Marxist Moments

A MODEST PROPOSAL…   (a fable for our times)

 

                    Major employers in Britain greeted with enthusiasm a leaked proposal from an unnamed minister at the last Cabinet meeting that the problem of inequality of  pay between men and women in the UK  would be easily solved by reducing men’s pay to the average present level of women’s. (That is, excepting boardroom remuneration, since that is a private matter for individual companies.)

          The T.U.C. is predictably opposed to what it calls ‘an outrageous idea’, but certain other interests also expressed concerns: leading retailers have spoken of falling consumption levels as a result and HM Treasury officials have anonymously voiced worries about any major national wage reduction adversely affecting income-tax receipts. It was, however, pointed out that reduced tax intake could be compensated for by raising the existing lowest rate of tax. Meanwhile retailers need only compensate loss in sales volumes by raising prices, thus counteracting potential deflationary pressures.

          Women’s groups were divided as to how to react: some feminists were of the opinion that ‘it would teach the men a jolly good lesson’. Others more radically inclined referred to the proposal as leading to ‘a race to the bottom’. They were supported by economists demurring over a further downslide in productivity if everyone were low-paid. The Guardian’s position was, as usual, equivocal.

          The principal conundrum is, however, the electoral effect, since reducing the level of men’s wages to that of women’s would likely make doorstep canvassing somewhat challenging. But since all the biggest financial and business interests would be overwhelmingly in favour the Conservative Party could expect campaign contributions on a massive scale, swamping Labour’s funding, providing all Tory canvassers with protective gear and ultimately determining the tenor and direction of the next election decisively, what with near-blanket rightwing control of mass media; while social media ‘fake news’ about Jeremy Corbyn’s father having boiled babies for breakfast and the Labour Party intending to build a ring of concentration camps for Jews might – taken together – be sufficient to swing enough support to the Tories to deny outright socialist victory. But electoral Tory victory would be more securely ensured by the prior reintroduction of pre-1867 ‘property qualifications’ for voting along with excluding those who had served prison sentences of over two years, together with re-zoning constituencies (known in America as ‘gerrymandering’) through which an estimated 50 Labour constituencies could be abolished.

          One Daily Mail columnist, noting the likely expansion of food banks and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s rapturous approval of their altruism, wrote that ‘self-denial’ on the part of Britain’s male workers would strengthen the nation’s moral fibre: enough to see it through Brexit with determination and vigour, pointing out that personal sacrifice on such a scale had won the war.

          Whatever; the universal lowering of male wages has become the ‘new normal’ in political debate. As one rightwing politician put it: ‘We can take it from there.’

In case you think the above is make-believe, I would refer you to the lead letter in Mail on Sunday ‘Letters’ for March 11^th, 2018: ‘Easy way to end the gender gap – pay men less’.

The letter points out that with men earning on average 18% more than women, business simply can’t afford to bring women’s pay to level-pegging, so the only answer is to pay men less, if we want equality.

Any more than business not so long ago said it could not ‘afford’ to pay a national ‘living wage’ of £7.50 an hour: in other words, barely enough to live on. If business is in this parlous state, what is it for? And ask why women doing the same work should of necessity subsidise even greater company profits, just for being women. One option might be to change sex.

Long ago Nassau Senior argued strenuously against the 10-Hour Act limiting the working day to 10 hours on the grounds that this would impoverish business. (He apparently saw nothing wrong in children working 14 hours a day, which in some countries they may still do.) In other words we should only row back a bit on people worked to death for 24 hours a day on no pay at all.  Jeff Bezos on his £112 billion over at Amazon has shown eloquently how this kind of approach does indeed maximise profitability, at least for the CEO.

Of course, as Marx pointed out, the parliamentary limiting of the working day forced manufacturers to become more inventive in how to maximise worker productivity within a 10- and later an 8-hour limit: through advancing technology per worker per hour. Result was that manufacturers made more money than ever. But today, with ever-cheaper labour reserves available for one reason and another, Nassau Senior may live again.  

         

 

         

 

 

WHO OWNS THE PRESS?

 

Just a brief breakdown of the obvious: for those who argue that there should be no restrictions on press ownership in the name of ‘press freedom’. But how ‘free’ a press is it? Let’s have a look:

National Dailies:           Political outlook                              Proprietors:

FINANCIAL TIMES – centre-right                               Nikkei Inc. (Japan)

THE TIMES – right                                                   Murdoch – News Corp.

DAILY TELEGRAPH – far right                                         Barclay brothers

DAILY MAIL – far right                                                Viscount Rothermere

GUARDIAN – centre left                                                         (trust)

i – centre right                                                                           Johnston Press

DAILY EXPRESS – far right       Trinity Mirror (soon ’Reach’)/Desmond

THE SUN – far right                                                   Murdoch – News Corp.

THE MIRROR – centre left                                                        Trinity Mirror

DAILY STAR – far right                                          Trinity Mirror/Desmond

MORNING STAR – left                                    Peoples Press (not for profit)

National Sundays:

SUNDAY TIMES  - right                                                 Murdoch – News Corp.

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH – far right                                        Barclay brothers

MAIL ON SUNDAY – far right                                     Viscount  Rothermere

OBSERVER – centre/left/right (‘liberal’)                                (trust)

SUNDAY EXPRESS – far right                               Trinity Mirror/Desmond

THE SUN ON SUNDAY - far right                             Murdoch– News Corp.

SUNDAY MIRROR – centre left                                                    Trinity Mirror

THE PEOPLE – centre left                                                           Trinity Mirror

DAILY STAR ON SUNDAY – far right                   Trinity Mirror/Desmond

 

So I would class 10 of these nationals as ‘far right’, two as ‘right’, two as ‘centre right’, four as ‘centre left’, and one as ‘left’. That’s fourteen as ‘far right’ or ‘right/centre right’, with five as ‘left/centre-left’. Plus the Observer, which expresses views across the whole spectrum, but is never more than very cautiously left. (Or cautiously right, come to that.)

Unfortunately the present-day Fleet Street lacks a DAILY HERALD, a mass-circulation title once the platform for the TUC which could, at least, be depended upon to express the views of organised labour. Its place has been taken by the MORNING STAR, once a Communist-run newspaper and with continuing close links to the Party (formerly the DAILY WORKER) but now more broadly-based across the whole left spectrum, including Labour and Green party members, and run by a co-operative that reflects this spectrum. The MORNING STAR, very conscious of being the only paper reflecting trade union views (for example in regard to disputes) is thus the only paper which is reliably leftwing and as it lacks the resources of commercial advertising it is dependent upon day-to-day crowdfunding. It has become of major importance since the moment it became the ONLY national daily to support the candidature of Jeremy Corbyn (a STAR columnist then) and which continues to be the only paper that reliably reports his views and policies.

 

The print medium isn’t what it was, what with social media and news on the Web, and all print circulations (insofar as we know) have dropped. It seems likely that in a country in which the Conservative Party membership is some 130,000 while that of Labour under Corbyn is well over 600,000, the predominant press bias does not in any way reflect the views of the country taken as a whole: a fact which keeps the well-paid hacks of the rightwing press going through enormous populist contortions  in which only the truth suffers.

I have not mentioned the SOCIALIST WORKER, organ of the Socialist Workers Party which if anything is larger than the (main) Communist Party and with a paper-circulation to match. SOCIALIST WORKER stands at the head of myriad left weeklies of infinitely less circulation. This is because the SOCIALIST WORKER comes out weekly only and so really ought to be classed alongside weekly periodicals. It is not commonly found on sale at newsagents, either, but relies upon a web presence plus – for the print version - both membership subscriptions and hawkers.