Alain Badio on the "pandemic": nothing new under the sun

Alain Badio has also recently participated in the debate and discussion sequence of international academic stars on the "pandemic", and in Badio's view, this plague is no different from any previous epidemic, the junction of the natural dimension and the social dimension. Nor will it bring about political innovation on its own, and the so-called "return of the welfare state" is nothing more than a strategic tool for integrating bourgeois and popular interests in the wartime state with which we are familiar. It merely re-exposes the main political and economic contradictions in the current world. "Nothing new under the sun"! This article was first published in French and English by Alberto Toscano, and this article is translated from the English version for Chinese readers.

I thought from the beginning that the current pandemic of viruses is not unique. From the HIV pandemic, to avian influenza, to the spread of Ebola and SARS1 – not to mention the various influenza viruses, the emergence of strains of tuberculosis that antibiotics cannot cure, and the recurrence of measles, coupled with the presence of a large number of underdeveloped medically ill-developed areas and the lack of norms in the vaccination of the necessary vaccines, we realized that the world market would inevitably create a serious and devastating epidemic (AIDS alone killed millions of people). The current pandemic, which has no new meaning in itself other than being making a huge impact on the so-called comfortable life of the Western world, has sparked dubious elegy and rebellious idiotic behavior on social media. I don't understand why people behave so pretentiously, apart from taking the necessary protective measures and waiting for the virus to disappear due to the lack of a contagious target.

Moreover, in a sense, the real name of the epidemic that is spreading conveys to us the following message: "Nothing new under the sun". The real name of the epidemic is SARS2, or "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome No. 2," and it is the second time it has emerged after the SARS1 epidemic spread around the world in the spring of 2003. At the time, the disease was known as "the first unknown disease of the 21st century." Clearly, the current epidemic is by no means new or unprecedented. It is a descendant of infectious diseases that have emerged at the beginning of this century and is the second type of infectious disease of this type. So much so that the only harsh criticism that can be made to the authorities about prevention today is that in the aftermath of SARS1, the authorities did not fund research that could have given the medical community a real way to combat SARS2.

So I don't think we have much to say except try to self-isolate at home like everyone else; we have nothing to say other than encourage others to do the same. At this point, strict discipline is all the more necessary because it provides support and basic protection for all susceptible populations: all medical workers on the front lines, who must have a strict discipline to follow, which includes restraints on those infected; all the most vulnerable (especially the elderly in nursing homes); and all those who must risk exposure to work. Those who enact tight "stay-at-home orders" must also find and propose solutions for those who have little or no "home" at all, such as expropriation of hotels so that they can find safe shelter.

It is true that these responsibilities have become more urgent, but at least their first task is by no means to expend enormous effort on analysis or to construct a new mode of thinking.

But I read and heard too much, partly from the circles around me, whose confusion about it and the gross lack of preparedness for the (in the final analysis) state of affairs disturbed me.

These aggressive statements, deplorable appeals and firm accusations come in different forms, but they all harbor strange contempt for the astonishingly simple and uninspired character of the current epidemic. Some people face the needless inferiority of power, which in fact acts only under the influence of the peculiarities of the present situation. Some cite the planet we live on and its mysteries, but such behavior is unhelpful. Some blamed everything on the unfortunate Macron, but Macron simply did his job — and no worse than others — as head of state during a war or epidemic. Others clamour that this will be the foundational event of an unprecedented revolution, but the relationship between this revolution and the eradication of the virus is confusing – our "revolutionaries" have not proposed any new means of exterminating the virus. Some have fallen into the pessimism of the end of the world. Others are frustrated that, in this case, the golden rule of contemporary ideology of "put me first" does not bring any benefit or help to people, and the law may even become an accomplice to the unbridled spread of evil.

The challenges posed by the epidemic seem to be everywhere, and it eliminates all inherent activities of reason, forcing people to relive the mysticism, fabrication, prayer, prophecy and malice that would normally have had the bad effects of the plague that swept through humanity in the Middle Ages.

So I think it's my duty to put together some simple ideas. I would call them Cartesian ideas.

Let's start by defining the problem, which in many places is defined so badly that it is also treated in a bad way.

The fact that epidemics are always a junction of the natural and social dimensions of the fabric makes epidemics complicated. The complete analysis of it is horizontal: we must grasp the junction of the two boundaries of society and nature in order to arrive at the results.

For example, the starting point of the current popularity is located in the market of Wuhan Province. Many of China's markets are known for their dangerous level of filth and the open sale of a variety of "mouth-watering" live animals. At some point, this virus, which came from bats and existed as an intermediate host for some animal, spread in this crowded market with poor sanitary conditions.

The virus's natural trajectory from one species to another led it towards the human species. What is the process? We don't know yet. Only wait for scientific research to inform us. We need to condemn those who spread typical racist lies online, using fake pictures as a basis for tracing everything back to Chinese eating bats (even before bats are completely dead)...

The local spread between different populations of animals eventually reaches humans and is only the starting point of the whole event. Running after this is a basic message of the contemporary world: China's widespread, dense presence in the global marketplace. Countless networks spread out, apparently succeeding before the Chinese government was able to completely isolate the place of origin — a province of 40 million people — but it was too late to stop the epidemic from spreading across the globe.

Consider this detail of what I call the epidemic's "double articulation": today, SARS2 is strangled in Wuhan, but there are many cases in Shanghai, mainly from Chinese citizens who have returned from overseas. China is thus a site at which this connection can be observed – an ancient, a modern one – on the one hand, a natural-social intersection in a disorderly market that follows old customs, and on the other hand, the capitalist world market and its dependence on continuous high-speed flows that have led to its global spread.

Then we entered a phase where countries tried to contain this spread locally. Note that these containment determinations remain fundamentally local, while the spread of epidemics is transversal. Despite the existence of some transnational institutional authorities, it is clear that on the front lines are the local bourgeois states.

Here we encounter the main contradiction of the contemporary world: the economy, including the mass production of manufactured goods, is dominated by the world market – you know, just assembling a mobile phone requires the labor and resources of at least seven countries, including mineral resources. Yet political power remains the national in kind. The competition between imperialism – the old empire (Europe and the United States) and the new empire – excludes any process that may lead to the countries of the capitalist world. The pandemic is also a moment when the contradictions between economics and politics are openly exposed. Even European countries have not been able to adjust their policies in time in the face of the virus.

In the midst of this contradiction, the nation-state tries to fight the epidemic by respecting the working mechanisms of capital as much as possible, even if the risk forces them to change the style and measures of exercising power.

We have known for a long time that in the event of war between states, the state must impose restrictions not only on the populace (as one would expect), but also on the bourgeoisie itself in order to save local capitalism. Some industries were nationalized to ensure that weapons could be produced without restriction without immediate production of any monetizable surplus value. Some of the powerful bourgeoisie were mobilized as officers, facing death threats on the battlefield; scientists worked day and night to invent new weapons; countless intellectuals and artists were forced to participate in the political propaganda tasks of the country...

In the face of epidemics, this reflection on nationalism is inevitable. That's why, the statements by French President Emmanuel Macron or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on the return of the "welfare" state — financial support for the unemployed, helping self-employed small business owners who have had to close their shops, demanding that the government take $100-200 billion out of the national treasury, or even declaring "nationalization"—are not as startling or contradictory as some say. Macron's metaphor of "we are in a war" is correct: in the midst of war or epidemic, the state is forced – and even sometimes beyond the normal functioning of its own class attributes – while adopting a more authoritarian and broader social approach to avoid strategic catastrophe.

This is the perfectly logical outcome of this situation, and his goal is to contain the virus with the greatest possible certainty and win the war (again to borrow Macron's metaphor) while maintaining the established social order. This is very serious, and its necessity is imposed by the lethal process of the spread of the virus, which is the junction of nature and social order, the role of the scientist in the whole thing, and the latter the starting point of authoritarian intervention — and authoritarianism here has nothing but the state.

Inevitably, some huge cracks will emerge in such an effort. Imagine a shortage of protective masks or inadequate preparation for hospital isolation. But who can really boast of "predicting" such a thing? In some respects, it is true that the State has failed to prevent the current situation. We could even argue that by decades of weakening the national health system and all the sectors of the country that serve the whole population year by year, it behaves as if nothing like the devastating plague will affect our country. In this sense, the state is to blame, not just during Macron's tenure, but all the leaders who preceded him for at least three decades were to blame.

But it is still true to point out here that no one predicted or even imagined such a "pandemic" in France, perhaps except for a few independent scientists. It is certainly not the left – or the yellow vests or even the unionists – who enjoy the privilege of sticking to this view and continuing to make a fuss about Macron, the target of their recent ridicule. They also never expected such a situation. On the contrary, when the spread of the plague had already set sail from China, they organized many uncontrolled and noisy marches that had only recently stopped, disqualifying them from condemning the authorities' delay in taking measures today. Truth be told, before macron's government, there had never been a political force in France that had actually taken such measures.

On the state side, this situation requires that the bourgeois state must clearly and publicly place first the interests that are somehow broader than those of the bourgeoisie, while strategically preserving the primacy of the class interests represented by the future state. It forces the government to deal with the situation by integrating the class interests it represents with the more general popular interests, in the name of a common internal "enemy" – a foreign aggressor in times of war, and a SARS 2 virus in the present situation.

This situation (world war or world plague) is particularly "neutral" at the political level. Past wars sparked revolutions in only two examples, considering that the imperialist forces of the time could be called outliers: Russia and China. In the case of Russia, it was because the power of the Tsar was perverse in every way, over a long period of time, including as a force with the potential to adapt to the birth of true capitalism in that huge country. The opposition, in the form of the Bolsheviks, was a modern political vanguard organized by prominent leaders. In china's case, the civil war preceded the beginning of the world war, and in 1940 the Chinese Communist Party was already the leader of a popular people's army that had been tested and tested. In contrast, world wars did not trigger victorious revolutions in any Western country. Even in Germany, which was defeated in 1918, the Spartacist uprising in Germany was quickly suppressed.

The lesson that can be drawn from this is clear: in a country like France, the continuing plague will not have any obvious political consequences, as far as the plague itself is concerned. Even assuming that our bourgeoisie – based on earlier complaints and widespread but shallow slogans – believes that the time has come to get rid of Macron, it is unlikely to bring about any noteworthy change. "Politically correct" candidates are already waiting on both sides of the stage, like the outdated and disgusting advocates of the most stale form of "nationalism."

For those of us who want a real change in the political environment of this country, we must use the interlude of this plague, even the (perfectly necessary) isolation, to work on creating a new political image, on the agenda of the new political place, and on the transnational progression of communism in the third phase (after its glorious birth phase and the interesting but ultimately failed nationalist phase).

There are views that phenomena such as plague can develop on their own in the direction of political innovation, and we need to severely criticize each of these views. In addition to the widespread dissemination of scientific data on the plague, political responsibility can only be assumed through new claims and beliefs about hospitals and public health, schools and equal education, care for the elderly and other similar issues. Only these are possible through a balance sheet full of dangerous weaknesses revealed by the current situation.

Incidentally, we need to openly and firmly reveal that the so-called "social media" proves once again that, in addition to their role in fleshing out the wallets of billionaires, is first and foremost a place where it is filled with the propaganda of the mentally paralyzed brazen, uncontrolled rumors, the discovery of old "novelties", and even fascist obscurantism.

Let us not give trust lightly, or even especially when we are in home isolation, only scientifically controllable facts and new political visions that are rational enough in terms of local experience and strategic goals are worthy of our trust.