The Class Interests Behind Social Distancing, Lockdowns, and “Stay At Home” Orders

In the last week of March, the United States overtook Italy and China in the number of COVID-19 cases, surpassing 100,000 and becoming the new global epicenter of the pandemic. American society as a whole is now reaping what the ruling class has sown. As public health officials predicted in recent weeks and months, the virus is now spreading at an alarming rate—and epidemiologists estimate that the actual number of cases is far higher due to delayed and insufficient testing.

The CDC’s worst-case scenario modeling estimates that, without meaningful intervention, the virus could infect 160 million to 214 million people in the United States and kill 200,000 to 1.7 million. Among other measures such as wide-scale testing and isolation of infected individuals, social distancing is one of the primary population-level measures for fighting the pandemic, which at this point means, not containing it, but slowing the spread to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system.

Following the “15 Days to Stop the Spread” guidelines put forth by the White House on March 16, some state governments are scrambling to mitigate the contagion, in many cases, through enforced social distancing. As of March 23, 42% of Americans were under stay-at-home orders, allowed to leave only for essential tasks such as grocery shopping, medical appointments, employment in essential industry, and outdoor exercise. But this is a patchwork effort due to the federalized nature of public health in the United States.

It is evident from an epidemiological point of view that social distancing in and of itself is an iron necessity for addressing the spread of COVID-19. However, the capitalist state cannot coordinate the kind of response required to stem the tide of the disease significantly. This is why Marxists argue for a campaign of voluntary social distancing, coordinated by trade union, workplace, and neighborhood health and safety committees. Furthermore, we demand the closure of all non-essential businesses with no loss in pay for the workers, and for immediately doubling the pay of essential workers on the frontline of the pandemic. These, and other measures outlined in our socialist program to fight COVID-19 and the economic crisis point the way forward.

“Reopening America”

The fates of millions will ultimately be determined by whether or not pressing public health measures are taken immediately. And yet, on March 22, Donald Trump announced his desire to “reopen” the country as soon as possible, Tweeting, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!”

WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2020

Trump, a particularly shortsighted individual who spent most of his life as a low-level capitalist property speculator, sees the health of the stock market as the key to his electoral success. His first response to the crisis was to dismiss the threat and waste precious time, hoping that the markets would not be affected if he simply dismissed the problem altogether. When public health officials began to take it upon themselves to warn the public of the impending catastrophe, Trump was forced to change course, announcing that action would be taken to mitigate the spread. However, as he could not bear to watch the effects of these measures on the economy, so he has changed tack yet again, pursuing what he thinks can be a shortcut back to “the best economy we’ve ever had.”

Trump added a timeframe two days later, stating that he “would love” to have the economy “raring to go by Easter,” elaborating later that day on his vision of “packed churches all over our country” on April 12. Further, the president offered his opinion on what stage in the pandemic we are in, speaking of the need to “ease the guidelines and open things up to very large sections of our country as we near the end of our historic battle with the invisible enemy.” On that same day, the number of confirmed cases in the US rose by 12,000. Needless to say, epidemiologists predict massive repercussions if his line of action is pursued.

Doubtlessly, the capitalist class and their political representatives “would love” to get the economy “raring to go” in just a few weeks. However, aware of the potential ramifications of an uncontrolled outbreak, state governors—who would still be able to maintain statewide stay-at home-orders even if the White House guidelines change—and other officials were deeply troubled by the goal of a “reopened” country by Easter.

They understand that relaxing guidelines prematurely would lead to a far deeper acceleration of the spread of COVID-19. This, in turn, would lay the basis for more widespread, long-term, and draconian measures down the line. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Republicans such as Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and even Bill Gates all came forward quickly to try to correct the course.

Thus wrote Lindsey Graham, Trump-loyalist Republican on Twitter:

Try running an economy with major hospitals overflowing, doctors and nurses forced to stop treating some because they can’t help all, and every moment of gut-wrenching medical chaos being played out in our living rooms, on TV, on social media, and shown all around the world … There is no functioning economy unless we control the virus.

Try running an economy with major hospitals overflowing, doctors and nurses forced to stop treating some because they can’t help all, and every moment of gut-wrenching medical chaos being played out in our living rooms, on TV, on social media, and shown all around the world.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 23, 2020

The suggestion also troubled the more intelligent bourgeois strategists. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf wrote on March 24:

Some continue to argue that it is wrong to force the economy into a depression to suppress transmission of the virus. This, they suggest, will cause unnecessary disruption. If instead, the virus is left to spread relatively freely, we can achieve “herd immunity,” sustain the economy and still focus resources on the vulnerable.

He continues:

Yet it is not clear that the economy would fare better under this relatively laissez-faire “mitigation” policy than under one of determined “suppression.” Long before government-imposed lockdowns, many people stopped traveling or going to restaurants, cinemas, or shops. Decisive action to suppress the virus and follow up with testing and tracking of new infections could well end the inevitable economic slump even sooner than otherwise.

Another appraisal in a Financial Times opinion column on March 26, subtitled “Donald Trump’s ambivalence on coronavirus threatens both the US and its global power,” anxiously observes that “There are no do-overs on pandemics.”

The new White House guidelines will be determined in the coming days, though in a press briefing on March 26, vice president Mike Pence made clear that the president still plans to “open the country,” adding that the process would be done “responsibly.” This will inevitably lead to further clashes with the governors who don’t share his optimistic perspective on the outbreak.

“Lives vs. the economy”

In light of the country’s utterly insufficient supply of hospital beds and medical equipment, abysmal working conditions and safety precautions for healthcare workers, blatant profiteering by industries that stand to benefit, and insider trading by Senators who had been briefed on the pandemic early on, many on the left have understandably concluded that “they don’t care if we die!” This is undoubtedly an accurate appraisal of the attitude of the capitalists towards the deaths of individuals, and the attitude of this or that section of the class. But there are some sober considerations the ruling class as a whole must make at the population-level, namely, the need to keep sufficient numbers of workers alive to continue generating surplus value.

To accumulate wealth, the capitalists require that human labor be performed upon raw materials and the means of production. This is the sole value-producing force in society. To achieve this, they must buy from the workers the commodity called labor power, i.e., the ability to perform work. They also require a population that will be able to buy back at least some of the products that the capitalists sell on the market. They consequently must guarantee the workers the ability to exist, consume, reproduce, to the extent that a working class is necessary for the functioning of capitalism. While they may not necessarily approach it in such stark terms, this is ultimately the fulcrum for the capitalists’ calculations.

The rhetoric behind UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s initial suggestion that COVID-19 be dealt with by relying on the inevitably of “herd immunity” is merely a more honest representation of the way the ruling class views the working class—as mere cattle, a necessary factor in the accumulation of profits. Indeed, on paper, it would not be too much of a problem for the capitalists if a small percentage of the working class died off, as long as the majority developed immunity and dutifully returned to working and consuming, and if not so many died that it put upward pressure on wages.

But the more farsighted elements of the class understand that it is not quite that simple. Fantasizing that he is a beloved “wartime president,” Andrew Cuomo, the governor of hard-hit New York, has stepped up to provide the more level-headed leadership that the majority of the ruling class would prefer in a time of crisis. Notably, he even called for the nationalization of the medical supply chain, revealing that even the ruling class knows not to rely on the whims of the “free market” in times of crisis. However, it should be understood that Cuomo was not calling for government ownership of industry, but for the federal government to temporarily direct specific production according to a set quota through the Defense Protection Act. Facing increasing pressure to invoke such measures, Trump begrudgingly gave in partially on March 27.

I’m calling on the Federal Government to nationalize the medical supply chain.

The Federal Government should immediately use the Defense Production Act to order companies to make gowns, masks and gloves.

Currently, states are competing against other states for supplies.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) March 22, 2020

In platitudinous speeches and tweets, Cuomo has positioned himself as the leader prioritizing “lives” rather than the economy, which he claims we can “fix” at a later date. Sufficiently skilled at cloaking his politics in with a “left-liberal” Rooseveltian veneer, he has become a firm advocate of the stay-at-home orders, despite having delayed its implementation in his own state.

Thus, the conversation over whether to prioritize “lives” or “the economy” has emerged, with a few senior-citizen patriots such as Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick giving their support to Trump, and suggesting their willingness to die for the good of their country.

But behind the rhetoric from certain capitalist politicians about the need to prioritize “lives,” and regardless of their subjective opinions about their own actions, the debate is, in reality, a conflict between two opposing views on how to best safeguard the interests of “the economy”—by which is meant the continuation of capitalism.

The “life” of a worker, which to the ruling class is synonymous with a bodily existence sufficient for showing up at work and generating profits, is, in fact, an integral part of “the economy,” and the more intelligent representatives of capital understand this. They have accepted that wincing through the pain of economic shutdowns and even temporary nationalizations is the safest path forward for their system.

Furthermore, there is another crucial side to the equation. Unlike with cattle, history shows that human beings are prone to form opinions about society, organize, and overthrow their rulers. The present crisis comes in the context of an already massive wave of revolutionary uprisings and hits an economy that was teetering on the verge of a recession long before a single person had ever contracted COVID-19. With very little room to maneuver, the capitalist state is now forced to begrudgingly implement the bare minimum of public health measures and economic assistance. In the case of the United States, this has meant delayed testing and stay-at-home orders, and a one-time, means-tested $1,200 per person for these “tough times.”

What must be emphasized is the entirely empirical nature with which the government approached the implementation of stay-at-home orders. The nature of the spread of the disease means that collective intervention is disproportionately effective in the earliest stages of the outbreak. The timeframe for economic shutdowns would have been drastically shorter if these measures were implemented far earlier in the outbreak—but no serious measures were taken.

Now, the ruling class must brace itself for weeks, if not months, of continued stay-at-home orders, in the hopes that it will save their system. To be sure, some states and countries have learned from the experiences of others. They have started to implement such measures earlier—but it is clear that the overall trend in outbreaks across the world consists of hesitating and delaying severe efforts to slow the spread, toeing the line until the problem gets out of hand.

Taken as a whole, the capitalist state—including the elements that now claim to be prioritizing “lives”—could only bring itself to start implementing the necessary measures when there was a visible, undeniable problem. In other words, once the outbreak had already decisively sunk roots in the country. It should also be noted that public health officials have been warning of the inevitability of a significant global pandemic for decades, and that even the politicians who are now “deploying calm in the face of crisis” are guilty of not having heeded those warnings. This is the result, not of shortsightedness in the abstract, but of the shortsightedness that is inherent to the profit-driven structure of capitalism.

In 1938, Trotsky observed that the ruling class was “tobogganing with closed eyes” towards catastrophe. The ruling class of today has its eyes wide open as it heads off a cliff. It is organically incapable of planning for the long-term health of its own system. It is consequently laying the basis for capitalism to be wholly discredited in the eyes of millions—and for the mighty working-class fightback that will ensue in the months and years to come.