Tag Archives: covid19

How The Dystopian New Era of Capitalism has Come to Stay!


The Covid-19 pandemic has caught most countries unprepared! It is not just the poor, less economically developed countries that have also been badly hit. The economically advanced countries—the US and the core European Union countries—have also been equally, if not worse hit. With the help of science ,I hope that humanity will eventually overcome the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Many theories and philosophies will emerge. Many interpretations will be presented before the people and the governments.

We found ourselves in a transformed world sometime in the beginning of 2020. For the first time globally we saw empty streets, closed shops and unusually clear skies, with climbing death tolls being reported daily: something unprecedented was unfolding before our eyes.

One may ask if the difficult days we are going through but also the severity of the effects of the new pandemic is the result and the impact of the new globalized capitalist practices, not only on the economic situation, but also on our poor diet, our alienated new human lifestyle, our immobility in front of our TV screens watching Netflix, obesity, junk food or even drugs overdose . Have they degraded our biological resilience?

If, in the end, it turns out that the Covid pandemic was caused by a leak from a lab in Wuhan, China, it will rank among the greatest scientific scandals in history: dangerous research, possibly involving ethically dubious techniques that make viruses more dangerous, carried out in a poorly safeguarded facility, violently covered up by a regime more interested in propaganda than human life, catastrophic for the entire world.

It is depressing it has taken so long for the world of science, supported by most journalists and politicians, to start accepting the basic truth that no theory should be discounted without evidence — especially given the seriousness of the issues at stake and history of leaks from laboratories. A spate of strong articles seems to have suddenly changed the media narrative, despite mostly reheating material familiar to those of us who have been tracking this story for months. Among these a Wall Street Journal story, for example, about three Wuhan researchers allegedly falling suspiciously sick in November, builds on facts revealed by David Asher, former lead investigator for the State Department.

Nonetheless, the main question is whether the post-COVID 19 world will be the same as before or will it change, whether the capitalist order will become more inhuman and exploitative.

“All philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways. However, the point is to change it” Marx wrote in Thesis on Feuerbach. This was the fundamental premise of the philosophical pursuit of Marx and his lifelong companion Friedrich Engels. They analyzed human existence, the relationship between human beings and nature and the ways in which production and the reproduction of the human species and the economy take place.

While asserting that “labour is the source of wealth and prime basic condition for human existence,” Marx and Engels analysed the dialectics of nature. They pointed out how the harmony among people, land, water and air leads to changes. In Capital, Marx explained that “labour is in the first place a process in which both man and nature participate”. Marx went on to explain that labour process was nothing but the production process. He showed how labour is the source of wealth and how labour power keeps producing surplus value. In the same work, he explained how under capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by capitalists, who are the owners of the means of production. He also explained how this appropriation of surplus value leads to accumulation of wealth at one pole and the pauperisation of the working people at another. Such inequality is reflected in the miserable working and living conditions of the working people.

In addition the new era of Capitalism comes with more surveillance practices. Drawing on Shoshana Zuboff’s (2019) sustained investigation in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism along with sources infrequently highlighted in the social work literature, the focus is on some of the main imperatives driving forward new surveillance practices. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism describes how global tech companies such as Google and Facebook persuaded us to give up our privacy for the sake of convenience; how personal information (“data”) gathered by these companies has been used by others not only to predict our behavior but also to influence and modify it. This results on how this has had disastrous consequences for democracy and freedom. This is the “surveillance capitalism” of the title, which Zuboff defines as a “new economic order” and “an expropriation of critical human rights that is best understood as a coup from above”.

It seems likely that the future is going to witness intense class struggles for political power so that a new social order emerges in which the state shall ensure housing, healthcare, education and all means of livelihood to all its citizens, and equality, justice and dignity of all citizens are upheld.

A number of questions have arisen as we see the progression of the pandemic. Why is it that such a pandemic was not foreseen, when warning signs with avian flu, swine flu, SARS and MERS, all within the last two decades, were clear? Why is it, that with such advances in medicine, vaccines and healthcare, infections have spread so rapidly and the health systems collapsed?

The political implications of COVID-19 will continue to unfold for months, perhaps even years.

The pandemic hit after four decades of neoliberalism had depleted state capacities in the name of the ‘superior efficiency’ of the market, fostered deindustrialization through the ‘globalization’ of production and built fragile financial structures secured by magical thinking and state guarantees, all in the name of short-term profitability. The disintegration of the global economy left the wealthiest and most uncompromising neoliberal economies, the USA and the UK, exposed as being unable to produce enough face masks and personal protective equipment for their health staff, not to speak of ventilators to keep their hospitalized population alive.

These insufficiencies were caused not only by the lack of productive capacity due to changing technologies or China’s trade policies but also by deliberate policies: from universities to labs to manufacturing, neoliberalism actively promoted the fragmentation and disarticulation of a wide range of systems of provision as individual firms scrambled for short-term profits. The ensuing shortcomings were exacerbated by the destruction of state planning capacity and the disinclination of neoliberal governments to use all necessary means to mobilize industry, labour and private capital for a common purpose during the pandemic. Under pressure from the pandemic, service provision was transformed beyond recognition; online work became the norm in countless areas in a matter of days rather than the years that this transition would have normally taken, while the neoliberal worship of consumption dissolved into empty supermarket shelves, scrambles for hand sanitizer, pasta and sardines and fistfights for toilet paper.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the Achille’s heel of capitalism. Underfunded and ageing health systems across the capitalist world are crumbling whilst the global economy has entered a recessionary spiral.

Initially, the western world leaders adopted the same strategy as China by downplaying the lethality of Covid-19, but then once the crisis was out of control, they started reacting by proclaiming that the fight against the pandemic is likened to that of a World War and does not discriminate between rich and poor. At present, nearly two years after the spread of Covid-19 was detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the question of how the virus first emerged remains a mystery due to the unwillingness of the Chinese regime to give us clear answer and take its own responsibilities instead of orchestrating propaganda worldwide and trying to divide the leftists at one hand and then the rest of the world!

Today, after months of ‘state-imposed quarantine’, it should be recognized that whatever the exit strategy, ‘normality’ might be a word with an ‘elusive’ meaning. The question therefore that begs an answer is rather simple: What’s next?

Photo credit: Pawel Kuczynski

Contre Histoire du Covid-19 (Documentaire 2021)// A Counter-History of Covid19 (Documentary 2021)


Fr: Voici la contre histoire du Covid-19. Celle qui ne vous sera pas racontée à la télévision, celle qui n’a pas été écrite par les vainqueurs. Cette histoire commence par la simulation d’une pandémie, puis sa diffusion pour un plan eugéniste de gouvernance mondiale, le tout habillé d’une narration empruntant aux plus basiques techniques d’ingénierie sociale. Cette histoire, malheureusement, est la vraie. C’est celle d’un crime contre l’humanité.

En: Here is the counter story of Covid-19. The one that will not be told to you on television, the one that was not written by the winners. This story begins with the simulation of a pandemic, then its dissemination for a eugenic plan of world governance, all dressed in a narrative borrowing from the most basic techniques of social engineering. This story, unfortunately, is the true one. It is that of a crime against humanity.

Source: YouTube : La Vraie Démocratie

*Note: Je publie ce documentaire juste pour l’information. Certes, il y a beaucoup de choses qui se cachent par nos gouvernments respectifs. J’espère que toute la lumière sera faite bientôt autour de ce virus.

Merci de votre passage!

A Dangerous Form of Eugenics Is Creeping Back Into Science


Garland Allen– Feb 5, 1989

Most people think we have come a long way from the sordid days of blatant eugenics, when everything from thalassophilia (love of the sea, or nomadism) to prostitution, rebelliousness, criminality, mental illness, and personality traits were thought to be inherited. That was all supposed to have ended when the Nazis revealed the true nightmare of eugenic ideas with their “final solution.” But like the endless number of movie sequels that have overrun our theaters, eugenics is back with a new cast of characters and a slightly different script, but the same tired and dangerous old plot.

No one will admit it, of course, and no honorable scientist will say that current research on the inheritance of social or behavioral traits perpetuates the old notions of eugenics. Yet in the last several years, book after scientific book and paper after paper have reported genetic links to everything from alcoholism and criminality to homosexuality, shyness, “risk taking,” and psychiatric conditions such as manic depression and schizophrenia.

What is even more startling is that these ideas are being popularized at a great rate. Since 1987, Time, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal have all run major stories describing how “new” genetic research has shown that many human social and behavioral traits are to a large extent genetically controlled. The popular accounts have all stressed that the new research is much more “clear-cut” than the eugenics of 50 years ago. They have also stressed that understanding the genetic basis of “antisocial behavior” (meaning such social problems as crime, prostitution, mental retardation, or alcoholism) would be helpful in counseling “at risk” patients and possibly preventing them from carrying out their biological destiny.

There are several reasons for concern about this new rash of “research” and the popular accounts of it. First and foremost, the new results are in most cases no more conclusive than the results of eugenicists 50 years ago. In order to study the inheritance of any trait, it is first necessary to define the trait precisely and unambiguously. Yet human social or behavioral traits are not unambiguous because, by their very definition, they arise in, and take their meaning from, a social context. Whereas blue eyes or physical height are largely independent of the social contexts in which they are defined, crime is not. What is criminal in one context–for example, killing in time of peace–becomes noncriminal, even heroic in another context–wartime. Similarly, what is defined as alcoholism is dependent on social definition and setting.

Thus, the very traits that scientists are trying to show to be genetic are defined in quite varied and subjective ways. If you cannot define a trait unambiguously, you certainly cannot study its inheritance.

Another reason why current claims about genetically determined traits are flawed is that behaviors like criminality or alcoholism are not simple entities like height, hair color, or diabetes. Alcoholism includes not only dependency on a chemical substance, but also the inability to control behavior and to anticipate the consequences of an action. Alcoholics may vary in the degree to which their problem results from one or several of these factors. To dissect out the specific behavioral component behind each individual’s chemical dependency may be impossible. Yet to treat the behavior (even if definable) as arising from the same causes in every person is a gross oversimplification. It would be like trying to determine why people are “bad drivers”.

An additional problem is that human beings, unlike fruit flies or laboratory mice (a few of the common animals used for genetic studies) have social as well as biological inheritance. We transmit to our offspring not only physical characteristics like eye color and skin color but also social characteristics through what we teach. Developmental psychologists have been emphasizing for years the importance of early learning experiences in the growth of personality and social behavior in children. It is thus virtually impossible to disentangle the learned from the biologically determined aspects of human behavior.

While no modern geneticist would deny that there is a genetic basis for general aspects of our behavior (for example, our ability as humans to learn language, or to think abstractly) it is extremely difficult to show genetic influences on such specific traits as ability to learn math, or the risk of becoming dependent on alcohol and other drugs. The only way a modern geneticist can separate genetic from environmental influences is to breed organisms and raise the offspring under highly controlled environmental conditions. Since our ethical standards (thank goodness!) forbid carrying out such experiments with human beings, there is never likely to be any rigorous way to separate such subtle influences as heredity and learning in the development of human personality. What is empirically clear is that human beings have an enormous capability to learn–with far greater flexibility than any other known animal. Thus, if there are genetic tendencies toward one or another specific behavioral trait, they are minuscule by comparison to our overall ability to adopt new behaviors, that is, to learn. After investigating a number of such claims, past and present, I simply have not found any clear-cut or meaningful data to support the claims.

Now what makes all of this so troublesome? Is it not just another academic argument? The answer is an emphatic “no.” As an historian of science, I have noted that genetic explanations for human social problems always seem to recur at times of economic and social crisis. Eugenics rose to prominence in the early 1900s, in association with the economic cutbacks related to World War I and then the Great Depression. They arose again in the early 1970s during the economic crises surrounding the scaling back of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society.” Finally, with Reaganomics, we see the theories gaining prominence again. And, of course, the most extreme example was the enormous economic austerity of Nazi Germany and that nation’s virulent eugenic policy.

At all of these times, the hereditarian argument has served to turn attention away from the environmental causes of social behavior–such as cuts in wages and benefits, inflation, stress in the workplace–by focusing on internal, genetic causes. Thus the victim is blamed for having the problem in the first place. There is a perfectly good social explanation for why crime and rates of alcohol abuse increase during these times, but to those in government and private enterprise such conclusions are less than savory. Discontent is easier to control if it can be focused on innate faults (biological, in these cases) rather than faults in our society.

In Germany, belief in the biological inferiority of Jews allowed many citizens to look the other way when racist campaigns were mounted against those of Jewish descent. Fascism feeds on blaming the individual. Thus a climate that promotes the idea that alcohol abuse or criminality is biologically based is a climate in which other Fascist ideologies can take root.

If the genetic studies were clear, there would be no ideological reason to reject claims that certain human behaviors are hereditary. But the science is at best equivocal, and at worst flagrantly wrong–as in the now-famous case of British psychologist Sir Cyril Burt who, earlier in the century, faked much of his data on the inheritance of IQ. The recent Minnesota twin studies, for example, have been widely quoted in the popular press, but only one brief account has ever appeared in a refereed scientific journal. Thus, based on past and present history, there is every reason to oppose the widespread popular dissemination of studies purporting to show genetically based behavioral traits on scientific grounds alone.

But what is most worrisome is how those scientifically questionable views might be used. History shows us that hereditarian arguments have almost always been associated with the idea that biologically “defective” individuals should either not be born at all, or, as in the Nazi case, should be exterminated so as not to be a burden on society. They have provided ammunition for discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and economic status. Scientists now have a responsibility to prevent these dangerous ideas from creeping back into science–and into our society.

Garland E. Allen is professor of biology and history of science at Washington University in St. Louis.

Read More/ Lisez plus sur :