On what the government is thinking and what evidence they're considering, it is pretty clear they are prioritising labour discipline above all else. Over lives certainly, but also over capital accumulation during the pandemic.
Whenever there is a discussion of measures that can be taken, it is always about levels of lockdown, sometimes whether schools shoule close. What gets left out is the intransigence over sick pay for people supposed to be self isolating.
This goes right back to abandoning test and trace in March when they had the 'containment, delay, mitigation' bollocks strategy. Throughout the entire thing, no support for people to take time off work to avoid transmission. Keeping schools open is an extension of this.
The 'mass testing in schools' plan is apparently based around testing contacts of positive cases to keep them at school until they test positive - not for finding asymptomatic cases and isolating contacts. A recipe for even more outbreaks at schools.
This strategy of keeping everyone at work/school runs up against the very real physical limits of viral transmission and hospital overload. So we are left with massive lockdowns as a last resort in the face of potential unrest, always with work prioritised over social life.
You're always prevented from participating in any social activity before you're stopped from working. So going for a walk with three people from two households is illegal in tier 4, while schools stay open.
If there was proper income support for people with symptoms and their close contacts (as well as a functional test and trace system since February 2020), then both social life and the economy would be less restricted, but people would be 'encouraged' to take time off work sick.
The furlough scheme and self employment support schemes also very much tied to lockdown as well as keeping people dependent on employers and easily recalled to work.
What appears (and is) chaotic, haphazard, contradictory makes a lot more sense as a strategy of 'labour discipline at all costs' whether individual cabinet ministers are conscious of this or not. It's implicit in every decision and non decision of the past year.
What makes it hard to reason about is that both a liberal and radical conception of the government sees it as guaranteeing the conditions for stable capital accumulation, but we also have to ask on what scale and timespan.
You have the Tories and Labour in an arms race in how much they want kids in school, 'cos Labour loves Labour discipline too, clue is in the name. But where is the discussion about students and teachers wearing masks in classrooms?
From July: Labour came out explicitly anti-mask in schools while pushing for schools to go back to full capacity.
Again I think you can trace this back to labour discipline. That the workplaces staying open shouldn't see any significant improvements in working conditions or even pandemic-specific health and safety measures.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a more general problem, hinted at but not made explicit in this piece, that the framing of pro-lockdown vs denialism is handing over analysis of the pandemic to two extremely right wing narratives that don't even disagree that much.
Lockdown, as it existed from March, combined some necessary things (shutting down mass public events in poorly ventilated buildings) with completely arbitrary, authoritarian, counter productive stuff like banning people from sitting down in parks or going for long walks.
Lockdown as re-introduced yesterday with Tier 3 restrictions, bans sitting two metres away from your mate in the park, but allows you to sit 1m from a stranger inside a pub as long as you've both ordered a meal.
As usual fucking woeful that after a full week of leaks there's not even a list of the bullshit. Also, this looks like it's similar to the rules Ireland has had for months.
Ireland's rules said you can only enter a pub if you're served a 'substantial meal', defined as more than €9. Substantially food based may not include the meal requirement though who knows.
"Pubs and bars... can only remain open where they operate as if they were a restaurant - which means serving substantial meals, like a main lunchtime or evening meal. They may only serve alcohol as part of such a meal."
Haven't watched the whole thing, but main problem here seems to be that both the socdems and Chomsky put loads of stock in voting or not voting as if it's of massive importance and not the least consequential activity it's possible to engage in.
If the past four years has shown anything it should be that reforming the Democratic Party is impossible. So much effort was put into it for so little result.
There's a chasm between individually holding your nose and voting in a swing state, vs doing interviews telling people it's their moral duty to either definitely do that or definitely not do that.
The big thing that Bookchin gets wrong is he did not really deal fairly with the council communists or post-war councilist Marxists like CLR James, probably due to experiencing 'Marxism' as a Stalinist. Although this also mirrors his later rejection of anarchism too.
Smith goes straight in for the 'over 100 million' victims of communism line, a favourite refrain of the far right. The problem is this number has been criticised as massively inflated even by authors featured in the book it comes from, the Black Book of Communism.
The Black Book of communism was released in 1997 on the 80th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Twelve historians contributed, though the bulk of the writing was by Nicolas Werth on the USSR. The book was prefaced and titled by Stephanie Courtois without input from the rest.
Always fun when people take an idea put forward by multiple 19th century anarchist thinkers and Marx, the Paris Commune, the IWW, the black liberation movement, entire Mexican towns, and try to associate it with teenage stoners.
"The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature..originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism."
"Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to [disestablish and disendow the churches]" - Marx, Civil War in France, 1871