The postmodern face of war in Hong Kong protests: how does modern technology work geopolitically?

23.12.2019
This article’s main goal is to analyze the correspondence between War and Work along their evolution in human history, tracing its similarities and then trying to understand the new modality of both practices, defending the thesis of the existence of a new type of war, a virtual one, marked by the non-visible intervention of the global potencies and by the intermittent combats against the enemies of the liberal establishment.

 Introduction

 

Work and War have accompanied humankind since its beginning. In ancient wars the main goal of both belligerent groups was to exterminate each other. The modern era inaugurates a new model of war in Europe with the Westphalia Treaties and the continental division in different Nation-States. War became a circumcised and respectful mean of solution of international controversies between two sovereign States.

However, the second stage of capitalism and the rise of the industrial potencies in Europe bring a new form of war. The belligerent activity became mortal as never before. The industrial mentality of factories went to trenches and war acquired an industrial capacity of killing and destruction. In parallel, in the factories workers became increasingly explored and coercively controlled by the policies of security. This was the era of the Total Mobilization (Junger, 2002).  

The rise of postmodernity brings a new perspective on work. We contemplate the dissolution of the old model of industrial production and police vigilance and physical coercion of the workers. Instead, there is the so-called “uberization” of work, or the rise of a new stage of capitalism in which the workers are explored and controlled by the machine. Modern technology made possible a system in which workers are not physically controlled but virtually and unconsciously - workers think they are autonomous and free when they are imprisoned by technology.

This process of “uberization” is also present at war. If the old industrial model inaugurated the total war, the new technologies inaugurated the virtualized war, or a new type of managing conflicts without the mobilization of yore. Nowadays, the world potencies make war by virtual means, financing “colorful revolutions”, “protests for (western model of) democracy” and so on. That is exactly what is occurring in Hong Kong.

I – Brief historical background

Many are the possible definitions to what is work. Different ideological and religious visions of this human activity bring diverse perspectives on this polemical question. For us, in the construction of this research, the best definition of “work” is, in simplified words, the relationship between man and nature.

This relation is modified with the rise of capitalism. Work became alienated as well as the man and its relations are objectified. Thus, there is a real mutilation of the interaction between man and nature.

The relations of work are progressively modified alongside the development of capitalism. The craft work typical of the pre-capitalist era practically disappeared with the ascension of this system of production in its second phase.

During the first stage of capitalism, with mercantilism and the ascension of the Nation-States, we witnessed the fall of the medieval society and all that it represented: the theocentric civilization and the secular and religious power of the Catholic Church.

In such moment, those reformations were required for the development of capitalism and the accumulation of capital by the unborn bourgeoisie. The forms and types of work and production change in accordance with the demands for accumulation of capital, and also the whole social structure changes.

The ascension of the mercantilist phase of capitalism proportionated the decline of the medieval feudal-theocentric society as well as the rise of the Nation-State, the great Leviathan. The European potencies, stately organized, launched themselves into the amplitude and deepness of the oceans, conquering and colonizing the “barbarian” ultramarine lands.

Although the medieval political and economic structure declined and disappeared, its remains were visible in European society until the advent of the so-called Public European Law – Jus Publicum Europaeum, with the celebration of the Westphalia Peace, which reconfigured Europe as an order of National States, in detriment of the Catholic Church and the decadent Romano-Germanic Empire.

But, in fact, capitalism is not static; instead it is dynamic, fluid and mutable. If the rise of the State was interesting for the bourgeois class to destroy the medieval theocentric ecclesiastically structured society – with privileges for the clergy -, the advent of the Industrial Revolution (XVIII Century) made the State progressively an obstacle for the interests of that same class.

The Illuminist ideas gave the bourgeoisie the secular cosmovision it necessitated at such moment. The process of secularization demonstrated itself as a continuous one; from the theocentric society into a Nation State; from the Nation State into a Legal State.

If the medieval social-political model was disinteresting for bourgeoisie because of the privileges of the clergy, neither the absolute uncontestable power of the Monarchic Sovereign could attend such interests in an age of capitalist development, industrial production and necessity of work and consumption market.

This industrial phase of capitalism developed this system and changed the whole European society until the shameful advent of the World War that reconfigured the world, not continentally, instead, as a globe, destroying the European civilizational epicenter and rising the United States as the greatest world potency.

It is curious to note that the Industrial Revolution was the first moment in human history since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution in which humanity has changed totally its form to produce means of survival. With the Mesopotamian advent of agriculture (circa 10.000 B.C.), the human groups acquired the possibility of producing more than the strictly necessary for the consumption and storing the surpluses for the adverse times, as well as the necessity to create armies and ancient forms of State and institutional structures to protect the production.

The Industrial Revolution gave men the enormous capacity to product much more than the strictly necessary and also to store and sealing it for the peoples from non-industrialized regions. At that moment, work and the whole society acquired together the “factory logics”. The systems of controlling and vigilance became strictly connected with industrial model of production. It coincides not incidentally with the advent of the prison system of punish and disciple that was masterly worked by the French philosopher Michel Foucault.

The logics of control and discipline changed just with the obsolescence of the industrial capitalist system. The rise of the process of financialization in the XX Century proportionated a big change in the way of work. As while the factories converted from the center of the economic system into a small part of it, the work in them also became devalued and unprofitable for the elites. The conquests of the working class along her history, as the labor rights, the unionization and the capacity of mobilizing people’s violence to require them became then progressively obsolete.

The rise of the neoliberal model represents the apogee of this third phase of capitalism. It means the disappearance of the stable jobs legally regulated and defended by a Welfare State that guaranteed a healthy system of consumption since the post-29 Crisis reforms, which culminated in the substitution of the old Proletarian class – base of the capitalist system – by the unborn precariat, the new class of the global slavery, characterized by informal jobs, intermittent work and the absence of labor rights and guaranties.

The great advent of this process of deterioration of work conditions is the recent phenomenon of uberization, which, not referring strictly to the homonymous corporation of transport “by applicative”, represents a whole tendency in new forms of work, marked by intermittence and alienation of the employee from its employer and corporation hierarchy as well as from the working identity and legally determined labor rights.

II – The question of War

The greatest German jurist, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), wrote, in the first years of the post-war era, his book Der Nomos der Erde (2005), in which he traced the history of international law and international society, dividing it according to the concept of Nomos.

This Greek word refers to the daemon of “law”. It means, in schmittian terms, the law or the rule of the Earth. For Schmitt, the Earth has passed in her history by three Nomoi, in such a line in which the first Nomos was that of the Ancient Times and the Middle Ages; the second, the correspondent to the Westphalia order and; finally, the current Nomos, characterized by the legal universalism.

During the first Nomos times, civilizations were practically uncommunicable, being the contact between each other always made through the war of extermination – that type of conflict with the objective of total annihilation of the enemy.

The period of the European Middle Ages was marked by the legal horizontality and pulverization among many different institutions under the central dominion of the Catholic Church. The European community was organized under the secular and spiritual domain of the Roman Pope. Schmitt called this community Respublica Christiana.

Outside the Respublica Christiana there was the barbarian world, that one of the infidels and heretics – and against them the Pope could determine the war of extermination. This was the era of the religious wars.

The ascension of the States changed completely the medieval society. The continuous process of secularization and the loss of political power by the Church and the Roman-Germanic Empire with the propagation of the protestant communities and the State armies caused the retraction of the Pope’s temporal authority.

These circumstances became clearer with the fuse of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that reorganized the European order into an order of Nation States, secularly constituted. These States were sovereign and recognized the sovereignty of each other, dismantling the ancient idea of spiritual community.

The practice of war in Europe acquired a new aspect. It was not an act of extermination destined to the barbarians and heretics anymore, but a sovereign and limited form of solution of conflicts. Sovereign States, recognizing their sovereignty, could decide sovereignly to start a war. This war became that described by the Prussian genius, Carl von Clausewitz in his famous treat On War. This model of conflict established a limited type of clash and a strict obedience to an immaterial chivalrous code.  There were demarked differences between front and rear, military and civil people and the parts of the national production destined to the war or to the internal population.

The rule of the Westphalian order persisted until the advent of the new technologies and the necessity of capitalism to expand its horizons beyond the limits of the Nation States. The advance of technology proportionated the development of new forms of making war and the rise of the industrial capacity of killing. As a result of this process, in the XX Century we witnessed the phenomenon of the Total War (der Totale Krieg), which dismantled the European order of the Nation States and raised the universal order commanded by the Unites States of America.

It is important to note that the Westphalian order was based on a spatial and terrestrial (telluric) principle of acquisition, division and ruling of the land. This principle created a legal order on a determined space, outside which the norms were not valid. That is why outside Europe, i.e., in the colonized lands, the limits of war and States were meaningless.

This telluric principle was totally eradicated from the legal world order with the intervention of the United States at the First World War. An alien potency intervened in a continental war, won it and became the most empowered nation on Earth with the complete destruction of the European countries.

Total War was the central point of transition from the Westphalian world – the second Nomos – to the universal order - the third and current Nomos. This new order is not spatially demarked, but discontinuous and universal, or, in other terms, a maritime and thalassocratic order, without any spatial physical delimitations.

Carl Schmitt wrote his referenced book in the last century speculating about the possibilities of this new world order. For him, the universalization could be dangerous in the sense to become the international politics into international power of police. Since the moment that one single State domains the whole world, there is no political relation and the international order acquires the logics of a Nation State.
The western world – under the US -, having dominated the whole world, can dictate its universal norms. The ones who go against these norms become international enemies of the world order – become unhuman. And against them it is legitimate to promote the total war. Thus, Schmitt notes how the legal universalism resurrects the concept of justum bellum, which is nothing more than war of extermination. If in the Westphalian world war was a legal practice between sovereign entities, being limited by the jus in bello, in the universal order, war becomes a crime (jus contra bellum) – as well as, currently, “peace”, i.e., the Pax Americana, is the new international greatest value. So, the ones against whom the war is waged are international criminals.

This new reality can be perfectly visualized in the recent innovation in international law of the appearance of the so-called “humanitarian interventions” that are specific cases in which war becomes “legal” in international law against the ones who are outside the global legal order. These interventions are purely cases of total war waged against the enemies of the universal status quo.

II – Neoliberalism, uberization and new forms of work and war

The phenomenon of neoliberalization of economy, originated from the 70’s, is a global tendency, advanced with the victory of the American ideology in the Cold War. This tendency represents some characteristics of the old classical liberal thought but in a larger scale and shows a staunch opposition to the Welfare State and the policies of State intervention at all.

Neoliberalism becomes stronger accompanying the progress of technology and its effects in work, global economy and capitalist system that is experiencing its new financial phase, creating a complex of artificial money by speculative schemes.

As exposed in the first part of this article, the transition from the industrial capitalism to the financial one is the central mark of our era and has produced a new social extract, the precariat that refers to the workers victimized by the obsolescence of the factory scheme of production and the consequent dismantle of the old system of jobs and the flexibilization of labor rights.

There is no security in jobs anymore. The workers are not internalized by their corporations and the so-called “internal labour markets” are deconstructed in favor of the continuous process of alienation of the employee from his employer.

Stone (2006) explains:

In the twentieth century, most large corporations organized their workforces into what have been termed “internal labour markets.” In internal labour markets, jobs were arranged into hierarchical ladders and each job provided the training for the job on the next rung up. Employers who used internal labour markets hired only at the entry level, and then used internal promotion to fill all the higher rungs.
Employers wanted employees to stay a long time, so they gave them an implicit promise of long-term employment and of orderly and predictable patterns of promotion. Consistent with internal labour market job structures, employers structured pay and benefit systems so that wages and benefits rose as length of service increased. Recently, employers have dismantled their internal labour market job structures and abandoned the implicit promises that went along with them. They now create new types of employment relationships that do not depend upon, or encourage, longevity. This gives employers flexibility to cross-utilize employees. It also allows for quick adjustments in production methods as firms confront increasingly competitive product markets. Work has thus become contingent, not only in the sense that it is formally defined as short-term or episodic, but also in the sense that the attachment between the firm and the worker has been loosened. The “recasualization of work” has reportedly become a fact of life all along the employment spectrum, from blue-collar workers to high-end professionals and managers.

The most recent tendency in this process, deflagrated with the advent of the transport by applicative corporations, reveals the cruelest face of labor market dismantle and flexibilization. With this advent, flexibilization is raised to an unimaginable degree of collective insecurity. Factory logic is replaced by the phenomenon of uberization, which extinguishes coercive police control (inside and outside factories) and imposes on workers an invisible - and a thousand times more efficient - control: the machine control.

The worker goes from being an employee to being a number. He no longer submits himself to direct control by physical coercion, but really believes that he is free, autonomous, and engaged in an "enterprise" when in fact it is controlled by the machine and guided according to his invisible employer’ interests.

In Fleming’s words (2017):

Hence one of the more unexpected outcomes of radical responsibilization. We are told that human capitalists are ‘free agents’, alone determining how and when they work. But much of the evidence suggests that these workers are micro-managed, monitored and directly supervised more now than ever. The observation is missed by celebrants and critics alike, who emphasize self-management and self-regulation, albeit insecure, precarious and stressful. Even hardened critics of new capitalism like Andre Gorz (2010) wrongly assume that old fashion managerialism tends to disappear with the advent of individualized, market-based employment practices. People are assumed to manage themselves, anxiously micro-managing their lives from project to project. But here is the rub. Disenfranchised human capitalists are certainly on their own when it comes to absorbing the risks and costs of economic insecurity. But this does not mean they are left alone. Just the opposite. Authoritarianism is now a definitive aspect of this approach to labour relations, even in the relatively well-paid corporate sector, as the shocking expose of white-collar employment at Amazon recently revealed (Kantor & Streitfeld, 2015). Perhaps it is here that the promise of full autonomy pledged in the name of human capital is truly betrayed. In their extensive study of organizational-level employment practices, Kleinknecht, Kwee, and Budyanto (2016) found that deregulated labour markets tend to have ‘thicker’ and more ridged management structures than normal workplaces: ‘organisations employing high shares of flexible workers have higher shares of managers in their personnel. We argue that flexibility in labour markets (i.e. easier firing and higher labour turnover) damages trust, loyalty and commitment. This requires more management and control’ (Kleinknecht et al., 2016, p. 1137). The management function – especially its policing aspect – returns with vengeance given the unhappiness that radical responsibilization fosters in the workforce, a trend predicted back in the mid-1990s by more prescient economic commentators (e.g., Gordon, 1996). Blend this hyper-distrust with technological surveillance and then some really worrying work patterns emerge, even in relatively skilled and secure occupations. For example, in January 2016 journalists at a well-known London newspaper were suddenly ordered to wear heat/motion sensors that monitored whether they were at their desks (Waterson, 2016). The initiative was introduced without notice. Employees simply found the devices at their work stations on Monday morning and Googled the brand name to identify what they were. An edict was later issued by senior management. The monitors must be worn at all times during work hours. For many it did not make sense. Journalism does not operate this way. It flourishes when workers can rove from their desk, not when needlessly tied to it. But perhaps the issue was no longer about productivity. Management distrust had clearly become self-defeating. Superiors were willing to risk obstructing the very labour process they ostensibly sought to optimize rather than lose control. This is how the insecurity caused by radical responsibilization can fuel a vicious cycle. More disgruntlement leads to even more intrusive controls and so on.

It is the most efficient system for capitalism in its contemporary phase. There is no longer an agglomeration of workers for hours inside a factory, so there is no longer a workers' identity and collective force capable of handling mass violence and driving social change. Everything is pulverized and virtually controlled.

n the postmodern liberal era, we can see how the old socialist thinkers were wrong on the possibility to free man from exploration through technological development. Instead, technology has raised a new and more coercive way to explore and control man in favor of capitalist interests.

III – The uberization of War

As we exposed, the evolution of capitalism is the evolution of its forms of production and is consequently accompanied by the progress of the mechanisms to vigil, control and defend (vigilance, penal system and war).

The rise of postmodernity, with its economic system par excellence, neoliberalism, represented the dismantle of the old internal labor market, disappearing the labourist structures of requiring rights and, above all, the secure jobs to the advantage of the intermittent unsafe work.

But, another perspective is required to analyze this phenomenon, especially on the matters of war as it is currently practiced.

Briefly remembering some approaches, the primitive human groups lived by the fruits of the collection of natural means, fighting constantly each other for the group’s individual benefit; the Agricultural Revolution proportionated the victory of man over nature, producing means in relative abundance, creating the State and Army to protect production; the agricultural model survived until the advent of the mercantilist capitalism, the old primitive form of capitalist production; finally, we contemplated the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the factory as a model of work and society.

Each phase of this development had its own typical form of war. Until the Westphalian World, war was a practice of extermination, since the ancient primitive pre-agricultural human groups until the medieval religious wars. After the Treaties that established the Jus Publicum Europaeum, war became delimited, circumscribed and aristocratic. Then, the factories inaugurated the industrial form of war and killing – the Total Mobilization of Ernst Junger, which is a phenomenon of both, factory and front -, annihilating the Westphalian order and raising the universal legal thought. So, this system created a new international legal order which is characterized by the complete domain of the “winners”, the great world potencies, especially the US, which rules the whole world with its own norms and values, in such a way that determine who is and who is not human itself – “human” is basically everyone one who obeys the western ideology of the individual universal rights and “unhuman” are the those outside the norms, against whom there is only one possible dialogue: total war.

Though, we have some interesting aspects to note, especially since the victory of liberalism in the Cold War. War, as we understand this term traditionally, is a phenomenon in extinction. But this extinction does not mean pacification, instead, it means the rise of new forms of war.

Legally speaking, war is the armed conflict between two or more sovereign States. Few are these experiences since the end of the Cold War, although very tragic and lamentable the ones that occurred. But, geopolitically speaking, the definition of war is larger and the experiences all around the world are much more, especially after the World Trade Center’s attacks in 2001.

The War on Terror inaugurated the global asymmetric intermittent conflict against an invisible and undetermined enemy that is literally everywhere all the time. Against these enemies there is the global total war. But this total force is undefined territorially and temporally, creating a global atmosphere of fear, insecurity and uneasiness.

As while the enemy at this war is an invisible entity, everyone can be classified as such. That is why the War on Terror, since its inception, was a global war against the enemies of the globalist order. This war could not be made with the traditional means of the armed conflicts just because it would mean a global total war and the complete destruction of the world.

So, there were developed mechanisms to contain the “world’s-enemies” and maintain peace around the globe. It was possible just because of the advancement of technology, which proportionated new and better forms of control and vigil. These new forms are born from necessity of controlling the world from the possible threats to the global establishment. If it is impossible to guarantee a global military domain physically, modern technology proportionates this possibility by remote and immaterial means.

Nowadays, we contemplate the progress of disintegration of the traditional concept of war and military occupation in parallel with the success of a new tendency, in which the whole world in controlled and remotely monitored by the Western potencies – or the US – without the necessity of military physical intervention in most cases.

I call this process a true “uberization” of war, just because it reminds, geopolitically, the phenomenon of “uberization” in work: the alienation of worker from their own labor conditions and their control and vigilance by the most efficient and oppressive mean: the machine. In the same sense, entire nations became controlled and are constantly attacked when go in contrast with the interests of the global financial oligarch and still thinking they have control on the situation in their countries and that they are sovereign and free, corroborating the dangerous legal international fiction.

This is the central analysis of this article that we begin now.

3.1 – Negative Essay

We claimed here the existence of a process of uberization of war. Let us see what this process is, firstly analyzing what it is not.
Uberization of war is not:

  • Hybrid Warfare: this term, popularized by the brilliant American political analyst Andrew Korybko is undoubtable a very interesting concept, but it became vulgarized by the liberal leftist political sectors and in its theoretical content does not correspond with the concept proposed here. Summarily, Hybrid Warfare is correspondent to the occasion of intercourse between conventional military and unconventional – non-military organization and cyberattacks – forms of war waged by the US imperialist program against the tendencies to build a multipolar world. This is not uberization of war;
  • Outsourced War: This concept belong to the phenomenon of outsouring national military competencies to private corporations in profitable benefits of the State and its establishment. This is not uberization of war;
  • Asymmetric warfare: this concept belongs to those armed conflicts with evident asymmetry of force and military capacity between the belligerent parts. It became famous and was propagated after the declaration of the War on Terror. This is not uberization of war;
  • Total war in its traditional concept: Undoubtable, total war did not disappear from geopolitical scenario, but it has acquired new forms that do not correspond with its ancient theory and praxis. Postmodern war, although employs total force against the enemies, is not spatially, temporally and personally determined anymore. There is no such thing as a correspondence between the total war from the first half of the XX Century and currently geopolitical kind of war.

3.2 – Positive Essay

Having accorded what uberization of war is not, let us see it really is – according with the partial results of this unborn research.
Uberization of war is:

  • A practical mechanism of world control: Uberizating war was the best way found by the US and Western potencies to control the whole world and establish its unipolar domain;
  • A postmodern version of colonization and military occupation: Through military pulverized and invisible domination, the world potencies exercise their power over the geopolitical south – the old colonized world, without physical wear and financial costs of yore;
  • Total war in a new meaning: Total war still exists. But it has acquired new forms and practices. Nowadays, total war and mobilization of forces is managed against the enemies of the international order in an intermittent and unfinishable conflict to preserve the status quo through the total elimination of its enemies;
  • A geopolitical consequence of technological advancement and evolution of work: the new capitalist logics, with financial capitalism and neoliberal as ideological ascension has consequences not only in work and capitalist production, instead, it has an international and geopolitical dimension that is the acquisition of control over the whole world through technological means that permit that controlled and attacked nations do not comprehend themselves as such.

  Summarily, uberization of work is the currently praxis of control, vigil and rule of the world by the globalist establishment through unclear mechanisms proportionated by the advanced technology.  In another sense, this is the geopolitical expression of the technical progress in capitalism and of the new kind of work.

IV – Hong Kong’s case

Being clear what we are proposing with the term “uberization of war”, finally, we entry the question of Hong Kong protests.

Recently, a lot of episodes all around the globe denounce the obsolescence of the old conventional war. The western globalist establishment controls its dominion by cheap and un-exhausting means through advanced technology that allows sparser military actions and, especially, unclear and imperceptible ones, creating the illusion of sovereignty in the Nation States and avoiding the possibility of incisive responses.

 In most cases, these actions assume, at least firstly, the obscure form of political conspiracy, moving the points to the construction of radical changes – in favor of the globalist oligarchy – that are identified as such just at points of irreversible situation.

  The examples are multiple, especially the so-called Arabic Spring, the Euromaidan in Ukraine, the political situations of Venezuela and Bolivia and, finally, the most important case for our work: the unborn crisis in Hong Kong.

  Hong Kong protests started in March 2019 as a supposed popular reaction to the new Extradition Bill. The main fear of the so-called “democratic” organization involved with the protests was the possibility of easier extradition of fugitives to China, which could be interpreted as a violation against Hong Kong’s “autonomy”.

  The great question to be analyzed, though, is that the respective bill was suspended in June, being the government available to conciliate the popular claims and really interested in social pacification and harmonization.

  But the protests did not stop, and, actually, became more violent and ambitious in its claims, converting into an indistinct anti-government and anti-Chinese reaction, requiring “democratic” reforms and causing a true social unfruitful destabilization in favor of western strange interests.

  To separate Hong Kong from China is a strategic objective of the West in the currently geopolitical scene. The reasons are known and simple: China is a key-point for the construction of a multipolar world – the greatest fear of the American-western liberal hegemony. 

   The inconvenient truth behind protests’ flag “to liberate” Hong Kong is to take Hong Kong from China in favor of building a “zombie-State”, weak and incapable of maintaining sovereignty in the context of a world characterized by western interventionism and absence of self-determination.

  It is not an ideological flag to reminder that Hong Kong belongs to China and that China is a democracy – not a western model of, though -, and, in such sense, every movement raised to implement the liberal way of democracy is a subversive one and attends to the interests of the global hegemonic establishment.

  It is a practical simple and meaningful example of the thesis proposed here: China is being attacked by international adversaries through postmodern war means. If there is a process of uberization of war, as suggested here, it is evident in Hong Kong, when meaningless flags are raised by liberal-democratic pro-West groups interested in defeating Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong in favor of strange agents.

Conclusions

Capitalism is not productive anymore. Money is not real. Coercion of workers is not physical. Work itself is virtual and almost unreal. In the age of electronic money, e-commerce, drones, financial capitalism and Uberization of work, the whole of society has changed and became the postmodern current organization.

The changings are also clear in war, defense and geopolitics. There is no reason to mobilize thousands of soldiers and materials when it is easier and more lucrative to occultly finance, support and manage local protests, militias, financial blockages and terrorist attacks. 
In long-term, this postmodern war kills more and causes more damages than the old model of total war, and does it invisibly. We have reached the event that Carl Schmitt (2005) called the Weltburgerkrieg, the Global Civil War, in a system in which the western potencies provoke and manage a world war against every country or organization that raises any type of opposition to the liberal western hegemony.
The West did not physically invade Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela, instead has managed Euromaidan, Arab Spring and the Venezuelan opposition.

China, being a non-liberal and non-western world potency, represents a risk to the American global hegemony. China is the living proof that it is possible to raise a just and developed political-economic system alternative to liberalism and western model of democracy. For this reason, West is managing a virtual war against China and the Hong Kong violent protests are an evidence of that.

To recognize this new reality of the international system is an important step for China and for all developing non-western countries. It means that China and countries passing the same situation can act incisively against these forms of mobilization, respecting the norms of International Humanitarian Law.

As conclusion of this work, we contemplate a process that we can call an “uberization of war”, or virtualization of the armed conflicts and the military occupation. This term cannot be confused with other similar, as Hybrid or Asymmetric Warfare. The uberization of war is currently practice of virtualized warfare, military control and domination of the world through technological means. And the Hong Kong protests, requiring western interests in China, are one of the greatest evidence of this type of war.
This research has only just begun. The thesis proposed here is innovative and without correspondences or precedents in international academy. This article was an initial step in the investigation of uberization of war.

References:

ANTUNES, Ricardo. "Trabalho e Estranhamento". In: Adeus ao Trabalho? Ensaio sobre as Metamorfoses e a Centralidade do Mundo do Trabalho. São Paulo: Cortez, (4ª ed.), 1997.
DE BENOIST, Alain. Beyond Human Rights. Defending Freedoms. Arktos. 1 ed. 2011.
DE OLIVEIRA, Ana Maria Soares. Relação Homem-Natureza no modo de produção capitalista. REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA DE GEOGRAFÍA Y CIENCIAS SOCIALES
Universidad de Barcelona. ISSN: 1138-9788. Depósito Legal: B. 21.741-98
Vol. VI, núm. 119 (18), 1 de agosto de 2002.

DUGIN, Alexandr. A Quarta Teoria Política. Editora Austral: Curitiba-PR, 2012.

FAYSHAL, Wan. The Rise of the Precariat. In: https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/rise-precariat.
FLEMING, P. (2017). The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization. Organization Studies, 38(5), 691–709.
FOUCALT, Michel. Vigiar e punir - Nascimento da prisão. 24. Ed.. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2001.

Guerra, S., & Almeida, L. (2019). GUERRA TOTAL E A ORDEM JURIDICA INTERNACIONAL. Revista Direito Em Debate, 28(51), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.21527/2176-6622.2019.51.153-164.

HEGEL, G. W. F.. Filosofia do Direito. Lisboa, Guimarães Editora, 1992.
HUFFINGTON POST (Arnaud Touati & Harry Allouche). Uber: le parfait esclavagiste modern? In: <http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/arnaud-touati/greve- -uber-economie_a_21650772/>, 10/01/2017.
JUNGER, Ernst. A mobilização total. Nat. hum., São Paulo, v. 4, n. 1, jun. 2002.
MARX, K. O Capital. V.L., Rio de Janeiro, DIFEL, 1982.
SCHMITT, Carl. El Nomos de la Tierra en el Derecho de Gentes del “Jus Publicum Europaeum”. Struhart &amp;amp;Cia. Buenos Aires. 2005.

____________Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung. 4ª ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2001.

__________ The Concept of the Political. Expanded Edition (1932), trans. by G. Schwab, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

STANDING, Guy. The Precariat and Class Struggle, RCCS Annual Review [Online], 7 | 2015, Online since 01 October 2015, connection on 30 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rccsar/585 ; DOI : 10.4000/rccsar.585.FONTES, Virgínia. Capitalismo em tempos de UBERização: do emprego ao trabalho. Marx e o Marxismo - Revista do NIEP-Marx, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 8, p. p. 45-67, jul. 2017. ISSN 2318-9657.
STONE, Katherine V.W Flexibilization, Globalization, and Privatization: Three Challenges to Labor Rights in Our Time. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol 44. N.1. 2006.
___________., From Widgets to Digits: Employment Regulation for the Changing Workplace. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
United Nations Charter, 1945. In: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf.
VON CLAUSEWITZ, Carl. On War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.