Additional Blog 3 : What does the coronavirus tells us about society?

There is a great deal of criticism of people who are accused of hoarding as a result of their fears over coronavirus. Such criticism is totally misplaced. Earlier this week I was in a shop and overheard a woman, bitterly and loudly, complaining that she could not get hold of nappies for her baby. As I left the shop I heard sounds of an altercation within the shop. All of this is understandable, because we are not being given the necessary information and because the Government has failed in its responsibilities.

Let us examine these points in more detail. Even the so called ‘quality’ press suddenly reported that certain groups, including people over 70 years of age and pregnant women, would be told to isolate for four months, and that the police would be given powers to arrest those who broke quarantine. Consider what this means to people who do not have a car, or computers, and are not able to access support on line. Many in these groups do not have families or friends living close by who can support them over such a period. It behoves people to prepare for such eventuality, this means stocking up. However, they are forced to do this in a situation in which shops and supermarkets are not prepared for this to happen. This, in turn, is down to the failure of Government.

Lets now look at the response that Government has shown. The coronavirus originated in China in November/December 2019. That means that Governments throughout the World have had three months to prepare. In fact there were warnings well before this that a disease X could suddenly appears with devastating results on the health of the World’s population and with equally devastating effects on the World’s economy. However, Governments throughout the World ignored these warnings just as they are ignoring the scientific evidence regarding climate change.

It is very clear that, as soon as the Government was aware of events in China, they should have been planning for the possible consequences in this country. The first priority should have been the Health Service. Due to policies of privatisation and the effects of austerity over the past 40 years, the health service has become extremely run down and is struggling to meet its general commitments. Therefore, the need for much greater investment in the health service to increase personnel at all levels and the necessary resources. The demand, for example, for ventilators should have been anticipated and provided for. The policies to restrict immigration to high earners has made the situation worse.

The second priority should have been to secure the supply, transportation and delivery of essential supplies such as food, pharmaceuticals and everyday necessities like soap, toilet rolls, provisions for babies. All those things which everyone needs for healthy sustained living. The Government should have anticipated the possibility of panic buying and taken action to reassure the public and practical decisions to prevent people from buying to excess, yet still able to stock up in appropriate, sensible ways.

The need for identifying those who are directly affected by the virus, to locate their contacts, to effectively test all who need to be tested, especially medical and socially important staff, is obvious and should have been planned for. Again, the Government should have prepared for the necessary supply of testing equipment.

Transport is an essential factor in all of this, in two ways. Transportation of essential goods, including food and pharmaceuticals, should have been given priority. Transportation of people should have been planned so that, if and when necessary, it could have been restricted.

One of the effects of the virus is that more people than ever are placed in financial difficulties. This again could, and should, have been anticipated. The responsibility of Government is to ensure that every person has the necessary money to live on. Their homes need to be safeguarded. There are organisations who have been arguing for this for years and they should have been involved in the planning.

All of this calls into question two things, the nature of our system of Government, and the structure of our economy.

It would appear that forms of Government, such as the state control as in China, have been more effective in dealing with the crisis. This is indicative, but not necessarily the best approach as I will outline later. The failure of our system is not because of democracy but because the aim of Government has been to maintain our economic structure when it is clear that that economic structure cannot deal with the crisis.

Which brings me to consider the structure of our economy. Private Enterprise Capitalism is demonstrably failing to deal with the two major crises which threaten human life on this earth, namely, the coronavirus pandemic and climate change. This is tacitly accepted even by the ‘quality’ press which talk about nationalising the airlines and suggestions that other forms of transport, trains and buses, should be nationalised.

Clearly, what is needed, and what has been demonstrated without objection, is a planned economy which is based upon providing for the needs of all people. A society in which all people are equal in every respect. Such a planned economy could, and would, take all the steps needed to deal with the two crises, coronavirus and climate change. A planned society does not imply an authoritarian society. Marxists and some socialists have argued for a democratic socialist/communist society for two centuries. Such a society is based upon the full involvement of all the people. Decisions would be taken on a basis of facts with everyone able to contribute. It has been seen during the present crisis that the public at large have been ahead of Government in making decisions for the good and well being of all, despite the lack of information from Government. In a socialist/communist society, the people would recognise, appoint and support those best able to organise and make decisions on their behalf and there would be mutual reciprocal relations between people and those so appointed. We would get rid of the profit motive and competition. We would live our lives in the natural, co-operative, mutual, environmentally sustaining way which was the norm in many societies in the past.

It is extremely unlikely that our Government, or any other, will accept this view. The role of the State is to defend the wealth and power of the ruling elite. That is why it is important that we recognise that any change will only come about by the actions of the majority of the people who constitute the working class. That is why the Party I belong to, The Socialist Worker Party, and other revolutionary groups, believe that a revolution, led by the working class, is the only way in which a future for the human race can be secured.

Scribart 23. 03.20