Re: The Question of Violence -- Part 2

[bruceb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bruce Buchan)]

This message has been re-posted to the list in case the original post was
lost due to the recent techno-hassles...

On Thu Feb  8, Adam wrote:

>I think the central argument is that the level of ( Black ) poor on
>( Black ) poor violence is not related to the level of weaponry
>possessed by the people committing the violence. Poverty is the
>cause of the violence. ... There is more violence in the poor areas
>because they are poor, not because there are more guns.

Unfortunately, I missed Leo's original post (to which Adam responds), so my
contribution may be somewhat out of context (if so, my apologies!).

If Adam's representation of Leo's argument is correct, Adam seems quite
justified in arguing against it in the way he does.  Nonetheless, i am
perturbed by the linking of poverty with violence, especially in the
formulation:"Poverty is the cause of violence."  I suspect that it is not
poverty itself which causes violence, but that which underlies and
accompanies poverty - powerlessness.  In capitalist societies, wealth is
power, or more accurately, wealth gives one access to power. Crudely, the
amount and type of wealth you have (in large part) determines the extent of
your power or influence.  (I am using 'power' here to denote both 'power
over' objects or other people, and 'power to' do or achieve things.  Each
form of power may be quite separate from the other).

But wealth is not the only means of gaining power.  Power over others may be
achieved by persuasion, manipulation, or physical force, and especially by
violence or the threat of violence.  This is one of the central elements of
'politics': the determination of which means are to be used in the service
of which end(s) - and quite often violence is the most reliable,
cost-effective, and effective choice.  Hence Clausewitz' dictum that 'War is
the continuation of politics by other means.' Thus conservative writers such
as Clausewitz advance our understanding of politics far more than bourgeois
idealists who insist that politics is about free and fair elections, public
debate, etc., and who urge us to believe that violence is merely a weapon of
the weak, that it is counter-productive, self-defeating, and entirely absent
from the liberal-capitalist democracies.  This of course is garbage, history
shows us quite clearly that violence is and has always been an effective
means of compelling people to submit, and that violence has been a tool of
both the strong and the weak.

The point of all this rambling is is merely to suggest that when the poor
take up arms they seek the same or similar aims to the wealthy, i.e. power,
the ability to exert and maintain an influence over their political
situation.  But herein lies the great problem - as I see it - the 'taking
up' of arms is fraught with danger, and as we know, the poor are often
willing to take up arms against each other than against those responsible
for their situation.  In Australia there soes not seem to be the same degree
of gun problem as in the US or even in England, but it is still a major
worry.  Those who use guns against others are more often than not using it
against the wrong people for the wrong reasons, as in the all to frequent
domestic violence cases.  If we blind ourselves to this we risk doing our
cause a great dis-service.

Adam is surely right to argue that united armed resistance can be an
effective strategy.  But its effectiveness relies upon its use at the right
time.  Whatever else it achived, the LA riot which Adam defended, was
patently unsuccessful in making any substantive change in the political and
socio-economic standing of the poverty-stricken black and hispanic
populations. While we can hope that some sort of effective militant union
may emerge in the near future, it seems highly unlikely.  In the meantime,
guns (and other instruments of violence) are frequently being used to kill
and maim with no justifiable reason.  What do we do?

Adam renounces the gun-control strategy:
>The only effect of gun controls, ie of reenforcing the state's monopoly of
>violence, is to weaken us when we fight against the poverty which causes
>the violence in the first place.
He may well have a point, but the more salient point is that at this time
there simply is no "fight against poverty" to weaken.  It seems to me that
the implication lying behind Adam's position is that some form of
militia-style organisation is needed to overthrow capitalism, and
gun-control is simply one method the capitalists use to circumvent it. Now,
I have some sympathy with this sort of argument - after all, the capitalists
and monopolisers of state power are not going to wither away, or disappear
like species slowly becoming extinct.  But a militia-style organisation
requires the right sort of 'culture' in order to prevent it from becoming
one of those bizzare, inward-looking, furtive and malign militia's of the
American rabid right.  A militia also needs a war to fight, and quite
evidently, we do not have that situation at present.

These issues raise more questions than they answer, but I think that is an
important point in itself.  The question of violence is plagued with complex
moral and strategic problems which we revolutionaries would do well to
consider rather than ignoring them with glib generalisations or empty
fomulas.  Perhaps a consideration of these problems would constitute an
interesting thread?  If so, lets keep it going.

Best Wishes,

Bruce.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------