In contemporary society the problem of idleness is a significant one. While millions struggle to aquire a decent education, basic healthcare, housing and even food and clothing there are millions idle who contribute nothing to the 'common weal'. A tremendous amount of human potential is squandered and everybody knows it. However the mass media focus their attention only on poor idlers. Rich idlers are not part of the problem, apparently; in fact they seem not to exist at all to the media! However, one must only look past the end of one's nose to see that both poor idlers and rich idlers exist and that both are economically undesirable.
Poor idlers are discussed daily in every newspaper, economic journal and news broadcast the world over. They are the unemployed whose number increases daily as the world economic crisis deepens. They are also, technically, the most vulnerable in society: the elderly, the handicapped and the elderly.
Rich idlers were described by Marx and Engels as 'coupon clippers'. They are those who live entirely off the labour of others. They also contribute nothing to the 'common weal'. The are of course a minority in society but still a sizable section of it. The landed aristocracy are the most obvious example of such people. They are not discussed in the media, in such a capacity, at all.
One may argue that the landed aristocracy or even large landlords do work. Some of them do, it is true. However this is economically entirely distinct from their existence as landlords and therefore 'accidental'.
David Cameron PM is wont to describe the Con-Dem government which he heads as one which is for 'those who want to work hard and get on'. From this one would infer that the Conservatives, and their pals in the media, would be against all forms of idleness. However, such an inferrence would be incorrect.
One the one hand, poor idlers are having their living standards attacked relentlessly. Benefits are being slashed for the unemployed, the handicapped and the elderly. The former group aforementioned are, moreover, ruthlessly villified by the media and spongers and crooks. George Osborne recently went so far as to link the tragic murder of the Philpott children to their father's life on benefits!
On the other hand the most prominent members of the British landed aristocracy, the Royal Family, have had their contributions increased. 'Official expenditure met by the Sovereign Grant in 2012-2013 amounted to 33.3 million pounds (!), an increase of 0.9 million pounds... compared to the previous year.' The Royal Wedding was of course paid for separately. Furthermore, the Royal Family are glorified by the media. The Daily Telegraph writes articles with titles such as: 'More than ever the Royal Family is worth every penny.'
Some may argue than the Royal Family does work. Even if one grants that the un-democratic head-of-state, for example, does work and is not just the figurehead of the British landed aristocracy and the central rallying-point for the chauvinist British establishment, which is asking a lot, these layers are essentially idle! Support for the British Royal Family politically is support for rich idlers more or less directly.
The hypocrisy of the ruling parties and the media, if a such distinction can be made, is therefore blatant. Their policies for and portrayal of poor idlers are entirely different to that of rich idlers. This is reason alone to resist the attacks against the welfare system currently taking place.
However Marxists are ultimately against all idleness (making exceptions for the sick, handicapped and elderly of course). We are for neither rich nor poor idlers. This is why Marx described socialism as: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Until the socialist transformation of society however, we will fight against the hypocritical and unfair cuts of this government to welfare.
Poor idlers are discussed daily in every newspaper, economic journal and news broadcast the world over. They are the unemployed whose number increases daily as the world economic crisis deepens. They are also, technically, the most vulnerable in society: the elderly, the handicapped and the elderly.
Rich idlers were described by Marx and Engels as 'coupon clippers'. They are those who live entirely off the labour of others. They also contribute nothing to the 'common weal'. The are of course a minority in society but still a sizable section of it. The landed aristocracy are the most obvious example of such people. They are not discussed in the media, in such a capacity, at all.
One may argue that the landed aristocracy or even large landlords do work. Some of them do, it is true. However this is economically entirely distinct from their existence as landlords and therefore 'accidental'.
David Cameron PM is wont to describe the Con-Dem government which he heads as one which is for 'those who want to work hard and get on'. From this one would infer that the Conservatives, and their pals in the media, would be against all forms of idleness. However, such an inferrence would be incorrect.
One the one hand, poor idlers are having their living standards attacked relentlessly. Benefits are being slashed for the unemployed, the handicapped and the elderly. The former group aforementioned are, moreover, ruthlessly villified by the media and spongers and crooks. George Osborne recently went so far as to link the tragic murder of the Philpott children to their father's life on benefits!
On the other hand the most prominent members of the British landed aristocracy, the Royal Family, have had their contributions increased. 'Official expenditure met by the Sovereign Grant in 2012-2013 amounted to 33.3 million pounds (!), an increase of 0.9 million pounds... compared to the previous year.' The Royal Wedding was of course paid for separately. Furthermore, the Royal Family are glorified by the media. The Daily Telegraph writes articles with titles such as: 'More than ever the Royal Family is worth every penny.'
Some may argue than the Royal Family does work. Even if one grants that the un-democratic head-of-state, for example, does work and is not just the figurehead of the British landed aristocracy and the central rallying-point for the chauvinist British establishment, which is asking a lot, these layers are essentially idle! Support for the British Royal Family politically is support for rich idlers more or less directly.
The hypocrisy of the ruling parties and the media, if a such distinction can be made, is therefore blatant. Their policies for and portrayal of poor idlers are entirely different to that of rich idlers. This is reason alone to resist the attacks against the welfare system currently taking place.
However Marxists are ultimately against all idleness (making exceptions for the sick, handicapped and elderly of course). We are for neither rich nor poor idlers. This is why Marx described socialism as: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Until the socialist transformation of society however, we will fight against the hypocritical and unfair cuts of this government to welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment