Page 13 of 13
1 11 12 13

Towards a politics of the totality

There is no virtue politically in economic determinism or the notion that one issue can explain every other form of oppression ranging from the attempt to eliminate voting rights to defining feminism solely from the perspective of white middle class women. Racism, among other forms of oppression, is both intertwined with economic issues and also has it own distinct register. The crisis of economics does not explain a range of other crises and often becomes a blind overarching narrative that subsumes issues it can no longer explain. But then again Gramsci, Raymond Williams, Stanley Aronowtiz among others have all addressed this issue convincingly.

One problem is that politics in North America is once again mired in single issues and refuses a more comprehensive understanding of the totality of the problems being faced and the need to develop a unified and transnational movement for political, economic, and social justice. The call for broader social movements and a more comprehensive understanding of politics is necessary in order to connect the dots between, for instance, police brutality and mass incarceration, on the one hand, and the diverse crises producing massive poverty, the destruction of the welfare state, and the assaults on the environment, workers, young people and women.

Radical politics cannot allow itself to become fractured, mimicking the isolated and atomized ideology of neoliberalism. The left needs a new political conversation that encompasses memories of freedom and resistance. Such a dialogue would build on the militancy of the labor strikes of the 1930s, the civil rights movements of the 1950s and the struggle for participatory democracy by the New Left in the 1960s. At the same time, there is a need to reclaim the radical imagination and to infuse it with a spirited battle for an independent politics that regards a radical democracy as part of a never-ending struggle.

Needless to day, movements require time to mature and come into fruition. They necessitate educated agents able to connect structural conditions of oppression to the oppressive cultural apparatuses that legitimate, persuade, and shape individual and collective attitudes in the service of oppressive ideas and values. Under such conditions, radical ideas can be connected to action once diverse groups recognize the need to take control of the political, economic, and cultural conditions which shape their world views, exploit their labor, control their communities, appropriate their resources, and undermine their dignity and lives.

We need not only a radical critique of capitalism, racism, and other forms of oppression but a critical formative culture and cultural politics that inspires, energizes, and provides elements of a transformative radical education in the service of a broad-based democratic liberation movement.

 

Ilustración Nathaly Bonilla

Comparte este contenido:

Why Are Liberal Commentators Acting as Apologists for Trump’s Racism?

The lynch-mob mentality that permeates Donald Trump’s campaign rallies was made visible once again this month at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, when Rakeem Jones, a 26-year-old Black protester, was sucker punched by a white Trump supporter. A video of the incident documents how, after Jones was punched, the audience cheered and the police threw Jones to the ground and handcuffed him. John McGraw, the man who admitted on camera that he had punched Jones, was later arrested. When asked why he did it, McGraw, 78, not only admitted to having committed the assault, but said he «liked it, clocking the hell out of that big mouth,» whom he said he thought might be a member of ISIS. He then added, «Yes, he deserved it. We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American … the next time we see him, we might have to kill him.»

For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, «Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016.»

Of course, this incident was not out of the ordinary. Trump supporters have a consistent history of attacking those protesting Trump’s policies. When an activist named Mercutio Southall Jr. started shouting «Black Lives Matter!» at a Trump rally in Birmingham, Alabama, on November 21, 2015, some Trump supporters punched and choked him. Dara Lind observes that the Southall Jr. attack «isn’t an isolated incident. Trump supporters have gotten physical with protesters at several other events throughout his candidacy. A protester was dragged out of a Trump rally in Miami. A Trump supporter ripped up a protester’s sign. A Trump bodyguard was filmed sucker-punching a protester outside Trump Tower in early September. And at a rally in DC, photographers captured a Trump supporter pulling a protester’s hair.» Meanwhile, last week, after a March 11 rally was cancelled in Chicago, a number of skirmishes and fistfights broke out between Trump supporters and protesters. Many commentators noted that the rally offered a signpost of the escalating violence that has taken place at Trump’s rallies.

At their core, Trump’s politics and appeal are built around violence.

Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for such actions by saying he «would like to punch a protester in the face» and labeling protesters as «bad Americans.» He also incited this violence through his response to the November incident that occurred in Alabama, when Trump supporters punched and choked Southall Jr., who started shouting «Black Lives Matter!» as Trump started to speak. When asked about the incident, Trump responded in a Fox News interview with the remark: «Maybe he should have been roughed up.»

Such comments make clear that at their core, Trump’s politics and appeal are built around violence. Trump’s encouragement of violence can be seen very starkly in his decision to look into paying for McGraw’s legal fees. In defense of such actions,Trump told «Meet the Press» that McGraw «obviously loves his country,» and that he might «have gotten carried away.» Meanwhile, some Trump supporters havereportedly expressed interest in forming a makeshift militia called the Lion’s Guard to oppose «far-left agitators.»

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

One would think that these incidents would be enough to convince liberals that Trump’s popularity is deeply tied to his open advocacy of racist violence, but a disconcerting number of liberal commentators have sought to downplay Trump’s racist and fascist tendencies.

Liberal Apologists for Trump

Some conservatives, such as Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, predictably downplay the racist and fascist undertones of Trump’s candidacy, arguing that Trump is simply a symptom of massive disillusionment among Americans who are exhibiting a profound disdain, if not hatred, for the political and economic mainstream elites. Disappointingly, however, this argument is also often bolstered by liberals who go too far in their efforts to prove that criticism of Trump’s bigotry and racism cannot fully account for Trump’s political appeal.

For instance, historian Thomas Frank (also a former Wall Street Journal columnist)observes that Trump actually embraces a number of left-leaning liberal positionsthat make him popular with working-class white people with lower education levels. He cites Trump’s criticism of free trade agreements, his call for competitive bidding with the drug industry, his critique of the military-industrial complex and its wasteful spending, and his condemnation of companies that displace American workers by closing factories in the United States and opening them in much poorer countries such as Mexico in order to save on labor costs.

Trump’s appeal to fear, aggression and violence makes people more vulnerable to authoritarianism.

Purveyors of this view present the working class as a noble representative of a legitimate populist backlash against neoliberalism and appear to deem irrelevant the question of whether or not this backlash embraces an American form of fascism. Frank, however, has a long history of ignoring cultural issues, ideologies and values that do not simply mimic the economic system. As Ellen Willis has pointed out in her brilliant critique of Frank’s work, Frank makes the mistake of imagining popular and media culture, or what I call the educative nature of culture and politics, as simply «a pure reflection of the corporate class that produces it.» Hence, the racism, ultra-nationalism, bigotry, religious fundamentalism and other anti-democratic factors get downplayed in Frank’s analysis of Trump’s rise to power.

Journalist John Judis, a senior writer at The National Journal, extends this argument by comparing Trump with Bernie Sanders, claiming that they are both populists and outsiders while suggesting that Trump occupies a legitimate outsider status. Judis argues that Trump raises a number of criticisms regarding domestic policies for which he should be taken seriously by the American people and not simply dismissed as a racist, clown or pompous showman. In a piece for Vox, he writes:

Sanders and Trump differ dramatically on many issues — from immigration to climate change — but both are critical of how wealthy donors and lobbyists dominate the political process, and both favor some form of campaign finance reform. Both decry corporations moving overseas for cheap wages and to avoid American taxes. Both reject trade treaties that favor multinational corporations over workers. And both want government more, rather than less, involved in the economy…. Both men are foes of what they describe as their party’s establishment. And both campaigns are also fundamentally about rejecting the way economic policy has been talked about in American presidential politics for decades.

Some liberals such as scholar and blogger Arthur Goldhammer go so far as to suggest that Trump’s appeal is largely an extension of the «cult of celebrity» and his attentiveness to «a very rational and reasonable set of business practices» and to the anger of a disregarded element of the working class. Goldhammer asserts without irony that Trump «is not an authoritarian but a celebrity,» as if one cancels out the other. While celebrity culture confers authority in a society utterly devoted to consumerism, it also represents less a mode of false identification than a manufactured spectacle that cheapens serious and thoughtful discourse, and puts into play a focus on lifestyles and personalities. This has given rise to mainstream media that devalue politics, treat politicians as celebrities, refuse to give politicians a serious hearing and are unwilling to raise tough questions. This occurs because the media assume that celebrities are incapable of answering difficult questions and that the public is more concerned about their personalities than anything else.

Celebrity culture is not simply a mode of entertainment; it is a form of public pedagogy central to creating a formative culture that views thinking as a nuisance at best or dangerous at worse. Treated seriously, celebrity culture provides the architectural framing for an authoritarian culture by celebrating a deadening form of self-interest, narcissism and civic illiteracy. As the historian of Germany Fritz Sternhas argued, the dark side of celebrity culture can be understood by the fact that it gave rise to Trump and represents the merger of financial power and a culture of thoughtlessness.

Roger Berkowitz, the director of the Hannah Arendt Center, takes Goldhammer’s argument further and claims that Trump is a celebrity who knows how to work the «art of the deal» (a reference to the title of Trump’s well-known neoliberal manifesto). That is, he suggests that Trump’s appeal rests on his role as a celebrity with real business acumen and substance. In particular, Berkowitz argues that Trump’s appeal is due, in part, to his image as a smart and successful businessman who gets things done. Berkowitz goes into overdrive in his claim that Trump is not Hitler, as if that means he is not a demagogue unique to the American context.

The authoritarian tendencies of Trump’s followers cannot be explained through economic analyses alone.

Without irony, Berkowitz goes so far as to write that «it is important to recognize that Trump’s focus on illegal immigrants, protectionism, the wall on the Mexican border, and the terrorist danger posed by Muslims transcends race.» I am assuming Berkowitz means that Trump’s racist ideology, policies and rhetoric can be separated from the hateful policies for which he argues (such as torture, which is a war crime) and the violence he legitimates at his rallies. Indeed, Berkowitz implies that these policies and practices derive not from a fundamentally racist and xenophobic orientation but rather are rooted in Trump’s sound understanding of economic issues related to his business practices.

The sound business practices that Berkowitz finds admirable have a name: neoliberal capitalism. This neoliberal capitalist system has produced an untold degree of human misery, political corruption and inequality throughout the world. It has given us a social and political formation that promotes militarization, attacks the welfare state, aligns itself slavishly with corporate power and corrupts politics. Moreover this system seeks to justify the disproportionate police violence directed toward Black communities by referring to Black people as «criminals» and «thugs.» Proponents of this political and economic system may not constitute a fascist party in the strict sense of the word, but they certainly embrace toxic elements of a new style of American authoritarianism.

In declaring that Trump isn’t being racist and in claiming that the difference between Trump and Sanders is one of attitude and not policy, Berkowitz reveals the extent to which his eagerness to defend neoliberal capitalism requires him to overlook Trump’s racism. Berkowitz even goes so far as to downplay the differences between Trump and Sanders on racism by arguing that they have both «pushed the limits of racial propriety.» This statement whitewashes Trump’s overt racism and appears to suggest that both candidates share similar ideological positions toward people of color and inhabit the same racist landscape, truly a claim that borders on the absurd and represents an intellectual deceit in its claims to legitimate a false equivalency. Of course, if Berkowitz had used the word «racism» instead of «racial propriety,» the latter claim would not make sense given Sanders’ long history of fighting racial injustices.

I strongly doubt that Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the United States, his call to expel 11 million undocumented immigrants, his appeal to white nationalism, his intention to kill terrorists and their families as well, or his support for state-sponsored torture, among other egregious policy practices, constitute simply different attitudes between him and Bernie Sanders.

Trump attempts to generate intolerance out of misfortune while Sanders goes to the political, economic and social roots of the problems that cause it. Trump promotes an intense culture of fear that cannot be excused by appealing to his alleged good business practices or for that matter to his criticism of some of the Republican Party’s more regressive domestic and foreign policy endeavors. On the contrary, Trump’s appeal to fear, aggression and violence makes people, especially those who have been politically victimized, more vulnerable to authoritarianism.

The Downplaying of Trump’s Racism

Berkowitz’s argument is more than apologetic; it is a species of postracial discourse that became commonplace during the Obama years. It is also disingenuous and nonsensical. It is hard to make up such apologetic reasoning at a time in which racist invective and actions are more visible than ever: Police brutality against Black people is widespread; racist comments against Obama proliferate without apology; Black congregants are killed while praying in their church; white supremacists target immigrants, Muslims and Planned Parenthood with repeated acts of violence; and all the while the racially coded prison system is bursting at its seams. We also live at a time when a dangerous resurgence of racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise. Against the reality of a society immersed if not saturated in racial violence, Berkowitz’s postracial and market-drenched discourse mimics a naive form of liberalism, if not a species of right-wing ideology too afraid to name itself, and too unwilling to address Trump’s authoritarian and myopic drive for power.

Trump echoes a fascist script that has been updated to address the fears and anxieties of people who feel betrayed by mainstream politics.

Critical race theorist David Theo Goldberg is right in arguing that this line of argument is a form of «postraciality [that] heightens the mode of racial dismissal» and «renders opaque the structures making possible and silently perpetuating racially ordered power and privilege» (see Goldberg’s book Are We All Postracial Yet?). Trump’s followers cannot be defined simply by an anger that is associated with oppressive economic institutions, policies and structures. They are also defined by an anti-democratic politics that embraces the long legacy of racialized human trafficking and enslavement, a hatred of immigrants and an embrace of the ethos of privatization.

The positions that many liberals such as Thomas Frank, Arthur Goldhammer and Roger Berkowitz have taken on Trump often sound like apologies for Trump’s reactionary utterances. Moreover, they tend to downplay his toxic racism, nativism, class bullying, demagogic policies and chilling embrace of violence. In focusing on Trump’s populism alone, these analyses ignore David Neiwert’s insight that Trump’s updated neo-fascist rhetoric is «designed to demonize an entire class of people by reducing them to objects fit only for elimination.»

What is disturbing about accounts that celebrate, however cautiously, Trump’s more liberal tendencies is that, in the words of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, «they give racist contempt the impeccable alibi of ethical and secular legitimacy.» This type of restricted discourse runs the risk of absolving the Republican Party and Trump and his followers of some of their most vile, right-wing, nativist legacies. These liberal cover-ups do more than underplay Trump’s fascist tendencies; they also overlook a moment in which political authoritarianism is on the rise and in which the very fate of humanity and the planet are at risk. As Los Angeles Times reporters Don Lee and Kurtis Lee observe:

If Donald Trump were president, [he would end abortion rights, repeal Obamacare,] put U.S. ground troops in Iraq to fight Islamic extremists, rescind President Obama’s executive orders that protect millions of immigrants from deportation, eliminate American citizenship for U.S.-born children whose parents are in the country illegally and «police» but not necessarily revoke the nuclear pact with Iran. Trump wants to deport all immigrants in the U.S. illegally — an estimated 11 million people — but says he wouldn’t break up families because their families would be deported too. «We’re going to keep the families together … but they have to go,» he said in a wide-ranging interview on NBC’s «Meet the Press.» «We have to make a whole new set of standards. And when people come in, they have to come in legally.» Deportees who qualify could return, he said. Trump would end Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows young people brought to the country illegally as children to work and attend college without facing deportation.

Trump’s toxic racism and discourse has been leading to violence for some time. According to an August 2015 article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi, when two brothers from South Boston urinated on and severely beat with a metallic pipe a Latino man, «one of the brothers reportedly told police that ‘Donald Trump was right, all of these illegals need to be deported.'»

Taibbi adds:

When reporters confronted Trump, he hadn’t yet heard about the incident. At first, he said, «That would be a shame.» But right after, he went on: «I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that.»

Trump later modified his response, one that both appeared to condone and legitimate the violence done in his name, but the fact remains that he is disseminating hate and creating the conditions for dangerous ideas to mobilize real-life violence in a society seething with a toxic disdain for immigrants. In what can only be interpreted as an openly racist justification for such violence — reminiscent of similar attacks against Jews in Nazi Germany — Trump’s initial response truly reflects the degree to which right-wing extremism has become an acceptable register of US politics.

The authoritarian tendencies of Trump’s followers cannot be explained through economic analyses alone. Denying the importance of racism, xenophobia, corporate-driven public pedagogies and a culture shaped by the financial elite greatly ignores modes of domination that go far beyond economic discontents and are produced and legitimated daily in mainstream cultural apparatuses. As Ellen Willis has pointed out, domination is not simply structural — it takes shape through beliefs, persuasion, rhetoric and the pedagogical dimensions of politics. What Trump has tapped into is not simply economic resentment but also decades of a formative culture that is as divisive as it is anti-democratic. Violence is ubiquitous in US society and has become normalized, furthering a politics of anxiety, uncertainty and bigotry.

Trump has taken advantage of a proliferating culture of fear to create what Susan Sontag has described as a mimicry of fascinating fascism that trades in a carnival of violence and hatred. This spectacle furthers a politics of nihilism and brings many Americans closer to the abyss of proto-fascism. Under such circumstances, it is fair to argue that many of Trump’s supporters have embraced the core elements of totalitarian politics. In this instance, politics has become a staged event, a spectacle that both normalizes violence and makes it a source of pleasure.

Trump echoes a fascist script that has been updated to address the fears and anxieties of people who feel betrayed by mainstream politics and channel their anger toward immigrants, Black people and anyone they deem un-American. Given the way in which racism mixes with the growing fear and anger over economic precariousness of working-class white people in this country, is it any wonder, that Trump presents himself as the strong leader, the mythic strongman offering redemption, revenge and a revitalized white Christian United States? Trump is not only the new face of proto-fascism, but also the logical end result of neoliberal capitalism’s numerous assaults on democracy itself.

May not be reprinted without permission .

Publicado originalmente en http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35240-why-are-liberal-commentators-acting-as-apologists-for-trump-s-racism

Comparte este contenido:

Poisoned City: Flint and the Specter of Domestic Terrorism

In the current age of free-market frenzy, privatization, commodification and deregulation, Americans are no longer bound by or interested in historical memory, connecting narratives or modes of thinking that allow them to translate private troubles into broader systemic considerations. As Irving Howe once noted, «the rhetoric of apocalypse haunts the air» accompanied by a relentless spectacle that flattens time, disconnects events, obsesses with the moment and leaves no traces of the past, resistance or previous totalitarian dangers. The United States has become a privatized «culture of the immediate,» in the words of Zygmunt Bauman and Carlo Bordoni: It is a society in which the past is erased and the future appears ominous. And as scholar Wendy Brown has noted in Undoing the Demos, under the rule of neoliberalism, the dissolution of historical and public memory «cauterizes democracy’s more radical expressions.»

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

Particularly now, in the era of Donald Trump, US politics denotes an age of forgetting civil rights, full inclusion and the promise of democracy. There is a divorce between thought and its historical determinants, a severance of events both from each other and the conditions that produce them. The growing acceptance of state violence, even its normalization, can be found in repeated statements by Trump, the leading Republican Party presidential candidate, who has voiced his support for torture, mass deportations, internment camps and beating up protesters, and embraced what Umberto Eco once called a cult of «action for action’s sake» – a term Eco associated with fascism. Ominously, Trump’s campaign of violence has attracted a commanding number of followers, including the anti-Semitic and former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke, and other white supremacists. But a death-dealing state can operate in less spectacular but in no less lethal ways. Cost-cutting negligence, malfeasance, omissions, and the withholding of social protections and civil rights can also inflict untold suffering.

Flint provides a tragic example of what happens to a society when democracy begins to disappear.

The recent crisis over the poisoning of the water supply in Flint, Michigan, and the ways in which it has been taken up by many analysts in the mainstream media provide a classic example of how public issues have been emptied of any substance and divorced from historical understanding. This is a politics that fails to offer a comprehensive mode of analysis, one that refuses to link what is wrongly viewed as an isolated issue to a broader set of social, political and economic factors. Under such circumstances shared dangers are isolated and collapse into either insulated acts of governmental incompetence, a case of misguided bureaucratic ineptitude or unfortunate acts of individual misconduct, and other narratives of depoliticized disconnection. In this instance, there is more at work than flawed arguments or conceptual straitjackets. There is also a refusal to address a neoliberal politics in which state violence is used to hurt, abuse and humiliate those populations who are vulnerable, powerless and considered disposable. In Flint, the unimaginable has become imaginable as 8,657 children under 6 years of age have been subjected to potential lead poisoning. Flint provides a tragic example of what happens to a society when democracy begins to disappear and is surpassed by a state remade in the image of the corporation.

A more appropriate way to analyze the water crisis in Flint is to examine it within wider contexts of power and politics, addressing it as a form of domestic terrorism – or what Mark LeVine has called in a different context a «necropolitics of the oppressed.» This is a form of systemic terror and violence instituted intentionally by different levels of government against populations at home in order to realize economic gains and achieve political benefits through practices that range from assassination, extortion, incarceration, violence and intimidation to coercion of a civilian population. Angela Davis details much of this violence in her new bookFreedom Is a Constant Struggle.

Some of the more notorious expressions of US domestic terrorism include the assassination of Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton by the Chicago Police Department on December 4, 1969; the MOVE bombing by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1985; the existence of Cointelpro, the illegal counterintelligence program designed to harass antiwar and Black resistance fighters in the 1960s and 1970s; the use of extortion by the local police and courts practiced on the largely poor Black inhabitants of Ferguson, Missouri; and the more recent killings of Freddie Gray and Tamir Rice by the police – to name just a few incidents.

Connecting the Dots: From Katrina to Flint

At first glance, the dual tragedies that engulfed New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the water contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, appear to have little in common. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration’s failure to govern, the world was awash in shocking images of thousands of poor people, mostly Black, stranded on rooftops, isolated on dry roads with no food or packed into the New Orleans Superdome desperate for food, medical help and a place to sleep. Even more troubling were images of the bloated bodies of the dead, some floating in the flood waters, others decomposing on the streets for days and others left to die in their homes and apartments.

«We don’t have just a water problem. We’ve got a problem of being stripped of our democracy as we’ve known it over the years.»

Flint, Michigan, also represents this different order of terrorism and tragedy. Whereas Katrina unleashed images of dead bodies uncollected on porches, in hospitals, in nursing homes and in collapsed houses in New Orleans, Flint unleashed inconceivable reports that thousands of children had been subjected to lead poisoning because of austerity measures sanctioned by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and imposed by Ed Kurtz, the then-unelected emergency manager of Flint. The poor Black populations of both New Orleans and Flint share the experience of disenfranchisement, and of potential exclusion from the institutional decisions that drastically affect peoples’ lives. They live the consequences of neoliberal policies that relegate them to zones of abandonment elevated beyond the sphere of democratic governance and accountability. Both populations suffer from a machinery of domestic terrorism in which state violence was waged upon precarious populations considered unknowable, ungovernable, unworthy and devoid of human rights. Such populations have become all too frequent in the United States and suffer from what Richard Sennett has called a «specter of uselessness,» one that renders disposable those individuals and groups who are most vulnerable to exploitation, expulsion and state violence.

In New Orleans, state violence took the form of a refusal by the Bush administration to invest financially in infrastructure designed to protect against floods, a decision that was as much about saving money as it was about allegiance to a violent, racist logic, cloaked in the discourse of austerity and willfully indifferent to the needs of the powerless and underserved in Black communities. In Flint, austerity as a weapon of race and class warfare played out in a similar way. With the imposition of unelected emergency managers in 2011, democratically elected officials were displaced in predominantly Black cities such as Detroit and Flint and rendered powerless to influence important policy decisions and their implementation. The recent deployment of emergency managers reflects the frontline shock troops of casino capitalism who represent a new mode of authoritarian rule wrapped in the discourse of financial exigency. As the editors of Third Coast Conspiracy observe:

For more than [a] decade now, Michigan governors have been appointing so-called «emergency managers» (EMs) to run school districts and cities for which a «state of financial emergency» has been declared. These unelected administrators rule by fiat – they can override local elected officials, break union contracts, and sell off public assets and privatize public functions at will. It’s not incidental that thevast majorityof the people who have lived under emergency management are black. Flint, whose population was 55.6% black as of the2010 census(in a state whosepopulationis 14.2% black overall), was under emergency management from December 2011 to April 2015. [Moreover] it was during that period that the decision was made to stop purchasing water from Detroit and start drawing water directly from the Flint River.

Rather than invest in cities such as Flint and Detroit, Governor Snyder decided to downsize the budgets of these predominantly Black cities. For instance, according to a Socialist Worker article by Dorian Bon, in Detroit, «Snyder’s appointed manager decided to push Detroit into bankruptcy … and gain the necessary legal footing to obliterate pensions, social assistance, public schools and other bottom-line city structures.» In Flint, emergency manager Kurtz followed the austerity playbook to downsize Flint’s budget and put into play a water crisis of devastating proportions. Under the claim of fiscal responsibility, a succession of emergency managers succeeded in privatizing parks and garbage collection, and in conjunction with the Snyder administration aggressively pushed to privatize the water supply. Claire McClinton, a Flint resident, summed up the larger political issue well. She told Democracy Now!: «And that’s the untold story about the problem we have here. We don’t have just a water problem. We’ve got a democracy problem. We’ve got a dictatorship problem. We’ve got a problem of being stripped of our democracy as we’ve known it over the years.»

The backdrop to the Flint water crisis is the restructuring of the global economy, the deindustrialization of manufacturing cities like Flint and the departure of the auto industry, all of which greatly reduced the city’s revenues. Yet, these oft-repeated events only constitute part of the story. As Jacob Lederman points out, Flint’s ongoing economic and environmental crisis is the consequence of years of destructive free-market reforms.

According to the Michigan Municipal League, between 2003-2013, Flint lost close to $60 million in revenue sharing from the state, tied to the sales tax, which increased over the same decade. During this period, the city cut its police force in half while violent crime doubled, from 12.2 per 1000 people in 2003, to 23.4 in 2011. Such a loss of revenue is larger than the entire 2015 Flint general fund budget. In fact, cuts to Michigan cities like Flint and Detroit have occurred as state authorities raided so-called statutory revenue sharing funds to balance their own budgets and pay for cuts in business taxes. Unlike «constitutional» revenue sharing in Michigan, state authorities could divert these resources at their discretion. It is estimated that between 2003-2013 the state withheld over $6 billion from Michigan cities. And cuts to revenue sharing increased in line with the state’s political turn.

These policy changes and reforms provided a rationale for the apostles of neoliberalism to use calamitous budget deficits of their own design to impose severe austerity policies, gut public funding and cut benefits for autoworkers. As General Motors relocated jobs to the South in order to increase its profits, its workforce in Flint went from 80,000 in the 1970s to its current number of 8,000. These festering economic conditions were worsened under the Snyder administration, which was hell-bent on imposing its neoliberal game plan on Michigan, with the worse effects being visited on cities inhabited largely by poor Black people and immigrants. Under strict austerity measures imposed by the Snyder administration, public services were reduced and poverty ballooned to over 40 percent of the population. Meanwhile, schools deteriorated (with many closing), grocery stores vanished and entire neighborhoods fell into disrepair.

Through the rubric of a financial crisis, intensified by neoliberal policies aimed at destroying any vestige of the social contract and a civic culture, the Snyder administration appointed a series of emergency managers to undermine and sidestep democratic governance in a number of cities, including Flint. In this instance, a criminal economy produced in Flint an egregious form of environmental racism that was part of a broader neoliberal rationality designed to punish poor and underserved Black communities while diverting resources to the financial coffers of the rich and corporations. What emerged from such neoliberal slash-and-burn policies was a politics that transformed cities such as Flint into zones of social and economic abandonment. Michael Moore sums up the practice at work in Flintsuccinctly:

When Governor Snyder took office in 2011, one of the first things he did was to get a multi-billion-dollar tax break passed by the Republican legislature for the wealthy and for corporations. But with less tax revenues, that meant he had to start cutting costs. So, many things – schools, pensions, welfare, safe drinking water – were slashed. Then he invoked an executive privilege to take over cities (all of them majority black) by firing the mayors and city councils whom the local people had elected, and installing his cronies to act as «dictators» over these cities. Their mission? Cut services to save money so he could give the rich even more breaks. That’s where the idea of switching Flint to river water came from. To save $15 million! It was easy. Suspend democracy. Cut taxes for the rich. Make the poor drink toxic river water. And everybody’s happy. Except those who were poisoned in the process. All 102,000 of them. In the richest country in the world.

In spite of the dire consequences of such practices, Snyder’s appointed officials proceeded to promote neoliberal economic policies that exacerbated Flint’s crumbling infrastructure, its high levels of violence, and its corroding and underfunded public school system. Similar policies followed in Detroit, where the schools were so bad that teachers and students reported conditions frankly impossible to imagine. For instance, Wisdom Morales, a student at one of Detroit’s public schools, told journalist Amy Goodman, «I’ve gotten used to seeing rats everywhere. I’ve gotten used to seeing the dead bugs…. I want to be able to go to school and not have to worry about being bitten by mice, being knocked out by the gases, being cold in the rooms.» In a New York Times article, titled «Crumbling, Destitute Schools Threaten Detroit’s Recovery,» Julie Bosman further highlights the rancid conditions of Detroit’s destitute schools:

In Kathy Aaron’s decrepit public school, the heat fills the air with a moldy, rancid odor. Cockroaches, some three inches long, scuttle about until they are squashed by a student who volunteers for the task. Water drips from a leaky roof onto the gymnasium floor. ‘We have rodents out in the middle of the day,’ said Ms. Aaron, a teacher of 18 years. ‘Like they’re coming to class.’ Detroit’s public schools are a daily shock to the senses, run down after years of neglect and mismanagement, while failing academically and teetering on the edge of financial collapse.

Under Snyder, «emergency management» laws gave authoritarian powers to unelected officials in cities that have Black majorities who were also made objects of devastating forms of environmental racism and economic terrorism. As Flint’s economy was hollowed out and held ransom by the financial elite, the Black and immigrant population not only became more vulnerable to a host of deprivations but also more disposable. They lost control not only of their material possessions but also the sanctity of their bodies and their health to the necessities of surviving on a daily basis. In this instance, exchange value became the only value that counted and one outcome was that institutions and policies meant to eliminate human suffering, protect the environment and provide social provisions were transformed into mechanisms of state terror. In both cities, poor Black populations experienced a threshold of disappearance as a consequence of a systematic dismantling of the state’s political machinery, regulatory agencies and political institutions whose first priority had been to serve residents rather than corporations and the financial elite.

Both Katrina and Flint laid bare a new kind of politics in which entire populations, even children, are considered disposable.

This particular confluence of market forces and right-wing politics that privileges private financial gain over human needs and public values took a drastic and dangerous turn in Flint. As a cost-saving measure, Darnell Earley, the emergency manager appointed by Snyder, and in charge of Flint in April 2014, went ahead and allowed the switch of Flint’s water supply from Lake Huron, which was treated at the Detroit water plant and had supplied Flint’s water for 50 years. The switch was done in spite of the fact that the Flint River had long been contaminated, having served as an industrial waste dumping ground, particularly for the auto industry. Via this switch, the state expected to save about $19 million over eight years. In short, peanuts for city budgets.

As part of the cost-saving efforts, the Snyder administration refused to add an anti-corrosive additive used to seal the lead in the pipes and prevent the toxin from entering the water supply. The cost of such a measure was only «a $100 a day for three months.» Yet the refusal to do so had catastrophic consequences as the Flint water supply was soon poisoned with lead and other contaminants leaching from corroded pipes.

As soon as the switch began in 2014, Flint residents noticed that the water was discolored, tasted bad and had a horrible smell. Many residents who bathed in the water developed severe rashes, some lost their hair and others experienced a range of other health symptoms. The water was so corrosive and toxic that it leached lead from the city’s aging pipe infrastructure. Soon afterwards a host of problems emerged. As Amy Goodman points out,

First, the water was infested with bacteria. Then it had cancerous chemicals called trihalomethanes, or TTHMs. A deadly outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, which is caused by a water-borne bacteria, spread throughout the city, killing 10 people. And quietly, underground, the Flint River water was corroding the city’s aging pipes, poisoning the drinking water with lead, which can cause permanent developmental delays and neurological impairment, especially in children.

It gets worse. The genesis of the Flint water crisis reveals the disturbing degree to which the political economy of neoliberalism is deeply wedded to deceit and radiates violence. In the early stages of the crisis, according to Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star, people showed up at meetings «with brown gunk from their taps … LeeAnne Walter’s 4-year old son, Gavin was diagnosed with lead poisoning» and yet the Snyder administration stated repeatedly that the water was safe. Dale argues that the Snyder administration poisoned the people of Flint and that «they were deceived for a year and a half,» not only exposed to disposable waste, but also being made into an extension of disposable waste.

For more than a year, the Snyder administration dismissed the complaints of parents, residents and health officials who insisted that the water was unsafe to drink and constituted a major health hazard. The crisis grew dire especially for children. The horror of this act of purposive poisoning and its effects on the Flint population, both children and adults, is echoed in the words of Melissa Mays who was asked by Amy Goodman if she had been affected by the toxic water. She responded with a sense of utter despair and urgency:

Well, all three of my sons are anemic now. They have bone pain every single day. They miss a lot of school because they’re constantly sick. Their immune systems are compromised. Myself, I have seizures. I have diverticulosis now. I have to go in February 25th for a consultation on a liver biopsy. Almost every system of our bodies have been damaged. And I know that we’re not the only one. I’m getting calls from people that are so sick, and they don’t know what to do.

The health effects of lead poisoning can affect children for their entire lives and the financial cost can be incalculable – to say nothing of the emotional cost to families.According to David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, «As little as a few specks of lead [when] ingested can change the course of a life. The amount of lead dust that covers a thumbnail is enough to send a child into a coma or into convulsions leading to death … cause IQ loss, hearing loss, or behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia.» According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), «No safe blood lead level in children has been identified

Unmournable Bodies

In spite of a number of dire warnings from a range of experts about the risks that lead poisoning posed for young children, the Snyder administration refused to act even when repeated concerns were aired about the poisoned water. But there is more at work here on the part of Michigan officials than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge scientific facts or an unwillingness to suspend their cruel indifference to a major crisis and the appropriate governmental action. Those who complained about the water crisis and the effects it was having on the city’s children and adults were met initially with a «persistent tone of scorn and derision.» When a local physician, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, reported elevated levels of lead in the blood of Flint’s children, she was dismissed as a quack and «attacked for sowing hysteria.» When the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warned that the state was «testing the water in a way that could profoundly understate the lead levels,» they were met with silence.

War and terror as a form of state violence are part of the regime of cruelty let loose upon the children and adults of Flint.

The New York Times added fuel to the fireengulfing key government officials by noting that «a top aide to Michigan’s governor referred to people raising questions about the quality of Flint’s water as an ‘anti-everything group.’ Other critics were accused of turning complaints about water into a ‘political football.’ And worrisome findings about lead by a concerned pediatrician were dismissed as ‘data,’ in quotes.» As a last straw, government officials blamed both landlords and tenants for neglecting to service lead-laden pipes that ran through most of the city. What they failed to mention was that the state’s attempt to save money by refusing to add an anti-corrosive chemical to the water is what caused the pipes to leach lead. Many states have lead-laden pipes but the water supplies are treated in order to prevent corrosion and toxic contamination.

Comparably, Hurricane Katrina revealed what right-wing Republicans and Democrats never wanted the public to see: the needless suffering and deaths of poor residents, the elderly, the homeless and others who were the most vulnerable and powerless to fight against the ravages of a political and economic system that considered them redundant, a drain on the economic system and ultimately disposable. Flint imposed a different order of misery – and one more consciously malevolent – creating a generation of children with developmental disabilities for whom there will more than likely be no adequate services, either at present or when they become adults. These are the populations the Republicans and some right-wing Democrats since the 1980s have been teaching us to disdain and view as undeserving of the social, political and personal rights accorded to middle-class and ruling elites.

Both Katrina and Flint laid bare a new kind of politics in which entire populations, even children, are considered disposable, an unnecessary burden on state coffers, and consigned to fend for themselves. In the case of Flint, children were knowingly poisoned while people who were warning the Snyder administration and Flint residents about the dangerous levels of lead in the water were derided and shamed. Also laid bare was the neoliberal mantra that government services are wasteful and that market forces can take care of everything. This is a profit-driven politics that strips government of its civic functions, gives rise to massive inequality and makes clear a three-decades-long official policy of benign neglect being systemically transformed into a deadly form of criminal malfeasance.

How else to explain that while Snyder eventually admitted to the crisis in Flint, he not only tried to blame the usual suspect, inefficient government, but also once again made clear that the culture of cruelty underlying his neoliberal policies is alive and well? This was evident in his decision to charge residents extremely high bills for poisoned water and his decision to continue sending shutoff notices to past-due accounts despite widespread popular condemnation. At stake here is a politics of disposability, one that views an expanding number of individuals and groups as redundant, superfluous and unworthy of care, help and social provisions. The poor Black residents of Flint and countless other cities in the United States now represent disposable populations that do not present an ethical dilemma for the financial elite and the politically corrupt. Social death now works in tandem with physical death as social provisions necessary to enable people to live with dignity, decency and good health are taken away, regardless of the misery and suffering that results.

As democracy enters a twilight existence, organized and collective resistance is a necessity.

The confluence of finance, militarization and corporate power has not only destroyed essential collective structures in support of the public good, but such forces have destroyed democracy itself in the United States. In a society in which it is more profitable to poison children rather than give them a decent life, incarcerate people rather than educate them and replace a pernicious species of self-interest for any vestige of morality and social responsibility, politics is emptied out, thoughtlessness prevails and the commanding institutions of society become saturated with violence. Americans are now living in an age of forgetting, an age in which a flight from responsibility is measured in increasing acts of corruption, violence, trauma and the struggle to survive.

Decaying schools, poisoned water and the imposition of emergency managers on cities largely populated by poor Black people represent more than «the catastrophe of indifference» described by psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz: There is also a systemic, conscious act of criminality and lawlessness in which people of color and poor people no longer count and are rendered expendable. The Flint water crisis is not an isolated incident. Nor is it a function of an anarchic lawlessness administered by blundering politicians and administrators. Rather, it is a corporate lawlessness that thrives on and underwrites the power and corruption of the financial elite. Such lawlessness owes its dismal life to a failure of conscience and a politics of disposability in the service of a «political economy which has become a criminal economy

Flint is symptomatic of a mode of politics and governance in which the categories of citizens and democratic representation, once integral to a functioning polity, are no longer recognized, and vast populations are subject to conditions that confer upon them the status of the living dead. Under the auspices of life-threatening austerity policies, not only are public goods defunded and the commons devalued, but the very notion of what it means to be a citizen is reduced to narrow forms of consumerism. At the same time, politics is hijacked by corporate power and the ultra-rich. As Wendy Brown writes in Undoing the Demos, this makes politics «unappealing and toxic – full of ranting and posturing, emptied of intellectual seriousness, and pandering to an uneducated and manipulable electorate and a celebrity-and-scandal-hungry corporate media.» Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Donald Trump’s rise to political power in the United States.

What happened in Flint is not about the failure of electoral politics, nor can it be attributed to bureaucratic mishaps or the bungling of an incompetent administration. As Third Coast Conspiracy points out, the Flint crisis is necessarily understood through the lens of disposability, one that makes visible new modes of governance for those populations, particularly low-income groups, that are «rendered permanently superfluous to the needs of capital, and are expelled from the labor process, waged employment, and, increasingly, from what remains of the welfare state.» These are raced populations – poor Black and Brown people who are not simply the victims of prejudice, but subject to «systems that orchestrate the siphoning of resources away from some populations and redirect them toward others. These systems do more than just define which lives matter and which lives don’t – they materially make some lives matter by killing others more,» according to Third Coast Conspiracy.

As democratic institutions are hollowed out, powerful forms of social exclusion and social homelessness organized at the intersection of race and poverty come into play. In Identity: Conversations With Benedetto Vecchi, Zygmunt Bauman discusses how these forms of social exclusion produce without apology «the most conspicuous cases of social polarization, of deepening inequality, and of rising volumes of human poverty, misery and humiliation.» How else to explain the criminal inaction on the part of the Snyder administration once they learned that Flint’s residential drinking water was contaminated by lead and other toxic chemicals?

Cruel Hypocrisy

A number of emails from various administration officials later revealed that Snyder had received quite a few signs that the city’s water was contaminated and unsafe to drink long before he made a decision to switch back to the Detroit water system. Unfortunately, he acted in bad faith by not taking any action. A few months after the initial water switch, General Motors discovered that the water from the Flint River was causing their car parts to erode and negotiated with the state to have the water supply at their corporate offices switched back to the Detroit water system. Similarly, a Flint hospital noticed that the water was damaging its instruments and decided to set up its own private filtering system. A local university did the same thing.

Flint is a wake-up call to make the power of the financial elite and their political lackeys both visible and accountable.

David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz observed that «10 months before the administration of Governor Snyder admitted that Flint’s water was unsafe to drink, the state had already begun trucking water into that city and setting up water coolers next to drinking fountains in state buildings» in order for state workers to be able to drink a safe alternative to the Flint water. And Dorian Bon notes that at the beginning of 2015, «an Environmental Protection Agency official had notified the state about lead contamination, only to be ignored by the Snyder administration and taken off the investigation by his EPA superiors.»

It was only after a lead scientist from the EPA and a volunteer team of researchers from Virginia Tech University conducted a study of Flint’s water supply and concluded that it was unsafe that the Snyder administration came clean about the poisoned water supply – but not before the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had tried to discredit the research findings of the group. As one of the volunteers, Siddhartha Roy, pointed out in an interview with Sonali Kolhatkar, «we were surprised and shocked to see [the government] downplaying the effects of lead in water, ridiculing the results that all of us had released, and even questioning the results of a local Flint pediatrician. They tried to discredit us researchers.» But it was too late. The scientists may have been vindicated, but not before close to 9,000 children under the age of 6 had been poisoned.

Historical Memory and the Politics of Disappearance

These acts of state-sponsored violence have reinforced the claim by the Black Lives Matter movement that Snyder’s actions represent a racist act and that it is part of «systemic, structurally based brutality» and that «the water crisis would never have happened in more affluent, white communities like Grand Rapids or Grosse Pointe,» as Susan J. Douglas has pointed out. Poor people of color suffer the most from such practices of environmental racism, and poor Black and Brown children in particular suffer needlessly, not just in Flint, but also in cities all over the United States. This is a crisis that rarely receives national attention because most of the children it affects are Black, Brown, poor and powerless. Some health experts have called lead poisoning a form of «state-sponsored child abuse» and a «silent epidemic in America.» As Nicholas Kristof makes clear:

In Flint, 4.9 percent of children tested for lead turned out to have elevated levels. That’s inexcusable. But in 2014 in New York State outside of New York City, the figure was 6.7 percent. In Pennsylvania, 8.5 percent. On the west side of Detroit, one-fifth of the children tested in 2014 had lead poisoning. In Iowa for 2012, the most recent year available, an astonishing 32 percent of children tested had elevated lead levels. (I calculated most of these numbers from C.D.C. data.). Across America, 535,000 children ages 1 through 5 suffer lead poisoning, by C.D.C. estimates. «We are indeed all Flint,» says Dr. Philip Landrigan, a professor of preventive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. «Lead poisoning continues to be a silent epidemic in the United States.»

This is a manufactured crisis parading as a cost-cutting measure under Republican and Democratic parties that supported neoliberal-inspired austerity measures and aggressive deregulation. For instance, Congress in 2012 slashed funding for lead programs at the CDC by 93 percent; in addition, lobbyists for the chemical industry have worked assiduously to prevent their corporate polluters from being regulated.

The United States has a long history of reckless endangerment of the environment, producing toxic consumer goods such as lead paint, lead gasoline and cigarettes, and other pollutants produced and sold for profit. Moreover, it has an equally long history of scientists both studying and calling for prevention, but who have been too often unsuccessful in their efforts to fight the corporate machineries of death with their armies of lobbyists defending the industry polluters. Contemporary lead poisoning is not simply about a failure of governance, deregulation and corporate malfeasance; it is also the toxic byproduct of a form of predatory neoliberal capitalism that places profits above all human needs and social costs.

As Rosner and Markowitz argue, the poisoning of Black and Latino children represents a broader political and economic crisis fed by a «mix of racism and corporate greed that have put lead and other pollutants into millions of homes in the United States.» But pointing to a mix of racism and corporate greed does not tell the entire story either about the crisis in Flint or the broader crisis of environmental racism. And solutions demand more than fixing the nation’s infrastructure, replacing the country’s lead pipes, curbing the power of polluting corporations or making visible what amounts nationally to a public health crisis. Flint suffers from a much broader crisis of politics, agency, memory and democracy that now haunts the future of the United States with the threat of an impending authoritarianism.

The Politics of Domestic Terrorism

Snyder’s decision to keep quiet for over a year about the contaminated water was comparable in my view to an act of domestic terrorism – a form of systemic intimidation and violence done by the state against powerless people. Historical memory might serve us well here. After the 9/11 attacks, various environmental protection and intelligence agencies warned that «water supplied to U.S. communities is potentially vulnerable to terrorist attacks,» according to an essay inThreats to Global Water Security by J. Anthony A. Jones titled «Population Growth, Terrorism, Climate Change, or Commercialization?» Jones writes, «The possibility of attack is of considerable concern [and] these agents … inserted at a critical point in the system … could cause a larger number of casualties.»

If we expand the definition of terrorism to include instances in which the state inflicts suffering on its own populations, the poisoning of Flint’s water supply represents a form of domestic terrorism. Rev. William J. Barber is right in arguingthat we need a new language for understanding terrorism. Not only is terror one of the United States’ chief exports, but it is also a part of a long legacy that extends from the genocide of indigenous peoples and the violence of slavery to «racist police shootings of unarmed black adults and youth and males and females in Chicago … Charlotte, and New York.»

Economics cannot drive politics, violence cannot be the organizing principle of the state and markets cannot define the present and future.

What is happening in Flint is an expression of a broader narrative, ideology, set of policies and values bound up with a politics of disposability that has become one of the distinctive features of neoliberal capitalism. Disposability has a long history in the United States but it has taken on a greater significance under neoliberalism and has become an organizing principle of the authoritarian state, one that has intensified and expanded the dynamics of class and racial warfare. Privatization, commodification and deregulation are now merged with what historian David Harvey has called the process of «accumulation by dispossession.'»

Extracting capital, labor, time, land and profits from the poor and powerless is now a central feature of austerity in the age of precarity, and has become a first principle of casino capitalism. How else to interpret the right-wing call to impose higher tax rates on the poor while subsidizing tax breaks for megacorporations, force poor people to pay for poisoned water, refuse to invest in repairing crumbling schools in poor Black neighborhoods, allow CEOs to make 350 times as much as their workers, bail out corrupt banks but impose huge debts through student loans on young people or allow 250,000 people to die each year from poverty – more than from heart attacks, strokes and lung cancer combined?

Disposability and unnecessary human suffering now engulf large swaths of the American people, often pushing them into situations that are not merely tragic but also life threatening. According to Paul Buchheit, the top .01 percent of Americans, approximately 16,000 of the richest families, «now own the same as the total wealth of 256,000,000 people.» Buchheit rightly labels the ultra-rich in the United States as «the real terrorists» who buy off politicians and lobbyists responsible for making poor children disposable, gutting the welfare state, enabling billionaires to hide their wealth in offshore accounts, corrupting politics, militarizing the police and producing a war culture. In addition, they fund populist movements that embrace hate, racism, militarism, Islamophobia, ignorance, xenophobia and a close affinity to the racial politics of fascism. War and terror as a form of state violence are part of the regime of cruelty let loose upon the children and adults of Flint, revealing all too clearly how in an authoritarian state the move from justice to violence becomes normalized, without apology.

What the Flint catastrophe reveals is a survival-of-the-fittest ethic that replaces any reasonable notion of solidarity, social responsibility and compassion for the other. Flint makes clear that rather than considering children its most valuable resource, contemporary neoliberal society considers them surplus and disposable in the unflagging pursuit of profits, power and the accumulation of capital. Chris Hedges isright in stating, «The crisis in Flint is far more ominous than lead-contaminated water. It is symptomatic of the collapse of our democracy. Corporate power is not held accountable for its crimes. Everything is up for sale, including children.» Flint points to a dangerous threat to US democracy in which a neoliberal capitalism no longer simply throws away goods, but also human beings who do not fit into the script of a militarized, market-driven social order.

As we have learned from the scandalous condition of the public schools in Detroit and in many other collapsing public institutions in the United States, the victims are mostly children who inhabit immense pockets of poverty, attend broken-down schools with rats and other infestations, and live in environments filled with toxins. The characteristics of this new regime of disposability are all around us: the rise of finance capital, the elimination of the welfare state, the emergence of the punishing state, escalating police brutality against Black people, the expansion of the war machine, the selling off of public goods to private and corporate interests, the refusal to address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, the increasing impoverishment of larger segments of the population, environmental racism, unemployment for large numbers of young people as well as low-skill jobs, and skyrocketing debt.

At work here is a systemic attempt to eliminate public spheres and the common good whose first allegiance is to democratic values rather than the conversion of every human need, aspiration and social relationship into a profitable investment and entrepreneurial enterprise. But there is more. Neoliberal capitalism thrives on producing subjects, identities, values and social relations that mimic the logic of the market and in doing so it undermines the public’s desire for democracy. It works through a notion of common sense and a language that views people primarily as consumers, atomized and depoliticized individuals who are led to believe that they have to face the world alone and that all relationships are subordinated to self-promotion, self-interest and self-aggrandizement.

The ultra-rich and financial elite now dominate all aspects of American life, and their ideological toxicity finds expression in the language of hate, policies of disenfranchisement, assault on the planet and the elevation of greed, possessive individualism and flight from reason to heights we have never seen before or could have imagined. Flint is just one fault line that registers new forms of domestic terrorism that have emerged due to the death of politics in the United States. As Jean and John Comaroff observe in their essay on «Millennial Capitalism» in Public Culture:

There is a strong argument to be made that neoliberal capitalism in its millennial moment, portends the death of politics by hiding its own ideological underpinnings in the dictates of economic efficiency: in the fetishism of the free market, in the inexorable, expanding needs of business, in the imperatives of science and technology. Or, if it does not conduce to the death of politics, it tends to reduce them to the pursuit of pure interest, individual or collective.

The deliberate policies that led to the poisoning of the Flint waterways and the untold damage to its children and other members of the community point to the disintegration of public values, the hardening of the culture and the emergence of a kind of self-righteous brutalism that takes delight in the suffering of others. What Flint exemplifies is that the United States is awash in a culture of cruelty fueled by a pathological disdain for community, public values and the common good, all of which readily capitulate to the characteristics assigned to domestic terrorism. As Zygmunt Bauman points out in The Individualized Society, under such circumstances, public and historical memory withers, only to be matched by «a weakening of democratic pressures, a growing inability to act politically, [and] a massive exit from politics and from responsible citizenship.»

Rather than inform the social imagination, memory under the reign of neoliberalism has become an obstacle to power, a liability that is constantly under assault by the anti-public intellectuals and cultural apparatuses that fuel what I have called the disimagination machines that dominate US culture. Memory must once again become the contested activity of self-criticism, renewal and collective struggle. Resistance is no longer simply an option in an age when the language of politics has morphed into the narrow discourse of the market. The promise of shared rule has been eclipsed and given way to the promise of a large stock portfolio for some and the despair and anxiety of facing daily the challenge of simply trying to survive for hundreds of millions more. One consequence is that a market economy is transformed into a market society, making it easier to normalize the notion that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. As democracy enters a twilight existence and the drumbeat of authoritarianism becomes louder and more menacing, organized and collective resistance is a necessity.

Flint reveals the omissions, lies and deceptions at the core of this neoliberal public pedagogy and provides an opening to mobilize and harness a developing sense of injustice and moral outrage against neoliberal common sense and its predatory policies. Doing so is a crucial part of a sustained struggle to democratize the economy and society. Flint is a wake-up call to make the power of the financial elite and their political lackeys both visible and accountable. Moral outrage over the poisoning of the children and adults of Flint must draw upon history to make visible the long list of acts of violence and domestic terrorism that has come to mark the last three decades of neoliberal governance and corruption. Flint speaks to both a moral crisis and a political crisis of legitimation. Democracy has lost its ability to breathe and must be brought back to life. The tragedy of Flint provides a space of intervention, and we are seeing glimpses of it in the reaction of Black youth all over the United States who are organizing to connect acts of violence to widespread structural and ideological motivations. Flint offers us a time of temporal reflection, a rupture in common sense and a recognition that with shared convictions, hopes and collective struggle, history can be ruptured and opened to new possibilities.

Flint calls out not only for resistance, but also for the search for an alternative to an economic system whose means and ends are used to discipline and punish both the general public and its most powerless populations. Today we are witnessing a new kind of fidelity to a distinctively radical politics. What young people such as those backing Bernie Sanders and those in the Black Lives Matter movement are making clear is that economics cannot drive politics, violence cannot be the organizing principle of the state and markets cannot define the present and future.

There has never been a more important time to rethink the meaning of politics, justice, struggle, collective action and the development of new political parties and social movements. The Flint crisis demands a new language for developing modes of creative and long-term resistance, a wider understanding of politics and a new urgency to develop modes of collective struggles rooted in wider social formations. At a time when democracy seems to have disappeared and all facets of everyday life are defined by a toxic economic rationality, Americans need a new discourse to resuscitate historical memories of resistance and address the connections among the destruction of the environment, poverty, inequality, mass incarceration and the poisoning of children in the United States.

But most importantly, if the ideals and practices of democratic governance are not to be lost, educators, artists, intellectuals, young people and emerging political formations such as the Black Lives Matter movement need to continue producing the critical formative cultures capable of building new social, collective and political institutions that can both fight against the impending authoritarianism in the United States and imagine a society in which democracy is viewed no longer as a remnant of the past but rather as an ideal that is worthy of continuous struggle.

Note: A longer version of this article will appear in Henry Giroux’s forthcoming book, America at War With Itself, which will be published by City Lights later this year.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

HENRY A. GIROUX

Henry A. Giroux currently is the McMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest and The Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. He also is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University. His most recent books include The Violence of Organized Forgetting (City Lights, 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015) and  coauthored with Brad Evans, Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle (City Lights, 2015). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s Board of Directors. His website is www.henryagiroux.com.

RELATED STORIES

Henry A. Giroux | Youth in Authoritarian Times: Challenging Neoliberalism’s Politics of Disposability

By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis

Henry A. Giroux | Beyond Dystopian Visions in the Age of Neoliberal Authoritarianism

By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed

Henry A. Giroux | The National Insecurity State

By Henry A. Giroux, Monthly Review Press | Book Excerpt
Comparte este contenido:

Fascism in Donald Trump’s United States

trump

Henry Giroux

Donald Trump’s blatant appeal to fascist ideology and policy considerations took a more barefaced and dangerous turn this week when he released a statement calling for «a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.» Trump qualified this racist appeal to voters’ fears about Muslims by stating that such a ban is necessary «until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.»

When Trump proposed the ban at a rally at the USS Yorktown in South Carolina, his plan drew loud cheers from the crowd. Many critics have responded by making clear that Trump’s attempts to place a religious test on immigration and travel are unconstitutional. Others have expressed shock in the face of a proposal that violates the democratic ideals that have shaped US history. Fellow Republican Jeb Bush called Trump «unhinged.»

Trump’s call to do «the unthinkable» is a fundamental principle of any notion of totalitarianism.

What almost none of the presidential candidates or mainstream political pundits have admitted, however, is not only that Trump’s comments form a discourse of hate, bigotry and exclusion, but also that such expressions of racism and fascism are resonating deeply in a landscape of US culture and politics crafted by 40 years of conservative counterrevolution. One of the few politicians to respond to Trump’s incendiary comments was former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who stated rightly that Donald Trump is a «fascist demagogue.»

This overtly fascistic turn also revealed itself in November when Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times investigative reporter living with a disability, at a rally in South Carolina. This contemptuous reference to Kovaleski’s physical disability was morally odious and painful to observe, but not in the least surprising: Trump is consistently a hatemonger and spreads his message without apology in almost every public encounter in which he finds himself. In this loathsome instance, Trump simply expanded his hate-filled discourse in a new direction, after having already established the deeply ingrained racism and sexism at the heart of his candidacy.

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

Trump’s mockery of Kovaleski and his blatantly discriminatory policy proposals against Muslims are of a piece with his portrayal of Mexican immigrants as violent rapists and drug dealers, and with his calls for the United States to put Syrian refugees in detention centers and create a database to control them. These comments sound eerily close to SS leader Heinrich Himmler’s call for camps that held prisoners under orders of what the Nazis euphemistically called «protective custody.» This fascist parallel only gains currency with Trump’s latest efforts to ban Muslims from the United States. To quote the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

In the earliest years of the Third Reich, various central, regional, and local authorities in Germany established concentration camps to detain political opponents of the regime, including German Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and others from left and liberal political circles. In the spring of 1933, the SS established Dachau concentration camp, which came to serve as a model for an expanding and centralized concentration camp system under SS management.

Moreover, Trump’s hateful attitude toward people with disabilities points to an earlier element of Hitler’s program of genocide in which people with physical and mental disabilities were viewed as disposable because they allegedly undermined the Nazi notion of the «master race.» The demonization, objectification and pathologizing of people with disabilities was the first step in developing the foundation for the Nazis’ euthanasia program aimed at those declared unworthy of life. This lesson seems to be lost on the mainstream media, who largely viewed Trump’s despicable remarks toward people with disabilities as simply insulting.

What is truly alarming is how many corporate media figures and intellectuals are defending Trump, not realizing that his candidacy is rooted in the brutal seeds of totalitarianism being cultivated in US society. Trump represents more than the anti-democratic practices and antics of Joseph McCarthy; he illustrates how totalitarianism can take different forms in specific historical moments. Rather than being dismissed as a wild card in US politics, as «careless and undisciplined,» as some of his conservative supporters claim, or not a true member of the Republican Party as Ross Douthat has written in The New York Times, it is crucial to recognize that Trump’s popularity represents what Victor Wallis has described as a dangerous «political space … in both the wider culture and in recent history.» This is evident not only in his race-baiting, his crude comments about women and his call to round up and deport 11 million immigrants, but also in his increasing support for violenceagainst protesters at his rallies.

There is a disturbing totalitarian message in his call to «make American great again» by any means necessary. The degree to which Trump expresses his support of violence, racism and the violation of civil liberties, visibly and without apology, is unprecedented in recent national political races. But the ideas he espouses have always been present under the surface of US politics, which is perhaps why the public and media on the whole seem unperturbed by such comments as: «We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule … And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.» Trump’s call to do «the unthinkable» is a fundamental principle of any notion of totalitarianism, regardless of the form it takes.

We heard this same hatred in the words of Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and other demagogic orators.

The roots of totalitarianism are not frozen in history. They may find a different expression in the present, but they are connected in all kinds of ways to the past. For instance, Trump’s demagoguery bears a close resemblance to the discourse characteristic of other fascist leaders. There are traces of fascism’s past most particularly in what has been called by Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman, Trump’s «dark power of words.» As Healy and Haberman point out in a recent New York Times article, Trump’s use of fearmongering and bombastic language is characterized by «divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery» characteristic of demagogues of the past. Moreover, Trump, like many past demagogues, presents himself as a prophet incapable of being wrong, disdains any sense of nuance and uses a militarized discourse populated by words such as «kill,» «destroy,» «attack» and «fight,» all of which display his infatuation with violence and deep disdain for dialogue, thoughtfulness and democracy itself. Trump is an anti-intellectual who distorts the truth even when proven wrong, and his appeals are emotive rather than based on facts, reason and evidence.

Trump and his ilk merge a hypernationalism, racism, economic fundamentalism and religious bigotry with a flagrant sense of lawlessness. His hate-filled speech is matched by an unsettling embrace of violence against immigrants and other oppositional voices issued by his supporters at many of his rallies. This type of lawlessness does more than encourage hate and violent mob mentalities; it also legitimates the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that gives credibility to acts of violence against others. There has been an eerie silence from Trump and other Republican Party presidential candidates in the face of the killing of three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, the shooting of Black Lives Matter protesters by white supremacists in Minneapolis, the increasing attacks on mosques throughout the United States, and the alarming number of shootings of Black men and youth by white police officers, not to mention the recent shooting in San Bernardino, California.

Trump and his fellow right-wing extremists rail against Mexican immigrants, Syrian refugees and young people protesting police violence but said nothing about the police officer who shot Laquan McDonald, a Black 17-year-old, 16 times, or about the Chicago Police Department’s refusal to make public a year-old squad-car video of the incident. And Trump’s camp has remained silent about the threat of white supremacists groups in the United States, the US drone strikes that killed members of a wedding party in Afghanistan and the illegal targeted assassination of alleged terrorists.

This is not simply the behavior of moral and political cowards; it is the toxic affirmation of the machineries of death we associate with fascism. Such acts point to a large climate of lawlessness in US society that makes it all the easier to ignore human rights, justice and democracy itself. There are historical precedents for this type of violence and for the hate-filled racist speech of the politicians who create the climate that legitimates it. We heard this same hatred in the words of Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and other demagogic orators who have ranted against Jews, communists and others alleged «infidels.»

Totalitarianism lives on in new forms and it is just as terrifying and dangerous today as it was in the past.

Trump’s recent call to bring back waterboarding and to support a torture regime far exceeds what might be called an act of stupidity or ignorance. Torture in this instance becomes a means of exacting revenge on those whom the right considers to be «other,» un-American and inferior – principally Muslims, immigrants and activists taking part in the movement for Black lives. We have heard this discourse before during the totalitarian regimes of the 1930s and later during the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s. Heather Digby Parton is right when she writes that Donald Trump «may be the first openly fascistic frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination but the ground was prepared and the seeds of his success sowed over the course of many years. We’ve had fascism flowing through the American political bloodstream for quite some time.» (1)

This is a discourse that betrays dark and treacherous secrets not simply about Trump, but also about the state of US culture and politics. Trump’s brutal racism, cruelty and Nazi-style policy recommendations are more than shocking; they are emblematic of totalitarianism’s hatred of liberalism, its call for racial purity, its mythic celebration of nationalism, its embrace of violence, its disdain for weakness and its anti-intellectualism. This is the discourse of total terror. These elements of totalitarianism have become the new American normal. The conditions that produced the torture chambers, intolerable violence, extermination camps and the squelching of dissent are still with us. Totalitarianism is not simply a relic of the past. It lives on in new forms and it is just as terrifying and dangerous today as it was in the past. (2)

Trump gives legitimacy to a number of fascist policies through his appeal to hypernationalism and disdain of human rights, his portrayal of Muslims and immigrants as a racial and religious threat, a rampant sexism, his obsession with national security, his aggressive mobilization of a culture of fear, his targeting of dissent and individual groups, his endorsement of human rights abuses such as torture, his support for the ongoing militarization of public life, his invocation of an external enemy as a threat to «our way of life,» his call for the creation of a detention system as part of a state of emergency, support for a blind patriotism, his calls for the suspension of the rule of law, his affirmation of a belligerent masculinity, and his support for an aggressive imperial policy.

Mark Summer is right in arguing that the ghost of fascism runs through US society, indicating that fascist sympathies never went away and that the threat of fascism has to be taken seriously. Summer writes that fascism didn’t win on the battlefield, but it won ideologically:

It won because the same fears, the same greed, the same hatred that fueled its growth in the first part of the twentieth century never went away. The symbols of fascism became anathema, but the causes … went deep. And gradually, slowly, one step at a time, all those vices became first tolerated, then treated as virtues, and then as the only acceptable view…. [For instance,] our long, stumbling lurch to the right; the building force of corporate power; the relentless need for war; a police whose power of enforcement is divorced from law; a preening nationalism that rewards the full rights of citizenship only to those who fit an ever-narrower mold … I’m not saying we’re moving toward fascism. I’m saying we started that drift a long time ago, and now we’re well across the line.

Trump is not just an ethically dead aberration. Rather, he is the successor of a long line of fascists who shut down public debate, attempt to humiliate their opponents, endorse violence as a response to dissent and criticize any public display of democratic principles. The United States has reached its endpoint with Trump, and his presence should be viewed as a stern warning of the nightmare to come. Trump is not an isolated figure in US politics; he is simply the most visible and popular expression of a number of extremists in the Republican Party who now view democracy as a liability. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio all support an ideology that reduces certain human beings «to anonymous beings.» Think about their prevailing attacks on Mexican immigrants, Black people and Syrian refugees. Primo Levi, the great writer and survivor of Auschwitz, called this use of dehumanizing abstractions one of the core principles of Nazi barbarism. Fast forward to Trump’s endorsement of violence at his rallies, coupled with his overt racism, his call for mass surveillance, his discourse of mass hatred and his embrace of politics as an extension of war.

This is not the discourse of Kafka, but of those extremists who have become cheerleaders for totalitarianism. Trump is not a straight talker, as some writers have claimed, or merely entertaining. As David L. Clark pointed out in a personal correspondence, the frankness of Trump’s call for violence coupled with his unapologetic thirst for injustice position him as the «latest expression of a fascism that has poisoned political life throughout modernity. He is unabashedly vicious because he is both an agent and a symptom of a barren political landscape in which viciousness goes insolently unhidden.» (3) Trump is a monster without a conscience, a politician with a toxic set of policies. He is the product of a form of finance capitalism and a long legacy of racism and violence in which conscience is put to sleep, democracy withers and public values are extinguished. This is truly a time of monsters and Trump is simply the most visible and certainly one of the most despicable.

What must be acknowledged is that Trump is the most extreme visible expression of a new form of authoritarianism identified by the late political theorist, Sheldon Wolin. According to Wolin, all the elements are in place today for a contemporary form of authoritarianism, which he calls «inverted totalitarianism.» Wolin writes:

Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one part, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens, and domestic dissidents. (4)

Totalitarianism destroys everything that makes politics possible. It is both an ideological poison and a brutal mode of governance and control. It puts reason to sleep and destroys any viable elements of democracy. Trump reminds us of totalitarianism’s addiction to tyranny, its attachments to the machineries of death and its moral emptiness. What is crucial to acknowledge is that the stories, legacies and violence that are part of totalitarianism’s history must be told over and over again so that it becomes possible to recognize how it appears in new forms, replicated under the banner of terror and insecurity by design, and endlessly legitimated by the image-making of the corporate disimagination machines. The call to safety in authoritarian societies is code for illicit spying, treating people as criminals, militarizing the police, constructing a surveillance state, allowing the killing of Black people as acts of domestic terrorism, and ultimately making disappear those individuals and groups that we dehumanize or consider threatening. The extremist fervor that Trump has stirred up should be a rallying cry for a struggle not simply against a crude and reactionary populism, but also against the tyranny of totalitarianism in its new and proto-fascist forms.

Note: This article was adapted from a much shorter article that appeared previously on CounterPunch.

Footnotes

1. Heather Digby Parton, «The Unprecedented Nightmare of Donald Trump: He’s Actually a Fascist,» AlterNet, [November 25, 2015]. Online:http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/unprecedented-nightmare-donald-trump-hes-actually-fascist. It is interesting to note that John Kasich released an ad directly connecting Donald Trump to the Nazis. Hopefully, the corporate media will wake up and do the same thing. See TrueBlueMontaineer, «Kasich’s new Trump ad goes full on Godwin and it’s a doozy,» Daily Kos (November 24, 2015). Online:http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/24/1454059/-Kasich-s-new-Trump-ad-goes-full-Godwin-and-it-s-a-doozy?detail=email

2. See, especially, Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York: 2001).

3. Personal correspondence with David L. Clark. November 30, 2015.

4. Ibid., 14-15.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

 

 

 

Comparte este contenido:

Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence

Henry Giroux

_______________________________________________________________________________

OVE Prensa. La violencia armada en los Estados Unidos ha producido una cultura empapada en sangre – una cultura que amenaza a todos y se extiende desde las muertes accidentales, suicidios y violencia doméstica a fusilamientos masivos. A finales de diciembre, una mujer en St. Cloud, Florida, fatalmente disparó a su propia hija después de confundirla a ella con un intruso. A menos de un mes antes, el 2 de diciembre, en San Bernardino, California, ocurrió el tiroteo que dejó 14 muertos y más de 20 heridos. Y  tan sólo dos meses antes de que, el 1 de octubre, nueve personas murieran y siete resultaron heridas en un tiroteo en un colegio comunitario en Roseburg, Oregón.

Muertes masivas por armas se han convertido en rutina en los Estados Unidos y ello nos habla de una sociedad que se basa en la violencia para alimentar las arcas de los mercaderes de la muerte. Teniendo en cuenta los beneficios obtenidos por los fabricantes de armas, la industria de defensa, los comerciantes de armas y los grupos de presión que los representan en el Congreso, no es ninguna sorpresa que la cultura de la violencia no pueda abstraerse de la cultura, ya sea de negocios o de la corrupción existente en la política.  De ello nos habla en este artículo Henry Giroux

___________________________________________________________________________

 

 

activistas 1
 Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood – a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon.

Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers.

At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state’s major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to «institutionalize obedience.» At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power.

Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity wasnoted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that «2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in [the United States] in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week.» Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons «into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings» on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such «campus carry bill,» which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an «open carry bill» that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect «the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests,» but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the «Wild West.»

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the » Wild West» is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States’ love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it.

Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes:

This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control … the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle…. When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop’s own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat.

The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one’s disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor – a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists’ disrespect for democratic governance.

But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay «Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic,» the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg,

The military is not just a fighting machine…. It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management … In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose – the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory.

The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture.

A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children.

It is impossible to understand the rise of gun culture and violence in the United States without thinking about the maturation of the military state. Since the end of the Cold War the United States has built «the most expensive and lethal military force in the world.» The defense budget for 2015 totaled $598.5 billion and accounted for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending. The US defense budget is both larger than the combined G-20 and «more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil,» according to an NBC report. Since 9/11, the United States has intensified both the range of its military power abroad while increasing the ongoing militarization of US society. The United States circles the globe with around 800 military bases, producing a massive worldwide landscape of military force, at an «annual cost of $156 billion,» according to a report by David Vine in The Nation.

Moreover, Vine adds, «there are US troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of Marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisers like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi army.» Not only is the Pentagon in an unprecedented position of power, but also it thrives on a morally bankrupt vision of domestic and foreign policy dependent upon a world defined by terrorism, enemies and perpetual fear. Military arms are now transferred to local police departments, drone bases proliferate, and secret bases around the world support special operations, Navy SEALs, CIA personnel, Army Rangers and other clandestine groups, as Nick Turse has shown in Tomorrow’s Battlefield. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising, as Andrew Bacevich points out, that «war has become a normal condition [and the] use of violence has become the preferred «instrument of statecraft.»

Violence feeds on corporate-controlled disimagination machines that celebrate it as a sport while upping the pleasure quotient for the public. Americans do not merely engage in violence; they are also entertained by it. This kind of toxic irrationality and lure of violence is mimicked in the United States’ aggressive foreign policy, in the sanctioning of state torture and in the gruesome killings of civilians by drones. As my colleague David L. Clark pointed out to me in an email, voters’ support for » bombing make-believe countries [with Arab-sounding names] is not a symptom of muddled confusion but, quite to the contrary, a sign of unerring precision. It describes the desire to militarize nothing less than the imagination and to target the minutiae of our dreams.» State repression, unbridled self-interest, an empty consumerist ethos and an expansive militarism have furthered the conditions for society to flirt with forms of irrationality that are at the heart of everyday aggression, violence and the withering of public life.

Pushback Against Gun Control Efforts

Warlike values no longer suggest a pathological entanglement with a kind of mad irrationality or danger. On the contrary, they have become a matter of common sense. For instance, the US government is willing to lock down a major city such as Boston in order to catch a terrorist or prevent a terrorist attack, but refuses to pass gun control bills that would significantly lower the number of Americans who die each year as a result of gun violence. As Michael Cohen observes, it is truly a symptom of irrationality when politicians can lose their heads over the threat of terrorism, even sacrificing civil liberties, but ignore the fact that «30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died [in 2012] in terrorist attacks).» It gets worse.

As the threat of terrorism is used by the US government to construct a surveillance state, suspend civil liberties and accelerate the forces of authoritarianism, the fear of personal and collective violence has no rational bearing on addressing the morbid acceleration of gun violence. In fact, the fear of terrorism appears to feed a toxic culture of violence produced, in part, by the wide and unchecked availability of guns. The United States’ fascination with guns and violence functions as a form of sport and entertainment, while gun culture offers a false promise of security. In this logic, one not only kills terrorists with drones, but also makes sure that patriotic Americans are individually armed so they can use force to protect themselves against the apparitions whipped up by right-wing politicians, pundits and the corporate-controlled media.

Rather than bring violence into a political debate that would limit its production, various states increase its possibilities by passing laws that allow guns at places from bars to houses of worship. Florida’s «stand your ground» law, based on the notion that one should shoot first and ask questions later, is a morbid reflection of the United States’ adulation of gun culture and the fears that fuel it. This fascination with guns and violence has infected the highest levels of government and serves to further anti-democratic and authoritarian forces. For example, the US government’s warfare state is propelled by a military-industrial complex that cannot spend enough on weapons of death and destruction. Super modern planes such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter cost up to $228 million each and are plagued by mechanical problems and yet are supported by a military and defense establishment. As Gabriel Kolko observes, such warlike investments «reflect a pathology and culture that is expressed in spending more money,» regardless of how it contributes to running up the debt, and that thrives on whatanthropologist João Biehl has described as «the energies of the dead.»

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children. The Children’s Defense Fund is right in stating, «Where is our anti-war movement here at home? Why does a nation with the largest military budget in the world refuse to protect its children from relentless gun violence and terrorism at home? No external enemy ever killed thousands of children in their neighborhoods, streets and schools year in and year out.»

There is a not-so-hidden structure of politics at work in this type of sanctioned irrationality. Advocating for gun rights provides a convenient discourse for ignoring what Carl Boggs has described as a «harsh neoliberal corporate-state order that routinely generates pervasive material suffering, social dislocation, and psychological despair – worsening conditions that ensure violence in its many expressions.»

As the United States moves from a welfare state to a warfare state, state violence becomes normalized. The United States’ moral compass and its highest democratic ideals have begun to wither, and the institutions that were once designed to help people now serve to largely suppress them. Gun laws matter, social responsibility matters and a government responsive to its people matters, especially when it comes to limiting the effects of a mercenary gun culture. But more has to be done. The dominance of gun lobbyists must end; the reign of money-controlled politics must end; the proliferation of high levels of violence in popular culture, and the ongoing militarization of US society must end. At the same time, it is crucial, as participants in the Black Lives Matter movement have argued, for Americans to refuse to endorse the kind of gun control that criminalizes young people of color.

Moderate calls for reining in the gun culture and its political advocates do not go far enough because they fail to address the roots of the violence causing so much carnage in the United States, especially among children and teens. For example, Hillary Clinton’s much publicized call for controlling the gun lobby and improving background checks, however well intentioned, did not include anything about a culture of lawlessness and violence reproduced by the government, the financial elites and the defense industries, or a casino capitalism that is built on corruption and produces massive amounts of human misery and suffering. Moreover, none of the calls to eliminate gun violence in the United States link such violence to the broader war on youth, especially poor youth of color.

A Culture of Violence

It would be wrong to suggest that the violence that saturates popular culture directly causes violence in the larger society. Nevertheless, it is arguable that depictions of violence serve to normalize violence as both a source of pleasure and as a practice for addressing social issues. When young people and others begin to believe that a world of extreme violence, vengeance, lawlessness and revenge is the only world they inhabit, the culture and practice of real-life violence is more difficult to scrutinize, resist and transform.

Many critics have argued that a popular culture that endlessly trades in violence runs the risk of blurring the lines between the world of fantasies and the world we live in. What they often miss is that when violence is celebrated in its myriad registers and platforms in a society, a formative culture is put in place that is amenable to the pathology of fascism. That is, a culture that thrives on violence runs the risk of losing its capacity to separate politics from violence. A.O. Scott recognizes such a connection between gun violence and popular culture, but he fails to register the deeper significance of the relationship. He writes:

… it is absurd to pretend that gun culture is unrelated to popular culture, or that make-believe violence has nothing to do with its real-world correlative. Guns have symbolic as well as actual power, and the practical business of hunting, law enforcement and self-defense has less purchase in our civic life than fantasies of righteous vengeance or brave resistance…. [Violent] fantasies have proliferated and intensified even as our daily existence has become more regulated and standardized – and also less dangerous. Perhaps they offer an escape from the boredom and regimentation of work and consumption.

Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture. While the Obama administration banned waterboarding as an interrogation method in January 2009, it appears to be thriving as a legitimate procedure in a number of prominent Hollywood films, including Safe House, Zero Dark Thirty, G.I. Jane and Taken 3. The use of and legitimation of torture by the government is not limited to Hollywood films. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced recently on ABC’s «This Week» that he would bring back waterboarding because it «is peanuts compared to what they do to us.» It appears that moral depravity and the flight from social responsibility have no limits in an authoritarian political landscape.

Gun Violence Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

The United States is suffering from an epidemic of violence, and much of it results in the shooting and killing of children. In announcing his package of executive actions to reduce gun violence, President Obama singled out both the gun lobby and Congress for refusing to implement even moderate gun control reforms. Obama was right on target in stating that «the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.» Congress’s refusal to enact any type of gun control is symptomatic of the death of US democracy and the way in which money and power now govern the United States. Under a regime of casino capitalism, wealth and profits are more important than keeping the American people safe, more worthwhile than preventing a flood of violence across the land, and more valued than even the lives of young children caught in the hail of gunfire.

In spite of the empty bluster of Republican politicians claiming that Obama is violating the US Constitution with executive overreach, threatening to take guns away from the American people or undermining the Second Amendment, the not-so-hidden politics at work in these claims is one that points to the collapse of ethics, compassion and responsibility in the face of a militarized culture defined by the financial elite, gun lobbies and big corporations. Such forces represent a take-no-prisoners approach and refuse to even consider Obama’s call for strengthening background checks, limiting the unchecked sale of firearms by gun sellers, developing «smart gun» technologies, and preventing those on the United States’ terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. These initiatives hardly constitute a threat to gun ownership in the United States.

Guns are certainly a major problem in the United States, but they are symptomatic of a much larger crisis: Our country has tipped over into a new and deadly form of authoritarianism. We have become one of the most violent cultures on the planet and regulating guns does not get to the root of the problem. Zhiwa Woodbury touches on this issue at Tikkun Daily, writing:

We are a country of approximately 300 million people with approximately 300 million firearms – a third of which are concealable handguns. Each one of these guns is made for one purpose only – to kill as quickly and effectively as possible. The idea that some magical regulatory scheme, short of confiscation, will somehow prevent guns from being used to kill people is laughable, regardless of what you think of the NRA. Similarly, mentally ill individuals are responsible for less than 5% of the 30,000+ gunned down in the U.S. every year.

In the current historical conjuncture, gun violence makes a mockery of safe public spaces, gives rise to institutions and cultural apparatuses that embrace a deadly war psychology, and trades on fear and insecurity to undermine any sense of shared responsibility. It is no coincidence that the violence of prisons is related to the violence produced by police in the streets; it is no coincidence that the brutal masculine authority that now dominates US politics, with its unabashed hatred of women, poor people, Black people, Muslims and Mexican immigrants, shares an uncanny form of lawlessness with a long tradition of 20th century authoritarianism.

As violence moves to the center of American life, it becomes an organizing principle of society, and further contributes to the unraveling of the fabric of a democracy. Under such circumstances, the United States begins to consider everyone a potential criminal, wages war with itself and begins to sacrifice its children and its future. The political stooges, who have become lapdogs of corporate and financial interests, and refuse out of narrow self- and financial interests to confront the conditions that create such violence, must be held accountable for the deaths taking place in a toxic culture of gun violence. The condemnation of violence cannot be limited to police brutality. Violence does not just come from the police. In the United States, there are other dangers emanating from state power that punishes whistleblowers, intelligence agencies that encourage the arrests of those who protest against the abuse of corporate and state power, and a corporate-controlled media that trades in ignorance, lies and falsehoods, all the while demanding and generally «receiving unwavering support from their citizens,» as Teju Cole has pointed out in The New Yorker.

Yet, the only reforms we hear about are for safer gun policies, mandatory body-worn cameras for the police and more background checks. These may be well-intentioned reforms, but they do not get to the root of the problem, which is a social and economic system that trades in death in order to accumulate profits. What we don’t hear about are the people who trade their conscience for supporting the gun lobby, particularly the NRA. These are the politicians in Congress who create the conditions for mass shootings and gun violence because they have been bought and sold by the apostles of the death industry. These are the same politicians who support the militarization of everyday life, who trade in torture, who bow down slavishly to the arms industries and who wallow in the handouts provided by the military-industrial-academic complex.

These utterly corrupted politicians are killers in suits whose test of courage and toughness was captured in one of the recent Republican presidential debates, when candidate Ben Carson was asked by Hugh Hewitt, a reactionary right-wing talk show host, if he would be willing to kill thousands of children in the name of exercising tough leadership. As if killing innocent children is a legitimate test for leadership. This is what the warmongering politics of hysterical fear with its unbridled focus on terrorism has come to – a future that will be defined by moral and political zombies who represent the real face of terrorism, domestic and otherwise.

Clearly, the cause of violence in the United States will not stop by merely holding the politicians responsible. What is needed is a mass political movement willing to challenge and replace a broken system that gives corrupt and warmongering politicians excessive political and economic power. Democracy and justice are on life support and the challenge is to bring them back to life not by reforming the system but by replacing it. This will only take place with the development of a politics in which the obligation to justice is matched by an endless responsibility to collective struggle.

Note: Parts of this article were drawn from an earlier version published at CounterPunch.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

Comparte este contenido:

The Mad Violence of Casino Capitalism

HENRY GIROUX

henry giroux

Para Henry Giroux “la sociedad americana está en bancarrota moral y política. En la medida que Estados Unidos se hunde en el abismo oscuro de una forma actualizada del totalitarismo, lo inimaginable se ha convertido en un hecho posible, no sólo para avanzar en la muerte de los principios esenciales de la democracia constitucional, sino también para facilitar lo que Hannah Arendt, llamó el horror de tiempos oscuros. La política del terror, una cultura del miedo, y el espectáculo de la violencia dominan los aparatos culturales para legitimar la militarización de la vida pública y en la sociedad americana

_______________________________________________________________
American society is morally bankrupt and politically broken, and its vision of the future appears utterly dystopian. As the United States descends into the dark abyss of an updated form of totalitarianism, the unimaginable has become imaginable in that it has become possible not only to foresee the death of the essential principles of constitutional democracy, but also the birth of what Hannah Arendt once called the horror of dark times. The politics of terror, a culture of fear, and the spectacle of violence dominate America’s cultural apparatuses and legitimate the ongoing militarization of public life and American society.

Unchecked corporate power and a massive commodification, infantilization, and depoliticization of the polity have become the totalitarian benchmarks defining American society. In part, this is due to the emergence of a brutal modern-day capitalism, or what some might call neoliberalism. This form of neoliberal capitalism is a particularly savage, cruel, and exploitative regime of oppression in which not only are the social contract, civil liberties and the commons under siege, but also the very notion of the political, if not the planet itself. The dystopian moment facing the United States, if not most of the globe, can be summed up in Fred Jameson’s contention “that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” He goes on to say that “We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world.”1

One way of understanding Jameson’s comment is through the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized. Capitalism has made a virtue out of self-interest and the pursuit of material wealth and in doing so has created a culture of shattered dreams and a landscape filled with “Broken highways, bankrupt cities, collapsing bridges, failed schools, the unemployed, the underpaid and the uninsured: all suggest a collective failure of will. These shortcomings are so endemic that we no longer know how to talk about what is wrong, much less set about repairing it.”[i]

Yet, there is a growing recognition that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage and that if it does not come to an end what we will experience in all probability is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reinforce this dystopian possibility.2 The undermining of public trust and public values has now given way to a market-driven discourse that produces a society that has lost any sense of democratic vision and social purpose and in doing so resorts to state terrorism, the criminalization of social problems, and culture of cruelty. Institutions that were once defined to protect and enhance human life now function largely to punish and maim.

As Michael Yates points out throughout this book, capitalism is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either exploit or consider disposable.

Security and crisis have become the new passwords for imposing a culture of fear and for imposing what Giorgio Agamben has called a permanent state of yatesexception and a technology of government repression.[ii] A constant appeal to a state of crisis becomes the new normal for arming the police, curtailing civil liberties, expanding the punishing state, criminalizing everyday behavior, and supressing dissent. Fear now drives the major narratives that define the United States and give rise to dominant forms of power free from any sense of moral and political conviction, if not accountability.

In the midst of this dystopian nightmare, there is the deepening abyss of inequality, one that not only separates the rich from the poor, but also increasingly relegates the middle and working classes to the ranks of the precariat. Concentrations of wealth and income generate power for the financial elite and unchecked misery for most people, a fear/insecurity industry, and a growing number of social pathologies.

Michael Yates in The Great Inequality provides a road map for both understanding the registers that produce inequality as well as the magnitude of the problems it poses across a range of commanding spheres extending from health care and the political realm to the environment and education. At the same time, he exposes the myths that buttress the ideology of inequality. These include an unchecked belief in boundless economic growth, the notion that inequality is chosen freely by individuals in the market place, and the assumption that consumption is the road to happiness. Unlike a range of recent books on inequality, Yates goes beyond exposing the mechanisms that drive inequality and the panoply of commanding institutions that support it. He also provides a number of strategies that challenge the deep concentrations of wealth and power while delivering a number of formative proposals that are crucial for nurturing a radical imagination and the social movements necessary to struggle for a society that no longer equates capitalism with democracy.

As Yates makes clear throughout this book, money now engulfs everything in this new age of disposability. Moreover, when coupled with a weakening of movements to counter the generated power of capitalists, the result has been a startling increase in the influence of predatory capitalism, along with inequities in wealth, income, power, and opportunity. Such power breeds more than anti-democratic tendencies, it also imposes constraints, rules, and prohibitions on the 99 percent whose choices are increasingly limited to merely trying to survive. Capitalists are no longer willing to compromise and have expanded their use of power to dominate economic, political, and social life. For Yates, it is all the more crucial to understand how power works under the reign of global capitalism in order to grasp the magnitude of inequality, the myriad of factors that produce it, and what might be done to change it.

Accompanying the rise of a savage form of capitalism and the ever-expanding security state is the emergence of new technologies and spaces of control. One consequence is that labor power is increasingly produced by machines and robotic technologies which serve to create “a large pool of more or less unemployed people.” Moreover, as new technologies produce massive pools of unused labor, it also is being used as a repressive tool for collecting “unlimited biometric and genetic information of all of its citizens.”[iii]

The ongoing attack on the working class is matched by new measures of repression and surveillance. This new weaponized face of capitalism is particularly ominous given the rise of the punishing state and the transformation of the United States from a democracy in progress to a fully developed authoritarian society.   Every act of protest is now tainted, labeled by the government and mainstream media as either treasonous or viewed as a potential act of terrorism. For example, animal rights activists are put on the terrorist list. Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden are painted as traitors. Members of the Black Lives Matter movement are put under surveillance,[iv] all electronic communication is now subject to government spying, and academics who criticize government policy are denied tenure or worse.

Under neoliberalism, public space is increasingly converted into private space undermining those sphere necessary for developing a viable sense of social responsibility, while also serving to transform citizenship into mostly an act of consumption. Under such circumstances, the notion of crisis is used both to legitimate a system of economic terrorism as well as to accentuate an increasing process of depoliticization. Within this fog of market induced paralysis, language is subject to the laws of capitalism, reduced to a commodity, and subject to the “tyranny of the moment….emaciated, impoverished, vulgarized and squeezed out of the meanings it was resumed to carry.”[v]

As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital.[vi] As a political project it includes “the deregulation of finance, privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws.”[vii] As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest-ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.

Nothing engenders the wrath of conservatives more than the existence of the government providing a universal safety net, especially one that works, such as either Medicare or Social Security. As Yates points out, government is viewed by capitalists as an institution that gets in the way of capital. One result is a weakening of social programs and provisions. As Paul Krugman observes regarding the ongoing conservative attacks on Medicare, “The real reason conservatives want to do away with Medicare has always been political: It’s the very idea of the government providing a universal safety net that they hate, and they hate it even more when such programs are successful.”[viii] In opposition to Krugman and other liberal economists, Michael Yates argues rightly in this book that the issue is not simply preserving Medicare but eliminating the predatory system that disavows equality of wealth, power, opportunity, and health care for everyone.

Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one’s individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest, just as it is has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations. One consequence is that it has become more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society– now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the ruling economic and political elite. Unable to make their voices heard and lacking any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree to which the American public, in particular, are suffering under a democratic deficit producing a profound dissatisfaction that does not always translate into an understanding of how neoliberal capitalism has destroyed democracy or what it might mean to understand and challenge its diverse apparatuses of persuasion and power. Clearly, the surge of popularity behind the presidential candidacy of a buffoon such as Donald Trump testifies to both a deep seated desire for change and the forms it can take when emotion replaces reason and any viable analysis of capitalism and its effects seem to be absent from a popular sensibility.

What Michael Yates makes clear in this incisive book on inequality is that democratic values, commitments, integrity, and struggles are under assault from a wide range of sites in an age of intensified violence and disposability. Throughout the book he weaves a set of narratives and critiques in which he lays bare the anti-democratic tendencies that are on display in a growing age of lawlessness and disposability. He not only makes clear that inequality is not good for the economy, social bonds, the environment, politics, and democracy, Yates also argues that capitalism in the current historical moment is marked by an age that thrives on racism, xenophobia, the purported existence of an alleged culture of criminality, and a massive system of inequality that affects all aspects of society. Worth repeating is that at the center of this book, unlike so many others tackling inequality, is an attempt to map a number of modalities that give shape and purpose to widespread disparities in wealth and income, including the underlying forces behind inequality, how it works to secure class power, how it undermines almost every viable foundation needed for a sustainable democracy, and what it might mean to develop a plan of action to produce the radical imagination and corresponding modes of agency and practice that can think and act outside of the reformist politics of capitalism.

Unlike so many other economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz who address the issue of inequality, Yates refuses the argument that the system is simply out of whack and can be fixed. Nor does he believe that capitalism can be described only in terms of economic structures. Capitalism is both a symbolic pathological economy that produces particular dispositions, values, and identities as well as oppressive institutional apparatuses and economic structures. Yates goes even further arguing that capitalism is not only about authoritarian ideologies and structures, it is also about the crisis of ideas, agency, and the failure of people to react to the suffering of others and to the conditions of their own oppression. Neoliberal capitalism has no language for human suffering, moral evaluation, and social responsibility. Instead, it creates a survival-of-the fittest ethos buttressed by a discourse that is morally insensitive, sadistic, cannibalistic, and displays a hatred of those whose labor cannot be exploited, do not buy into the consumerist ethic, or are considered other by virtue of their race, class, and ethnicity. Neoliberalism is the discourse of shadow games, committed to highlighting corporate power and making invisible the suffering of others, all the while leaving those considered disposable in the dark to fend for themselves.

Yates makes visible not only the economic constraints that bear down on the poor and disposable in the neoliberal age of precarity, he also narrates the voices, conditions, hardships and suffering workers have to endure in a variety of occupations ranging from automobile workers and cruise ship workers to those who work in restaurants and as harvester on farms. He provides a number of invaluable statistics that chart the injuries of class and race under capitalism but rather than tell a story with only statistics and mind boggling data, he also provides stories that give flesh to the statistics that mark a new historical conjuncture and a wide range of hardships that render work for most people hell and produce what has been called the hidden injuries of class. Much of what he writes is informed by a decade long research trip across the United States in which he attempted to see first-hand what the effects of capitalism have been on peoples’ lives, the environment, work, unions, and other crucial spheres that inform everyday life. His keen eye is particularly riveting as he describes his teaming up with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers in the 1970s and his growing disappointment with a union that increasingly betrayed its own principles.

For Yates, the capitalist system is corrupt, malicious, and needs to be replaced. Capitalism leaves no room for the language of justice, the social, or, for that matter, democracy itself. In fact, one of its major attributes is to hide its effects of power, racial injustice, militarized state violence, domestic terrorism, and new forms of disposability, especially regarding those marginalized by class and race. The grotesque inequalities produced by capitalism are too powerful, deeply rooted in the social and economic fabric, and unamenable to liberal reforms.  Class disparities constitute a machinery of social death, a kind of zombie-like machine that drains life out of most of the population poisoning both existing and future generations.

The politics of disposability has gone mainstream as more and more individuals and groups are now considered surplus and vulnerable, consigned to zones of abandonment, surveillance, and incarceration. At one level, the expansive politics of disposability can be seen in the rising numbers of homeless, the growing army of debt-ridden students, the increasingly harsh treatment of immigrants, the racism that fuels the school-to-prison pipeline, and the growing attack on public servants. On another level, the politics of disposability has produced a culture of lawlessness and cruelty evident by the increasing rollback of voting rights, the war waged against women’s reproductive rights, laws that discriminate against gays, the rise of the surveillance state, and the growing militarization of local police forces. Yates argues convincingly that there is a desperate need for a new language for politics, solidarity, shared responsibilities, and democracy itself. Yates sees in the now largely departed Occupy Movement an example of a movement that used a new discourse and set of slogans to highlight inequality, make class inequities visible, and to showcase the workings of power in the hands of the financial elite. For Yates, Occupy provided a strategy that can be and is being emulated by a number of groups, especially those emerging in the black community in opposition to police violence. Such a strategy begins by asking what a real democracy looks like and how does it compare to the current society in which we live. One precondition for individual and social agency is that the horizons for change must transcend the parameters of the existing society, and the future must be configured in such a way as to not mimic the present.

What is remarkable about The Great Inequality is that Yates does not simply provide a critique of capitalism in its old and new forms, he also provides a discourse of possibility developed around a number of suggested policies and practices designed to not reform capitalism but to abolish it. This is a book that follows in the manner of Dr. Martin Luther King’s call to break the silence. In it Yates functions as a moral witness in reporting on the hardships and suffering produced by grotesque forms of inequality. As such, he reveals the dark threats that capitalism in its ruthlessly updated versions poses to the planet. Yet, his narrative is never far from either hope or a sense that there is a larger public for whom his testimony matters and that such a public is capable of collective resistance. The Great Inequality also serves to enliven the ethical imagination, and speak out for those populations now considered outcast and voiceless. Yates provides a furious reading of inequality and the larger structure of capitalism. In doing so he exhibits a keen and incisive intellect along with a welcomed sense of righteous fury.

 

Notes.

[i] Tony Judt, Ill Fares the Land, (New York, N.Y.: The Penguin Press, 2010), p. 12.

[ii] Giorgio Agamben, “The Security State and a theory of destituent power,” Philosophers for Change, (February 25, 2014). Online:

The security state and a theory of destituent power

[iii] Ibid., Agamben, “The Security State and a theory of destituent power,”

[iv] George Joseph, “Exclusive: feds regularly monitored black lives matter since ferguson,” Intercept (July 24, 2015). Online: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/documents-show-department-homeland-security-monitoring-black-lives-matter-since-ferguson/; Deirdre Fulton, “Exposed: Big Brother Targets Black Lives:Government spying can be an ‘effective way to chill protest movements,’ warns Center for Constitutional Rights,” CommonDreams (July 24, 2015). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/24/exposed-big-brother-targets-black-lives

[v] Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis, Moral Blindness: The loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity, (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2013), p. 46.

[vi] I have taken up the issue of neoliberalism extensively in Henry A. Giroux, Against the Terror of Neoliberalism (Boulder: Paradigm, 2008) . See also, David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Manfred B. Steger and Ravi K. Roy, Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Gerad Dumenil and Dominique Levy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011). Henry A. Giroux, Twilight of the Social (Boulder: Paradigm, 2013); Henry A. Giroux, and in Against the Violence of Organized Forgetting: Beyond America’s Disimagination Machine (San Francisco: City Lights, 2014);

Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (Cambridge: Zone Books 2015).

[vii] Michael D. Yates, “Occupy Wall Street and the Significance of Political Slogans,” Counterpunch, (February 27, 2013). Online:http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/27/occupy-wall-street-and-the-significance-of-political-slogans/

[viii] Paul Krugman, “Zombies Against Medicare,” New York Times (July 27, 2015). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/opinion/zombies-against-medicare.html?_r=0

This essay is excerpted from the introduction to The Great Inequality by Michael D. Yates.

 

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013) and Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014).

 

 

 

 

Comparte este contenido:

Exile as a Space of Disruption in the Academy

Henry Giroux (*)

Giroux 1

Descripciòn en español: ¿Cómo no estar exiliado en el trabajo académico, especialmente si uno se niega a formar parte de las camarillas, la mediocridad, las formas histéricas de resentimiento, la murmuración, y la producción irrelevante, e incluso a veces no ética, como expresión de la investigación que cada vez que ha llegado a caracterizar mejor a la universidad corporativa?. En este artículo, Henry Giroux, uno de los más importantes teóricos de la pedagogía crítica reflexiona al respecto (Nota del Editor de OVE).

How can one not be in exile working in academia, especially if one refuses the cliques, mediocrity, hysterical forms of resentment, backbiting, and endless production of irrelevant, if not sometimes unethical, research that increasingly has come to characterize the corporate university? The spaces of retreat from public life now occupy too many institutions of higher education and have transformed them into dead zones of the imagination mixed with a kind of brutalizing defense of their own decaying postures and search for status and profits. Leadership in too many academic departments is empty, disempowering, and insular, lacking any outward vision or sense of social responsibility. Mimicking the instrumental logic of a business culture, too many administrators lack the vision, totality of knowledge, or will to address what role the university should play in a democracy. Too many individuals are tied to endless committees, overwhelmed by the mediocrity they or others endorse, and fearful of anyone who steps outside of the boundaries of bureaucratic conformity and civility. Excellence has become part of an empty recruiting slogan that has little do with the actual work or scholarship of faculty who are often punished or resented for such work.

One thing is clear: The retreat from the ethical and political imagination in higher education in too many countries has become legion. Little is being done to address the army of subaltern labor that has become the new poor in higher education and elsewhere. Moreover, faculty are increasingly told that the most important register of scholarship is grant writing over and against activities of teaching, community engagement, or other forms of public scholarship. In addition, students are constantly being told that they should feel good instead of working hard and focusing while being burdened, at the same time, with an insufferable amount of financial debt. Too many academics no longer ask students what they think but how they feel. Everyone wants to be a happy consumer. When students are told that all that matters is feeling good, and that feeling uncomfortable is alien to learning itself, the critical nature of teaching and learning is compromised.

 

This is an academic version of the Dr. Phil show where infantilized pedagogies prove to be as demeaning to students as they are to professors. Professors are now increasingly expected to take on the role of therapists speaking in terms of comfort zones but are rarely offered support for the purpose of empowering students to confront difficult problems, examine hard truths, or their own prejudices. This is not to suggest that students should feel lousy while learning or that educators shouldn’t care about their students. To the contrary, caring in the most productive sense means providing students with the knowledge, skills, and theoretical rigor that offers them the kinds of intellectual challenges to engage and take risks in order to make critical connections and develop a sense of agency where they learn to think for themselves and become critical and responsible citizens. Students should feel good through their capacity to grow intellectually, emotionally, and ethically with others rather than being encouraged to retreat from difficult educational engagements. Caring also means that faculty share an important responsibility to protect students from conditions that sanction hate speech, racism, humiliation, sexism, and an individual and institutional attack on their dignity.

For a range of theorists extending from Theodor Adorno to the post colonialist theorist Edward Said, exile was a central metaphor for defining the role of academics. As oppositional public intellectuals, academics played an indispensible role in Adorno’s notion of critical theory and Said’s work in defending the university as a crucial public sphere. They also played a crucial role in engaging culture as a site informed by mechanisms of power, and taking seriously the idea of human interdependence while living on the border — one foot in and one foot out, an exile and an insider, for whom home was always a form of homelessness. In Representations of the Intellectual, Said argued that exile referenced a space of engagement and critique, serving as both a theoretical and political reminder that educators often occupy a similar role and space where they work to “publicly raise embarrassing questions, confront orthodoxy and dogma (rather than to produce them), and refuse to be easily co-opted by governments or corporations” while offering models of social engagement that redefined the role of academics as civically engaged public intellectuals. This politically charged notion of the oppositional intellectual as homeless—in exile and living on the border, occupying a shifting and fractured pedagogical space in which critique, difference, and a utopian potentiality can endure—has provided the conceptual framework for generations of educators fighting against the deadly instrumentalism and reactionary ideologies that have shaped contemporary educational models in public schools and universities.

Giroux 2

Under the regime of neoliberalism, too many institutions of higher education have transformed the culture of education into the culture of business and are now characterized by a withdrawal into the private and the irrelevant. In this view, education is driven largely by market forces that undermine any viable vision of education as a public good connected to wider social problems. Solidarity, rigor, public scholarship, and integrity are in short supply in many departments and are largely ignored by the new and expanding managerial class of administrators. In this context, exile is less a choice than a condition that is forced through policies of containment and procedure where contingent faculty are given short term contracts, struggle with course over loads, and bear the burden of time as a deprivation rather than a space of reflection and ownership over the conditions of their labor. Under such circumstances, exile is a state that can just as easily be manipulated to produce a key element of the neoliberal university which, as Noam Chomsky points out, is “designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility.”[1]

Exile in this context speaks to new forms of faculty servitude that restrict and shut down spaces for dialogue, scholarship, dissent, and quality teaching. This is a form of forced exile, one wedded to expanding faculty powerlessness and undermining any sense of autonomy. It is against this notion of oppressive exile wedded to the market driven prescription of undermining faculty power while intensifying their labor that the concept of exile has to be rethought. Instead, exile must be seen and theorized as part of a larger political and empowering discourse connected to an affective and ideological space of struggle and resistance. Less an oppressive space of containment and deskilling, exile can become the grounds for a revitalized kind of public space and activism where a new language, a new understanding of politics, and new forms of solidarity can be nurtured among the displaced — that is, among those who refuse the neoliberal machinery of social and political violence that defines education solely as a source of profit, mode of commerce, and “feel good” pedagogy. The renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s comments on his notion of welcoming exile under certain circumstances should not therefore surprise us, especially in light of his own experience of marginality as a Jewish public intellectual and as a courageous exemplar of civic courage. What must be understood and emphasized here is that Bauman’s position, along with that of Adorno and Said’s, does not constitute a celebration of marginality. Rather, for all of these scholars, exile is an affirmation to keep going in the midst of what sometimes appears to be a deadening form of academic madness and insularity driven by forces which constantly seek to undermine the university as a democratic public sphere. Bauman writes:

I need to admit, however, that my view of the sociologists’ vocation does not necessarily overlap with the consensus of the profession. Dennis Smith has described me as an “outsider through and through.” It would be dishonest of me to deny that denomination. Indeed, throughout my academic life I did not truly “belong” to any school, monastic order, intellectual camaraderie, political caucus, or interest clique. I did not apply for admission to any of them, let alone did much to deserve an invitation; nor would I be listed by any of them—at least unqualifiedly—as “one of us.” I guess my claustrophobia—feeling as I do ill at ease in closed rooms, tempted to find out what is on the other side of the door—is incurable; I am doomed to remain an outsider to the end, lacking as I [do] the indispensable qualities of an academic insider: school loyalty, conformity to the procedure, and readiness to abide by the school-endorsed criteria of cohesion and consistency. And, frankly, I don’t mind.[2]

While I don’t want to romanticize positions of marginality and exile, they may represent some of the few spaces left in the university where one can develop a comprehensive vision of politics and social change, challenge the often deadening silos of disciplinarity, while making connections with wider social movements outside of the university. The fight for the university as a public good is essential to the development of a vibrant formative culture and democracy itself. Exile may be one of the few spaces left in neoliberal societies as democracy is pushed ever farther to the margins where individuals must learn to work together to cultivate a sense of meaningful connection, solidarity, and engaged citizenship that moves beyond an allegiance to narrow interest groups and fragmented, single issue politics. Exile might be the space where a kind of double consciousness can be cultivated that points beyond the structures of domination and repression to what the poet Claudia Rankine calls a new understanding of community, politics, and citizenship in which the social contract is revived as a kind of truce in which we allow ourselves to be flawed together. She writes:

You want to belong, you want to be here. In interactions with others you’re constantly waiting to see that they recognize that you’re a human being. That they can feel your heartbeat and you can feel theirs. And that together you will live—you will live together.The truce is that. You forgive all of these moments because you’re constantly waiting for the moment when you will be seen. As an equal. As just another person. As another first person. There’s a letting go that comes with it. I don’t know about forgiving, but it’s an “I’m still here.” And it’s not just because I have nowhere else to go. It’s because I believe in the possibility. I believe in the possibility of another way of being. Let’s make other kinds of mistakes; let’s be flawed differently.[3]

To be “flawed differently” works against a selfish desire for power and a sense of belonging to the often suffocating circles of certainty that define fundamentalisms of all ideological stripes. Being “flawed differently” also suggests the need to provide room for the emergence of new democratic public spheres, noisy conversations, and a kind of alternative third space informed by compassion and respect for the other. Under such circumstances, critical exchange and education matters not as a self-indulgent performance in which individuals simply interview themselves but as public acts of reaching out, a willingness to experience the other within the space of exile that heralds and precipitates a democracy to come. This would be a democracy where intellectual thought informs critique, embodies a sense of integrity, and reclaims education in the service of justice and equality.

 

What might it mean, then, to imagine the university as containing spaces in which the metaphor of exile provides a theoretical resource to engage in political and pedagogical work that is disruptive, transformative, and emancipatory? Such work would both challenge the mainstream notion of higher education as a kind of neoliberal factory, as well as the ideological fundamentalism that has emerged among many conservatives and some alleged progressive voices. What might it mean to address the work that we do in the university, especially with regards to teaching as a form of classroom grace– a place to think critically, ask troubling questions, and take risks, even though that may mean transgressing established norms and bureaucratic procedures?[4] 

Exile is not a prescription or rationale for cynicism, nor is it a retreat from one’s role as an informed and engaged faculty member. On the contrary, it is a space of possibility where the reality of the university as defined by the culture of business and a reductive instrumental rationality can be challenged by a view of the university as a public good, one that expands and deepens relations of power among faculty, administrators, and students while redefining the mission of the university. In an age of overwhelming violence, war, and oppression, universities must create formative cultures that allow students to assume the role of critically engaged citizens, informed about the ideologies, values, social relations, and institutions that bear down on their lives so that they can be challenged, changed, and held accountable. Exile in this sense is a space of critical dialogue, a posture of engaged dissent, a place filled with visions that refuse to normalize the present while imagining a more just future. It is a deeply political and moral space, one that makes education central to any viable notion of agency and politics, and works hard to create the public spaces and formative cultures that make democracy possible.

_ _

[1] Noam Chomsky, “The Death of American Universities,” Reader Supported News, (March 30, 2015). Online at: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29348-the-death-of-american-universities

[2] Efrain Kristal and Arne De Boever, “Disconnecting Acts: An Interview with Zygmunt Bauman Part II,” Los Angeles Review of Books (November 12, 2014). Online: http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/disconnecting-acts-interview-zygmunt-bauman-part-ii

[3] Meara Sharma interviews Claudia Rankine, “Blackness as the Second Person,” Guernica (November 17, 2014). Online: https://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/blackness-as-the-second-person/

[4] Kristen Case, “The Other Public Humanities,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 13, 2014). Online:http://m.chronicle.com/article/Ahas-Ahead/143867/

 

(*)  Henry Giroux (Providence, 18 de septiembre de 1943) es un crítico cultural estadounidense y uno de los teóricos fundadores de la pedagogía crítica en dicho país. Es bien conocido por sus trabajos pioneros en pedagogía pública, estudios culturales, estudios juveniles, enseñanza superior, estudios acerca de los medios de comunicación, y la teoría crítica.

 

Comparte este contenido:
Page 13 of 13
1 11 12 13