By forcing the hand of power, the coronavirus pandemic reveals radical change was possible all along

Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine

As the coronavirus pandemic escalates around the globe, debate has heated up about how governments and international institutions should respond. Already some surprisingly progressive proposals have been floated – and often from unexpected quarters. It raises the question of whether radical changes to our economic and social systems have been possible all along. And also if they were falsely labelled unworkable because they went against powerful interests.

The usual right-wing incompetence

On 11 March, the World Health Organisation recognised the outbreak of the new coronavirus (Covid-19) as a global pandemic. The responses in the US and UK have so far been so inept that they’d be comical if they weren’t so dangerous. This is, of course, only to be expected given the bumbling, authoritarian buffoons who currently occupy the White House and 10 Downing Street.

But along with exposing the incompetence of these leaders, the crisis has also seen progressive economic and social reforms gain greater prominence. Even in historically neoliberal-leaning countries, there are suddenly calls for radical change to deal with the consequences of the crisis.

…and from some unexpected quarters

In the US, for example, commentators and politicians alike have suggested giving each member of the public a one-time payment to help cope throughout the outbreak. And it’s not just progressives like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who’ve been putting these ideas out. Utah senator Mitt Romney, for instance, who was the 2012 Republican Party candidate for president, pledged his support for the proposal. Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in the UK, meanwhile, announced that the state would cover 80% of wages for employees not working as a result of the outbreak, up to £2,500 a month.

Even the Trump administration has suddenly started embracing progressive ideas. On 18 March, Trump ordered the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to halt all evictions and foreclosures until the end of April. In the same week, US federal housing regulators Freddie Mac and Fannie May announced new plans to allow homeowners to have their mortgages reduced or even suspended for up to a year.

Because they were feasible all along

Notice that these are the kinds of reforms that progressives have been advocating for decades, but keep getting called unaffordable by political opponents. The proposal to give each member of society a payment to cover basic necessities, for example, is essentially a temporary version of a ‘universal basic income’ (UBI). Instituting a trial rollout of UBI was one of the very ideas that Labour had in its manifesto during the Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Although Labour’s manifesto was fully costed, Tory party figures, along with their minions in the corporate-owned press, issued hysterical warnings about how a Corbyn government would somehow ‘bankrupt the country’. Meanwhile, paying wages to the unemployed is exactly the kind of social protection that we keep hearing somehow ‘breeds idleness’ in so-called ‘benefits scroungers’.

Read on...

Objections suddenly forgotten

But now that we’re in times of crisis, these objections are suddenly forgotten. Of course, right-wing voices will likely claim that different circumstances call for different measures. But many of the conditions on which these measures are predicated – whether it be a lack of secure work or difficulty making ends meet – have existed since long before the pandemic began.

The Trump administration’s policies on housing, meanwhile, could just as easily have been implemented following the 2007/8 financial crash. As The Canary has previously argued, the Obama administration continued the bank bailout program of its predecessor George W. Bush, yet gave only measly relief to homeowners who had been hit by the subprime mortgage crisis. Noam Chomsky dubbed this “socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”.

Crisis creates opportunity – for the forces of good as well as evil

The outbreak has also rammed home an important truth about how power relations work in capitalist society. As Canadian author Naomi Klein argued in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, right-wing forces often exploit crises in order to restructure society in the interests of powerful corporations and wealthy individuals. In a recent video for the Intercept, however, she pointed out that crises can provide an opportunity to change society for the better as well. And there have been examples of this on both sides of the Atlantic throughout history.

In the UK, for example, the experience of the Second World War showed that government investment can create full employment during wartime. And the Labour government led by Clement Atlee after the war realised that if full employment can be achieved by building bombs and bullets as part of a war effort, then why not by building schools and hospitals during peacetime as well. Similarly, in the US, the experience of the Great Depression was the catalyst for the implementation of the ‘New Deal’ by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Change through crisis

Clearly, progressives everywhere need to consistently point out the value of socialist policies during the pandemic. So that in the aftermath, social relations are rearranged to benefit the many rather than strengthen the power of the few. As the old political saying goes, ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’!

The reason these reforms weren’t made before the pandemic was perhaps for the simple reason that the capitalist system could be left ticking while entrenched power systems kept the public insecure and demoralized while maintaining profits. But in the face of this pandemic, circumstance forced their hand, and in the process, made them reveal their hand to all.

Featured image via Flickr – Alan Stanton

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I think that’s putting the cart before the horse. It seems more likely that the UK really is in a dire economic position, and that the coronavirus is being hyped up to save the skins of right-wing politicians and bankers – the ‘socialist’ policies being only a sign of their desperation.

    2. The writer contrarily writes “The responses in the US and UK have so far been so inept that they’d be comical if they weren’t so dangerous.” That bit is certainly true. Then the writer continues “This is, of course, only to be expected given the bumbling, authoritarian buffoons who currently occupy the White House and 10 Downing”. “Authoritarian”? The USA and UK haven’t been sensibly authoritarian nearly enough to curb reckless behaviour of congregating and socialising citizens not in any way heeding the need for ‘social distancing’. For a start food outlets and distribution should have been ‘militarily commissioned’ over a week ago to stall panic buying. Authoritarian statutes need to be in place fast – even though it’s probably too late now that ‘the great visitation’ is about to fall upon us as such visitations fell on us in the past with tragedy wrought in their wake which history has horrifically documented.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.