"May Day is more relevant than it has been for decades because it symbolises the struggle between providers of capital (the rich industrialists of the past whose fortunes were made out of the misery of the many) and the providers of labour (the factory workers, the children enslaved by low wages).
Currently though it is a battle between those who blame the crisis on the providers of capital – the banking and financial industry and unfettered capitalism – and those who blame Europe's bloated and unaffordable welfare state – which benefits the providers of labour, the workers. This ideological argument goes to the heart of this current economic and political crisis and is exactly what May Day is all about – the struggle between providers of capital and providers of labour." (posted on Guardian Business Blog, 1 May 2012)
Well, Louise, I'm not sure that's what this conflict is really about. But before we even go there, note the not-so-subtle distribution of adjectives; providers of capital get 'unfettered', whereas welfare state gets 'bloated, unaffordable'. While realising that this is but a quote on a business blog, it is quite discouraging to see that even a nominally left-leaning newspaper such as the Guardian would so uncritically allow for the perpetuation of a belief that the current crisis is all about either 'unfettered capital' (as the creator of wealth) and the 'bloated and unaffordable welfare state' (as the black hole down which said wealth disappears). As if the workers have disappeared from the picture? And more importantly, as if the word 'worker' has become some anachronistic epithet which is awarded only to scruffy-looking shipyard workers, exhausted Chinese factory workers and so on.
Are bank tellers not workers? Tesco employees being replaced by machines with which shoppers seem to prefer to interact? And low and high grade lawyers slogging it in their offices until the most ridiculous hours of the morning? The masses of the London commutariat, reading the current bestseller, killing pigs with flying birds or reading the news (though it pains me to call those papers 'news') - those very people whom we are meant to protect and celebrate on this day have long since turned away from any meaningful political engagement, save the odd donation to an overseas charity or a laconic attendance at the ballot box, choosing between Lego men with different colour ties. Moreover, even when there is talk of protecting the workers, it is immediately clear the debate is about jobs, social stability, about consumer confidence, rather than the quality of work.
Cynical? Certainly, and quite unapologetically so, for the task of any renewal is gargantuan. After all, being politically engaged has been quarantined and ridiculed successfully by a popular culture that values style above substance and forgets that aesthetics are fiercely political and often contested. It is the sort of veil which will have you think fashion is divorced from life, that art is solely individual, that style is a currency, that all is atomised and anything a commodity. In turn all this blog wants to suggest for today is to realise that our creativity, our intelligence, our bonds of friendship and kindness, our shared food and wine serve more than just a society of spectacle, but are in themselves meaningful and can be termed work. Off to work then.
No comments:
Post a Comment