marjaerwin

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.

If your political position consists of:

1. Hating people.

2. Encouraging state violence against them.

3. Spouting dehumanizing language against them, (e.g. “illegals,” “mtcfs,” etc.)

4. Spouting complete gibberish which undermines any discussion, (e.g. “every country has a right to restrict immigration,” when the whole point of rights is to put actual people’s freedoms beyond state interference and political bull.)

You shouldn’t expect people to try to refute your nonsense. You should expect people to try to organize against your threat.

You could ask them to imagine having innocent things to hide, such as being trans or lesbian or bi or gay and having to hide this from homophobic parents and/or bosses, or being a survivor and having to hide this from anyone who might be a compulsive victim-blamer, or being an activist [though all too many people think concern for humanity is treachery to any given country].

Red November, black November, bleak November, black or red,

Hallowed month of labor’s martyrs, labor’s heroes, labor’s dead.

Labor’s wrath and hope and sorrow, red the promise, black the threat.

Who are we not to remember? Who are we to dare forget?

Red and black the colors blended, red and black the pledge we made:

Black until the fight is ended, red until the debt is paid!

August Spies and Albert Parsons, with Joe Hill and all the rest.

Who are we not to remember? Who are we to dare forget?

Red the flag and black the mask, red our hearts that beat as one,

Spur us to this better task, as the rays of the fall sun.

Red November, black November, red the promise, black the threat.

Who are we not to remember? Who are we to dare forget?

- Ralph Chaplin

George Engel, Adolf Fischer, Albert Parsons, and August Spies were murdered by the American state on November 11th, 1887. Joe Hill was murdered by the American state on November 19th, 1915. Frank Little was murdered by the Anaconda Copper Company on August 1st, 1917.

Torture is one of them. One of the defenders of torture claimed it worked for the French regime in Algeria:

The dirty little secret about torture is that it works. [...snip...]

In the early morning, they executed the prisoners and buried them - no exceptions. Several thousands were killed in this fashion; as Aussaresses argues, if they were to have been taken to court, all those bodies would've clogged up the justice system for a decade and there'd be a good chance they'd escape from jail.

And I bet the CIA special rendition programme is working too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/19513603

If your goal is mass murder, torture works, but gas chambers also work. And the linked account doesn't suggest any goal beyond mass murder. If your goal is to extract confessions from "secret Jews," "heretics," and "witches," torture works. If your goal is anything else, you haven't demonstrated that it works for anything else.

There are evil means only suited for evil ends.

I have a jury summons for tomorrow [to be in a jury pool, not to appear before a gorram grand jury], and I'm scared. I could be jailed for refusing to do wrong. I also have ptsd. I ought to be more afraid of missing an opportunity to help someone in danger than afraid of being jailed or being bashed again. Inaction in the face of violence is also violence but participation in a system of injustice tends to reinforce the injustice.

One of my older posts on justice may be relevant here:

http://marjaerwin.livejournal.com/47118.html

What is justice? I would define it as righting wrongs.

Helping the victims. Helping people heal. Helping people avoid having to face the same wrongs again. And one of the wrongs is that our institutions are based on domination, our culture is based on silencing, and many people's instinct for justice and compassion has been turned into another tool for domination, and with it, for injustice and brutality.

Punishment/retribution/revenge is not justice.

P.S. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/us_has_more_prisoners_prisons_than_any_other_country/

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.

Some would define justice as procedure.

"Piso mounted the tribunal in a rage, and ordered the three soldiers to be executed. He ordered the death of the man who was to have been executed, because the sentence had already been passed; he also ordered the death of the centurion who was in charge of the original execution, for failing to perform his duty; and finally, he ordered the death of the man who had been supposed to have been murdered, because he had been the cause of death of two innocent men." [Of course, it was the judge and the executioner who were the cause of the deaths of three innocent men.]

(from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum )

Some would define justice as punishment.

"The whole basis of Justice is that the person gets punishments. It isn't the rehabilitation system, or the prevent crime systems. It's a system to hand out a punishment to somebody for their action.

People who don't believe in punishment, don't believe in justice."

(from the Guardian, in a flamewar thread, http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15191574 )

If that is justice, then let us oppose justice! But it is not justice. It is injustice condemning its critics.

Some believe that justice is inherent in the world. At best this idea leads to quietism. Sometimes this idea reinforces the just-world fallacy and leads to victim-blaming. At worst people combine victim-blaming and vindictiveness: being a victim means being guilty, being guilty means deserving punishment, therefore a victim must be further punished, and further, and further...

****

What is justice? I would define it as righting wrongs.

Helping the victims. Helping people heal. Helping people avoid having to face the same wrongs again. And one of the wrongs is that our institutions are based on domination, our culture is based on silencing, and many people's instinct for justice and compassion has been turned into another tool for domination, and with it, for injustice and brutality.

Why?

Because ptsd is not simply a problem with us - it is very much a problem with society, power, and disempowerment. I can't talk about my ptsd without talking about politics, because the violence is political, and the threats are political, and the absence of safe space is political, and the dependence on abusers is political, and the victim-blaming is political. I know politics can get a lot of us angry. But it's still necessary to have spaces to talk about politics and movements to change the world, if we are ever to be able to function again.

@#$%

I just got banned from an alternate history board for pointing out that the Green Scare targeted non-violent activists and classified some groups' non-violent activism as terrorism. And that it turns a blind eye to racist hate groups murders. Apparently, they think criticizing the United States government means supporting terror.

Never mind that opposing terror, let alone opposing *all* violence, means opposing *any* empire, indeed *any* state.

Imperial statists accusing pacifist anarchists of supporting terror are worse than hypocrites.

Another user got banned for pointing out that the United States government used its political support after the 9/11 attacks to try to take control of oil-producing areas, namely Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack and had no 'weapons of mass destruction.'

All this is historical fact.

All this has to be swept into the memory hole.

The problem isn't one or another moderation mistake. The problem is that systemic doublethink has taken over the public discourse. Opposing violence becomes 'supporting terror.' Supporting violence is taken for granted, as long as it's the people at the top of the pyramid using violence against people at the base of the pyramid. Nonviolence, equality, love, these things are made meaningless.