The pandemic and the end of the neoliberal era

Atilio A. Boron[1]

The coronavirus has unleashed a torrent of reflections and analyses that share a common denominator: the intention to sketch the (diffuse) contours of the type of society and economy that will re-emerge once the scourge has been brought under control. There are plenty of reasons to delve into this kind of speculation—hopefully well-informed and controlled—because if there's one thing we're absolutely certain of, it's that the first fatal victim of the pandemic was the neoliberal version of capitalism. And I say "version" because I have serious doubts that the virus in question has worked the miracle of ending not only neoliberalism but also the structure that sustains it: capitalism as a mode of production and as an international system. But the neoliberal era is a corpse, still unburied but impossible to resurrect. What will happen to capitalism? Well, that's what this column is about.

I have great sympathy for Slavoj Žižek's work and person, but this is not enough for me to agree with him when he states that the pandemic dealt him "a blow to the Kill Bill to the capitalist system,” after which, following the cinematic metaphor, it should fall dead within five seconds. This hasn't happened and won't happen because, as Lenin reminded us on more than one occasion, “capitalism will not fall unless there are social and political forces to bring it down.” Capitalism survived the misnamed “Spanish flu,” which we now know originated in Kansas in March 1918 at the Fort Riley military base. Then, the American troops who marched off to fight in World War I spread the virus uncontrollably. The highly imprecise estimates of its lethality range from 20 to 100 million people, so one doesn't need to be a statistics obsessive to distrust the rigor of these estimates widely disseminated by many organizations, including National Geographic Magazine. Capitalism also survived the tremendous global collapse caused by the Great Depression, demonstrating an unusual resilience—already noted by the classics of Marxism—to To process crises and even emerge stronger from them. To think that in the absence of those social and political forces identified by the Russian revolutionary (which are not currently perceived in either the United States or European countries) the long-awaited demise of an immoral, unjust, and predatory system, a mortal enemy of humanity and nature, will now occur is more wishful thinking than the product of concrete analysis. Žižek believes that, as a consequence of this crisis, humanity will have the possibility of resorting to “some form of reinvented communism” to save itself. This is possible and desirable, undoubtedly. But, like almost everything in social life, it will depend on the outcome of the class struggle; more specifically, on whether, returning to Lenin, “those below do not want to and those above cannot continue living as before,” something we do not yet know. But the fork in the road to this juncture presents another possible outcome, which Žižek identifies very clearly: “barbarism.” That is, the reaffirmation of domination. Capital resorts to the most brutal forms of economic exploitation, political-state coercion, and manipulation of consciences and hearts through its hitherto intact media dictatorship. “Barbarism,” István Mészarós used to say with a dose of bitter irony, “if we’re lucky.”

But why not consider some intermediate solution, neither the much-feared “barbarism” (of which we have been receiving increasing doses in existing capitalist systems for some time now), nor the equally longed-for option of a “reinvented communism”? Why not consider that a transition to post-capitalism will inevitably be “uneven and combined,” with profound advances in some areas—the definancialization of the economy, the decommodification of healthcare and social security, for example—and more hesitant ones in others, encountering greater resistance from the bourgeoisie in areas such as the rigorous control of the global financial casino, the nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry (so that medicines cease to be a commodity produced according to their profitability), strategic industries, and the media, as well as the public recovery of so-called “natural resources” (common goods, in reality)? Why not think about “those many socialisms” that the great English Marxist Raymond Williams spoke of prophetically in the mid-eighties of the last century?

In response to the proposal of a “reinvented communism,” South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han enters the fray to refute the Slovenian's thesis and ventures to say that “after the pandemic, capitalism will continue with even greater force.” This is a bold assertion, because if anything is emerging on the horizon, it is the widespread demand from all sectors of society for a much more active role for the State in controlling the disruptive effects of markets on the provision of basic services such as healthcare, housing, social security, transportation, and so on, and to put an end to the scandal of the hyper-concentration of half of all the world's wealth in the hands of the richest 1% of the global population. This post-pandemic world will have much more state and much less market. With populations "aware" and politicized by the scourge to which they have been subjected, and inclined to seek solidarity-based, collective, even "socialist" solutions in countries like the United States, as Judith Butler reminds us, this world will repudiate the unbridled individualism and privatization exalted for forty years by neoliberalism, which led us to the tragic situation we are experiencing. Furthermore, it will be a world where the international system has definitively adopted a different format in the face of a new dominant triad, even though the specific weight of each of its actors is not equal. If Samir Amin was right toward the end of the last century when he spoke of the triad formed by the United States, Europe, and Japan, today that triad consists of the United States, China, and Russia. And unlike the preceding tripolar order, where Europe and Japan were junior partners (Not to mention pawns or lackeys, which sounds somewhat derogatory, but it's the characterization they deserve) of Washington, today it has to contend with the formidable economic power of China, undoubtedly the current engine of the world economy, which has relegated the United States to second place, in addition to having taken the lead in 5G technology and artificial intelligence. Added to this is the no less threatening presence of a Russia that has returned to the forefront of world politics: rich in oil, energy, and water, owner of an immense territory (almost twice the size of the United States) and a powerful industrial complex that has produced cutting-edge military technology that, in some crucial areas, surpasses that of the United States, Russia complements China's economic strength with its military might. It is unlikely, as Han says, that capitalism will acquire renewed vigor in this rather unpromising international scenario. If it had the global gravitation and penetration that it did, it was because, as Samuel P. Huntington said, there was a “sheriff The "solitary" hegemony that sustained the world capitalist order with its undeniable economic, military, political, and ideological primacy is now a thing of the past. Today, that primacy belongs to China, and the enormous US military spending is insufficient even to control a small country like North Korea, or to wage war against one of the poorest nations on the planet, like Afghanistan. Washington's political ascendancy is hanging by a thread only in its "homeyard": Latin America and the Caribbean, and even there, amidst great upheaval. Its international prestige has been severely weakened: China was able to control the pandemic, while the United States was not; China, Russia, and Cuba are helping to combat it in Europe, and Cuba, a global example of solidarity, is sending doctors and medicine to all five continents, while the only thing those who frequent the White House can think of is sending 30.000 troops for a NATO military exercise and intensifying sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran—a clear war crime. Its former hegemony is now a thing of the past. What is being discussed today in the corridors of government agencies... The question for Americans is not whether the country is in decline, but the slope and rate of that decline. And the pandemic is accelerating this process right now.

The South Korean Han is right, however, when he states that “no virus is capable of making a revolution,” but he falls into redundancy when he writes that “we cannot leave the revolution in the hands of the virus.” Of course not! Let's look at the historical record: the Russian Revolution erupted before the “Spanish flu” pandemic, and the victories of the revolutionary processes in China, Vietnam, and Cuba were not preceded by any pandemic. Revolution is made by the subordinate classes when they become aware of the exploitation and oppression to which they are subjected; when they glimpse that, far from being an unattainable illusion, a post-capitalist world is possible; and, finally, when they manage to create an effective national and international organization to fight against an “imperial bourgeoisie” that once tightly intertwined the interests of capitalists in developed countries. Today, thanks to Donald Trump, that ironclad unity at the top of the imperialist system has irreparably fractured, and the struggle up there is everyone against everyone, while China and Russia patiently and quietly continue building the alliances that will sustain a new world order.

One last thought. I believe we must assess the extraordinary severity of the economic effects of this pandemic, which will make a return to the past an impossible mission. The various governments of the world have been forced to face a cruel dilemma: the health of the population or the vigor of the economy. The recent statements by Donald Trump (and other leaders such as Angela Merkel and Boris Johnson) to the effect that he will not adopt a strategy of containing the contagion by quarantining large sectors of the population because such a thing would paralyze the economy, highlights the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Because, it is worth remembering, if the population does not go to work, the process of value creation stops and then there is neither extraction nor realization of surplus value. The virus jumps from people to the economy, and this causes fear in capitalist governments that are reluctant to impose or maintain quarantine because businesses need people to go out and go to work even knowing that it puts their health at risk. According to Mike Davis, in the United States, 45% of the workforce "does not have access to paid leave due to illness and is practically forced to go to work and transmit the infection or go hungry." The situation is unsustainable from the perspective of capital, which needs to exploit its workforce and finds it intolerable that it stays at home. This is also true for workers, who, if they go to work, either become infected or infect others; and if they stay at home, they don't have enough money to meet their most basic needs. This critical crossroads explains Trump's growing belligerence against Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, and his insistence on attributing the origin of the pandemic to the Chinese. He has to create a smokescreen to hide the disastrous consequences of decades of defunding the public health system and complicity with the structural scams of private medicine and the pharmaceutical industry in his country. Or to blame the cause of the economic recession on those who advise people to stay in their homes. In any case – and regardless of whether the way out of this crisis will be a “renewed communism”, as Žižek wants, or a hybrid experiment but clearly pointing in the direction of post-capitalism – this pandemic (as Mike Davis, David Harvey, Iñaki Gil de San Vicente, Juanlu González, Vicenç Navarro, Alain Badiou, Fernando Buen Abad, Pablo Guadarrama, Rocco Carbone, Ernesto López, Wim Dierckxsens and Walter Formento clearly explain in various articles that circulate widely on the web) has moved the tectonic plates of global capitalism and nothing will ever be the same again. Furthermore, nobody wants the world to go back to the way it was before, except for the handful of tycoons who enriched themselves through the savage plunder perpetrated during the neoliberal era. This is a tremendous challenge for those of us who want to build a post-capitalist world because, without a doubt, the pandemic and its devastating effects offer a unique, unexpected opportunity that would be unforgivable to miss. Therefore, the watchword of the moment for all anti-capitalist forces on the planet is: raise awareness, organize, and fight; fight to the end, as Fidel wanted when, in a memorable meeting with intellectuals held within the framework of the Havana International Book Fair in February 2012, he said goodbye to us saying: “If they tell you: be assured that the planet is ending and this thinking species is ending, what are you going to do, start crying?” I believe we have to fight, it's what we've always done." Let's do it!

[1] Argentine political scientist and sociologist. Former Executive Secretary of CLACSO between 1997 and 2006. Member of the CLACSO Working Group on Political Philosophy: Thinking about Latin America, Reinventing Utopia. Article originally published in http://atilioboron.com.ar/

See "Important Notes" at the bottom of the page

DOWNLOAD NOTE