The state rests its power on a monopoly of violence. Indeed, in the final analysis a state is nothing but a monopoly of violence. Even when a state does good things, like tax to provide healthcare, it ultimately depends on its ability to employ violence to enforce the collection of the tax. Arrest and imprisonment is, absolutely, violence. We may not recognise it as violence, but if you try to resist arrest and imprisonment you will quickly see that it is violence. Whether or not blows are struck or arms twisted to get someone there, or they go quietly under threat, confining somebody behind concrete and steel is violence.
I use the case of tax evasion and healthcare to show that I am merely analysing that the state rests on violence deliberately. I am not claiming that the violence of the state is a bad thing in itself. I just want you to recognise that the state rests on violence. Try not paying your taxes for a few years, and try refusing to be arrested and go to court. You will, ultimately, encounter real violence on your person.
John Pilger gave a harrowing account of the everyday application of state violence at the Free the Truth meeting at which I spoke last week. Here is an extract from his speech describing his visit to Julian Assange:
I joined a queue of sad, anxious people, mostly poor women and children, and grandmothers. At the first desk, I was fingerprinted, if that is still the word for biometric testing.
“Both hands, press down!” I was told. A file on me appeared on the screen.
I could now cross to the main gate, which is set in the walls of the prison. The last time I was at Belmarsh to see Julian, it was raining hard. My umbrella wasn’t allowed beyond the visitors centre. I had the choice of getting drenched, or running like hell. Grandmothers have the same choice.
At the second desk, an official behind the wire, said, “What’s that?”
“My watch,” I replied guiltily.
“Take it back,” she said.
So I ran back through the rain, returning just in time to be biometrically tested again. This was followed by a full body scan and a full body search. Soles of feet; mouth open.
At each stop, our silent, obedient group shuffled into what is known as a sealed space, squeezed behind a yellow line. Pity the claustrophobic; one woman squeezed her eyes shut.
We were then ordered into another holding area, again with iron doors shutting loudly in front of us and behind us.
“Stand behind the yellow line!” said a disembodied voice.
Another electronic door slid partly open; we hesitated wisely. It shuddered and shut and opened again. Another holding area, another desk, another chorus of, “Show your finger!”
Then we were in a long room with squares on the floor where we were told to stand, one at a time. Two men with sniffer dogs arrived and worked us, front and back.
The dogs sniffed our arses and slobbered on my hand. Then more doors opened, with a new order to “hold out your wrist!”
A laser branding was our ticket into a large room, where the prisoners sat waiting in silence, opposite empty chairs. On the far side of the room was Julian, wearing a yellow arm band over his prison clothes.
As a remand prisoner he is entitled to wear his own clothes, but when the thugs dragged him out of the Ecuadorean embassy last April, they prevented him bringing a small bag of belongings. His clothes would follow, they said, but like his reading glasses, they were mysteriously lost.
For 22 hours a day, Julian is confined in “healthcare”. It’s not really a prison hospital, but a place where he can be isolated, medicated and spied on. They spy on him every 30 minutes: eyes through the door. They would call this “suicide watch”.
In the adjoining cells are convicted murderers, and further along is a mentally ill man who screams through the night. “This is my One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” he said.
When we greet each other, I can feel his ribs. His arm has no muscle. He has lost perhaps 10 to 15 kilos since April. When I first saw him here in May, what was most shocking was how much older he looked.
We chat with his hand over his mouth so as not to be overheard. There are cameras above us. In the Ecuadorean embassy, we used to chat by writing notes to each other and shielding them from the cameras above us. Wherever Big Brother is, he is clearly frightened.
On the walls are happy-clappy slogans exhorting the prisoners to “keep on keeping on” and “be happy, be hopeful and laugh often”.
The only exercise he has is on a small bitumen patch, overlooked by high walls with more happy-clappy advice to enjoy ‘the blades of grass beneath your feet’. There is no grass.
He is still denied a laptop and software with which to prepare his case against extradition. He still cannot call his American lawyer, or his family in Australia.
The incessant pettiness of Belmarsh sticks to you like sweat.
You can see John give the speech here:
Assange’s “crime”, of course, is to reveal the illegal use of force by the state in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the state feels the need to employ such violence against somebody who has never practised violence, is a striking illustration that violence constitutes the very fabric of the state.
Just as we are not conditioned to recognise the violence of the state as violence, we do not always recognise resistance to the state as violence. If you bodily blockade a road, a tube station or a building with the intention to prevent somebody else from physically passing through that space, that is an act of physical force, of violence. It may be a low level of violence, but violence it is. Extinction Rebellion represents a challenge to the state’s claim to monopolise violence, which is why the Metropolitan Police – a major instrument of state domestic violence – were so anxious to declare the activity illegal on a wide scale.
Ultimately civil resistance represents a denial of the state’s right to enforce its monopoly of violence. The Hong Kong protests represent a striking demonstration of the fact that rejecting the state’s monopoly of violence can entail marching without permission, occupying a space, blockading and ultimately replying to bullets with firebombs, and that these actions are a continuum. It is the initial rejection of the state’s power over your body which is the decision point.
Just as I used the example of tax evasion and healthcare to demonstrate that the state’s use of violence is not always bad, I use the example of Extinction Rebellion to demonstrate that the assertion of physical force, against the state’s claim to monopoly of it, is not always bad either.
We are moving into an era of politics where the foundations of consent which underpin western states are becoming less stable. The massive growth in wealth inequality has led to an alienation of large sections of the population from the political system. The political economy works within a framework which is entirely an artificial construct of states, and ultimately is imposed by the states’ monopoly of force. For the last four decades, that framework has been deliberately fine-tuned to enable the massive accumulation of wealth by a very small minority and to reduce the access to share of economic resource by the broad mass of the people.
The inevitable consequence is widespread economic discontent and a resultant loss of respect for the political class. The political class are tasked with the management of the state apparatus, and popular discontent is easily personalised – it concentrates on the visible people rather than the institutions. But if the extraordinary wealth imbalance of society continues to worsen, it is only a matter of time before that discontent undermines respect for political institutions. In the UK, once it becomes plain that leaving the EU has not improved the lot of those whose socio-economic standing has been radically undercut, the discontent will switch to other institutions of government.
In Scotland, we shall have an early test of the state’s right to the monopoly of force if the Westminster government insists on attempting to block a new referendum on Independence, against the will of the Scottish people. In Catalonia, the use of violence against those simply trying to vote in a referendum was truly shocking.
This has been followed up by the extreme state violence of vicious jail sentences against the leaders of the entirely nonviolent Catalan independence movement. As I stated we do not always recognise state violence. But locking you up in a small cell for years is a worse act of violence on your body even than the shocking but comparatively brief treatment of the woman voter in the photo. It is a case of chronic or acute state violence.
Where the use of violence by a state is fundamentally unjust, there is every moral right to employ violence against the state. Whether or not to do so becomes a tactical, not a moral, question. There is a great deal of evidence that non-violent protest, or protest using the real but low levels of physical force employed by Extinction Rebellion, can be in the long term the most effective. But opinions differ legitimately. Gandhi took one view, and Nelson Mandela another. The media has sanitised the image of Mandela, but it is worth remembering that he was jailed not for non-violent protest, but for taking up violent resistance to white rule, in which I would say he was entirely justified at the time.
To date, the Catalan people and their leaders appear firmly wedded to the tactic of non-violence. That is their choice and their right, and I support them in that choice. But having suffered so much violence, and with no democratic route available for their right of self-determination, the Catalans have the moral right, should they so choose, to resist, by violence, the violence of the Spanish state. I should however clarify that does not extend to indiscriminate attack on entirely innocent people, which in my view is not a moral choice.
All of which of course has obvious implications should a Westminster government seek to block the Scottish people from expressing their inalienable right of self-determination following the election. Which fascinating subject I shall return to once again in January. Be assured meantime I am not presently close to advocating a tactic of violence in Scotland. But nor will I ever say the Scottish people do not ultimately have that right if denied democratic self-expression. To say otherwise would be to renounce the Declaration of Arbroath, a founding document of European political thought.
As western states face popular discontent and are losing consent of the governed, one of the state’s reactions is to free up its use of force. Conservative election promises to give members of the UK armed forces effective immunity from prosecution for war crimes or for illegal use of force, should be seen in this light. So also, of course, should the use of agents not primarily employed by the state to impose extreme violence on behalf of the state. The enforcers of the vicious system John Pilger encountered were employed by Serco, G4S or a similar group, to remove the state one step from any control upon their actions (and of course to allow yet more private profit to the wealthy). Similar contractors regularly visit strong violence on immigrants selected for deportation. The ultimate expression of this was the disgusting employment by the British and American governments of mercenary forces, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, to deploy brutal and uncontrolled violence on the local population.
The pettiness of the election campaign, its failure to address fundamental issues due to the ability of the mainstream media to determine and manipulate the political agenda, has led me to think about the nature of the state at a much more basic level. I do not claim we are beyond the early stages of a breakdown in social consent to be ruled; and I expect the immediate response of the system will be a lurch towards right wing authoritarianism, which ultimately will make the system still less stable.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
The Catalans proposed to separate on an poll, without any official standards and in contravention of European rules on referenda, which did not reflect the consent of even 40 percent of the electorate. So that is fundamentally undemocratic, and those who sought to bring about secession on that basis deserve manifestly to be incarcerated. If, on the other hand, the separatists had won a referendum with a clear majority on a clear question, according to accepted rules for referenda and with international monitoring, then what Craig writes holds true. As it is, it is just a case of nationalists seeking special treatment. Incidentally, a clear majority cannot be construed as 50% plus one vote. The international standard for secession is 60% or 66%, but I suggest that 55% would be enough, with a turnout of no less than 80%. As turnout drops, the acceptable majority for secession has to rise, to reflect as close a possible to a majority of the electorate. 55% is an appropriate number, since, unlike during a general election, secession cannot be reverse by a succeeding government (there is thus no possibility of “loyal opposition”). So the margin of difference between the Yes vote (to secede) and the No vote has to be sufficiently large as to guarantee no easy reversal of opinion in the period after the vote.
Tom,
You are entirely tendentious. The turnout at the Catalan referendum was obviously reduced by the fact that the authorities physically prevented people from voting, closed ballot stations and beat up those trying to vote . In those circumstances to crow about a turnout of “only” 40% requires a very special kind of blind nastiness.
The answer is, to any rational person, to permit an agreed vote under good conditions.
Bad faith arguments about requiring a majority of the entire electorate, including the dead or the totally uninterested, are ridiculous. There is no ground for presumption that those who do not vote are conservative.
The turnout for the Catalan referendum is entirely irrelevant. It could be 1% or 100% – the entire thing is illegal under the Spanish constitution.
There are methods available to amend the constitution – but those methods have not been pursued to the point of success. Indeed arguably they have not been pursued at all. The government of Spain is obligated to defend the constitution, and the government will fulfil its obligations in this regard.
In the event that Spain somehow obtains a government that is as venal and corrupt as governments in the UK the citizenry of Spain will organize itself to the extent necessary to uphold the law. Catalan separatists cannot possibly achieve their aims for the simple reason that Spain, in the most broadly defined meaning of the term “Spain” will never countenance the dismemberment of Spain.
This is so easy to understand as to not really need explanation. Contrast the absolute refusal of Spain to allow its own dismemberment with the fact that outside of Scotland literally no-one cares one way or the other about Scottish independence.
Ask why!!
And the “Spanish Constitution” is one degree removed from the fascism that was imposed on Spain by the military, aided by Hitler and Mussolini, one step removed from dictatorship and terror. A compromise with authoritarians who would have greatly preferred to continue ruling by violence but were persuaded by their ‘democratic’ sponsors in NATO to allow elections.
The Constitution and the heritage it represents are the major cause of separatist feelings. Unless the post fascists in Spain are prepared to concede the necessity for a constitutional convention and Truth and Reconciliation processes, the impulse towards Catalan, etc, independence will grow because people realise that Spain in its current constitutional form is Fascism’s Arc de Triomphe.
Allow me to assist with a better understanding of your comment.
The Spanish Constitution can be amended if 2/3rds of each of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate vote in favor of any proposed Constitutional Amendment. To date there have been 2 successful amendments to the constitution.
In the event that the Spanish population favors an amendment to the Constitution in order to satisfy Catalan demands then they can simply vote for politicians who share this view. They do not do so because they have no intention of appeasing Catalan demands.
It is interesting (or perhaps not) that you view power being held by the people to being “one step removed from dictatorship and terror” Conversely there is absolutely no history of dictatorship and terror when power has been removed from the people and held by those who “know best” Just think of the paradise of the USSR, or the dieting opportunities afforded by Mao or the employment opportunities afforded by the Khmer Rouge.
Turnout was reduced by anti-independence citizens boycotting it too. And why shouldn’t they boycott a kangaroo vote held by independence supporters? Why should boycotting a referendum they felt was illegitimate and illegal be counted as simple “abstention”? This is all so “Second Dail”. Nuts!
A few years ago the SNP threatened to boycott any referendum not held on the septcentenary of the freemasons’ favourite mediaeval battle, Bannockburn. Now the lunatic fringe are salivating at the thought of a wildcat referendum held by the Partei and its corrupt jumped-up local council because they think they might possibly be in with a chance of winning it, even despite their Partei being on only 37% of the vote, given that many opponents of independence would boycott it. The they can say hey, well, you had your chance.
Then they envisage doing a Dublin Post Office job that they could only possibly lose for the simple reason that they’ve got very little in the way of a physical force network in the police, the army, or among veterans, or in a national guard or civil defence force or anything similar. Russia Today would give the upheaval big coverage though. Martyrs!
Permit me to coin a phrase for UDI with only minority support – let’s call it “doing an Ian Smith”.
What utter rubbish you spout Marxist. Your bitterness knows no end. But that is the modus operandi of a troll.
On the subject of violence your nonsense about not having enough resources to do Dublin Post Office job is just that – nonsense. It did however in a convoluted way cause the fairly rapid move within less than a decade to the Anglo Irish Treaty the creation of Saorstat
Eireann.
As a period marred by violence history came to repeat itself some forty years later in 1969 with what is euphemistically referee to as the thirty years of the Troubles.and troubles it was with bits of arms, legs and other body parts distributed widely over parts England and Ireland.
3,000 dead, hundreds and hundreds of thousands traumatised it is a glorious example of how violence begets violence. Probably makes you proud Marxist of your dogged British resolve. War war is better than Jaw Jaw. And folks like you would do it all again since you don’t have to sweep up the body p#rts.
But to put things in perspective Marxist – you are in the vernacular a bawbag troll spouting a load of guff. There couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
Otherwise, a constructive piece by a Craig about the inherent violence of the state. Cuts both way though, and really, if you want to live conflict free, then there has to be compromise and the perception of fairness – else an endless cycle of violence.
@ Willie
I don’t necessarily agree with N_ but they neither appear to be a Marxist nor exhibiting any bitterness. What am I missing?
Re “bitterness” reply by willie at 06.03
I’m guessing that the phrases“ Freemasons’ favourite mediaeval battle, lunatic fringe, wildcat referendum and corrupt jumped-up local council” all qualify as the hallmark of a troll and an expression of bitterness. Value laden phraseology and evidence free assertions do not qualify as proper debate and therefore are not worthy of discussion.
Nonsense, N_. Why do Marxists and Socialists – I mean those who actually claim to be, but not necessarily are – believe that the slave classes are not themselves looking for a slave class that is not their own to dish it to? It’s not just the rich and powerful who like to s**t on the masses; the masses do it to other masses. Brexit is probably a perfect example of self-harm and harming others like you with ignorance because the rich nd wealthy are going to be even richer and wealthier after it and on the backs of the poor of the Midlands and North of England who voted for it. The state doesn’t have to use violence against the poor; they so often inflict it on themselves or on others not of their specific poor group, as in wars.
In the German election of March 1933, despite similar repression of the working-class vote, the German electorate still rejected the Nazi party; are we to treat that vote as invalid? I think not Tom; you should take more account of the people who voted, not those who were prevented by state oppression.
In 1933, cowed by Nazi intimidation, but even more because of the German’s distaste for violence and civil war in the aftermath of the Great War, the population (and SPD) failed to rise up against the coup d”état. Thankfully, the Spanish Government and the majority of the Catalan people have not remained similarly passive in the face of the undemocratic (and generally right-wing) nationalism of the Catalan separatist movement.
Questions can indeed be asked about the fairness of the Spanish Constitution, but efforts should therefore in the first instance be directed towards changing the Constitution, before arbitrarily and without democratic support seeking to secede.
There was no coup, the nazis were jobbed into office by the camarilla around Hindenburg. Despite all the terrorism of the nazis and their allies, the public refused to bend. You can’t blame what happened next on the public, the nazis were brought in to abolish the public. It’s not necessary in Britain, FPTP does that. As for Catalonia, if you think that the central government is acting in good faith, you’re in a minority of one. :O)
There! You have made my point — the answer is, to any rational person, to permit an agreed vote under good conditions. And the answer for the separatists was for them, after their unofficial poll, to bring the results to the public and the Spanish government and say — here, this is incontrovertible truth that a large minority (at a minimum) of Catalans no longer want to be part of Spain. We are now setting out a five-year timetable for the Spanish Government to consider and make necessary changes to the Constitution, so as to allow for a genuinely democratic consultation on separation. We are committed to working with the Spanish Government, as well as with the Council for Democratic Elections (CDE) and the European Commission, in developing a mutually acceptable process for creating a framework for separation referenda in Spain.
What is nasty is forcing 60 percent of the population to separate without their express consent!
Very few people were prevented from voting — the low turnout, as L_ says, was above all due to anti-independence citizens boycotting an illegal and illegitimate process.
Tom, you start by claiming that the Catalan poll was in contravention of European rules on referenda yet you go on to argue in favour of minimum turnouts and something greater than 50% of votes cast being necessary to effect change. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways. The European rules that you rely on to question the legitimacy of the referendum are quite clear that a quorum and/or a super-majority should not be employed.
I’m assuming here that the “rules” that you are referring to are those of the Venice Convention, if not, would you be good enough to tell us whose “rules” you are using in order that we can judge for ourselves as to their impartiality.
Well, Jake, I would say that a referendum on everyday questions, such as entering the Euro zone should follow the 50% +1 principle you say is outlined in European rules. For referenda that affect potential changes that are essentially irreversible — for instance, the separation of a part of a country to form a new sovereign entity, then the international standard is the better option. I am, as I said, more in favour of 55% than 60% or 66%, as I would deem a 10% difference as irreversible.
Further to the Venice Convention, the “Code of Good Practice on Referendums” was developed. It specifies, inter alia, under the Rule of Law subsection to the Procedural Guarantees section that:
“1. The rule of law
26. The principle of the rule of law, which is one of the three pillars of the Council of Europe along with democracy and human rights20, applies to referendums just as it does to every other area. The principle of the sovereignty of the people allows the latter to take decisions only in accordance with the law. The use of referendums must be permitted only where it is provided for by the Constitution or a statute in conformity with the latter, and the procedural rules applicable to referendums must be followed. On the other hand, referendums must be organised where the legal system provides for them (point I.3.2.b.i).”
In addition, the Code stipulates that;
:Procedural guarantees
3.1 Organisation of the referendum by an impartial body
21. Once again, the fact that referendums do not necessarily entail a divide along party lines but may involve other political players means a choice must be offered, as regards the membership of electoral commissions, between balanced representation of the parties and balanced representation of the proposal’s supporters and opponents (point II.3.1.e).
And then there are a vast number of other procedural requirements, such as an effective system of appeal, which were not provided in the Catalan so-called referendum.
The long and the short of it is that the Catalan poll did not come close to matching the most basic democratic standards for referenda (or referendums — is that the better term?), so advocating separation on the basis of it is to directly subvert democracy. This is true EVEN though the Spanish State itself may have very serious failings in terms of its own democratic apparatus.
“The international standard foe secession is 60 or 66%” sounds Orwellian to me.
Clubbing grannies who had the temerity to participate in an unauthorised poll is fascist.
The EU including the UK turned a blind eye to an vicious assault on democracy.
50% of the electorate + 1 is my standard of democratic rectitude, which is why I voted in the referendum (at least it was a simple yes/no vote by the UK electorate) and don’t vote in British elections.
Hang on, 55% of 80% is only 44%. That’s not a majority at all. Even 60% of 80% would only be the size of the minority of Remainers. Better make it 65% of 80%, and that’s like the majority who voted for Brexit. 🙂
In any case the Catalan referendum was illegal, since the law authorising it couldn’t get a two-thirds majority in the Catalan parliament. So tough luck separatists.
Had the original entry vote been held under those auspices I would agree but they weren’t and I don’t.
That would work, Tom, where you have a totally compliant state from which the part is seceding. When the state is a monstrous bully or a sleekit, underhanded one, you can appreciate the difficulties of being able to achieve anything significant. From that perspective alone, neither Spain not the UK pass the test of fairness and disinterest in relation to self-determination as outlined in the UN Charter. Why do the inherently conservative always assume that the state has the right of it?
I hope that you do not think I am inherently conservative — rather, in line with Craig article, the central fact of international law is that it rests on state violence, and the principle of effective control. And that means that, for instance, if Britain is divisible, so is Scotland. If you would like a peaceful, well-organized, and just “divorce”, then you must produce a result that admits little or no possibility of reversal. That’s key.
The EU does not have rules for secession referendums (BTW, “referendum” is an English word; “referenda” is spurious classicism. And anyway, “referendum” in Latin is a gerund, meaning “that which is to be referred” – it is not a neutral noun, and it has no plural form in Latin).
The EU is a community of states, not of peoples; none of those states are in favour of parts of themselves seceding. Therefore the EU in general is against secession, referendum or otherwise.
Sorry, gerund, not gerundive: “to be referred”. It plays the part of an adjective in Latin.
Very helpful, these two comments — thanks.
Humanity has evolved coping strategies; adapting the cavemen principles of mace has might and the chap who wields it the hardest is always right. In fact our parliament sports a mace albeit an ornate one, and our dear leader who is never to be blamed for jack golden piano girl has her sceptre to remind us all who is the boss. So to find the notion of state founding and deriving its authority from monopolisation of violence, is a tautology but time that we were reminded about this simple fact.
Our society has been carefully worked and through selective breeding has evolved, and is now composed of immature and infantile souls with a propensity of repeating the spoon-fed “wisdom on tap” by the beeb et al. That is passed as their very own thoughts!
The unblemished record of success of the principle of the nature; “destruction of the stupid” holds, as the populace whom get to tick a box and have “freedom of choice” every few years are repeating the memes and *they have thoroughly thought about it all by themselves” and are gearing up to elect the same bunch of the super rich consiliari masquerading as our dear leaders; “doing Brexit”.
The state violence is not as benign as you have portrayed, the fact that criminal fraternity is drafted in to keep order among the great unwashed is never mentioned and or hinted at, the current stats of criminal convictions is pointing to less than three percent convictions, ie 97 percent chance of getting away with it for our entrepreneurial self-employed order keepers.
here is a quote that syncs with craigs article, from an article on boris johnson…
“Let us consider racism. Why isn’t racism funny? Why is it acceptable to make fun of someone’s big floppy hat but not to make fun of their race? Because the history of racism is a history of terror and mass murder. Now, you and I understand this quite easily. Boris Johnson does not understand this. Racism, to Boris Johnson, is a laugh.”
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/what-jolly-good-fun-it-all-is
“The media has sanitised the image of Mandela, but it is worth remembering that he was jailed not for non-violent protest, but for taking up violent resistance to white rule”
You touched a nerve with this one! I’m not sure entirely what media you are referring to, but I’m not sure how you sanitise Mandela’s image… as freedom fighters go, is there a better role model?
On what he was jailed for, it was even less than what you describe – it was, for wont of a better shorthand, for planning potential violent resistance. The charges were around recruiting guerillas, planning guerilla activities, soliciting financing for such activities, and advancing communism. Yet even there, the evidence fundamentally pointed to Mandela laying out options for escalating resistance to apartheid. The state had really zero evidence that this escalation was actually happening (apparently why they did not charge Mandela with treason), they couldn’t even link Mandela to the couple of acts of sabotage he has since admitted he was responsible for.
Always worth reading:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaspeech.html
“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”
It’s an amazing speech.
My favourite account of the Rivonia Trial is Joel Joffe’s book, “The State vs Nelson Mandela”. And the way it describes the judicial milieu, how the “establishment” set up the state to win, I find it scarily redolent when Craig writes about Julian Assange.
This article by Craig reminds me of an interesting and relevant discussion on that topic from 2012: Occupy Tactics – Violence and Legitimacy in the Occupy Movement and Beyond, between Chris Hedges and the CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective.
My own take (at present): the State has such an overwhelming power to enforce its monopoly of violence that it takes tremendously involved strategy, tactics and organization, all to be achieved just by word-of-mouth, sneakernet, windup-watches, paper and pencil, that the odds of achieving any significant goal are close to zero.
Is it better to focus on ‘turning’, for instance, the police?
So you have not heard or read about otpor?
No I hadn’t. Interesting…
Gene Sharp effectively argues that without acceptance of the authority of the power; the power is powerless. Needless to point out it was CIA sponsored stuff; designed for the “empowerment”* of people over there in third world countries.
* To put pressure on the relevant despot to yield to handing over the resources of the beleaguered country the despot was busy bossing its people around.
Mr Pilger’s description and the confirmation that JA is on remand raise some very serious worries !
Seems now would be a good time for some supra national body to take an interest ?
He should be out with a tag. But somehow I dont see pretty Awful thinking the same way.
I have no sympathy for the prison system in the UK. I believe it to be completely inhumane, and yes, a form of excessive violence, which should shame everyone who lives in the country.
What is even more shameful, though, is that those considered dangerous are not treated anywhere near as badly as a whistleblower like Assange.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50563533
State violence, I believe, is as important and timely (in a kind of timeless way) as anything else.
I find it truly an indication of barbarity in backward Britain that it is not actually taught in public schools, when it is deemed more essential to brainwash children with a sheepish awe for the history of the royals. Yuck, puke, scream!
But I don’t agree at all with the suggestion that non-violent protest of the kind that XR is engaged in, or any action that is meant to interfere with infrastructure, is a form of violence:
‘If you bodily blockade a road, a tube station or a building with the intention to prevent somebody else from physically passing through that space, that is an act of physical force, of violence. It may be a low level of violence, but violence it is.’
Saying that is unhelpful and simply redefines the term quite radically and meaninglessly, in a way that excuses the irrational behaviour and real retaliatory violence of uniformed thugs. The usual defence of white police officers causing injury or death to black bodies is that the latter were acting violently. Do we really want to define violence so broadly that it legitimates this kind of defence?
Well said Marmite.
The only ‘physical force’ being used is against the air which was occupying the space. Those who are being blocked cannot be said to have been a recipient of physical force if they are elsewhere, whatever their claims on the space may be, or however many there are.
“What is even more shameful, though, is that those considered dangerous are not treated anywhere near as badly as a whistleblower like Assange”.
Now, that reminds me powerfully of something I heard long ago…
Oh yes, that’s it:
13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
The state is not merely some instrument of repression and violence that exists in a vacuum. It’s an instrument with the prime purpose of defending a given social order, particularly its system of property. The feudal state defended the estates and privileges of the landed aristocracy and came to defend more portable private property (eg, mercantile capital) as this became more important. Underneath the facade of ‘democracy’ and the ‘rule of law’, the bourgeois state ultimately defends the property and profits of the capitalist class. But because the state is an organised instrument of repression and violence it cannot be reformed. It will only fall defending an unjust order, in bending all its efforts, ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’, against an aroused and furious population which is competently led.
What’s important is the order the state defends. The capitalist order is coming to an end, and is in dire need of replacement by a more rational order that will better our species’ chance of survival. Its state will need to be smashed and replaced by a state that defends collectivised property and rational, democratic economic planning. This can’t happen at the ballot box, and Lenin’s State and Revolution is a good place to start in understanding this basic fact of life.
Your analysis fails to account for the irreformable nature of the state short of abolition. As the Bolsheviks demonstrated in 1921, when forced to choose between the repressive power of the state and Bolshevism, the Bolsheviks chose repression. It doesn’t matter who controls the state or their intentions, they will end up using it for the same reason that ever boss class uses it – for themselves.
Except a state is needed to repress the old regime and establish the new order. Just as feudal states were overthrown in bourgeois revolutions the new state was established to oppose counterrevolution and to sweep away all the feudal dross and enact all the changes that capitalism needed. If there’s no state prepared to wage war on the old ruling class, any new social order will be swept away by counterrevolution. Have no doubt, the vanquished ruling class will wage merciless civil war to regain its lost property and privileges.
Anarchists have never overthrown capitalism, they never will, and if by some chance they ever did their renouncing of the need for a state will seal their doom. Victor Serge learnt that lesson, as did many anarchists who read State and Revolution. To repeat, the state doesn’t exist in a vacuum from the social order it upholds and therefore it cannot simply be ‘abolished’. And the soviet state was repressive from day one. For good reason.
Someone earlier in the thread takes issue with Craig Murray’s reference to the Declaration of Arbroath as “a founding document of European political thought”. In endorsing Craig’s view I would direct those interested to a (slow-burning but informative) audio lecture by Professor Alexander Broadie (sic) to the Royal Society of Edinburgh:
The Past as Propaganda in The Declaration of Arbroath
https://youtu.be/vdd1NlunAiU
Broadie argues persuasively that the incipient democratic principles enunciated in the 1320 Declaration were inspired by the thought of the great Euro-Scottish philosopher John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308). Broadie says:
“Scotus considered the question ‘What constitutes entitlement to rule?’. And he gave an answer that was remarkable…Scotus’s doctrine was that no-one has an indefeasible right to rule, for the people have a right to choose their ruler”.
(“Indefeasible” means “That which cannot be defeated, revoked, or made void”. As I write, this is suggesting to me a neologism relevant to Scotland’s current advance towards independence: “Indy-Feasible”! )
John Duns Scotus’s democratic ideas influenced another European intellectual, John Mair (Gleghornie,1467-1550) who became a highly significant professor at the University of Paris, and sought through his ‘Conciliar Movement’ principles to curb the autocratic power of the Pope within the Catholic Church.
John Mair’s lectures at the Sorbonne greatly influenced George Buchanan (Killearn, 1506-1582) who wrote ‘Art and Science of Government among the Scots’. Buchanan’s treatise had a huge impact on political thought in Britain and America. John Milton in his ‘Defence of the People of England’ wrote concerning just government: “For Scotland I refer you to Buchanan”.
Another Scottish constitutional thinker was the Presbyterian minister and St Andrews Professor, Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661). His ‘Lex, Rex’ (1644) challenged the dogma of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and fed into the justification for the American Revolution.
The foregoing historical line of Scottish constitutional thought endorses resistance against despotic government. However, from this perspective such resistance should ideally not be usurped by (lawless) private individuals, but be implemented by a legally elected secondary tier of government. In our case, Holyrood obviously fulfils that criterion vis-à-vis Westminster. Sensing this, the latter no doubt intends the imminent emasculation of the former.
Serious chronic street disorder in Scotland would almost certainly be fomented by agents provocateurs. One strongly suspects it would actually delight Whitehall, which could then plausibly (before the world) impose direct rule to restore and maintain order.
Craig’s article, I would suggest, does become overly reductive in its equating of the State with violence. I rather go with the analysis of Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) that a State has TWO given parameters. The foundational one is certainly the need to have definitive control over the given territory, hence coercion as ultimate option. But according to Dooyeweerd a true State also has a structural UPPER parameter, namely the pursuit of Justice on behalf of its citizens. Dooyeweerd discerns recognition of these two structural givens characterising a valid State as far back as Plato:
“It is remarkable that notwithstanding the universalistic identification of the ideal ‘polis’ with the whole of societal life, the inner structural principle of the State proper urges itself upon PLATO, at least in his project of the organization of the typical political functions. There are two genuinely political classes in this polis, viz. that of the philosophers, who rule according to the idea of justice, and that of the warriors, in which the State’s monopoly of the sword-power is represented. This division implicitly recognizes the two peculiar structural functions that will appear to be radical-typical for the State institution. In itself this fact is important, especially in its contrast with the modern historicist conception, which denies the State an invariable structural principle and considers it to be an absolutely variable historical phenomenon.” (Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘A New Critique of Theoretical Thought’).
” However, from this perspective such resistance should ideally not be usurped by (lawless) private individuals, but be implemented by a legally elected secondary tier of government. In our case, Holyrood obviously fulfils that criterion vis-à-vis Westminster. Sensing this, the latter no doubt intends the imminent emasculation of the former.”
What a joke. To take your last point, the “former” is already without masculinity. Holyrood was intended to contain the urges of Scots who wanted to free themselves from the UK cage, and it has. Holyrood will be dismantled by the people when they wake up to this crap, not by Westminster which has every interest in keeping the charade going.
Everything said above about Holyrood could almost be said about Sturgeon’s SNP. If the SNP didn’t exist, the cowardly intellectuals who sit back worrying about people power now would be celebrating it in a country that was free.
I say it in all seriousness; if the SNP didn’t exist as a form of containment, the British state would need to invent it. Just today the headline in a BBC article tells us Sturgeon doesn’t rule anything out and then you read it and she basically rules out everything, except some flimsy pish about a court case at some distant point in an imagined future.
If Brexit and Boris are clouds, the silver lining is that they will make life in Scotland so miserable that people will revert to the age-old tried and tested methods of dealing with authoritarian wankers that go too far.
We really don’t need big words, intellectual cowards, declarations of Arbroath, or referenda. We need the opposite; simple human beings who act like human beings and know when enough is enough.
Incidentally, I can’t think of one example of a revolution of any sort (assuming that’s what you are talking about) that was conjured up by intellectuals anywhere. We have plenty of examples of revolutions and mass protests being hijacked by left wing intellectuals and others, after they have spontaneously erupted, but in most cases the cadres are late to the party — actually, in most cases they dutifully tell people that a party is a bad idea, until it goes ahead, and then they pretend they were for it all along.
The Scottish people are predisposed to put up with too much shit. Once they go, though, once they say enough is enough, they go all in. And I wouldn’t recommend anyone trying to get in the way of that.
What a fabulous commentary Fearghas, a lot of history concisely presented.
I think that late great english sage of our times updated it eloquently :
Tony Benn beinh a tireless promoter of a power-to-the-people ethic that placed its faith in the great mass of humanity rather than billionaires, media moguls and political powerbrokers.’
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
“Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no one with power likes democracy,” he would continue. “And that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it—including you and me, here and now”
https://www.thenation.com/article/tony-benn-and-five-essential-questions-democracy/
It’s not fabulous. I’m fabulous, this is junk.
Ab Fab – fabulous?
Crying wolf – fabulous?
Fairytale- fabulous?
I need to work on my sarc!
?
Lol okay
@Fearghas – You could have spent your time much more usefully than building up a Whiggish notion of some kind of true thread of good philosophy that has extended down through the centuries among certain wise men in the privileged part of society. That kind of approach is a complete turnoff for those who want to overthrow exploitation, including for those among them who enjoy theoretical critique, and it always has been – a complete an utter turnoff, a taking of the piss.
Yeah, that Marx, such a soppy privileged intellectual. The fashionable populist memes run deep.
That this article is written by a servant of the state shines through in almost every word written.
It is true that historically the state assumes for itself the monopoly use of violence and that this violence, or threat of violence, can be used for both good and evil.
However the state has morphed into a venal and cowardly organism. Today it seeks to decry the use of its own violence as it wraps itself around a morally vacuous paradigm of social justice. So at one level we politicians issue orders to slaughter without compunction – and and avoid any legal accountability for its own orders, preferring instead the legal forensic examination of of those who carry out its orders.
At another level we see the state recoiling from judicial execution and instead preferring all manner of random and uncontrollable forms of extra judicial execution. A man is sentenced to 16 years in prison and released after 8 years in the name of tolerance, fairness and empathy. He is then shot down on the street by law enforcement – thus deprived of any form of due process. The proximate justification for such extra judicial execution is itself the extra judicial execution of his victims.
This smack of nothing more than abject cowardice. All societies have the death penalty. The only question is whether that will be exercised by the state with judicial oversight or exercised both the the state and by rogue actors absent judicial oversight.
” A man is sentenced to 16 years in prison and released after 8 years in the name of tolerance, fairness and empathy. He is then shot down on the street by law enforcement – thus deprived of any form of due process. The proximate justification for such extra judicial execution is itself the extra judicial execution of his victims.”
There’s nothing contradictory or hypocritical in that.
It is manifestly both contradictory and hypocritical.
You have a state that claims that it does not consider the death penalty to be appropriate. A main argument deployed to support this position is the risk of executing people who are later determined to be innocent.
Only last week 2 random people were effectively executed on the streets of London, and a third criminal was executed in an extra judicial manner.
What then is the argument for not having judicial execution enshrined into law? is it better to execute criminals in the full knowledge that mistakes will be made because no system is error proof, or is it better to adopt policies that are certain to result in the random executions of random citizens?
Take a look at media attention attaching to Vietnamese citizens found dead in a lorry. Compare that with the complete disinterest in the case of Quyen Ngoc Nguyen – a young girl murdered by two men previously convicted of murder, but left free to roam the streets and murder again by the judicial system.
Why so anguished about the deaths of two (or three) people in a state which has inflicted about 130,000 deaths through class war and organises 150,000 exterminations a year? Infrastructure trumps superstructure.
All the usual hallmarks of someone with a weak argument are contained in that response.
There’s a difference between a death sentence and killing in self defence.
I repeat, there’s nothing contradictory in killing someone who is attempting to murder you and other people, and it certainly doesn’t mean we have introduced the death penalty.
Had the police not shot the guy on the bridge, you’d be on saying they should have and claiming some other sort of conspiracy of hypocrites is in place.
@hatuey
There is nothing contradicatory or hypocritical
It’s just wrong
Eye for an eye is an easy sell these days though.
The use of lethal force in the defence of one’s own or another’s life, and if proportionate to the circumstances, is entirely legal and can, in my opinion anyway, also be morally justified.
In this situation, we had a mentally ill individual embarked on a spree of indiscriminate murder – he was not going to listen to reasoned argument and clearly he was not going to participate in “due process”. Yes, he had been subdued by passers-by before the police arrived on the scene, but do not forget that he was wearing an imitation suicide vest. In the phone footage of the shooting he is clearly seen lifting his shirt up to expose this. The armed officer did exactly what he was trained to do in the circumstances, however distasteful you may find it. That same officer will also have to live the rest of his life in the full knowledge of his actions. Would you have allowed Usman to continue murdering other people’s wives and children just so that your own conscience remained clear? I’m afraid your argument is both intellectually and morally bankrupt and you need to consider that it may, in fact, be you who is suffering from abject cowardice.
As a postscript, and to challenge Craig’s assertion that “The State” holds the monopoly on violence, I refer you to the Criminal Law Act 1967 3(1) “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime…”
Obviously, “reasonable” is open to interpretation in some circumstances and, equally obviously, if the force is directed against a servant of the state intent on committing a crime we know how the state will interpret it (unreasonable).
The state, or rather the individuals who administer it, may currently hold a virtual monopoly on “legal” violence, but that is only because they also control the law. This state, like all others before it, will also disappear when enough people desire it and are prepared to act on that desire.
And so we end, with your warped logic, eventually, with a ‘police force’ as in the USA…
As I wrote in another comment, quoting Alfred Noyes: ‘It would be a tragedy, if the very thing we are fighting against is being foisted upon us under another name’ (1942).
You either didn’t read all of my comment, or you didn’t understand it.
What we end up with in the case of this “state”, as in all previous cases when the state overreaches itself, is the end of the state.
You do realise that countries, “states”, regimes, whatever you want to call them, are collective hallucinations? They do not exist except in our minds and with our agreement. There might be symbols and physical manifestations – border checkpoints, police forces etc. but these are all creations of actual physical people and can, therefore, be destroyed by actual physical people.
The security of any “state” decreases in inverse proportion to the fair distribution of power, wealth and resources.
A hypothetical state where everyone enjoyed equal power and wealth would be infinitely secure.
The unfettered transfer of wealth from the many to the increasingly few that we are witnessing today can only end one way. Do not forget that police forces and armies are composed of people just like you and me (excepting a few psychopaths, naturally) They go along with the “state” so long as it is in their interest to do so. When enough people have nothing left to lose, those police forces and armies will evaporate like mist, as they always have.
Boris Johnson tears into Donald Trump, accuses him of “playing the game of the terrorists”, calls him “stupefyingly ignorant”, and says he is “unfit” to be president of the US. Massive hat tip to whoever projected this clip onto the Big Ben tower at the Houses of Parliament.
is that supposed to be quality promo for the upcoming election?? non uk person here..
@N_
Boris Johnson: “stupefying ignorance .. unfit…”
There’s ‘projection’ by the square yard going on here.
And in 1995 Boris Johnson called for patients to be charged to use the NHS.
There’s more from a Johnson speech in the House of Commons in 2002, and from his article in the Torygraph the same year: “Labour still believes (…) that the NHS is the religion of the British people (…) Well, if the NHS is the religion of the British people, it is keeping them in relative darkness and squalor.”
Jonathan Ashworth is right: “These revelations are coming thick and fast”.
“Boris Johnson tears into Donald Trump, accuses him of “playing the game of the terrorists”, calls him “stupefyingly ignorant”, and says he is “unfit” to be president of the US”.
That’s very inconsistent!
After all, it’s the US government that has been the chief creator and supporter of global terrorism for the past 50 years. So duh, yes the US President does “play the game of the terrorists”. Except that it’s actually the terrorists who dance to his string-pulling.
As for “stupefyingly ignorant”, isn’t that a basic job requirement? No one remotely intelligent or educated could even contemplate filling such a post: his conscience would burn him to ashes.
Britain might well exercise a monopoly of violence over it’s own citizens but by belonging to NATO or the EU it cedes it’s legal duty not to attack other states militarily to the machinations of other powers such as US neocons and islamophobic Zionism.
What’s clear in this election is that the British people do not want to be run by either NATO or the EU, ,but Jeremy Corbyn is unable to Express that opinion in the corporate media. It’s a valid point Craig makes . Russia has quelled a million London Bridges every day in Syria by opposing the Usukis led proxies of al QA’ida which Cameron installed in Libya. We did not vote for Cameron to wreck Libya. As a regular traveller to the other side of Syria I think cameron should be tried for treason for putting the interests of Israel and the US in front of British interests.
I can see how the sense of entitlement of a young Christian graduate rehabilitation worker might infuriate a disaffected Muslim. The British state tsunamis the Muslim counties with terror and then has the gross impertinence to claim the moral high ground. Red rag to a bull. That’s not going to be helped by re-electing the ultra Zionist cabinet of the Oaf.
There’s something about academia that is unable to source the intellect of the heart , the miseries of refugees in winter caused by our government, while it labels Islamists as terrorists.
David Csmeron and William Hague are terrorists, as indeed are the Blarite Brownite majority of the Labour party.
The salafi mosques echo the labelling of the media.
None of these feel the slightest sense of responsibility for the enormity of Syria and Libya. In fact the sense of responsibility for catastrophe is the inverse of the responsibility they should feel. As usual by ignoring stuff we manage to blame the other.
cameron did nothing different then blair did, and it won’t be any different under johnson either.. hopefully the people of the uk see all this.
You are Both Right and Wrong on that james..
Blair ( Blier ) Started it with Bush..Cheney. Ect.
Then Obama / Clinton Destroyed Beautiful Libya
Then Trump , UK, France Bombed Beautiful Syria..
Now they want Nuke Beautiful Iran
Are that fucking crazy ?
All based on LIES
Then there’s the ongoing Genocides we Ignore.. YEMEM – Great for some UK politician’s..Palestine Too.
Then CAMERON / Obama / Clinton Destroyed Beautiful Libya
A Old Guy Protesting Johnson.. Forcefully..And violently held back.. By an Oriental Body guard.. The protester was 10’s of meters away from BOJO at this point…And the Body Guard..Tens of meters away from his own party / Group.. Yet went walking off Deadly Stony cold.. This was assault..and what did the Police do?? They Standing Close by Ignored the assault..Grabbed the old Chap away instead… I could tell from the Body Language.. That was one Deadly Expert Body guard..one without Honor.. I would add.. Just What The Fuck
And Here in Scotland Oor Nicola goes into Large Crowds ( Thats something the Tories only dream of ) On Her Own Every Day…Talking to everyone..Taking selfies… And only a few weeks ago, over 20,000 of us Jammed Glasgow.. Shutting the Roads to hear Nicola Speak. I would have added, In Scotland, it’s the Stuff of Tory, Lab, LibDem Dreams.. Corbyn is the only one Down South that gets large crowds.
I think Craig’s Post on these maters..are More than Just a Warning..
Most Readers, and commenters on Craig’s Blog are Woken / wakening… How do we awake the rest of the population.. Counter the bbC / Sky ect
The monopoly of violence claimed by the state is justified on the grounds that the same state defends its citizens from external and internal threats. That is the principle. The principle to which the actions of the state should be held to account.
Neither external nor internal threats are as clear as they might seem. External threat obviously includes attacks or invasion. But it also includes cutting off water or food supplies. This principle has been extended and frequently abused to include energy supplies. Wars are also often complex and fought in alliances. Neutral countries can be dragged into wars, because they provide the means by which an attacked nation can defend itself. Internal threats obviously include violence against the person. Disagreements normally arise over the threat to private property. Again there is an overlap between threats to the person and to property. Burglary without violence is a theft of property. However, the intrusion into the sanctuary of a home has major psychological effects on the victim that last much longer than the bruises from a street mugging (which may also leave psychological wounds).
Most people in the UK have been spoilt relative to most countries in the world. Not only has the external threats over the last 74 years been limited to terrorism but most parts of the UK are relatively crime free. As a people we have not had to consider the questions concerning the state and the monopoly of violence. The media prohibit the discussion of to what extent ‘Islamic’ violence is a blowback from the wars in the Middle East. Absent from both sides of the Brexit debate has been any discussion of the extent to which Britain needs military alliances. The Leavers have not admitted that Britain would be increasingly vulnerable to blackmail by the US. The Remainers lied about plans for an EU army because they did not want to answer questions about who would decide whether or not to deploy the armed forces in war. Most British people also have no experience of a country where the police force offers no protection to the citizens. They do not know the violence to which ordinary citizens will resort to protect themselves from crime or the criminals from whom they will accept protection.
One final point about Catalonia. The EU failed to condemn the violence by the Spanish state, because Spain is its poster nation. Spanish support for the EU is strong because membership of the EU helped drag Spain out of the hangovers of dictatorship. It is ironic then that Spain should perpetrate and the EU condone police violence of which El Generalissimo would have been proud. The EU will increasingly assume the right to a monopoly of violence as it assumes other powers from its member states.
I agree, actions must be consistent with the original purpose.
Otherwise, it’s similar to how I decide to learn Qigong gymnastics 🙂
After watching inspirational videos, I decide that for a good distribution of Qi energy, I definitely need green tea, and for it I certainly need a traditional Chinese bowl, and I should also try Chinese food, and I learn to eat with chopsticks … And in a while, I find I’ve gained a couple more pounds, but wait, the goal was to build a more flexible and healthy body! And I think to myself WTF what’s wrong with that Vital Energy of Qi?
Or you could simply do 15 minutes standing stake every day, then after a few years the qi will prove there’s nothing wrong with it. It’ll blow through the roof of your head. Chuckle.
So, my grandma was right when she said “trust your heart” 🙂 Now I see that, unconsciously choosing the next portion of fried rice vs. the tedious daily exercises, I saved my head!
Chris Barclay
” The EU will increasingly assume the right to a monopoly of violence as it assumes other powers from its member states.”
The last time I said something along those lines on CM blog it was mod-zapped. Of course in politics silence and lies are necessary in order to maintain the selected narrative. There is racism in British society and there is also impatience with different cultures imposed from above . We aren’t mushrooms. Mrs May decided entirely unilaterally that the Brexit result was from the latter, i.e. British politicians had gone too far with immigration without obtaining popular consent. Diversity has helped this society from being extremely insular to one in which for example I have been able to enter and practice Islam. Thatcherism has enabled me to leave self-employment where under Universal Credit people who choose to be self=employed are hammered hard and have their benefits stopped. One has to take the rough with the smooth. I now am a Vicar of Bray capitalist, ready to flip as soon as Labour get power.
In this election we are being asked to make a choice between “Thatcherism on steroids” which includes threats to the NHS, and on the other hand a real end to austerity from Labour. It’s obvious that it was Thatcherism on steroids that created the 2007 financial meltdown so that solves that problem.
Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Electorate fear EU domination, while the Celtic and other regions farthest from London see a recycling of wealth through the EU which will be removed completely after we leave the EU. London hates its EU contributions being spent on the “undeserving” extremities of the body politic. ‘ If the hands and toes get frostbite what difference does it make to us?’ They ask
If the Oaves win power, Johnson and Trump, there is a real possibility that those regional extremities will have to endure intolerable pain, even more intolerable than austerity. That is why imho Jeremy Corbyn is reluctant to choose between Leaving and Remaining in the EU, because he cares about the body politics toes and ears. We’ve made our point to the EU that we won’t submit without a fight to their Federal power, but we shouldn’t cast our clouts even after May is out. We should keep our EU winter woollies on, because the Oaves will instruct the surgeons to cut off the bits that get no circulation. It’s a difficult choice, between giving the right of monopoly of violence to the EU, or keeping it with the billionaire Oaves.
Craig’s analysis in this post is a mind-changer.
A very good piece by Murray. Well worth the time.The thing about violence but more by the implied threat of it is that it works, in both the the animal kingdom and the human one, we are hard wired to comply to avoid it. Yet most never indulge in it. This is the essence of ‘civilization’, a strange dichotomy.
Memo to Newsnight: Time to put Mark Urban out to pasture; he’s starting to hallucinate.
Pink Russian elephants everywhere.
No hallucination. No mistake. Urban and his like are doing exactly what they are paid to do: imposed The Narrative that everyone is obliged to accept – unless they want to become outcasts.
A mistake intelligent, educated people usually make is to see these political arguments as debates based on facts, figures and logic. (And conducted with goodwill, under Robert’s Rules of Order).
They ain’t.
What is actually happening is that the Powers That Be are using every dirty trick in the book to get their way, which depends critically on keeping the population misinformed about everything that matters.
To do this, their most powerful weapon is the primate mind. When properly stimulated, all higher primates (except perhaps the solitary orang-utan) are powerfully compelled to cling together in an outward-facing group.
Everyone in the group is a friend; everyone outside the groups is an enemy. And the group needs one or more leaders. You can recognise them by their ultra-dominant behaviour, the confident way they give orders, and their assumption that they have an inborn right to command. (Also the way they ruthlessly beat up – or kill – anyone who disobeys, obstructs, questions or even disrespects them).
Sound familiar so far? Well, that is exactly how chimps and baboons behave – and, take my word for it, human beings are just the same.
So what we want to treat as a civilised, intelligent, informed debate is really a simple yes-or-no question.
“Do you choose to be a member in good standing of our in-group, or not? If so, you must swear allegiance, obey all commands without hesitation or thought, and – above all – believe whatever you are told, however absurd. The penalty for not doing any of this is to be cast into outer darkness beyond the protection of the group”.
So when someone says that Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson or Donald Trump (or anyone else) is a Russian agent, what they are really telling you is ‘That person is not a member of our group. He is, in fact, a spy for the enemy group. KILL HIM!!!’”
Though linking the violence of the state to Scottish independence is somewhat odd. If Scotland breaks away from the UK the penalty will not be one of violence other than what some of the frustrated Scots might inflict upon themselves.
The effect will be economic, the EU will take years to adopt Scotland if it ever does. And the penalty will probably be a dramatic reduction in trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK.. The same penalty that the Uk is already paying for all its talk of leaving the EU.
The UK state is one of the least violent countries in the world, well at least to its own people.
“The UK state is one of the least violent in the world, at least to its own people”
The domestic victims of UK state violent have been picked off on the quiet. But they number in the tens of thousands and have suffered more than just cuts and bruises.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html
“the EU will take years to adopt Scotland if it ever does.”
I don’t think the Scots on this blog would agree with that. I can’t see why it couldn’t go quite rapidly.
One of the major instigators of superstate violence, a projection of US state power and violence is holding a major show in London in the middle of an election campaign. Nobody seems to think that this is a major interference with a supposedly democratic process. The direct interference by our supposed friends and allies is accepted but the supposed ‘malign interference’ by Russia is invented and hyped for the sake of distraction.
Johnson said this earlier today when bigging up NATO in Watford. ‘Nobody will start a war’.
He seems to have forgotten about Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Advance notice of his speech seems to have been given to the media by CCHQ.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-03/nato-summit-2019-watford-boris-johnson-tell-nato-leaders-one-for-all-all-for-one/
We also heard ‘we are all in this together’ from. The old ones are the best Boris (and Cummings).
.
‘Johnson said this earlier today when bigging up NATO in Watford. ‘Nobody will start a war’.
‘He seems to have forgotten about Iraq, Libya and Syria’.
Those weren’t wars, in the official parlance. You see, it’s only a war if a lot of OUR people get killed. (A lot of severely wounded are acceptable, as they can be overlooked).
Although literally millions of Asians and Africans were killed, Washington and hence London does not recognise them as wars because there was no risk or danger to us – and we are the only ones who matter.
You are correct.
It was grim to see all of the NATO gangsters in charge lined up for their photo op. Her Maj was squeezed in next to Boris.
https://images.app.goo.gl/3xvFGukfMLbYTGJH7
Is that Stoltenberg on her right? The secretary to the warmongers.
The royal arms salesman seems to have been hidden away.
The guy is delusional and has no insight into his self/west centred pronouncements:
He said: “Seventy years on, we are rock solid in our commitment to Nato and to the giant shield of solidarity that now protects 29 countries and nearly a billion people [the rest of mankind who or not so protected do not matter} . The fact that we live in peace today [Ignoring the fact that the ME is a mess due to us, and that we destroyed Libya and other countries] demonstrates the power of the simple proposition at the heart of this alliance: that for as long as we stand together, no-one could hope to defeat us – and therefore no-one will start a war [nobody else will start a war against this belligerent alliance].”
The North AMERICAN Terrorist Organisation.
I fundamentally disagree from the start: “The state rests its power on a monopoly of violence” . The state IS GIVEN the monopoly of violence, it’s agreed, and must be so, IMPO, to enforce the social pact respect, i.e. the majority voluntary reduction in individual freedom in exchange for social, personal and economic protection; but its power doesn’t rest on it, its power rest on the social pact. When the state power rest on a monopoly of violence deprived of the agreed social pact basement, it is because the pact has been broken, or was never there, and the seeds of a more or less-violent popular revolt are just in waiting to germinate.
‘IMPO’…?
Well said Craig Murray. A timely reminder before the pantomime Brexit election begins. I hope that all households in Scotland will be ordering yellow vests from Santa for Xmas.
When we have got to a stage where one state is accused of trying to interfere in another’s “democratic” election…while the leader of another state is here actually interfering with that election…and none of our free press wants to point this out, you know society and buy extension humanity is fucked.
The narrative is set…and dissenting voices will be sent to the furthest corners of the web. This fin de siecle i find myself slipping into this last fortnight is deep.
In the latest example of direct action, XR activists dressed as bees have superglued themselves to the LibDem battlebus (the electric one). They are now a captive audience and are being addressed by Jo Swinson (have they really thought that one through?). Now that’s dedication, I’d pour molten lead into my lug holes before I’d listen to the deranged wittering of Swinson.
“The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.”
― Noam Chomsky
Or quangos, or privatized “services”…
…or Military alliances like NATO and unelected governments like the EU who routinely disregard referenda dissenting from their dictates.
As long as most citizens believe in the ideas that justify global capitalism, the private and state institutions that serve our corporate masters are unassailable. When these ideas are shattered, the institutions that buttress the ruling class deflate and collapse. The battle of ideas is percolating below the surface. It is a battle the corporate state is steadily losing. An increasing number of people are getting it. They know that we have been stripped of political power. They recognize that we have been shorn of our most basic and cherished civil liberties, and live under the gaze of the most intrusive security and surveillance apparatus in human history. Half the country lives in poverty. Many of the rest of us, if the corporate state is not overthrown, will join them. These truths are no longer hidden.
Revolution usually erupts over events that would, in normal circumstances, be considered meaningless or minor acts of injustice by the state. But once the tinder of revolt has piled up, an insignificant spark easily ignites popular rebellion. No person or movement can ignite this tinder. No one knows where or when the eruption will take place. No one knows the form it will take. But it is certain now that a popular revolt is coming. The refusal by the corporate state to address even the minimal grievances of the citizenry, along with the abject failure to remedy the mounting state repression, the chronic unemployment and underemployment, the massive debt peonage, and the loss of hope and widespread despair, means that blowback is inevitable. Chris Hedges Edited.
There are many threats to the established social order but I agree, we’re seeing numerous and various attempts by the state to re-assert its authority, all of which are likely to make the problem worse, not better. I’m finding this election quite boring and have no intention of voting but from a macropolitical perspective what’s going on is fascinating.
That being said, I am still waiting for a mainstream politician to admit that the party is over, there’s hardly any growth left in the system and that we need a radically different approach to economics than GDP growth if we’re going to survive this century with our civilisation intact. But instead we’re being offered the old school choice between Keynesian and Friedmanite policies…
Lol. Thanks for at least attempting to be honest.
Maybe you can explain for the little people how you can at once find the election boring but at the same time find it fascinating.
While you’re at it, maybe you can explain why you think the party is over and that there’s hardly any growth left in the system when the party system has never required growth.
We can guess you want to change the economy but you don’t suggest an alternative. There’s a lot of this going around these days — “we are all going to die unless we do something that I refuse to explain”.
Nothing. Not one meaningful point. Half the country is dependent on food banks and all you seem to be worried about is underlining your superiority.
The whole Assange case stinks, from the ludicrous Swedish rape accusations onwards. On the other hand I would in general be reluctant to let much rest on the uncorroborated word of Pilger. Presumably, though, there is decent evidence that the thrust of what he says is, in this instance, true?
If I were to win next week’s General Election I’d let Assange go. He’s been punished quite enough for evading the courts. Anyway we’d need the space for the released terrorists who will presumably be re-incarcerated.
The time will shortly come, when the public will see the glaring juxtaposition of a terrorist given another chance, let out of prison early to kill more people, while Julian Assange is kept in Belmarsh for being innocent, mostly in his cell.
The public cannot be fooled for ever.
Yes, Khan was shot down in the street, by State Actors,
you might think his accomplices are not to be uncovered.
When a suicide bomber puts on a suicide vest, another person carefully straps them in,
is it the same with a Fake suicide vest, perhaps, depends how it was constructed, as the State now has that vest, they will be able to determine, if he needed somebody to strap him in.
Now having knives Gorrila taped to both arms/hands, that would be devilish hard to do, without an accomplice.
So how many accomplices did Khan have.
If he had been wearing the Fake suicide vest as he entered Fishmonger’s Hall, that would have been self evident and he would have been arrested, as it would surely have gone counter to his licence.
So, did he have his terror stuff in a large bag, almost certainly not, bags would have been searched.
This spells out the third option, an accomplice brought the stuff into Fishmonger’s and secreted it, probably in the days before the events.
An accomplice strapped him into the vest, then an accomplice taped the blades to his arms/hands.
In short,
Khan was shot dead, by the State, in the street, he can no longer tell why he did it or who he did it with.
Having re-read the piece several times, I conclude that Craig Murray has written yet again a pamphlet worthy of any in history.
That the State any state – from the remotest village in ancient history through to all forms now – is violence!
Resistance to state violence is also violence.
Gandhi and Mandela are equivalent.
The former took on the far away empire, the latter the remanent of that far away empire.
Julian Assange has taken on the CENTRE of that remenant empire – he is subjected to the same punishment. Infact instead of the two venerable giants, he reminds me more if the fate of Steve Biko – i hope that he is not martyred in the same way, there will be hell to pay if he is.
“that would have been self evident”: unless he’d buttoned a jacket over it.
“he would have been arrested”: by whom?
“bags would have been searched”: why assume that?
Does anyone think that Trump is good for Boris?
The more I look at this election the more I think Boris is doing a Hillary.
Throwing it!
That whole Trump nexus, the global one, had a good run for a while, but now seems to be on the wane.
It’s difficult to make sense of anything right now. They don’t want you to make sense of it.
The British State and MSM have basically switched sides on Trump and Brexit. It’s pretty embarrassing for them, they need to paper over all the nasty stuff they said (along with Boris) about Trump. The same thing is happening with Brexit — most of the old establishment and BBC were totally opposed to Brexit just a year or two ago; now they love it.
They’ve changed because their system of power, privilege, and wealth is threatened by the possibility that ordinary people might come out of this election with better living standards and enough to eat. They detest poor people and basically refuse to pay one penny towards feeding them. For those reasons, Corbyn’s manifesto scares the life out of them.
The British caste system is as strong and cruel as anything you will find in India or anywhere.
“For the last four decades, that framework has been deliberately fine-tuned to enable the massive accumulation of wealth by a very small minority and to reduce the access to share of economic resource by the broad mass of the people.” If people believe that XR and the GND is ‘not’ about prosperity and freedom for a minority of parasites, then they are deluded. That’s if they ‘really’ believe. Otherwise, Those who push that crap are deluding others.
If Craig is implying that the violent protesters, NED-inspired, in Hong Kong are okay, he so loses me.
@Arby. I’m with you. Thanks for the heads-up regarding the National Endowment for Democracy in HK. That doesn’t surprise me. NED activity in many countries has long been my go-to point of reference for indicating that there is no profound antagonism among the US Democratic Party, the US Republican Party, and the CIA, three organisations which work together in the NED to advance the interests of US big business.
This blog sometimes descends to the cackpit when fantasising about and attempting to build a liberal philosophical argument for a xenophobic nationalistic Munich Beer Hall Putsch type event in Edinburgh. There is no reasoning with that kind of “thought”.
Acknowledged.
Well I know what I’m doing in XR, and it has nothing to do with “massive accumulation of wealth by a very small minority”. There’s not going to be any fucking wealth unless we take drastic action urgently. From seven senior scientists, published in Nature:
– If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem.
– Act now
– In our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute (see ‘Emergency: do the maths’).
– Atmospheric CO2 is already at levels last seen around four million years ago, in the Pliocene epoch. It is rapidly heading towards levels last seen some 50 million years ago — in the Eocene — when temperatures were up to 14 °C higher than they were in pre-industrial times. It is challenging for climate models to simulate such past ‘hothouse’ Earth states. One possible explanation is that the models have been missing a key tipping point: a cloud-resolving model published this year suggests that the abrupt break-up of stratocumulus cloud above about 1,200 parts per million of CO2 could have resulted in roughly 8 °C of global warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
Maybe some serious Quantitative Easing is called for.
Capitalism can’t survive. If we fail to dismantle it voluntarily, it will be destroyed by famine and the consequent violence.
Once you accept the right of the state to use violence then you accept they can use it anytime. Violence is always wrong unless it is in self defence. Since the state can only exist through violence it is an immoral creation. Either you do not support violence as a means to an end and therefore do not support the existence of the state or you do support violence as a means to an end and are therefore immoral.
If you look beyond the state you will realise that the relation of private property that the state exists to protect is itself based on violence, the violence of privative appropriation. It is violence that forces the majority of the population to engage in wage labour and use money.
But that would be getting close to understanding what exploitative society is all about, rather than spouting liberal cant to convey a desire for a Beer Hall Putsch by an extreme nationalistic minority party on Princes Street, which is where the disgraceful header article here is coming from.
Please save me from liberal philosophising about the “individual” and the “state”. There is no profound understanding there of social conditions and how they do and might change.