Vive la Francais

On the 5^th December 2019 over one million workers in France began a General Strike. You could have been forgiven for failing to notice as the entire British media were obsessed with what time, if at all, Jeremy Corbyn listened to the Queen’s Christmas message, following his interview with Kay Burley.

Never mind though, because the British press were bound to catch up on the 6^th December. To be fair it was on the front pages of the Guardian and Telegraph, but not in the prominent position you might expect.

By 18^th December the “left leaning” Guardian was reporting ‘impartially’ that the strike had “damaged businesses, frustrated commuters and cast a shadow over holiday plans.” It is probably worth reminding ourselves that the Guardian was an enthusiastic supporter of President Macron.

In November 2017 shortly after his unexpected electoral victory the Guardian printed a eulogistic article by Adam Plowright in which he said:

“Macron is the most vivid example yet of a modern-day political disruptor. Not only did he create a victorious party from scratch in record time, he also won with a progressive centrist manifesto at a time of surging rightwing nationalism.”

The question for “centrist” loving journalists was whether Britain could find their own Macron. 

The nationwide strikes in France were called in response to Macron’s proposal to increase the pension age from 62 to 64, and to reduce the benefits received. The BBC gave a ‘helpful’ guide to the action on the day the strikes began. It makes interesting reading.

The piece starts factually enough:

“unions representing millions of staff in both the public and private sectors are unhappy about a plan to overhaul the country's pension system, which they say will force people to work longer or face reduced payouts when they retire.

One opinion poll put public support for the latest strike action at 69%, with backing strongest among 18-34 year-olds.”

But the BBC then goes on to justify why the ‘reforms’ are necessary. It states that,  “France currently has a complex system” of pensions which Macron wants to unify. But the reason is never given as saving money though the fact that “the country's pension deficit could be as high as €17.2bn ($19bn; £14.5bn) by 2025,” is cited.

The BBC then explain: “Mr Macron, aware of France's ageing population, has said his universal pension plan would be fairer than the current system.” Interestingly no voice from the unions is given to balance this view. Rather, we are told that the age of retirement in France, “remains one of the lowest among the OECD group of rich nations”.

The BBC, and especially its senior journalists, spend a great deal of effort in telling us that they are impartial. But is language ever impartial? This paragraph starts by explaining that “Mr Macron has not suggested immediately increasing the age of retirement” but despite his reasonable proposals “unions fear it will mean having to work longer for a lower pension.”

Note, that we have been led into this by being told that pensions are too expensive and that French workers have one of the lowest retirement ages. Furthermore, the proposals (here called a ‘suggestion’) are not to take immediate effect, nevertheless unions “fear” the effects. It is difficult not to read into this that the unions are culpable of producing a fear without much in the way of evidence.

I have stated previously that the BBC’s bias is unconscious, although in some instances (Laura Kuenssberg and Alex Forsyth’s General Election utterances come to mind) it is hard to see as anything but deliberate. But, their reaction to being called out on their bias reveals either a delusional inability to accept criticism, or a genuine horror that anybody could believe that they are anything but model professionals.

I am, on the whole, still of the opinion that rather than being propagandists they are simply reinforcing the taken-for-granted assumptions of their class. This is why it is so laughable when Huw Edwards claims: “These critics imagine a world in which thousands of BBC journalists – of all backgrounds, nationalities, outlooks – work to a specific political agenda dictated by a few powerful individuals..” Perhaps some people imagine that to be the case, but most critics of the media see an organisational culture that has a set of assumptions that are widely shared.

As academic Fulker Hanusch has shown: “When asked about cultural influences in general, all journalists acknowledged that their particular cultural values shaped what they did in their job. In fact, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to separate their values from their work.” 

There is a widely read academic journal article by Mark Douze (2005) in which he asks the question “What is journalism?” and locates the answer in occupational ideology which he describes as “a system of beliefs characteristic of a particular group, including – but not limited to – the general process of the production of meanings and ideas (within that group).” Journalists are socialised into a way of thinking, although as many are ambitious to climb the career ladder they readily accept the dominant viewpoint. This leads to a situation whereby organisational culture becomes a “process over time, through which the sum of ideas and views – notably on social and political issues – of a particular group is shaped, but also as a process by which other ideas and views are excluded or marginalized.”

BBC journalists discuss the crisis of capitalism 

In plain terms this means that no puppet-master is required to tell journalists what to think, they would not last long in a news organisation if they believed anything else. Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule and depending on what and where they are reporting a certain degree of latitude can be allowed. On fundamental issues, however, such as strikes or socialism, the vast majority of journalists will agree with the dominant view. Hence, why you will never see a mainstream journalist explaining that the strikers really had no option but to take action against unreasonable employers.

To get a left wing perspective on the French strikes, or any issue for that matter, it is necessary to look elsewhere. For example on 27^th December Counterfire reported: “The excuse for the attack is that as the population gets older there won’t be enough money coming into the state-run pension fund. The real solution is to ask for higher contributions from employers, who have been showered with tax cuts for decades.” 

An alternative media does exist

 Meanwhile the Morning Star’s report of 8^th December gave some much needed context: “In corporate capital’s unceasing attack on workers, reform became the code word for a series of changes that supposedly needed to be made in order to guarantee the survival of workers’ benefits which the neoliberal states were continually eroding, the money from which was then ending up in the pockets of corporate board members.”

To a journalist on the BBC or Sky News, or The Guardian or Telegraph such views seem extreme and conspiratorial. The reality that the social system in which we live is capitalist is hardly disputed (though rarely explicitly stated), although the efficacy of this system versus any alternative is dismissed as fanciful. During our recent General Election so obsessed were our media with trivia, much of it designed to shame Jeremy Corbyn, that the idea that an election might be a good time to discuss the type of society we want to live in, never even warranted a mention. Strikes, as it happens, are very good opportunities to have those discussions. Picket lines are working class universities where ideas are debated and perfected. 

Strikes tend to be presented as a battle between government/employers and “the unions”. Invariably mainstream media present the employer side of the argument as reasonable and the union side as motivated by fear or greed. The stereotype of a striker is either an anarchistic radical hell bent on trouble or a dupe simply following orders. But, strikers should rightly be seen as heroic, prepared to make a personal sacrifice for their principles.

French website The Local interviewed some of the strikers in December. Forty two year old father of two Kamal told them: “"Every day we go on strike, we are putting ourselves in a precarious financial situation. But too bad, I'm making a sacrifice. We haven't experienced any insults while we've been striking. Everyone's involved, it's not just a strike for us.” Whilst RATP worker Okan said: "It’s really difficult. There will surely be less Christmas gifts under the tree this year. We’ll consume less.” Teacher Veronique said “It’s really hard, we’re losing a days' worth of salary every time we strike,” whilst her colleague Brigitte said: "Our pupils are very sympathetic, and it seems like their parents are too. At least with this strike the media has started telling the truth about the realities of being a teacher in France. Which is really hard.”

Whilst the French strikes are ostensibly about pension reform they are also about the political decisions taken by the Macron government. Most workers do not want to strike, they do not want to lose money, they do not want to put themselves into debt. But, what alternative is there? If governments and employers were reasonable, as the media try to convince us, then strikes would not be necessary. But, strikes are the expression of a conflict at the very heart of capitalism.

As The Marxist website points out: “Day and night, we are fed a torrential rain of lies and slanders. The proposed pension cuts are presented in the bosses’ media as the epitome of “fairness” and “social progress”, while the strike is painted as the work of a godless and lawless “privileged” layer of the people.” At the heart of this battle over ideas lies a conflict over resources. Bosses want workers to work long hours for low pay with few benefits, workers want shorter hours, more pay and benefits such as sick pay, holidays, meal breaks and pensions. When times are good the class with the purse strings is willing to concede to at least some of the workers demands. As The Marxist puts it: “The organic crisis of capitalism is pushing the French ruling class to attack all of the gains made by the workers through struggle.” And, it is not just France where the crisis is occurring or the concessions given to organised workers are being eroded. It is currently only in France, however, that millions of workers are actively fighting back.

1848 saw a wave of revolutions across Europe

We should not get too carried away, it would probably be a mistake to assume that the general strike in France is a prelude to some kind of workers revolution. Whilst it is certainly the case that the strikes will develop into a more generalised analysis for many of those involved, it is also the case that many strikers simply want to protect their pensions not bring down capitalism. As Lenin famously remarked in ‘What Is To Be Done?’: “The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness..” 

According to Lenin what was necessary to push workers further than mere economic reformism was a revolutionary party. The question of political representation is an important and pertinent one. But it is probably worth saying that in an era where trade union membership is in decline almost everywhere, trade union consciousness can be very radical indeed. Indeed, in an era where governments have made it more difficult to strike to see any strike taking place is a sign of resistance. To see a mass strike feels revolutionary.

For those of us watching from this side of the channel, still reeling from the election defeat, these French strikers offer us hope. Remember these strikes have occurred only a short time after the Socialist Party finished fifth in the Presidential election, in a period where the neo-fascist Front Nationale continues to rise and where the centrist Macron was heralded as a new type of politician. The liberal establishment can salivate over Macron for his neo-liberal ‘sensible’ policies, but the reality is that it is the same people who are expected to pay for years of economic mismanagement. And, in France, they have said enough is enough.

Will these strikes develop into a more coherent anti-capitalist movement? Well, in all honesty, it is unlikely that we are in 1848 territory. If there is a spectre haunting Europe currently it is the ever present one of capitalist crisis, exacerbated by the self-harming tendency of a social system that is systematically destroying the planet. That said, this wave of strikes and demonstrations give all of us who oppose austerity, and want to save our planet, hope. Hope that ordinary people can be the answer not part of the problem. Hope that even in opposition the labour movement (as opposed to just the Labour Party or its European counterparts) can stop a right wing government in its tracks. Hope that the size of your majority is not an indicator of the depth of your understanding or your support. Hope that the workers united can win.