Whose Narrative?

      I stated when this pandemic started  that the state would use it to further its control over the population, and to preserve the power structures that ensure wealth and power stay where they are. It would use the situation to try and bolster  an economic system that was crumbling at the seams, and so it has panned out. One of the tools the state always falls back on is "we are all in this together" they will draw references to the "British Spirit" during the blitz, and try to shape you into one homogeneous entity wrapped in the flag of patriotism. What they fail to mention is that during the 2nd WW there were strikes, peace movements, conscientious objectors, and mutinies, among other differing views on the situation. We were not one flag waving nation of "all in this together" mob. 

     In a system where there are such glaring inequalities with some having gross opulence with a risk they might lose some of it, and the majority struggling just to have a half decent life, it is impossible to claim that "we are all in this together". We are not, the two groups, the pampered privileged and the ordinary people have opposing values and opinions on what to protect and how to do it. Why we should allow the pampered privileged group to dictate what we all should preserve and what must be sacrificed, seems bordering on insanity. We the vast majority, must be in control of these decisions, working for the greater good of that majority. Protection of the vulnerable, yes, but protection for the privileged, most certainly no.

The following is an extract from North-Shore Info:

Ask a Different Question: 

Reclaiming autonomy of action during the virus

 

        A big part of the state’s narrative is unity — the idea that we need to come together as a society around a singular good that is for everyone. People like feeling like they’re part of a big group effort and like having the sense of contributing through their own small actions — the same kinds of phenomenons that make rebellious social movements possible also enable these moments of mass obedience. We can begin rejecting it by reminding ourselves that the interests of the rich and powerful are fundamentally at odds with our own. Even in a situation where they could get sicken or die too (unlike the opioid crisis or the AIDS epidemic before it), their response to the crisis is unlikely to meet our needs and may even intensify exploitation.
      The presumed subject of most of the measures like self-isolation and social distancing is middle-class — they imagine a person whose job can easily be worked from home or who has access to paid vacation or sick days (or, in the worst case, savings), a person with a spacious home, a personal vehicle, without very many close, intimate relationships, with money to spend on childcare and leisure activities. Everyone is asked to accept a level of discomfort, but that increases the further away our lives are from looking like that unstated ideal and compounds the unequal risk of the worst consequences of the virus. One response to this inequality has been to call on the state to do forms of redistribution, by expanding employment insurance benefits, or by providing loans or payment deferrals. Many of these measure boil down to producing new forms of debt for people who are in need, which recalls the outcome of the 2008 financial crash, where everyone shared in absorbing the losses of the rich while the poor were left out to dry.
       I have no interest in becoming an advocate for what the state should do and I certainly don’t think this is a tipping point for the adoption of more socialistic measures. The central issue to me is whether or not we want the state to have the abiltiy to shut everything down, regardless of what we think of the justifications it invokes for doing so.
       The #shutdowncanada blockades were considered unacceptable, though they were barely a fraction as disruptive as the measures the state pulled out just a week later, making clear that it’s not the level of disruption that was unacceptable, but rather who is a legitimate actor. Similarly, the government of Ontario repeated constantly the unacceptable burden striking teachers were placing on families with their handful of days of action, just before closing schools for three weeks — again, the problem is that they were workers and not a government or boss. The closure of borders to people but not goods intensifies the nationalist project already underway across the world, and the economic nature of these seemingly moral measures will become more plain once the virus peaks and the calls shift towards ‘go shopping, for the economy’.

Visit ann arky's home at https://radicalglasgow.me.uk