The global
coronavirus crisis is leading to a resurgence of the crudest Cold War
anti-Communist rhetoric, with the Tory MP Tom Tugendhat in this country being a
particularly ardent practitioner. The
Chinese ‘Communist dictatorship’ then becomes the source of every aspect of the
global pandemic: from the invention of the virus in a Wuhan laboratory in some
conspiracy theories, through the intimidation and silencing of Doctor Li
Wenliang who tried to alert China to the emerging health crisis, to the faking
of mortality figures and subsequent fake news campaigns. There may well be some truth in some of these
claims; but taken collectively they add up to a new Cold War racist
anti-Communism.
At which
point, Morrisians must surely stand up for communism, if not for China. It was our hero’s preferred term for his
political vision, and, as I have suggested before in this blog, aligning the
pre-Leninist communism of Morris with the post-Leninist communism of Alain
Badiou, Slavoj Zizek and Jodi Dean is a compelling political task for us. Coronavirus is not, as many politicians have
asserted, indiscriminate: it may infect an occasional Boris Johnson, but it
hits the poor hardest, since in crowded homes and work-places they cannot
social distance, their jobs are lost first in any economic lockdown, and they
may not have health cover or insurance. A
contemporary communism must speak out against the grotesque economic and health
inequalities we are now witnessing so starkly all around us.
On the more
scholarly and historical front, we are seeing some interesting work on the
semantics of ‘communism’ in Morris’s texts.
Owen Holland’s splendid William
Morris’s Utopianism: Propaganda, Politics and Prefiguration (2017) argues
that ‘Morris’s intervention into the pastoral tradition can be construed as an
attempt to shift the articulation of the communist idea in the direction of
social revolution … [his] utopian text attempted to reorient the meaning of the
word “communism” around a definition tied to the primacy of the political, as
against the then-dominant identifications with utopian-communitarianism’
(pps.107, 118). Holland grasps the
centrality of the term ‘communism’ for Morris, and shrewdly maps its vagaries,
as if it were an Empsonian ‘complex word’.
In thinking
about the global future we want after Covid-19, the green-communism of Morris needs
to be on the agenda again. We can’t just
be calling for the resumption of ‘business as normal’, in that over-used
current phrase. Capitalism-as-normal is
generating appalling social divisions into the 1% and the 99%, and destroying
our planet’s biological systems into the bargain (and it is more likely that
process, rather than a Chinese laboratory, that gives us Covid-19 and the earlier
pandemics of our century). Far from
allowing a reversion to Cold War anti-Communism, we should rework the vision and
practice of communism to meet the challenges ahead.
I would like
to see the Morris Societies of the UK, the USA and Canada commit themselves to
such a task on their websites: not just to plan tactics of immediate survival
and reorganisation (important though these are), but to project some serious
utopian thinking and mobilising for the years ahead. Having handed in my notice to Lancaster
University, I am now counting down the months to the moment when I can devote
myself fulltime to that work.