The article that follows makes a number of points that are worth emphasising. In a nutshell, "fascism is not a central political choice of the [modern] state". Democracy with its "consensual" style of rule (and other tools) is a much better fit to a consumer based economic system that recuperates threats by integrating the contesting subjects within its consumption patterns, than the brute force of the fascists/neo-nazis. A digression on words: In the heading I bracket "parliamentary" even though the article itself speaks about democracy in an unqualified manner. For many writing within the anti-authoritarian tradition, parliamentary democracy is not democracy. Yet the argument has been made, and presumably this is also the position of this article, that we need to take words and terms in their current meaning. Some argue that even the word "revolution" has lost its meaning given it's multiple and mostly vapid uses (revolution in vacuum cleaners, in tick preventative medication for dogs, etc). This was a reason why Castoriadis, for example, introduced the term "automomy" in place of "socialism". But then the term autonomy has been maligned just the same. Democracy too has become such a word too. Liberals, conservatives, social-democrats, not to speak of anarchists too, all speak of democracy, each giving the word a very distinct meaning. What should be kept in mind, though, is that the term actually has a literal meaning present in its origins and which permits a very precise interpretation: the power of the people where people is not understood as an abstraction, its representation and/or a body separated off from it and acting for and against it. But returning back to the main argument of the article, the State itself, its modern version, has changed from what was a"social-democratic", welfare state, into one focused on punishment, repression and delimiting citizenship. Thus while retaining the semblance of democratic decision making (i.e. rights and voting) it is moving away from the role of "protecting its citizens from the 'abstract' forces of a global economy", which is what is generally referred to as a the "neo-liberal" state. This is consistent with the ideologues of neo-liberalism that promote reducing the economic role of the state (both as employer and redistributor of wealth) and focusing increasingly on its policing functions. And while neo-nazis have been useful at times, the policing functions of the state can do the work that for the most part was in the past (and still tried today) carried out by neo-nazis (racism, xenophobia etc). And in the Greek reality, neo-nazis have drawn their support from right-wing supporters (Golden Dawn, as the article explains, reacts against the "troika" on nationalist grounds, align with the neo-liberal forces and Greek mega-capitalists by supporting specific neo-liberal measures, and at the same time scape-goating the immigrants). But as the article states, "the strengthening and the development of the Golden Dawn started undermining its usefulness". The result has been to take the opportunity presented and wipe them away.
Continue reading →
Political dissidence made criminal: Resistance from spain
Before State interdiction and oppression, how can and should resistance and opposition proceed? If public protest risks falling into spectacular re-appropriation, should the streets then be left to the authorities of pacification? And if protest is necessary, how can it be pursued without falling into the traps set by State authorities and corporate media sedation, most notably the trap of violence?
Continue reading →