MARXISM 2010, London July 5th
Injustice:
Why social inequality persists
The claim: the five social evils identified by Beveridge in 1942 are gradually being
eradicated, they are being replaced by five new tenets of injustice - elitism,
exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair. [but we should think back, so I have
included a few pictures from the past in this talk]
Social injustices are now being recreated, renewed and supported by these five
new sets of unjust beliefs. We need to again begin to think differently, as some of
the ruling class last did in the 1920s and 1930s. This time will be different. Now far more than battles over resources - it is arguments over ideas which
perpetuate inequality, because in rich countries we have enough for all.
Danny Dorling
University of Sheffield - http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/injustice/
Five renewed tenets of
Injustice (renewed from the 1920s)
The five tenets of injustice are that:
elitism is efficient, exclusion is
necessary, prejudice is natural,
greed is good and despair is
inevitable. Because of
widespread and growing
opposition to the five key unjust
beliefs, including the belief that
so many should now be ‘losers’,
most of those advocating
injustice are careful with their
words. But those who believe in
these tenets are the majority in
power across almost all rich
countries.
Frank Horrabin’s cartoons
(Staff Artist Sheffield
Telegraph, 1906, London
Newspapers from 1911.
Example from the 1920s:
Hepple, L. W. (1999). "Socialist
Geography in England: J. F. Horrabin
and a Workers' Economic and Political
Geography." Antipode 31(1): 80-109.
Renewed Lies of Our
Times (renewed between 1950s-90s)
World maps of those on the
lowest and highest incomes
living on under 1$ a day:
Although many of those who are
powerful may want to make the
conditions of life a little less painful
for others, they do not believe that
there is a cure for modern social
ills, or even that a few inequalities
can be much alleviated. Rather,
they believe that just a few
children are sufficiently able to be
fully educated and only a few of
those are then able to govern; the
rest must be led. They believe that
the poor will always be with us no
matter how rich we are… It is their
beliefs that uphold injustice
…over 200$ a day:
source: www.worldmapper.org
See Dorling, D. and Pritchard J., 2010, The Geography
of Poverty, Inequality and Wealth in the UK and abroad:
because enough is never enough, ASAP Journal.
Labourservatives?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/22/budget
-2010-osborne-key-words# from 2010 and, from 1932:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/images/chaos
Emrys Hughes MP (46-66), 1932:
1. From ignorance…
City of Sheffield – Age 18-21
destinations of 15 year olds
2001-2007

In 1942 illiteracy was
Orange = mostly full-time work
Pink = new university ( away)
widespread and
Red = pre 1992, ‘old’ university
numeracy was even
worse. James Flynn has
shown how much we have
improved since (see his book
‘What is Intelligence’, 2007)

However, educational
apartheid in the UK has risen
as the majority of additional
qualifications in recent
decades have been awarded
to a minority of young adults
Hallam
Constituency
(Nick Clegg’s)
A Tale of Two Cities: The Sheffield
Project (University of Sheffield 2009)
http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/research/
sheffield/



2001-2007
A seventh of children in
affluent countries are now Pink = new university ( away)
Red = pre 1992, ‘old’ university
routinely described as
Yellow = apprenticeship
“found limited or simple
Green = unemployed
at learning” by the OECD
Many now again believe that
the ‘ability’ of children is
distributed along a bell-curve
Hillsborough
with little chance for most of
Brightside
rising much above their set
Central
potential
Heeley
This elitism is erroneously
seen as being somehow
efficient
Attercliffe
…to elitism
City of Sheffield – Age 18-21
destinations of 15 year olds –
Second most likely destination
elitism is efficient – because some are
strong and some are weak?
“…every new school acquiring
academy freedoms will be
expected to support at least
one faltering or coasting
school to improve. We are
liberating the strong to help
the weak - a key principle
behind the coalition
Government” (Gove, Hansard 21/6/2010)
Is this helpful or patronising?
Picture credit: Michael Gove, Secretary of State
for Education, 8 May 2010 by Paul Clarke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Gove.jpg
Is this man “the
strong” or “the
weak”? Does he
need liberating?
GDP 1929-2009
Sources include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/200
9/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy
1955
2009
2. From want …



In 1942, for the first time in The keys to poverty
Maps used to read like this:
Britain, many of the poor
did not go hungry thanks
to rationing
Absolute material
deprivation was reduced
to the point where obesity
became associated with
poverty
Source: B. Seebohm
Social segregation has
Rowntree, 2000
increased as real financial
(1901), Poverty: a
rewards and benefits to those study of town life,
Bristol: The Policy
worse off have fallen — just
Press
as the riches of the wealthy
Poverty in York:
have grown
… to exclusion



Carry on as we are & soon
maps might again read like
this (Booth’s 1890s map):
a sixth of people in the more
Yellow: Upper-middle and Upper classes. Wealthy
unequal rich countries are
Red: Well-to-do. Middle-class
‘debarred’: excluded from
Pink: Fairly comfortable. Good ordinary earning
Purple: Mixed. Some comfortable, others poor
full membership of society
Pale Blue: Poor – homes of moderate families
because of poverty. A much Dark blue: Very poor, casual. Chronic want
smaller proportion exclude Black: Lowest class. Vicious, semi-criminal
themselves from social norms
by dint of their wealth.
Questioning these extremes
is far from encouraged
Exclusion has become
accepted as a new necessity,
both the super-rich and
widespread inequality have
become acceptable
exclusion is necessary
(according to the rich)
Who told George its unaffordable?
George Osborne’s Budget Speech,
June 2010: “Sadly, there are
further benefits which the
country can no longer afford.
So we will abolish the poorlytargeted Health in Pregnancy
Grant from April 2011.”
But is that grant unaffordable?
In fact the annual cost would be very
similar to Barclay’s ‘President’ Bob
Diamond’s (disputed) £63 million
annual ‘compensation’.
£63m figure from: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politicsnews/2010/04/04/peter-mandelson-s-anger-at-banker-s63m-pay-86908-22161500/
PictureCredit: George
speaking in 2009 at Keele University, taken by M. Holland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Osborne_0437.jpg
Why is £190 not affordable?: cutting benefit
- even child benefit from the unborn….
Who can get Health in Pregnancy
Grant? [until April 2011]
You can get the grant if all of the
following apply:
 you are 25 weeks pregnant or more
 you have been given health advice
from a midwife or doctor
 you may not get the grant if:
 you are subject to immigration
control or
 you are not present, ordinarily
resident or have a right to reside in
the UK
How much do you get?
 The grant will be a one-off payment
of £190 for each pregnancy. It will
not affect your tax credits or any
other benefits. Everyone will get the
same amount – you will not be
asked about your income.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Fetus_a
mniotic_sac.jpg - public domain image
The last group of mothers who will be eligible for the grant will
be those who find out they are pregnant around Christmastime
this year. From then on the poor get poorer, including the
unborn poor. Child benefit can take three months to arrive.
Policy graphics
1933 and 2010


The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/24/budg
et-2010-ifs-cuts-data#zoomed-picture
My plan for 2,000,000 workless, by Ernest Bevin,
Clarion Press, 1933
3. From idleness…



In the 1930s millions of
people were desperate for a
job … any job
That desperation was
eradicated by creating new
employment and providing
better social security
But a wider racism has
developed, a new social
Darwinism, which sees some
people as inherently less
deserving and able than
those who ‘need’ great
rewards to work in ‘top jobs’
Frank Horrabin (Socialist Geographer)
See slide two above for source.
…to prejudice


a fifth of adults in countries
like Britain and the United
States are now serial
“debtors”. Rising inequalities
in income and wealth have
made it more likely that
people get into debt in order
to keep up with their peer
group and avoid being judged
‘undeserving’, of living in the
wrong place, or of just
wearing the wrong clothes.
This prejudice is being
painted as natural – as
Darwinian.
It is hard to imagine large numbers of
people. Above are the million people who
filled the National Mall at Barack Obama’s
inauguration. One million people in the UK
aged 25 and under have no work and no
place in college. Image: http://www.rferl.org/content/
Barack_Obama_Sworn_In_As_US_President/1372515.html
prejudice is natural – are millions on the
dole because others are ‘worth’ fortunes?
“The Chairman of bailed-out RBS has
acknowledged that bankers are
overpaid. Sir Philip Hampton said
that salary persists to be
'astonishingly high', but claimed
that he had no option but to shell
out the going rate for best
talent.…[top people get] average
take-home pay of more than
£240,000 this year. … Sir Philip
said, “If we don't pay our top people
they leave very quickly. Our top
people are very much in demand
and we have seen a significant loss
of our top people”.”
5 January 2010, as reported around
the world (this from New Zealand).
Image from Story titled: “RBS Chief Acknowledges His
Staff is Overpaid” 5 January 2010:
http://topnews.net.nz/content/23704-rbs-chiefacknowledges-his-staff-overpaid
Image: http://topnews.net.nz/images/Sir-PhilipHampton.jpg
4. From squalor…



After 1942 unprecedented
numbers of households were
homeless, the eradication of
slums was a priority
Most spending on housing
was initially for those who
most needed housing
But now a mantra is widely
accepted that for those who
have most to spend, their
spending is necessary at
almost any cost, including
growing global inequalities
and mounting debt
Income Inequality, share
Held by richest 1%, 1918-2005+
Electoral Inequality, Segregation Index
of Tory voters, 1918-2005+
Sources: ‘Injustice’ Chapter 5
+ New Statesman (2010)
…to greed




Inequality, in survival chances
to age 65 in Britain, 1918-2005+ [BMJ]
a quarter of households in
Britain are ‘discarded’ in
terms of social inclusion.
Many cannot afford to run a
car while others have more
cars than they can drive.
Foreign holidays are
advertised as normal,
whereas increasing numbers
of households cannot afford a
single annual holiday
Greed is presented as good,
welcomed as what now
drives our model of economic
growth, not ‘duty’ but ‘greed’
Income inequality (X axis) verses Health
inequalities (Y axis) in Britain, 1918-2005
32%
30%
28%
26%
24%
22%
"1931"
20%
18%
16%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
greed is good
“It may not be pretty
but, on the whole,
greed is good”
Preston, R. (2008). Who runs
Britain? How the super-rich
are changing our lives.
London, Hodder & Stoughton.
(page 336).
Picture Credit: Robert Peston,
BBC Economics Editor, 20
June 2007, London, taken by
Steve Punter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Peston,_June_2007.jpg
5. From disease…



In 1942 a near bankrupt
country planned the
introduction of efficient
national health care
The NHS and reduced social
inequality, resulting in a great
reduction in suffering and fear
of physical disease
But anxiety rose in place of
disease, best understood as
a symptom of living in times
and places when wide
inequalities are seen as
acceptable
The
distribution
of “top”
bankers in
Britain –
drawn by
Ben Hennig
on an equal
population
map.
…to despair


a third of families in Britain
now contain someone who
suffers depression or
chronic anxiety disorder. The
result of living in more
unequal affluent countries is
to harm the mental well-being
of people in general and
especially adolescents, who
now face such uncertain
futures
Despair is becoming seen as
inevitable, the symptoms
require mass medication, but
what of the causes…?
The rate of prescribing antidepressants by the NHS in
Scotland, 1992-2006 (antidepressant daily doses per
1000 people aged 15+
(Injustice Chapter 7)
US mortgage debt 1977-now
% annual change and $billions
despair is inevitable there is no alternative
If you believe the five tenets
of social injustice then the
last tenet is self-fulfilling
Despair is inevitable:






Celebrity culture dominates
Winner takes all capitalism
Political parties run by neoaristocrats and millionaires
Praying for technological
fixes to environmental ruin
Universities become private
schools with ‘market’ fees
“Those in greatest need
ultimately bear the burden of
paying off the debt”
[Bob Neill, Conservative Local Government Minister, June 2010
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/06/15/davidblunkett-on-how-the-poor-stand-to-suffer-under-thecondem-coalition-115875-22334187/ ]
Various sources. Ms Diaz is
more popular than ‘Dave’.
Caroline Bonarde’s image is
from “Shrek the Third”
premier:http://commons.wiki
media.org/wiki/File:Cameron_
Diaz_June_07.jpg
But inequality is expensive. In money,
learning, respect, labour, housing and lives.
Among the world’s richest 25 countries:
The most unequal are:
By 90: 10 income ratios
17.7 Singapore (-)
15.9 US (20)
15.0 Portugal (-)
13.8 UK (22)
13.4 Israel (-)
And the most equal are:
6.9
Germany (14)
6.2
Sweden (8)
6.1
Norway (8)
5.6
Finland (10)
4.5
Japan (-)
There are many alternatives:
1) There are alternatives in our recent past
(1918-1968/78 and earlier still).
2) There are alternatives abroad.
Inequalities in Social Injustice is lower
almost everywhere else in the OECD
3) There are alternatives in our
imaginations, where so many have never
been as free to think as they are now –
especially in the countries which are
already much more equal than is the UK
Social Inequality damages our collective
ability to think clearly – all of us
Source: note 37 page 327 of ‘Injustice’ Why social
inequality persists. The Figures given in brackets are
UNDP 2009 % aged 16-65 lacking literacy
Danny Dorling
University of Sheffield http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/injustice/
Conclusion
To consume less, you need to feel
you have more in common with other
people.
If success is about having a lot of
money,
success is about consuming more
and wasting more.
Consumption by everybody is less
in countries where everyone is more
equal.
All affluent countries need to reduce
their levels of consumption by
reducing social inequalities.
Through their dominance of global
media and marketing the rest of the
world usually looks up towards richer
countries.
What example are the rich
providing?