Rosa Luxemburg and International Law Workshop (15-16 December 2022, Berlin)

I participate in the Rosa Luxemburg and International Law programme, which is a collective exploration of what Luxemburg’s work has to offer at this juncture of neoliberal capitalism, climate disaster, and pandemic. We have a workshop 15-16 December, 2022 in Berlin. My related blog post is available on the Critical Legal Thinking: The New Form of Capitalist Militarism: The Permanent State of Exception.

Orbán’s Enabling Act: Ruling the Post-Pandemic World

This article was published at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Brussels's Blog on 7th April 2020

The recent introduction of the Enabling Act in Hungary has been interpreted by some as a sudden authoritarian turn, designed to meet the unique challenges of the coronavirus outbreak. But, argues Attila Antal, Victor Orbán’s government has merely used the crisis as an opportunity to build on an existing project of neoliberal autocracy, with a view towards the consolidation of power in the post-pandemic world.

The Orbán regime has found a way to capitalise on the pandemic situation. Contrary to the assessment of other commentators, the coronavirus did not bring about or even finalise the authoritarian turn. Rather the conditions of authoritarian rule pre-existed the crisis and were certain to define how the government would respond to the crisis.

There is no question that by enacting the Enabling Law, which grants absolute power to the Prime Minister, the Orbán regime has irretrievably become an authoritarian political system. Of course, this represents a massive danger to the European Union, one that has existed for some time but has become heightened in the context of a fresh eurozone crisis. But the unholy use of the coronavirus situation is just the latest stage of exceptional government in Hungary.

The main social and political outcome of this permanent state of exception is the subjection of society to the forces of neoliberalism. I am arguing here that not just the new Enabling Law, but also the neoliberalisation of public services puts Hungarian society in an incredibly difficult position for dealing with the threat of an epidemic.

The state of exception a long-lasting reality

According to Giorgio Agamben there has been a fundamental transformation in the idea and practice of government in Europe, ‘which overturns the traditional hierarchical relation between causes and effects. Since governing the causes is difficult and expensive, it is safer and more useful to try to govern the effects.’ Authoritarian populist regimes have typically sought to manage the effects of crises caused by them and this is a considerable shift not just in the concept of government, but towards penal politics.

The use of emergency measures in normal circumstances is not a new practice in Hungary. Since 2015 the Orbán regime has constantly been using extraordinary measures to maintain its political power, for instance during a prolonged biopolitical hate campaign against refugees and migrants. This reality puts the new Enabling Law into a different light, because the real danger, in my view, is not just the untrammelled power of Orbán and rule by decree, granted by the new regulation, but the fact that this form of exceptional governance has existed for nearly half a decade and promises to endure beyond the crisis. This situation is especially worrisome because it will compound the impacts of the neoliberal measures applied before and during the crisis.

Managing pandemic as a political crisis

The Orbán regime did not expect such a crisis (pandemic related information available here and here) to evolve and spread as it has. On 28 February he argued that the virus had attracted all the attention, but that the historical challenge facing Hungary would remain that of migration: ‘we must prepare for migrant flows, we must prepare for regular mass attacks at the Hungarian border fence’. At this time Orbán and his staff had in mind a totally different political agenda in the long run up to the election of 2022: they were about to create a new chapter of hate campaign against migrants, the judicial system and opposition forces.

Although Orbán was able to change his political strategy and started to take the pandemic seriously, initially this was not down to his political instincts, but to the exceptional pressure from his own ruling party and smaller coalition partner, the Christian Democrats. This delay, if the pandemic had exploded in Hungary with the same rapidity as in Western Europe, could have been fatal. For a moment, he proved unable or unwilling to switch strategy.

The Prime Minister understood the political risk in economic rather than epidemiological terms, which is why he introduced measures to protect the economy first and not the workers. Introducing these measures, Orbán argued that ‘We should fight against this crisis by not giving up our goals … the workfare economy and the possibility of a proud life’. Anti-immigration rhetoric has also been persistent from the outset. On 6 March, Orbán once again spoke of migration and the coronavirus as twin challenges. Just a few days later, he argued that ‘there is a clear link between illegal migration and the coronavirus epidemic’.

Nevertheless, Orbán has now discovered the political potential of the pandemic and started to manage it using military and policing methods. Above all, the Prime Minister and his communication strategists came to recognise that they would have to respond to the real fears and concerns of the Hungarian people and factions behind the government, who understood there was no link between immigration and the pandemic. On 11 March the regime combined its own agenda with the need for action on the coronavirus by declaring the state of emergency, restricting mass events, visits to institutions and deciding on increased border control. This state of emergency put new powers into the hands of Orbán, now positioned as the ultimate authority in Hungary.

By this time Fidesz and the Christian Democratic faction had started a conversation with the opposition political groups in the Hungarian Parliament, and this created a more constructive atmosphere. The most delicate issue was the closure of schools and Orbán was put under pressure by the people, the opposition parties as well as his own political allies. It was remarkable that on the morning of 13 March the Prime Minister argued that ‘they have not closed public education institutions because the virus does not seem to infect children … if they close schools … teachers would have to go on unpaid leave’. Within days, this position too had been reversed and the schools were closed.

Negotiations between the government and the opposition were interrupted because it was widely understood that the regime was preparing for the seizure of emergency powers without any political or time constraints. This dispute came to a head when Prime Minister’s Office charged the opposition parties with irresponsibility on account of their refusal to endorse these steps, Orbán’s propaganda arm claiming that ‘many measures to combat the virus will not be in force’. In pushing for emergency powers without any restrictions, Orbán was able to blame the opposition for the lack of national unity in a time of crisis. At the same time, he needed to ensure that the political factions in government fell in behind his agenda. The Enabling Law was therefore necessary for Orbán, not just for the restriction of the opposition, but also to regulate and sustain his insecure political coalition.

‘Embedded’ neoliberalism

It suffices to say that helping the working people is not a priority for the Orbán regime. This is clear from its shift away from welfare to workfare concept and the neoliberalisation of public services in recent the past years. This neoliberalisation goes hand in hand with the concentration of political power, because emergency powers are effectively maintaining the neoliberal agenda which characterises the Orbán regime.

As argued above, the Orbán regime has always been much more afraid of the economic consequences of the crisis than of its epidemiological ones. A neoliberal and state-capitalist approach has been central to the Hungarian government’s agenda since 2010, involving the strengthening the private health sector and a huge withdrawal of funds from public health. One consequence of this is that significant number of Hungarian doctors and nurses work abroad. In addition, the regime has gradually dismantled the universal insurance system and expelled the poorest from access to vital healthcare services. These are well-known phenomena and reveal how, in Hungary as elsewhere across Europe, neoliberalism has intensified deep social and economic problems.

This ‘embedded’ neoliberalism has remained intact from the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis. Most of the government’s economic measures are about saving employers and capital, instead of protecting workers. Across Europe, many states have introduced wage subsidies to help workers and avoid mass unemployment, some covering 80 percent or more of average wages. But not in Hungary. The Orbán regime has resisted calls to ease the suffering of the people, only introducing a one-time supplement for health workers due to public pressure. This attitude has already resulted in significant social tensions, generating hopelessness among the coronavirus unemployed.

A tax exemption for small businesses and moratorium on loans will hardly be enough to save the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian workers who lose their jobs and have no savings. While the callousness of this may be surprising, it fits the pattern of neoliberalisation under the Orbán regime. Following the introduction of the workfare concept in 2014, a punitive counter to the concept of social welfare systems, it would not be out of sorts for the government to use the pandemic as an opportunity to eliminate the last remnants of the welfare state.

Preparing to rule in a post-pandemic world

Because of the permanent state of exception that exists in Hungary, the Enabling Act is not an authoritarian moment but rather an opportunistic move to consolidate power and reinforce the existing balance of forces. This does not mean that the Enabling Law is not an important turning point; it is in three senses. First, Orbán has always governed alone, so the law was not needed to for this purpose, but more so to intimidate and discipline those political factions within government which had become uneasy.

Secondly, the Enabling Act put Hungarian society into a political quarantine. The situation is extremely paradox, because social uprisings on the streets will weaken efforts to control the pandemic, but without a strong protest movement the permanent Enabling Law will define the post-pandemic situation. This is the greatest danger of the current moment: through the Enabling Act Orbán will be able to maintain a state of emergency even when it is no longer required.

Finally, Orbán has found a way to advance political aspirations that do not serve to tackle the pandemic, but to build a post-pandemic Hungary in his image. The regime has already started to implement its political agenda under the cover of epidemiological measures: stripping powers from mayors (which was eventually withdrawn); forcing the continuation of a contested construction investment project in Budapest; escalating the cultural war through tightened control of the theatres; classifying public data about a Chinese-funded railway project for a decade (in which Orbán’s most important oligarch, Lőrincz Mészáros, got involved); continuing to systematically clamp down on academic freedoms at state universities; financially plundering the opposition parties and municipalities; and denying state recognition of gender transition, to name but a few examples.

None of these measures relates to the management of the pandemic. Meanwhile the regime has detected remarkably few coronavirus cases due to having one of the lowest test rates in the European Union. That is to say, Orbán is trying to manage the coronavirus crisis politically, because his aim is to consolidate power, deepen neoliberal reforms and ensure that the state of exception remains in the post-pandemic world.

Attila Antal has a PhD in Political Science and workers as an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Law Institute of Political Science, Eötvös Loránd University. He is also coordinator of the Social Theory Research Group at the Institute of Political History, and editor of Eszmélet (Consciousness) Journal.

Marx200 in Berlin: Politics - Theory - Socialism

To celebrate the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung will be hosting a large congress: a short week filled with the theories, the politics and the arts that are connected to Marx’s anniversary. The conference will be in Berlin, between 2-6, May 2018. 

The elements of the program are available from here.

The detailed program can be found here.

The title of my lecture is: 

Ecosocialism in the 21st Century from the Perspective of Eastern Europe

The draft paper is on my Academia.edu

Ecosocialism in the 21st Century from the Perspective of Eastern Europe from Antal Attila

Rosa Luxemburg and Her Ideas - Conference in Chicago

From April 27-29, the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung—New York Office will co-host a gathering of the International Rosa Luxemburg Society. The confrence title is: “Rosa Luxemburg and Her Ideas: Engaging the Left and Impacting the World. It takes place at the historic UE Hall in Chicago, Illinois.

I am having a lecture with the title:

Anti-war Theory and Activism in Permanent State of Exception

The paper is available from here (the final title has been modified a little bit).

The program is the following:

FRIDAY, APRIL 27

8:30am-9:00am  Light Breakfast

9:00am-9:30am  Welcome and Housekeeping
Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, Albert Scharenberg & Ethan Earle

9:30am-10:15am  Memorials
In Memory of William A. Pelz: Axel Fair-Schulz
In Memory of Narihiko Ito: Ottokar Luban

10:15am-10:20am  Short Break

10:20am-12:15pm  Panel 1: Reports on International Research
Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, Univ. Calcutta, India (Retired): “Evaluation of Rosa Luxemburg: An Examination of Changing Perspectives of International Scholarship”

Ma Jiahong, University of Peking, China; Post-doc Researcher at IISH, Amsterdam, Netherlands: “Review and Prospect of Chinese Study in Rosa Luxemburg”

Axel Fair-Schulz, State University of New York, Potsdam, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg and the November Revolution: Recent Trends in Historiography”

Uwe Sonnenberg, Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, Berlin, Germany: “Report: Events Organized by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung on the Centenary of the German Revolution 1918/19”

Chair: Mario Keßler

12:15pm-1:00pm  Lunch

1:00pm-2:10pm  Panel 2a: Race, Class, and Movement Building
Peter Hudis, Oakton Community College, Des Plaines, IL, USA: “Racism and the Logic of Capital: A Marxist-Humanist Assessment of the Relevance of Luxemburg’s Thought for Today’s Struggles Against Racism”

Valentine Eben, Univ. of Minnesota, USA: “A View from Indymedia Africa: What would Luxembourg Say About Today’s Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) Revolution?”

Chair: Michael Löwy

1:00pm-2:10pm  Panel 2b: The Private Rosa Luxemburg
Helen Scott, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA: “‘Like a Flash from Eternity’: Rosa Luxemburg on Literature”

Rory Castle Jones, Swansea Univ., Wales, UK: “‘All the Hidden, Bitter Tears’: Family, Identity and the Shaping of Revolutionary Red Rosa”

Chair: Helen Boak

2:10pm-2:15pm  Short Break

2:15pm-3:25pm  Panel 3: Rosa Luxemburg and Colonialism
Alyssa Adamson, Stony Brook University, NY, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg and Decolonial Political Theory”

Sandra Rein, University of Alberta, Canada: “Rosa Luxemburg on Colonialism: Why It Still Matters”

Chair: Lorraine Cohen

3:25pm-3:40pm  Coffee/Tea Break

3:40pm-6:00pm  Panel 4: Luxemburg and Other Female Socialist Thinkers
Andreas Stuhlmann, University of Alberta, Canada: “‘The Ghost of Rosa Luxemburg’: Hannah Arendt on Undogmatic Judgment, Spontaneity, and Revolution”

Eleni Varikas, Univ. Paris 8/ Saint-Denis, CNRS, France; 2018 Visiting Prof. at Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt and the Question of Plurality”

Franklin Dmitryev, Chicago, USA: “Revolutionary Intercommunication between the Ages: The “Dialogue” between Rosa Luxemburg and Raya Dunayevskaya”

Dana Mills, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK: “Going Ahead in 1893: When Eleanor Met Rosa”

Chair: Sandra Rein

6:00pm-6:05pm  Short Break

6:05pm-7:45pm  Keynote 1: The Contemporary Significance of Rosa Luxemburg’s Socialist Feminism
Drucilla Cornell, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Chair: Ankica Čakardič

SATURDAY, APRIL 28

8:30am-9:00am  Light Breakfast

9:00am-10:40am  Panel 5: Discussions on Luxemburg’s The Accumulation of Capital (1)
Inderjeet Singh, Department of Economics, Punjabi University, Patiala, India: “The Accumulation of Capital in the Era of Imperialism”

Andrew Kliman, Pace University, Pleasantville, NY, USA: “Luxemburg’s Theory of Capital Accumulation: Still Influential, but Still Wrong”

Bradley Mayer, San Leandro, California, USA: “Primitive Accumulation Inside and Out“

Chair: Ingo Schmidt

10:40am-10:45am  Short Break

10:45am-11:45am  Panel 6: Discussions on Luxemburg’s The Accumulation of Capital (2)
Lin Haochao, Wuhan University, China: “The Inevitable Rise of Opposing Individual Freedom in Modernization: Based on the Theory of the Accumulation of Capital”

Ankica Čakardič, Univ. Zagreb, Croatia: “Rosa Luxemburg and the ‘Woman Question’: From the Theory of Accumulation to Social Reproduction Theory“

Chair: Ma Jiahong

11:45am-12:00pm  Coffee/Tea Break

12:00pm-1:10pm  Keynote 2: Women in the German Revolution, 1918/19
Helen Boak, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

Chair: Alyssa Adamson

1:10pm-2:00pm  Lunch

2:00pm-4:00pm  Panel 7a: Marxist Thinking
Julia Killet, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Munich, Germany: “Rosa Luxemburg’s Advice to the Socialist Movement (Considerations by Luxemburg Biographer Paul Froelich)”

Mario Keßler, Center for Contemporary History, Potsdam, Germany: “Ossip K. Flechtheim, 1909-1998: Editor of Rosa Luxemburg’s Works and Pioneer of Research on Communism in Germany”

Zhang Meng, Wuhan University, China: “Reflection on the Relationship between Rosa Luxemburg’s Thought and Marx’s Theory”

Paul Zarembka, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA: “Luxemburg, a Stable ‘Materialized’ Composition of Capital in the U.S. and Its Implications”

Chair: Albert Scharenberg

2:00pm-4:00pm  Panel 7b: Rosa Luxemburg’s Activities in the Socialist Movement
Arunas Vysniauskas, University Vilnius, Lithuania: “Rosa Luxemburg and the Polish ‘Mosaic’ in Lithuania”

Reiner Tosttorff, Univ. Mainz, Germany: “Between Bockenheim, Hanau and Frankfurt: Rosa Luxemburg’s Rhein-Main Connections”

Ottokar Luban, Berlin, Germany: “The Spartacus Group in the German November Revolution 1918/19”

Chair: Rory Castle

4:00pm-4:10pm  Coffee/Tea Break

4:10pm-6:00pm  Panel 8: Party and Leadership
Chris Cutrone, School of the Art Institute, University of Chicago, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg and the Party”

Lorraine Cohen, LaGuardia Community College, CUNY, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg’s Theory of Leadership: An Alternative Approach”

Edward Remus, Ronald Williams Library, Northern Illinois University, Chicago: “American Bernstein, American Luxemburg: Views of the SPD’s Revisionist Dispute and Great Schism from the Socialist Party of America, 1900-1918”

Henry Holland, Hamburg, Germany: “Beyond Nationalisms: Spontaneity and Working-Class Organization in Scotland, 2012-2017 Through the Lens of Luxemburg’s Dialectic“

Chair: Kaveh Boveiri

6:00pm-6:05pm  Short Break

6:05pm-8:00pm  International Plenary: Chances for Socialist Solutions of Current World Problems?
Erek Slater, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), Chicago; Michael Löwy, Brazil; Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, India; Ankica Čakardič, Croatia; Jiahong Ma, China; & Ingo Schmidt, Canada

Chair: Peter Hudis

SUNDAY, APRIL 29

8:30am-9:00am  Light Breakfast

9:00am-10:45am  Panel 9: Luxemburg and Lukács and Gramsci: Interpretations and Evaluations
Kaveh Boveiri, Univ. Montreal, Canada: “Lukács’s Reading of Rosa Luxemburg’s Conception of Totality: A Reappraisal”

Sevgi Doğan, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Italy: “Analysis of Intellectual Movement as Political Action Through Gramsci and Luxemburg“

Daniel Egan, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA: “Rosa Luxemburg and the Mass Strike: A Corrective to Gramsci’s Critique”

Chair: Ethan Earle

10:45am-11:00am  Coffee/Tea Break

11:00am-12:45pm  Panel 10: Socialist Internationalism Versus Imperialism
Michael Löwy, Univ. Paris, France, Visiting Prof. at Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, USA – Rosa Luxemburg and Internationalism

Attila Antal, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest, Hungary – Anti-war Theory and Activism in Permanent State of Exception

Ingo Schmidt, Athabasca University, Canada: “Hilferding, Luxemburg & Lenin on Imperialism: Variations Amongst the Classic”

Chair: Bradley Mayer

12:45pm-1:00pm  Closing Words and Farewell
Peter Hudis, Ottokar Luban & Albert Scharenberg