Image copyright: Flickr, author: Matt Brown

“That things are ‘status quo’ is the catastrophe.” (Walter Benjamin)

On 12th of March 2020, an expert in virology, who, against his intentions, had became Germany’s most important influencer, expressed slight doubts about what he was doing through internet and radio. Having started as a “scientific podcast”, it had become “scarily political” in the meantime. In fact Christian Drosten had, throughout the latest episodes of his podcast, felt pressure to speak on topics outside of his expertise. When, for example, he had deemed the closure of schools not suitable to contain the virus, and then on the 12th of March in episode 12 corrected his opinion, he did this out of considerations that can hardly be considered purely medical: “We all want the wave of infections to flatten and stretch out. However, we also don’t want to harm the national work force. That’s the compromise.” (1)

Drosten’s surprise arises from a false self-perception of natural sciences in general and of applied natural science, medicine, in particular. Natural science concerns itself with nature. But nature is dialectical. What nature is, is hardly to be understood without contrasting it with its opposite – society. Nature thus is what isn’t societal. Everything that has not been formed by human labor is therefore nature. Only, this way the concept of nature always remains dependent upon society. Even a completely isolated national park is nature only in so far as a political commission has decided to not work a piece of land. Nature in itself is impossible. Nature is always for us. No period of history makes this more explicit than the present. When people talk of spending a weekend in nature, they talk of driving their industrially manufactured bicycle made in China into agricultural wastelands, which harbor far less birds than the cities, from which they sought to flee. There is no piece of earth that is not subsumed under the interests of self-valorizing value. For the natural sciences this illusion may be a necessary one. Nature can only be described as an outside. However, the perspective becomes ideological once the science is applied. In economic matters, Marx described this as fetish. A social relationship (value) is perceived as a natural one. Analogously, one might speak of a medical fetish whenever medicine forgets its societal character.

The insight into the mediation of the immediate, into the societal dimension of the natural and thus into the concept of nature itself, has consequences for the concept of natural disaster as well. Drosten had described the coronavirus pandemic as a natural disaster in episode 11. In fact, the pandemic is nothing less than that. Given the development thus far, we can not view natural disasters as something that is imposed upon us from the outside, without having a societal moment of its own. There is a difference whether a hut or a palace is hit by a storm. The victims of natural disaster are usually those who had previously been the victims of social conditions. In the coronavirus pandemic as well, the poor are harder hit than the rich. It is as much so individually as transnationally. The homeless hardly finds shelter, the street paper can hardly be sold anymore, and the food banks provide no more food to him. Transnationally, Italy is left largely to its own devices and the impact of an epidemic on the African continent would be literally fatal.

Just as we cannot speak of nature in itself, we cannot speak of a society in itself. Societies only exist in the plural and thus are doubly specific. Firstly because each points to nature as its other and thus can never be autarkic. Even the most developed industrial societies are rooted in natural resources. The rare earths in our smartphones have to be uncovered before they can be utilized for the purposes of modern communications. Though the contemporary dairy cow may be overbred, it always remains nature and the human body as well is not exempt from this. But societies are specific in another sense as well. They are historically defined. The Roman Empire was a different form of society than medieval feudalism. What shape the “metabolism with nature”, labor, takes and in what shape nature and society are mediated, is rooted in historic conditions.

The form of society we are confronted with in crisis is the society mediated by capital. In contrast to other periods of history, the present is marked by market-mediated accumulation of surplus value and thus surplus labor; its guiding principle is economic growth. Whether a lockdown is proclaimed with the first case of COVID-19 or only after the virus has already spread, depends on the objective Drosten articulated in the podcast mentioned above: “We also don’t want to harm the national work force.” It is the economic imperative of the specifically capitalistic mode of production that sets the goals pursued in the crisis.

At this point an alien purpose creeps in, which even under normal conditions makes it so that the growing capacities of mankind are unavailable to the majority of humans. „Adjusted for the mode of production, on the level of the means of production themselves, it is all rather simple: less living labor is necessary, wherever living labor creates apparatuses, which ease this labor, make it more effective, shorten it,” (2) Dietmar Dath writes in his essay “Machine Winter” (Maschinenwinter). In the coronavirus crisis this means: global human productive forces could be aligned for one common purpose, namely the care for the sick and the fight against the virus. Only, such a thing as means of production adjusted for the mode of production does not exist. The sole purpose of the existing mode of production is the accumulation of surplus value.

The thing is, however, more complicated than it initially seems. For capital is not, as in some vulgar ideas of it, a monolithic block. For Marx it is the self-valorizing value as expressed in his formula M-C-M’. The term does not refer to the class of the capitalists. This class has differing interests or, economically speaking: the individual capitalist is a competitor. Only in this competition can self-valorizing value develop. Every single capitalist seeks to replace as much living labor by machines; but on a societal level this reduces the rate of profit, as a decreasing amount of value-producing labor is subsumed by capital. This leads capital into crisis with regularity. The “Black Friday” or the “Oil-Crisis” or most recently the financial crash of 2008 mark such moments. And the current economic crisis as well was merely triggered by the pandemic: “The coronavirus is only the trigger, that is causing an unstable system to collapse,”(3) lowerclassmag writes on their homepage. Whenever capital as a whole tumbles into crisis, the state as “ideal total capitalist” (Engels) must increasingly step in to maintain accumulation even against the interests of individual capitalists. Thus the global regime of accumulation under capitalism changes. Keynesianism was a reply to the crisis of early liberalism, as much as neo-liberalism was a reply to the crisis of Keynesianism. On the economic crises of the 20s and 30s of the 20th century Eric Hobsbawm remarks in his book The Age of Extremes: “The trauma of the Great Slump was underlined by the fact that the one country that had clamorously broken with capitalism appeared to be immune to it: the Soviet Union. (…) What was more, there was no unemployment. These achievements impressed foreign observers of all ideologies, including a small but influential flow of socio-economic tourists to Moscow in 1930-35 (…) What was the secret of the Soviet system? Could anything be learned from it? Echoing Russia’s Five Year Plans, ‘Plan’ and ‘Planning’ became buzz-words in politics.” Evidently a crisis overturns the dogma of free market forces that stabilize everything. The state no longer keeps out of the market, it even begins to plan. Another example for this is wartime socialism, a term from the first World War that described how the state aims no longer for prosperity, but victory in war and takes measures of central planning to ensure it.

Such a wartime or crisis-socialism is foreshadowed in the coronavirus crisis, too. According to DW.com signs in Italy point to the nationalization of the airline Alitalia, for which crisis had been looming for a while now. In France, minister of finance Bruno Le Maire now announced to wholly nationalize corporations if necessary. Similarily telling is that Trump’s order that General Motors produce ventilators is grounded in a war-economy law from the Korean War. The restrictions of public life throughout the world can hardly be grasped by the neoliberal dogma of the free market. From the point of view of accumulation, curfews and restrictions present a collapse of the demand side. The guideline is no longer direct production of surplus value, but victory in the struggle against the virus. This assessment may surprise. After all, previous paragraphs read: “It’s thus the economic imperative of the specific mode of production that is capitalism, upon which the deliberation of goals in the crisis rest.” But the contradiction is only apparent. In crisis socialism the goals of the rulers and the ruled may temporarily coincide. But this only holds true for the immediate fight against the pandemic. The goal of capital is protection of human lives only in so far, as the production of surplus value needs to be protected from total collapse. This is already apparent where politicians are urging that the paralysis of the economy be as limited and short-lived as possible. Already Trump is speaking of a return to normal after Easter even at the expense of human lives, though such a return is likely to remain wishful thinking.

Crisis Socialism contains a series of dangers. The Kurzarbeitergeld (short-time labor) in Germany, which is celebrated as a social measure, means a massive de facto wage cut. Who’s to guarantee that it isn’t immediately withdrawn, once conditions have calmed down a bit? The class warfare from above will continue as usual, which is also to be seen in the ideas of German agricultural minister Julia Klöckner who, faced with a shortage of exploitable labor from Poland, now wants to conscript recipients of unemployment benefits as well as refugees to harvest asparagus on German fields. Even if such a measure were necessary, because there’d be nothing left to eat but asparagus, who’s to guarantee that such measures remain temporary?

The measures of so-called social distancing meet an atomized mass of humans under digital capitalism. Individuals who constitute themselves as social monads in front of their Netflix and Disney+ accounts are pushed even further into social isolation. Collective revolt is thus obstructed even more. Who’s to guarantee that the right to public assembly doesn’t remain restricted even after the crisis ends? This does not only concern states like Hungary. It is not only nationalist autocrats like Orban and Erdogan will maintain measures. There is no turning back in history. That’s not to say that all measures will be maintained. It’s to say that a return to the normal conditions before crisis will remain unreachable. The German chancellor may be celebrated by parts of US media as level-headed manager of crisis, as “leader of the free world”, her speech to the nation however was tied to national myths such as post-war reconstruction, pushes solidarity into the individual sphere and appeals to a feeling of national community. Meanwhile southern Europe grows critical of Germany. European loans are rejected for reasons of national German economic interest. Aid for Italy, center of the pandemic within Europe, remains limited. The Italian philosopher Donatella Di Cesare says in an interview with the German newspaper Zeit: “The Italians are very disappointed in Europe. Why isn’t there an European policy, why doesn’t the EU coordinate the distribution of masks or ventilators? The EU has failed, the EU isn’t present in crisis. Not even symbolically, not logistically and not politically either. In this concrete moment we realize: Europe doesn’t exist.” (4) A global pandemic that can only be defeated with a globally coordinated plan, accelerates the process of renationalization. What might happen to the refugees in European camps in Syria and Turkey, when the virus reaches them, is a thought one shudders to think. And will the European borders remain closed after the crisis ends? The triage, the selection of humans into life worthy of survival and those that isn’t, is a medical-fascist process. Who’s to guarantee that this principle will be dropped by hospitals after the crisis? It for sure is cheaper than expanding healthcare capacities. In the Dialectics of Enlightenment by Horkheimer and Adorno, one finds the following dialogue:

“A. You don’t want to be a doctor?

B. By their profession doctors have a lot to do with dying people; that desensitizes them. Moreover, with advanced institutionalization the doctor represents business and its hierarchy vis-i-vis the patient. He is often tempted to act as an advocate of death. He becomes an agent of big business against consumers. If one is selling automobiles it’s not so bad, but if the commodity being administered is life and the consumers are the sick, that’s a situation I’d prefer not to be in. The profession of family doctor may have been more innocuous, but that is in decline.

A. So you think there shouldn’t be any doctors, or the old charlatans ought to come back? B. I did not say that. I just have a horror of being a doctor myself, and especially a senior consultant with power of command over a mass hospital. Nevertheless, I do, of course, think it better to have doctors and hospitals than to leave sick people to die.”

In times of crisis the character of the doctor is unmasked as advocate of death, as representative of business. But even in crisis it holds true that it is better for there to be doctors and hospitals. More of them would be necessary. The power of command over mass hospitals in which triage occurs points to the mediation of wartime- and crisis-socialism as previously described. Such proceedings occurred on the fronts of both World Wars. It’s no coincidence that it is the army in Italy, China, the USA or Germany, which is called upon for medical provisioning. The task of saving lives is forced into the backdrop, even if it remains official main purpose of hospitals, the task to decide whom to let die becomes increasingly important. That is no law of nature. It points to the previously mentioned dialectics of nature and societies. If we were to consistently direct the productive forces of the world to the construction of hospitals, the production of ventilators and masks, rarely would a doctor have to play advocate of death.

That is also the opportunity presented by crisis socialism. It may be no socialism at all, not even the path towards it, yet it still gives compelling evidence as to how stupid it is to let the market be the regulatory and distributory principle of a society. In these times even a neoliberal reformist like Macron gives lip service to the idea of the pandemic giving evidence that there are goods and services that must remain outside of market laws; it should be easy for a global left to state that this does not only concern some goods and services, but all of them. In these times a large part of the global capitalist production is stalled; it should be easy for communists to argue that stopping the wheels in a general strike is not a path directly into armageddon. The social demand to now nationalize the healthcare system or the pharmaceutical industry, should easily be pushed to the thought of planning the entirety of global production according to the needs of all of mankind. Climate change suddenly seems a trifle after learning that economy has a pause button and thus can also be fundamentally reformatted. The shimmering blue water in the canals of Venice shows how reducing production can lead to a revitalization of our natural livelihoods. Even a precursor to solidarity can be perceived when masses of individuals flock to initiatives of mutual support in everyday life.

But the question of the possibilities offered by crisis socialism is not a question of insight, not a question of the better argument. Whether after crisis socialism comes fascist dictatorship, socialism, or just another capitalist regime of accumulation replacing the neoliberal regime — this is an open question that is not decided in discussion, but in political struggles. It will be crucial to find forms of political organization that remain sound even in times of curfew.

(1) Translations by editor. “Wir wollen alle, dass sich die Infektionswelle abflacht und in die Länge zieht. Wir wollen andererseits aber die Arbeitskraft im Land nicht schädigen. Das ist hier der Kompromiss.”

(2) “Bereinigt um die Produktionsverhältnisse, auf der Ebene der Produktivkräfte selbst, bleibt alles sehr einfach: Weniger lebendige Arbeit ist nötig, wo immer lebendige Arbeit im Laufe der Zeit Apparate schafft, welche die Arbeit erleichtern, wirkungsvoller machen, abkürzen.”

(3) “Der Corona-Virus ist nur der Trigger, der ein labiles System zum Einsturz zu bringen droht.”

(4) “Doch die Italienerinnen und Italiener sind sehr enttäuscht von Europa. Warum gibt es jetzt keine europäische Politik, warum koordiniert die EU nicht die Verteilung der Masken oder Beatmungsgeräte? Die EU hat versagt, die EU ist in dieser Krise nicht da. Nicht einmal symbolisch, nicht logistisch und auch nicht politisch. In diesem konkreten Moment merken wir: Europa existiert nicht.”