Coronavirus and the Fate of Capitalism

by Brandon Wallace

As the coronavirus pandemic has seemingly disrupted all economic, political, and social routines, a debate has commenced over what the pandemic means for the fate of capitalism. Radical thinkers – especially those who are seeking to re-imagine and overturn structures rather than merely improve them – have been eager to believe that this represents the beginning of capitalism’s end. Although this desire comes from a place of hope, it is naïve. Even a cursory level understanding of capitalism’s ebbs and flows reveals capitalism’s ability to persist and reproduce itself through many perilous moments; often with its “winners” experiencing bigger wins, and its “losers” suffering bigger losses. The same is likely to hold true for this global pandemic, yet, each moment of insecurity presents an opportunity for intervention for radical thinkers and activists. In this piece, I summarize what I believe to be two non-exclusive scenarios for a post-coronavirus society, and conclude by suggesting actions that could lead to a more equitable path forward.

The argument that coronavirus will push capitalism to finally reach a state of unsalvageable instability seems to rely on the disparities of the status quo being accentuated to the point that they will be impossible to ignore. It will become apparent – the argument goes – that a social safety net is needed because anyone is susceptible to abrupt economic devastation, through no fault of their own. The fact that austerity-prone governments around the world are finding billions to pay to individuals – let alone the trillions paid to corporations with virtually no strings attached – should confirm that “money” can always be made available, and the decades spent denying regular people the fruits of their labor is a conscious choice rather than an unavoidable political reality. It should become obvious, according to this argument, that labor is the source of value that creates wealth, that the underpaid and often invisible work done by the most precarious among us is truly the essential work, while the elite entrepreneurial “job-creators” that society venerates are either nowhere to be found or begrudgingly donating a woefully-insufficient percentage of the extravagant wealth created through worker exploitation. This argument goes on to say that the growing calls for the economy to open back up by some of the most privileged should make it clear that a “strong economy” not only does little for the most vulnerable, but often demands their time, health, risk, and lives as a required sacrifice. Perhaps most importantly, people will realize that our health is contingent and connected to those around us, and we are part of a broader community in ways that we do not even realize. The idea, in sum, is that the devastation from coronavirus will be enough to deprogram much of the public from a capitalist ideology that renders them expendable.

Unfortunately, another likely scenario – and one that proponents of the argument above have not adequately considered – is that coronavirus will merely strengthen capitalism. There are valid arguments in favor of this view. The drop in overall demand may precipitate a further march towards monopolization, in which the Amazon’s, Walmart’s, and other large corporations will survive thanks to their large cash reserves while small businesses fall the wayside. Companies will likely use their bare-minimum responses (such as providing sick pay) during this time as a way to re-brand themselves as compassionate and worker-centric, while simultaneously weaponizing the pain, boredom, anxiety, and uncertainty of the moment for their advertising campaigns. Long-term quarantining may mean a severance of communities in a physical sense, accelerating the social atomization of the neoliberal moment. “Essential” work may increasingly remain in exclusively instrumental STEM-related terms to incentivize upkeep of the current system, while critical and humanistic projects may be deemed “unnecessary.” The already-precarious balance between work life and personal life may be wiped by management who expect workers to master working-from-home, hastening the creep of labor into leisure time. Perhaps most consequential, a pandemic coupled with the working-class desperation and vast unemployment, may provide an excuse for political leaders to exhibit “disaster capitalism,” as Naomi Klein calls it, in which the collective shock and uncertainty of disasters provide an excuse for elites and political leaders to endorse pro-corporate and often-corrupt legislation, often resulting in an upward transfer of wealth. As this argument understands, and over-optimistic thinkers have not considered, the durability and adaptability of capitalism are its two strongest qualities.

So what changes should one anticipate to post-coronavirus social (and economic/political) structures, if any? If all it took for capitalism to disintegrate was a disaster, then capitalism would be in a constant state of disintegration. When, in capitalism’s brief but decisive history, has there not been disaster? Marx and his interlocuters have been waiting for the “inevitable” fall of capitalism for centuries, yet the target has only seemed to move further away. This does not mean that nothing can be done; on the contrary, it means that something must be done. It means that capitalist ideology will prevail through current threats unless scholars, activists, and proponents of a better reality get off the bench and guide the anger and anxiety of the moment into progressive mobilization rather than a descent into madness. This will entail not just critiquing the cruelty of the current status quo, but also offering an alternative solution that is based on humanity, empathy, and solidarity. Rarely in the past few decades has a situation so drastically altered the day-to-day lives of countless citizens. This has not only demanded their attention, but has sent many searching for answers. De-naturalizing our current politics and imagining alternatives is only the first step, but it is the most imperative. The argument that coronavirus will strengthen capitalism may result from what Antonio Gramsci called the “pessimism of the intellect”, but radical change that will bring about a positive transcendence of capitalist inequality will require adopting an unrelenting “optimism of the will.”