Showing posts with label Bromma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bromma. Show all posts

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Regrouping: White workers, “identity politics” and multiculturalism (Bromma, March 17, 2017)

photo by Jessica Lee O

photo by Jessica Lee O

Racist act

Since the November election, many liberals—and a fair number of leftists—are beating their breasts about the overlooked white working class that was “lost” to Trump and has to be brought back into the fold. This new solicitude for white workers usually comes bundled with an attack on “identity politics,” which, we are warned, splinters and weakens the resistance. These two fraudulent arguments pander to white supremacy. They should be rooted out of our struggle against Trump.

The tens of millions of white workers who voted for Trump committed a racist act. They didn’t do it because they’re stupid, but because they like what Trump stands for. They pledged their fealty to an aspiring white nationalist strongman who promised impunity to gangster cops and torturers; who welcomed open white supremacists into his movement; who swore he’d deport millions of Muslim and Latin American immigrants, all in an effort to Make America White Again.

White people without college degrees (a category including most white workers) chose Trump over Clinton by 39 percentage points. Those voters don’t really believe that he’s going to magically transform the Rust Belt into a workers’ paradise. It’s enough that he dog-whistles his intent to reestablish a clear-cut racial hierarchy.

Many white workers confront deteriorating economic conditions. But that’s no excuse for racism. White workers are, by any statistic, much better off than non-white workers. And as we know, workers of color face additional burdens of discrimination, police violence, mass incarceration and dehumanization in US culture. Nevertheless, when white workers have grievances, they normally scapegoat and attack oppressed nationalities. This is a recurrent feature of US history.

I’m not arguing that white workers can’t be part of the resistance, or that they should be written off. White workers didn’t all vote for Trump. Some are staunch anti-racists. But relying on white workers as a class to start acting like a reliable bulwark of progressive change is delusional at best, utterly reactionary at worst.

White working class

This is a perennial issue for US Left. A widespread, false narrative holds that white workers—because they are workers—must be inherently progressive. Whenever white workers commit racist acts, it’s claimed that they do so out of ignorance, acting against their own best interests. J. Sakai’s classic book, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, demolished this opportunist narrative decades ago. But it keeps spontaneously regenerating within the US Left, like a vampire rising from the crypt.

The white working class isn’t part of the world proletariat. It’s a systematically privileged worker elite. It was created and cultivated by the US ruling class to serve as a population of overseers, wardens, shock troops and labor fakers. Originally deployed to contain and control rebellious workers of color, the white working class later became a willing social base for the US’s rise as a predatory world empire. Like the white working class in apartheid South Africa, or the Zionist working class in Israel today, the white working class in the US is essentially parasitic. In return for its special privileged status, which is enshrined in a system of institutional racism, this class consistently opposes and undermines the struggles of oppressed peoples both in the US and around the world. Over the course of generation after generation, the white working class has embraced the atrocities of US capitalism: land theft, genocide, slavery, imperialist war, segregation, mass incarceration. And now, Trump.

Fighting racism among white workers is possible and necessary. But catering to the politics of the white working class is poison to the struggle against racism and capitalism. It’s disloyal to the freedom struggles of oppressed nationalities and nations, which have always spearheaded meaningful social change in the U.S., often while being forced to battle white workers. Out of pure necessity, those national movements are autonomous struggles, struggles for survival, self-defense and self-determination.

“Identity politics”

That’s one reason it’s so damaging when activists attack “identity politics.” Oppressed peoples have national cultures, institutions and histories: nationalities. These nationalities aren’t just a matter of individual choice or personal style; they’re social collectivities, communities. National identities are inherently political for those subjected to colonialism, and they’re absolutely integral to oppressed peoples’ resistance and survival. Trivializing or subordinating them merely reinforces whiteness—the “default” identity.

Bernie Sanders recently trumpeted that “we have to get beyond identity politics.” He later tried to walk that statement back a bit, but everybody knew what he meant. Oppressed people shouldn’t be so “divisive” with their demands. What Sanders wants us to concentrate on are “universal” needs, like single payer health care and free college tuition. He argues that this will unite progressives, appeal to white workers, and gain votes. Isn’t that classic white settler “leftism”? The oppressed get to compromise on their life-or-death issues; Bernie gets…elected.

Sanders’ view is standard liberal fare these days. The New York Times recently published an opinion piece by Columbia professor Mark Lilla. His take: “Amerian liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” Well, that puts it right out there.

But isn’t it true that radicals have their own versions of this discourse? Some activists use “identity politics” as an epithet because they dislike any form of nationalism, including revolutionary nationalism. They imagine that it’s a diversion from class struggle, or think it constitutes an unacceptable form of “essentialism.” Others accuse activists of color of engaging in “identity politics” if they act pushy or egotistical. The internet is full of radicals, belonging to a variety of political trends, bemoaning the damage “identity politics” is doing to their organizing efforts; complaining that “identity” divisiveness or “identity” bullying are hurting the cause of socialism or anarchism. Are we supposed to believe that they mean something completely different from what Sanders and Lilla mean?

Let’s not forget that it was sellout ex-radicals who helped create the “identity politics” trope, back in the 1990s. Marxist-turned-conservative David Horowitz was a key figure in getting the ball rolling. He started out by arguing that “identity politics” was terrible for the Left, but he soon stopped pretending he cared about that. Now he just says flat out that “identity politics are anti-American.” (One elaboration of this is that “Black Lives Matter is a racist group.”) Todd Gitlin, a former leader of SDS, became another anti-“identity politics” warrior. He’s been blaming the Left’s problems on “divisive” Black people and women for 25 years. That isn’t a trajectory any radical should want to emulate, although it’s been good for his academic career.

Unfortunately, a lot of Left activists, along with their liberal counterparts, assume that the fundmental goal of people of color should be to assimilate into white-led movements and integrate into some version—liberal or “radical”—of white society. People of color who reject that option, deciding instead to rely on strengthening their own peoples and on finding solutions independent of white people, are often viewed as selfish and unrealistic—hung up on “identity.”

Yet if there’s anything that the last few decades demonstrate with utter clarity, it’s that when oppressed nationalities do try to assimilate in the US, they’re usually rewarded with violent white backlash, without achieving much (if any) justice or equality. Meanwhile, under the rubric of integration and assimilation, oppressed peoples’ communities and institutions are hollowed out, gentrified, privatized and bulldozed over.

Multicultural dream

During the last few decades, a seductive dream of multiculturalism arose in the US. It advocated peaceful respect among nationalities and genders—and who could argue with that? But from the start it was a shallow and compromised mix; a combination of honest idealism and corrupt neoliberalism that, among other things, sought to paper over deep and intractable national fault lines.

It must be said quite plainly that this surge of multiculturalism—which was protected and even sponsored by the biggest globalist capitalists—was fully compatible with continuous genocide against Black, Native, Puerto Rican and other oppressed peoples. And, more to our specific point, multiculturalism in the US relied for its viability on the good intentions of white people, many of whom actually hated it with a deep passion. Today the multicultural dream has turned into a nightmare: another sudden reawakening of violent populist white supremacy. So much for good intentions.

Regrouping

Radicals need to regroup around some basic truths about US society and “identity.” We live in a deeply reactionary settler state that relies on white nationalism for its survival. It’s a prison-house of colonized nations and oppressed nationalities. Its white population is completely unreliable as a force for justice or freedom. Based on its long and ugly history, most of that population will cling to white supremacy until the settler state is finally uprooted. The liberation struggles of Black/New Afrikan, Mexican, Native, Puerto Rican and other oppressed peoples are central to overthrowing US imperialism. These are struggles for self-determination; they’re not subordinate to white definition, priorities or leadership.

White activists should support and defend the freedom struggles of oppressed nations and nationalities politically and culturally. We should engage in a deeper and more principled practice of internationalism that’s firmly anchored in that support. We should also attack white supremacy in all its forms where we work and live, including inside the white working class. In that specific regard, our task isn’t to unite white workers but to divide them: to split as many white workers as possible away from the deep-seated racist, anti-proletarian politics of the majority.

In the 1960’s and 70’s, the most advanced parts of the Left recognized these truths. That Left—repressed by the state and undermined by white and male opportunism—is mostly gone now. It’s up to new activists to lead. But a new Left shouldn’t have to re-invent the wheel. Catering to the white working class while denigrating “identity politics” will do nothing whatsoever to stop Trump, defeat white supremacy, or overthrow capitalism. Instead, it will strengthen all three.



on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/2mV9bVT



Saturday, December 17, 2016

Notes on Trump (Bromma Dec. 2016)

TrumpFlag1. The normality of white supremacy

Since Trump’s election, I keep hearing that we shouldn’t “normalize” him or his agenda. I believe that’s looking through the wrong end of the telescope. There’s nothing as “normal” in the U.S. as white supremacy. Sometimes it’s disguised by tokenism and obscured by “multiculturalism.” But in this country, white supremacy has always shown its true naked face at times of stress and transition.

Because white supremacy isn’t just a bunch of bad ideas inherited from ignorant elders. It’s a deeply-rooted institution through which the U.S. rules over many oppressed peoples. It’s the glue that keeps hundred of millions loyal to that very same program. It’s the central ideological, political and physical system set up by white capital to rule the land and dominate its internal and external colonies. And therefore white supremacy underpins all the wealth and power this country’s ruling class possesses. Without it, the U.S. falls.

2. Contradictions within white capitalism

White supremacy is constant, but it keeps changing form. For instance, African Americans have endured a variety of modes of white supremacy: slavery, Jim Crow, gentrification, and more. White capitalism welcomed Mexicans and Chinese as semi-slave laborers, then attacked and deported them when conditions changed. Native peoples faced extermination campaigns, phony treaties, forced assimilation and confinement on reservations at various times. White supremacy isn’t a singular strategy by white society towards people of color. The form can change, as long as whiteness is always valued; as long as white people are always on top.

U.S. white supremacy was modified in response to world anti-colonial struggles and, after the Cold War, to globalization. Together these developments generated significant contradictions for traditional forms of white supremacy. By the late 1970s, old-style white military colonialism had lost much of its power, beaten back by a phalanx of national liberation struggles. So imperialism rebooted, searching out colonial partners and new forms of financial blackmail to replace or supplement military occupation. And, in the 1990s, U.S. capitalism entered a period of intense cooperation with other capitalists around the world, aiming to make the global economy increasingly “borderless.” Open, blatant racism wasn’t helpful in this changed environment.

So the U.S. ruling class adapted white surpremacy to the new conditions and gave it a new look. In the revised, neocolonial order, some people of color were accepted into positions of wealth and authority. Racist violence and discrimination continued inside and outside the country. But at the same time, U.S. high culture increasingly professed to celebrate the diversity of people of all nationalities and races (and genders too). This helped present U.S. capitalism to the world with a friendlier face. White supremacy continued, masked by capitalist multiculturalism.

Some white people embraced the concept of multiculturalism, sincerely hoping it could be the basis for a genuine progressive culture. But most white amerikans felt that this new incarnation of capitalism was a demotion. They didn’t like having people of color as their bosses. They didn’t like seeing “good jobs” and social bribery spread around the world, instead of being reserved for them. And they hated the “political correctness” of having to hide their racism. U.S. capitalism’s perceived “disloyalty” to its white home base during the rise of globalization fueled the current upsurge of right wing populism, including eventually the campaign of Donald Trump.

But for quite a while the ruling class turned a deaf ear to its disgruntled white masses. The capitalists had global interests to tend to; global profits to bank. And frankly, a willing Asian dictator or Latina judge or African American president was worth more to them than a thousand whining white people. The militia movement was repressed when it became militant; the Tea Party was mocked by the global sophisticates. (Neither was destroyed, though; they remained as a possibility, a fallback.)

As globalization continued to advance in the last few decades, white amerika was gradually forced and cajoled to accept modest changes in the hierarchy of imperial privilege. It seemed possible that monopoly capital, pushing white people to fall in line with multiculturalism, might continue forever along that path, backed and cheered by cohorts of optimistic and idealistic artists and intellectuals.

To a large extent, this is where the plaintive cry not to “normalize” Trump comes from. Cosmopolitan liberals, now accustomed to living under globalized capitalism, can’t believe that U.S. society is going to be allowed to go backward; can’t believe that a rich country could ever be permitted to trash multiculturalism; to turn back the clock on women’s rights and environmentalism and so much more. They have a hard time accepting that their bright dream of a blended world culture, a dream that had previously been tolerated and even encouraged by monopoly capital, might be betrayed, and end in a surge of old-fashioned racist violence. Their disbelief echoes the disbelief among the liberal intelligentsia in England after Brexit, and in other countries where globalization is giving ground.

3. Timing is everything

It’s important to understand that populist opposition to globalization in the West is making breakthroughs not as globalization rises, but as it falters. In fact, the rise of these political movements is probably more a reflection of globalization’s decline than the cause of that decline. What’s coming into view, semi-hidden underneath the frenzied soap opera of reactionary populism, is that the tide of globalization has crested and started to recede. It wasn’t permanent after all.

It should be stipulated, right off the bat, that globalization has unleashed immense changes, many of which are irreversible. For example, the peasantry, once the largest class of all, isn’t coming back. Globalization broke it; sent it streaming out of the countryside by the hundreds of millions. Out of that broken peasantry, a giant new woman-centered proletariat and a sprawling lumpen-proletariat are still being formed around the world.

Yet globalization as a financially-integrated, transnational form of capitalism can’t advance without constant expansion, constant profit growth. Since no global state exists to mediate among the world’s capitalists, shared growth is the only thing that restrains them from cut-throat competition. Growth is also what allows capitalists to at least partly mollify the displaced masses back home with cheap commodities and whatever jobs a rising world economy has to offer. But now, instead of growing, the world economy is slowing. In fact globalized capitalism, having bulked up on steroidal injections of speculation and unsustainable, leveraged debt, is teetering on the edge of disaster.

From the U.S. to China, from the Eurozone to Brazil, danger signs are flashing; massive globalized industries are shifting into reverse. International trade and investment are flat or falling. Capital that was formerly used for investment in “emerging economies” is now flowing backward into safe haven investments in the metropolis. Automation, renewable energy and other new technologies are starting to shorten supply chains, reducing the demand for imports from far away. Intractable economic and political crises, like those in the Middle East and Greece and Ukraine, are eroding cooperation and sapping confidence in already-weak globalist institutions. The internet, a key factor in globalization, is gradually becoming segmented, as governments and corporations privatize, censor and manipulate parts of it. And underneath everything, the increased inequality caused by globalization itself is throttling the demand for commodities.

Multinational corporations aren’t abandoning world markets by any means. But leading monopoly capitalists are hedging against trade wars and reducing their reliance on complex, interdependent trade and finance. Facing what he calls a “protectionist global environment,” GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is shifting his company’s production from a globalized to a “localized” model. “We used to have one site to make locomotives; now we have multiple global sites that give us market access. A localization strategy can’t be shut down by protectionist policies.” This is a defensive posture, harkening back to an earlier form of imperialism.

Once it seemed that transnational integration had an unstoppable momentum. But now a retreat into the once-familiar zones of old-fashioned nation-based imperialism seems to be on the capitalist menu.

4. A previous wave of globalization

If the ongoing shift away from from transnationalism and towards harsh national rivalry continues, it won’t be the first instance of “de-globalization” in modern history. It’s happened before.

From 1870 to 1913, fueled by the industrial revolution and the explosive rise of U.S. capitalism, there was a massive spike in international trade and market integration. It was centered in Western Europe and the U.S., but extended further into Latin America and other parts of the world. Borders were opened, tariffs were lowered, and there was a rapid increase in exports and financial interdependence. The world capitalist economy boomed. Just as during the current wave of globalization, this earlier period was marked by major innovations in transport and communications, as well as an unprecedented upsurge in transnational migration. (Including tens of millions of workers who migrated from Europe to the U.S.) Economists refer to this as the “first wave” of modern globalization.

But capitalism is at best an unstable and contradictory system, periodically riven by economic crisis. And a globalized form of capitalism appears to be particularly vulnerable to those crises.

The globalization of 1870-1913 collapsed like a house of cards. Growing economic imbalances and stalled growth led many imperialist countries to impose tariffs and take other protectionist measures, vainly striving to boost their own home economy at the expense of others. Inevitably, there was retaliation in kind. This cannibalistic inter-imperial competition only aggravated the already deteriorating economic conditions. Trade and global commodities became more and more expensive. There was a rapid downward spiral of economic depression and reactionary nationalism.

There was no pretense of multiculturalism in the U.S. back then, of course. Massive vio-lence against people of color was already common during the boom years of globalization. So it’s hard to say if racism became worse during the period of de-globalization. But in 1913, segregation was officially initiated in all federal offices, including lunchrooms and bathrooms. In the following decades there were dozens of vicious race riots against Black enclaves in cities North and South, causing many hundreds of deaths and thousands of people driven from their homes. Having been pushed down previously, the Klan was revived in 1915. Its peak was in the 1920’s, with some 4 million members.

Finally, the first wave of globalization imploded in a frenzy of national hatred and two brutal world wars, fought without quarter among the capitalist powers. Something we should keep in mind as we confront the current situation.

5. De-globalization

Today’s capitalist globalization isn’t failing because of political blows landed by Western anti-globalization movements, although those have had a real effect. Rather, the populist movements are reaching for real power just as chunks of the ruling class globalist consensus are themselves breaking away and seeking alternate, nationalistic strategies.

Former globalizers are floating back toward the anchors of their old home economies and shifting the blame for economic crisis onto “foreigners” and social minorities. They’re muting their former advocacy of free trade while backing away from trade agreements. They’re rediscovering protectionism. They’re experimenting with cyber-attacks on other countries, building up their militaries, increasing their involvement in proxy wars, and manipulating their currencies to gain temporary advantage over trading partners. And as a natural part of this shift, they’re unleashing their most rabid “patriotic” social bases to sell their new/old program, control the streets, and, potentially, to serve as cannon fodder down the road.

In every quarter of the globe, nationalistic xenophobia is on the rise, strangling the remaining globalists’ fading dreams about world government and a borderless economy. Right wing populism is being released, and it’s rising out of its reservoirs, flowing like water filling dry river beds. In country after country, old social prejudices are being revived and intensified; former globalist capitalists are reaching out and mending fences with their most trusted national social bases.

That’s how it is here in the U.S., too. A return to the old white amerika is becoming a more and more practical program for U.S. capitalists—not just for the white masses. It offers the only natural form of capitalist regroupment as globalization wanes. An option as amerikan as apple pie.

A wiser comrade once warned me, during the rise of globalization, that the ruling class would someday “give amerika back to white people.” That’s what seems to be happening with Trump. (Whether or not the capitalists can control the populists they are unleashing remains, as always, an open question.)

6. Capitalists shift gears

The recent wave of accelerated globalization that started in the 1990’s was led by a bloc of Western capital, along with Japan and other close allies in Asia. There were two key geopolitical factors in its take-off. One was the formation of the EU, which consolidated European capital, including parts of the old Soviet empire. The EU also provided a model for what a globalized borderless world might look like, complete with transnational institutions and regulations.

The second factor was a tacit agreement between Western capital and China to collaborate on capitalist development. China supplied a low-wage labor force to produce cheap commodities, enabling enormous profits for investors. In return, the Chinese state and Party skimmed off some of those profits, retained significant control over investment decisions, and accumulated advanced technology. This “win-win” capitalist model, involving high-level financial integration and lowered trade barriers, was eventually applied to other countries, including India.

Both of these key factors of globalization appear to be disintegrating. When times were good in Europe, national jealousies were kept in check. But with economic slowdown, and now with the refugee crisis originating in the Middle East, centrifugal forces are rising inside the EU. Brexit is only one example. As for the deal with China, that was always a marriage of convenience. The West never planned to let China become a serious rival. While on the other hand, Chinese capitalists planned from the very beginning to use globalization as a springboard to empire.

Globalization has always had opposition among capitalists. In many cases, that opposition comes from businesses based in a single country, who resent having to compete with a flood of cheap imports from abroad. It also comes from the more rabid proponents of imperial power. They think military force and economic blackmail can be more profitable than friendly internationalism. When globalization starts to show signs of deterioration, these opponents fight hard to shift the capitalist consensus.

For some time, a group of Republican lawmakers have been chomping at the bit to take China and Russia down a notch militarily. And a group of Democrats, egged on by the unions, wanted more tariffs and other protections. Each represented a piece of the anti-globalist agenda. Neither cared for Trump because he was an outsider and a wild cannon, but he’s putting the pieces together. There was significant ruling class support for his campaign from the beginning – including Kenneth Langone of Home Depot, Peter Thiel of PayPal, David Green of Hobby Lobby and plenty more. Now Republican politicians, manufacturers, tech billionaires, oil company executives and Goldman Sachs bankers are lining up to apply for cabinet jobs and to “consult” with Trump, the anti-globalizer.

Although most British capitalists opposed the Brexit campaign, many also funded and supported it. They saw it as an opportunity to “deregulate” and privatize the economy and to make trade deals specifically favoring England. In China, a country that was once the poster child for globalization, the ruling class has made the conscious decision to become less dependent on exports to the West. They want to build up their home market. Meanwhile, they are responding to a weakening economy by fomenting xenophobia and populist narratives of imperial glory to come. In Russia, patriotic fervor and expansionist dreams are the only thing keeping Putin’s currupt authoritarian regime afloat. This trend of rising capitalist anti-globalization is general; worldwide.

As the U.S. starts to hunker down–starts to game-out possible trade wars and military conflicts with China and Russia; starts to think about closing borders and opening detention camps—white supremacy naturally comes fully back out into the open. That’s the default mode—always—for a country built on genocide, slavery, annexation, colonialism and every form of parasitism on people of color. If inter-imperialist rivalry is to be the order of the day, the U.S. ruling class will need the militant loyalty of racist white people. Without that, the imperial center will not hold. The U.S. will be unable to wage cold wars, trade wars or physical wars against its hungry rivals.

And so, it’s back to “normal” in amerika. We shouldn’t waste our energy wishing it wasn’t so. We should invest that energy in destroying any remaining illusions about a political system built from day one on oppressing non-white peoples and nations, here and all over the world. A system that must be uprooted, not reformed.

7. “Normalizing” Obama

And in the meantime, how about not “normalizing” Obama? Are the war crimes, assassinations, amnesty for torturers, mass incarceration, orwellian spy networks, out-of-control gangster cops, attacks on journalists and whistleblowers and vastly increased inequality that happened during his regime supposed to be some sort of baseline? Should we forget that he set a record for deportations? Are we going accept the bizarre narrative that Obama is really a well-meaning progressive “community organizer,” who was frustrated and stymied by Republicans?

Notice that while we are girding ourselves to fight Trump, Obama is not. Do we see him boldly attacking Trump’s racist, mysogynist plans, his corrupt appointments, his corruption, his militarism? Nope. He’s making nice with The Donald. His attention has already turned to more important things, like his exciting plans for an opulent presidential library to praise his “legacy.” Funded, of course, by the capitalists he has served so well.

We can project onto Obama that he’s a tortured soul, wishing he could have done more to help people. But actually he’s had a hugely successful career, and he’s solidly loyal to monopoly capitalism. When multiculturalism served that cause, he was multiculturalism’s very incarnation. Now, smart man that he is, he understands that his new job is to help manage a smooth transition from globalist multiculturalism to a system where open white supremacist nationalism can be mainstream again. And like a true professional, he’s putting his personal feelings aside and taking care of business.

Much is made of the fact that, as he leaves office, Obama has commuted a few thousand particularly harsh sentences inflicted on people jailed for non-violent drug “crimes.” With their sentences commuted, those people still have a criminal record; still face a hard road of injustice. And he only commuted a small percentage of low-level drug sentences. But it’s something, right?

Consider this: a president’s constitutional power to pardon people is practically unlimited. Pardon, not commute. As in, wipe the record clear. There are millions of victims of unjust and racist mass incarceration who could be pardoned with a stroke of Obama’s pen. And there’s nothing Trump could do to reverse it. Obama could pardon Leonard Peltier and Chelsea Manning and other political prisoners too.

Why stop there? There are millions of immigrants who are directly threatened with deportation by the incoming regime. Trump has said he would begin the expulsion process by deporting 3-4 million immigrants who are “criminals.” Actually, the only “crime” committed by most immigrants is that they crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visa. Obama could pardon all of those people, too, before Trump takes office.

Obama, as of this writing, has actually pardoned fewer people than any president in history. (Except for James Garfield, who was assassinated three months into his term.) As a matter of fact, when a few Democratic congresspeople actually had the nerve to ask Obama to pardon the 750,000 vulnerable young immigrant “Dreamers” to protect them from Trump, he turned them down flat.

Obama isn’t Trump’s enemy, or his friend. He’s simply an operative working for a fundamentally reactionary, white supremacist system. As popular resistance to Trump builds, we have to struggle to turn it into a deeper mass understanding of that system instead of normalizing Obama or his sponsors. And we must find and unite with those who, based on that deeper understanding, are moving toward revolution; towards actually overthrowing white supremacy and capitalism entirely.

Bromma, 12-16



on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/2hGw4K6



Monday, February 29, 2016

Cops are Gangsters

police-corruption-Intro: There are millions of oppressed people inside the borders of the u.s., but I’m not one of them. I come from a privileged background. I’m not the main victim of the police. Nor am I a leader in the growing struggle against police violence. Recognizing how far I am from the front lines, I hesitated to write about cops at all.

 In the end I decided that it’s important for all radicals, whether oppressed or privileged, to struggle for clarity about cops’ place in society.

 There are many kinds of police, ranging from elite national political police like the FBI to local auxiliaries who direct traffic and write parking tickets. But at the heart of the police in the u.s. are its bands of street cops. These are the people who physically maintain “order,” dealing out street justice and funneling civilians into the prison system. All other aspects of police power revolve around them, and that’s what I discuss below.   –B


 

U.s. cops killed over 1,130 people last year. They brutalized and tortured many thousands more. This systematic violence has nothing to do with “rogue cops” or “poor training.” It’s the predictable result of a carefully-camouflaged fact: cops are gangsters.

It’s not just that cops act like an ocupying army in oppressed peoples’ communities. Even though that’s certainly true. Or that cops repress ordinary people in the interests of the rich and powerful. (That’s true too, of course.)

I’m saying something additional: cops are literally criminals. That’s not an epithet or an insult; it’s a plain description. Cops have the parasitic vocation and the lumpen outlook of gangsters, violently preying on civilians to build themselves up. That’s their social and psychological character. It’s their class.

 Capitalists and gangsters

To put this in perspective: The ruling class collaborates with gangsters—with organized crime—all the time. This is a perfectly normal part of modern capitalism.

In fact, there’s no hard and fast line between gangsterism and “legal” capitalism. Take the era of Prohibition, for instance. From 1920-1933, alcoholic beverages were illegal in the u.s. During that time the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol became the focal point of intense, murderous gangster competition, involving iconic mobsters like Al Capone and Lucky Luciano. Today these exact same activities are completely legal and peaceful.

On the flip side, marijuana was a normal legal commodity in the u.s. until it was outlawed in 1937, during a burst of racist backlash against Mexican immigrants (who supposedly used it to seduce white women). Today this same crop is a major profit center for deadly and powerful gangsters, and thousands of people are in prison for possessing, selling or transporting it.

As historian Gerald Horne puts it, “Organized crime – the ‘big lumpen’ – historically has been one of the bourgeoisie’s chief allies in this nation in maintaining its hegemony. In return, gangsters have been allowed, in some instances, to evolve “respectably” to bourgeois status themselves. In any case, mobsters in this nation have enjoyed a form of enrichment that the bourgeoisie in many nations will never see. This has added a level of coarseness and lack of principle to the otherwise crude and unprincipled rule of the bourgeoisie.”

We know that some of the biggest capitalist fortunes in the u.s. were accumulated through organized crime. The “robber barons” like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Morgan became rich through the systematic use of thug mercenaries, corruption and fraud. The Kennedy clan made its first big money in bookmaking and bootlegging during Prohibition. They worked closely with the Mafia for decades. Henry Ford allied with organized crime to suppress unions.

Successful gangsters often try to diversify by investing their criminal assets in legal capitalist businesses. While for their part, “legal” capitalists turn readily to gangsterism to accomplish objectives that are difficult to achieve by other means. Modern capitalism as a whole is heavily dependent on organized crime, partly because the drug trade, human trafficking and arms smuggling are among the most profitable industries in the world.

In fact, the financial system would collapse overnight without gangster money. A few years back a whistleblower revealed how billions of dollars in profits from the Sinaloa cartel ended up in Wachovia Bank accounts in the u.s. between 2001 and 2004. Gangsters deposited their drug profits in small amounts at local currency exchange agencies (casas de cambio) in Mexico. This cartel money was then accepted for wire transfer to Wachovia branches here, where it became “legal,” no questions asked. Similarly, HSBC was recently forced to admit that they laundered billions of dollars belonging to Russian mobsters and Latin American drug cartels. The Bank of  New York used shell corporations to organize the illegal transfer of $7 billion of  Russian mafia money into the u.s. In 2011 the U.N. conservatively estimated that there was about $580 billion in organized crime money sloshing around in the world financial system, much of which was in the process of being transformed into “legal” investments.

Gangsterism and legal capitalism interpenetrate on many levels, and have various power relationships. Sometimes gangsters become strong enough to control large parts of a capitalist state, like narco cartels do now in Mexico. Many uniformed, official cops there report directly to the traffickers. (This hasn’t prevented Walmart and General Motors from making big profits in Mexico.) In the u.s., at least for now, it’s legal capitalists and their state who have the upper hand. These capitalists are proactive in their dealings with organized crime, though: they not only collaborate with gangsters, they also organize new gangs.

The interrelationship of u.s. capitalists and gangsters has a long history. Before permanent police forces even existed in the u.s., mercenary gangs were authorized to clear the way for settler land theft, and to enforce slave “law and order” for the capitalists and their governments. Gangs of “Indian hunters” such as the Pit River Rangers and the Oregon Militia were given official bounties for each Native person killed. California alone paid millions of dollars out of public funds to these murder squads. Slave patrols of white vigilante thugs were rewarded by plantation capitalists for capturing and “chastizing” escaped slaves. These early genocidal gangster mercenaries were the precursors of modern cops.

When radical labor insurgency erupted in the u.s. starting in the 19th  century, leading industrialists relied on private police forces like the Pinkerton Coal and Iron Police to repress workers. These freelance mercenaries worked side by side with government cops and the military, acting with complete impunity. It didn’t matter that they didn’t have official badges. They used their own bombs, snipers, blackmail, arson and machine guns, and they reported directly to the capitalists who hired them.

In the 1980’s, the CIA collaborated with urban gangs to flood Black communities with crack cocaine and automatic weapons. The profits generated from this illegal trade were used to fund similarly illegal counterinsurgency gangs in Latin America. This kind of activity is routine. Criminal organizations, mercenaries and death squads have been employed by u.s. capitalists to repress the Left in dozens of places, from the New York waterfront to the streets of San Salvador.

Official gangs

Where do modern u.s. cops fit into this broader landscape of gangsters working for and with the ruling class?

First of all, police are institutionalized, “official” gangs. This reflects the fact that they are meant to act for the whole ruling class, rather than just a single capitalist group. Cops are sponsored and endorsed by the state; employed to keep the population under long-term control and to combat other gangsters who get too independent.

Instead of being paid as contractors, or through bounties, modern police get a regular government paycheck. But this doesn’t in any way indicate that street cops are mere government functionaries carrying out a list of instructions passed down through the political bureaucracy. While police may be paid as employees, they actually function as a confederation of loosely controlled gangs, with a broad mandate to terrorize civilians. Cops are given a free hand in enforcing “order.” They are also encouraged to create insular, thuggish, semi-militarized cliques that breed a lumpen culture with its own hunger for power. Like other organized crime groupings, they have their own strict internal codes of ethics and conduct that override and exist outside the law.

Cop influence extends outward into broader social layers, generating networks of informants, groupies, wannabes, hangers-on, cheerleaders and private donors. Cop-lovers attend rowdy cop parties, sign up as eager auxiliaries (like George Zimmerman), sponsor foundations to benefit cops, bring them donuts and plaster pro-cop stickers on their cars. These networks of civilian loyalty exist independent of the state, and are in fact generally contradictory to official state control. They have nothing to do with cops being civil servants. Rather, these support networks are drawn to cops’ independent street power. They are similar to the civilian networks that gather around other criminal confederations like the the Cosa Nostra and the Yakuza.

Intended to terrorize

When the capitalist state establishes and supports official police forces, it intentionally gives them wide leeway to function as semi-autonomous gangs. This has proven to be an effective formula that permits the ruling class to maintain a layer of separation and denial between themselves and the gangster violence they unleash. Capitalists pretend to have clean hands, even acting shocked by criminal cop behaviors. If public outcry becomes strong, their politicians re-shuffle top police leaders or initiate drawn-out bureaucratic investigations, making a superficial show of reining in police abuse. Nevertheless, it is fundamental to the ruling class’s repressive strategy that street cops operate with broad independence and impunity.

Cop violence is specifically intended to operate outside the law as well as inside. Police criminality isn’t a problem for the ruling class—it’s a solution. Cops are doing dirty work that regular state functionaries can’t do. Institutionalized, state-backed gangsterism is an effective tool of social dominance: it causes generalized fear and submission, while it also can be targetted at specific enemies. The ruling class recognizes that mad-dogging, upredictable sadism and deadly brutality are indispensible parts of the gangster arsenal, and considers their use by cops to be both inevitable and, with some limits, desirable.

From the cops’ point of view, impunity for criminal acts is a basic guarantee, an integral part of their vocation and their identity. They have little patience for politicians’ anxieties about public opinion, or capitalists’ desire to maintain ideological legitimacy. Cops strain to be let off the leash completely. Their lumpen instinct is to dominate the population through unchecked terror.

Cops push back hard against any attempts by civilian managers to establish day to day operational control. Police gangsters usually have the upper hand too, because they are indispensable to the ruling class and intimidating in their own right. Police have the power to make or break elected politicians. That’s why New York City Police Commmissioner William Bratton, currently the u.s.’s biggest celebrity cop, gets away with dictating policy to his supposed boss Mayor DeBlasio and publicly insulting the City Council. (His disrespectful comments play well with his underlings, although overall he is considered too compromising by regular NYPD cops.)

A parasitic way of life

Like other gangster forces, cops recruit heavily from the ranks of high school bullies, sadists and losers. Military drop-outs and children of cops also gravitate towards policing. All these people have a good idea of what they’re getting into. They want to become cops precisely because they get paid and rewarded for intimidating, assaulting and shooting people. San Antonio cop Daryl Carle could be the poster child. He bragged on Facebook that he loves his “job” because he can “kill people and not go to jail.” His bosses did think that was a little indiscreet of him. But nevertheless he’s still out there on street patrol with a badge and a gun.

As thugs, cops love the thrill of combat—as long as it’s one-sided in their favor. Listening to the media mythology about a so-called “war on police,” you might think that cops must take a lot of casualties. But actually, over the course of the police slaughter and torture that rolled across the u.s. last year, fewer than 40 cops were killed by suspects. Most of those deaths happened while responding to domestic disputes. As a point of comparison, hundreds of cops commit suicide every year in the u.s. By any statistical measure, being a cop is less dangerous than being a construction laborer or long-haul truck driver.

Then again, being a cop isn’t just a job; it’s a lumpen way of life.

Detective Louis Scarcella was an alpha cop in Brooklyn starting in the 1980s. He was involved in literally hundreds of murder investigations there. Scarcella, who was praised as one of New York’s top homicide detectives, is now suspected of obtaining fifty or more murder convictions using false evidence. At least six of these convictions relied on testimony from a single “eyewitness”—a desperate crack addict who appeared over and over in Scarcella’s cases, despite the fact that she kept contradicting herself. The entire “criminal justice system” looked the other way as Scarcella fabricated confessions, “lost” vital evidence, and pressured inmates to finger his hand-picked suspects in return for time out of jail, prostitutes and crack cocaine. Nobody even bothered to look for the real killers. Due to recent revelations by the media, a few of Scarcella’s victims are having their convictions thrown out; a handful of men (and one woman) are being released after more than 20 years in prison. Others are still incarcerated. Scarcella, meanwhile, has been enjoying a happy, taxpayer-funded retirement since 1999.

A recent Guardian investigation explored how routine it is for the most brutal cops to be protected, honored and promoted in Chicago. “A crew of detectives…used electric shock, suffocation and mock executions to coerce confessions of more than 120 men from the 1970’s through the early 90s.” The ringleader, Jon Burge, was convicted years later on trivial charges (obstruction of justice and perjury). He served only three and a half years in prison, and is still collecting his pension. The other cops involved in these crimes have never been charged at all. Another alpha Chicago cop, Francis Valadez, was honored several times and eventually promoted to Commander, even though he’s accused of coercing six murder confessions, plus battery and assault. In one case he tortured an injured man for 36 hours to obtain a confession that was later proved false by DNA testing. His resume also includes the fatal shootings of four people–so far. His most recent killing, in August, was of Rafael Cruz Jr., an unarmed man fleeing in his car. According to the Guardian, “Valadez has garnered 131 awards across three decades on the force.”

Cops are determined to dominate every situation they encounter. They insist on immediate obedience, whether warranted or not; legal or not. Attempts by civilians to protest their treatment or assert their rights are routinely answered with intimidation and violence. This carries over into cops’ private lives too. They walk around with feelings of entitlement and superiority even when they’re not on duty. Cops flash their badges and draw their weapons during traffic incidents and barroom brawls; they terrorize their personal enemies; they often beat up their families and their “beloved” K-9 dogs. They demand special privileges and civilian submission at all times.

Every day there’s new proof that u.s. police kill, rape and brutalize with impunity. Cops are also notoriously corrupt. Nightclubs, casinos and restaurants bribe them to get special treatment. Tow companies pay them off to generate more tows. Drug dealers and crime syndicates put cops on their payrolls as shields from arrest and prosecution.

Groups of cops run protection, arms and narcotics rackets; they rob banks and carry out murder for hire and human traficking. Many have dual gang loyalties. For instance, Texas “Cop of the Year” Noe Juarez turned out to be working for Los Zetas, one of Mexico’s most vicious drug syndicates. He got them assault rifles, police scanners and access to police databases in the u.s., among other things. In the 1990’s, more than 70 supposed “anti-gang” police in L.A. were implicated during an investigation that uncovered assassinations, theft of massive amounts of impounded cocaine, routine use of false testimony and a level of brutality unusual even for the LAPD. It turned out that several of the cops were actually Bloods associates, who joined the police to get the upper hand over rival gangsters.

Corruption and outside illegal moonlighting can obviously undermine a police force if it gets too far out of hand. But a certain amount of individual criminal initiative is expected and admired. It’s normal lumpen behavior. Cops aren’t supposed to be choir boys; they’re gangsters.

Increasingly, u.s. police are encouraged to grab property, cars, electronics and jewelry from the civilians caught up in their investigations—even those who are completely innocent. Cops hold seminars to learn which items are easiest to resell, and how to “legally” get away with ripping off “little goodies,” as one enthusiastic DA calls them. In 2012, $4.3 billion worth of so-called “civil assets” were seized by police; seizures have gone up rapidly since then. Much of the loot from this “for-profit policing” goes right back into police department coffers to spend on anything they want. Some of it is handed directly to individual cops as bonuses.

Two tiny police forces in Florida—Bal Harbour Police and Glades County Sheriff’s Office—were recently discovered to have laundered over $55 million belonging to narco gangs. Under the pretext that they were conducting an “undercover investigation” into how illegal drug money got turned into legal assets, these enterprising cops accepted millions in money-laundering “commissions” from a range of criminal groups. Flush with unaccountable cash, the cops bought fancy cars, guns and computers, partied at high end resorts, and withdrew over $831,000 in cash out of a slush fund. They didn’t arrest a single “money launderer.”

Cops lie about pretty much everything. That goes with the badge. Scarcella, Burge, and Valadez are no isolated examples. It’s completely routine for cops to plant evidence, frame innocent people using false testimony, coerce confessions through torture and doctor their reports. The other gangster cops cover for them unconditionally under a strict code of silence. If civilians happen to inconveniently catch a cop in a lie, nothing serious happens to them anyway, no matter how dire the consequences for innocent people.

In the early days of the u.s., police were virtually all white settler thugs. Most of them still are. A key function that police carry out for their political sponsors—and for themselves—is to repress whatever rebellions and freelance organized street gangs emerge among oppressed peoples. Cops are eager to do this. Their own goal in carrying out repression has nothing to do with safety or security for civilians. They’re not even mainly concerned with helping their capitalist patrons. Instead, their aggressive presence in ghettos, barrios and reservations is an opportunity to advance their “careers” and to enforce their own violent gang supremacy. Within oppressed communities, cops look at rebels and street gangs as turf rivals, to be dominated and eliminated as competitors.

The police are riddled with (and sometimes led by) extreme white supremacist sub-cliques. For example, the “Lynwood Station Vikings” was just one of a series of “elite” racist sub-gangs that have emerged inside the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over the years. Fully-blooded Vikings (including some top department officers) had “998” tattood on their ankles, referring proudly to the code for “officer-involved shooting.” Membership in this gang-within-a-gang was by invitation only.  But all the cops knew about it. The walls of Lynwood Station were openly decorated with racist cartoons of Black men as well as a map of the police district drawn in the shape of Africa. Efforts to discipline the Vikings were heavily discouraged by top LASD brass, even in the face of negative publicity and numerous costly civil rights lawsuits.

Historically, membership in police gangs has served as an access point into white privilege in the u.s. For instance, immigrant Irish—a nationality that was originally considered “non-white”—took advantage of police affiliation as part of a process of “graduating” to whiteness. By participating in officially-sanctioned armed gangs to enforce ruling class “law and order”—especially, repressing people of color—Irish cops proved their loyalty to u.s. capitalism, augmented their social prestige and helped their communities move up the racial heirarchy.

Although the FBI has taken the lead in organizing the repression of political dissent in the u.s., they often count on street cops as their rank and file enforcers. The larger urban police forces have their own counterinsurgency forces, too. It was LAPD cops—350 of them—that fired round after round into the Los Angeles headquarters of the Black Panthers in 1969, (trying unsuccessfully) to murder everybody inside. It was the Philadelphia Police department that attacked a MOVE house in 1985 with automatic weapons and firebombs, killing six adults and five children, and burning down more than 50 homes in the Black community.

Cops are predators. They intimidate, bludgeon, shoot and terrorize their way into a position of power, material comfort, prestige and privilege. Their “job” is actually a hustle; a disguised protection racket through which public money is used to oppress the public; we get to pay our own oppressors. On top of that, police use their gangster power to generate opportunities for endless corruption and sadistic gratification. But what about the good cops? The idealistic, friendly ones who just want to help their community?

No good cops

Gangsters, like all of us, are friendly or unfriendly depending on their personality and the specific situation. Some criminal organizations even like to project a benevolent façade alongside the lurking threat of violence. Good public relations can certainly be an asset for a gang, just like it is for a rapacious corporation or an opportunist politician. (Consider the mobster Giovanni Gambino, who made this carefully-calibrated pitch in an interview on NBC News: “The Mafia has a bad reputation, but much of that’s undeserved. As with everything in life, there are good, bad and ugly parts….”)

But what’s most important to us about police is their actions, not their image. And contrary to the usual media propaganda, police “work” is fundamentally incompatible with idealism or community service. How friendly a gangster acts doesn’t change their basic criminality when push comes to shove.

During the very first year on the street, each rookie cop witnesses incidents of sadistic cop brutality, blatant racism and glaring corruption right in front of their eyes. More often than not, these police crimes are committed by “role models”—the ones you’re supposed to admire and imitate if you want to succeed as a cop. After witnessing or participating in repeated abuse of civilians and other gangster behavior, a rookie cop’s collaboration becomes virtually irreversible. They’ve become part of a criminal subculture. Whatever their original dreams or loyalties were, they’ve now joined a gang and accepted its code. (In D. Watkins’ The Beast Side: Living (and Dying) While Black in America, an East Baltimore resident describes a cop acquaintance: “He ain’t Black no more, he’s white! Better yet, he’s blue, he’s with the biggest gang in the city.”)

I want to emphasize this last point, because I believe it’s central to analyzing cops’ position in society. There are no good cops, no “public servant” cops. This isn’t a personal thing. But nobody can be part of the constant, pervasive racism, institutional brutality and ingrained corruption of policing in the u.s. and come out with clean hands.

In that respect, police are no different than other organized crime groups. Most organized crime is actually non-violent. And many gang members want it to stay that way; they are the growers, smugglers, lookouts or salespeople, who would prefer to live a fairly normal life. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t matter much in practical, class terms. Their affiliation with a parasitic criminal enterprise, their complicity, their loyalty and their silence makes them gangsters.

The same is true of “reluctant” u.s. cops: the ones who try to avoid gratuitous violence; the ones who wish they could just have a regular “career” enforcing the law, without all the unpleasant brutality. That’s not going to happen, though. If they really wanted to enforce the law, the first thing they’d have to do is arrest their partner, or their boss. They know better. And so should we.

Working class heroes?

Many u.s. citizens evade this reality. Instead of acknowledging that cops are gangsters, a lot of civilians mentally classify them as heroic skilled workers. That’s what we were taught, after all. The script is that cops are public servants doing a dirty but necessary blue-collar job, complete with union card.

The twisted pretense that police are working class heroes resonates strongly among privileged civilians, especially the worker elite, which often shares cops’ macho values and fear of the proletariat. Once we classify cops as exemplary workers worthy of our grateful support, why would we want to tie their hands? Aren’t police “working conditions” tough enough already?

The idea that cops are working class heroes should be easy to refute, since they repress each and every freedom struggle—including, of course, the struggles of oppressed workers. Cops have no intention of carrying out any actual labor, either.

For their part, police unions are notoriously rabid defenders of cop illegality, loudly demanding an absolute free hand in terrorizing the population. Cop “labor contracts” are full of provisions preventing prosecution—or any accountability at all—for the most sadistic elements in their ranks. Still, the tendency to identify cops as salt-of-the-earth uber-workers is remarkably persistent, suggesting it is deeply rooted in u.s. class politics.

No matter how many videos and eyewitness accounts of racist, murderous cops come to light, no matter how many popular political leaders are railroaded and assassinated, no matter how many picket lines and demonstrations are viciously beaten down, there’s still a loyal audience that clings to a narrative of heroic “good cops” who are being undercut by ungrateful civilians and unfairly tarnished by a few “bad apples.”

Some civilians argue that cops should be given immunity when they use illegal violence, because they are upholding righteous “law and order.” At the same time, others argue that cop criminality is completely abnormal—something that only happens when there is a rare breakdown of discipline. Logically, these two arguments cancel each other out. If cops are already acting legally, they don’t need impunity from criminal acts. And if you give cops impunity, you can’t pretend that they are supposed to act in a legal manner. These are in fact simply two contradictory threads of a single hypocritical authoritarian ideology. Meanwhile, out in society, thugs with paychecks and unions are still just thugs.

Depending on gangsters

Cop gangs are the largest organized crime groups in most parts of the u.s. Openly displaying their weapons, oozing arrogance, they have the run of the streets. In daily life, it’s almost impossible to completely avoid them. What’s worse is this: Because the police are so institutionalized, we ourselves can easily become complicit in their criminality.

Most of us are poorly-armed; vulnerable to criminals. To our misfortune, we sometimes find ourselves depending on a group of cop criminals to defend us. That isn’t just ironic; it’s disastrous. It undermines our freedom struggles and offends our human dignity.

We rationalize that it’s the cops’ “job” to protect us. (Even though we know that repressing people isn’t really a job.) We tell ourselves that, however bad the cops may be, at least they’re official, “approved” thugs, which makes them better than those “unapproved” thugs down the block. A more practical part of our brains calculates that the cops have their own selfish reason to protect us from the other criminals: they’re maintaining their status as the dominant gang.

Calling in cops may sometimes seem like the best of our bad options. Which means we need better options.

For one thing, asking for police protection often backfires. Cops have utter contempt for civilians, especially civilians who don’t have connections or privileges. We have to be very careful how we speak to them, constantly pantimoming respect and submission. Cop aggression is notoriously volatile, and can turn on us in a split second.

But even when calling the cops doesn’t backfire in such an immediate practical way, it still damages us. When we ask cops to protect us—to take control of emergencies in our lives and and resolve our problems—that helps make their ongoing atrocities against other people more legitimate. It draws us into the orbit of police criminality. To a greater or lesser extent, they take on the role of our preferred gang, our chosen thugs. That in turn becomes a point of poisonous unity with our rulers.

Because we live surrounded by violence and insecurity, civilians are tangled up in a knot of fear, helplessness and dependency on criminal cops. We have to untangle that knot before we can become free.

The new upsurge of mass struggle against cop violence in the u.s. is a very hopeful sign. But we also have to be prepared for what happens when the struggle against police power intensifies; when cops and their paymasters feel that their dominance on the street is threatened. Some of our most important radical leaders have been assassinated by cops. Others have spent decade after decade in hellhole prisons, captured in actual warfare with cops. When revolutionary struggle rises again, there will be more captives, and more casualties.

We don’t yet have a strong enough movement to carry out widespread community self-policing or militant counter-repression. In the meantime, it’s important to understand our enemy as deeply as possible. There have been desperate cries to end police brutality for a long time. But stopping it, I think, will involve recognizing cops’ fundamental criminality. Cops in the u.s. aren’t civil servants to be reformed. They aren’t workers to be retrained. They’re gangsters.


 

Postscript:

Even after I became a radical, I had a hard time really comprehending that the police were my enemy. I understood the concept, intellectually. But because I lived a sheltered life, it was kind of abstract. Are those macho working class guys you call when somebody steals your car really all that bad?

The first time I was in a demonstration that was violently attacked by police, it affected me strongly. Those cops really enjoyed beating and gassing us, even after we fled. Especially after we fled. In that moment, things were not so abstract.

Later I was in other demonstrations and picket lines attacked by cops. At the same time, cops kept murdering, framing and imprisoning prominent radicals. I was outraged, shaken. These were leaders of my movement. But in retrospect, I realize that I kept drifting back into a default civilian frame of mind about cops. Yes, I was a radical activist. And pigs were pigs; I got that on some level. But even my personal negative experiences didn’t fully revolutionize my attitude towards cops.

For a few years I worked at a job site where a bunch of cops hung out. They would come by to collect their payoffs, play with their guns and dogs and swap war stories. They didn’t know my political views of course. Seeing how cops acted when their guard was down was an eye-opening experience for me. I was particularly surprised that Italian mafia guys hung out at the same place (although usually not at the same time). The owner was “connected,” but he was also in tight with the cops. It worked out fine for him. This fascinatingly ugly scene did make a lasting impression. But afterwards, my attitude about cops was still full of contradictions. These cops were acting like criminals. But were they all like that, all the time? Or did they have some kind of dual role in society?

When I began working in industrial jobs, I saw that many of my co-workers also had contradictory thoughts about cops. Attitudes would ebb and flow. The baseline  assumption was that cops were some kind of uber-workers—macho and elite like us, but more so. Then suddenly, if we went out on strike, cops took on a whole different aspect. It was crystal clear that they were on the other side of the struggle. Their intent was to dominate us and help the employer. We didn’t necessarily know exactly how things were going to play out, though. Sometimes cops posed as reluctant enforcers—fellow union members who sympathized with our cause but had a job to do. Then again, sometimes they seemed like pure thugs who got a kick out of pushing us around. Eventually even the longest strikes would end, and cops would begin to slip back in the mental “heroic worker” box, until the next time. (This is clearly different from how proletarians interact with cops, which is much less ambiguous.)

What my personal experience has taught me is that denial about cops’ gangster role in society is extremely powerful, especially among the privileged. Respect for cops is a key element of the authoritarianism indoctrinated into us from birth, an element that’s constantly reinforced by u.s. culture. Pro-cop propaganda is relentless. It surrounds us every place we go—school, movies, TV, books, parents, friends. Much of the Left is vulnerable to this mindset too, especially during periods when the movement is weak. For example, lately some activists have been talking wistfully about police as “part of the 99%.” (Among other things, this clueless assertion implicitly marginalizes the prisoners of war and political prisoners held captive inside the u.s. gulags.) It seems like privileged people are always trying to make excuses for cops in our minds, even when it’s against our better judgment.

There may be a kind of stockholm syndrome at work here. Cops have so much real and mythological power over civilians that we can be seduced and intimidated into acting like their compliant hostages. On an everyday level it’s hard to treat them as enemies—it’s too frightening and depressing. In that respect civilians in the u.s. are no different from other civilians around the world who are forced to tolerate organized crime. Like Italian civilians living under the thumb of the ‘ndrangheta, submitting to the mafias yet at the same time trying to ignore them as much as possible. Or middle class Tokyo civilians, going about their daily business, pretending that yakuza syndicates don’t control big chunks of their economy using violence and intimidation. After all, cop gangsterism tends to only become a pressing issue when it crashes into our personal lives. For some people, that’s every day. But for privileged people, it may be rare.

Most of my life I viewed cops as some sort of mutant labor elite, morphing back and forth between labor aristocrats and “agents of repression.” But as wiser comrades pointed out, this just doesn’t work as a useful explanation for how cops operate in society. It mystifies them instead of explaining them. I realized finally that I needed to dig deeper and think harder about their class nature. I know that analyzing cops more accurately isn’t going to stop their crimes. But it seems like a step in the right direction.

I used to have the naive impression that gangsterism was an exotic subcultural activity on the seedier margins of capitalism. And I used to assume that the lumpen were desperate outcasts or pathalogical parasites at the bottom fringes of society. But what I think now is that organized crime has become a massive, normal feature of everyday capitalist life. It’s a complex social space that can draw in people from a variety of classes; it generates its own stratifications and internal conflicts. Most of the lumpen is made up of very poor people with radically limited options. But there are some other people who gravitate toward the lumpen not only to survive, but also to “succeed,” and to participate in male bonding and conquest. Inside the working class, there are parts of the lumpen that have a higher standard of living than the proletariat. Examples in the u.s. include many motorcycle gangs, mercenaries, mafiosi—and cops.

Lumpen activity is “an integral part of the social whole,” Rosa Luxemburg wrote. “All sections of bourgeois society are subject to such degeneration. The gradations between commercial profiteering, fictitious deals, adulteration of foodstuffs, cheating, official embezzlement, theft, burglary and robbery, flow into one another in such fashion that the boundary line between honorable citizenry and the penitentiary has disappeared.” The examples she gives of lumpen activity may sound mild compared to the rawness of crime in the u.s. these days. But her point remains: criminality is all around us, in a multitude of “legal” and “illegal” guises.

“Cops versus criminals” is the default mindset in the u.s. We’re indoctrinated to use these ideologically-burdened categories to designate opposite poles of society. But in reality cops are criminals too. They’re associates of a certain subset of criminal gang: the ones that capitalists organize, permit and encourage to violently dominate and control us. Like other gangsters, cops exist to prey on civilians and, especially, on the oppressed.

Bromma, February, 2016



on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/21xlGG4