cymbrevon-blog - Tumblr blog

cymbrevon-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Upholding Human Rights: Defend DACA, Abolish ICE, Build Socialism

The Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals was a policy enacted by the Obama administration on June 12th 2012 that allowed some individuals who came to this country as children to obtain a work permit and encouraged prosecutorial discretion that protected the individuals from deportation. Those who were approved for the program are known as Dreamers. The term “Dreamers” is used by the government to describe undocumented youth in the United States. To be eligible for DACA, immigrants from any nation must have arrived before the age of 16 prior to 2007, must be at least 15 now, and must have been younger than 31 when DACA was passed in 2012. DACA recipients must also have no criminal record, and must either be enrolled in high school or have a GED or high school diploma. Since enacted, DACA has protected over 800,000 people and as of September 4th, 2017 there were almost 700,000 DACA recipients, many of whom have lived in the United States since birth. The program was hailed as a victory, even though the program was only available to a tiny fraction of the immigrant population and limited to youth, leaving millions of people unprotected and at the mercy of ICE, which under the Obama Administration deported over 2 million people, more than all of Obama's predecessors combined.

Contrary to the misinformation spread by the government and media, DACA recipients receive no public aid in any form. They are ineligible for federal financial aid, Medicaid, Obamacare, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, public welfare, and food stamps. They cannot collect social security benefits. Despite this, they are required to pay taxes every year and are not afforded true legal status. Currently people under the DACA program are unsure about their application status as the U.S. government stalls past the March 5th deadline to extend the program.

It cannot be overstated that for over a hundred years the United States has dominated the economic and political affairs of Latin America. It has deployed its troops, death squads and intelligence agencies to these nations when they have not complied with the whims of the U.S. empire or its puppets. It has destabilized every single Latin American and Caribbean nation via military troops, death squads and intelligence agencies, through rape, torture, murder, sabotage, terrorism, intimidation, embargo, imprisonment, genocide and every other form of abuse for its own gain. It has time and again propped up dictators and reactionary governments friendly to its business and military interests that have allowed the U.S. to commit these atrocities against their own people, and that have also committed atrocities themselves to maintain power and profit. The U.S. has destabilized the economies of Latin American nations via free trade agreements and condemned millions to lives of misery and destitution.

The massive waves of immigration from Latin America began as a direct result of decades of U.S. interference and domination of foreign affairs, and yet the United States, under control of the capitalist parties, has continued to demonize people merely looking for what every human being desires: to create a better future for themselves and their families. This pattern has been seen throughout this nation's history and while DACA recipients hail from many nations, right now immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East are the main targets.

U.S. Imperialism is simply a crime against humanity. Families are being torn apart at a record pace as border militarization continues. In the face of this growing problem we must emphatically reiterate that no human being is illegal, because the artificial boundaries that define nation-states go against the very foundations of a free society, a humane society, of a socialist society. Socialists do not believe in borders, as they merely serve to divide and fragment humanity. No human being is more important than another for we are all brothers and sisters. We believe in and fight for an interconnected world free for all to travel without barriers and do so without compromise.

While there are many limitations to DACA, there are over half a million people whose lives will be affected by its repeal. We call for the reinstatement of DACA. Additionally, the Socialist Party USA demands the right of all human beings to adequate education, health care, full civil and legal rights and an immediate end to state terror against our minority and immigrant communities. We demand amnesty, protection and citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers who are not covered by the DACA program. We demand the abolition of ICE and the illegal detention centers where people are kept in inhumane conditions at the mercy of police. Only then can we move forward in building a world where everyone can build a future worthy of their dreams. Until then, we must continue to protect our communities and keep up the fight.

Written by the People of Color Commission with edits by the National Action Committee

0 notes

cymbrevon-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Socialist Party USA Statement on the Aftermath of Hurricane Maria

A research team led by scientists at Harvard's T.H. Chan Public School of Health published a study in The New England Journal of Medicine that illustrated that 4,645 human lives were lost in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. This is a figure that lies in stark contrast to the “official” death toll of 64, announced by Puerto Rico's Department of Public Safety and reported by the American press. The study's authors wrote that “in our survey, interruption of medical care was the primary cause of sustained high mortality rates in the months following the hurricane.”

The disparity in reported figures compared to the study's finding is hardly an accident, but is, in fact, environmental racism. The Global South is and will continue to be most directly affected in the short term by anthropogenic climate change. These areas of the world-areas that have yet to industrialize to the extent the developed world has-are the least responsible for the disastrous effects of ecological destruction caused by human activity. These areas happen also to be contending with compromised infrastructure due to histories of colonial plunder and exploitation. Puerto Rico, however, is a U.S. territory. There is no excuse for the federal government's indifference and neglect of Puerto Rico's people.

This incredible loss of life was entirely preventable. But the United States, one of the richest countries in the world, refused and continues to refuse to provide the resources and support necessary to save the lives of Puerto Rican citizens.

We ask, what would an appropriate response be to the treatment of the people of Puerto Rico? What can we do? First, we encourage you to speak-as much as you possibly can-about the relationship between capitalism and anthropogenic climate change. Educate yourself, your friends and family, your co-workers, your fellow students, and members of your community. Next, engage in efforts that are directly challenging both capitalism and the ecological destruction caused by capitalism. One way to do this is to join the SPUSA, join the SPUSA's Ecosocialist Working Group, and join our efforts fighting global climate change and the disproportionate suffering it wreaks on poor and working class people around the world.

0 notes

cymbrevon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

On Using The Word Comrade

“If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.” – Che

As a member of a socialist organization in Central Alabama, I'm no stranger to alienation and persecution – local liberals like to degrade our organization for its refusal to support the capitalist vision of the Democratic Party, not to mention the very revolutionary and radical ideals which make up the central planks of our mission, and find our unbending dedication to the cause of ultimate liberation foolish; conservatives despise us for much more obvious reasons, as they are opposed to anyone who doesn't think public hangings should be reinstated. But what is surprising is the backlash we've received over our use of revolutionary language, specifically the use of the word “comrade” as a term of respect for our brothers and sisters within the struggle.

The word comrade, as defined in the dictionary, means the following: “a companion who shares one's activities or is a fellow member of an organization; a fellow soldier or member of the armed forces; a fellow socialist or communist.” As those of us who use the term regularly when speaking with our fellow party members know, this is a term of respect – it is an acknowledgment that we are fellow brothers and sisters in the fight against capitalism, imperialism, neo-colonialism and oppression of all kinds; it is an acknowledgment that, should the government begin ransacking houses in search of anti-government agitators, we will be the first victims; it is an acknowledgment that those who carry that moniker are fellow soldiers in a fight against the very system which has placed our brothers and sisters in invisible economic and cultural cells to suffer and rot.

“To disbelieve in marriage is easy; to love a married woman is easy; but to betray a comrade, to be disloyal to a host, to break the covenant of bread and salt, is impossible.” – G.B. Shaw

I do not use the word comrade lightly – it's not a whimsical nickname for a close friend, or a joke passed between drunken buddies – I use it as a term of high respect for those who, like me, are willing to put their lives on the line for their convictions. Our allies in this battle – those fighting against the exploitation and disenfranchisement of women, people of color, the LGBT community, the workers and the poor and so many more – are as valuable to our struggle as any individual comrade can be. However, unlike socialist fighters, these allies continue to fight the symptoms while ignoring the disease. The symptoms of this malignant cancer manifest in many ways – through sick, desperate and starving families; through underpaid and overworked laborers; through police brutality; through income inequality and more – and though we might root out one tumor after the next, the cancer will remain. Until we commit ourselves to the full removal of that poisoning cancer, we will never know justice and we will never know peace and equality.

In an age where our language has been broken down into letters rather than words, where sentences have been replaced by alphabetical jumbles, it seems almost riotous that one would take offense over a word properly used between two people authorized to indulge its use. When I look into the eyes of a fellow party member, I do not see a friend or an ally or a companion, I see a comrade – one who would happy lay down his life for the cause of worldwide socialism and all of those who fight for it. A comrade is a person unsatisfied with the condition of the current world; one who refuses to compromise his laurels in order to sustain some base, momentary relief; one who acknowledges that the problems this world faces go much deeper than legislation and the politicians who interact it; one who acknowledges that, until we have new politics, no new politician is going to make a substantial change in the life of the sufferer.

“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. We will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.” – E.V. Debs

So, by all means, mock those of us whose lips are stained with the word comrade. And, by all means, continue to ignore the very real butchering of your own language, a massacre you likely contribute to daily, and opt for the easier target – the wide-eyed socialists committed to their cause and their comrades who fight so valiantly within it. If so calling my brothers and sisters in the struggle for universal liberation and equality makes me “dumb,” so be it – I have in my conscience the knowledge that my fight is justified and the language I use to denote those who fight by my side is right as well.

I've made many friends during my life, and many enemies as well. I surmise that both will continue to appear, though perhaps the latter in higher numbers these days. But of all of these friends, I count my comrades ahead of all others, for they will be the ones to carry my flag into battle when I am no longer fit to wield it.

0 notes

cymbrevon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

On Using The Word Comrade

“If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.” – Che

“To disbelieve in marriage is easy; to love a married woman is easy; but to betray a comrade, to be disloyal to a host, to break the covenant of bread and salt, is impossible.” – G.B. Shaw

0 notes

cymbrevon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

The Spontaneity of Revolution

By Adam Powell

On that day of snowy tension, in early November, in the Russian chill, no one expected what was to come before the day's end. Leon Trotsky, who from his perch at The Smolny, Petrograd's historic government district, had been overseeing the movements and actions of trade union militants, was fretting over nationalist propaganda. The Bolsheviks in the underground printing press were still churning out pamphlets, proclamations, and statements. The Provisional Government of Kerensky, along with the pacifiers from the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties, was still hurling idle threats at the Soviet agitators. Vladimir Ilyich was still in transit to the battleground of his homeland. None knew that history would touch these people and this nation so suddenly and powerfully. Even in those early days and decisive hours, none of the leaders of the soon- to-be-formed Soviet Union knew what, or even how, the revolution would begin. But begin it did, and, a century later, those students of the Soviet experience are still learning from the lessons of the Bolshevik movement.

That Trotsky and Lenin expected an armed insurrection is inarguable. They had promoted such an agenda and had sensed the seeds of resistance since the reactionary days of February, and even more so during the punishing days of July. Nevertheless, they had never expected that it would arise so unannounced, so spontaneously from the throats, feet, and hands of the very workers they had so diligently fought to convince. In this way, the duo's idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” came to life in a startling way. Workers began nationwide strikes, alongside the peasantry and the soldiers, crippling many of the country's most essential services and instigated armed resistance against the cronies of the February government. In the upheaval, the people turned to the organization that with conviction, sincerity, and integrity had long advocated for a popular resistance against bourgeois society. As history has shown, their confidence was well placed. The Soviet government of Lenin and Trotsky prevailed, despite diplomatic skirmishes, civil war, imperialist intervention, and any number of internal and domestic struggles. That the Soviet Union eventually crumbled is less an indictment of the Bolshevik leaders than it is of those who abandoned its revolutionary struggles.

The reason this revolution is still talked about today, on the very eve of its centenary, is because the lessons to be learned from its creation and execution have never truly been replicated. In no small way, it is the desire of every modern socialist revolutionary to see that trend reversed, and the lessons are far- reaching. Primarily, the Bolshevik Revolution showed the world for the first time in its history that the politics of radical equality could not only awaken the masses, but also reinvent one of the world's foremost nations. During the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, Trotsky observed that, “The thing that surprises and repels the governments of other countries is that we do not arrest strikers, but capitalists who subject workers to lock- outs; that we do not shoot peasants who demand land, but arrest the landowners and officers who try to shoot the peasants.” What a radical notion, that a government should side with the exploited over the exploiters; that a government should use all means at its disposal to ensure that no person is capable of subjugating another for the benefit of the first.

Further and equally important, we celebrate and learn from this revolution specifically because its leaders have come to be recognized as some of the most brilliant minds ever to hypothesize on matters of socialist revolution and ideology, not to mention their formulations of the conditions of their time. They created within themselves a cult of personality, which to this day defines some of the various schools of thoughts with in today's socialist movement. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin is one of the most well-known revolutionaries in the history of the world, most certainly in the history of socialist action. His contributions to socialist thought on issues such as war and peace, democratic centralism, pacifism, and so much more still resonate within today's revolutionaries. Lenin was radicalized against czarist rule after the execution of his brother in 1887. He was eventually expelled from school for participating in anti-government protests and, by 1893, had moved to Petrograd to become a leader in the Russian Social Democrat Labour Party (RSDLP). During a series of arrests and exiles, Lenin came to be recognized for his theoretical insight through his various writings, which were illegally dispersed across the continent. It wasn't long before an inner-party squabble caused a split, with Lenin's Bolsheviki advocating for insurrection. As we know, the rest is history.

Although he has been bestowed a much more negative cult of personality over the many years of reaction, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, better known to most as Leon Trotsky, is widely recognized as one of socialism's foremost thinkers and writers. The ideology given his namesake, “Trotskyism,” is synonymous with opposition to revisionist policies and the abandonment of the revolution's ideals. It still holds a prominent place within the modern socialist discussion, particularly among his many devoted apostles. Trotsky helped to establish the South Russian Workers Union in 1897 and, less than a year later, he and other union members were imprisoned for two years. During his years of imprisonment and exile, which would become a recurring condition of Trotsky's life, he penned countless pamphlets and statements, which still hold resonance among modern socialists. By 1905, Trotsky was again writing leaflets, this time for the RSDLP and the Bolsheviks, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize the Mensheviki faction. A series of strikes went out like wildfire, first among the typesetters and later among many other workers' groups, and Trotsky spoke before a crowd of more than 200,000 supporters. By the next morning, the Soviet was surrounded and Trotsky was arrested along with a number of union members. Trotsky lived the better part of the following years in exile, working with socialist organizations across the continent, until the February Revolution drew him back to his homeland and his ideological counterpart Lenin. In much the same way Lenin's prologue ended, so too does Trotsky's. History has shown what happened when the Bolshevik leaders were finally in place to implement the strategy that had long believed would set the stage for a socialist overthrow of the bourgeois state. In the unrest, which followed the ousting of the czar, and the subsequent government takeover by placating bourgeois opportunists, Lenin and Trotsky knew that the Russian people had reached a fever pitch and would support such an oppressive state, not too different from the one from which they had just gained freedom, for only a short time.

These lessons in themselves are more than enough to consume the literary and educational time reserved for the proletarian revolutionary, but they only scratch the surface of the lessons which can be learned from thoroughly evaluating the successes and failures, of which there were plenty of both, of the October Revolution and the years which followed it. But, perhaps, we do ourselves a great disservice in only evaluating those lessons that had their curriculum based in physical, and therefore verifiable, evidence. The people, the action, the policies, and troubles can all be confirmed through historical documentation, at least that which survived the Stalinist purges of fact and history – when the most potent lessons to be learned are from those occurrences which were too unrehearsed to have left their mark upon national history in a real and tangible way. Rarely a conversation on the Russian Revolution can be held without reference to Lenin and Trotsky, the Petrograd gun battles and shellings, or the orders given by the Bolsheviki leadership to quell the resistance and propel the revolutionaries to victory. Rare indeed, however, are the conversations on the excellent use and dispersion of revolutionary propaganda, or the impetuous uprising that exploded in October of 1917 specifically because this well-crafted literature had hit its mark in a most surprising way.

It would seem that these are the most important lessons to be learned from the Bolshevik Revolution, and not necessarily the strategies on warfare, party building or the consolidation of power. Rather, it is the need for a dynamic propaganda program and the realization that, if that literature successfully completes its mission, those who pen it will have little say in when that revolutionary time bomb ultimately detonates. In a strange way, we must learn that, like a teacher, it is the job of the organized revolutionary movement to effectively educate the exploited and oppressed. Similarly, much like a teacher, we have no say as to when or how that knowledge will be utilized; and, just like a teacher, those who share knowledge will inevitably be the ones that students look to when they find their full understanding lacking.

In this way, the most important lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution, as it pertains to the modern, yet traditionalist, socialist movement spearheaded by comrades within the Socialist Party of the United States of America, are the more intangible. Among these is the efficacy of well-crafted propaganda, established for the symbiotic purposes of education and radicalization, and the acceptance of our place as little more than a radical university for students of the revolution. In the event of a popular uprising, this propaganda will become the epicenter of direction for all of those well-educated and steadfast comrades who have entered the fold via the doorway we've opened for them. Quite contrary to a subordinate role in the revolution, these actions position our organization to truly understand the nature of revolution and the role of those organizations that promote and promulgate a proletarian uprising; one not ordered upon the masses but welcomed by those who recognize its necessity.

In consideration of the first tenet, the idea that masterfully-crafted propaganda is the most effective tool for radicalizing the working class of any nation, one need only look at the history of nearly every socialist revolution that has taken place since 1917. As we have already seen, Trotsky and Lenin churned out constant writings in the form of pamphlets, leaflets, proclamations, editorials, statements, and more to great effect among the disenfranchised masses of early 1900's proletarians. The same can be said of the propaganda campaign waged by the revolutionaries in Cuba. Much like Trotsky and Lenin, Guevara and Fidel spent much of their days penning statements to be disseminated amongst the working peoples of Cuba's cities. The guerrilla movement had experienced great success among the rural peasantry. This is because it used eloquently and effectively written propaganda, not to mention popularly enjoyed radio broadcasts, to undermine the official statements of the government so effectively that armed insurrection within those city centers began within only a short while. Although we live in an age wholly distant from the struggles of the past, both those of 1917 and those of the 1950's and 60's, we can effectively utilize the same methods by simply modifying them to today's technology. Primarily, the power of print media, which interested parties can carry along to sympathizers and friends for an undisclosed duration, should not be undermined. The establishment of a powerful and properly functioning printed organ could work wonders for the message spreading so desperately needed by this organization. This regularly-published newspaper could be used to several beneficial ends. The most important of which is the simple ability to provide people with a professionally crafted periodical, which will convince the reader of the legitimacy of the organ and, thereby, encourage them to seriously look more into the ideas expressed therein. Further, this outlet could work as an excellent source of revenue building and message spreading if disseminated to local charters, which could both contribute to the organ and distribute it among the working class peoples of their locales.

While my Trotskyist tendencies often lead me to put more stock in the printed word than more modern colleagues, I am in no way under the impression that such a periodical should take the place of more contemporary modes of message spreading. Ideally, the printed word will be the primary method by which information is shared, but certainly not the sole method. Modern technology allows us to review multiple happenings across the planet in only seconds and digest wholly the various schools of thought discussing those events. In the same way, it allows us to instantly share with the wider world our unique perspective on issues plaguing peoples all across the globe. This should be utilized constantly, not in the childish way that many people use social media, but as an extension of the eloquence often reserved for printed works. We have to acknowledge that modern technology, while providing humanity with a wide array of benefits, had widely dumbed down the human population and created a vortex within which most never escape. The desperate need for formal writing in our daily exchanges, whether they be statements or proclamations dispersed through blogs or brief blasts of words on social media platforms, can not be understated. If we want our movement to be taken seriously by the working people of this nation, we must speak in serious language. It is common for modern socialists to condemn such language as bourgeois, but such assertions undermine the very real conditions of the day. Those not speaking or writing with formality are pushed to the side, like every other voice that abets the modern butchery of the English language. Formality in speech may well be a bourgeois construct, but it nonetheless provides a portal through which we are able to appeal to the masses in a legitimate way. As mentioned before, this assertion was not lost on the socialist leaders who have come before us. No different than modern language, the language of the Russian or Cuban proletariat, and likewise that of every other nation, does not conform to the linguistic standards of the intelligentsia. However, it is the language within which we are tasked to educate. Just as our theories educate the masses, so too does our use of language.

The second great lesson to be learned for modern socialists, the one which begs us to bide our time until the toiling masses are awakened to the point of action, is much more difficult to explain and even more difficult still to comprehend. Perhaps patience is not so much the lesson as the primary obligation of education, though the two inevitably walk hand in hand. Armed revolution is the end that we all see as inevitable, for no person will talk the ruling class into surrendering its power. Therefore, we must acknowledge that without the radical education, which is provided by organizations such as our own, there is no hope for the organized mass movement, which will be required to fundamentally change our nation and, therefore, the cultural conditions within it. For this reason, it is imperative that our organization focus more fully on that task, not just of educating the masses to the point that every slight offense is noticed without thought, but of educating our own comrades to the point that every slight offense becomes a new avenue through which to teach. If we will readily admit that the vast majority of United States' citizens, and truly the vast majority of all peoples, are not yet sufficiently educated on the ideals and motives of revolutionary socialism, then we must also admit that there are those within our ranks who suffer the very same deficiencies. We must never tire in our efforts to guide the ideological growth of our comrades, both in the historic mission of socialism and its modern goals. In doing so, we not only help to mold top-notch comrades, but revolutionary educators as well.

The methods by which this radical education can take shape are numerous. As previously discussed, a central propaganda organ disseminated to all comrades for dispersal among the masses will undoubtedly work wonders. In addition, the establishment of an inner-party organ might well serve to better educate our members. As we have surely seen, despite the younger generation's insistence to the contrary, the Party disregards opportunities for digital learning and connectivity through seminars, lectures, book clubs, and the like. For this reason, again, a hard copy of a newsletter specifically for the continuing education of comrades would likely work where other efforts have not. With a more firmly established knowledge of our party's goals and our ideology's perspectives, comrades can more effectively share that knowledge with the community. Book clubs and lectures are excellent ways to educate the local population, but so too are more light- hearted events which, on the surface, serve no political or ideological purpose, such as community cook-outs, musical performances, movie screenings, and the like – any way that the local cadre can connect with those not already radicalized.

That radicalization, which is the very soil in which our movement will be planted, is the only true goal toward which the modern comrade should strive. Just as each of us were radicalized over time, our ideas sharpened, and our commitment solidified, so too do the yet-uneducated masses need time to develop proper praxis, and the greatest lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution surely only reinforce that assertion. It was not one decision made by Trotsky or Lenin that secured the victory of socialism in Russia a century ago. It was not one battle that ensured that the Leninist vision of society would thrive, if only for a while, in the world's largest nation. It was the continued determination over many years of thoughtful, brilliant, and resolute men and women, who worked tirelessly to aid and educate the underserved masses of their homeland, which brought forth the greatest socialist victory known to history. While we can certainly learn from the iron discipline of the Bolshevik leaders and the steadfast courage of those who served beside them, the most important lessons are those which are rarely noticed to those beyond the fray: patience and creativity, resourcefulness and empathy, commitment and discipline. Without acknowledging the role of these necessary traits, we cannot claim to have learned anything from the Bolsheviks. Our party will inevitably suffer the same fate if our movement is placed into the hands of the unprepared, inexperienced, and those ignorant of the fundamentals of socialist thought and history.

Of all of the lessons to be learned from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, this is perhaps the most important. It is a commonly held belief that the people's revolution will somehow arrive at a predetermined date and time, as if scheduled by masterminds of the resistance who saw all that would come to pass long ago, and that we will most likely not be around to see its completion. Similarly, it is widely believed that there are certain conditions which must be met before a socialist revolution can be endeavored upon and, no matter what epoch one looks to, we are not living in such conditions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people's revolution cannot be scheduled, it is simply born once the oppressed masses of a nation have finally grown weary of their exploiters. The only condition that must be met for such an uprising is the revolutionary awakening and subsequent consciousness of those same peoples.

Obviously, anyone who has studied the fundamentals of a people-led revolution knows this to be a simplified statement. The conditions for the revolution are much more involved than simple consciousness. Yet, any conditions which must be met are not required for the revolution, but for the primitive stages of a revolutionary mindset. Looking back to 1917, neither Trotsky nor Lenin, nor any of the other Bolsheviks seeking the overthrow of the czarist regime, considered their position to be one of a higher positioning than their proletarian counterparts. They sought not to mobilize the masses as some sort of infantry, rather only to educate those masses to the point that the unsustainable conditions, which were soobvious to the socialist revolutionaries, became obvious to the masses. Neither knew when that task would be completed and the lesson fully ingested, therefore they had no way of knowing the day and hour of the popular revolt. But because they had set for themselves a place of power within the mind of the exploited, just as a teacher instills a place of power within the mind of the student, the Bolsheviks were able to be the apparatus to which the people looked for guidance when their fury finally exploded upon the streets of Petrograd.

This should be the position sought by all comrades within a revolutionary party: to instill in the people, via community work, revolutionary speech, and edification, the belief that we are the organ for change and can be relied upon to react accordingly to the revolutionary will of the people.

0 notes

cymbrevon-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Security and the Police of Souls: An Interview with Mark Neocleous, Part II

Read Part I here.

Nicholas: Article Twenty-four in Fundamentals of Pacification Theory mentions Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiatives and the state's urging citizens to partake in shared responsibility (i.e. If You See Something, Say Something neighborhood watch programs). As you write, these initiatives inform and empower a broader range of people and institutions to become part of the architecture of security and serve as intelligencers of the modern world. Relatedly, these programs have been challenged by the Skid Row-based Stop LAPD Spying Coalition in Los Angeles, amongst others, who instead frame them as part of the security state's architecture of surveillance. Would you explicate upon the role surveillance and intelligence play with regards to security?

Mark: The choice of the term 'surveillance' is yours. I don't use it in that Article in the Chapter. Indeed, I tend not to use it very much at all. My argument is about security, not surveillance, and I tend to avoid using the term where I can.

Nicholas: Why?

Mark: Because it would begin to look like too much like it's trying to be part of surveillance studies, when in fact it is pitched at a large and critical distance from surveillance studies.

Nicholas: Can I push you to say a little bit more about that?

Mark: The problem with the concept of surveillance, and thus in a sense the big problem with surveillance studies, is that the concept works in a catchall way. It's taken for granted that the state wishes to engage in surveillance, and once surveillance is taken for granted there is not much more to be said or done other than to point to the fact of surveillance. This means in turn that any new technology, any new policy, any new institution can be read as part and parcel of the process of surveillance. As a consequence, the concept of 'surveillance' ends up explaining not very much at all, and no meaningful analysis ever really emerges. This produces what is, for me at least, a major incoherence at the heart of surveillance studies. What this means is that the extensive empirical work that takes place in surveillance studies some of which is very good indeed fails to do little more than repeat the mantra 'surveillance', in a kind of desperate attempt to find yet more evidence of surveillance, again and again.

Have you noticed that one never gets the articulation of a theory of surveillance within surveillance studies? Look at the titles of the books in the field: Surveillance Studies: An Overview, Surveillance Studies: A Reader, Surveillance Studies: A Handbook, and Surveillance Studies: Monitoring Everyday Life. And then one gets a whole host of 'Surveillance and x'-type books: Surveillance and Space, Surveillance and Film, Surveillance and Security, and so on. Is there a book called, say, Surveillance: A General Theory? Or Theory of Surveillance? My point is that 'surveillance' is in many ways a concept in search of a theory. What is that theory? Well, the first thing we know for sure is that Marxism is certainly not that theory and Marxism should certainly never aspire to be it. It is not at all clear what role the concept of 'surveillance' might play in a materialist analysis. How do we integrate surveillance with a concept such as class, or state and civil society, or commodity, or exploitation, or primitive accumulation? Maybe the sociological background and orientation of 'surveillance' renders it essentially incompatible with materialist theory, and maybe that is also why so much of surveillance studies is inflected with a kind of muted Foucauldianism, despite the fact that the word 'surveille' in the title of the book that gets translated into English as Discipline and Punish is one of the most problematic terms in Foucault's oeuvre. And I guess the muted Foucauldianism of surveillance studies might then also explain why it relies so heavily on the Panopticon and panopticism, terms which again do very little to enhance our understanding.

On a different point entirely, my phrase 'architecture of security' wasn't intended as any kind of reference to Stop LAPD Spying Coalition's phrase 'architecture of surveillance.' Stop LAPD Spying Coalition's use of 'surveillance' makes perfect sense given what it is trying to capture under the term 'architecture,' namely a conglomeration of technologies and institutions and the way in which these act as a unity. It's perfectly reasonable to use the term in this way. But it's important not to try and structure a whole discourse or movement [solely] around it.

Nicholas: Even accepting your point about surveillance, my broader question still stands concerning intelligence and things such as suspicious activities reporting. In particular, I was interested in asking you about them as regards to security. Much of your work has argued that part of the challenge with lodging a critique against security not grounded in critical theory and a broad conception of police/police power, as well an understanding of (bourgeois) order, is that one ends up reinforcing security discourse by speaking in its terms (i.e. food security, housing security, social security, and so forth). The question I was building to concerns how the idea of pacification provides an entry point into lodging a critique against security (an anti-security) when, as you've argued, the latter effectively presents an analytical blockage for those seeking to challenge it? I was going to get to that question by first asking you about intelligence and actions such as the suspicious activities reporting.

Mark: The analytical blockage you mention is one way in which we can think about the difference between the critique of security and something like surveillance studies because the critique of security is a critique of something that we are told we all somehow desire. This means the critique has to consider not only the various practices carried out in the name of 'security' but also the fact that security has been presented to us as a fundamental human right ever since security appeared in the original declarations of rights in the eighteenth century. Rather than take this historical fact for granted, which would mean uncritically accepting that security is a human right and leaving it at that, the critique of security instead asks why security came to figure so strongly in those documents of the bourgeois revolutions. The critique of security asks after the connection between security and bourgeois thought in general. In other words, the key question to ask is why security is such a dominant concept in bourgeois ideology.

The overwhelming power of security as an idea and an ideal is precisely why it is an analytical blockage. This is why so-called 'critical security studies' within academia has held back from developing an actual critique of security in a sense, critical security studies is part of the blockage. But security is also now becoming a blockage for much of the Left which is too quickly and easily adopting the language of security. Take one of the examples you mention, 'food security.' There are few needs more fundamental, more sensuous, and more sociable than food which is one reason why food has historically been an incredible mobilizing force from eighteenth century bread riots through to twentieth century salt marches. The radicalism of the Panthers' attempt to actually ensure that children have a good breakfast lies in this very idea of food as a basic need from which other needs can then be satisfied and human capabilities realized and I say this regardless of the important debates between the Panthers about whether this detracted from other kinds of action. So we have food as a fundamental human need and a powerful foundation for political action precisely because it is such a fundamental need but all of that is now being subsumed under the idea of 'food security.' This subsumption is its nullification. It kills the radical potential in an idea such as hunger. It subsumes food into an object of political administration by the security state. To put it another way, socialism isn't about 'food security,' it's about satisfying human needs. The same applies to all the other things that are now having 'security' attached to them. The point is, the more we succumb to the discourse of security, the less we talk about the things we really need to talk about. The more we talk about security, the less we say about exploitation. The more we talk about security, the less we talk about human needs. The more we talk about security, the less we talk about the actual material foundations of emancipation.

Thinking of this blockage is one way of thinking about developments such as the suspicious activities reporting. What is of interest to me about suspicious activity reporting is less its operation as, say, a form of surveillance, and much more the means by which it interpellates us as the agents of security to the point where we are expected to constantly think security and to experience ourselves and others in security terms. This is not something new but is inherent in the logic of security, and we can learn a lot by thinking about this history. Let me get at this in a roundabout way.

For reasons which I won't go into now but which are to do with the book I am currently writing, I have been working my way through the transcripts of the hearing in 1954 of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer had been director of the Los Alamos project and a leading figure behind the development of the thermonuclear bomb he is often described as the 'father of the atomic bomb.' At some point in the early 1950s, he gradually came under suspicion of being disloyal to the American state. This was a period in which millions of people had to undergo 'loyalty tests' to show that they were patriotic and nationalistic enough not to be considered a security risk. The loyalty tests that ensued were a kind of charade, part of the theatre of security. People were asked questions about their reading habits, sexual preferences, membership of clubs, choice of friends, and so on. This is what Oppenheimer faced, including questions about the fact that, for example, his brother's wife was in the Communist Party and that he had been a member of the Consumers Union. The Hearing also called a series of witnesses to answer questions about Oppenheimer's character and habits, and many of them declared that they didn't think Oppenheimer was disloyal in any way. Regardless, the Hearing eventually decided that Oppenheimer was a security risk.

Now, we might note in passing that despite the ridiculously flimsy nature of the accusations against Oppenheimer and the fact that more than enough witnesses said they did not see him as disloyal, the fact that he was nonetheless still regarded as a security risk is a reminder that the security system will always find security risks if only to prove that the security system is working as a system. Once you have the concept of a witch, you are surely going to find some witches. But that's not why I am mentioning the Hearings here. Rather, I want to pick up on a comment made by the Board at the Hearing, which is the Board's suggestion that every person must in their own way be a 'guardian of the national security' that's their phrase and that because everyone should be a guardian of national security it is right that the state 'searches the soul' of any individual whose loyalty is in question. This is such a lovely phrase that we should really think about what it means. One obvious interpretation, which was made at the time by The Economist, hardly the most radical of journals, is that this constitutes a claim to divine prescience beyond that attempted by totalitarian states. True as this might be, we can make a different point which is the idea that in the mind of the state, security should be in our very souls. Security should be part of the work of the good soul. Security is soul-craft. What might this mean? Well, it means that we can and should expect our souls to be constantly examined by a security state that seeks omniscience. It also means that in searching our souls the state might find something that we ourselves did not know was there. It also suggests that people should constantly search their own souls for any doubts about security. Security is not just a technology of the self, to use Foucault's phrase, but part of the government of the soul.

Maybe this is where we need to situate the suspicious activities reporting for it is part of a world in which intelligence-gathering is to be conducted not just by the intelligence services but by the people themselves, on each other. This is how security comes to make each and every one of us a suspicious person. 'If you see something, say something' is a slogan which also needs to be understood as 'if you do something someone will be watching you.' On the one hand, this is how security separates us from our fellow human beings. Security doesn't bind us to others it alienates us. On the other hand, and as regards soul-craft, security is increasingly central to our own loss of self to the extent that in the name of security we might at some point have to start suspecting ourselves of having suspicious thoughts, desires, or intentions. And what then should we do? Turn ourselves in, of course. Security demands it. And, to go back to the discussion from just a moment ago, this seems to me to be a more powerful, more pressing and far more troubling idea than simply labeling it surveillance.

Read the full interview in the Anti-Security Issue of The Socialist.

Save

1 note · View note