That every metropolis fulfills all the criteria of a panopticon, well, that is not really saying anything new. The question becomes, which city has a higher density of surveillance technology at its disposal and how intensively is it used?
Therefore, it is obvious that Orwell’s ideas of a completely monitored society were accurate, but not in the dimension that he imagined, or the foundations for it. In particular, dictatorship is unnecessary, which for him would be an important basis of this complete surveillance, to bring it about. Complete surveillance is therefore not an expression of a specific system of capitalism, but it is inherent to its political administration and articulation, namely, the state. So it is a false dichotomy to think that complete surveillance would only be the result of a more “authoritarian” system. Such a way of thinking only feeds on the desire and ideology that the state in better hands could wear a friendly mask. We see this also in the midst of the debate about the corona virus, where leftist groups, but also anarchists, see the saber-rattling of the repression, the introduction of curfew, of quarantine, etc., as a protofascist development and do not want to understand that the state, no matter which – whether democratic or other varieties – always carries such mechanisms and powers (as a monopoly) to guarantee its survival. The political administration and the organization of the State always remains the same, only the criteria and the ideologies of the political forces in power change, this would no longer be a false dichotomy. The State has historically used all the means at its disposal to guarantee the smooth running of its business. The nation-state is therefore the logical consequence, as well as the class society, of capitalism and not the other way around.
We consider this important to say yet again because we never get tired of wanting to understand the basis of the state and capitalism in order to be able to destroy it in real terms. There are far too many foolish historical examples that show us what paths are taken when this is not clear from the beginning.
Now to the case of Mónica and Francisco
On July 24 [2020], Mónica Caballero and Francisco Solar were arrested in Chile. We have extensively dealt with their detention trial, which was broadcast live on television. This detention trial is in no way comparable to what we are familiar with in Germany or other EU countries. If we think about the fact that such a detention examination here lasts about 10 minutes, simply to clarify whether an accused person is to be remanded in custody because, for example, there is a risk of flight or a risk of collusion, this is apparently different in Chile. It is not clear to us if there is always a live broadcast on television, or if it is due to the covid measures.
Continue reading About Orwell and the case of Mónica and Francisco →
to the potential for any revolutionary hypothesis today must, sooner or later, formulate the entire set of problems with clarity, in order to be able to face them. Tracing the thread of radical and revolutionary critique back to the recent past, but also looking at the generalized uprisings and revolts of the last few years here and internationally, could enable us to take a step in this direction. Not with the intention of finding ready-made answers and especially not “solutions”, but to modestly start asking questions, without waiting for the next insurrection.
