skzb – Page 14 – The Dream Café

The Police and the Army: A Question

I’ve been having some trouble explaining this, which always means I don’t understand it well enough.

History tells us these institutions are not at all the same, particularly when entering a revolutionary period. The army will inevitably be shaken by whatever social crises have precipitated the revolutionary upsurge. In the worst case, only the most courageous soldiers will break away to join the masses. In other cases, whole units will set down their rifles and “come over.” Sometimes they will “come over” with weapons in hand, in formation, banners flying, bands playing, led by their own officers (usually at gunpoint). The success or failure of an insurrection is determined above all by to what degree it is supported by the army (which, of course, is determined by a number of factors that are beyond the scope of my question).

So far as I can tell, there has never been a case of a cop doing anything except either throwing support to the ruling class, or, at best, running and hiding. Certainly history has never shown us units doing so. By the time society has entered into a revolutionary crisis, the police are hated, loathed, despised by the masses. Every time. And they return these feelings with interest.

And yet, if we ignore social and historical context and simply line up factors in a purely formal way, they’re so similar: Both drawn largely from the toiling classes, both used as instruments of repression by the state, both turned against their own people as soon as there are signs of social unrest.

So, comrades (I’m looking at you, Don Barry) , what are the social and historical factors that make them so different? We know they are different; we’ve both read about it and many of us have had personal experience of the difference; it’s easy to talk to soldiers, we have nothing to say to cops. Why?

Contradictions of Capitalism vs the Bionic Eye

If you have heard about the bionic eye and don’t think it’s cool as hell, what are you even doing reading my blog?

Scientists are close, probably within ten years, of being able to cure blindness in a massive number of cases—that is, as I understand it, among everyone except those whose disability is caused by damage to the visual cortex. How cool is that? How wonderful, how human, how proud we should be to be a member of a species that can do this!

How was it done? At a University. At public expense. I repeat, at public expense. Tax money well spent indeed!

What will happen now? Well, a couple of things I want to point out.

One of them is that people with loss of vision will be able to see—if they can afford it. If not, sorry for ya. That the technology was developed at public expense does not mean the public is entitled to its benefits.

Here’s another thing that will happen: Someone will develop an elegant solution to some of the remaining problems, such as the interface between the eye and the brain, or maybe something else—very likely at another University and at public expense. He will patent it. He will start a company to produce products based on it. He will make incredible amounts of money, and official society will widely proclaim him a hero, especially when he donates a hundred units of his product to the poor in Rwanda. And, as he checks his bank balance, he will loudly decry the waste of money going into institutions like Universities, because, he will say, taxation is theft.

And he won’t even be aware of the irony.

On Morality

I’m watching a Facebook discussion on taxation and health care, in which an arch-reactionary is attacking the concept that health care is a human right; specifically, attacking it on moral grounds. Yes, of course, your immediate reaction is to laugh, or perhaps roll your eyes. But for me, there is a significance to this that is important.

It is a reminder that morality does not exist above society, is not handed down from God, is not inherent in the air we breath or the water we drink, but rather is a product of society, of human interaction. Moral systems, moral codes, are invented by human beings, and in class society, any moral system serves the interests of a definite class. In feudal society, to oppose the king was immoral. As the bourgeoisie began to gain power and influence, they created their own morality, in which, eventually, resistance to the king was laudable. In the antebellum South, opposition to slavery was immoral; but to the abolitionist, who represented the future and the interests of Eastern capitalism, and to the slave, whose deepest interest was emancipation, slavery itself was immoral. Today, failure to respect private property is immoral.

Then there are those who attempt to place themselves above society, and either make judgments about the worth of various moral systems as if reflecting eternal values; or, worse, take themselves entirely out of the conflict and make observations about all moral systems as if they were all equal and we can pick one based on whim and it would be no better or worse than any other; or still worse, and still more common, that the value of a moral system can be determined by only examining the system itself, outside of its social and historical context. These people, too, serve definite class interests.

I am willing to make judgments about certain actions as being good, or bad, or heroic, or vile. I do this based on the morality I have chosen, which is a morality that, to the best of my ability to understand, serves the interests of the working class. All ideologies in class society serve class interests, and that especially includes our sense of right and wrong. If you have not examined your morality, if you have not thought about where it comes from and what class interests it serves, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to do so.

Recommended reading: Trotsky: Their Morals and Ours

Differences and Commonalities

Sometimes I get the urge to just lay out my beliefs on a certain subject in as few words as I can manage. This will not, of course, convince anyone of anything, as it consists of assertions rather than arguments. But it sometimes helps other discussions to have the basics clear. So here are my beliefs about differences and commonalities between and among people.

On differences:

I believe there are greater differences between individuals than between genders.

I believe there are greater differences between individuals than between races.

On commonalities:

I believe the poor and the working class of the world have more, and more fundamental, interests in common with each other than with the oppressors or the economically privileged in their particular geographical location.

I believe the poor and the working class of all races and genders have more, and more fundamental, interests in common with each other than with the oppressors or the economically privileged of their race and gender.

On Listening

Years ago, before many of you were born (good lord!), I would show up, every week, at the Minneapolis Unemployment Office to sell copies of the Bulletin (paper precursor to the World Socialist Web Site). Many could not afford the .25, so “sales” tended to be poor, but more important than sales was that it provided an opportunity for political discussions with people collecting unemployment checks or seeing what work was available for them. It was the early 70s, and the economy was struggling.

That was one of the places I learned about listening. I also learned about listening critically. In politics, it is vital to listen to the working class, but it is also vital that, when listening, you don’t turn off your brain and simply accept what you’re told at face value.

Slicked-hair guy came by. I’d never seen him before, but from his age and hair-style I figured him for a Korean War veteran. I was cautious, because some of those guys bought into the McCarthy thing, and occasionally got violent. He didn’t get violent, but when I spoke to him about the conditions facing working people, he dismissed it. “I’m just here cuz I got laid off. I’ll be working again by next week.” And off he’d go.

Two weeks later I’d see him again. Same thing.

Two weeks later he’d be back, and this time, maybe, we’d talk a bit about how frustrating it was to be without a job, and how determined he was to work again, and he’d listen when I spoke about this being a systemic problem, not just a personal issue with him. I’d learn that he’d been working for Whirl Air Flow, manufacturing parts for heating and cooling systems until the economy forced a reduction in new buildings, which led to them laying off half the work force. I’d learn his name was Jeff, and he’d tell me a bit about his family.

Two weeks later, we’d talk in more detail, and he might agree with me on some things, disagree on others, but the bottom line was that he was determined to get back to work, and confident he would. Any manufacturing job would do; he was sure he could learn whatever they needed in no time.

Two weeks later, he’d still be determined, but now he’d be scared. However much something like unemployment is a general, social problem, it feels personal to everyone it hits. Often, it feels like failure. We’d talk about that.

Two weeks later he’d be terrified, miserable, and pretty much unable to talk about things. He was now ready to take any sort of job he could find. I’d get the feeling that he had to fight depression just to bring himself down to see what jobs were available, knowing that there would be nothing for him.

Two weeks later, he’d show up to collect his check, and there would be a fake smirk on his face, and a contrived jaunty step, and he’d say, “Hey, fuck it, man. Who needs a job? I’ll just collect unemployment. This is great! They pay me for doing nothing! Ha ha!”

And then I’d go home and some reactionary bastard on the radio would talk about how people are unemployed because they don’t want to work, and for proof, he’d just spoken to someone like Jeff who loudly proclaimed how he’d rather collect unemployment than find work.

How many times did I see that pattern repeat? I don’t know. Scores, maybe hundreds.

So, yeah, listen to what is said. But that doesn’t mean taking it at face value.