Richard Seymour on Jared Lee Loughner’s assassination attempt on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and etc.

Richard Seymour‘s brilliant and concise take on Jared Lee Loughner’s assassination attempt on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the US right, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, the economic recession, the new “vicious phase of capital accumulation,” and the need “to prevent the Republicans from shutting down discussion of the political dimensions of this crime.”

Republican reactionaries and their business and media allies have spent years winding people up, filling the public with hysterical, poisonous shit about black communist welfare queen drug mules taking over the country. The corporate-funded Tea Party crowd are largely white, more than averagely well-off yanks who believe – have been fervently told – that the country belongs to them and them alone. Hence, take it back. Hence, the batshit ‘birther’ insanity, and Palin’s ‘real America’, and the vigorous promotion of John Birch Society bile in the shape of Glenn Beck. They’re trying to make a large section of the public as irrational as possible, fill their heads with racial conspiracies, turn every last white man and woman who still has a house and two cars into a potential minuteman, ku klux or vigilante.

I think it’s a logical corollary of a particularly vicious phase of capital accumulation. As more and more wealth has been transferred to the rich and welfare programmes curtailed, the state has dealt with the breakdown of working class communities by criminalising their condition in various ways. In addition to manning the iron gates of private property, the state has sought other ways to sweep up and jail the social refuse: penalising drug-users and the homeless, for example. The necessary supplement has been the pornographic spectacle of punishment, of sadistic denigration, of fearful othering, such that no punishment is enough.

This deliberate, calculated brutalisation of political language has been taking place for years, and the accompanying trend has been for a lunatic petit bourgeoisie to become more and more deranged. The ‘Tea Party’, yes, represents a minority which US law enforcement could contain if it wanted to. But it is acting as an accomplice of the ruling class as that same class wages a bitter war to prevent even moderately social democratic forces from emerging from this recession, to stop even the mildest gain for the working class. It is doing so partly because the petit bourgoisie would rather lose all its wealth in another all-consuming crisis than share it with the dirt who, after all, caused this crisis with their feckless borrowing.

So, in light of that, who cares if Jared Lee Loughner looked on Sarah Palin’s website, or heard a speech Sharron Angle made? It was enough for him to exist in a particular context of American life, in this era. It was enough to live in Arizona, where the murders took place, and which has been nominated by a local County Sheriff as “the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry”. That would have been more than sufficient to drive a vulnerable man out of his mind. And it isn’t as if the idea of political assassination had to be suggested to him by osmosis or innuendo. Palin is often quite explicit when she wants an enemy of the ‘real America’, the pristine white America of lore, to be assassinated. So is Pat Robertson, you may recall. Assassination is as American as the hackneyed patriotic schtick that often seems to motivate it. This isn’t about the gallows humour of the Republican right which consists precisely of knowing, wink-wink in-jokes (gun-sight imagery, ‘Reload’, and so on) about the barbarism that already exists, and which they have done so much to cultivate. It’s about what the jokes advert to. The problem is not whether and how to domesticate political language, as some have wrongly assumed, but how to fight back against the political forces that are fomenting this bilious filth. The first step here, I think, would be to prevent the Republicans from shutting down discussion of the political dimensions of this crime.

On the Need for an Anti-National Politic. A Short Reply to Norman Geras’ Defense of National Sovereignty

Originally posted at Bob from Brockley:

In response to Bob from Brockley‘s post “influential left-wing ideas,” where he identified national sovereignty as one of the “bad influences” on the left, Norman Geras comes to the defense of the nation-state writing:

Pending the discovery of some better way for groups of people to band together for mutual protection, the sharing of other social aims, resources and facilities, and the voluntary pursuit of common cultural ways, states based on national (or sometimes multi-national) collectivities are the best way we have.

What’s amazing about this statement is its completely abstract character. As I wrote in a comment on Bob’s post:

It would have been more honest to start with an observation of how national sovereignty fails to achieve any of those listed objectives. The incredible gulf between rich and poor of “the same nation” is only the most obvious example to look at to see [this] failure, but many more [examples] come to mind, say the incredible disproportion of poor, blacks, latinos and immigrants whose only opportunity for social advance is to put their lives at risk in service of the military.

The raw fact of inequality amongst those who “belong to the national collectivity” is completely overlooked, not to mention the affect on those who don’t belong.Why does Geras resort to a Rousseauian fable about the consensually “banding together” of people, who emerge out of the state of nature, to protect their collective interests? Not only do we know that the emergence of nation-states is one of conquest and domination, their contemporary existence, which we experience daily, continues to show its power. This is no secret, and certainly not to a university professor in the social sciences. So, it is a mystery why Geras chose to defend the nation-state on the grounds of abstract arguments divorced from the reality we all experience.

Objecting to Bob’s criticism of the nation, Geras writes, “All that sovereignty requires is some reality to the idea of a community of individuals sharing a common territory.” Apparently, the delimited aspect that necessarily determines this “community” and the power it determines over a geographic area in regards to the flow of people across nation-state borders (during the most mobile period in human history) is not of concern.

But besides from these points, it should be most striking that “the nation” is not only problematic in terms of its delimiting quality in relation to “the outsider”, but also in its political trajectory. In the current global recession, when political leaders across all countries are slashing the remnants of the welfare state, and justifying these policies on the grounds of producing a state that is internationally competitive, we see that the propping up of “the national” today follows a terribly repressive course, in which the many are told to tighten their belts, because “we” are all in it together. The recent social protests against austerity measures in multiple European countries, measures that are done in the name of making a more competitive national state, shows that the national stands in the way of emancipation. What is needed is something that breaks with the nation-state, not something that reinforces it.

Update: Bob from Brockley responded here: On nations and states and Norman Geras responded here: Sovereignty – some points in defence.

Obama and the National Competitive State

In his “Obama Isn’t Spineless, He’s Conservative” Paul Street argues that Obama’s policies are not based on ideas about economic redistribution, but rather on that of a national competitive state seeking to maintain its global hegemony on the world market. This short selection shows how nationalist thinking operates in the form of neoliberal international competition, and is not the sole domain of the far-Right and racists. It shows how nationalism can be tightly bound with the rejection of social justice and the pursuance of a higher rank on the capitalist hierarchy. The following is a long selection from Street’s article:
Continue Reading »

  1. News & Etc.

  2. Recent Comments

  3. Categories

  4. Donate