Editorial

Send us your editorial to thecollective [at] anarchistnews [dot] org

Editorial: TOTW: New Laws in the New Normal (11/5/21)

by Anonymous

We may be past the worst, or not. The economic and climate crisis are still playing out. It remains to be seen whether and (if so) how capitalism will recompose for a new wave. If there’s an upturn then there may well be some social liberalisation or attempts to imitate aspects of anarchism in a tamed form. (I say this because of the similar process with liberalism in the nineteenth century and socialism in the twentieth). Archaic and pointless laws (e.g. against drugs and sex work) might be repealed. If there isn’t an upturn then the state might survive but with reduced resources, or it might collapse. In either case the gap between what’s legal and what’s possible will grow.

States don’t always operate by laws. There’s a history of states imposing martial law or states of siege or emergency, in a range of circumstances such as wartime, colonial revolts, and social unrest. There’s a predictable pattern to what a state “emergency” looks like: arrests and detention without trial (internment), summary conviction, impunity for state forces which commit atrocities, use of curfews, night raids on private homes, etc. The result in practice is that state forces can round up everyone associated with a particular movement or cause, or on the slightest suspicion of hostile activity. Historically states either have a constitutional and legal regime with so-called “rule of law”, or they have a martial law regime. States in the South would often keep up permanent police-state regimes with measures similar to martial law. States in the North were not expected to act this way, and those in the South faced social pressures to “democratise”. But since the 1970s states have been finding ways to use martial law methods and powers while keeping up a veneer of “rule of law”/of a constitutional and legal regime.

After lockdowns I’d expect to see a lot more copying of China. Unless China collapses economically or politically, or there’s a Cold War. China is not a legal/constitutional regime. It has a passable imitation of western courts, but with no juries and politically appointed judges, and something like 99.9% conviction rate. (They still have less than a fifth as many prisoners per capita than America). They also have irregular regimes of concentration-camp detention and so-called re-education which have been used on a massive scale, first against the Falun Gong, then in Xinjiang and Tibet. This is backed by a massive surveillance state, population registry with biometrics, and extensive but targeted information management and psyops. Dissidents can’t operate openly and are forced into a constant state of anxiety. Organising something like an independent trade union, an unregistered Protestant church, or any other banned activity, involves levels of risk and secrecy similar to those which would face an armed opposition group in America or Europe. Social credit is the next step and is now intersecting with the COVID passports which are mandatory in China and by which people can suddenly be blacklisted and unable to use public transport or sometimes to get in their own building.

I would add that this works in China because there’s relatively high approval of the state and the government, because of the Maoist legacy and because China has been booming economically and increasing its power politically. The system isn’t all that effective – China has a lot of protests, strikes, riots, spree killings, armed attacks, general so-called crime – but the regime information management – which is directed outwards as well as inwards – keeps it looking effective. What we saw with lockdowns was a kind of “China envy” on behalf of western regimes, combined with populations falling for the Chinese state’s information management strategy (cover up the Chinese death toll and promote the Chinese government as a model of successful response, in contrast to the west and especially America, with the implication that Chinese authoritarianism is superior to western democracy).

In the west, the general trend over the last period has been a slow disappearance of what liberals call “rule of law”, and of political and public-opinion limits on how bad the state can get (or be seen to get). States have managed to impose de facto limited elements of martial law without visibly suspending or rescinding constitutional and legal regimes. This is done via various kinds of doublethink and interpretation – just like China keeps claiming to be socialist and democratic. For example, it’s made possible to violently raid and jail people on suspicion they’re supporters of the wrong ideology, by charging them with things like material support for terrorism, preparatory acts, conspiracy, and so on. There’s a big pattern in Europe of anarchists being charged with membership of nonexistent underground groups or generic “criminal organisations” in a way which basically comes down to people’s beliefs and who they associate with. It’s not just that there’s more laws and the punishments are more draconian. Laws are vaguer, and legal rights are not enforced if they restrict the police, prisons, etc. So in practice we’re seeing people sent to jail for having the wrong opinions, for involvement in protests, or without definite proof, we’re seeing extrajudicial executions by police, we’re seeing routine brutality and torture, we’re seeing protesters getting attacked and arrested just for being on the streets, we’re seeing a lot of paramilitary policing in a martial-law or police-state mould, but with a legal veneer where none of this is happening; or it’s happening but it’s illegal; or it’s only happening in exceptional cases; or what’s officially happening is something entirely different.

There’s always been some degree of this, states have had catch-all laws or framed people, or they’ve used emergency powers, or it’s impossible to convict police, but it’s massive now, and it’s part of the pattern of dismantling concessions made to buy-in working-class and middling groups under Fordism (in the South as well as the North – though in some parts of the South it’s piggybacking on a fairly recent transition from martial law or police-state systems). And as well as the laws there’s a quasi-legal regime of regulatory measures (such as gang ordinances, danger zones, Asbo’s) which are arbitrary and much more personalised. There’s also a whole bunch of disciplinary systems and conduct codes which aren’t part of the law, but are imposed by private actors. Sometimes they are not legal duties at all, but other times the private actors are effectively acting as unpaid police, in “compliance” with obligations imposed by the state. An actor (such as a web host or a housing provider or a bank) who isn’t deemed “in compliance” can also face serious charges. So situations arise where a private actor enforces regimes which would be illegal or unconstitutional if the state did it, while acting under threat from compliance obligations imposed by the state. Dictatorship by proxy. America in particular also tries to enforce these regimes outside its borders – getting people extradited for things like facilitation and conspiracy, or even abducting and assassinating people. So we’re dealing with an unprecedented global system of police-state measures.

Tags: 

There are 14 Comments

when co-dependent mass society is seen as the be-all/end-all of human existence and organization, nothing else ultimately could work. mass technological society - with such immensely diverse values, priorities, resources, needs, desires, etc - could not have developed without governance and institutional hierarchy, and can not survive without it (though i know many anarchists disagree). government's primary role is to maintain or increase the status quo of the system that defines its power. when there is a threat to that, the state will respond using any means necessary to maintain the social order, and hence its power. covid, climate change, activism, economic threats, imperial cock-fights, ... the specifics of response in different times/places will differ, but the underlying ideological foundation remains.

I'm anarchist and see a point of agreement and disagreement here. It all makes sense when you look at the social relationship (with this megamachine you're referring to) as one of compromise in order to survive within a worldview where, indeed, mass society is the only thing that exists. This can be extrapolated to a degree to all those people who can't see a life outside of social media. That doesn't mean people have no possibility of being anarchic outside. The diversity is not a byproduct of institutions but rather of people and their cultures slipping or permeating through those. Like if we're referring to the topic at hand here, the random people around aren't complying as much as we'd expect with the Covid politics bullshit. There's "common people" behaving far more anarchistically (and I ain't referring to the Qanon types, but really just apolitical people who dare to question things) than many of the so-called anarchists out there who fell into bed with the Covid State. Babylon gives the impression of being the only life there is (to a point of being confused for *life itself*), yet are everyone really just taking the blue pill? This is a question that never gets old, even keeps getting younger... Not everyone agrees to follow, even if their narratives may be at times problematic.

So on the last part of your comment which is the most interesting, the need to control, which on the other flip of the State's coin is only the much broader guest for power, is the only ideological foundation shared by all governing bodies around the world. The more developed state also have this biopower aspect of seeking to maintain the "life" that is society and particularly its status quo, yes.

But what I'm wondering is how can so many governments all around the world suddenly all adopt the same control programs, not merely copying each other but all acting in unison as if through under a higher authority dictating the new laws? This ain't only a given logical response to a set of conditions...some UN body and national health agencies have pushed forward a new superstructure of control. There is an agenda at play here, that may be answering to a more specific view of power.

yeah ... and that agenda is... *wait for it* a global pandemic.

what exactly are you "wondering" in your last paragraph? the covid19 controls and mandates have their many flaws but there's nothing to wonder about as to why all these different countries acted.

they didn't all "adopt the same control programs in unison". that's just not what happened at all. are you confused or deliberately lying?

i get that the above writer sounds like a nut case in the end, but you sound like an apologist.

surely the agenda was a: state power (nothing new there at all, states are fantastic opportunists), and the catalyst was the pandemic, which of course doesn't mean that every body performing state functions only wants control, some of them care about people dying...

we don't have to get weird and simplistic just because other people are!

world view. Anon above had a lot of interesting stuff to say, even though there's too much credit being given to "The Covid State" and the matrix.

I really enjoyed the editorial, poetically sumplified, we're looking at a police state without borders.

Sorry, I just skipped the last two years... Why are borders harder to cross than ever and they're asking for a damn QR code or at best a 48-hours negative PCR test for traveling by air or land to many countries, in addition to the old school passport?

So I presume you meant that the police stare knows no border for its own rule, and its upper castes too? And dunno if Lumpy's been in the same cave I been for the last two years, but I just found out the fucking rich still can travel mostly above Covid restrictions, as they got private jets and yachts... Tho someone looking at the right places might be able to hack their way on a sailboat... that, if they can get to a major port near a transoceanic sailing route.

if you want to travel without being a 1er%, you can call embassy's and figure out if work arounds are worth pursuing. I had ambitions to go to canada before all the COVID stuff, but i have since lost interest after researching the info and being overwhelmed at home.

Little boats, now this is an interesting topic! One thing i realized is that lake eerie makes going to canada illegally do-able, but i do not have the money to expend for boats so no thanks. Maybe ATR i'll take a trip down there.

Physically crossing the border clandestinely by land or sea ain't a big deal in more remote places. Custom authorities of both countries know how permeable the border is, but it's what happens to you once you cross that can be a bigger problem, as the areas around, north and south, are filled with conservative country folks with not much to talk about other than the new faces strangely popping up and many of them sure got the DHS or Immigration Canada phone number in their contacts. And yes the cops got the choppers and cruisers to go after whoever they find.

So not impossible, but scary for the right reasons. As it can be a dangerous adventure unless you know how to keep your head very low.

OMG yes, you just reminded me that my grandson has a small 6ft long inflatable dinghy with oars, but he also made a DIY V-shaped sail out of a sheet and 2 broom sticks like the Egyptians use on the Nile. Brilliant, THIS OL' ANARCHIST IS FINALLY FREEEEE!

look, i'm not really responsible for how you feel about what I said? I literally said there's many flaws and of course there are. it's been a giant clusterfuck from the jump with some countries dropping the hammer of god to the point where cops in hazmat suits were tackling people for being in a park and other countries didn't even show up for the first year. none of this is my opinion, it's just what happened, why would I be "apologizing" ..? for who? all the inept jackasses working in the various gov't of every country on earth?

i'm just some grumpy fuck on the internet with no more power than any other but the situation is what it is and i'm not indulging in magical thinking to make myself feel better, which is very fashionable lately, as you've probably noticed?

this will be a low effort post because it's highly unlikely this is a good faith discussion but sweden famously was very chill about lockdowns in the beginning. that would be one example for you. why do you need to ask randoms here instead of doing research? it's the whole damned world, look this shit up yourself.

"The diversity is not a byproduct of institutions but rather of people and their cultures slipping or permeating through those"

where the fuck does that come from? who related diversity to institutions? clearly you did, but why?

also, where do you come up with all nations "acting in unison"? nothing could be further from the truth. it does make you smell a bit like a subscriber to the "great reset" (conspiracy?) theory.

parts of your comment are lucid, parts are incoherent. at least to me.

This was only in reference to this part of the top comment:

"mass technological society - with such immensely diverse values, priorities, resources, needs, desires, etc "

Mass tech society has its institutions. Social media is one. All I'm saying is that diversity doesn't come merely from these, but is rather a byproduct of several buncha things, some that are still escaping the controls of thji mass tech society.

Now enough for commenting on comments, the editorial above is deserving more attention, I think.

Add new comment