Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

800 German Anarchists March Through Hamburg to Demand Free and Universal Access to Covid Vaccine

AmateurAgitator

arsewank
Banned
Not sure if any of you were aware of this taking place. I thought it was nice to see:

 
sorry for being dim, how do you translate that?
pasted the text in but its too long

germany was an early adopter of antivax demos, way back in spring 2020. i wonder if the national mood has moved on?
Google Chrome can automatically translate pages.

This is the text of the article:

The call for #ZeroCovid received an enormous response within a few days. Well over 45,000 people have signed it and it has been mentioned many times in the media. Many of my friends have also signed. In preparation for the call, there were a number of exciting discussions in the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation or in Attac's scientific advisory board.

In the end, I couldn't decide whether to sign the appeal. It is with a certain concern that I see the distortions that different assessments of the pandemic can lead to, even within the left. But the appeal cannot be viewed pragmatically either, although it is "only" an appeal that also establishes some correct connections and makes correct demands. I want to record some of my criticisms here:

1. A European lockdown is not realistic
The appeal criticizes the prevailing strategy of "flatten the curve" as having failed and demands - following a statement by scientists in the Lancet - that contacts should now be reduced as far as possible in a simultaneous strategy to be pursued across Europe so that the virus can escape as soon as possible is completely displaced from our lives. An end to the pandemic is called for - as if the state could order it and as if the pandemic only existed because politically wrong actions were taken. Comparisons with China, Taiwan, South Korea or Cuba suggest something like this. But the virus also circulates there and the pandemic is not over, but can break out again and again.

It would not be possible for Germany alone to isolate itself in this way. Accordingly, a Europe-wide decision for a radical lockdown is called for. That is full of prerequisites. The decision would have to be made at EU level and then implemented through national decisions. Such a process is protracted and unlikely in view of the politically very different governments.

A radical lockdown would mean closing borders, ports, airports and subjecting all arrivals to tests and quarantine measures.

It would also mean rigorously closing borders, ports and airports and subjecting all arrivals to tests and quarantine measures. The consequence of this would be strict travel and migration controls. This didn't work in the summer and turned out to be a bureaucratic power fantasy. If one wanted to change this, an enormous expansion of the relevant authorities and an intensive control regime would be necessary.

2. An end to the pandemic is not possible
The appeal aims to »end«, against »controlled continuation« of the pandemic - which in fact amounts to eradicating the virus. Based on the current state of knowledge, it seems unlikely that this could succeed. Everything indicates that global society will have to live with the virus. Especially when a significant number of people will not be vaccinated.

But the call is not so radical either, because when the incidences are significantly reduced and the chains of infection can be traced again by the health authorities, it should be relaxed again. Even if this is rejected in the appeal, it is roughly the policy of the "controlled pandemic" that the governments in Germany, Austria, France or Switzerland - unlike the USA, Sweden or Brazil - have pursued. However, this means that the virus will spread again as soon as it is loosened.

Not only is ZeroCovid's demand inconsistent, it also ignores the non-simultaneity that arises. Because in some regions of Germany or Europe the numbers can be very high, in others very low. So there are reasons to act unevenly regionally and to open and close at the same time. The yo-yo and ping-pong effects against which the appeal takes a stand cannot be avoided. It would be better to orient solidarity action towards this.

3. A hard lockdown can only be enforced by the police
Staying at home, avoiding contacts, wearing masks, using tracing apps - these are roughly the recommended recipes for the call. None of this is new. The problem of how to implement this in everyday practice, how to achieve the appropriate discipline, is not addressed. But that's a key question. Because in everyday life many have not adhered to the measures in the past few months and circumvented them; or they have deliberately ignored them because they consider the measures to be excessive and in any case do not believe in the existence of the virus as a pathogen.

The consequence that the state would have to take stronger police measures is not expressed. Should the police and security services be strengthened? Should there be internment in quarantine camps? The appeal is obviously aimed at the state. But this state should not be strengthened in its authoritarian tendency.


4. The required solidarity is ambivalent
The call is for solidarity. That is good, because it makes it clear that it is not about an order from the state, but about measures that are desired and carried out by citizens in order to contain the spread of the virus. But that should actually also be said: the »solidarity break« just means to forego contacts, to stay at home, not to see family members, friends, colleagues.

So the appeal boils down to continuing to radically restrict "life" until the numbers drop. Angela Merkel pointed out the paradox of the situation months ago: Solidarity means isolating yourself and keeping your distance. But that is exactly what not only creates a lot of suffering, but also anger, despair, protest. Actionism, noise, shock, illegal parties, conquering the street - this comes from right-wing and irrational contexts. The left offers science, reason, isolation (cf. Widmer in the WOZ, January 14, 2021). Since it is a call from left-wing contexts, the problem of how to deal with the contradiction arises not only in that the left turns so emphatically to the state, but also assumes a role of order with regard to the protest.

5. The interests of capital are more complex than the appeal claims
The radical gesture of appeal fizzled out. It consists in getting the government to finally enforce the protection of employees against companies. If anything, the focus was more on offices and home offices. But that changed even before the appeal was published, and precisely this topic was negotiated in the media and on talk shows.

The alignment of governments with business and profit is certainly a crucial consideration. But this one itself is complex. For profit, it can make sense to continue working in the company - as long as supply chains or sales markets are functioning. But even if many (older) people fall ill or die, it can be good for business: for example that of the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufacturers, pension insurance companies, logistics or InfoCom companies.

Capital interests are conflicting. The state does not stand up for the interests of capital in general, because that does not exist.

From a profit point of view, however, it can also be risky to keep economic transactions going. Members of the management and many wage earners can become ill or die (sometimes seriously and in the long term) (even if the risks are unevenly distributed). For profit, it can make sense to close the companies: the market is adjusted, costs can be avoided in the face of low demand, government support can be collected and at the same time wage earners, tied to the companies with short-time working allowance, protect their health in order to then, if the Economy picks up again, to get back into production immediately. It's a contradicting movement: when are the losses greater or lesser, when the immediate costs are higher? What long-term competitive advantages or costs can be expected? Capital interests are different and quite conflicting. The state does not stand up for the interests of capital in general, because that does not exist.

From this point of view, too, the call for a »solidarity break« promises more than can be kept. Many businesses cannot be closed. There is the material side to consider, i.e. the food industry and the corresponding retail trade, logistics, the production of spare parts, public transport, old people's and nursing homes, pharmaceutical and medical care. Parliaments, administration and the media should also continue to function. The appeal also wants to ensure care for children. At most, part of the economy can pause. From a material point of view, other measures would be conceivable as an alternative to the closure: renouncing performance compression and overtime, employing more employees, ensuring distances, protective clothing, shorter working hours.
continued in next post
 
cont...

6. The dangers to democracy are neglected
Merkel is right when she emphasizes that the virus is an imposition for democracy. Since February 2020 there have been enough reasons to criticize the policies of federal and state governments. Recommendations for pandemics drawn up by parliaments in previous years were not implemented. The parliaments were only little or not at all involved in discussions and decisions, or they temporarily dissolved themselves. Religious communities were unilaterally favored or demonstrations by critical actors were disadvantaged. The Prime Ministers have often acted according to party or state political aspects. Health Minister Spahn intentionally or erroneously made many mistakes and publicly said the untruth: compared the disease to the flu, denied the use of masks; he claimed, There would be enough intensive care beds or protective clothing, the health departments would be better equipped, the hospitals would be supported, the material situation of the nursing staff would be significantly improved, the vaccine would come earlier. Little has happened.

There was little or no public support for small businesses, restaurants or culture. The schools were not adequately prepared for a second wave in the summer and autumn months. In the spring it was relaxed too early and closed too laxly before Christmas. With the lockdown light from November 2, 2020, there was no regional or functional differentiation in the closings, although they would have been possible from an infectious point of view. According to a dissemination study carried out in Switzerland, museums, cinemas or restaurants could probably remain open.

In the first wave of the pandemic, there was a lot of support and solidarity from below. But there was little or no public support for that. When it comes to protective regulations, conventional images of the household, family or old people are used again and again. This active form of solidarity does not play a role in the appeal either.

Democracy includes the practices of the public. Politicians fearfully ingratiated themselves with the lateral thinkers and showed them consideration. The media played along. Every small gathering of corona deniers was reported in detail and discussed endlessly on talk shows. The often knowledgeable epidemiologists, infectiologists and virologists could be heard there again and again, from whom a lot could be learned. To put them under ideological suspicion, as is also done on the left, is inappropriate. But it would have been objectively advisable to let racism experts, sociologists of science, democracy researchers, media and communication scientists, disaster researchers, ecologists or political economists have their say. The culture-industrial public enterprise evidently proves to be unsuitable for the practice of an open democratic discussion. In view of the widespread and not always unjustified distrust, this question should have received more attention in the appeal.

Democracy only plays a marginal role in the appeal. At most, the participation of the employees is reminded. More is needed.

The social left, the LINKE or the movement organizations have done little, barely attacked this conventional world of ideas, organized solidarity little and largely left the streets and squares to the »Corona rebels«, lateral thinkers and right-wing radicals. After all, there were protests by anti-group groups or by Fridays for Future and, recently, by the critical farmers who put other issues on the agenda. This should be linked with further activities.

Unfortunately, democracy only plays a marginal role in the appeal. At most the participation of the employees is warned, but these are often oriented towards particularism. More is needed. Extensive decision-making from below, expansion of the communicative and critical infrastructure for democratic decision-making and decision-making processes, for new types of representation and delegation procedures should be the subject of further discussion. It is obviously a challenge to enable and secure democratic decision-making and action even in deep crises.

7. The reference to science does not replace politics
I suspect that many have signed the appeal because they fear further illnesses and the death of many people from the pandemic and want to emphatically remind the government of their responsibility. You probably did not want to support a certain concept of "natural law" or "state". Still, it might make sense to go into this briefly. Because some of the initiators argue with the natural law of the virus. Its effects are to be accepted, there is nothing to be weighed up. But it's not that easy.

All of the scientists who have taught us in recent months what the virus is all about have also confirmed that scientific knowledge itself has to be corrected again and again through experience and research and hardly any of the "scientific consensus" Can be talked about. The virus is a virus recognized by us, with which we as animals live involuntarily in the metabolism and will live for a long time.

But we are not simply its victims, but can act on the basis of verifiable knowledge. With a view to viruses, this is a rather new experience in human history. We keep our freedom and make decisions that can be either authoritarian, liberal, social Darwinist, or autonomous socialist. A zero reduction is not to be expected, the call itself says it is about containment. But how this is pursued, where the boundary runs, is not scientifically determined. That depends on the forces in society; we socially negotiate what number of infected people seems acceptable to us: 50, 25, 7 or 1 per 100,000.

In the summer of 2020, the incidence was 5–7 people / 100,000. Reaching the number 1 would amount to a very long and probably non-livable lockdown. It is a political decision based on a weighing of interests that has to put material supply, the preservation of the production apparatus, capitalist gains, the freedom of the individual, democratic rights, psychological well-being, disease and death into relation.

Recourse to the laws of nature that actually apply seems to me to involve an authoritarian danger when we think about possible further pandemics or the even greater challenges of ecological crisis dynamics. Such an attitude of submission should not be practiced. Social conditions, democracy and scientific knowledge should be further developed from this critical perspective so that they are not overridden in and by crises.

Alex Demirović
is a social scientist, member of the scientific advisory board of Attac and a fellow of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
 
Back
Top Bottom