Gordon Fitch wrote:
> Gordon Fitch wrote:
> > >Obviously the bourgeoisie don't need the death penalty to
> > >remain in power.
>
> Doug Henwood:
> > Dunno about that. Part of the U.S. international strategy has been a
> > willingness to use extravagant levels of force to make a point -
> > closely related to Henry Kissinger's "madman in the White House"
> > negotiation strategy. Why not use the same strategy at home?
>
> I thought the "madman in the White House" thing was targeted
> against supposedly rational regimes in a game-theoretical
> manner; that is, one tries to hinder one's adversaries'
> strategic calculations by introducing the possibility that
> one's own behavior may be or become irrational.
The doggedness with which the ruling class holds on to the death penalty in the U.S. does call for thought. Abstractly, Gordon seems correct: it's not needed. But abstractly neither is racism or sexism "needed." (The question of what capitalism "needs" can get pretty opaque.)
But insofar as in actual u.s. capitalism the radical subordination of black people *is* needed, then violence needs to be a fairly core part of the social order. (This is all very speculative here.) Police forces in any nation are apt to be fairly nasty, but they do seem particularly so in the U.S. -- and I would think that is linked to the importance of racism in u.s. history. Racism, it might be argued, *requires* lynch law to maintain it -- but lynch law works best if it is legal (death penalty) or semi-legal (what is euphemistically called "police brutality.")
And we must of course maintain the morale of the police -- which in turn requires giving them a pretty free hand to brutalize at least part of the population. The deputies who recently quite carefully and deliberately kicked a prisoner to death in an anteroom of a courtroom in Chicago have been charged with first degree murder -- but are also out on bail!!!!
Carrol