New tactics against the beast
“The State is sometimes thought of as
parliament. But Marx showed that the historical development of the State had
little to do with representative institutions; on the contrary, the State was
something through which the will of the ruling class was imposed on the rest of
the people. In primitive society there was no State; but when human society
became divided into classes, the conflict of interests between the classes made
it impossible for the privileged class to maintain its privileges without an
armed force directly controlled by it and protecting its interests. “This
public force exists in every State; it consists not merely of armed men, but of
material appendages, prisons and repressive institutions of all kinds” (Engels,
Handbook of Marxism, p 726). This public force always has the function
of maintaining the existing order, which means the existing class division and
class privilege; it is always represented as something above society, something
“impartial,” whose only purpose is to “maintain law and order,” but in
maintaining law and order it is maintaining the existing system. It comes into
operation against any attempt to change the system; in its normal, everyday
working, the State machine arrests and imprisons “seditious” people, stops
“seditious” literature, and so on, by apparently peaceful means; but when the
movement is of a wider character, force is used openly by the police and, if
necessary, the armed forces. It is this apparatus of force, acting in the
interests of the ruling class, which is the State. […] It was obvious to Marx
that the extension of the vote did not in any way alter this situation. Real
power rests with the class which is dominant in the system of production; it
maintains its control of the State machine, no matter what happens in the
representative institution. A change of real power therefore involves the use
of force against the old State machine, whose whole apparatus of force is
turned against the new class which is trying to change the system.”
Published eighty years ago on the eve of
global war, this analysis still applies today (1). But, then as now, confronting
the might of state is problematic. In fact, success seems to depend on turning
around the forces that defend the centres of wealth and power. If the military
join the rebels, or just stay neutral, the revolt can become a revolution. But
today’s professional armies are parked outside of society, so their neutrality
is the best that can be hoped for. The military are the status quo’s protection
against foreign aggression and a tool for operations abroad. To protect itself
against homeland threats to its supremacy, it has the police. They also live
apart from society, and consider it as globally criminal. And most of the
police force stay on to retirement, whereas military personnel often leave
after five or ten years, albeit with PTSD that can so easily lead to alcohol,
drugs, homelessness, and too often to suicide. Both obey to a chain of command.
In the case of the military, the chain goes up to the head of the executive,
whereas some police obey orders on a more local level, and the multiple aspects
of policing seem to compete as much as they collaborate.
The powers that govern the state dispose of
force on such a massive scale that it cannot be opposed by violence. And that
mercenary force will not turn against its paymaster. Thoreau’s option of not
paying taxes is no longer materially possible, though refusing to fill the tax
form would lead to jail, and could be envisaged as a mass action. And
widespread civil disobedience could also swamp the judicial system. But, for
such movements to succeed in profoundly changing the structures of power and
production, they must have strong convictions and endurance. In an age of fake
news, convictions can easily be fantasies. And, when most households are
surviving pay-check to pay-check with a backlog of debt, stopping the rat race
for even a day is impossible. There are, however, two groups who stand outside
this agonising treadmill, those who have retired from work and those who have
not yet started. The first have lived their lives and have nothing to lose, the
second are just beginning their lives and find themselves without a future.
Pensioners and teenagers do not seem much of an army, but they have the
certainties of youth and old age, and the staying-power that comes from being
outside the production process.
The state’s control of society relies
ultimately on brute force. But, on an everyday basis, its hold is insured by
the constant propagation of ideas in its favour. It will try to persuade before
having to oblige. And it must have the willing support of at least some parts
of society, notably its security services. They have been known to fire
indiscriminately on student and dark skinned protestors, on miners and steel
workers, and have on occasion clubbed and gassed most categories of working men
and women. Would they show the same enthusiasm when faced by white-haired
elders and pimpled adolescents, who might be their parents and children? If
grandparents and grandchildren could join up to demand radical change, they
would have a formidable ideological impact. The past and the future telling the
present it is on a path to nowhere, a double focus on a doomed reality. The
pacemaker generation and the post-millennial generation are physically inapt
for violence, too old and too young, but they could exert a huge moral pressure
on the security forces under orders to repress them. Even the most brutal
mercenary might hesitate in front of frail old ladies and kids with braces. The
wealth that uses the state to maintain its power is too strong to be overthrown
by violence, but it is a moral weakling. The fault in its armour is simple
decency, and that is where pressure needs to be exerted. Stopping thoroughfares
by sitting on them is just a beginning.
1. For example this was posted by Chris Hedges
in 2017: “Police forces, as Alex S. Vitale writes in his book, were not formed
to ensure public safety or prevent crime. They were created by the property
classes to maintain economic and political dominance and exert control over
slaves, the poor, dissidents and labour unions that challenged the wealthy’s
hold on power and ability to amass personal fortunes. Many of America’s
policing techniques, including widespread surveillance, were pioneered and
perfected in colonies of the U.S. and then brought back to police departments
in the homeland. Blacks in the South had to be controlled, and labour unions
and radical socialists in the industrial Northeast and Midwest had to be
broken.”
posted by le Lézard at 1:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home