿佛发生了一场富人对穷人的内战。

  不错，从平均数上看，当时英国工人的收入比法国工人高一倍，但汤普森揭破了其中的谎言：平均收入落实到每个家庭，其实是少数人的天堂和多数人濒临破产，这是推动英国工人阶级从认同到运动的关键力量。

  令人敬佩的是，汤普森不仅展现工人阶级发展的客观过程，还精描了人们主观心态的变迁，他通过几十个侧面来刻画人们为什么将自己看成是工人阶级，这让本书成了一部真正的百科全书，甚至可以这样看：汤普森是以工人阶级为经线，串起了整个英国近代历史，作者惊人的博学与敏锐的洞察力，令人叹为观止。

  如果你只想读一本英国近代史，那么，这本书就是最佳选择。