rule of law china style, or

in fact that is how fascism – as in state authoritarian capitalism – works?

In a recent chat someone defined “rule of law” as the ability to discuss the law – rather than laws being altered, introduced, taken, etc. based on arbitrary decisions.
I think its a rather weak definition because then the question of how to join as an equal in such discursive processes might define the arbitrariness – or otherwise – of the process. Having a discursive process, act, project or practice – does not make it in and of itself subject to development and evolutionary processes in an equal/open manner that allows free self critique which helps counter – sometimes required – arbitrary elements.. (eg western democracies and how despite voting, we get big money and the related powers to have more of a say..)

However, over in the people’s republic, it seems like arbitrary decision making is more of a culture and a process the regime is actually proud of. Hence they seem to solve the Tienanmen Sq problem – ie some people actually dare to recall – through arrests and fear spreading as and when it fits the people’s authorities..
Since china seems to be communist mainly by name only, I think perhaps its state authored and controlled capitalism, is something that could legitimately be compared with Italian fascism, where the state controlled, owned, or licensed (sort of mafia style) – projects, factories and trade..

This kind of state of affairs is one we were told capitalism can not live with. It was said that capitalism, to invest in a certain place/society, has to have an open, transparent and somehow discursive set of laws. Capitalism needed the rule of law, for proper functioning.. But this seems like a total tale. A fib. A dead parrot. A tale of convenience.

In the people’s republic – capitalism thrives with state control, repression, aggression and culture of arbitrary law.
In russia’s federation, capitalism is operating within the arbitrary decision processes of the kremlin pretty well.
In usa and allies, we have to agree for a theatre of discussion. However, when power needs a law changed or get a decree for its advantage – they need to make a non negotiable phone call. eg the idea of too big to fail institutions we have to subsidise..

One Reply

  • Since historically the drive towards critique of power, equality and openess is the kind of stuff that democratic social movements attempt – maybe not ultimately bring about, however these attempts create times when power has to take them into consideration – am thinking that rule of law, even under the weak definition, is a capitalism add-on, rather than intrinsic..

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.