Author: ajohnstone

A considered socialist slant on our current predicament

 

Originally posted on Facebook



 If you were to compile a list of essential workers that your community is currently reliant on you’d very likely not include billionaires, CEOs, businessmen, bankers, economists or the royals or that class of people who live off rent, interest and profit. Your list would include workers we pass every day on the streets, whether medical workers, shop staff, bin men, delivery drivers, those working in power plants or working in front line maintenance of the technology society needs etc. — the class that sells its physical and mental abilities for a wage or salary in order to live — the working class.
This class, the working class, runs the world and it is important to grasp this fact. It is we who build the cities and railroads, the bridges and roads, the docks and airports. It is we who staff the hospitals and schools, who empty the bins and go down the sewers. It is we who fish the oceans and tend the forests and till the land and plantations. It is we, the working class, who produce everything society needs from a pin to an oil-rig, who provide all of its services. If we can do all of this off our own bats, then surely we can continue to do so without a profit-greedy minority watching over us and, more, in our own interests.
The ruling class of capitalists and their executive, the governments of the world, have no monopoly on our skills and abilities. These belong to us. Moreover, it is we who are responsible for the inventions that have benefited humanity and the improvements in productive techniques. Most inventions and improvements are the result of those who do the actual work thinking up easier and faster ways of completing a task, the result of ideas being passed down from generation to generation, each one improving the techniques of the previous. If those who work have given the world so much, in the past say 2000 years, then how much more are we capable of providing in a world devoid of the artificial constraints of profit? Needless to say, any vaccine for the Coronavirus will be the result of the hard work of salary earning scientists, not some fat arsed apologist for the profit system in the White House or Downing St or the class they’re really there to pander to.
It is easy to cite the advantages of capitalism over previous economic systems. Many people believe that capitalism, though not perfect, is the only system possible. One thing is certain, though – if we follow the capitalist trajectory, we’re in for some pretty troublesome times. Capitalism has undoubtedly raised the productive potential of humanity. It is now quite possible to provide a comfortable standard of living for every human on the planet. But, to reiterate, capitalism now stands as a barrier to the full and improved use of the world’s productive and distributive forces. In a world of potential abundance, the unceasing quest for profit imposes on our global society widespread artificial scarcity. Hundreds of millions of humans are consigned to a life of abject poverty, whilst the majority live lives filled with uncertainty.
Our ability to imagine has brought us so very far, from the days when our ancestors chipped away at flint to produce the first tools, to the landing of someone on the moon, the setting up of the world wide web, and the mapping out of the human genome. Is it really such a huge leap of the imagination to now envisage a social system that can take over from the present capitalist order of things? Is it just too daring to imagine humans consigning poverty, disease, hunger and war to some pre-historic age?
Do we really need leaders deciding our lives for us? Do we really need governments administering our lives when what is really needed is the administration of the things we need to live in peace and security? Must every decision made by our elites be first of all weighed on the scales of profit, tilted always in their favour? A growing number think not and have mobilised to confront what they perceive to be the major problems of contemporary capitalism.
In recent years there has been a world-wide backlash against neoliberal globalisation, corporate power and the iniquities of modern-day capitalism. Everywhere where the world’s ruling elite have assembled to decide their next step they have been met with protests and demonstrations that have attracted hundreds of thousands. Demonstrations at Seattle, Gothenburg, Prague, Genoa and Gleneagles, for instance, have fuelled the ongoing debate on the nature of modern day capitalism. Thousands of articles have been written on the subject and hundreds of books have been published that explore the alternatives offered by the anti-globalisation movement.
What is now clear is that the anti-globalisation movement, however well-meaning, does not seek to replace capitalism with any real alternative social system. At best it attracts a myriad of groups, all pursuing their own agenda. Some call for greater corporate responsibility. Some demand the reform of international institutions. Others call for the expansion of democracy and fairer trading conditions. All, however, fail to address the root cause of the problems of capitalism.
One thing is certain: capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of the world’s suffering billions, because reform does not address the basic contradiction between profit and need. The world’s leaders cannot be depended upon because they can only ever act as the executive of corporate capitalism. The expansion of democracy, while welcome, serves little function if all candidates at election time can only offer variations on the same basic set of policies that keep capitalism in the ascendancy.
Capitalism must be abolished if we as a species are to thrive, if the planet is to survive. No amount of reform, however great, will work. Change must be global and irreversible. It must involve all of us. We need to erase borders and frontiers; to abolish states and governments and false concepts of nationalism. We need to abolish our money systems, and with it buying, selling and exchange. And in place of this we need to establish a different global social system — a society in which there is common ownership and true democratic control of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources. A society where the everyday things we need to live in comfort are produced and distributed freely and for no other reason than that they are needed – Socialism.
It is now no utopian fantasy to suggest we can live in a world without waste or want or war, in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation. That much is assured. We certainly have the science, the technology and the know-how. All that is missing is the will — the global desire for change that can make that next great historical advance possible; a belief in ourselves as masters of our own destiny; a belief that it is possible to free production from the artificial constraints of profit and to fashion a world in our own interests. And how soon this happens depends upon us all — each and every one of us.


John Bissett



An Outbreak of Altruism and it is Spreading

250,000 people have signed up in a single day to volunteer with the NHS after a recruitment drive to help the vulnerable amid the coronavirus crisis. The helpers are needed for delivering food and medicines, driving patients to appointments and phoning the isolated. The help is being targeted at the 1.5 million people with underlying health conditions who have been asked to shield themselves from the virus by staying at home for 12 weeks.



About 11,000 former medics have also agreed to return to the health service and more than 24,000 final year student nurses and medics will join them.



Stephen Powis, NHS England medical director, said there had been “outbreaks of altruism” and he was “bowled over” by the medics returning to the front line and the response from volunteers.

The government scheme to recruit 250,000 helpers went live on Tuesday. By Wednesday morning, they had exceeded their target.



Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the virus posed an “acute” risk in prisons, many of which were overcrowded and faced staff shortages as officers self-isolated. So  the government is considering the early release of some prisoners to relieve pressure caused by the outbreak.



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52029877

‘Nature is sending us a message’,

 UN’s environment chief, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said nature is sending us a message with the coronavirus pandemic and the ongoing climate crisis and that humanity was placing too many pressures on the natural world with damaging consequences, and warned that failing to take care of the planet meant not taking care of ourselves.



She explained that the immediate priority was to protect people from the coronavirus and prevent its spread. “But our long-term response must tackle habitat and biodiversity loss,” she added. “Never before have so many opportunities existed for pathogens to pass from wild and domestic animals to people,” she told the Guardian, explaining that 75% of all emerging infectious diseases come from wildlife. “Our continued erosion of wild spaces has brought us uncomfortably close to animals and plants that harbour diseases that can jump to humans.”
She also noted other environmental impacts, such as the Australian bushfires, broken heat records and the worst locust invasion in Kenya for 70 years. “At the end of the day, [with] all of these events, nature is sending us a message,” Anderson said. “There are too many pressures at the same time on our natural systems and something has to give,” she added. “We are intimately interconnected with nature, whether we like it or not. If we don’t take care of nature, we can’t take care of ourselves. And as we hurtle towards a population of 10 billion people on this planet, we need to go into this future armed with nature as our strongest ally.”



“The emergence and spread of Covid-19 was not only predictable, it was predicted [in the sense that] there would be another viral emergence from wildlife that would be a public health threat,” said Prof Andrew Cunningham, of the Zoological Society of London. A 2007 study of the 2002-03 Sars outbreak concluded: “The presence of a large reservoir of Sars-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a timebomb.” Cunningham said other diseases from wildlife had much higher fatality rates in people, such as 50% for Ebola and 60%-75% for Nipah virus, transmitted from bats in south Asia. “Although, you might not think it at the moment, we’ve probably got a bit lucky with [Covid-19],” he said. “So I think we should be taking this as a clear warning shot. It’s a throw of the dice.”

“It’s almost always a human behaviour that causes it and there will be more in the future unless we change,” said Cunningham. Markets butchering live wild animals from far and wide are the most obvious example, he said. A market in China is believed to have been the source of Covid-19. “The animals have been transported over large distances and are crammed together into cages. They are stressed and immunosuppressed and excreting whatever pathogens they have in them,” he said. “With people in large numbers in the market and in intimate contact with the body fluids of these animals, you have an ideal mixing bowl for [disease] emergence. If you wanted a scenario to maximise the chances of [transmission], I couldn’t think of a much better way of doing it.”



Aaron Bernstein, at the Harvard School of Public Health in the US, said the destruction of natural places drives wildlife to live close to people and that climate change was also forcing animals to move: “That creates an opportunity for pathogens to get into new hosts.  We’ve had Sars, Mers, Covid-19, HIV. We need to see what nature is trying to tell us here. We need to recognise that we’re playing with fire,” he said. “The separation of health and environmental policy is a ​dangerous delusion. Our health entirely depends on the climate and the other organisms we share the planet with.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-nature-is-sending-us-a-message-says-un-environment-chief

Socialism – Living Well

‘One touch of nature makes the whole world kin’ –. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida



We are in strange and unsettling days. COVID-19 has upset normal life and no-one knows exactly how long the outbreak or its ramifications will last. Isn’t there a message of hope for the world? Of course, there is, especially for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. What matters most of all is to stay safe. This cannot be done unless we cooperate with one another. That is the lesson everyone has to learn.



Crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic opens up opportunities for change by making it more and more obvious the need for mutual aid and cooperation. Each day we witness signs of solidarity. For sure, emergencies may trigger selfish actions, where the right has staked out their nationalist vision, turning others into the enemy but such responses are thankfully rare. Capitalism is a great promoter of individual rights: the right to own, to sell, to keep, to have. Yet it cannot meet the needs of the people. capitalism is also a virus, and it has infected every aspect of our daily lives.



“Germany is home to one of the most modern, richest and most powerful health-care systems in the world,” reports Der Spiegel. “The coronavirus is mercilessly exposing the problems that have been burdening the German health-care system for years: the pitfalls of profit-driven hospital financing. The pressure to cut spending. The chronic shortage of nursing staff. The often poor equipping of public health departments.



As the media headline those individuals who are hoarding toilet paper and hand sanitiser, the real hoarders are the pharmaceutical corporations who view this pandemic as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make massive profits from the desperate. Over the past few weeks, investment bankers have been candid on investor calls and during health care conferences about the opportunity to raise drug prices.



Steve Collis, president and chief executive of AmerisourceBergen, noted that his company has been actively involved in efforts to push back against political demands to limit the price of pharmaceutical products.

Johanna Mercier, executive vice president of Gilead, explains, “Commercial opportunity might come if this becomes a seasonal disease or stockpiling comes into play



Worldwide corporate cash reserves topped $12 trillion in 2017, more than the foreign exchange reserves of the world’s central governments, yet transnational corporations cannot find enough opportunities to profitably reinvest their profits.



We need to reimagine everything. After all, we have just re-learned that we coexists communities, not as isolated individuals. We hope that this pandemic develops into a popular global movement for a total reconstruction of the system. Surely, it is easier to imagine socialism in the midst of the effects of COVID-19, than it is to continue to live under the heartless regime of capitalism. It is easy enough to fall into a state of doom and gloom about the future of the world as the COVID-19 spreads, but we witness strong social solidarity making sure that society goes on functioning. If humanity held the illusion that it was in control of its destiny, COVID-19 has now taught us differently. What we can’t control shouldn’t stop us from believing we are helpless when it comes to those things we can. This may be the eureka moment for everyone out there.



The Plight of the Poor

India  has a population of 1.3 billion and been put into lockdown to halt the spread of the coronavirus outbreak. “There will be a total ban on venturing out of your homes,” Modi said. 



 People have been told to stay indoors, but for many daily-wage earners this is not an option.

Ramesh Kumar, explains, “I earn 600 rupees ($8; £6.50) every day and I have five people to feed. We will run out of food in a few days. I know the risk of coronavirus, but I can’t see my children hungry,” he said.



Millions of other daily-wage earners are in a similar situation. Millions of other Indians also earn money as street traders – people who own small businesses and employ people like themselves.





Mohammed Sabir, who runs a tiny stall selling yogurt-based drinks in Delhi, says he had hired two people recently, anticipating more business during the summers.

“Now I can’t pay them. I don’t have any money. My family earns some money from farming in my village. But their crops were damaged this year due to hailstorms, so they were looking at me for support. I feel so helpless. I fear that hunger may kill many like us before coronavirus,” he said.
All monuments are also shut in the country and that has had an impact on many who make money from tourism. Tejpal Kashyap, who works as a photographer at the iconic India Gate in Delhi, said he had never seen such a sharp drop in business.
“Last two weeks were bad – even when there was no lockdown. There were hardly any tourists. Now I can’t even go back to my village and I can’t even work. I am stuck here in Delhi and constantly worried about my family in my village in Uttar Pradesh,” he said.
Drivers of ride-hailing services like Uber and Ola are also suffering.
Joginder Chaudhary, who drives a taxi for the employees of an airline in Delhi, says the government needs to give “some relief to people like me”.
“I understand the importance of the lockdown. Coronavirus is dangerous and we need to protect ourselves. But I can’t help but think how I will support my family if the lockdown continues for weeks,” he said.



Several state governments, from Uttar Pradesh in the north to Kerala in the south have promised direct cash transfers into the accounts of workers like  Kumar. Modi’s government has also promised to help daily-wage earners affected by the lockdown. But there are logistical challenges.

90% of India’s workforce is employed in the informal sector, according to the International Labour Organization, working in roles like security guards, cleaners, rickshaw pullers, streets vendors, garbage collectors and domestic helps. Most do not have access to pensions, sick leave, paid leave or any kind of insurance. Many do not have bank accounts, relying on cash to meet their daily needs.
Kishan Lal, who works as rickshaw puller in the northern city of Allahabad, said he had not made any money in the past four days. “I need to earn to feed my family. I have heard that the government is going to give us money – though I have no idea when and how,” he said.



His friend Ali Hasan, who works as a cleaner in a shop, said he had run out of money to buy food.
“The shop shut down two days ago and I haven’t been paid. I don’t know when it will open. I am very scared. I have a family, how am I going to feed them?” he asked.
Lots are migrant workers, which means that they are technically residents of a different state to the one where they work, people who do not live in any state for a long period as they move around to find work. 



Akhilesh Yadav, the former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, admits these challenges are huge, acknowledging that “nobody in any government has faced them before”.
“All governments need to act lightning fast because the situation is changing every day. We need to activate big community kitchens and deliver food to people who need it. We need to hand out cash or rice and wheat – irrespective of who comes from which state,” he said. “We have got to stop people from travelling to one city from another to avoid community transmission. And one way of doing is to ensure food security. People rush to their villages in times of crisis,” he added.



And some haven’t even heard about coronavirus.  A cobbler said he had been “polishing people’s shoes at the railway station in Allahabad for years, but nobody is showing up now”. He said he doesn’t even know why people have stopped travelling.

“I don’t know what is happening. Not many people are coming to the station these days. I know that some curfew is going on, but I don’t know why,” he said.



Vinod Prajapati, who sells water, summed it all up.
“I know everything about coronavirus. It’s very dangerous, the whole world is struggling. Most people who can afford and have a place to stay are indoors. But for people like us, the choice is between safety and hunger. What should we pick?” he asks.



William Morris and the treasures of early socialism



What is the point of studying the history of early socialism? 



Maybe the question itself is rather pointless. After all, nothing really needs to have a point. Enjoyment is enough, especially in a world where so much of the work we do is done under some form of compulsion. 



But I do think that there is a special value in studying the early period of socialist history, prior to the Russian Revolution. I say this because the “common sense” among many socialists in that era is quite different from the way of thinking that has prevailed since then. Above all, the understanding of what socialism itself means changed radically in the subsequent years. 



Going back to the early works of socialists published in the latter half of the nineteenth century can put us in touch with an understanding of socialism that actually seems fresh and new, pointing the way beyond the current impasse of the “socialist” movement. 



Of course, not all the self-proclaimed socialists of the late nineteenth century shared the same view of socialism. In fact, all of the subsequent divisions between radical political tendencies can be found, in embryo, in those early years. But at least the tendencies were still flowing in and out of each other, rather than being purely separate ideologies. Also, socialists at the time still seemed capable of thinking for themselves, rather than finding comfort in inherited dogmas. 



Or am I being too nostalgic? I don’t know.



What I do know, at any rate, is that there is much enjoyment and knowledge and encouragement to be found in the writings and in the life of early socialists, and none more than the great English socialist, William Morris. 



Two essays by Morris in particular — “How We Live and How We Might Live” and “Useful Work Versus Useless Toil” — present a brilliant criticism of life under capitalism and lay out a vision for a fundamentally different way of life — a new society where work is done solely to satisfy human needs and where the act of labor itself is a source of individual fulfillment.



The most widely available work by Morris presenting his view of a new society is, of course, the novel News from Nowhere. So in my brief discussion here of Morris’s socialist ideas, I will mainly look at passages taken from that remarkable work, which describes a socialist society through the eyes of a nineteenth century man, William Guest, who wakes up to find himself in a future world. 



Morris wrote this novel, which was first serialized in the socialist newspaper Commonweal in 1890, as a criticism of Looking Backward, a novel by Edward Bellamy that imagines a future society. In particular, Morris was repelled by how Bellamy focused narrowly on the reduction of labor time through machinery, rather than considering how the experience of labor itself might be transformed from “useful toil” into “useful work.” 



In his 1889 review of Bellamy’s novel, Morris wrote:



I believe that the ideal of the future does not point to the lessening of men’s energy by the reduction of labour to a minimum, but rather the reduction of pain in labour to a minimum, so small that it will cease to be pain; a dream to humanity which can only be dreamed of till men are even more completely equal than Mr. Bellamy’s utopia would allow them to be, but which will most assuredly come about when men are really equal in condition.



In News from Nowhere, Morris depicts many scenes of how work has become a joyous activity, much like the pleasure that people today take in their personal hobbies—and quite different from the drudgery of our ordinary working days. 



The idea that work could be a source of joy is rather foreign to the view that holds sway among the Left today. There is a focus on securing jobs for the unemployed, increasing wages, and reducing working hours; and rightly so, because those are all necessary under the current system. 



But I think that there is little thought given among socialists of how the entire experience of work and its significance to the individual might be transformed in a post-capitalist world. Usually such speculation is limited to the idea that the rise in productive power has made it possible for us to drastically reduce the working day — once we are freed from the dictatorship of capital and its ceaseless thirst for surplus value. 



Morris explains the qualitative difference that will come once class divisions have dissolved and work’s only aim is to create useful things:



When class-robbery is abolished, every man will reap the fruits of his labour, every man will have due rest – leisure, that is. Some Socialists might say we need not go any further than this; it is enough that the worker should get the full produce of his work, and that his rest should be abundant. But though the compulsion of man’s tyranny is thus abolished, I yet demand compensation for the compulsion of Nature’s necessity. As long as the work is repulsive it will still be a burden which must be taken up daily, and even so would mar our life, even though the hours of labour were short. What we want to do is to add to our wealth without diminishing our pleasure. Nature will not be finally conquered till our work becomes a part of the pleasure of our lives.



And in News from Nowhere we see vivid examples of how this new relationship of Man to labor is concretely. And Morris also sets forth his views on the topic in a conversation between his character William Guest and an older member of the future society (Hammond) [Chapter 15]:



“Now, this is what I want to ask you about – to wit, how you get people to work when there is no reward of labour, and especially how you get them to work strenuously?”
“But no reward of labour?” said Hammond, gravely. “The reward of labour is life. Is that not enough?”
“But no reward for especially good work,” quoth I.
“Plenty of reward,” said he – “the reward of creation. The wages which God gets, as people might have said time agone. If you are going to be paid for the pleasure of creation, which is what excellence in work means, the next thing we shall hear of will be a bill sent in for the begetting of children.”
“Well, but,” said I, “the man of the nineteenth century would say there is a natural desire towards the procreation of children, and a natural desire not to work.”
“Yes, yes,” said he, “I know the ancient platitude, – wholly untrue; indeed, to us quite meaningless. Fourier, whom all men laughed at, understood the matter better.”
“Why is it meaningless to you?” said I.
He said: “Because it implies that all work is suffering, and we are so far from thinking that, that, as you may have noticed, whereas we are not short of wealth, there is a kind of fear growing up amongst us that we shall one day be short of work. It is a pleasure which we are afraid of losing, not a pain.”



This emphasis on the qualitative difference between life under capitalism and life in a future society is one of the characteristics of Morris’s understanding of socialism. And I think it is something that socialists today need to bear in mind. Too often socialism is viewed today simply as an improved version of capitalism — with shorter working hours, higher wages, better social welfare, cheaper education, etc. 



The power of Morris’s logical imagination is also apparent in his view of the role of money in a future society; or I should say his view that there would be no role for money in a socialist world. Here, too, is far ahead of, and far more profound than, the average socialist today, who can may imagine a “redistribution of wealth” but can only think of that in terms of “fairer” wages or higher taxes on the rich. In other words, the average socialist cannot fathom a world without money. 



In News from Nowhere, the character William Guest soon discovers that money has no place in the future world in which he has awakened. When a man takes him across the Thames River in a boat, Guest tries to pay him with a coin [Chapter 2]:



“I put my hand in my waistcoat-pocket, and said, “How much?” . . . 
He looked puzzled, and said, “How much? I don’t quite understand what you are asking about. Do you mean the tide? If so, it is close on the turn now.”
I blushed, and said, stammering, “Please don’t take it amiss if I ask you; I mean no offence: but what ought I to pay you? You see I am a stranger, and don’t know your customs – or your coins.”
And therewith I took a handful of money out of my pocket, as one does in a foreign country. . .
He still seemed puzzled, but not at all offended; and he looked at the coins with some curiosity. . .
Therewith my new friend said thoughtfully:
“I think I know what you mean. You think that I have done you a service; so you feel yourself bound to give me something which I am not to give to a neighbour, unless he has done something special for me. I have heard of this kind of thing; but pardon me for saying, that it seems to us a troublesome and roundabout custom; and we don’t know how to manage it. And you see this ferrying and giving people casts about the water is my business, which I would do for anybody; so to take gifts in connection with it would look very queer. Besides, if one person gave me something, then another might, and another, and so on; and I hope you won’t think me rude if I say that I shouldn’t know where to stow away so many mementos of friendship.”



It is not so much a question of “abolishing” money in a socialist society, but that there is really no longer any basis for it to exist. This idea of a money-less society was a common one among the early socialists, but it largely disappeared in the twentieth century. As in so many other cases, the existence of a supposed “socialist society” — the Soviet Union — in which money (and wages) continued to exist, led many socialists to alter their views. The fact should have led them to ponder whether the USSR was in fact a socialist society (or rather some state-centered capitalism), but they were unable to give up their illusions about that country. 



The same is true of views about the “state” in a socialist society. Whereas before it has been assumed that the state would “wither away,” to borrow Marx’s expression, the twentieth century socialists came to view socialism as a society in which the state was at the core of everything to do with production and distribution. 



And this view of socialism as a state-centered society remains the common view of socialism today among both its advocates and its enemies. 



For a different view we can, again, look to News from Nowhere. In it, Morris puts forth his views on the lack of government in another conversation between Guest and Hammond [Chapter 11]:



What kind of a government have you? Has republicanism finally triumphed? or have you come to a mere dictatorship, which some persons in the nineteenth century used to prophesy as the ultimate outcome of democracy? . . . 
Now, dear guest, let me tell you that our present parliament would be hard to house in one place, because the whole people is our parliament.”
“I don’t understand,” said I.
“No, I suppose not,” said he. “I must now shock you by telling you that we have no longer anything which you, a native of another planet, would call a government.”
“I am not so much shocked as you might think,” said I, “as I know something about governments. But tell me, how do you manage, and how have you come to this state of things?”
Said he: “It is true that we have to make some arrangements about our affairs, concerning which you can ask presently; and it is also true that everybody does not always agree with the details of these arrangements; but, further, it is true that a man no more needs an elaborate system of government, with its army, navy, and police, to force him to give way to the will of the majority of his equals, than he wants a similar machinery to make him understand that his head and a stone wall cannot occupy the same space at the same moment. 



These are just a few examples of how Morris presents a view of a post-capitalist world that challenges some of the common sense of socialists today. On top of this, News from Nowhere contains a brilliant description of the ups and downs and the triumph of a revolutionary movement in the chapter titled “How the Change Came.”



His view of social change in that chapter is quite different from the twentieth century notions of an elite “vanguard party” masterminding a revolution. Rather, Morris emphasizes the importance of the working class arriving at an understanding of the limits of capitalism and the possibility for a radically different society. 



As interest in socialism is on the rise, the time seems ripe to look “backward” to the common sense of Morris and the early socialist movement for hints on our path forward. 

Mike Schauerte

https://www.wspus.org/2020/03/william-morris-and-the-treasures-of-early-socialism/

Australia Ignores the Concerns of Refugees in Detention Camps

Australia’s draconian refugee detention policy has been criticised by the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases (Asid), the Australian College of Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) and Doctors for Refugees which have all said detainees need to be released from held detention urgently to prevent rapid Covid-19 transmission. 1,400 asylum seekers and other non-citizens were being held in detention in crowded conditions that would preclude adequate social distancing or self-isolation. Staff would also be at risk from an outbreak. The centre’s are drastically medically under-resourced. There are not enough doctors, nurses or resources to tend to should an outbreak occur.



“Keeping people unnecessarily locked up in close confinement at this time when the rest of the country is being urged to stay in their own four square metres is not only cruel, callous and highly discriminatory, it is potentially exacerbating a public health crisis,” said Dr Barri Phatarfod, co-founder of Doctors for Refugees.
The Australian government’s own advisory says “people in detention facilities” are considered most at risk of serious infection of Covid-19. Visits to immigration detention centres – including by family members – have been cancelled.
Doctors said there were almost no infection controls inside detention centres, where toilet paper, soap and hand sanitiser are running short, and those in detention have to queue in close proximity for meals and other services. People are still being detained in shared and bunk rooms, with up to four people in a room in some detention centres.

Asylum seekers and refugees said they were “anxious and scared” of a Covid-19 outbreak inside detention, saying they were being held “in a potential death trap in which we have no option or means to protect ourselves”.  They say it is impossible for them to self-isolate and protect themselves from the virus.



“We are sitting ducks for Covid-19 and extremely exposed to becoming severely ill, with the possibility of death.” 





A public petition from Human Rights for All calling for the immediate release of asylum seekers and refugees in detention has attracted nearly 20,000 signatures.



“Families across Australia are struggling with the ramifications of Covid-19,” director-principal Alison Battisson said. “The families of people in detention are no different. We ask that these families are allowed to bring their loved ones home to see out the pandemic. These people have safe and caring home environments willing to support them, either with a family member or advocate in Australia.

In the UK, the Home Office has released more than 300 people from detention because of the Covid-19 pandemic.



https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/24/we-are-sitting-ducks-for-covid-19-asylum-seekers-write-to-pm-after-detainee-tested-in-immigration-detention

Big Pharma’s Profiteering Plan

The Food and Drug Administration granted Gilead Sciences “orphan” drug status for its antiviral drug, remdesivir. Hours later, the FDA gave the drug orphan status. Almost immediately, Gilead’s stock price shot up. The designation allows the pharmaceutical company to profit exclusively for seven years from the product, which is one of dozens being tested as a possible treatment for Covid-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus.



Experts warn that the designation, reserved for treating “rare diseases,” could block supplies of the antiviral medication from generic drug manufacturers and provide a lucrative windfall for Gilead Sciences. The 1983 Orphan Drug Act gives special inducements to pharmaceutical companies to make products that treat rare diseases. In addition to the seven-year period of market exclusivity, “orphan” status can give companies grants and tax credits of 25 percent of the clinical drug testing cost. Other pharmaceutical firms, including India-based pharmaceutical firm Cipla, are reportedly working toward a generic form of remdesivir, but patients in the U.S. could be prevented from buying generics with lower prices now that Gilead Sciences’s drug has been designated an orphan.
“Remdesivir is one of relatively few medicines that may prove effective in treating COVID-19 this year,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of the  government watchdog Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program. “The government should be urgently concerned with its affordability for citizens. Instead, the FDA has handed Gilead, one of the most profitable pharmaceutical corporations on earth, a long and entirely undeserved seven-year monopoly and, with it, the ability to charge outrageous prices to consumers.”



“Gilead has gamed the system by rushing through its ‘rare disease’ orphan drug application,” Maybarduk added. “Its action is disingenuous and outrageous.”


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/24/massive-scandal-trump-fda-grants-drug-company-exclusive-claim-promising-coronavirus



Coronavirus crisis: why the shortage of medical supplies?

On Friday March 20, the Anchorage Office of Emergency Management (Alaska) appealed for donations – not of money but of swabs to test for COVID-19:



Due to global demand, there is no definite shipping date for more swabs. Based on the current demand of 250-280 tests a day, Anchorage will run out of swabs by Sunday March 22. 



Another appeal followed on Saturday March 21 – this time for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There was an immediate need for examination gloves (but not made of latex), respirators, surgical masks, medical gowns, and face shields that protect the eyes. 



The shortage of PPE exposes medical personnel to infection. ‘I figure I probably won’t make it through all this,’ says Emergency Room nurse Kellen Squire, RN.   



We don’t have enough ventilators. We don’t have enough drugs to sedate the number of patients we’re anticipating. Imagine having a tube jammed down your throat and being conscious the whole time — and these COVID patients are intubated for days, even weeks. 



It would probably be easier to list items that are not in short supply than items that are.  



But why?



There are many reasons. Most, however, are directly or indirectly connected with the system of production for profit not use.



Especially important are new products that might radically change the situation for the better. Like a vaccine. Like material for tests that yield results in a matter of hours rather than days. But they can make a big difference only if made widely available – and as soon as may be technically possible. 



Unfortunately, this is not in the interest of the producing company. The way for it to maximize its profit is to take out a patent on any new product and exploit to the full the monopoly position that the patent temporarily gives it. That means delaying the start of large-scale production and charging an exorbitant price. For examples of the harm done by patents in the healthcare field see my article here.



But to return to the problem of short supply of things that have long been in wide use.



Shortage at times of heightened need is largely attributable to the practice known as ‘just-in-time’ or ‘lean’ manufacturing or the Toyota Production System. This practice, first developed in the 1970s in Japan at the manufacturing plants of the Toyota company, has since spread throughout the world. The basic idea is to avoid space, labor, and other costs associated with storage by producing only to satisfy demand definitely known to exist – ideally, only to meet orders that are already in hand. Maintaining production capacity or inventory to cope with possible demand above this level is considered wasteful. A similar approach is taken to minimize storage costs at retail outlets.



When demand suddenly leaps upward, as it does for medical supplies during a pandemic, the just-in-time system ensures that there will be very little if any spare production capacity or inventory to help satisfy the increased demand. With sufficient investment it should still be possible greatly to expand output, but this inevitably takes time – and in an emergency time is short.



Consider, for example, the German diagnostic firm Qiagen, which makes a genetic analysis kit used for coronavirus testing. The ‘normal’ level of its output enables the testing of 1.5 million patients per month. In mid-March Qiagen announced that it aims to quadruple its output of COVID-19 test reagents within six weeks. This is quite impressive – but the number of people requiring to be tested is also rising very rapidly. 



A rational system of production for use would enable society to maintain reserve production capacity and inventory of essential goods adequate for foreseeable contingencies. True, not everything that can happen is foreseeable and mistakes of judgement will always be possible. 

Stephen Shenfield

http://www.wspus.org/2020/03/coronavirus-crisis-why-the-shortage-of-medical-supplies/

COVID-19 and Civil Liberties

Several countries are using the COVID-19 crisis to undermine the principles and institutions upholding the rule of law. First among them is Hungary.



People have accepted wide-ranging restrictions on public life such as being told to stay at home, respect curfews and avoid any unnecessary travel — all in an effort to slow the spread of the virus.



 Yet some nations  appear to be taking advantage of the crisis to undermine the rule of law.



 On March 20, Viktor Orban’s right-wing nationalist government presented a draft law that would give the executive branch dictatorial powers for an unlimited period of time. Known as the “law to protect against the coronavirus,” it’s expected to be approved by next week. Hungary has already called a state of emergency in order to respond to the outbreak, which as of Tuesday afternoon had infected 187 people and killed nine. But the special powers granted to the government during this time only last for 15 days and must be extended by parliament.



Under the new law, which would come into force after a one-off vote by parliament, the state of emergency would be in place indefinitely, allowing the government to issue any decrees to protect the population and stabilize the economy that deviate from existing law. Parliamentary functions, elections and referendums would be suspended for the duration of the state of emergency; only the Constitutional Court would be allowed to convene. According to the draft law, it would be up to the government to decide when to end the state of emergency.



Two new offenses have also been introduced in the new law. Those found to be obstructing measures to fight the pandemic would face up to eight years in prison, depending on the severity of the offense, and anyone found spreading false or distorted information could be imprisoned for up to five years.
The Opposition have been unanimous in their criticism of the law, saying it would usher in “total power for Orban,” giving him a “blank check to govern by decree.” They have called for a limit on the law’s period of validity and further legal guarantees.



Hungarian NGOs and critics have also expressed great concern, including philosopher, Gaspar Miklos Tamas. “When we see the Orban government using the epidemic as a pretext to introduce an open, structural dictatorship, how can we still believe that restrictive measures are justified and well-founded?” he wrote.
Bulgarian President Rumen Radev partially vetoed a controversial law on emergency measures that would introduce prison sentences for spreading false information about infectious diseases, similar to those in Hungary. Another controversial regulation was  intended to give authorization to the army to implement emergency measures, including identity checks usually carried out by the police. Surprisingly, some members of governing coalition accepted Radev’s veto, but it remains to be seen whether the law will simply be reformulated. Parliament is expected to vote in the coming days.
In Serbia, democratic opposition politicians and independent legal experts have accused President Aleksandar Vucic of declaring a state of emergency on March 15 without any constitutional basis. The move, they say, has put Serbia “one step away from dictatorship.”

In Slovakia, the new center-right government plans to pass a law allowing state institutions to access data from telecommunications operators. Prime Minister Igor Matovic argued that mobile phone tracking would ensure that people stay isolated while in quarantine.



In Albania, Prime Minister Edi Rama announced harsh penalties for those who ignore curfews. Armored vehicles with machine guns have been sent to patrol the streets of the capital, Tirana, prompting sharp criticism from the opposition.



In Montenegro, the government has used its official website to publish and constantly update a list of names and addresses of quarantined citizens. Human rights activists have been highly critical of the lists, calling them a “call to lynch.”



Armenia, Latvia, Moldova and Romania have announced a so-called derogation from the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The move allows these countries to suspend certain civil rights during the coronavirus state of emergency, though critics have said the measures are excessive.



https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-rule-of-law-under-attack-in-southeast-europe/a-52905150