marjaerwin | Entries tagged with political theory

Lately I've been thinking about American politics in terms of a 3-way fight: the left, the ruling class, and the right.

At the height of the counter-globalization movement, this was a clash between (a) the left and (b) the ruling class, while the issues divided the right.

The war led to a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the right and (b) the ruling class with the larger part of the right.

And the rise of the immigrant rights movement required a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the ruling class and (b) the right with the larger part of the ruling class.

That explains the rough break-ups of 2007-2008. The right complains that anarchists turned globalist-- most of us already were!-- while we complain that so many self-described libertarians turned *Nazi*-- some of them probably already were.

The ruling class obviously has the most killing power, followed by the right.

The ruling class retreated from the Washington Consensus during classes with the left in the post-Seattle era. Each side had very different strengths, but overall, they didn't have an overwhelming advantage. They are allying with the right and enabling fascist coups in the Gwot era. e.g. Bolivia, with the massacres now.

The right can't get anywhere without the ruling class. In a shooting war, they tend to have the advantage over the left, but in ideological and culture wars they have been losing ground for centuries. Nationalism was their last big thing, and it's been losing ground since the First World War.

The left-- we're obviously at a disadvantage compared to the ruling class + right combination. In shooting wars, we're still at a massive disadvantage, not least because we don't want to see people die and the world burn. In culture wars, our worst defeats are at each other's hands.

e.g. prohibition, including drug prohibition.

In response to http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/08/six-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-capitalism/ and cross-posted from tumblr.

Amorality – increase of individual and corporate wealth is the only core principle of capitalism. Recognition of any social concern or relationship to the natural world that transcends the goal of increasing capital accumulation is extrinsic to the system.
Dependence on growth – capitalism relies on limitless growth, but the natural resources essential to wealth production are finite. Super-exploitation is exhausting those resources and destroying the ecosystems of which they are a part, jeopardizing human survival as well as that of other species.
Propensity to war – since the only goal is to accumulate rather than distribute wealth, resources that produce wealth must be controlled; therefore war is inevitable.
Intrinsic inequity – without any constraining outside force or internalized principle of social equity, capital accumulation leads almost exclusively to more accumulation, and capital is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Anti-democratic – democracies are corruptible: wealth can purchase most of the representation it needs to get the laws necessary for further accumulation and concentration of wealth. This means that as the concentration of wealth increases, democracy is degraded and ultimately destroyed.
Unproductive of real happiness – human happiness and wellbeing are demonstrably tied to other factors besides capital accumulation. Extreme poverty is clearly unproductive of happiness, but so is wealth, past a relatively modest level. Happiness is most widespread where there are guarantees that basic needs will be met for all, wealth is more equitably distributed, and bonds between people and the natural environment are still stronger than the desire to accumulate wealth.

Interesting but problematic. Amorality seems to criticize the capitalist system for lacking any goal. Propensity for war criticizes it for having the goal of concentrating capital, and control, in as few hands as possible.

If we consider it in the abstract, actually-existing capitalism does concentrate wealth, and does tend to punish a lot of constructive action while rewarding a lot of destructive action. It does seem to reward ecocide.

If we consider it in context, those who have economic power tend to be those who have political power tend to be those who have economic power. And they shape the markets to protect their interests and expand their power, subsidizing the arms industry, creating the intellectual property [as in robbery] industry, and so on. Add in class insularity, and those who have power share the concerns and respect the opinions of others who have power, and can’t understand the concerns and actively disrespect the opinions of the rest of us. And everything gets filtered.

I don’t know what forms of economic organization are best at promoting human happiness and protecting the environment. I do know that concentrations of economic/political power/wealth are absolutely destructive of these ends.

http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/anarchy-is-for-losers/

Every ruling class creates an underclass and then scorns that underclass, robs that underclass, creates bs moral panics about that underclass, and drives more people into that underclass. Most revolutions have only seen some re-arrangements among the ruling classes and the highest subordinate classes. But if the current ruling class continues to undermine its subordinate classes and rive more and more into the underclass, I think it contains the potential not only for the destruction of the ruling class but of the entire class system.

After that, we don’t have to live in fear.

So on the Guardian, another commenter has suggested that fascism acquired its rationales for political violence from anarchism, here and in later posts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/04/wagner-family-bayreuth-festival?commentpage=2#comment-17505091

The extremes of fascist political violence included wars, police states, and genocide. How many wars have anarchists started? None. How many police states have anarchists run? None. How many genocides have anarchists conducted? None.

The acceptance of wars, police states, violence against the poor, and violence against minorities is hardly unique to fascism. It's the systematic, deliberate, industrialized genocide which is unique to fascism. But the closest parallels are with other right-wing political ideologies, such as other forms of nationalism and other forms of racism.

But wars, and violence against the poor, and violence against minorities are too often taken for granted, and accepted, if not embraced, by almost every non-anarchist political ideology. They aren't seen as political violence. As long as it's the powerful killing the powerless, it's invisible, unless it reaches the extremes of war and genocide. Only when it's the powerless hurting the powerful is it visible as violence.

If someone dies from preventable disease, it's not considered violence. If policies force her into unemployment and/or poverty, it's not considered violence. If policies price medical care out of her reach, it's not considered violence.

If someone is killed crossing the street, it's not considered violence. If road maintenance ignores pedestrian safety it's not considered violence.

If someone is bullied to death, it's only recently recognized as violence.

If a head of state is assassinated, it's immediately recognized as violence, and usually blamed on anarchists. I've read other essays claiming that the assassinations of Alexander Romanov, William McKinley, and Franz Ferdinand were by anarchists, but the first was by a Narodnik, the second is disputed, and the third was by a nationalist. May as well mention the assassination of Frank Steunenburg, by union-busters who tried to frame union organizers who were sympathetic to anarchism.

Of course, it's often impossible to conceal the violence of war and genocide, except against the smallest minorities.

American Centrists, Fascists, and other authoritarians are calling for the murder of Breanna Manning, preferably without trial, and of many of her supporters.

One commented that:

"Well, as far as I am concerned you can disagree all you want to. However, it sounds like you agree with his [sic] treasonous [sic] conduct. Therefore I can only conclude that both of you should be shot out of hand."

EDIT: another just told me that:

"you are so right ,americans do have hatred for traitors like you. it only makes sense. to think that the government should have no secrets and everyone have access to all infomation is absurd.your arguments about government is also absurd. dont you ever think about the ramifications of what you write about?"

Many others have expressed similar attitudes.

But where other authoritarian nationalist movements are wrong because they start from bad premises, the American Centrists are wrong because they start from good premises and then ignore them.

The American government claims legitimacy based on the supposed 'consent of the governed.' But consent requires equality. As long as the government keeps secrets from the governed and has power over the governed, it does not have consent, and does not have legitimacy.

The American Centrists grant the government legitimacy based on the supposed 'consent of the governed.' Then they grant the American government unlimited secrecy and unlimited power because of its 'legitimacy,' though they may criticize other governments because of their lack of 'legitimacy.' The American Centrists insist, in particular, that the American government has an inherent right to keep secrets and the people, not the American people, and not the whole world's people, could possibly have a right to know what the American government is up to. The American Centrists have detached 'legitimacy' from its supposed grounding in consent and now use 'legitimacy' to support secrecy which makes consent impossible. They have liquified the ground they were standing on and are now sinking into.

So they attack Breanna Manning for sharing the secrets of the war machine. If she did what she is accused of, she is one of the outstanding heroes of our time.

But let's get to the accusations of treason:

First off, there's the legal definition, which requires the claim that the public is an enemy.

Second, there's the political definition, that of acting against a legitimate government. [I don't believe there are any]. But if the government keeps secrets from the public, it cannot have consent, and therefore cannot have legitimacy, and it is incoherent to claim 'treason' when someone reveals its secrets to the public.

Third, there is the religious definition, which refers to oath-breaking. Warrior bands dedicated to war gods such as Woþins/Woden/Odin or Mars/Mamers required oaths as part of their initiation. Each warrior would declare absolute loyalty to the other warriors. This helped separate the warriors from the civilian society and helped make the warrior bands into effective mercenaries, plunderers, and slave-raiders. The practice of oath-keeping has, I think, done little good and monstrous harm throughout history.

And when I see all these knee-jerk accusations of treason and calls for murder, I remember how, because of my opposition to war, I've been called anti-American, attacked, severely beaten, and I've gotten death threats. There is a very deep pit of hatred in this land.