Is it really all happening or are we living in a science fiction! Within a few days nothing is as it always was, our whole life from yesterday to today, everything switched off, and this not only here and there, but step by step across the whole world. And why this all: A virus threatens mankind with illness and death, such a micro creature, you cannot even recognize with a binocular, and that creeps into human bodies and damages the health of humans or even kills them.
On the other hand, why should this be a science fiction? Isn’t it, at the same time, very normal that happens every day and is part of our daily life: every year around the same time mankind is attacked by those micro-creatures, viruses, creeping into the body of humans, make them sick and even kill quite an amount. The number of people infected by this virus and the number of the death this virus kills, sophisticated scientists are always able to anticipate quite precisely even in advance and at the end of each season they do the more accurate recording and do their lists. That’s all.
Not to forget: It is also a kind of routine, that the numbers of dead and ill people are counted across the year, diseases, known by mankind and by all the armies of scientists since ages, doing research about them, without finding any means against them, means which would extinguish these diseases once and forever.
Regarding the concerns nation states have with diseases, one could also remember that there is an exact documented number of people dying of hunger each minute. Also about this, there is an accurate recoding, and that’s it, and this is also very normal, there are some moral concerns expressed about this, apart from this no reason to think about this, it is also part of our life, thereby ticked off, no reason to be concerned about.
So what is the point about the Virus named COVID-19, why is this virus able to stop the entire life from today to tomorrow across the whole world? Everything, that is part of our every day’s life duties is closed down, kindergartens, schools, universities, this is where you were obliged to go to, now no longer, now it is all forbidden to go; also shops, bars, pubs, cinemas, football, everything switched off, simply everything people appreciate in the free time, switched off, now it is all forbidden to do, what so far people were even obliged to do – with one exception, working, this is where everybody still has to go to, given they are healthy, though one gets this virus at work just in the very same way, as one can get it at school.
Why all this happens? The answer is simple: Unlike for the other diseases, making people sick and some die, there is no remedy against this virus. And why not? And what is now the problem, that there is a remedy against other diseases, though people get sick and die though there is medicine, and there is even an accurate recording about the number of sick and dead people year by year.
And, as said before, regarding those people who die of hunger minute by minute, the question, what could be done against that, is not seriously discussed, this is how it is.
This is not really any concern and nobody really cares about this, just as it is accepted that there are people getting sick and dying of diseases against which there is medicine, however, medicine, which does not necessarily heal them, but thanks to which it is possible to control more or less how many people get ill, and, also, which people when, that is at which age, get ill and are dying.
Regarding those people who die of hunger, and where the medicine is more than simple, just giving them something to eat, nobody really cares about these people dying of hunger, and the reason for this is, that they are people who are of no use. That’s how it is, only those who can be used, get something to eat. And to be used means, to find a job and a job can only be found, if there is anybody who makes a business from these jobs. Everybody knows this, this is how it is everywhere in the world. If there is a business that can be made by employing somebody, there are jobs. Where there are no such businesses, there are no jobs. And where there are no jobs, there is no money, hence, nothing to eat. This is how the world works. That’s all about hunger.
And those people, who die of influenza or cancer, diseases against there is medicine, which does not mean that people are not getting ill or die, but where sick and dead people are taken into account as business as usual every year, in these cases, this is also not considered as a serious problem: Most people dying of cancer are mostly old people, means people who are of no more use, in this respect similar to those which die of hunger; regarding to influenza, thanks to the medical treatments, the number of ill and dead people are under control, and with this amount of people one can calculate year by year, healing this this disease once and forever is not an objective.
And this is the whole problem about this new virus COVID-19. The Problems are not the ill and dead people, these also exist with all the other diseases, the problem is, that those people who have the say about what we all have to do everyday and who then say, that all this is now forbidden, the real problem is that there is no medicine against this virus and no medicine means that the political elites who also decide about the health care system have no means to have any control over the number of ill people, as they can do it with those other diseases. And this, having no control over the health of their people, this is the most serious trouble for them.
The answer on the question then, if medicine is such important means to have control over the people’s health, why there is no such medicine brings us already half way towards the answer on the question, why the fact, that there is no medicine against this virus, all politicians across the world consider this as being in a war and not only see it this way but also act in this way.
So, why is there no medicine? Everybody knows, that there could be a medicine against this new virus: After the last virus attack, which was called SARS, scientists strongly recommended to use this virus to do intensive research and to develop medical treatments, in order to be prepared for the next virus, based on the fact that all these viruses are very similar. To do this research and to develop any medicine against future viruses a couple of millions were needed, not at all any huge amount compared with the mountains of money which are usually moved on the markets and by nation states. And then, what happened? As everybody knows, money is only invested where it promises to return with an attractive plus. And, like everywhere else in capitalism, this research did not happen, because it did no longer promise this good business, no money was invested, neither from private capital nor from the state, because the SARS virus suddenly disappeared and anyway, the virus was only active in Asia and did not come to Europe. So, no reason to see this research as a promising business, and the research, that was ready to create this medicine was stopped. This is why there is no medicine against the new virus today.
And with this answer, why there is no medicine against this new virus, which would allow those who have control over everything and would also allow, thanks to the medicine, to have control over the damages this new virus causes, with this answer it becomes almost clear, why nation states across the world, having no control over how the virus and what kind of harm this virus is doing when to whom and to how many, why these nation states consider them being in a war and not only interpret this as a war but also act as if this was a war.
For nation states, the situation that they have no means for influencing how people are, and that it is a virus, who decides who and how many become ill, this is a worst case scenario for a nation state, because there could be nothing worse, but no longer having the say over its people, their living conditions in general and their health in particular. Because this authority over the people and the country, this is what constitutes what a nation state is all about and this is why a virus for these political authorities is questioning an otherwise never questioned sovereignty, sovereignty such a nation state is all about. A nation state without sovereignty over what happens to the people it rules questions – one must conclude – its sheer existence and this is why nation states consider themselves being in a war, just as if the virus was another nation state attacking this sovereignty with military forces. Anything that does not obey nation states, may it be a virus, for a nation state this is war, because having everything under its control, this is what makes a nation state a nation state, an absolute sovereign political power, not ever questioned by anything or anybody.
And it is this problem, by not having any medicine against this virus having no authority over the people any longer, for nation states this is war, therefore a declaration of war against a virus, followed by political measures directed towards reassuring with its health system its sovereignty over the people. And it is this aim, re-assuring its sovereignty as a nation state, no longer questioned by anything or anybody, may this be a virus, that is shaping the political actions, which are therefore consisting of political measures all made for real wars. And it is these measures performed with all the political power instruments nation states have for a war, including suspending with all the means of force a nation state has, suspending all the rules of citizen’s everyday’s lives they usually follow as good citizens, forcing citizens towards their health.
What all these nation states do to reassure their sovereignty, the measure they take and what this is telling about nation states and citizens, this will be the topic of the next blog 2. How all these states carry out this war for reassuring their authority inside their countries and connect this in their relations to foreign countries, this is the topic of blog 3.
In fact, there are many really weird things happening: A health care system that must be protected against too many ill citizens; healthy people, who must be forced, to not become ill; to combat a virus, which does not know what a nation state border is, borders are erected and in case where they had been widely unknown, as in Europe, they are re-erected and this more than before; moreover, citizens with a foreign nationality, are by all those nation states, who care so radically about the health of citizens, expelled from countries, to not overstretch the national health care system. And many more weird things.Comments preferably in English.
That is real evidence that the global political world shift from finance science to medical science, leading politic action. I am not sure one can say about finance and medicine they are sciences. They are knowledge disciplines.
They use technologies developed by science. They are professional knowledge supporting initial specialized education. They benefit from the sciences. This may be very different from being sciences.
Science would not shift from a disciplinary theory to another as if they had nothing in common. Reality – our lives and the natural world – are still the same common ground of science.
It is very clarifying from you pointing out that what is at stake, these COVID-19 quarantine days, is losing control of the people by the states, by global state network. The imperial headquarters is moving way from Washington to Beijing (everyone is seeing it). A new global control network is developing.
I would like to discuss what new opportunities for a better life this tectonic move open to us, against nationalisms and imperialisms.
I critically approach your assessment about the utility of people and disposal of people without use. The business leading understanding of healthcare system also deserve critical comment.
About utility, some planning developed the idea that one needs to abandon health care to people older than 70 years old, except someone can pay for the services. Heath care on some common diseases is very expensive. So, say many, one must choose criteria about who will not have care, for financial reasons. Not enough money for everybody. What happens today is the reverse: the best plan is to test everybody in the world and to maintain a state record of individual illness (5G plan).
With Chinese leadership, the state leads over the market. (Even under the US leadership, the state always led the markets, even official ideology say otherwise: look to corruption phenomena).
I must admit, that I not quite understand the first part about science and new disciplines, can you please explain again?
What is your critique what I write about „utility „ of people?
About how to manage sich’s shit health care system that mainly cares about businesses, I would not like to engage myself as an advisor of this system.
And speculating about the question if China overtakes the position of the USA, is no question for me, because they are basically the same, nation states with a capitalist economy. How to run this system, this not my job.
It is again clear you “do not understand” what I am talking about. Why is that? How come I can understand you and you cannot understand me?
Spanish and Portuguese languages are very similar. Portuguese people understand better Spanish than Portuguese from Brazil. Latin American speakers of Spanish understand Portuguese easily. Spanish speakers from Spain do not understand Portuguese. Why?
One linguist explains that different languages use a different spectrum of vibration. English and Spanish languages use half of the spectrum od Portuguese or Russian. That is why, from habit, English and Spanish speakers do not hear (notice in their earing perceptive system) sounds outside the spectrum these languages use. Half of what a Portuguese speaker vocalize is not received by Spanish (or English) receptors. That is why Spanish do not really understand Portuguese speakers: they work half the spectrum.
That seems to explain also why you do not understand me. Maybe is not the case you do not want to understand me. Maybe it is you refuse – for many decades – to think out of your own field. “How to run this system, this not my job.”
You presume you are so rigorous (“speculation” about US-China rivalry) that everything you do not “understand” is not rigorous. You presume you know what the way is I think – as a social scientist – and you see confirmation of your critical theories on social sciences in little phrases I may write or say.
So: if you want to engage in a discussion with me you must open your mind to another kind of thinking, different from yours. Are you willing to do that?
We already have many discussions about what is and what is not science and discipline. I do not want to engage in that before you open to whatever I may think about it.
What is straight forward on what I want to point out to you about your 5 posts (I very much appreciate and recommend) is that is not serious one accuse the state not caring about the health of people and to give priority to business when the global economy stops to avoid pandemic consequences.
For now, it seems (perhaps wrongly) that the pandemic without state opposition would kill mostly old and ill people. This result would be what neoliberal ideology claim to be the best possible to support a sane economy. Why the state mobilizes so strongly to avoid this result? To the economy’s sake?
I agree with the direction of your reasoning. The great finale (war is at the corner of history) is always right. Since the state is the biggest organizer of war-making. Still, at the end of your intellectual journey, the message is: as always, the state and business, as usual, nothing else is happening or can happen. Do you really agree that after the end of the pandemic we will live normally again, as always?
Again: your deep criticism of the modern state power was and still is inspiring for me. It was cognitive freedom for me. I do not want to say anything different from what is true. Your own interpretation of your reasoning seems to be conservative. You do not look to way out of the present situation. Of course, reality does not need your authorization to flow to the future.
just quickly about the first part you wrote: you are right, it is (also, not only a matter of languge; the reason I do not understand, I think is : firstly, I really do not understand what you are writing here about science. Please explain. Secondly, I do not understand why you talk about science in the context of that corona topic. Please explain. The problem remains the language and as I wrote many times especially in scientific discourses about sciences this is naturally very tricky. And it is not only your English but mine as well, don’t forget.
You should not underestimate my difficulties, If I comment on somehting, I want to be sure that I comment on what you wrote and not what I guess you wrote and this is difficult for me especially when it is about such a topic, such as science. This is why I ask you for an elaborated explanation what you mean.
Now about you other points:
1.”… is that is not serious one accuse the state not caring about the health of people and to give priority to business …”
I am not saying that the state is not caring about the health, what I am saying is that the state – as he always does – cares about the health of people and he does this also now as a means for the economy. Making people workable people is the aim of the way states care about the health. You can study this along all aspects of a healthcare system. In this sense the state and the economy are patients No. 1 and 2. and the citizens healt matters along the criterion to make the society as a whole go back to normality, that is going to work for the sake of the busines and the state affairs.
2. “For now, it seems (perhaps wrongly) that the pandemic without state opposition would kill mostly old and ill people. ”
You see this is always the way the state appears as rescuing people from any dramas. The point is, that the full story is, that it is always the state who causes these dramas. And on top of this: Because the state monopolizes all means a society needs, the society is socially expropriated and as a consequence has nothing in their hands, zero, so that the state alway has been made by this the only subject, who has everything in his hands to decide what it is used for. And this is dicided by him amlong the criteria in point 1.
3. “Do you really agree that after the end of the pandemic we will live normally again, as always?” “Your own interpretation of your reasoning seems to me conservative. You do not look to way out of the present situation.”
I wrote to you in an anser to you blog on your site, what ny suggestion is what to do. Did you ready that? In 6 weeks all problems are settled, I wrote. But this requires, that we have overcome capitalism and with out overcoming what rules this society from a to z, inlcuding the heath of people, it will remain as it is. And to change this, I write my blogs, thats all I can do now, because I cannot see anywhere any people, who share my view that the only way to solve this shit is by getting rid of capitalism. I rather see, that most people accept the way how the state is handling all this with his means and for his aims and with his priorities. I wish I was wrong.
1. To compare warfare and caring a pandemic is very well clarified by your analysis. In both cases, war and pandemic, people feel no choice blackmailed to stay supporting the state, the only institution that can protect everyone from the definitive problem: death.
2. You fail to acknowledge we live in a different situation, the 1/3 global population quarantined. No normal will wait for us, since – as you rightly mention – a bigger financial problem will chance every international and national relationship.
3. You write “Making people workable people is the aim of the way states care about the health”. And you also write that care of old people (as a COVID-19 risk group) is part of state monopol decision making regarding “workable people”. Do you mean that old people are workable? Most of them are only used to make money from social security into care private businesses that would not be affordable after the COVID-19 crisis, else some new politics come up different from what has been developed since the 80.
4. Your conclusion is if everyone (I presume you mean, anyone at the decision making position – the elite) follow your (anti-capitalist) criteria, every problem would disappear in six weeks. This is not a big argument since no one can test it and many people before you claim the same. Those few who have the chance to turn in into practice did fail after many decades, even some breakthrough records, as the Cuban healthcare system.
About what science has to do with this.
1. Finance has been, since the 80, the main language to justify political decisions. It abruptly changes, one day to the other. For now, epidemiology is the main and substitute scientific (statistic) reference.
2. Neither finance and epidemiology are sciences. They use statistics to follow up trends no one knows how they work. The idea that science is statistics is social science propaganda. So, understanding very well what is science and what is the social science and what is knowledge based on science (applied sciences) make a strong knowledge strategic difference.
3. Dealing with science – allegedly what guides modern TINA politics – is crucial in modern societies as dealing with religious thinking has been crucial to modernize our lives. Dealing with war (as you rightly show) is the other strategic understanding we need to free ourselves.
1. Strange conclusion you make: My intention was to say the opposite, that is to say that people are clearly shown the choice theydo have, which is to accept all those violenty imposed measures on them or to refuse subordinating them uder this blackmail- and again, you have a strange interpretation of the alternative, this is not death, but getting rid of the state ruling their entire lives. And this , throwing over board the live of a workable somebody serving the growth of capital and the political body, this would also result in another way caring about any health problems…
2. … such as not to make people workable again any longer. This is the purpose of the existing health care system, that considers the health of people , they need to care about, otherwise there is no working class, and by the way, do you really think the fact, that people are allowed to live after working is a contractiction againts the notion of keeping a working class or workable people, as I phrased it? Do you consider it already as a generosity of the state that they let them alive after they are ritered? A proof that the state does care about more than a working class?
4. If I talk about conclsuions to be made, I wonder how you can think that I am thinking of politicians; is it really not clear from what I say that they are the whole reason for all the mess, inlcuding the whole virus shit? And now you think I count on these politicians for my anti-capitalist project? Or is it you who cannot think about making decisions other than about these politicians? No sorry, I am talking about people who decide about their lives themselves and who therefore want to get rid of capitalism (and that includes the state) – the problem is people accept the blackmail of the state. That is their choice, That’s all.
Finally, my little experiment, you say, it failed. Sorry, It never even started, where did it happen? Or do you mean Cuba is an example of what I suggested. Did you not notice I talked about an economy without money, producing what people need and distribute the products and this without buying and selling, just people produce and use what they need, simple as that, that is all, and I assume you know, that Cuba has money, even two currrencies. So, why do you mention Cuba here…? Who are “those few” you are talking about? And by the way: You say they “failed”. They “failed” ? If you say soembody fails, should you not say failed doing what? What is this kind of critiquing anybody “failed” without revealing what the objective is, you think was failed? Odd way of critiquing ….unless you take for granted that everbody shares your critique. I might not, if you do not tell me they failed in what? And finally, how do you know they failed? What if they just decided to nol longer aim at their former aims? Then, they did not fail bud just decided to finish. Again, where is here any failure?