taken by Lord Beveridge after the Second World War. All of these people were involved in a turn in liberal thought that was called "new liberalism," a liberalism with a social conscience. T.H. Marshall also talks about industrial citizenship and its relationship with citizenship. He said that social rights are a precursor for political and civil rights. Among the lasting influences of "Citizenship and Social Class" is its commentary on capitalism in relation to emerging social rights. Marshall noted the "contradiction between social rights and the requirements of a market economy within the dynamic context of welfare-capitalism...where citizenship functioned to contain these conflicts between social classes." Class inequality within capitalist societies created tension with Marshall's emerging ideas of citizenship. He argues that the creation of social rights are necessary in reducing this tension between civil, political, economic inequality. Marshall saw this process as a struggle unfolding over many centuries and looked to the future in hopes of a more egalitarian society. Influence Marshall's work on citizenship influenced other scholars. Reinhard Bendix’s Nation Building and Citizenship (1964) is said to owe "much to Marshall and much of it reads like a commentary on Marshall’s own treatment of that theme." Talcott Parsons’s "Full Citizenship for the Negro American?" (1965) is held to draw "enormously from Marshall." Stein Rokkan met Marshall at the London School of Economics and Rokkan's work on citizenship was influenced by Marshall's ideas. Anthony Giddens's discussion of citizenship in The Nation-State and Violence (1985) builds on Marshall's distinctions and analysis. Marshall, along with Stein Rokkan, is credited with the establishment of "what has become the standard narrative of the evolution of modern democratic citizenship." Marshall's emphasis on social rights influenced both theoretical literature and policies pursued in the twentieth century. Criticisms Marshall's analysis of citizenship has been criticised on the basis that it only applies to males in England (note: England rather than Britain). His theories specifically applied within English contexts of social reform and therefore were not subject to comparative analysis. Marxist critics point out that Marshall's analysis is superficial as it does not discuss the right of the citizen to control economic production, which they argue is necessary for sustained shared prosperity. From a feminist perspective, the work of Marshall is highly constricted in being focused on men and ignoring the social rights of women and impediments to their realisation. There is a debate among scholars about