HarperCollins’ sudden termination of its relationship with David Walliams—without any formal complaint, investigation, or publicly specified accusations—signals a shift in how culture industries use themselves to enforce ideological conformity. The publisher based their decision not on verified evidence but on unsubstantiated claims spread through the media. Rumours turned into liabilities; allegations were treated as truth. This isn’t a failure of due process but its outright rejection.
The Walliams affair is not an isolated incident. Instead, it
represents a recent phase of a reactionary movement that over the past ten
years has gradually chipped away at fundamental democratic rights, often under
the pretext of moral accountability. Although media outlets and political
figures have widely hailed the # MeToo movement as a fight for justice, it has
largely served as a tool for corporate moralism, enforcing intra-class
conformity, and weakening essential legal safeguards.
From the beginning, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) emphasised
that #MeToo was not primarily a movement to defend working-class women.
Instead, privileged upper-middle-class groups led it, exploiting accusations to
boost their careers, settle personal scores, and impose ideological standards
across media, entertainment, and publishing. The Walliams case vividly
validates this perspective.
The central point of the Walliams case isn't that a company
cut ties with a publicly known author. Instead, it's that the separation
happened precisely because no formal complaint was made. For HarperCollins,
the lack of due process wasn't an issue; they saw it as
necessary to act. Prominent political leaders have openly endorsed this perspective. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Mazie Hirono
mentioned that the presumption of innocence “is what makes it really difficult
for victims and survivors to come forward.” Senate Majority Leader Charles
Schumer also claimed that outside court, “there is no presumption of
innocence.”
These statements weren't accidental; they highlighted the
core ideology of #MeToo: legal standards are obstacles, and moral judgment
should replace evidence. The Walliams affair demonstrates the logical endpoint
of this doctrine. The presumption of innocence is not the casualty of #MeToo—it
is the target.
HarperCollins’ decision was not an act of moral courage. It
was an act of corporate governance. The publisher acted to protect its brand,
its internal hierarchy, and its public image. The language of “protecting
junior staff” and “ensuring a safe environment” is the ideological veneer for a
commercial calculation.
Corporations have adopted
#MeToo because it lets them shed liabilities without legal proceedings, adds a
moral guise to their business choices, enables disciplining employees through
intimidation, and distracts from their long-standing involvement in abusive
workplace environments. Corporate moralism isn't just an adjunct to profit; it
functions as a governance strategy. This approach lets companies portray
themselves as guardians of morality while maintaining arbitrary control over
employees and contractors.
The Walliams affair is a textbook example. HarperCollins
acted unilaterally, without investigation, without evidence, and without
providing Walliams any forum to respond. The corporation emerged as moral
arbiter; the accused was left in permanent limbo.
The Class Character of #MeToo
The liberal narrative characterises #MeToo as a rebellion of
oppressed women against dominant men. However, its actual social support came
mainly from the wealthy upper-middle class, including media personalities,
celebrities, academics, and corporate professionals. The primary targets were
mostly fellow members of the intelligentsia. Its techniques involved
denunciation, media trials, and administrative purges.
HarperCollins' so-called "junior staff" are not
the true targets of this campaign; rather, they serve as its rhetorical shield.
The actual aim is maintaining intra-class discipline: controlling cultural
workers, enforcing ideological conformity, and illustrating that any
inconvenient figure can be silenced without evidence or justice. This is why
the WSWS emphasises that #MeToo is not a genuine movement for the oppressed but
rather a reactionary effort by a privileged class seeking influence within
capitalist systems. It functions as a way to build moral and political capital.
The Walliams case exemplifies a pattern well documented by
the WSWS. In 2021, W.W. Norton “permanently” withdrew Blake Bailey’s biography
of Philip Roth from publication—destroying all copies—based on allegations with no supporting evidence. As WSWS critic David Walsh noted, none of the
accusers “have come forward with any evidence.” Bailey was effectively silenced
without a proper process, while Norton positioned itself as a self-appointed
protector of moral standards.
In 2018, Ian Buruma was ousted from the New York Review of
Books after publishing an essay by Jian Ghomeshi, who had been acquitted. His
"transgression" was permitting an accused individual to share his
perspective. The magazine's board carried out the removal, and media criticism
fueled it further.
In 2020, Hachette suppressed Woody Allen’s memoir after an
employee revolt led by Ronan Farrow. The WSWS described this as evidence that
the #MeToo campaign “shows its ultra-right colours.” The publisher capitulated
to moralistic pressure, abandoning any commitment to free expression.
Kevin Spacey faced public ruin
well before any court dismissed the claims against him. The media played judge
and jury, while corporations acted as executioners. In each instance: the
institution acted unilaterally, the accused was denied a proper forum, the media
repeated allegations until they seemed like facts, the corporation positioned
itself as the moral authority, and the accused was left in a state of perpetual
uncertainty. As Walsh described regarding the Bailey case, this resembles
“McCarthyism of an especially pernicious character.” The Walliams controversy
clearly fits into this problematic pattern.
The WSWS has always maintained that the working class has no
stake in defending wealthy celebrities or large corporations. Walliams, a
millionaire entertainer, and HarperCollins, a publishing company owned by
Murdoch, are not matters of concern for workers. However, the core principles
involved—the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser, and the
need for evidence—are fundamentally important to the working class.
These rights were won through centuries of struggle against
arbitrary state and corporate power. They are the only protections workers
possess against victimisation, frame‑ups, and political repression. When these
rights are dismantled in the cultural sphere, the consequences inevitably
spread to workplaces, universities, and political life. The purge of cultural
figures is a dress rehearsal for the repression of workers. This is why the
WSWS defended the Depp verdict, the dismissal of claims against Spacey, and
other cases where the accused were not politically sympathetic figures. The
issue is not the individual. It is the democratic right.
The #MeToo framework serves a
wider ideological aim: it fragments individuals by instilling fear of
accusation, erodes solidarity by turning colleagues into potential informants,
prioritises subjective feelings over objective facts, replaces legal standards
with moralistic condemnation, and conditions society to accept punishment
without evidence. This isn’t a pursuit of justice but a tool of social control.
HarperCollins’ choice reflects
more a blend of moral rhetoric and business interests than a moral reckoning.
It shows how moral language becomes a tool for corporate influence. The
Walliams incident exposes the breakdown of fair process, the growth of
media-driven trials, the increasing corporate dominance over cultural spaces,
and the susceptibility of cultural workers to unfair punishment. It also
highlights how #MeToo has become an ideological instrument of discipline. This
trend is reactionary and must be challenged, not in support of David Walliams,
but to defend the democratic rights of working-class individuals.
Sources
- Walsh,
David. “The #MeToo campaign versus the presumption of innocence.” World
Socialist Web Site, 2018.
- Walsh,
David. “W.W. Norton’s pulping of Blake Bailey’s biography of Philip Roth.”
WSWS, 2021.
- Reiss,
Rebecca. “Ian Buruma fired from NYRB.” WSWS, 2018.
- WSWS
Editorial Board. “#MeToo campaign shows its ultra-right colours.” WSWS,
2020.
- Hirono,
Mazie. Press remarks, 2018.
- Schumer,
Charles. Press conference comments, 2018.
- Timmins,
Patrick. “The political meaning of the Depp-Heard verdict.” WSWS,
2022.
- London,
Tom. “The Kevin Spacey acquittal and the collapse of #MeToo narratives.” WSWS,
2023.
