Arbitrariness Reigns

In the fascist state, according to Poulantzas, law no longer regulates and arbitrariness reigns. Rules are not strictly ever put in place to follow – there is ‘no system’ to ‘predict its own transformations’. My question to this is, ‘is this a bad thing?’ I understand the implications of anarchism that lace that question. But that is not my intention, Anarchy would be about chaos for the most part, no? But what about on a philosophical level thinking about a state that had a fluid legal accord with its population? I am not sure that it is possible to envision – and of course not in today’s capitalist landscape – but think of the implication for human freedom on a larger scale with a limited amount of intervention but with fluid regulations. I know I am not making much sense right now, and if it is, it seems like there is no middle ground here. But perhaps there could be in an alternative system.

The problem is that we think of a situation today that is ruled by violence and strength. But one of peace and a recourse to cooperative dialog could go a long way to allowing for less rigidity towards change in a society. Strict laws, election cycles, and societal norms, do not allow for much change or alternative dialog. Check Poulantzas’ The Fascist State and the third chapter (I think) on General propositions on an exceptional state. I feel like this ‘arbitrariness’, is different from anarchy, and may open a different type of door to think through...