My Position on Capital Punishment

A few minutes ago, on Twitter, I suggested that if illegal use of lethal force by the police were a capital crime, it would be much harder to fill the ranks of police forces, and also have additional benefits.

It was, in some degree, a snark, but it led someone to ask about my stand on capital punishment.  I’ll answer that here.

For most practical purposes, I believe the state doesn’t have the moral right to take a human life.  I do not, however, take that as being true for all times and all places under all circumstances.   Usually, when someone says, “Well what about…” it is followed by a description of some heinous crime.  But the more heinous the crime, usually, the more likely it is that the person who committed that act is sick; and taking the life of someone who is sick merely for being sick is barbaric.  It should also be noted that, in addition to the number of death row inmates being disproportionately minorities, and wildly disproportionately poor and working class, there are also a huge proportion who are mentally impaired to some degree or another.  Killing such people is monstrous.

Are there circumstances in which I would favor capital punishment?  Well, if you’re talking about State killing, my first question is, what State?  A government responsible for Hiroshima, for Nagasaki, for the war crimes against Vietnam and creating dictatorships in South America, the Middle East, Ukraine, a State that, today, is encouraging its police forces to simply shoot us down for the most trivial excuses, well, such a State long ago lost the moral right to take anyone’s life, ever, for anything.  Show me a State I can support–for example, a workers state, and show me that, under certain circumstances, it must be willing to take lives and use other terrorist means to preserve itself from Imperialism, and then, yes, I’d be willing to concede that such barbarism might temporarily be necessary.  If I am to support the right, in fact the duty, of the working class to take power into its hands, then it would hypocritical not to also support actions necessary for the working class to protect itself from fascist counter-revolution.

 

Police Murder, Racism, and the Left Defenders of Capital

On Saturday, August 8th of this year, an 18-year-old African-American named Michael Brown was murdered by the police in Ferguson, Missouri, a working class suburb of St. Louis.  Less than a month before, Eric Garner, also black, was choked to death by New York City police while his hands were raised in surrender.  Just a couple of days ago, the guy who caught Garner’s murder on his cellphone camera, was mysteriously found to be carrying a weapon and was arrested (I suspect the official charge will be a weapons violation, because “recording police murder” isn’t yet a violation of any ordinance).  Meanwhile, the police in Ferguson are using rubber bullets, tear gas, attack dogs, and indiscriminate beatings against those who dare to suggest that something might be wrong with all of this.

These are only a few of many such incidents, and, amid the horror and outrage we feel, we can find one silver lining: The role of the police is becoming clear to broader and broader layers of society.  As the police militarize themselves with automatic weapons, drones, and tanks, and feel more and more free to fall back on plain, simple murder, we become more aware of exactly what they are protecting and who they are serving.  Though hardly a consolation for those who’ve lost a loved one, it at least is a cause for hope that this increased awareness will, sooner rather than later, translate into effective action.  The police are the defenders of capitalism, and the more blatantly they demonstrate this, the clearer it becomes to masses of people in general, and the working class in particular.

But this increased awareness, itself, is a threat to capitalism; the working class is not helpless–far from it!  Every wheel that turns in our complex, international society, is, at the end of the day, turned by the working class; the ruling class is not so blind as to be unaware of this, nor so complacent as to not be threatened by it.  What then to do?  The bourgeoisie has more than one weapon in its arsenal.  While using the police as domestic terrorists with its right hand, with its left, it brings us–the Left.  That is, those who use leftist-sounding rhetoric in order to make sure our outrage remains harmlessly channeled back into support for the system that commits these atrocities.

One must be a fool or a scoundrel to say that race is not a factor in these killings: the racism of police departments is well-known.  But one must be a different sort of fool, or a different sort of scoundrel, to say that race is the only factor.  The Al Sharptons of the world are delighted to take this opportunity to raise support for the Democratic Party,  and close on their heels come the supporters of identity politics who want, above all, to remain in their comfort zones, if not in their comfortable positions.  “This is about racism, that’s all.  There is no need to discuss the mad drive for profit, the protection of private property.  This has nothing to do with the appalling and ever-increasing income disparity, or with imperialist wars prosecuted against the will of the people.  That this is happening at the same time the US helped engineer a fascist coup in Ukraine and is cheering on Israel’s open slaughter of Palestinians is pure coincidence, just as it’s coincidence that as the president orders murders without due process beyond our borders the police carry out exactly the same thing within our borders.  It’s just those darned congressional Republicans.  Capitalism itself is not the issue.  And don’t look behind the curtain.”  But the curtain is getting thin, and all that is required to see behind it is to open one’s eyes.  That dark shape just past the gauze is called the class struggle.  May I make the observation that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is African-American?  May I point out that we have yet to see these police murders take place in Baldwin Hills, California or Mitchellville, Maryland?

Yes, indeed, racism is a factor.  But–a factor in what?  A factor in the evolving police culture, a culture determined in the immediate sense by interactions among individual cops: what jokes they tell, comments about how willing they are to shoot, mutual encouragement for the worst excesses, the subtle pressures inevitably exerted by and on those who work closely together.  But that is, as I said, in the immediate sense.  What determines that culture in the last analysis is the needs of the job.  The job is protecting capitalism, and the more terrified the bourgeoisie is by the anger they are stirring up against themselves, the more repressive their armed servants need to be.  We saw that in the police response to the Occupy movement, harmless though that movement was, and now we are seeing it ever more sharply.  Those who cry loudest that racism is the only factor are, by and large, those with something to gain from it; either sleazy politicians like Al Sharpton or  Jesse Jackson, or academics who can freely write “anti-racism” essays as a publication credit for their tenure track positions but dare not speak out against capitalist property relations.

It is absurd to claim that we are living in a police state: we still have the right to protest, at least within certain limits, and I still have the freedom to write this blog post without undue fear of official harassment, and Obama and the NSA still feel the need to justify domestic spying: the rights and freedoms we have won are still largely intact.  But it is naive to think that movements toward a police state are not taking place.  This is the lesson of what is happening in Arizona, and the “constitution-free zones,” and what happened in Boston after the marathon bombing, and the way the cops increasingly feel at liberty to take our lives without a second thought.  Police state measures are being prepared, and we need to be aware of it.  Failing to go beyond the question of racism is to leave us ideologically prostrate and theoretically helpless as the enemy forces gather at our border.

Let’s not do that.

 

Some Housekeeping Stuff

I’ve had a bit of an issue with WordPress concluding some comments are spam.  Here’s how the thing works:

If you’ve never commented here before or are using a different name you go into the “moderate” queue.

If you have too many links (I think WordPress defines “too many” as “more than one” (ETA: Jen says it’s more than two)) you go into the “moderate” queue.

If WordPress decides your post looks like spam, it goes into the spam queue.  I have no idea how it decides something looks like spam.

Now, here’s where it gets tricky: I get a handy, easy to spot notification of anything in the moderate queue, so Jen or I usually get to those pretty fast.  But the spam queue I have to explicitly go look for, and I don’t remember to do that often enough, which means perfectly legitimate messages (like one from L. Raymond Jen just found today) might get held up for days or weeks.

First of all, sorry about that.  I’ll try to do better.  Second, if you’ve made a comment that vanished, feel free to email me about it and I’ll check.

Yes, I HAVE Been Reading Patrick O’Brian, Why Do You Ask?

There’s a major argument in the offing.  I’ve been at loggerheads with a guy who claims that the navies of the 18th and 19th centuries are the source for many terms in common use today, and I really need to take the wind out of his sails.  We were just hanging out, skylarking, when he suggested it.  At first I was taken aback: he should have known when he brought it up that there would be the devil to pay, since, by and large, I know about this stuff.  You can tell by the cut of his jib that this is a guy who just likes showing away; we’ll be fighting about this to the bitter end.  This isn’t the first time he’s done this, by the way, at least according to the scuttlebutt, so I’m not cutting him any more slack.  I used to give him a lot of leeway, but not any more.  Maybe I shouldn’t engage–I know most people give him a wide berth–but his argument is a bunch of bilge.  As someone who knows the ropes about the origin of terms, I think I have him over the barrel on this.  We’ll be really going at it; it’s time to batten down the hatches.  I mean, this guy is a loose cannon.  Seriously, I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but this nipper does this all the time.  Trying to educate me about figures of speech is crossing the line, don’t you think?

Can anyone help me stem the tide of his nonsense so I can take him down a peg?  Shouting didn’t work, so I need to try a new tack.  Anything will do, there are no hard and fast rules, though I admit that asking for help here might be a long shot. If I weren’t so pooped, I’d do it myself, but he’s buoyed up by stupid references.  If we can get enough of a groundswell of evidence to make him founder, I’m sure he’ll cut and run.  I really need to make some headway on this.  I can even pay: I have a slush fund set aside for the purpose.  But it needs to be a strong argument, not something jury-rigged, and then maybe he’ll pipe down and toe the line.  I’m sure he’s reading this, but that’s okay–this should all be above-board, after all.  And, really, we could have a field day with this.  If you all help, we’ll come through with flying colors.

Okay, your turn, if you don’t mind being pressed into service.  (I probably wouldn’t be making this post if I weren’t a bit under the weather from being three sheets to the wind.)