CC BY
15Kees van der Pijl 1 THE "PANDEMIC" AS PREEMPTIVE COUNTERREVOLUTION2
The argument of this piece is that the Covid-19 'pandemic' is a counterrevolutionary transformation of capitalist society at the level of the system as a whole. Its actual health emergency features and the remedies prescribed are too contradictory to see it as anything else than a political project. In past transformations towards a 'new normal' a formula of governance or concept of control arose from the processes of class formation. More generally the means that the development of the productive forces placed into the hands of the existing ruling classes first, tended to accrue to subaltern classes as well in due course. With the Information (IT) Revolution, this would also be the case if it were allowed to evolve organically. However, since the collapse of Soviet state socialism, concepts of control rely on largely fictional scenarios of which Covid-19 is an example. The World Economic Forum has in fact provided a detailed blue-print for the 'new normal' to be executed under the guise of (but in fact unrelated to) the 'pandemic' to counter revolutionary developments preemptively.
Keywords: class formation, ideology, authoritarianism, crisis, counterrevolution. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2020-4-66-127-134
Introduction. A Medical Emergency?
The pandemic that was proclaimed by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020 has evolved in ways that give rise to profound questions about its true nature as a medical emergency. After the initial shock announcement that may have confused some governments and health authorities, the handling of the pandemic has made clear that something more sinister may be unfolding.
Whether this begins already with the outbreak as such, we cannot be certain yet. Authorities such as Professor Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize winner for medicine for his discovery of the HIV virus, Dr Francis Boyle, the author of the US Biological Weapons Act, and others, have identified SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing the respiratory illness Covid-19) as an artificial virus, developed in a laboratory (probably in Wuhan, China) and inadvertently escaped from there. An alternative view is that it was brought to Wuhan, also by accident, by members of the US team participating in the World Military Games in October 2019. That team had been training in Maryland not far from the main US biological warfare laboratory in Fort Detrick, which had been closed for safety breaches in the summer of 2019. For reasons of space I will not further discuss this matter and just note that Montagnier predicted that an
1 Kees van der Pijl, Professor emeritus, University of Sussex, England.
2 This is an expanded version of my contribution to the seminar «Socialization of the Economy: Human being as a product and active subject of the historical process.» 26 October, 2020, S.Y. Witte Institute for New Industrial Development, St Petersburg.
artificial virus will not last long and although vicious because of the presence of two HIV (1 and 2) and one malaria component in its genome, would disappear again but in the meantime cause many deaths.3
Since the pandemic was declared, the level of fatalities has confirmed this estimate. It has reached the level of the large influenza epidemics of 1957-58 and 1968-69, affecting the same categories of people: the elderly and infirm, mostly with underlying illnessses. Even taking into account over-reporting, there is no doubt we are looking at a serious health issue, but nothing dramatic. Yet the measures taken by governments and the WHO instructing them are unprecedented and often counterproductive, such as face masks, social distancing, and especially, the closing down of large chunks of the economy and social life. The race to get a vaccine based on novel scientific principles (manipulating the human genome) but without the normal extended trial period for old-style vaccines, is deemed extremely dangerous in its long-time health effects (auto-immune diseases, cancers) whilst offering little or no cure for the actual affliction, assuming it will still exist when the 'vaccines' will become available.4 In another sign that this is not about public health but about controlling the population, WHO director Tedros has even announced that when the 'vaccine' will have been administered, the other measures such as contact surveillance will have to remain.5
The available medication combining the long-known anti-malaria and arthritis drug, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and an antibiotic, is dismissed as quackery. Yet it was successfully applied by the New York general practitioner, Dr Vladimir Zelenko, and others, and was endorsed by foremost authorities in this field such as Professor Harvey Risch of the Yale School of Public Health, Professor Didier Raoult of IHU Marseille, and others. However, this medication (for use in the early stages) is cheap and a far cry from the billions to be earned with new medications or vaccines currently in development.6 Hence not only the medication but also those recommending it, came under sustained attack that is still going on.
This leaves only one other option and that is that we are witnessing a political project unfolding under the cover of a virus infection that has turned out to have an impact comparable to a serious influenza epidemic. My argument here is that the project boils down to an intervention by the transnational capitalist class to prevent the ongoing historic transition to an information society from developing its full social and political potential and that this intervention is in the nature of a pre-emptive counterrevolution.
3 Robert Miller, 'The Coronavirus is Man-Made According to Luc Montagnier, the Man Who Discovered HIV'. Gilmore Health News, 16 April 2020, https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chinese-coronavirus-is-a-man-made-virus-according-to-luc-montagnier-the-man-who-discovered-hiv/ (last accessed 16 November 2020)
4 Mohammad S. Khuroo, Mohammad Khuroo, Mehnaaz S. Khuroo, Ahmad A. Sofi, Naira S. Khuroo. 'COVID-19 Vaccines: A Race Against Time in the Middle of Death and Devastation!' Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology, June 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/jjceh.2020.06.003 (last accessed 16 November 2020)
5 Robert Hart, 'WHO Chief Warns Vaccine Won't End Covid-19 Pandemic As Moderna, Pfizer Announce Early Successes'. Forbes, 16 November 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rober-thart/2020/11/16/who-chief-warns-vaccine-wont-end-covid-19-pandemic-as-moderna-pfizer-an-nounce-early-successes/ (last accessed 16 November 2020)
6 Harvey A. Risch, 'Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients That should be Ramped up Immediatly as Key to the Pandemic Crisis', American Journal of Epide-liology',189 (11) 1218-1226.
The Information Revolution as a Challenge and an Opportunity
From the 1970s, a world-historic transformation has set in that has accelerated in our own epoch—the Information Technology (IT) Revolution. Epitomised by the Internet and all its applications, it has unified the world population in ways far beyond any previous technical iunnovation. The IT revolution has opened up the sphere of communication to masses of people who until then had to rely on politicians and media for their information. In this respect it is perhaps best compared to the invention of book printing in the 15th century, which for the first time allowed people in Europe to read the Bible in their own language rather than receiving its contents through the medium of priests. My thesis, then, is that the Covid-19 'pandemic' is best understood as a preemptive counterrevolution against the possible political revolutionary consequences of this momentous transformation.
The new opportunities created by the IT revolution, as with every comparable breakthrough in terms of the development of the productive forces, under the prevailing relations of production and power first of all accrue to the existing ruling classes. Only then will subaltern classes be able to discover the expanding limits of the possible for themselves. Thus the diurective force in contempoprary capitalism, predatory finance, according to Sergey Bodrunov (who has coined the notion of a 'noonomy' to denote the new universe opening up) uses the opportunities of digitalisation only for its own gain and 'without paying much attention to other possible applications.'7 Yet these are expanding fast and are bound to also become a medium in subaltern class formation, as happened before. Thus in the case of the Industrial Revolution, the new possibilities in the economic and military spheres were first exploited by the capitalist ruling classes for their own benefit at home and abroad; but a socialist labour movement also emerged, of which Soviet state socialism, emulating the industrial revolution in the name of social emancipation and overcoming backwardness, constituted the high point—only to become mired in stagnation whilst the West entered the epoch opened up by the IT revolution.
This time the ruling classes of a capitalism in terminal crisis have decided not to wait for such a scenario to unfold by its own logic and allow subaltern class formation, too, to master the opportunities of an epochal breakthrough of the development of the productive forces. Of course, 'ruling classes deciding', here is shorthand for a complex process of class formation from different starting points, and converging on what approximates an unwritten common programme, or comprehensive concept of control.8 Such procersses of class formation crucially include the development of class consciousness, which evolves from the particular perspective of given fraction of capital before it comes to encompass the perspectives of others attracted to it, and in the end becomes the prevailing common sense of an entire period, comprehensive, the general acceptance of a 'new normal'.
Imposing a New Concept of Control From Above
In the Industrial Revolution era, the process of class formation around a certain concept of control passed through several mutations, notably the restructuring at the end of World War II and the counterrevolution from the 1980s. However, both the class compromise anchored in mass production industry from 1945-'47 and the finance-driven attack on it (neoliberalism) for the greater part developed organically, through the stages of fraction alignment described
7 Sergey Bodrunov, Noonomy. English version of the Russian edition, distributed at the conference 'Marx in a high technology era: globalisation, capital and class', University ofr Cambridge 2018, p.255.
8 Bob Jessop and Henk Overbeek, eds. Transnational Capital and Class Fractions. The Amsterdam School Perspective econsidered [foreword, Gerd Junne]. London: Routledge, 2019.
above. Industrial capital in the mass production sectors such as automobile, and private finance resurrected from the 'euthanasia' prescribed for it by Keynes, respectively, were the initial capital fractions leading the processes of class formation in these cases.
This time the IT giants controlling the Internet (Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) and the large financial asset investors (BlackRock, Vanguard, JP Morgan Chase, etc.) part-owning their stock may be considered the core fraction leading the current turn in class formation. However, since the financial collapse of 2008, when the pyramids of excess finance by which capitalism had tried to remain afloat, came crashing down, a situation of acute political crisis has ensued in which there is no time left to build a broader coalition. The food riots across the globe in de same period served as a warning that the popular masses would not necessarily remain passive in these circumstances. It is in the nature of class society that when a ruling order is failing, the threat of a loss of control over subaltern forces becomes acute. In the years following the 2005 crash, the anxiety that a new '1848', the year of European revolt and of the Communist Manifesto, was on the horizon was expressed by several key observers.9
Hence the IT-financial bloc of forces decided to seize the opportunity offered by the spread of an unknown virus to impose, from above, a new concept of control by authoritarian means, ideally precluding any oppositional movement to take hold. Here it is important to note that the large IT concerns in the immediate aftermath of the crisis have reaffirmed their links with the US intelligence services and the Pentagon which already assisted their early growth in the 1970s.
In the process of the formation of a new ruling class vanguard after 2008, a second important fraction joined the evolving IT/finance bloc, not as the leading fraction but in an auxiliary, predatory role in what Naomi Klein calls, 'disaster capitalism'.10 This is the biopolitical complex, bringing together pharmaceutical industry, the medical sector, health ministries and the WHO, etc., all of which have recognized the opportunities for enormous profits as well as social prestige and power now that the clampdown on society is proceeding under the cover of health measures that are completely disproportional compared to the real medical emergency, if not actually threatening public health. Here it must be recognized that shortening the trial period for vaccine development is a form of privatization, prioritizing the interests of business over those of the population, a key characteristic of disaster capitalism.
It is this bloc of forces, several of them interlocked (e.g., in the most spectacular case, Bill Gates as founder of Microsoft and through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the single most influential player in the biopolitical complex today) which has drawn together to execute a top-down, authoritarian counterrevolution before the dreaded '1848' runs out of control.
The mutation from the organically constituted concepts of control of the past (going back to the original liberal internationalism of the nineteenth century) to an artificial, willed formula of rule rolled out after the 2008 watershed, has been studied for at least two decades prior. Patrick Zylberman, the leading French student of public medicine, describes how the ideological vacuum at the presumed 'End of History', marked by the exhaustion of state socialism, was responded to by drawing up 'worst case scenarios' in the United States and the international organisations and networks under its influence. The idea to galvanise society by an authoritarian concept of control in response to sudden emergencies (real or imagined) dates from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. Scenario planning shifted the focus from
9 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Strategic Vision. America and the Crisis of Global Power. [with new afterword]. New York: Basic Books 2013 [2012], p. 28; Frank Deppe, Autoritärer Kapitalismus. Demokratie auf dem Prüfstand. Hamburg: VSA, 2013, pp. 268-9.
10 Naomi Klein,. The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2007.
counting the military hardware of the other side, or taking the measure of socialist parties or crisis situations in which they might become active, to (largely)fictitious threats. Because of the one world created in the process of globalisation of information, the circulation of narratives boomed in what Zylberman calls a unified world market of fantasy.11
These (invariably) 'worst case' scenarios were specifically linked to exercising power in the sense of concepts of control. This remainds us of the fact that in a capitalist society, it is not the economy that is sacrosanct, but the power of the ruling class, to which, if need be, the functioning economy can be sacrificed as long as the basic property relations remain in place. In other words, politics always trumps economics. Thus in a highly significant case, Philip Zelikow (who would later gain public notoriety as the editor of the official 9/11 Report) at a conference at the University of Virginia in late 1998 discussed the idea of 'public presumptions' shaped by moulding events lasting for a generation—if properly handled by those directing the political process.12 9/11 and the 'War on Terror' certainly qualify as events that allowed the Western ruling classes to govern, no longer through meaningful class compromises, but by generalised fear, on a presumption shared by what Zelikow calls, 'the relevant political community' and believed by the large mass of the population. Obviously the 9/11 example reminds us of the fact that threats and 'moulding events' can also be allowed to happen, nudged along, or even organized by the forces expecting to profit from them politically and financially.
In 2003, the SARS epidemic in China and Canada provided Zylberman with the example of how a 'worst case scenario' plucked from the realm of fantasy (the outbreak claimed fewer than one thousand victims) might be exploited to exercise control of the population. However, it took until the financial meltdown of 2008 before the lessons that Zylberman drew from the SARS epidemic and the lockdowns by which it was responded to, acquired a relevance beyond medical sociology, his own area of expertise.
In early 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation published a joint report with the Global Business Network, a consultancy specialising in scenario development. In her foreword, Rockefeller Foundation president Judith Rodin recommends scenario planning as the basis for creating narratives about the future and 'push thinking beyond the status quo'. 'Scenario planning is a methodology designed to help guide groups and individuals through exactly this creative process. ... [Scenarios] explore, through narrative, events and dynamics that might alter, inhibit, or enhance current trends, often in surprising ways'.13
Of the four scenarios in the Rockefeller/GBN Report, the 'Lock Step' one fits the 'worst case' option (the other are one rosy scenario and two complete breakdowns when no remedy is possible any longer). Lock Step on the other hand describes 'a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback'. The more so since this scenario is based on a (long anticipated) extremely virulent and deadly influenza pandemic, which would hit in '2012'. Nearly 20 percent of the global population infected, 8 million killed, etc., etc. It 'began in China', was efficiently responded to, and then spread to the rest of the world, where it was handled much less competently, with the United States bungling most of all.
11 Patrick Zylberman, Tempêtes microbiennes. Essai sur la politique de sécurité sanitaire dans le monde transatlantique. Paris: Gallimard 2013, p. 29.
12 Philip Zelikow, 'Thinking about Political History'. Miller Center Report (University of Virginia), 14 (3) 1999, pp. 5-7.
13 Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development [Judith Rodin, Peter Schwartz, forewords]. New York: Rockefeller Foundation and San Francisco: Global Business Network, 2010, p. 9.
However, still according to the Rockefeller/GBN Report, other states imposed the Chinese measures in the end, and their controls paradoxically intensified as the 'pandemic' wore off. This was motivated not just by the virus, but 'authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities... [was necessary also] in order to protect them from the spread of increasingly global problems.' These are listed as transnational terrorism, environmental crises, and rising poverty.
We may decode these problems as drivers of popular unrest ( including migration) which each might ignite rebellions that in turn could combine in non-linear fashion into large-scale, '1848' events. Fortunately, the Rockefeller/GBN Report tells us, 'citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.' 'Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: [including] biometric IDs for all citizens.'14
Practically identical conclusions were reached by Zylberman in his 2013 book based on the SARS epidemic, for which I have no space here except noting his conclusion that citizens under lockdown responded by super-citizenship, a patriotic sense of duty overriding all other motivations as well as compensating for the obvious adverse effects of lockdown on the economy, society and individual well-being.15
Covid-19—Implementation of a Prior Design?
These, then, are the intellectual milestones in the development of a top-down concept of control for which the 'moulding event' of the Covid-19 'pandemic' was to provide the pretext after the 9/11 'terrorism' and 'Russian interference' anxieties had begun to wear off. The different fractions of capital listed above in this case were brought together by the World Economic Forum, whose founder and president, Klaus Schwab, in his co-authored book on the 'Great Reset' (after the current crisis) asks which economic forces will usher in the 'new normal', and what their 'compass' will be. He compares the impending mutation to the rupture of 1945, when a comparable restructuring of capitalist society took place.16 For the rest the book reads like the explicit programme of this particular concept of control, something for which there is no precedent in history, although post-war corporate liberalism had its ideologue (Keynes) and neoliberalism was inspired by Hayek and Friedman, but never a complete programme spelled out in great detail.
The timing of the pandemic in my view was not decided by the seriousness of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak but by the fact that in 2016, a complete outsider in terms of the established, transnational ruling class of the West, had been elected to the US presidency— Donald Trump. However, for the West to implement the new concept of control, the United States was to have a 'normal' leadership too and this might explain why in the election year 2020, the WHO, a key node in the biopolitical complex in which the Gates interests are paramount, called the Covid-19 outbreak a 'Class A pandemic' in March, throwing the US and world economy into disarray.
Preparations for the global state of exception had been going on for several years before coming to a head in the course of 2019. In July of that year, a Global Preparedness Monitoring
14 Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network, Scenarios for the Future, pp. 18-9. emphasis added.
15 Zylberman, Tempêtes microbiennes, pp. 425-8..
16 Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 2020, pp. 57-8.
Board, convened a year earlier by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization, in its first annual report evoked 'the spectre of a global health emergency', concretely: 'a very real threat of a rapidly moving, highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen killing 50 to 80 million people and wiping out nearly 5% of the world's economy'.17 The GPMB built on on the work of the Global Health Crises Task Force and Panel, created by the UN Secretary-General in the wake of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic. Notwithstanding the obligatory professions of independence, the entire global biopolitical complex was on board. It was led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and former head of the World Health Organization, and Mr Elhadj As Sy, Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; the Board also included the heads of the US National Academy of Medicine, of the Global Development Program of the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIAlD, UNICEF, as well as the Ministers of Health and comparable officials of Chile, China, India, Japan, Russia, Rwanda, and a few others (including the Dutch minister of trade and development aid, Sigrid Kaag). The Board was financially supported by the German government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Resolve to Save Lives foundation (jointly run by Gates again plus Bloomberg and Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg). Besides the WHO, Red Cross/Red Crescent and World Bank, background papers for the GPMB were supplied by the ohns Hopkins University Center for Health Security and the University of Oxford with Chatham House.
In its report, then, the Board instructed heads of government in every country to implement 'their binding obligations under the International Health Regulations of 2005'. These committed governments to take health emergency measures including lockdowns, quarantines, and a range of other sanitary arrangements including the activation of so-called 'sleeper contracts' with the pharmaceutical industry to deliver medication and vaccines, disaster capitalism in pure form. Such preparedness acording the GPMB had to be understood as 'an integral part of national and global security, universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)'. In addition,
A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions.18
This remarkable recommendation, which remains silent on the general health of populations (which depends on adequate nutrition, water and air quality and an active lifestyle, not on 'innovative vaccines and therapeutics', reflects the priorities of the global biopolitical complex and the disaster capitalism on which it is betting. Also the need to stop ongoing wars in the world, is not addressed at all. Since GAVI, the vaccine alliance supported by the Gates Foundation is mentioned as being involved in the preparedness and monitoring, it is not difficult to connect the dots. The targets are 'new therapeutics and broad-spectrum antivirals'and 'manufacturing of vaccines (including nucleic acid types)' which again reflect priorities of the gklobal biopolitical complex.
The GPMB finally notes the politcal fragility the world is experiencing, in that 'trust in institutions is eroding. Governments, scientists, the media, public health, health systems and
17 Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, A World At Risk. Annual report on global preparedness for health emerg encies. Geneva: World Health Organization and World Bank Group, 2019, p. 6.
18 GPMB, A World at Risk, pp. 7-8, emphasis added.
health workers in many countries are facing a breakdown in public trust' (note how 'government' and the 'media' are squeezed in between scientists and health workers).' The situation is exacerbated by misinformation that can hinder disease control communicated quickly and widely via social media.' Besides vaccines and therapeutics, the Board also listed the need to resort to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as 'public safety protocols, school and business closures, airline and transportation protocols, communications protocols, [and] supply chain readiness'.19
Fast forward to October 2019 and key members of the same group, Johns Hopkins again, the Gates Foundation, and the World Economic Forum held a symposium in New York, Event 201—A Global Pandemic Exercise. This was a large-scale simulation, or 'germgame' (like a war game), Indeed for Gates, a large epidemic should be prepared for as a preparation for war; rapid advances in biotechnology were needed that 'should dramatically change the turnaround time' for vaccines and therapeutics . The Event 201 'germ game' was based on a fictional scenario in which a corona virus called CAPS, emanating from Brazilian pigs, infected people globally. After a year and a half the exercise estimated the number of deaths caused by the pandemic into the tens of millions etc. etc.
It is hard to avoid the sense that the current Covid-19 response from March 2020 has been based on these 'germ game' simulation outcomes rather than on the real threat, but that is for virologists to establish—if it ever can be established, because once we are in the post-lockdown condition, it can always be claimed that thanks to government intervention the world over, the impact was kept at a minimum. Meanwhile Bill Gates has been expounding on a global vaccination regime that should follow the current epidemic. In an interview with the non-profit TED organisation he also spoke for in Vancouver in 2015, Gates says that 'he and a large team are moving fast to test anti-virals, vaccines and other therapeutics and to bring them to market as quickly as possible', with the Wellcome Trust and MasterCard also involved.
Many more examples can be given that the 'pandemic' is a counterrevolution to preclude the evolution of the IT revolution into a possible social revolution given that the world population, not just the rulers, have access to the Internet and its possibilities too. In the meantime, the Great Reset prescribes an accelerated process of concentration and centralisation of capital (by eliminating small and medium-sized business) en a reorganization of labour by digitizing labour. Indeed a WEF White Paper recommends that in 2030, 83 percent of the work force will work from home by computers, whilst 40 percent of all training and education will als be digitzed to allow it be done remotely. This boils down to suspending the social dimension of work and learning, isolating its participants permanently in their residences. Between 13 and 28 percent of the population will be made permanently or temporarily superfluous, without any indication what will happen to these people in terms of livelihoods.20
Since little of nothing is said on political practice in the Great Reset blueprint, we must assume that democracy is not necessarily part of the new society envisaged by the Grand Masters of transnational capital. But that is what a counterrevolution is about. Yet, given the fractious nature of the coalition behind the authoritarian turn, its premature imposition , and the growing resistance across Europe, democrats would do well to begin thinking and organizing for a replacement of capitalism by a democratically planned society, using the possibilities of the IT revolution for the benefit instead of the enslavement of mankind.
19 GPMB, A World at Risk, p. 15
20 World Economic Forum, Resetting the Future of Work Agenda: Disruption and Renewal in a Post-Covid World [in collaboration with Mercer]. Geneva: WEF, 2020
В данной статье выдвигается мысль о том, что «пандемия» Covid-19 представляет собой контрреволюционную трансформацию капиталистического общества на уровне всей системы в целом. Реальная клиническая картина и предписанные методы лечения настолько противоречат друг другу, что нам ничего не остается кроме как считать «пандемию» политическим проектом. В ходе приведших к формированию «новой нормальности» исторических преобразований формулы управления и концепции контроля возникали на основе процессов формирования классов. Если говорить в общем, то новые средства производства сперва попадали в руки существующих правящих классов, а затем, со временем, обычно переходили к классам низшим. Именно это произошло бы с информационной (1Т) революцией, если бы ей позволили развиваться органически. Однако со времен краха советского государственного социализма концепции контроля основывались в основном на вымышленных сценариях, одним из примеров которых является Covid-19. На Всемирном экономическом форуме был даже представлен подробный план выстраивания «новой нормальности», подлежащий внедрению под прикрытием «пандемии» (хотя этот план не имеет к ней никакого отношения) в целях упреждения и противодействия революционному развитию событий.
Ключевые слова: формирование классов, идеология, авторитаризм, кризис, контрреволюция.
