Marable weighs in

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Sat Nov 10 21:42:08 PST 2001


Gordon Fitch wrote:
>> On the other hand, by the _argumentum_ad_odorem_, Art and I
>> should be more concerned with the NYPD, because they're much
>> closer at hand and we're more likely to be killed by them,
>> if they're popping off certain classes of citizens, than by
>> a Salvadorean death squad. (My approach is to analyze the
>> situation materialistically, rather than moralize.) The
>> _spirit_ of the killings is probably the same, no?

Luke Weiger:
> You're more likely to be killed by any one of your significant others, as
> well. Do they constitute a "death squad" worthy of great concern? As for
> your question (apparently rhetorical) about the "spirit" of the killings,
> the answer is absolutely not. The one is a mass concerted effort to
> eradicate dissent, and the other a small collection of abuses of power and
> the occasional instance of self-defense.

Gordon:
> >On the contrary, both the death squads and the more random
> >killings of the NYPD stem from the same source, the ideology
> >of slavery as modified by liberalism-capitalism, whereas the
> >motivations for significant-other killings are much more
> >variegated (although some of them must fall in the same
> >category). If you don't see this right away, you're probably
> >forgetting for a moment that configuations of property, public
> >order and so forth are ideologically defined, constructed and
> >imposed. What is to be brought forth is the domination of
> >Capital; the differences between El Salvador and Bedford-
> >Stuyvesant lie in the accidents of circumstance, not the
> >_telos_, which is total, universal and unquestioned.
> >

Justin Schwartz:
> As the house liberal, I take exception to this snipe against liberalism.
> Liberalism brought us the Rights of Man, the Bill of Rights and the
> Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendents, due process, civil rights, and equal
> protection. It opposes arbitrary killings or arbitarry deprivations of any
> sort.

But not to and in its internal and external colonies. Curious, ain't it? Maybe there's less to this Rights of Man thing than meets the eye. It doesn't seem to prohibit the continual wars, invasions, occupations, raids, arrests, sweeps, roundups, bombings, blockades and so forth of which probably no decade of capitalism has been missing a significant example. We're certainly not missing any examples this week. It's a very curious paradox: on the one hand, we have these systems, liberalism and capitalism, in which everyone or at least big White guys are spoze be able to live in peace and freedom, yet when we look around we see engines of death and destruction whose volume, tempo and appetite seem only to increase.


> Besides, even on its own terms is is dumb. It ignores the concrete
> determinations that make the manifestations of "liberalism-capitalism" in
> one circumtsnace different from another--differences which are worth
> fighting for. Under the death squad regime in El Salvador, we'd all be
> horribly dead. Under the terroristic reign of NYPD or the Chicago Police,
> etc., we can rant and rave and demonstrate pretty much to our heart's
> content. I see a significant difference here, even if Gordon doesn't. That's
> one reason I'm a liberal.

_We_, for some meanings of _we_, can rant and rave, etc. Others can't. We're higher up in the pyramid, where the breezes blow and the prospects are more fair; I'd never deny that. I'm just pointing out that it's all one big pyramid. "Only connect", as the fellow said, which Luke was refusing to do (see above, restored), and you too can come up with a theory of the situation which is logical, coherent, and based squarely on observed evidence. And, who knows, there may even be some truth in it.

-- Gordon



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list