Coronavirus
- This topic has 1,592 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Lockdowns are class-based more than we are willing to admit. If I was ungenerous, I could say it is the “middle-class” protecting themselves from the great unwashed poor.”
This would not only be ungenerous but unMarxist ! It would be to divide the working class into two sections and setting one section against the other.
It also introduces a rather novel class division — between those with gardens and those without one. There will be millions of people surprised to find themselves denounced as “middle class” just because they have a garden. The sort of thing you would expect from Ian Bone’s “Class War” rather than something we could say.
What you are pointing to is one of the perverse effects of a lockdown under capitalism, not a case for not having a lockdown to deal with a pandemic of an infectious disease — even under capitalism.
He was expelled for putting stuff on Rubikon ; it is hard to research this stuff if your german is crap
Rubikon publisher Jens Wenicke [Former ? trade unionists? ]
. “If we do not believe that we are worth being treated well and loved, we tend to submit to the interests and ideologies of the powerful. Then we give in again and again small when people are looking to ‘sell’ us the next war or measures against our common good – because the others know what is best for us all. .“ The establishment of a better, more human world therefore always begins with the rediscovery of our own dignity, firm belief in it and our own perception: only if we value ourselves and trust our feelings can we recognize and resist lies, betrayal and abuse . “
From Dave B’s post
One Scotland-based expert, who has a background in flu pandemic planning for the NHS, said mass testing and contact tracing should have been introduced at a much earlier stage but that the apparent lethality of the virus globally owes much to the record numbers of elderly and sick people around the world who were “living on borrowed time as a result of modern medicines that extend their lives and reduce symptoms, but make them vulnerable to a novel zoonotic infection like this one”.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, they added: “I believe we will have to pay a high price for this lockdown in terms of the backlog of clinical problems put on hold by GPs and hospitals; a rise in gender based violence; a return to abuse of children on the at-risk register who should be in school; a rise in mental health problems induced by isolation that will be most prevalent in those without access to space and outdoor greenery; a loss of jobs, particularly for the low paid; and the demise of businesses and even industries.
“There is no doubt in my mind that this attempt to control a pandemic, for which planning was woefully inadequate from the beginning, will increase social inequalities in health.”
I agree with practically all of this, I am no cheerleader for the Government’s strategy, in my view they placed profit over people from the start and thousands have died and suffered because of the inaction at the early stages of the Government.
They didn’t introduce measures of control until it was far too late. Whilst Ireland for example had shut down schools, pubs and stopped St Patrick’s day parades, the British government let the Chelnham Festival, with over 120,000 spectators, go ahead, they allowed the Liverpool v Atletico Madrid match go ahead, despite Madrid being in lock down, football matches were not cancelled by the government but by football leagues themselves and then they announced that the pubs would be closed from Midnight on a Friday at 6pm, cue for everyone to go to the pub for the one last time!
They also missed opportunities to prepare any form of contingency in the two weeks they had to make arrangments, this was compounded by public service cuts over the decades. Local Authorities used to all have a disaster and emergency planning group, a colleague of mine was a member of the one in Northumberland for years and they met regularly and planned for all kinds of contingencies. Most LAs have abandonded their Contingency plans with the cuts but the Northumberland plan was one which was kept on, and from what I have heard has been fairly effective.
All of the time they put profit before human lives. I’m sure that when it came to the initial “herd immunity” response the likes of Dominic Cummings and his free marketeer head bangers were the “brains” behind that particular decision. It seems that the “new Churchill” ran the white flag up the flag pole at the first opportunity (as Charlie said first as a tragedy second as a farce)
I must say though that whoever the writer is they did get some bits wrong. The At Risk Register hasn’t exisited for about 15 years and all vulnerable children have been given places in school and CP Social Workers have been working flat out to keep kids safe as far as is possible.
I also feel the approach of “they were old so it doesn’t matter” is not one that I can agree with.
As to the idea that, they were “going to die anyway”, it might be news to some comrades out there, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we are all “going to die anyway”
by the way
I don’t agree with all that article
it would have been dishonest to edit out the bits I didn’t like.
there was more of it and other interesting stuff in the paper on same subject.
it was dated around 10 april ; I can’t remember I just swiped it and saved it to word
ALB, perhaps I over-egged the pudding but when we look at the global situation, of those developing and undeveloped countries, then I would stand by my claim that the privileged and pampered minority are imposing conditions upon the vast majority that are untenable and the divide is very much class-based. Those who can afford lockdown and the rest who simply aren’t able to pay the price that lockdowns demand and require near enough martial law conditions to enforce.
As pointed out by someone early in the debate, if it wasn’t for the direct effect upon the rich we wouldn’t have had improved water and sewage. In its earliest days it was the rich jet-set that brought the virus to their home nations and gave it to their servants and trades-folk. But once it spread and threatened others of the elite, they made the poor carry the consequences.
We should not forget either that there will very likely be a future price to pay, when food will be in short supply especially if countries rely as many do on imported food which the wealthy will continue to buy but working people won’t be able to pay for. As we witnessed several years back when the price of food rises, so do the people.
A lot of fuss is being made about the increase of state power, monitoring of individuals and their daily lives.
So what?
Since when have real socialists ever feared a light on them?
The only ones who need fear such monitoring are the advocates of violent acts, who don’t want to be seen.
Socialists have no fear of being monitored because we have nothing to hide.You are not saying, are you, that the workers of the so-called “First World” are “privileged and pampered” ?
In any event, the “poor” (in the popular sense) are only a section of the section of the working class (properly defined).
Blaming the rich for spreading the virus is populism and in the same category as blaming the Chinese for starting it.
Dave B –
by the way
I don’t agree with all that article
Sorry Dave, did you mean the Scotish one or the earlier one?
I think you were ok Alan
The people who are pushing this lockdown thing are the least likely at first to be affected by it.
There is nothing anti Marxist about potential differences between “Petty bourgeois” and “proletarian” ideology.
The scientist who pushed this at first eg Neil Fergussons lot were intimately linked
to big pharma as are and were the WHO.
They spent there whole lives frustrated no doubt in an observational non interventionist science.
Suddenly something happens or appears to have happened as a result of a new testing system or application of it.
Journalist always interested in “Shock, Horror , Terror” story pour petrol on it.
Politicians respond with panic ; what can we do,
Responsible epidemiologists say “fuck all”.
Narcissists like Niel Fergusson who have always had wet dreams about being famous for a day and being stroked by politicians and journalists alike can’t help telling them what they want to hear.
Really I have dealt with serious crises in my work, you never hear about it that is the whole point, so trust me; I know all about the psychology of telling them what they don’t want to hear.
As do many other different kinds of people or the ones I know who have found themselves in similar places in different industies.
The shit really hits the fan for me about once every ten years and it is always good fun.
It seems to be the women in technical , and there aren’t many of them, who stay the most calm.
I will start double spacing again the next time I see a Guardian and BBc VMD quotation.
I like to write in word then just paste in; no I am not interested I am a computer phobe with a tiny screen and like that way.
The only ones who need fear such monitoring are the advocates of violent acts, who don’t want to be seen.
Socialists have no fear of being monitored because we have nothing to hide.There’s plenty of other reasons why people may not what the state snooping around your dirty laundry.
“Politicians respond with panic ; what can we do,
Responsible epidemiologists say “fuck all”.
Not even that Swedish professor says that. His case is that a general lockdown isn’t necessary, but still protect the vulnerable. Even you weren’t planning to invite the over 60s to your measles party.
But would “the poor” be any better off if there wasn’t a lockdown? Or, come to think of it, are the “petty bourgeois” garden-owners better off with it? I wonder how many of the current 6 million unemployed in Britain have gardens? And it is the self-employed (the Marxian definition of “petty bourgeoisie”) who are complaining loudly about the loss of income and being ruined by the lockdown.
Dirty laundry?
Socialists? The Small Party of Good Boys?
I supplied you with the Swedish professor material I think.
do you really think Adam I had forgotten what was in it?
it was “Petty bourgeois” ideology.
which is different
even the revolutionary workers in the dreaded transition state can suffer from “bourgeois limitations”
The story of panicked politicians was supposed to be illustrative rather than precise.
just as is epidemiology being non interventionist is relative and a bit of a over generalisation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.