Skip to main content

Texas, Stalinism, and The Informer Society

Rage over the new Texas abortion laws comes naturally to anyone with either a heart or a brain, let alone both.

But beyond the unspeakably cruel restrictions on reproductive rights, beyond the wanton misogyny and toxic masculinity, beyond the predictable media firestorm that turns outrage into clickbait, there is a larger issue on the table. And it’s one we can only hope is not a trend:

Texas Republicans are now openly embracing a culture of citizen-on-citizen informing. Anyone in Texas can now inform on anyone having, or even contemplating, an abortion.

Informers have been a cornerstone of totalitarian rule throughout recorded history. Dire warnings about the political use of rumor, innuendo, and slander go back at least to Aristotle.

But we need look back no further than the Soviet Union under Stalin to see it raised to an art form, an apotheosis of mass cruelty.

By the mid-1930s, Stalin had consolidated all the power of the new Communist state, and vested that power in himself. He was savage, vengeful, paranoid, and at that point completely omnipotent. He was the dictator all other dictators aspire to.

He ruled by terror, and he created a vast institutional framework for that terror — a ruthless police state that put the entire apparatus of government under the absolute rule of the Communist Party, which was itself under the absolute rule of Stalin.

A ruthless police state needs enemies to ruthlessly police, and Stalin saw enemies everywhere. He and his toadies created a vicious pipeline of informers, police, prosecutors, and judges, who would systematically re-package ordinary citizens as “political” prisoners, strip them of all dignity, and deliver them into the ravenous maw of the Soviet prison system — the gulags — where millions of them died as slave laborers in the frozen North.

The front end of the pipeline was the vast network of informers at every level of society, eleven million of them, one for every ten citizens. The informer's job was to watch for and report political heresy — any random conversation, any misspoken sentence, any mild criticism that could be construed as “anti-Soviet” — and the informer always got the benefit of the doubt. One slip of the tongue was all it took, and the secret police would come for you.

And it wasn’t just the paid informers who were feeding this pipeline. Thanks to nonstop political indoctrination from cradle to grave, the party created a social ethos that raised informing to a civic virtue. Children were trained from an early age to inform on their parents, to tell the police of any word or act that might be seen as dissatisfaction with their “worker’s paradise.”

And then there was the free-lance informing. Your neighbor, maybe, likes your apartment better than his own, so he tells the police he saw you reading an English newspaper, which isn't true but that doesn’t matter. The police are trained to accept the lie, and they haul you off to jail for interrogation, probably by torture. You confess to being an American spy and other absurdities. The prosecutors decide what you’re charged with — no evidence or witnesses required. The attorney “representing” you agrees completely with those charges, and suggests a few more of his own. The judge finds you guilty, sentences you to ten or twenty years of hard labor, and off you go to a copper mine north of the Arctic Circle, where you’re starved, beaten, robbed, and worked, very likely to death, in sub-zero temperatures.

Meanwhile, your wife gets arrested as an American spy, and the informer moves into your apartment.

The gulag pipeline served Stalin perfectly. It kept everyone in the country — from the most senior Kremlin officials to the poorest Siberian peasants — living in constant fear, eliminating from public life all possible opposition, and all opinions that were not officially approved.

At the same time, it provided an inexhaustible supply of free labor, which Stalin used, first to conduct huge mining and lumbering operations in places where hell literally froze over, and then to build a massive industrial infrastructure from scratch, mostly at gunpoint.

Now, this is not to say that a culture of informing leads directly to a totalitarian state, or to a gulag system, or to the mass enslavement of ordinary citizens. But it never leads anywhere good.

Yet this is the road Texas Republicans have decided to go down. And the echoes of Stalinism are unmistakable.

Just as the Soviet Union institutionalized forced labor, Texas Republicans look to institutionalize forced breeding, and they’ve seized the power to disrupt women’s lives in arbitrary and possibly irreparable ways.

Just as the Soviet Union gave the Communist party the power to bend government to ideological purposes, so too do Texas Republicans seek one-party rule for their own ends. Their odious abortion laws are meant to work hand-in-hand with their equally odious election subversion laws, to ensure that their Christian paradise can never be voted away.

And just as the Soviet Union created a mass culture of informing, so too are  Texas Republicans creating all the right incentives to make informing an honorable — and lucrative — profession.

As we continue to slide down this increasingly slippery slope, we need to recognize that many of the tools of authoritarianism are already in place in this country, most obviously in Texas. A complicit legislature, a reactionary court system, grotesquely gerrymandered districts, institutional corruption, officially sanctioned lying, and a segment of the population seemingly eager to inform on fellow citizens.

No, we’re not quite there yet. Even in Texas, there are still a significant number of steps between here and real Stalinism. But who among us still believes that Republicans aren’t gleefully heading in that direction?

 

Comments

  1. In 5th grade, I had a very nice English teacher, who made us diagram sentences. She said that we may hate it now, but we would thank her later. She was right about that. She happened to be from the South and one of the sentences that she made us diagram was "the South will rise again!" she may have been right about that, too. Some might like to think that the Union won the Civil War. I think it just became a cold war. Right now, the Union is losing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sad and scary. I will send this around as a reminder but unfortunately, I'm afraid it only makes it to the choir. The rest of the audience has their ear plugs firmly in place.

      Delete
  2. Yes, we are not quite there yet. It's not really close to Stalinism now in Texas than it was in, say, 1969? Was 1969 Texas, 1969 New York, or 1969 Michigan, approaching Stalinist terror, with child-bearing women and voters living in fear?

    Abortion was illegal in Texas and New York and Michigan in 1969. You grew up in that state of terror..... Not so nice, but Stalinistic?

    And voting in 1969 in New York, Michigan and Texas was probably limited to in-person during election day, and only in person (I did not research the details), perhaps with onerous provisions for absentee voting in some cases.

    While the restrictions imposed in Texas were obviously intended to curb Democratic votes, I'm not sure that it would have made any difference if imposed in 1969, for example, before mail-in voting and early voting were commonplace. But is that really Stalinistic, or just a baby step backwards?

    Look at the details: the Texas legislation forbids balloting methods that the county introduced last year to make voting easier during the pandemic, including drive-through polling places and 24-hour voting, as well as temporary voting locations.

    It also bars election officials from sending voters unsolicited absentee ballot applications and from promoting the use of vote by mail. The bill greatly empowers partisan poll watchers, creates new criminal and civil penalties for poll workers and erects new barriers for those looking to help voters who need assistance, such as with translations. It requires large Texas counties to provide livestreaming video at ballot-counting locations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here’s a thought. I wonder if this abortion of a law can possibly lead to empowering a woman to accusing the idiot who impregnated her. Of course this assumes she actually knows his name even if it was consensual or how to get in touch with him or at least to send the authorities to him. Shouldn’t she be entitled to a reward for turning him in? Of course not, because men made the laws. So men aren’t going to shame their own gender. If by some miracle that became acceptable, a woman who wants to become pregnant could make herself a pretty good pocket full of cash to jumpstart her new life with a child.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Guess Where You Can Find the Real Pedophiles

When political discourse turns to pedophilia — which it should never, ever do — it helps to separate fiction from non-fiction. The fictional narrative, widely disseminated by QAnon-addled propagandists, is that the Democratic Party is a vast conspiracy of ravenous child abusers, who just barely managed to cover up Hillary Clinton’s bloodthirsty coven in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. The non-fiction narrative — profusely-documented but with a much lower profile — is that both the priesthood of the Catholic Church and the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have indulged and protected a stunningly large number of child molesters, and allowed them to enjoy long and predatory careers within their respective churches. In the last few weeks, these two stories flew somewhat under the radar, but both are worth looking at, not so much for the staggering hypocrisy of its characters — hypocrisy fatigue has long since rendered us numb — as for its legal and political i

Sex: The Abortion Origin Story

In the next month, five ultra-Catholic ideologues, unencumbered by any rational thought process, will decide that a fetus has more rights than its mother. When that happens, the legislatures in as many as 26 states will likely enact laws, under which a pregnant woman will, in effect, be legally obligated to carry to term every fetus that takes root in her body. Whether or not she was raped by a stranger, or by her father. Whether or not she miscarries. Whether or not the baby dies in her womb. Whether or not the baby is capable of life outside her womb. Whether or not that baby’s survival is likely to kill her. The rights of her fetus will, apparently in all cases, supercede hers. And her partner’s, too. Because for every beer-soaked asshole who will now be empowered to force his battered wife to carry his baby, there will be hundreds of responsible husbands legally barred from responsibly planning a family, or from ending a family-crippling pregnancy, or from choosing the life

The New York Times Is Doing Us No Favors

I am a life-long customer of The New York Times, and generally a satisfied one. For sheer news-gathering firepower, they continue to stand out in a tarnished but still important field. They’ve covered — or uncovered — virtually every major story of the last century and a half. Their investigative prowess is unquestioned. Plus, they have Paul Krugman on their op-ed page, an invaluable source of level-headed insights on a wide range of subjects. He combines a Nobel-level knowledge of economics with an astute political eye that is almost always dead on. He alone is worth the paywall, at least to me. But with all that said, the Times has lately been pissing me off. They’ve become unreasonably invested in what Krugman himself has decried as “false equivalency” — better known as “both-siderism.” They continue to pretend that our two major parties are equally engaged in reasonable discourse, and are equally responsible for the fractious and violent state of the nation. The Times scrup