[News] Will the Coronavirus Change the World? On Gramsci’s ‘Interregnum’ and Zizek’s Ethnocentric Philosophy

[Anti-Imperialist News]

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200423-will-the-coronavirus-change-the-world-on-gramscis-interregnum-and-zizeks-ethnocentric-philosophy/
Will
the Coronavirus Change the World? On Gramsci’s ‘Interregnum’ and Zizek’s
Ethnocentric Philosophy
Ramzy Baroud, Romana Rubeo - April 23, 2020
------------------------------

The prophecies are here and it is a foregone conclusion: the
post-coronavirus world will look fundamentally different from anything that
we have seen or experienced, at least since the end of World War II.

Even before the ‘curve flattened’ in many countries that have experienced
high death tolls – let alone economic devastation – as a result of the
unhindered spread of the COVID-19 disease, thinkers and philosophers began
speculating, from the comfort of their own quarantines, about the many
scenarios that await us.

The devastation inflicted by the coronavirus is likely to be as
consequential as “the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of the Lehman
Brothers,” wrote Foreign Policy magazine in a widely read analysis, entitled
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/20/world-order-after-coroanvirus-pandemic/>
‘How the World Will Look After the Coronavirus Pandemic’.

While major newspapers and news media outlets jumped on the bandwagon of
trying to construct the various post-coronavirus possibilities, Foreign
Policy sought the views of twelve thinkers, each providing their own
reading of the future.

Stephen M. Walt concluded that “COVID-19 will create a world that is less
open, less prosperous, and less free”.

Robin Niblett wrote that it is “highly unlikely… that the world will return
to the idea of mutually beneficial globalization that defined the early
21st century”.

‘Mutually beneficial’ is a phrase deserving of a completely different
essay, as it is a claim that can easily be contested by many small and poor
countries.

*READ: Spreading the virus of occupation: Spitting as a weapon in the hand
of colonial Israel
<https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200414-spreading-the-virus-of-occupation-spitting-as-a-weapon-in-the-hand-of-colonial-israel/>*

Be that as it may, globalization was a focal point of discussion among many
of the twelve thinkers, although a major point of contention was whether
globalization will remain in place in its current form, whether it will be
redefined or discarded altogether.

Kishore Mahbubani wrote that, “the COVID-19 pandemic will not fundamentally
alter global economic directions. It will only accelerate a change that had
already begun: a move away from US-centric globalization to a more
China-centric globalization”.

And so on…

While political economists focused on COVID-19’s impact on major economic
trends, globalization and the resultant shift of political power,
environmentalists emphasized
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/11/positively-alpine-disbelief-air-pollution-falls-lockdown-coronavirus>
the fact that the quarantine, which has affected the vast majority of the
world’s population, raises hopes that it might not be too late for Planet
Earth after all.

[image: Stay home is the official advice to tackle coronavirus, but what if
you don't have a home? - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]]

Stay home is the official advice to tackle coronavirus, but what if you
don’t have a home? – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Numerous articles, citing scientific research and accompanied by photo
galleries that illustrate the blue skies over Delhi
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-air-pollution-lockdown-a9460841.html>
and the clean waters of Venice
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/coronavirus/venice-canals-clear-dolphins-swim-italy-lockdown/>,
all underline the point that the upcoming ‘change’ will prove most
consequential for the environment.

With prophecies afoot, even discredited philosophers such as Slavoj Zizek,
tried to stage a comeback, offering their own predictions of ‘ideological
viruses’, including “the virus of thinking about an alternate society, a
society beyond nation-state, a society that actualizes itself in the forms
of global solidarity and cooperation”.

In his article, published in the German newspaper Die Welt, Zizek proposes
<https://www.welt.de/kultur/article206269547/Corona-Epidemic-The-End-of-the-World-As-We-Know-It.html>
what he describes as a ‘paradox’: while COVID-19 constitutes a ‘blow to
capitalism’ it “will also compel us to re-invent communism based on trust
in the people and in science”.

Ironically, only a few years ago, Zizek, who is often referred to as a
‘celebrity philosopher’, advocated an ethnocentric discourse targeting
refugees, immigrants and Muslims.

“I never liked this humanitarian approach that if you really talk with them
(meaning war refugees who sought safety in Europe) you discover we are all
the same people,” Zizek said in his book ‘Refugees, Terror and other
Troubles with the Neighbors’. “No, we are not — we have fundamental
differences.”

In an article discussing Zizek’s book, published in Quartz
<https://qz.com/767751/marxist-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-on-europes-refugee-crisis-the-left-is-wrong-to-pity-and-romanticize-migrants/>,
Annalisa Merelli wrote, “Following the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015,
Zizek warned that liberals need to let go of the taboos that prevent open
discussion of the problems that come from admitting people of different
cultures to Europe, and in particular the denial of any public safety
danger caused by refugees.”

*Solidarity in the age of coronavirus: What the Arabs must do
<https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200407-solidarity-in-the-age-of-coronavirus-what-the-arabs-must-do/>*

This supposedly ‘Marxist philosopher’ went even further, borrowing from
Christian theology in explaining that “the Christian motto ‘love your
neighbor as yourself’ is not as simple as it appears,” criticizing the
alleged ‘prohibition’ by some leftist circles of “any critique of Islam”.

“It is a simple fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is
incompatible with Western European notions of human rights,” Zizek wrote,
conveniently omitting that it is Western imperialism, colonialism and wars
of economic dominance that have been the main triggers of Middle Eastern
crises for at least a century.

It would be safe to assume that Zizek’s unorthodox ‘reinvention of
communism’ excludes millions of refugees who are paying the price, not for
the ills of ‘the global economy’ – as he conveniently proposes – but for
war-driven Western hegemony and neo-colonialism.

Our seemingly-disproportionate emphasis on Zizek’s unsettling ideas is only
meant to illustrate that ‘celebrity philosophy’ is not only useless in this
context, but also a distraction from a truly urgent discussion on the
mechanics of equitable change in society, a process currently hindered by
war, racism, xenophobia, and populist-centric far-right ideologies.

In truth, it is far easier to predict the future of globalization or
air-pollution when analysts are confronted with straight-forward indicators
– technological advancement, exports, currency valuation, and air quality.

But speaking of the reinvention of society, with little credibility to
boot, is the equivalence of intellectual guesswork, especially when the
so-called intellectual is almost entirely detached from the trials of
everyday society.

The problem with most analyses of the various ‘futures’ that lie ahead is
that very few of these predictions are predicated on an honest examination
of the problems that have plagued our past and afflicted our present.

But how are we to chart a better understanding and a suitable response to
the future and its many challenges if we do not truly and honestly confront
and dissect the problems that have taken us to this dismal point of global
crisis?

We concur. The future will bring about change. It ought to. It must.
Because the status quo is simply unsustainable. Because the wars in Yemen,
Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan; the Israeli occupation of Palestine; the
dehumanization and economic strangulation of Africa and South America, and
so on, must not be allowed to become an everyday occurrence.

But for that better, more equitable future to arrive, our understanding of
it must be situated within a historically valid, ideologically defensible,
and humane view of our troubled world, of ourselves and of others – and not
within the detached and callous view of mainstream Western economists or
celebrity philosophers.

[image: Coronavirus is affecting the whole world, will it unite us -
Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]]

Coronavirus is affecting the whole world, will it unite us? – Cartoon
[Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

It is indeed strange how Zizek and his like can still embrace an
ethnocentric view of Europe and Christianity while still being viewed as
‘communist’. What strange breed of communism is this ideology that does not
acknowledge the centrality and history of global class struggles?

If we are to place the Marxist class struggle within broader and more
global terms, it is befitting and tenable, then to assume that Western
powers have historically represented the ‘ruling classes’, while the
colonized and historically oppressed Southern hemisphere makes up the
‘subordinate classes’.

It is this dynamic of oppression, usurpation and enslavement that fueled
the ‘engine of history’ – the Marxist notion
<http://routledgesoc.com/category/profile-tags/historical-materialism> that
history is propelled by internal contradictions within the system of
material production.

It would be simply naive to assume that an outbreak of a pandemic can
automatically and inexorably, in itself, propel and produce change, and
that such a romanticized ‘change’ will intuitively favor the ‘subordinate
classes’, whether within local societal structures or at a global level.

There is no denial that the current crisis – whether economic or within the
healthcare system – is fundamentally a structural crisis that can be traced
to the numerous fault-lines within the capitalist system, which is enduring
what Italian anti-fascist intellectual and politician Antonio Gramsci
refers to as ‘interregnum’.

*A Terrifying Scenario: Coronavirus in ‘Quarantined’ Gaza
<https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200303-a-terrifying-scenario-coronavirus-in-quarantined-gaza/>*

In his ‘Prison Notebooks’, Gramsci wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in
the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this
interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

The ‘variety of morbid symptoms’ were expressed in the last two decades in
the gradual decay, if not decimation, of the very global system that was
constructed ever so diligently by capitalist Western forces, which shaped
the world to pursue their own interests for nearly a century.

The collapse
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/>
of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was meant to usher in a whole new
world – uncontested, militaristic to the core and unapologetically
capitalist. Little of that has actualized, however. The first US-led Iraq
military adventure
<https://www.dw.com/en/the-first-iraq-war-1990-1991/a-16763334> (1990-91),
the parallel ‘new world order’ and subsequent ‘new Middle East’, and so on,
ultimately, amounted to naught.

Frustrated by its inability to translate its military and technological
superiority to sustainable dominance on the ground, the US and its Western
allies fell apart at a much faster rate than ever expected. Barack Obama’s
administration’s ‘Pivot to Asia
<https://www.countercurrents.org/baroud100414.htm>’ – accompanied by
military retreat from the oil-rich Middle East –  was only the beginning of
an inevitable course of decline that no US administration, however
belligerent and irrational, can possibly stop.

Largely helpless before relentless crises facing the once-triumphant
capitalist order, dominant Western institutions, the likes of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), grew
useless and dysfunctional. No prophecies are required here to assume that
the post-coronavirus world will further undermine the very idea behind the
EU. Interestingly, although not surprisingly, the ‘European community,’ at
the time of Europe’s greatest crisis since World War II, turned out to be a
farce, since it was China and Cuba that extended
<https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/25/821345465/for-help-on-coronavirus-italy-turns-to-china-russia-and-cuba>
a helping hand to Italy and Spain, not Germany, France or the Netherlands.

It is rather ironic that the very forces that championed economic
globalization – and derided reluctant countries that refused to join in –
are the same as those that are now advocating
<https://sgpjournal.mgimo.ru/2019-5/eu-sovereignism-spread-italian-case>
some form of sovereignism, isolationism, and nationalism.

This is precisely the ‘interregnum’ that Gramsci has talked about. It
should not be taken for granted, however, that this political vacuum can be
filled through wishful thinking alone, for real, lasting and sustainable
change can only be the outcome of a mindful process, one that keeps in mind
the nature of future conflicts and our ideological and moral position in
response to these conflicts.

Celebrity philosophers certainly do not represent, nor do they earn the
right to speak on behalf of the ‘subordinate classes’ – neither locally nor
globally. What is needed, instead, is a counter ‘cultural hegemony’,
championed by the true representatives of oppressed societies (minorities
united by mutual solidarity, oppressed nations, and so on), who must be
aware of the historical opportunity and challenges that lie ahead.

A distinct symptom of ‘interregnum
<https://isreview.org/issue/108/morbid-symptoms>’ is the palpable
detachment exhibited by the masses towards traditional ideologies –  a
process which has begun much earlier than the outbreak of the coronavirus.

A group of volunteer youth carry out disinfections works at Cold River Camp
as part of coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic precautions, in Khan Yunis, Gaza
on March 29, 2020. ( Mustafa Hassona – Anadolu Agency )

“If the ruling class has lost its consensus, i.e., is no longer ‘leading’
but only ‘dominant,’ exercising coercive force alone, this means precisely
that the great masses have become detached from their traditional
ideologies, and no longer believe what they used to believe previously”,
Gramsci wrote.

Admittedly, there is a problem with true democratic representation all over
the world, due to the rise of military dictatorships (as in the case of
Egypt), and far-right populism
<https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/hating-muslims-loving-zionists-israel-model-190322145619468.html>
(as in the case of the US, various Western countries, India and so forth).

Bearing all of that in mind, simply counting on ‘trust in the people and in
science’ – as disconcertingly prescribed by Zizek – will neither ‘re-invent
communism’, restore democracy or redistribute wealth fairly and equitably
among all classes. And, needless to say, it will not bring the Israeli
occupation to an end or humanely end the global refugee crisis.

In fact, the opposite is true. Under the cover of trying to control the
spread of the coronavirus, several governments have carried out authoritarian
measures
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/24/wartime-coronavirus-powers-state-of-emergency>
that merely aim at strengthening their grip on power, as was the case in
Hungary and Israel.

Not that Hungary and Israel have been governed according to high democratic
standards prior to the spread of the coronavirus. The collective panic that
resulted from the high death-toll of a barely understood disease, however,
served as the needed collective ‘shock’ – see Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock Doctrine
<https://naomiklein.org/the-shock-doctrine/>’ – required by authoritarian
regimes to seize the moment and to further erode any semblance of democracy
in their own societies.

Following each and every global crisis, analysts, military strategists and
philosophers take on whatever available platform to prophesize seismic
changes and speak of paradigm shifts. Some even go as far as declaring the ‘end
of history
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on>’,
‘clashes of civilizations
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-srv%2fstyle%2flongterm%2fbooks%2fchap1%2fclashofcivilizations.htm>’,
or, as in the case of Zizek, a new form of communism.

*READ: Covid-19 and the oil market crash spell the end for US hegemony and
the petrodollar
<https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200421-covid-19-and-the-oil-market-crash-spell-the-end-for-us-hegemony-and-the-petrodollar/>*

French critic and journalist, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr (born November
1808), has once written that “the more things change, the more they
continue to be the same thing”.

Indeed, without a people-propelled form of change, the status quo seems to
constantly reinvent itself, restoring its dominance, cultural hegemony and
undemocratic claim to power.

Undeniably, the global crisis invited by the outbreak of the coronavirus
epidemic embodies within it the opportunity of fundamental change (towards
greater equality or greater authoritarianism), or no change at all.

It is us, the people, and our true authentic voices – the ‘organic
intellectuals
<https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/04/palestines-organic-intellectuals/>’,
not the celebrity philosophers – who have the right and the moral
legitimacy to rise up to reclaim our democracy and redefine a new discourse
on a global, not ethnocentric, form of justice.

It is either that we exercise this option, or the current ‘interregnum’
will fizzle out into yet another missed opportunity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20200423/312cde08/attachment.htm>