hankyoreh

Even though we’re still in the middle of the crisis caused by the coronavirus, there is keen interest in all sectors of society about the post-coronavirus world. Such interest is likely the product of the profound uncertainty inherent in this unprecedented situation. In a recent interview, philosopher Jürgen Habermas said the only thing we can be certain about right now is that we’ve never been so aware of our ignorance and about the necessity of living with uncertainty.

The moment of crisis — when the old order is tottering but the new order has yet to come — is a time of uncertainty, a time when several potential futures stand in counterpoint and competition. What was needed at the beginning of the crisis was a swift and aggressive response from governments and societies. But what we need now is to distinguish the various future scenarios that are implied by the concrete facts of our crisis response and to choose the actions that can realize the most ideal scenario. Four potential scenarios can be teased out.

Under the first scenario, the current system is strengthened. Even though the COVID-19 crisis affects the entire world, each country’s response is grounded in its own culture and institutions, which could serve to reinforce the current system. According to Klaus Schwab, known for his writings about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the American model of capitalism, based on competition and short-term gain, has failed to protect companies and workers in the coronavirus crisis, aggravating inequality. In contrast, Schwab says, the European model of society, which prioritizes partnership and long-term gain, stresses the growing importance of the current systems of inclusivity.

The second scenario is one in which reactionaries gradually grow in strength. Statism, collectivism, and exclusionary nationalism have been regarded as little more than the pathological by-products of neoliberal globalization, but they are rapidly bubbling up from our fears about this infectious disease. In many democratic countries, people are eyeing states that control, monitor, and track their citizens. Protectionism in the area of trade and blatant disregard for other countries’ interests are growing in prominence even in the international community. What we have assumed were relics of the past may become our masters in the future.

The third scenario is the road to a “regressive revolution,” what Antonio Gramsci called a “passive revolution.” In this scenario, the current ruling class stands in the vanguard of overcoming the crisis while presiding over the formation of the new order. As explained by Naomi Klein through the concept of “disaster capitalism,” a disaster presents an opportunity for corporations to abruptly implement things they’ve been planning for a long time. The future of the digital society that has emerged during this crisis could turn out to be regressive innovation that’s even crueler than the current ruling order.

The final scenario takes us toward progressive reform. In a crisis that affects society as a whole, groups that have been hitherto excluded and marginalized could be integrated as members of the community, and the social paradigm could be reoriented around institutions that operate on the principle of social unity. Facing a global depression and a complete crisis of security and democracy in the 1930s, Sweden didn’t settle for makeshift measures but instead created the new paradigm of welfare capitalism, providing the world with an alternative model.

Which path will Korea take? The public livelihood measures taken by central and local governments rely both on existing systems, such as corporate assistance, employment maintenance subsidies, job stability funding, and employment benefits, as well as new policies, such as emergency disaster allowances and basic income from local governments. But this crisis has revealed the inequality in Korea’s labor market and the massive blind spots in the social security system. Unless those weaknesses are not corrected, the “Hell Joseon” system of the past could be further entrenched after the crisis has passed.

In some quarters, capitalist schemes such as flexibilization, automation, and outsourcing are being accelerated while attempts to exploit the current crisis as an opportunity for corporate-friendly labor reform are being whitewashed as “coronavirus measures.” If the exploitative elements of digital capitalism go mainstream in such a manner, the resulting chaos could open up a space in which reactionary forces such as exclusionary nationalism and racism can gain traction. What we need is not premature pride in the fact that Korea’s response to COVID-19 has become a global model but rather meaningful reform that can strengthen society as a whole by compensating for the weaknesses in the social safety net and the class structure in Korean society that have been uncovered by this crisis.

Noam Chomsky has stressed that the COVID-19 crisis is not a natural disaster, but a manmade one. He pointed out that the experience with SARS and MERS had prompted predictions about a catastrophic pandemic, but the barbaric profit motive of capitalism made it impossible to adopt measures for the welfare of the community. Even after COVID-19 has passed, there are more globalized crises to come. We need to devise safety mechanisms to prepare society for threats that cannot be prevented by the market principles or by an every-man-for-himself mentality. The time to do so is now.

By Shin Jin-wook, professor of sociology at Chung-Ang University

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]