- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
A BIPARTISAN SAMPLING of the worldās greatest perpetrators and enablers of political violence has rushed to condemn political violence following the shooting attempt on former President Donald Trump on Saturday.
āThe idea that thereās political violence ā¦ in America like this, is just unheard of, itās just not appropriate,ā said President Joe Biden, the backer of Israelās genocidal war against Palestine, with a death toll that researchers believe could reach 186,000 Palestinians. Bidenās narrower point was correct, though: Deadly attacks on the American ruling class are vanishingly rare these days. Political violence that is not ālike thisā ā the political violence of organized abandonment, poverty, militarized borders, police brutality, incarceration, and deportation ā is commonplace.
And condemn it, most everyone in the Democratic political establishment has: āPolitical violence is absolutely unacceptable,ā wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on X. āThere is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,ā tweeted former President Barack Obama, who oversaw war efforts and military strikes against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan with massive civilian death tolls; Obama added that we should āuse this moment to recommit ourselves to civility and respect in our politics.ā āThere is no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania,ā wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
The chorus of condemnation was predictable and not in itself a problem: Thereās nothing wrong with desiring a world without stochastic assassination attempts, even against political opponents. But when you have Israelās minister of foreign affairs, Israel Katz of the fascistic ruling Likud Party, tweeting, āViolence can never ever be part of politics,ā the very concept of āpolitical violenceā is evacuated of meaning.
I already adressed why legitimacy is an issue above.
If itās not given popular mandate itās just another form of war. Again the whole point of this is to use the monopoly of violence as a lens. Thats how I started the whollllle comment chain. You seem to think that means I want it abolished, which no oneās said this whole conversation.
No, itās not āanother form of warā. Plenty of illiberal countries have a strong monopoly on violence and nobody conceptualizes that as them being at war with their population. Thatās absurd.
Making grandiose declarations doesnāt make them make sense. I wish people took an extra breath to check what they are actually saying when they post.
Also, if youāre not saying you want to abolish the monopoly on violence by the state what are you saying? Because thatās the thing about monopolies, you either have it or you donāt. As Iāve said above, control and accountability donāt remove the monopoly on violence, and the US already has an unusually lax regulation on this issue. So what are you saying?
Im saying a few things. First and foremost im saying every politician condemning violence is full of shit. Secondly Im saying the monopoly on violence in the US is not a good thing for two distinct reasons: The system often give the head executive office to someone who doesnāt have a popular mandate, meaning the people they place in the positions to execute the state violence shouldnāt have the right to hold their position. On top of that no free country half as safe as American uses violence on its citizens more. That is not a sustainable model of monopoly of violence. Hell even the courts are both illegitimate and practicing violence, particularly against women. So itās not even contained to the executive branch.
So in short, politicians lie, illegitimate officers are executing violence on civilians, and more violence on civilians than anyone else. How long does a country like that stay free? Because the answer could just be about 5 more months.
So what is a US where there is no monopoly on violence by the state in your view? Or rather, if it is a ābad thingā, what is a good thing? How do you see this working?
The same way US prisons are a bad thing but no serious prison abolitionist things the solution is to instantly release all prisoners right now. We need to take corrective steps and if I knew the inās and outās of all those steps I probably wouldnāt be trying to have discussions on social media, and instead be writing books, running for office, or starting a movement.
So you know itās bad but you donāt know what good looks like.
Please consider the possibility that this is because itās not bad at all to have the state, rather than private citizens, hold the sole ability to use force, and that the problems youāve observed may be unrelated to that principle. Not that they donāt exist, just that they are not caused by what youāre saying they are.
I leave you with that, in genuine good faith.