Dear Arthur,

British Social Realism in the Arts since 1962 (David tTucker-Ed) starts with a quote from Roy Bhaskar on critical realism.
       "Realists argue for an understanding of the relationship between social structures and human agency that is based on a transformational conception of social reality" . This is Bhaskar being (mis)quoted by John Roberts ( it should read 'social activity'). Anyway, Roberts clarifies , his position - saying that social realism is 'art that has a political understanding of a world capable of social transformation.'
We know of course not to conflate realism with naturalism.  But , can we still see Jesus flying off the cross as a form of social realism? Well it points to social transformation, l guess. Especially in the light of your own comments on the Black Christ:
      " Human values don’t come first and we are oppressed. We are wrapped up and bound and chained and I tried to symbolise it in this thing in him breaking out of the tomb breaking out of the shroud that has kept us down. We’re all chained by that. That was why I done it”

Peter Peri is singled out by Anthony Blunt in C Day Lewis as 'descended' from Duamier, Dalou, Rivera, Orozco and Courbet. Peri's sculpture 'Man's Mastery of the Atom'  (1958) seems to sit somewhere between Black Christ and The Daresbury Splitting the Atom sculpture, in style and subject matter respectively.

Anthony Blunt goes on " real art of  the socialist state will be evolved by the most progressive sections of the proletariat who will have shaken off the most vicious effects of bourgeois culture [...] the bew art will be less sophisticated but more vital than the old"
This sounds like both Proletkult under Alexander Bogdanove (see Lynn Malley) and yourself at the Unity of arts Conference on Sunday 30 November 1969 at AEU Hall The crescent Salford.  The meeting was aimed at bringing together Labour trade union, student , Co-Op and progressive organisations to find ways to bring art into the workplace ( TUC resolution 42) . Anyway at that meeting you were minuted as saying that " we should be satisfied with nothing less than the working class control of the arts, the communications media and education" You decried the notion that " middle class well wishers could bring culture to the masses.' And for good measure you added that all the arts construction , machinery, ships, houses were produced by working men".
You seem to be saying that there is an equivalence between producing art and producing the other material goods of society.

Realism, big in the 50s went out in the 60s , socially engaged art back in the seventies (art and society debates - Richard Cork- studio International. The Realism's fortunes somewhat tied to those of the CPGB and its relations with USSR. Seen simplistically as 'easier' than modern art, simplistically as a communist not capitalist.

Where to situate the work and life of Arthur Dooley?
Worker artist - like the Ashington miners, seeing an equivalence between art and non art production.
Nearly always in Liverpool, but perhaps with his best work outside Liverpool- Leyland Daresbury, Glasgow??
Definitely in Liverpool but hardly mentioned in the major accounts of Liverpool art ( Willets , Biggs, Grunenberg). Never in one place in Liverpool , but criss crossong - pulling threads together - Catholic, Cof E, Methodist, Scandinavian Church, Communist - Christian Marxist, industrial art , sacred art, hobby art, and the odd flirt with the avant-garde ( with Roger McGough at a'happening'.

Final position?
Worker artist but not just depicting the working class situation, but employing critical realism to suggest a future that can be different.