|
Re: Koba: An Excerpt from Ronald Grigor Suny’s “Stalin: Passage to Revolution” - Los Angeles Review of Books
Vladimiro Giacche'
Couldn‘t be Marx‘ Critique of GOTHA Program (1875, Published by Engels in 1891) instead ?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Inviato da iPhone
Il giorno 3 ott 2020, alle ore 03:46, fred.r.murphy@... ha scritto:
|
|
|
|
Re: Koba: An Excerpt from Ronald Grigor Suny’s “Stalin: Passage to Revolution” - Los Angeles Review of Books
Dayne Goodwin
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:02 PM Dayne Goodwin via groups.io <daynegoodwin=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
And of course, Engels was in fact the published author of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
|
|
|
|
Re: Koba: An Excerpt from Ronald Grigor Suny’s “Stalin: Passage to Revolution” - Los Angeles Review of Books
Dayne Goodwin
I don't think so. Engel's Critique of the Erfurt Program wasn't published until 1901-02 and didn't become well-known for decades. It seems reasonable to me to assume that The Development of Scientific Socialism was the title used for the translation of what had been published (1880) as the pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (as you know, the content of this pamphlet came from three chapters of Anti-Duhring published in 1877).
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:46 PM <fred.r.murphy@...> wrote: Could have been Engels’s Critique of the Erfurt Program. Also, there is no such work by Engels titled The Development of Scientific Socialism.
|
|
|
|
Re: Koba: An Excerpt from Ronald Grigor Suny’s “Stalin: Passage to Revolution” - Los Angeles Review of Books
fred.r.murphy@...
Could have been Engels’s Critique of the Erfurt Program. Also, there is no such work by Engels titled The Development of Scientific Socialism.
|
|
|
|
The Insufferable Hubris of the Well-Credentialed
The Insufferable Hubris of the Well-CredentialedSeptember 30, 2020 07:09 PM The Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel’s 10th book, The Tyranny of Merit, out this month from FSG, covers a lot of ground for a short text — especially in its sweeping second chapter, “A Brief Moral History of Merit,” which, following Max Weber, describes the surprising emergence of the “fiercely meritocratic work ethic” out of the Protestant Reformation’s “war against merit.” From these origins, Sandel says, would eventually appear such diverse phenomena as mega-churches preaching the “prosperity gospel,” the weakening of the welfare state, and the increasing importance of the university system as a source of not just earning power but personal prestige. President Trump, for instance, likes to say that he went to Wharton, which he insists is “the hardest school to get into, the best school in the world … super genius stuff.” The Tyranny of Merit hopes to explain the cultural background behind this bit of Trumpian braggadocio, and more broadly to argue that a just political future must recognize that even a perfect meritocracy would be fundamentally unfair. I talked with Sandel about resentment and hubris, the trauma of the elite-university admissions process, the problem with economists, and pull-ups. Critiques of meritocracy are on everyone’s lips right now. Why? I think it’s partly due to the events of 2016. The populist backlash against elites was a big part of the vote in Britain for Brexit and the election of Trump in the U.S. That prompted a reflection on what it was about elites that many working people so resented. Looking back at the last four decades, it’s clear that the divide between winners and losers has been deepened, poisoning our politics and driving us apart. This has partly to do with deepening inequality of income and wealth. But it’s about more than that. It has to do with the fact that those who landed on top came to believe that their success was their own doing, the measure of their merit — and by implication that those left behind had no one to blame but themselves. For people who didn’t flourish in the new economy, this attitude toward success made the inequality of the last four decades all the more galling. Much of your argument draws on political philosophy, and in that sense is continuous with your earlier work, going back to Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). But, as “galling” suggests, the master pair of opposed categories running through this book is psychological. That’s “hubris” and “humiliation.” They are psychological but at the same time political categories. One of the important features of populist anger and resentment is people’s sense that elites look down on them. This is not an entirely mistaken impression. It’s a legitimate grievance. Meritocracy is an attractive, even inspiring ideal, but it has a dark side: It generates hubris among the winners and humiliation among the losers. I suppose you could say this is a reading of the moral psychology of our political moment. The meritocratic hubris of elites is the conviction by those who land on top that their success is their own doing, that they have risen through a fair competition, that they therefore deserve the material benefits that the market showers upon their talents. Meritocratic hubris is the tendency of the successful to inhale too deeply of their success, to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way. It goes along with the tendency to look down on those less fortunate, and less credentialed, than themselves. That gives rise to the sense of humiliation and resentment of those who are left out. In Identity, a 2018 book motivated by similar concerns to yours — especially by the rise of Trump — Francis Fukuyama broaches analogous territory in discussing “dignity” and “resentment.” These are aspects of what he calls “thumos,” which for him denotes something like the impassioned need for recognition. Is political philosophy seeing a turn toward questions of emotion? Political philosophy has tended to neglect what I call “the politics of humiliation and resentment.” The emphasis in political philosophy over the last 50 years has been on questions of distributive justice — what is a fair distribution of income and wealth and power and opportunity? But debates about distributive justice don’t fully capture what’s at stake in the current political moment. There is the tendency to think that those left behind by globalization are angry because they didn’t get their fair share of the benefit. That’s certainly true. The economic growth associated with globalization went to those on the top, roughly the top 20 percent. Median wage has been stagnant. So it’s easy to interpret the anger that has fueled the populist backlash as being about the failure of the winners to adequately compensate the losers. But this misses the psychological or emotional dimension of politics. It isn’t only the inequality of income and wealth that makes people angry. Attitudes toward success explain these more potent sentiments. The politics of humiliation is a more combustible and dangerous politics than the politics of injustice, because it’s about recognition and esteem. To interpret our current moment, political philosophers need to go beyond questions of fairness. The tyranny of merit, you write, is “corrosive of commonality.” How can institutions like Harvard, where you teach — exclusive by design — contribute to the communitarian ethos you say would repair some of the defects in our version of a meritocracy? I would distinguish two different problems here. One is the more familiar: We don’t live up to the meritocratic principles we profess. Even universities with generous financial-aid policies do not enroll substantially increased percentages of first-generation students from what they did in the 1960s. At Ivy League universities, there are more students from the top 1 percent than from the bottom half. But even if we could remove all barriers to achievement, the meritocratic ideal would still be flawed. We have cast universities as the arbiters of opportunity. We have assigned them the role of allocating credentials and defining the merit that the wider society rewards — economically, but also in terms of honor, recognition, and prestige. Being cast in this role has enlarged the economic and cultural importance of universities. But we’ve paid a price for it. For one thing, support for higher education has become a partisan matter. In the last four or five years there’s been a growing partisan split in people’s view about whether universities do the country more good than harm. We should ask ourselves how this came to be. Society as a whole has made a four-year university degree a necessary condition for dignified work and a decent life. This is a mistake. Those of us in higher education can easily forget that most Americans do not have a four-year college degree. Nearly two-thirds do not. Society as a whole has woefully underinvested in the forms of education that most Americans rely upon. That includes state colleges, two-year community colleges, and technical and vocational places of learning. It’s not only a matter of money. We also need to reconsider the steep hierarchy of prestige that we have created between four-year colleges and universities, especially brand-name ones, and other institutions of learning. This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma. So the role that universities have been assigned, sitting astride the gateway of opportunity and success, is not good for those who have been left behind. But I’m not sure it’s good for elite universities themselves, either. Speaking of which: One of the most surprising things in your book was your discussion of “comping culture” among Harvard undergraduates — in which, as you put it, students “re-enact the trauma” of the grueling college-admissions process by founding all sorts of groups and clubs and making them very hard to get into. The Harvard College Consulting Group, for instance, advertises that it’s “the most selective pre-professional student group on Harvard’s campus” — they accept less than 12 percent of students who want in. I’d never heard of “comping culture” before. It’s the most persuasive anthropological datum I’ve read in support of the thesis that affluent, ambitious teenagers have been psychologically damaged by competitiveness. What do you do about that? Our credentialing function is beginning to crowd out our educational function. Students win admission to these places by converting their teenage years — or their parents converting their teenage years — into a stress-strewn gauntlet of meritocratic striving. That inculcates intense pressure for achievement. So even the winners in the meritocratic competition are wounded by it, because they become so accustomed to accumulating achievements and credentials, so accustomed to jumping through hoops and pleasing their parents and teachers and coaches and admissions committees, that the habit of hoop-jumping becomes difficult to break. By the time they arrive in college, many find it difficult to step back and reflect on what’s worth caring about, on what they truly would love to study and learn. The habit of gathering credentials and of networking and of anticipating the next gateway in the ladder to success begins to interfere with the true reason for being in institutions of higher education, which is exploring and reflecting and questioning and seeking after one’s passions. What might we do about it? I make a proposal in the book that may get me in a lot of trouble in my neighborhood. Part of the problem is that having survived this high-pressured meritocratic gauntlet, it’s almost impossible for the students who win admission not to believe that they achieved their admission as a result of their own strenuous efforts. One can hardly blame them. So I think we should gently invite students to challenge this idea. I propose that colleges and universities that have far more applicants than they have places should consider what I call a “lottery of the qualified.” Over 40,000 students apply to Stanford and to Harvard for about 2,000 places. The admissions officers tell us that the majority are well-qualified. Among those, fill the first-year class through a lottery. My hunch is that the quality of discussion in our classes would in no way be impaired. The main reason for doing this is to emphasize to students and their parents the role of luck in admission, and more broadly in success. It’s not introducing luck where it doesn’t already exist. To the contrary, there’s an enormous amount of luck in the present system. The lottery would highlight what is already the case. Let’s talk about your beef with economists. You single out Larry Summers, the Harvard economist and adviser to former President Barack Obama, as symptomatic of the invasion of the corridors of power by the ideology of credentialism and market-based thinking: “One of the reasons inequality has probably gone up in our society,” Summers says, “is that people are being treated closer to the way they’re supposed to be treated.” That quote is emblematic of the tendency to assume that the money people make is the measure of their contribution to the common good. The tendency to accept this assumption uncritically may be abetted by economists. But it reaches well beyond the economics profession — it’s become deeply embedded in our public culture. We need to challenge this assumption. In recent decades governing elites of both parties have embraced the market faith that says that market mechanisms are the primary instruments for achieving the public good. The market-based version of globalization that governing elites have promoted and enacted since the 1980s has reinforced this market faith. As inequalities deepened as a result of globalization, there was a tendency to attribute these inequalities to the different abilities of people in different social roles to contribute to the economy and by extension the common good. If a president like Obama — we can assume that Trump is not going to be interested — had given egalitarian political philosophers a similarly prominent advisory role to economists, would we be better off? I would put it this way. I would say that governing elites have had too much credulity in relying on technocratic expertise, especially on economists, whose faith in markets led to a false confidence about what they could achieve. I think political leaders generally, but the Democratic Party in particular, have been ill-served by too narrow a notion of technocratic expertise. “It would be a mistake,” you write, “to think that higher education is solely responsible for the inequalities of income and social esteem we witness today.” But that raises a question — are elite colleges the right target at all? What about the decline of union power, for instance? Ballooning CEO pay? If things like that were addressed, couldn’t Harvard just go on as it is? I want to emphasize this to avoid any misunderstanding: My main critique is of the way mainstream parties, Democrats and Republicans, have governed over the past four decades. Their uncritical embrace of market-driven globalization led to deepening inequalities which they addressed by offering upward mobility through higher education. My critique is of that governing project. Universities have been conscripted as the arbiters of opportunity, as the dispensers of the credentials, as the sorting machine. The main solutions consist in things like strengthening unions. The broad solution is to reorient our politics away from dealing with inequality through individual upward mobility by higher education. That’s too narrow a response to inequality. I followed up one of your footnotes to discover an acknowledgment of your son, Adam Sandel, for helping you think about Hegel. I Googled Adam and discovered that in addition to being a scholar, he is also the Guinness World Record holder for the most pull-ups in 60 seconds. How many pull-ups can you do? None! Not very many. My son can do 68 in a minute, which is the world record. I can do maybe four on a good day, which shows that Adam achieved the world record thanks to his own merits. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-insufferable-hubris-of-the-well-credentialed
|
|
|
|
Re: Koba: An Excerpt from Ronald Grigor Suny’s “Stalin: Passage to Revolution” - Los Angeles Review of Books
Dayne Goodwin
I also respect Suny and hope i will be able to get into his new book at some point. However there is a passage in this LA Review of Books excerpt that puzzled me: "Somehow they found copies of The Communist Manifesto, Marx’s The Erfurt Program, and Engels’s The Development of Scientific Socialism, which they borrowed for a few days and laboriously copied out by hand during the night. They were told that these were the only copies in all of Tiflis." Kautsky's book The Erfurt Program (1892; usually published as "The Class Struggle: the Erfurt Program") was widely known and spread throughout the socialist movement from the 1890s on. There is no such book by Marx. Marx died in 1883, the Erfurt Congress which ratified "The Erfurt Program" (drafted by Bernstein, Bebel and Kautsky) was held in 1891. I can imagine that due to problems of international communication and translation, semi-underground publishing and other difficulties, Kautsky's book was spread among Stalin and his young comrades in Georgia in 1896-97 as a book by Marx. But what explains Suny's contemporary 'report' without any comment?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 6:25 AM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
> > Looking forward to this. Suny is great. > > https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/koba-an-excerpt-from-ronald-grigor-sunys-stalin-passage-to-revolution/ >
|
|
|
|
Re: What Makes ‘The Living Dead’ My Film of 1968
Louis Proyect
On 10/2/20 6:07 PM, Richard Modiano
wrote:
https://louisproyect.org/2017/07/17/george-romero-1940-2017-zombie-politics/
|
|
|
|
What Makes ‘The Living Dead’ My Film of 1968
Richard Modiano
"Not just a collective production, Night of the Living Dead was a film whose meaning was created by its audience—or rather audiences—as it short-circuited established patterns of publicity and exhibition. After its initial run in grind-houses and drive-ins, the movie was re-released the next summer with an eye to black audiences, on a double bill with Slaves, another Walter Reade production, the crude but effective anti-Gone with the Wind made by the former member of the Hollywood Ten and unrepentant Marxist Herbert Biberman." [A man after your own heart Louis!]
|
|
|
|
What Palantir And The LAPD Know About You
Biibi R <becausetheworldisrou@...>
|
|
|
|
AOC asked the SEC to investigate secretive data firm Palantir
Biibi R <becausetheworldisrou@...>
|
|
|
|
Re: Arundhati Roy, Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.
Apologies...misspelled Ms. Roy's first name...Arundhati.
|
|
|
|
Arundati Roy, Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.
I have the book on my desk and looking forward to reading it. Here is a short except from the Introduction.
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2020/09/15/what-lies-ahead/
|
|
|
|
Re: Judge Barrett’s Religion is Off Limits, Opus Dei’s Agenda Is Not | Washington Babylon
fkalosar101@...
The Catholic Church is the greatest single sink of evil in so-called Western Civilization after capitalism. Why should this filthy thing be off limits?
|
|
|
|
Donald Trump, the Culture Wars and the Left | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
Louis Proyect
COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 2, 2020 Despite being the most subliterate President in American history, Trump has managed to interject himself into recent culture wars that are the bailiwick of tenured professors and highfalutin media pundits. Since Trump confused the word council for counsel, he needs all the help he can get. While Stephen Miller or some other erudite malefactor wrote the speeches, you can at least give him credit for being able to read them. As for their purpose, they are in keeping with his white supremacist agenda. On the Fourth of July, Trump made a speech at Mount Rushmore that resonated with the Harper’s Open Letter that appeared only three days later:
He has since followed up with attacks on the N.Y. Times Project 1619 and critical race theory. The odds of him having read a single article in the magazine section that launched Project 1619 or some peer-reviewed journal article on critical race theory are about the same as me winning the N.Y. Marathon. His failure to have ever read a single word, however, did not prevent him from attacking them in a speech given at the National Archives Museum on September 17th. full: https://louisproyect.org/2020/10/02/donald-trump-the-culture-wars-and-the-left/
|
|
|
|
The Great American Lie | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
Louis Proyect
Opening today as VOD on Amazon and Apple, “The Great American Lie” is an urgent, heartfelt documentary about the increasing difficulties faced by lower-income Americans since the Reagan “revolution”. You will be reminded of the continuity with the current White House occupant when a clip of “the Gipper” features him promising to make America great again. On the plus side, the film is replete with statistics that illustrate how we have become “two Americas”. The film’s website gives you a flavor of the kind of numbers that are presented throughout the film: We are currently living in one of the greatest periods of social and economic inequality in our nation’s history. Today, the top 0.1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 90%. In 2017 alone, 82% of new wealth created went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, one in five American children and one in eight American women live in poverty – despite us being one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Increasing inequality has created deep social, economic, and political divides. Clearly the status quo is not working. The film pivots between interviews with numerous academic and journalistic pundits who are appalled by the growing inequality and people who have been affected by it. We hear from Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Kristof throughout, as well as a host of psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists. They all decry America’s failure to be more like European social democracies. Although Bernie Sanders’s name is not mentioned once in the film, “The Great American Lie” makes the same kind of points he made on the campaign stump. full: https://louisproyect.org/2020/10/02/the-great-american-lie/
|
|
|
|
Re: Moderator's note
Dan La Botz
Thanks for doing Marxmail and for telling a little of us history. Dan
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020, 1:03 PM Jerry Monaco <monacojerry@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Moderator's note
Jerry Monaco
I think that is a very good statement of purpose. I liked LBO while it lasted. Doug didn't moderate as strictly as you and I think it caused a bit of slipping. Here, though, I wish that there was more back and forth. It helps me to think through things if I participate in a bit of throwing about of brains. Not that it matters much but I will give you a "Yes" for your moderation! It is not an easy thing to do. Then there were some lists, that were highly exclusive. I once tried to join the FOM list (Foundations of Mathematics) but I was blackballed because I admitted I was not an academic. I simply study a lot of math and was interested in the subject. Comparatively, you are both inclusive and exclusive at the same time.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:37 AM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop
Confessions of a Former Bastard CopI was a police officer for nearly ten years and I was a bastard. We all were. This essay has been kicking around in my head for years now and I’ve never felt confident enough to write it. It’s a time in my life I’m ashamed of. It’s a time that I hurt people and, through inaction, allowed others to be hurt. It’s a time that I acted as a violent agent of capitalism and white supremacy. Under the guise of public safety, I personally ruined people’s lives but in so doing, made the public no safer…so did the family members and close friends of mine who also bore the badge alongside me. But enough is enough. The reforms aren’t working. Incrementalism isn’t happening. Unarmed Black, indigenous, and people of color are being killed by cops in the streets and the police are savagely attacking the people protesting these murders. American policing is a thick blue tumor strangling the life from our communities and if you don’t believe it when the poor and the marginalized say it, if you don’t believe it when you see cops across the country shooting journalists with less-lethal bullets and caustic chemicals, maybe you’ll believe it when you hear it straight from the pig’s mouth. Why am i writing thisAs someone who went through the training, hiring, and socialization of a career in law enforcement, I wanted to give a first-hand account of why I believe police officers are the way they are. Not to excuse their behavior, but to explain it and to indict the structures that perpetuate it. I believe that if everyone understood how we’re trained and brought up in the profession, it would inform the demands our communities should be making of a new way of community safety. If I tell you how we were made, I hope it will empower you to unmake us. One of the other reasons I’ve struggled to write this essay is that I don’t want to center the conversation on myself and my big salty boo-hoo feelings about my bad choices. It’s a toxic white impulse to see atrocities and think “How can I make this about me?” So, I hope you’ll take me at my word that this account isn’t meant to highlight me, but rather the hundred-thousand of me in every city in the country. It’s about the structure that made me (that I chose to pollute myself with) and it’s my meager contribution to the cause of radical justice. Yes, all cops are bastardsI was a police officer in a major metropolitan area in California with a predominantly poor, non-white population (with a large proportion of first-generation immigrants.) One night during briefing, our watch commander told us that the city council had requested a new zero tolerance policy. Against murderers, drug dealers, or child predators? No, against homeless people collecting cans from recycling bins. See, the city had some kickback deal with the waste management company where waste management got paid by the government for our expected tonnage of recycling. When homeless people “stole” that recycling from the waste management company, they were putting that cheaper contract in peril. So, we were to arrest as many recyclers as we could find. Even for me, this was a stupid policy and I promptly blew Sarge off. But a few hours later, Sarge called me over to assist him. He was detaining a 70-year-old immigrant who spoke no English, who he’d seen picking a coke can out of a trash bin. He ordered me to arrest her for stealing trash. I said, “Sarge, c’mon, she’s an old lady.” He said, “I don’t give a shit. Hook her up, that’s an order.” And…I did. She cried the entire way to the station and all through the booking process. I couldn’t even comfort her because I didn’t speak Spanish. I felt disgusting but I was ordered to make this arrest and I wasn’t willing to lose my job for her. If you’re tempted to feel sympathy for me, don’t. I used to happily hassle the homeless under other circumstances. I researched obscure penal codes so I could arrest people in homeless encampments for lesser known crimes like “remaining too close to railroad property” (369i of the California Penal Code.) I used to call it “planting warrant seeds” since I knew they wouldn’t make their court dates and we could arrest them again and again for warrant violations. We used to have informal contests for who could cite or arrest someone for the weirdest law. DUI on a bicycle, non-regulation number of brooms on your tow truck (27700(a)(1) of the California Vehicle Code…shit like that. For me, police work was a logic puzzle for arresting people, regardless of their actual threat to the community. As ashamed as I am to admit it, it needs to be said: stripping people of their freedom felt like a game to me for many years. I know what you’re going to ask: did I ever plant drugs? Did I ever plant a gun on someone? Did I ever make a false arrest or file a false report? Believe it or not, the answer is no. Cheating was no fun, I liked to get my stats the “legitimate” way. But I knew officers who kept a little baggie of whatever or maybe a pocket knife that was a little too big in their war bags (yeah, we called our dufflebags “war bags….) Did I ever tell anybody about it? No, I did not. Did I ever confess my suspicions when cocaine suddenly showed up in a gang member’s jacket? No, I did not. In fact, let me tell you about an extremely formative experience: in my police academy class, we had a clique of around six trainees who routinely bullied and harassed other students: intentionally scuffing another trainee’s shoes to get them in trouble during inspection, sexually harassing female trainees, cracking racist jokes, and so on. Every quarter, we were to write anonymous evaluations of our squadmates. I wrote scathing accounts of their behavior, thinking I was helping keep bad apples out of law enforcement and believing I would be protected. Instead, the academy staff read my complaints to them out loud and outed me to them and never punished them, causing me to get harassed for the rest of my academy class. That’s how I learned that even police leadership hates rats. That’s why no one is “changing things from the inside.” They can’t, the structure won’t allow it. And that’s the point of what I’m telling you. Whether you were my sergeant, legally harassing an old woman, me, legally harassing our residents, my fellow trainees bullying the rest of us, or “the bad apples” illegally harassing “shitbags,” we were all in it together. I knew cops that pulled women over to flirt with them. I knew cops who would pepper spray sleeping bags so that homeless people would have to throw them away. I knew cops that intentionally provoked anger in suspects so they could claim they were assaulted. I was particularly good at winding people up verbally until they lashed out so I could fight them. Nobody spoke out. Nobody stood up. Nobody betrayed the code. None of us protected the people (you) from bad cops. This is why “All cops are bastards.” Even your uncle, even your cousin, even your mom, even your brother, even your best friend, even your spouse, even me. Because even if they wouldn’t Do The Thing themselves, they will almost never rat out another officer who Does The Thing, much less stop it from happening. Bastard 101I could write an entire book of the awful things I’ve done, seen done, and heard others bragging about doing. But, to me, the bigger question is “How did it get this way?” While I was a police officer in a city 30 miles from where I lived, many of my fellow officers were from the community and treated their neighbors just as badly as I did. While every cop’s individual biases come into play, it’s the profession itself that is toxic, and it starts from day-one of training. Every police academy is different but all of them share certain features—taught by old cops, run like a paramilitary bootcamp, strong emphasis on protecting yourself more than anyone else. The majority of my time in the academy was spent doing aggressive physical training and watching video after video after video of police officers being murdered on duty. I want to highlight this: nearly everyone coming into law enforcement is bombarded with dash cam footage of police officers being ambushed and killed. Over and over and over. Colorless VHS mortality plays, cops screaming for help over their radios, their bodies going limp as a pair of taillights speed away into a grainy black horizon. In my case, with commentary from an old racist cop who used to brag about assaulting Black Panthers. To understand why all cops are bastards, you need to understand one of the things almost every training officer told me when it came to using force: “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.” Meaning, “I’ll take my chances in court rather than risk getting hurt.” We’re able to think that way because police unions are extremely overpowered and because of the generous concept of Qualified Immunity, a legal theory which says a cop generally can’t be held personally liable for mistakes they make doing their job in an official capacity. When you look at the actions of the officers who killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, David McAtee, Mike Brown, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, or Freddie Gray, remember that they, like me, were trained to recite “I’d rather be judged by 12” as a mantra. Even if Mistakes Were Made™, the city (meaning the taxpayers, meaning you) pays the settlement, not the officer. Once police training has—through repetition, indoctrination, and violent spectacle—promised officers that everyone in the world is out to kill them, the next lesson is that your partners are the only people protecting you. Occasionally, this is even true: I’ve had encounters turn on me rapidly to the point I legitimately thought I was going to die, only to have other officers come and turn the tables. One of the most important thought leaders in law enforcement is Colonel Dave Grossman, a “killologist” who wrote an essay called “Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs.” Cops are the sheepdogs, bad guys are the wolves, and the citizens are the sheep (!). Colonel Grossman makes sure to mention that to a stupid sheep, sheepdogs look more like wolves than sheep, and that’s why they dislike you. This “they hate you for protecting them and only I love you, only I can protect you” tactic is familiar to students of abuse. It’s what abusers do to coerce their victims into isolation, pulling them away from friends and family and ensnaring them in the abuser’s toxic web. Law enforcement does this too, pitting the officer against civilians. “They don’t understand what you do, they don’t respect your sacrifice, they just want to get away with crimes. You’re only safe with us.” I think the Wolves vs. Sheepdogs dynamic is one of the most important elements as to why officers behave the way they do. Every single second of my training, I was told that criminals were not a legitimate part of their community, that they were individual bad actors, and that their bad actions were solely the result of their inherent criminality. Any concept of systemic trauma, generational poverty, or white supremacist oppression was either never mentioned or simply dismissed. After all, most people don’t steal, so anyone who does isn’t “most people,” right? To us, anyone committing a crime deserved anything that happened to them because they broke the “social contract.” And yet, it was never even a question as to whether the power structure above them was honoring any sort of contract back. Understand: Police officers are part of the state monopoly on violence and all police training reinforces this monopoly as a cornerstone of police work, a source of honor and pride. Many cops fantasize about getting to kill someone in the line of duty, egged on by others that have. One of my training officers told me about the time he shot and killed a mentally ill homeless man wielding a big stick. He bragged that he “slept like a baby” that night. Official training teaches you how to be violent effectively and when you’re legally allowed to deploy that violence, but “unofficial training” teaches you to desire violence, to expand the breadth of your violence without getting caught, and to erode your own compassion for desperate people so you can justify punitive violence against them. How to be a bastardI have participated in some of these activities personally, others are ones I either witnessed personally or heard officers brag about openly. Very, very occasionally, I knew an officer who was disciplined or fired for one of these things. · Police officers will lie about the law, about what’s illegal, or about what they can legally do to you in order to manipulate you into doing what they want. · Police officers will lie about feeling afraid for their life to justify a use of force after the fact. · Police officers will lie and tell you they’ll file a police report just to get you off their back. · Police officers will lie that your cooperation will “look good for you” in court, or that they will “put in a good word for you with the DA.” The police will never help you look good in court. · Police officers will lie about what they see and hear to access private property to conduct unlawful searches. · Police officers will lie and say your friend already ratted you out, so you might as well rat them back out. This is almost never true. · Police officers will lie and say you’re not in trouble in order to get you to exit a location or otherwise make an arrest more convenient for them. · Police officers will lie and say that they won’t arrest you if you’ll just “be honest with them” so they know what really happened. · Police officers will lie about their ability to seize the property of friends and family members to coerce a confession. · Police officers will write obviously bullshit tickets so that they get time-and-a-half overtime fighting them in court. · Police officers will search places and containers you didn’t consent to and later claim they were open or “smelled like marijuana.” · Police officers will threaten you with a more serious crime they can’t prove in order to convince you to confess to the lesser crime they really want you for. · Police officers will employ zero tolerance on races and ethnicities they dislike and show favor and lenience to members of their own group. · Police officers will use intentionally extra-painful maneuvers and holds during an arrest to provoke “resistance” so they can further assault the suspect. · Some police officers will plant drugs and weapons on you, sometimes to teach you a lesson, sometimes if they kill you somewhere away from public view. · Some police officers will assault you to intimidate you and threaten to arrest you if you tell anyone. · A non-trivial number of police officers will steal from your house or vehicle during a search. · A non-trivial number of police officers commit intimate partner violence and use their status to get away with it. · A non-trivial number of police officers use their position to entice, coerce, or force sexual favors from vulnerable people. If you take nothing else away from this essay, I want you to tattoo this onto your brain forever: if a police officer is telling you something, it is probably a lie designed to gain your compliance. Do not talk to cops and never, ever believe them. Do not “try to be helpful” with cops. Do not assume they are trying to catch someone else instead of you. Do not assume what they are doing is “important” or even legal. Under no circumstances assume any police officer is acting in good faith. Also, and this is important, do not talk to cops. I just remembered something, do not talk to cops. Checking my notes real quick, something jumped out at me: Do not fucking talk to cops. Ever. Say, “I don’t answer questions,” and ask if you’re free to leave; if so, leave. If not, tell them you want your lawyer and that, per the Supreme Court, they must terminate questioning. If they don’t, file a complaint and collect some badges for your mantle. Do the bastards ever help?Reading the above, you may be tempted to ask whether cops ever do anything good. And the answer is, sure, sometimes. In fact, most officers I worked with thought they were usually helping the helpless and protecting the safety of innocent people. During my tenure in law enforcement, I protected women from domestic abusers, arrested cold-blooded murderers and child molesters, and comforted families who lost children to car accidents and other tragedies. I helped connect struggling people in my community with local resources for food, shelter, and counseling. I deescalated situations that could have turned violent and talked a lot of people down from making the biggest mistake of their lives. I worked with plenty of officers who were individually kind, bought food for homeless residents, or otherwise showed care for their community. The question is this: did I need a gun and sweeping police powers to help the average person on the average night? The answer is no. When I was doing my best work as a cop, I was doing mediocre work as a therapist or a social worker. My good deeds were listening to people failed by the system and trying to unite them with any crumbs of resources the structure was currently denying them. It’s also important to note that well over 90 percent of the calls for service I handled were reactive, showing up well after a crime had taken place. We would arrive, take a statement, collect evidence (if any), file the report, and onto the next caper. Most “active” crimes we stopped were someone harmless possessing or selling a small amount of drugs. Very, very rarely would we stop something dangerous in progress or stop something from happening entirely. The closest we could usually get was seeing someone running away from the scene of a crime, but the damage was still done. And consider this: my job as a police officer required me to be a marriage counselor, a mental health crisis professional, a conflict negotiator, a social worker, a child advocate, a traffic safety expert, a sexual assault specialist, and, every once in awhile, a public safety officer authorized to use force, all after only a 1000 hours of training at a police academy. Does the person we send to catch a robber also need to be the person we send to interview a rape victim or document a fender bender? Should one profession be expected to do all that important community care (with very little training) all at the same time? To put this another way: I made double the salary most social workers made to do a fraction of what they could do to mitigate the causes of crimes and desperation. I can count very few times my monopoly on state violence actually made our citizens safer, and even then, it’s hard to say better-funded social safety nets and dozens of other community care specialists wouldn’t have prevented a problem before it started. Armed, indoctrinated (and dare I say, traumatized) cops do not make you safer; community mutual aid networks who can unite other people with the resources they need to stay fed, clothed, and housed make you safer. I really want to hammer this home: every cop in your neighborhood is damaged by their training, emboldened by their immunity, and they have a gun and the ability to take your life with near-impunity. This does not make you safer, even if you’re white. How do you solve a problem like a bastard?So, what do we do about it? Even though I’m an expert on bastardism, I am not a public policy expert nor an expert in organizing a post-police society. So, before I give some suggestions, let me tell you what probably won’t solve the problem of bastard cops: · Increased “bias” training. A quarterly or even monthly training session is not capable of covering over years of trauma-based camaraderie in police forces. I can tell you from experience, we don’t take it seriously, the proctors let us cheat on whatever “tests” there are, and we all made fun of it later over coffee. · Tougher laws. I hope you understand by now, cops do not follow the law and will not hold each other accountable to the law. Tougher laws are all the more reason to circle the wagons and protect your brothers and sisters. · More community policing programs. Yes, there is a marginal effect when a few cops get to know members of the community, but look at the protests of 2020: many of the cops pepper-spraying journalists were probably the nice school cop a month ago. Police officers do not protect and serve people, they protect and serve the status quo, “polite society,” and private property. Using the incremental mechanisms of the status quo will never reform the police because the status quo relies on police violence to exist. Capitalism requires a permanent underclass to exploit for cheap labor and it requires the cops to bring that underclass to heel. Instead of wasting time with minor tweaks, I recommend exploring the following ideas: · No more qualified immunity. Police officers should be personally liable for all decisions they make in the line of duty. · No more civil asset forfeiture. Did you know that every year, citizens like you lose more cash and property to unaccountable civil asset forfeiture than to all burglaries combined? The police can steal your stuff without charging you with a crime and it makes some police departments very rich. · Break the power of police unions. Police unions make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops and incentivize protecting them to protect the power of the union. A police union is not a labor union; police officers are powerful state agents, not exploited workers. · Require malpractice insurance. Doctors must pay for insurance in case they botch a surgery, police officers should do the same for botching a police raid or other use of force. If human decency won’t motivate police to respect human life, perhaps hitting their wallet might. · Defund, demilitarize, and disarm cops. Thousands of police departments own assault rifles, armored personnel carriers, and stuff you’d see in a warzone. Police officers have grants and huge budgets to spend on guns, ammo, body armor, and combat training. 99 percent of calls for service require no armed response, yet when all you have is a gun, every problem feels like target practice. Cities are not safer when unaccountable bullies have a monopoly on state violence and the equipment to execute that monopoly. One final idea: consider abolishing the police. I know what you’re thinking, “What? We need the police! They protect us!” As someone who did it for nearly a decade, I need you to understand that by and large, police protection is marginal, incidental. It’s an illusion created by decades of copaganda designed to fool you into thinking these brave men and women are holding back the barbarians at the gates. I alluded to this above: the vast majority of calls for service I handled were theft reports, burglary reports, domestic arguments that hadn’t escalated into violence, loud parties, (houseless) people loitering, traffic collisions, very minor drug possession, and arguments between neighbors. Mostly the mundane ups and downs of life in the community, with little inherent danger. And, like I mentioned, the vast majority of crimes I responded to (even violent ones) had already happened; my unaccountable license to kill was irrelevant. What I mainly provided was an “objective” third party with the authority to document property damage, ask people to chill out or disperse, or counsel people not to beat each other up. A trained counselor or conflict resolution specialist would be ten-times more effective than someone with a gun strapped to his hip wondering if anyone would try to kill him when he showed up. There are many models for community safety that can be explored if we get away from the idea that the only way to be safe is to have a man with a M4 rifle prowling your neighborhood ready at a moment’s notice to write down your name and birthday after you’ve been robbed and beaten. You might be asking, “What about the armed robbers, the gangsters, the drug dealers, the serial killers?” And yes, in the city I worked, I regularly broke up gang parties, found gang members carrying guns, and handled homicides. I’ve seen some tragic things, from a reformed gangster shot in the head with his brains oozing out to a fifteen-year-old boy taking his last breath in his screaming mother’s arms thanks to a gang member’s bullet. I know the wages of violence. This is where we have to have the courage to ask: why do people rob? Why do they join gangs? Why do they get addicted to drugs or sell them? It’s not because they are inherently evil. I submit to you that these are the results of living in a capitalist system that grinds people down and denies them housing, medical care, human dignity, and a say in their government. These are the results of white supremacy pushing people to the margins, excluding them, disrespecting them, and treating their bodies as disposable. Equally important to remember—disabled and mentally ill people are frequently killed by police officers not trained to recognize and react to disabilities or mental health crises. Some of the people we picture as “violent offenders” are often people struggling with untreated mental illness, often due to economic hardships. Very frequently, the officers sent to “protect the community” escalate this crisis and ultimately wound or kill the person. Your community was not made safer by police violence; a sick member of your community was killed because it was cheaper than treating them. Are you extremely confident you’ll never get sick one day too? Wrestle with this for a minute: if all of someone’s material needs were met and all the members of their community were fed, clothed, housed, and dignified, why would they need to join a gang? Why would they need to risk their lives selling drugs or breaking into buildings? If mental healthcare was free and was not stigmatized, how many lives would that save? Would there still be a few bad actors in the world? Sure, probably. What’s my solution for them, you’re no doubt asking. I’ll tell you what: generational poverty, food insecurity, houselessness, and for-profit medical care are all problems that can be solved in our lifetimes by rejecting the dehumanizing meat grinder of capitalism and white supremacy. Once that’s done, we can work on the edge cases together, with clearer hearts not clouded by a corrupt system. Police abolition is closely related to the idea of prison abolition and the entire concept of banishing the carceral state, meaning, creating a society focused on reconciliation and restorative justice instead of punishment, pain, and suffering—a system that sees people in crisis as humans, not monsters. People who want to abolish the police typically also want to abolish prisons, and the same questions get asked: “What about the bad guys? Where do we put them?” I bring this up because abolitionists don’t want to simply replace cops with armed social workers or prisons with casual detention centers full of puffy leather couches and Playstations. We imagine a world not divided into good guys and bad guys, but rather a world where people’s needs are met and those in crisis receive care, not dehumanization. Here’s legendary activist and thinker Angela Y. Davis putting it better than I ever could: “An abolitionist approach that seeks to answer questions such as these would require us to imagine a constellation of alternative strategies and institutions, with the ultimate aim of removing the prison from the social and ideological landscapes of our society. In other words, we would not be looking for prisonlike substitutes for the prison, such as house arrest safeguarded by electronic surveillance bracelets. Rather, positing decarceration as our overarching strategy, we would try to envision a continuum of alternatives to imprisonment—demilitarization of schools, revitalization of education at all levels, a health system that provides free physical and mental care to all, and a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation rather than retribution and vengeance.” (Are Prisons Obsolete, pg. 107) I’m not telling you I have the blueprint for a beautiful new world. What I’m telling you is that the system we have right now is broken beyond repair and that it’s time to consider new ways of doing community together. Those new ways need to be negotiated by members of those communities, particularly Black, indigenous, disabled, houseless, and citizens of color historically shoved into the margins of society. Instead of letting Fox News fill your head with nightmares about Hispanic gangs, ask the Hispanic community what they need to thrive. Instead of letting racist politicians scaremonger about pro-Black demonstrators, ask the Black community what they need to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. If you truly desire safety, ask not what your most vulnerable can do for the community, ask what the community can do for the most vulnerable. A world with fewer bastards is possibleIf you take only one thing away from this essay, I hope it’s this: do not talk to cops. But if you only take two things away, I hope the second one is that it’s possible to imagine a different world where unarmed Black people, indigenous people, poor people, disabled people, and people of color are not routinely gunned down by unaccountable police officers. It doesn’t have to be this way. Yes, this requires a leap of faith into community models that might feel unfamiliar, but I ask you: When you see a man dying in the street begging for breath, don’t you want to leap away from that world? When you see a mother or a daughter shot to death sleeping in their beds, don’t you want to leap away from that world? When you see a twelve-year-old boy executed in a public park for the crime of playing with a toy, Jesus fucking Christ, can you really just stand there and think “This is normal?” And to any cops who made it this far down, is this really the world you want to live in? Aren’t you tired of the trauma? Aren’t you tired of the soul sickness inherent to the badge? Aren’t you tired of looking the other way when your partners break the law? Are you really willing to kill the next George Floyd, the next Breonna Taylor, the next Tamir Rice? How confident are you that your next use of force will be something you’re proud of? I’m writing this for you too: it’s wrong what our training did to us, it’s wrong that they hardened our hearts to our communities, and it’s wrong to pretend this is normal. Look, I wouldn’t have been able to hear any of this for much of my life. You, reading this now, may not be able to hear this yet either. But do me this one favor: just think about it. Just turn it over in your mind for a couple minutes. “Yes, And” me for a minute. Look around you and think about the kind of world you want to live in. Is it one where an all-powerful stranger with a gun keeps you and your neighbors in line with the fear of death, or can you picture a world where, as a community, we embrace our most vulnerable, meet their needs, heal their wounds, honor their dignity, and make them family instead of desperate outsiders? If you take only three things away from this essay, I hope the third is this: you and your community don’t need bastards to thrive. —Medium, June 6, 2020 https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759
|
|
|
|
Religious Left Catholics on Judge Barrett | Washington Babylon
Andrew Stewart
https://washingtonbabylon.com/religious-left-catholics-on-judge-barrett/ Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
|
|
|
|
Sink Her With Semitism & Birth Control: Amy Coney Barret’s Views on Jews are Rotten and Ideas About Contraception are Dangerous. | Washington Babylon
Andrew Stewart
https://washingtonbabylon.com/sink-with-semitism-birth-control/ Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
|
|
|
