The Forest At The End Of The Year

“there are gods who do not care how this order ends, only that it does.”

A year-in-review from Rhyd Wildermuth

In the Catholic Liturgical calendar, 31 December is the feast of St. Sylvester. According to church historians, it was Sylvester (whose name means ‘wooded’ or ‘wild’) to whom the emperor Constantine announced his conversion to Christianity and to whom he gave the authority of the new political-religious order.

Yet as in much else of the political-religious order which we ‘moderns’ have inherited, there is the hint of older Pagan festivals lingering behind the history. In much of the Western world, New Year’s Eve is a night of raucous debauchery and celebration (and is named after Sylvester in Germanic lands), evocative more of the Saturnalian roots of Christ’s Mass than our vapid, domestic/consumerist celebrations around wrapped presents and gaudy trees. Yet even that tree recalls the older form as well, an evergreen brought into a home, the forest celebrated within the civilized.

Like many ancient saints, fantastic and magical acts are attributed to Pope Sylvester. Sylvester is said to have summoned the ghostly remembrance of the sunken Atlantis on behalf of the virgin Mary who cried tears of pearl for its lost memory; the island of Maderia celebrates the re-appearance of Atlantis each year on this day. And Sylvester is also said to have raised two Pagan magicians from the dead who then gave him their blessing. Their bodies had lain at the feet of a Dragon they had attempted to kill; Sylvester killed the dragon for them, and brought them to life apparently without attempting to convert them.

In Sylvester, perhaps we see fragments of ancient forest gods, or an entire order of the feral grieving for what was lost as a new order is founded. That old order breaks through in the human revelry, the bacchanalian celebrations on frigid urban streets marking another turn of the new order’s calendar with a feral warning: the forests are still here, the wild cannot be denied, and every order must eventually die.

The Last Hours of Empire

The year has been 2017, the next numbered 2018. On this turn of Silvester, we might wonder whether the upward count of numbers goes the wrong direction, that like the countdown marking the next year’s beginning we are ourselves counting-down.

We can certainly count-down the species alive on the earth, or the amount of arable land remaining after erosion and development, or the oil reserves of the planet, land still inhabited by forest, cities still with breathable air. And we can deduct from a pool of what once seemed unlimited hours the amount of time remaining to reduce carbon output to keep human life possible on the earth.

But just as easily, we might name and number the remaining days of the capitalist order itself, crumbling under the weight of its own destruction, buried under its own trash, hobbled and enraged by the crises which it itself has created.

The one accounting seems pessimistic, the other optimistic. Yet both are part of the same order whose days of plenty are numbered. We cannot have hope without despair, nor creation without destruction, nor joy without sorrow.

For Americans, certainly Trump seemed a sign that the old order is broken. His opponent professed all the correct articles of faith: equality, social justice, experience, jobs, goodness, military power. He on the other hand seemed dredged from liquid remaining at the bottom of a trash-can: populist, crass, anti-global, misogynist, inexperienced.

Yet he leads the Empire and its religious-political order now, and Americans have been confronted with uncomfortable questions long-unasked. Liberal Democracy no longer appears to work, the ‘barbarians’ of anarchy and fascism both wreak havoc within the gates, and while some still hope for a return of some shining queen that might restore faith to the faithless, most now understand there is no ‘back’ to which we can return.

Brexit, too, has heralded the end of the old order of polite capitalism. The project of the European Union falters upon the United Kingdom’s exit and other internal revolts, held together only by the willingness of Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to do everything the banks ask of them and ignore the populist rage outside their palaces.

Catalonia’s bid for independence, perhaps more than any other act in Europe, showed to the world the weakness of the capitalist order, even more so as Spanish police smashed in the faces of elderly Catalan women for daring to cast a ballot.

Instability again reigns in South America as well. Consider the near-collapse of Venezeula, engineered in part by OPEC’s over-production of oil, in another part by American government interference, and in many parts the failure of the Venezeulan government to build the Bolivarian working-class which Chavez promised. Or consider how the 9th largest economy in the world, Brazil, is currently in free-fall and has not paid pensioners and some government employees in months.

Meanwhile China, which has spent billions of dollars already in investment to prepare for (but not stop) global climate change, has increased its financial alliances in Africa and Asia, re-orienting the centers of power away from the Atlantic consensus, with Russia skillfully playing all sides of political tensions and increasing their own influence within Europe.

The Broken Covenants

These are not mere shifts in an endless geo-political game. Every government has seen the climate and resource crises affecting the entire world and is jockeying for position for its final round, just as the rich and corporations have been investing heavily in security systems, resource grabs, and crisis management so they might avoid the guillotines.

While all this looks to be signs of a coming collapse of the current order of Empire, we must not kid ourselves. That order has been crumbling for much longer; just as a cancer might spread through a body long before any symptoms arise, these changes have been happening for decades.  Empire isn’t starting to collapse; we’re just finally noticing.

We should welcome every bit of this, while grieving every death and sorrow this collapse will cause. Millions will die of starvation as droughts, floods, disease, and soil-depletion cause famines. Many more will die from the wars those famines cause, because hungry people do not sit idly by waiting for better harvests whilst others hoard what’s left.

We should welcome every bit of this as we welcome the end of the year and hope against hope the next will somehow be better.

Myths abound regarding St. Sylvester’s concourse with the ancient Pagan world and its spirits. Unlike later popes such as Boniface, the establishment of the new order he created was said to have been wrought through contracts and agreements with the old powers, much like Solomon is said to have bound demons to build his temple or Irish High Kings were said to make agreements with the gods of the land.

The brilliant film-maker Guillermo Del Toro uses a fictionalized version of these folk-tales in his remake of Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark, attributing to the forest pope a contract with bone-eating goblins: Sylvester allowed them only take the teeth of children, and only upon payment of silver coin, and thus they became tooth-fairies, not bone-goblins.

Such contracts abound in the founding stories of almost every political order, and we would do well to look at what particular contracts founded ours. Because the fairies want our bone and flesh again: fires consuming vast forests, floods drowning cities, the earth shaking around sites of hydraulic fracturing. In more Pagan times we might have seen these as signs the gods had withdrawn their consent from our rulers and know what else it meant: when those old contracts were broken and the gods of nature made known their displeasure, the people sharpened their blades, led their rulers to bogs or trees, and ended the corrupt order to restore right relationship with the land.

Are we not now in such a time? Can we not see the beginnings of such blade-sharpenings in the movements of sovereignty both of nations and people? The uprisings of Blacks against the police which slaughter them, the marches of women against power, the resistance of indigenous peoples to more extraction and exploitation of their land. Terribly, even the rising fascist tides are signs of those broken contracts, for there are gods who do not care how this order ends, only that it does.

It is the feast of St. Sylvester, the holy woodland, the sacred wild. May the feral awaken into you this night, may the forests live again within you, may what has been denied surge throughout the world.

Here’s to the end of this order, and to a new accounting of our days and a new recounting of our place within the world.


Gods&Radicals Essays in Review

The following were the ten most-read essays published on Gods&Radicals in 2017, comprising together over 150,000 views of our site.

Read This Post Before Patheos Deletes It, by John Halstead.

This essay by John Halstead detailed the abusive contract Patheos Pagan (a Christian-owned company) forced upon its Pagan writers as well as the severe anti-worker tactics of its managing editor, Jason Mankey. It first appeared on Patheos Pagan…and then they deleted it.

Catharsis is Counter-Revolutionary, by Sophia Burns

“Catharsis politics isn’t just unhelpful. It’s actively destructive.” Sophia Burns is one of Gods&Radicals’ three most-read authors, and this year three of the top-ten articles were by Sophia. In this essay, she argues against the American leftist tendency to favor feel-good acts of political expression and instead insists we must favor physical reclamations of power.

Anarchists Failed Philando Castile And They Have Failed Black Americans, by Dr. Bones

Every the fire-brand, unflinchingly probing deep into the clogged bowels of American Anarchism, Dr. Bones attacks the same feel-good political expressions and ‘angels-on-a-pin’ navel-gazing of leftists as Sophia Burns, but with a few more swear words. In this essay, Dr. Bones reminds us that discussions about the cultural appropriation of burritos can never stop Black people from getting shot by police.

The Mystic Shaping Russia’s Future and Bringing Back The Dark Ages, by Dr. Bones

What if I told you there was a wizard determining the foreign policy of a nation of 143 million people? That his stated goals were the re-establishment of a caste-based system spanning the breadth of the largest landmass on Earth?” Bones tackles the political-religious theories of Alexsandr Dugin

Front Groups Kill The Revolution, by Sophia Burns

Sophia Burns unravels the matter of sectarianism and front groups endemic within leftist organizing and prescribes a platform of radical honesty and pluralism.

British Paganism is Dying. Why? by Jonathan Woolley

Druid Jonathan Woolley (winner of OBOD 2017 Mt. Haemus award) examines the collapsing state of British Paganism and concludes that Capitalism is killing it.

Woke Nationalism and White Purity, by Rhyd Wildermuth

“Social justice obsession with a fundamentalist view of cultural appropriation is a white-knuckled grasp on the dying construct of Whiteness.” The managing editor of Gods&Radicals teases out the essentialism inherent within American social justice and how it is strengthening white nationalism.

The World Has Already Ended and YOU MAY DIE, by Dr. Bones

“The ‘we can stop this from happening’ part of the story is over. It’s already happened.”

Why Suffer For Social Justice?, by Sophia Burns

“You don’t get justice with the politics of guilt. You get it with the politics of solidarity. Freedom doesn’t come from shame. It comes from treating an injury to one as an injury to all (because for the working class, it objectively is).”

Against Liberals, by Rhyd Wildermuth

“Insofar as Liberals have set themselves up cynically as the party of the oppressed while building up the power of the state and protecting the interests of capitalism, Leftists in the United States can now build actual anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist movements.”

Editor’s Picks

The following are articles by authors who didn’t make it into the top ten list but were nevertheless the editor’s favorites, in no particular order.


Rhyd Wildermuth

Rhyd Wildermuth is a co-founder and the managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He’s a poet, writer, theorist, and nomad currently living in occupied Bretagne. Find his primary blog here, his Facebook here, or support him on Patreon here.


Support our work at this link. And thanks!

 

 

 

The Spectre of The Whore

“One must be able to name the katechon for every epoch of the last 1,948 years. The place has never been empty, or else we would no longer exist.”
–Carl Schmitt, Nazi Jurist

In ancient Western myths, a certain story persists. It seems to cross cultural and language boundaries, retold by Celts on the far northwestern shores of France and the Greeks bordering the edge of what we now call Europe. Its persistence suggests it to be a core myth of European society; in each version the motifs are the same, the circumstances not much varied, and the consequences deadly.

The story is this: a great, peaceful island, a walled city full of splendor, a paradise. Outside is chaos, poverty, war. Within, perfection, or the the height of learning, streets full of wealth and happiness. And then, a flood, a storm, a catastrophe.

This place is called by many names: Atlantis, Ys, Cantre’r Gwaelod, Lyonesse. Historians and archeologists have tried to find evidence of its existence; new agers have constructed elaborate theories naming it the origin of all occult and magical knowledge. Because its story haunts the lore of so many peoples, perhaps the better question is not ‘did it exist?’ but rather ‘why do we still tell this story?’


harlot-head

gradlon

In many of of the tales, the great civilization disappears under the sea, and in an unsurprising number of them, this catastrophe is triggered by a woman. I say unsurprising not because women have a tendency to drown cities, but because women tend to get blamed for the downfall of civilization very often. Pandora had her box, Eve her forbidden fruit, and of course, there’s the Whore of Babylon.

In the Celtic stories of the drowned island, a woman causes the end by leaving a floodgate open. The Bretons tell it with the daughter of a sea-witch, Dahut; in the Welsh tales, a ‘well-maiden’ named Mererid is the cause. While the misogyny of such tales seems quite obvious, we’d make a mistake if we dismiss these myths as mere propaganda against women and their ‘weakness.’ In all these stories, women held in their hands the key to ending what men had built, and in most of them, it was their refusal to obey the order of men which ended an era and began another one.

How dare a woman destroy everything? Those….whores.

We tend to dismiss such stories immediately as being part of the tapestry of patriarchal terror sustaining our current era. They certainly help uphold this order, but we should not ignore them completely: they tell us something not just about patriarchy,  but something deeper about how very fragile political orders actually are. They rely on our obedience.

While we often think of obedience and disobedience as passive stances, the roots and primary usage of the words both refer to action:

Obey: late 13c., from Old French obeir “obey, be obedient, do one’s duty” (12c.), from Latin obedireoboedire “obey, be subject, serve; pay attention to, give ear.”

That is, an obedient person does what they are told, does their duty, pays attention, serves, becomes subservient to the will of others. There is no passivity implied: obedience and disobedience are both actions.

While women are blamed in every one of these tales for the downfall of civilization, it isn’t just their woman-ness which causes these catastrophes: it’s their act of disobedience, their conscious withdrawal, their refusal to sustain the current order.

harlot-pullPatriarchal myths do not just blame women for the end of the world, they feminize disobedience. Men are good, obedient servants; women are lawless, unruly, disobedient rebels. Doing ones duty, in this conception, is a male trait; rebellion is the nature of women. But in none of these cases is that act of rebellion ‘passive.’ It is an active choice which destroys the Garden, opens the box, floods the world.

As most Marxist-feminists (and a few non-Marxist ones) often point out, the patriarchal oppression of women harms both women and men. If obedience and doing ones duty are seen as masculine traits, it’s not hard to see why so much government propaganda towards soldiers emphasizes masculinity. A man dies a bloody, painful death on the battlefield because it’s his duty to do so.  By being obedient to the powers above him, he is being a man: only a woman (or an ‘effeminate’ man) would disobey the will of the leaders.

Thus, to liberate women from this dichotomy is also to liberate men; both are equally bound into the same order of exploitation, just as, according to both Frantz Fanon and James Baldwin, whites are also imprisoned by the creation of Blackness.

To reach this liberation, we must summon the spectre of the whore.


harlot-head

red-goddess-scarlet-imprintIn the final chapters of the Bible, a figure appears, striding upon a horned beast, sitting upon the seas, reigning “over the kings of the earth.”  Upon her forehead is written,

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Peter Grey’s book The Red Goddess convincingly shows her to be Inanna-Ishtar, the great goddess of Babylon, literally a mother of ‘harlots’ (the temple prostitutes). The continuation of female-led religious groups (particularly embracing a ‘rebellious’ sexuality) was a consistent threat to the early Christian order: no doubt the writer of Revelations intended to invoke such a goddess when depicting the enemy of Christ during the Apocalypse.

While many non-Christian myths similarly named a woman as the cause of civilization’s end, Christianity pinning the world’s end on a Whore is particularly interesting. A Whore isn’t just a woman, it’s a sort of woman, not just disobedient, but sexually empowered and liberated. Unlike the other cataclysms catalysed by a disobedient woman, the Christian apocalypse is reigned over by the mother of whores, of women who are the very embodiment of lawlessness.

harlot-pullThe whore stands outside the patriarchy: she has no husband, so has no one to obey. She also disobeys the natural-political order: sex with her is pleasure and trade, but not for production (of children: i.e., new workers, new political subjects). She demands payment for her services, rather than giving without getting back. And most of all, unlike the dutiful wife, she can refuse.

If the Christians were so certain that their reign could be ended by a whore, and if our goal were merely the end of codified Christian doctrine, then any heretic should take her quite serious. However, we’re not just about the end of overt Christianity, but rather the end of the entire capitalist order. Is the Whore still relevant?

Yes. But to understand why, we need to look at how what we think of as ‘secular’ Liberal Democracy is also a continuation and expansion of Christian empire, and why the Whore still haunts us to this day.


harlot-head

Stilke_Hermann_Anton_-_Joan_of_Arc's_Death_at_the_StakeWhen religious conservatives in Europe and North America describe their countries as ‘Christian nations,’ they usually mean something quite superficial. However, they are not actually wrong, they merely don’t go far back enough in history to understand the truth of this.

Christianity started as a religion antagonistic to the Roman Empire, but it did not stay that way. The conversion of Constantine and the adoption of Christianity as the new state religion made certain of this, but we miss something crucial if we leave the story there.

Christianity was initially described not as a religion, but as a disciplina, a mode of living, control, and governance. Christianity was not just a set of personal beliefs: it functioned also as a political order, with priests and bishops handing down proclamations about right action, warnings against heresy, and specific directions to the faithful below them. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, this hierarchy increased, especially as bishops became the new oracles of the empire.

While Pagan Rome was certainly brutal and authoritarian, Pagan state religion only worked well in areas of the empire where the gods were similar enough to be merged. Much more difficult were the far-flung provinces where ancient beliefs were not so easily assimilated.

harlot-pullBy the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire, Rome had been facing crises of governance, revolts, and an economic panic as its expansion stopped. Christianity’s monotheism was an ideal solution to these crises. Not only did it displace a myriad of gods with one totalized God, it also had a coherent moral code, an easily-transferred hierarchy, and an intense missionary zeal.

While it’s common to blame Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire, this is hardly a majority opinion amongst historians. More so, it misses the continuation of Roman imperialism past the official fall of the empire in 476 through the Catholic Church.

Understand: when a state fails, it doesn’t just disappear. Consider what might happen to New York City or Paris if there were suddenly no United States or France; they’d continue, albeit more chaotically. Also, the political and economic influence of those cities wouldn’t just go away.

When the Roman Empire fell, Rome didn’t fall with it, nor did Christianity. They just both lost access to vast legions of soldiers to enforce their will throughout the rest of Europe.  This meant they had to find other ways of influencing those around them.

harlot-sub

To understand these other means of influence, you’ll need to know what Hegemony is and how it works.

harlot-pullHegemony is a political arrangement in which a very strong power exerts influence over weaker powers. This influence can be direct or subtle, but it is only sometimes openly violent. Hegemony functions indirectly: other powers do the will of the hegemonic power often without being asked. In essence, they internalize the will of the stronger power and obey it.

The United States is a good example of a hegemonic power. Though it directly rules over only the land it occupies in North America, it exerts political control over the entire western hemisphere because of its military, economic, and cultural strength. South American countries generally do what the USA wants them to do because they implicitly understand the consequences of disobedience. The US has helped overthrow several South and Central American governments through the CIA, attempted repeated assassinations of leaders like Castro, and has funded anti-government rebels (the Contras, for instance). Likewise, US-funded propaganda programs (Voice of America, etc.) also ensure complicity, while the vast American media companies help make other peoples more sympathetic to the United States.

Thus, to act against the United States is to court death, but no one needs to be told this. America’s will becomes theirs.

While this hegemonic influence might appear to be a new aspect of the modern state, Catholic control over Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire functioned exactly the same way.

harlot-pullConsider the propagandistic nature of church doctrine. Each town and village with a church had a branch-office of this propaganda machine; priests functioned as agents of the Church, ensuring doctrinal uniformity throughout the lands. Through such a network, the Church could exert social and cultural control over the opinions of the people without ever lifting a blade.

Control over the cultural and social forms of societies is control over the people, and it’s easy to see why Christianity was so ideal. A religious order which teaches obedience as godly and disobedience as sinful, and one which especially limits and subjugates rebellion in the form of women (whores, witches) perfectly complements political order.

With this control over Christian society, the Church also exerted hegemonic control over monarchies. A king who chose to go against the Pope faced excommunication, revolt from his subjects, and even a crusade from other kings. Without a standing army, the Pope’s will shaped the fates of every kingdom around him.

The European political order was a Christian political order.

harlot-sub

In 800 CE, Charlemagne declared the birth of a new Holy Roman Empire, and was crowned Emperor by the pope. This fully wed the church and the political powers together, a marriage that didn’t seem to end until the Reformation. The Reformation and the Enlightenment supposedly meant the end of hegemonic Christian empire and the beginning of a secular era in European politics. It also meant the birth of Liberal Democracy.

Did Liberal Democracy really escape its Christian predecessors?

We can ignore the façile claims of fundamentalists in the United States that America is a ‘Christian nation.’ Likewise too easy is the persistence of nominal Christianity within political parties in Europe (for instance, Angela Merkel is a “Christian Social Democrat”). A much stronger case can be made.

The continued Christian nature of Liberal Democracy is seen best by looking at its most staunchly non-Christian advocates: atheist intellectuals. Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens (dead), Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have all made extensive defenses of Liberal Democracy and outlined its crucial secular nature. Likewise, all four greatly criticize(d) ‘intrusions’ of Christian morality into secular society.  And all four wrote extensively about the danger of one particular religion to Western (secular) Civilisation.

That religion? Islam, not Christianity.

Why Islam? Obviously, it’s monotheist, patriarchal, and like all religions has a dangerous strain of fundamentalism. But their obsession with Islam rather than Christianity reveals the persistence of Christian hegemony even in their atheism. Islam is so dangerous precisely because it is not European–that is, it is not Christian.

In the Middle Ages, the Church could (and often did) prevent wars between European states on the basis that they were both Christian. The cultural power the Pope wielded over the people was formidable: few soldiers would want to risk eternal damnation or excommunication for very little pay. Tacit support by the Church (sometimes by taking sides, mostly by remaining silent) was crucial for wars.

The people who were always fair game, however, were Muslims and Pagans. For instance, the wars which eventually forced the last Pagan king of Europe to convert (14th century) were crusades. Likewise, the reconquista in Spain and all the many crusades into Jerusalem were not just sanctioned but rewarded by the Church. Killing a Muslim was not just okay, it was a holy act, while killing another Christian was murder or worse.

Western Liberal Democracies didn’t change this. One need only recall that one of the primary justifications for the European Union was that it would keep European countries from warring with each other. Replace the word “Liberal Democratic” with “Christian,” and it’s not hard to understand why the United States doesn’t attack Canada or France. Not only are they not enemies, but they are part of the same community of believers, the new Catholic (‘universal’) communion.

harlot-pullThis communion extends not just to the lack of military conflict between each other, but their united front against Muslim nations. Just as Catholic hegemony acted as a strong barrier against European wars and legitimized wars against Muslims and Pagans, Liberal Democracy legitimizes wars in the Middle East. Not only legitimizes, but mythologizes and glorifies: the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade were done to defend Western Civilization (Democracy, Freedom, “our way of life”) just as the crusades were declared to protect Christendom.

giphyThat such violence against non-Christians occurs in the name of secularism rather than in Christianity hardly changes anything: in fact, it gives us a clue to what is actually meant by ‘secular.’

Consider the bans on Muslim practices in Europe in the name of secularism. Banning hijabs and burkas in the name of protecting women certainly sounds enlightened. However, controlling what women wear, regardless of what it is they are wearing, is still control of women. Likewise, in the name of the secularist idea of ‘animal welfare,’ halal and kosher butchery have been banned in at least one European country and several more have tried to follow suit. Yet European methods of butchery (factory farming, industrialized slaughterhouses) can hardly be called humane and are not up for discussion.

Consider, too, Switzlerland’s ban of minarets, France’s ban on religious symbols (but not crosses) in public schools, and the ‘war on terror’ (including Trump’s plans to deport Muslims): these are even more examples of how Liberal Democracy continues to function as a Christian political order.

harlot-sub

While the word “Christian” can be used interchangeably with “Liberal Democracy,” we cannot end this history of Empire here. Other words equally suffice and are just as important.

One of those words? White. When Canada, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand all committed troops together to fight the civilizational threat of Islamic Terrorism, only white people could have missed the fact that it was an alliance of powerful white nations against Arabs. Within those countries, fear and hatred of immigrants is likewise racialized.

There’s a tendency to chalk all of these wars without and within Liberal Democratic nations up to “White Supremacy.”  This is an accurate, but incredibly incomplete, understanding. Whiteness is powerful, and whites are absolutely dominant in white Liberal Democracies. However, whiteness is merely a mechanic, a formula which helps determine whether or not someone belongs.

That is, the hegemonic political order called Liberal Democracy is white, but whiteness is the effect of that order, not the cause. Whiteness developed only recently, and only as a way of determining privilege within Liberal Democracies (whites on top) and undermining allegiances amongst the lower-classes which threatened the entire political order.

harlot-pullLikewise, Liberal Democracy is patriarchal, but this is again a function and governing method of the order. Women absolutely receive fewer rights, fewer protections, less wealth, less political power, and endure more violence than men. This is unquestionable. However, fighting the patriarchy is not enough to destroy Liberal Democracy. It is accurate but inadequate to describe our current order as patriarchal, just as fighting white supremacy only attacks the method of governance, not governance itself.

We can string together litanies for days on what Liberal Democracy is (bell hooks, for instance, uses the term “Imperialist White-Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy,” which is much too short) and doing so can certainly help understand how thorough its hegemonic control over us is. By calling it Liberal Democracy, we must mean all the strands of the kyriarchal web while remembering that the entire web must be destroyed, not just one strand.

So here we are now, governed by a hegemonic political-theology simultaneously Christian, European, imperialist, patriarchal, white, capitalist, etc..  It is all-powerful, soaking through every one of our social, cultural, economic, and political interactions. We are flies in its web, trapped, breaking one strand yet caught by even more in our struggle.

How can you fight such a thing?

By becoming what it is most afraid of.


harlot-head

34-offb16

Though Liberal Democracy officially denies its Christian nature, a very minor text within the New Testament managed to form the basis for its entire political strategy:

And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. 2 thessalonians 2:6-7

The author (Paul) is writing members of the new order he is building, warning them not to act like the end-times are at hand. Before the anti-christ (the ‘he/him’ to which he refers) can arrive, ‘what is now restraining’ and the one who now restrains’ (τὸ κατέχον, “katechon,”) must be removed. Meanwhile, the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ ( ἀνομία, “anomia”–being outside the law, wicked, or unruled) is already at work.

Regardless of what Paul actually meant by this section (there are countless theories), the concept of something holding back the chaos and lawlessness of the end-times persists to this day.

In fact, you know the Katechon intimately.

Consider the most recent election in the United States. The Democratic Party offered a pro-capitalist centrist candidate with deep ties to corporate oil, finance, and banking industries. Despite her obvious allegiance with the very things which are currently destroying the earth, many on “the left” supported her anyway, seeing her as the only chance to restrain the pure violence of a Trump presidency.  That is, Hillary Clinton was presented as the Katechon, the only way to hold back a terrifying flood of wickedness and chaos.

In the United Kingdom, the same arguments were used to justify remaining as part of the European Union. Center-left activists particularly were terrified of what might come were the UK to leave. Loss of protections, the end of mobility, increasing domestic violence, erosions of wealth all would come if Brexit occurred. In this case, the EU was the Katechon, the only thing holding back the flood of misery and poverty.

The Katechon is seen also in questions of terrorism, security, and international war. The terrorist is ἀνομία/anomia, the lawless/wicked ones, currently at work undermining civilization. The sense of ‘unruled’ and ‘lawless’ is particularly relevant: the terrorist obeys no government and operates outside the moral order of Liberal Democratic societies. The terrorist doesn’t work within Liberal Democratic ‘law,’ seeking justice through the courts or change through electoral politics. Rather, the terrorist blows things up.

Here, shutting down borders, removing rights and protections, increasing surveillance, arresting dissidents, and waging foreign wars is what holds back the flood. None of this really works, though, since any person has the potential to spontaneously generate into a terrorist.  Still, these actions are increasingly implemented in the name of holding back the chaos, keeping the enemies outside the gates, holding back a surging tide. That is, the Katechon.

harlot-pullThis is the very same logic which prevents revolution in Liberal Democratic societies. Talk of ending capitalism, disarming the police, or even all-out revolt is dismissed by evoking the fear of what might happen without those things. Without the police, there would be only ἀνομία/anomia, lawlessness. Who would protect us from foreign enemies if we had no governments and military? How would we get our medicines, food, and electricity without capitalism?

This is not just a contemporary trick of Liberal Democracy. The same logic operated in Hobbes conception that life outside the strong state would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short,’ in the checks on popular democracy (including the electoral college) written into the US constitution, in the Terror which followed the French Revolution, and in all the formations of other states throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Both right-wing and left-wing ideologies fell victim to the cult of the Katechon: Marxism’s shift to a statist ideology through Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin was a response to the fear of ἀνομία, while it was Fascist theorists who most openly spoke directly about the Katechon.  Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola both sought to stave off a coming apocalypse through an embrace of ancient imperial forms, and the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt  (quoted at the beginning of this essay) saw Hitler as the Katechon, the last hope of civilization against lawlessness and disorder. From his diary:

“I believe in the katechon: it is for me the only possible way to understand Christian history and to find it meaningful”

This begs a question.

If the leading jurist for the Nazi regime was so intent on having a Katechon who could hold back the tides of chaos, what great evil could possibly have been worse than the gassing of 10 million people?

Is the lawlessness, the ‘anti-christ’ that the Katechon restrains really all that worse than the brutality of our current political orders?


harlot-head

mystery-babylon-the-greatThe Katechon exists to hold back a coming catastrophe. In the earliest iteration of it from Paul, the Katechon restrains the revelation of the anti-christ; it holds back the apocalypse.

Fear of the apocalypse is a significant part of most Evangelical Christian sects. On the extreme end are the relentless predictions, the certainty that Jesus is about to return and will judge all the nations of the world leading to some fascinating and frightful behaviors. The apocalypse, though, isn’t confined to devout Christians waiting for the rapture or a literal horn-blowing angel. Nor do I just mean the liberatarian Mad-Max or Walking Dead fantasists. Governments, too, are terrified of their own end and what might come after.

What is an apocalypse really, except the end of one order and the beginning of the next? And here’s where we should remember what the word apokálypsis actually means. The last book of the Bible in most English editions is called “Revelations,” but it’s older name is Apocalypse. Both words mean the same thing, hidden knowledge unveiled.  The Katechon holds back the Apocalypse, restrains a revelation against the ‘mystery of lawlessness,’ holding back the tides of chaos by keeping something hidden.

What’s the Katechon hiding? What doesn’t it want us to see? What knowledge must it hide from us lest the Whore and the Anti-christ walk the earth?

Liberal Democracy is destroying the planet, warming the oceans, melting the ice caps, extinquishing species, poisoning the water. Industrialisation increases this damage, alienating us from one another, turns us into machines. Liberal Democracies wage war on defenseless peoples in foreign countries, kill minorities, trample the poor and exalt the rich. They keep women oppressed, rape the earth, and sell nature back to us as packaged trinkets to be thrown away back into the open wounds of that great whore Earth.

Yet all the while, we cling tightly to it.  We cannot end Liberal Democracy, because worse will come.

What could be worse?

The Katechon whispers: you need me. I am holding back the anti-christ. I restrain the whore. I am preventing the apocalypse.

You will die without me.

Which reminds us of another whore.


harlot-head

Delacroix, Eugene; The Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise; Glasgow Museums; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/the-expulsion-of-adam-and-eve-from-paradise-83737

Though the Bible ends with the Whore of Babalon, it begins with the very first whore, the very first lawless one. Everyone living under Liberal Democracy knows her name, knows that whore’s crime. You can’t escape it, you cannot avoid knowing how she destroyed everything.

She, too, heard the warnings of the Katechon. She heard what would happen if she did not obey, heard the consequences of disobedience.

She also heard something else:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-4

At the beginning of this essay I asked why these stories of women destroying the world are told. By now, you must already know the answer.

And by now, you already know who the Katechon is.

It’s you.

You are the Katechon which holds back the apocalypse, you in your obedience to what they demand.

You are the Katechon that restrains you from acting, what sways you away from your will.

You are the Katechon who tells you that you shall die if you act. You will die without capitalism, without Liberal Democracy, without supermarkets and smartphones, surveillance cameras and taxes, without your strong daddy-leaders, without cops and priests and credit cards, without banks and congress and flags, without your job, without your mortgage, without nuclear weapons and satellites. Without men with guns telling people what to do, you’ll die.

You have internalized the will of the powerful, and you think it is your own.

You are the Katechon who tells you what you’ll become without them: a whore, nothing else, male or female or in-between, just a sniveling nothing without Them. Without this political order, with these leaders, without the rich, you’ll have no way to survive except your body. You’ll be an outcast, banished with the all other whores and your mother, Mystery.

You are the Katechon, but you can also hear the serpent saying you will not die.

Of course, if you listen to that voice, you might become the whore who opens those gates, drowns the city, and floods the world.

I say go with that voice. But that’s not my choice to make for you.

It’s yours.


6tag_011216-190055Rhyd’s a co-founder and the managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He writes here and at Paganarchor you can also read about his sex life on Fur/Sweat/Flesh, or read his near-daily “Anarchist Thought of the Day” on Facebook.  He lives nomadically, likes tea, and probably really likes you, too,


Like this essay? Please help us pay our writers for more beautiful resistance like this!

 

Liberal Democracy’s Fascist Shadow

 

In my last three essays, I detailed several aspects of Liberal Democracy and its current crisis. The first described the power-structure and myths which hold Liberal Democracy together, as well as its relation to Capital. The second explained the violence which is the essence of Liberal Democracy, and the way we become complicit in it. And the third essay delved into how the attempts by the non-revolutionary left to make Liberal Democracy more equal actually sustain the violence of the State and make it more powerful.

This essay’s about Liberal Democracy’s shadow: Fascism.

For most, whether conservative or liberal, left or right, Fascism seems like something in the far past, an unfortunate and inexplicable accident in the course of human civilization which was finally defeated. We think of the concentration camps, the mass imprisonment of dissidents and minorities, the bloody wars and mass political rallies…and we shudder, or shake our heads.

How could that have happened? How could it ever happen again?

Rather easily, actually.

The Fascism That Was

In

the early half of the last century, every Liberal Democracy was in a crisis not too different from our own now. Terrorist attacks in the middle of cities by foreign-born radicals–attacks meant to kill industrialists, bankers, and politicians–claimed hundreds of lives. Very wealthy Capitalists stopped investing in new factories and industry in their own countries, holding on to their money or looking abroad for less-risky ways to make a profit. Refugees from wars flooded the cities, pushing down wages for workers who were already struggling to afford necessities. Mass populist movements shut down streets and cities, racial and other minorities demanded more rights and threatened violence if they didn’t get them.

And then an economic collapse happened throughout every Western nation-state. The ‘Great Depression’ in the United States (and the similar collapses elsewhere) displaced millions, creating people so poor that laws about theft and private property no longer really mattered to them. The last great monarchist country in Europe, Russia, had just fallen to a popular revolt, and the ideas of that revolt were inspiring the lower classes elsewhere, while in other countries of Europe, a new popular movement was growing.

Born as a critique of both Liberal Democracy and Marxism, Fascists invoked a deep and mythic Nationalism to transform society and the State. Watching the chaos, strife, insecurity, and economic collapse of their countries, Fascists like Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco created popular movements not based on Marxist egalitarianism and internationalism, but on strict hierarchies and national loyalty.

Though very right-wing, Fascism positioned itself as a new center, appealing both to disaffected people on the right and the left. Its Traditionalism and calls for a return to ordered and hierarchical society spoke deeply to conservatives who opposed Marxist and Anarchist movements, as well as their alienation from the ‘degeneracy’ and ‘decadence’ of the cities (where homosexuality, prostitution, occult and non-Christian religions abounded).  Fascism also appealed to many on the left as well, by embracing some socialist policies like minimum wage, 40-hour work weeks, and equal footing for (fascist-led) unions and employers.

The appeal to both the right and the left didn’t end there, though. Both Marxists and Conservatives had become increasingly critical of foreign Capitalists, bankers, and international agreements (like the Treaty of Versailles) which increased immigration, crippled national industries and punished working-class people under the guise of Progress.

Liberal Democracy was the primary target of Fascism. The Weimar government in Germany was a masterpiece of Liberal Democratic ideals yet failed to create prosperity; in Spain, a left-wing coalition (made up of Communists, Socialists, Republicans, and Liberals) called The Popular Front founded a republic based on Liberal Democratic ideals but failed to stop right- and left-wing violence. And most of Mussolini’s manifesto, “The Doctrine of Fascism,” directly attacks the failures of Liberal Democracy to create the world it promised.

The liberal century, after piling up innumerable Gordian Knots, tried to cut them with the sword of the world war. Never has any religion claimed so cruel a sacrifice. Were the Gods of liberalism thirsting for blood?

From “The Doctrine of Fascism,” by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile

Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini each recognised what Liberal Democracy tries to hide about itself: the promises of peace, prosperity, and equality are actually contradictory under Capitalism. Nation-States need to subjugate weaker nations if their citizens are to have access to cheap goods, they must heavily police their lower classes to keep order, and there can be no true equality if Capitalism and the State are to function.

Anarchists and communists had been pointing to the same thing, but rather than abolish both the State and Capital (the anarchist answer) or put all Capital in the hands of a worker-led State (the Communist answer), Fascists argued for a State fully-aware–and unapologetic–of its violent and hierarchical nature.

In a Fascist State, Capitalism would serve the entire Nation: foreign Capitalists would no longer steal wealth from the people, and local Capitalists who served the nations’ goals would be backed up by a powerful State.

To appeal to Conservatives and Traditionalists, Fascism argued for a return to high moral ideals, including loyalty to family, to superiors, to ‘God,’ and to the State. All three Fascist states in Europe officially banned prostitution, homosexuality, and pornography, and initiated new cultural celebrations and programs.  To appeal to the poor and workers, new social programs were instituted, wages were raised and work duties were standardized.

From this new ‘center,’ each of the fascist movements in Europe then manipulated the political goals of Liberal Democratic parties against an enemy both political movements shared: leftists.

Liberal Democracy’s Gambit

InstagramCapture_1c9cec6a-9fcc-4205-8d20-3f620cbac464

Every Liberal Democracy faced an internal threat from Marxists and critics of Capitalism. The United States headed off a revolt by implementing Nationalist social programs (the “New Deal”) while arresting anarchists and communists en masse, the United Kingdom faced off powerful left-wing unions; leftists managed to control the government in France for a few years before toppled by extremely organized Fascists. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, well organised anarchist and Marxist trade-unions consistently shut down factories, mines, and transportation.

In each of these places, ‘Liberal’ parties (be they Social Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives) found themselves with a decision: side with an increasingly radical left-wing movement and possibly find their countries going communist? Or side with the Capitalists who funded them, even when it meant using State violence to stop worker uprisings?

If Liberals took the side of the workers against the owners, Capitalists would withdraw their support of the State–and they had all the money.

Despite hating the goals of the Fascists, the supporters of Liberal Democracy in Italy and Germany sided with them against the communists and anarchists in order to protect the interests of Capital, even helping to arrest and kill left-wing activists (for instance, Jewish and Marxist revolutionary Rosa Luxembourg was tortured and executed by Social Democrats, not by Fascists).

Their choice to side with Capital over the workers drove significant support away from them so that, by the time Mussolini’s blackshirts seized power in Rome and the Nazis swept into power in Berlin, Liberal Democracy had no more allies.

Repeating Forms

InstagramCapture_78e626b6-321b-4c6f-a173-d769c15faede

Liberal Democracy tells a story about itself and the progress of humanity that, if we accept it, makes it nearly impossible to understand how Fascism could ever happen again. According to it, Liberal Democracy is the end-point of history, the final evolution of society from primitive and violent to modern and free.

In 1940, while hiding from the Nazis in occupied France, Marxist philosopher and Jewish mystic Walter Benjamin published his Theses on the Philosophy of History to address such a problem:

The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism.

One reason why Fascism has a chance is that in the name of progress its opponents treat it as a historical norm. The current amazement that the things we are experiencing are ‘still’ possible in the twentieth century is not philosophical. This amazement is not the beginning of knowledge–unless it is the knowledge that the view of history which gives rise to it is untenable.”

Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History

Benjamin was attacking both the progress narrative of Liberal Democracy and the failure of historical materialism (which made him an enemy of Stalin as well as Hitler).

While Hegel had said that history repeats itself, Marx had expanded this, adding ‘first as tragedy, then as farce.’ But looking at history that way, we can easily miss dangerous events in the present because they don’t appear as precise repetitions.

Rather than looking at history as a cycle full of repeating processes and events, it’s better to see history as full of repeating forms. African slavery, for instance, wasn’t a repetition of Roman slavery, nor was Irish indentured servitude a repetition of either. However, all three were forms of slavery, and from such a view we can then see that slavery is a repeating form throughout history, while still comparing individual instances in their separateness.

Fascism now won’t look the same as any fascism that’s existed. We’d be making a mistake if we looked for the next charismatic fascist leader to be wearing a military uniform like Mussolini. But the forms that birthed fascism can birth it again. So, what are those forms?

A Crisis of Capital

The last time Liberal Democracies faced an existential crisis, there was a World War. Many theorists on both the left and the right resoundingly agree that the war of 1913-1919 was driven by the need of Capitalists to expand their markets. Each State involved faced crises of Capital that couldn’t be resolved through trade negotiations, and thus World War I became an imperialist trade dispute fought with chemical weapons and tanks.

That war meant the end of several empires, the birth of the first Communist State in Russia, and a powerful new enemy of Liberal Democracy, the Fascist.

Capital functions well within Liberal Democracies, because Liberal Democracy offers both a strong state apparatus to keep revolt in check while offering its citizens enough rights to make up for their loss of economic freedom.  But these two tactics can clash when workers begin to demand more economic (that is, material) equality, rather than social equality.

In the early part of the 20th century, many leftist movements arose demanding exactly that. Unsatisfied with the ‘bread and circuses’ approach of Utopian Socialism and unwilling to wait for the messianic promise of better wages, workers threatened the profits of the Capitalists, and Liberal Democracy was forced to reveal its true alliance.

Nationalism as an Antidote to Chaos

The brutality of Fascism in Germany is most harrowing: millions of Jews deported, imprisoned, and then killed, along with Roma, disabled people, the ‘work-shy,’ and many others.  In Italy, the concentration camps started later for Jews and other minorities, and in Spain they were reserved primarily for political dissidents.

The Nazis didn’t come up with racial hatred, though. European peoples had a very long history of targeting Jews, Roma, immigrants, homosexuals and others, and much of this violence was either initiated or later supported by rulers. The reason for this is quite simple: it creates order.

As Silvia Federici has shown in Caliban & The Witch, the scapegoating and violence against women during the birth of Capitalism helped pacify uprisings against the aristocracy and the rulers–so much so that city rulers would often legalize rape and strip women of rights in order to channel the rage of the poor towards an easier target. The outsider status and refusal to integrate of Jews and Roma likewise made them easy targets, facilitated by a moral regime (the Church) which taught such groups were primitive, sinful, evil, and dangerous.

Fascists used the same mechanism in Germany and Italy. Fascism doesn’t require anti-semitism or racism to function, but it made national unity a lot easier in Germany and Italy (Italy didn’t become fully united as a nation until 1871; Germany was born that same year and wasn’t a nation with its current borders until 1918).

Fear of the Foreign

Internal racism was used to create national identity, but so too was the fear of foreign economic and political threats. Anger over the imperialist demands of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I helped inflame nationalist hatred against foreign governments and economic interests. Foreign and international bankers (particularly those of Jewish descent) became favorite scapegoats for the economic and social ills in Germany.

In Italy, Germany, and Spain, the fear was also that of the Bolsheviks, who had recently overthrown the repressive aristocracy in Russia (and, horribly, later replaced it with something just as repressive). The threat of Bolshevik communism had both a xenophobic and anti-Semitic connotation….especially since so many Marxist philosophers were, like Marx himself, Jews.

The fear of international and foreign conspiracies to destabilize society were not conjured out of thin air: Lenin and later Stalin took over the international communist organisations and used their state power to influence radicals in Europe. But Fascists like Mussolini began before the Russian revolution, so their employment of conspiracy theories about foreigners were based instead on anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which produced propaganda like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In all cases, the existential threat to ‘the nation’ was an ever-shifting network of enemies who existed both outside–and within–the borders of the nation.

The Moral Decay of Society

All three fascist regimes mentioned share another common trait, one which gets much less mention than many others. All three sought a moral revival of the Nation against the ‘decadent’ and ‘degenerate’ trends found in cosmopolitan areas.

One photograph from the Nazi period, found in almost every history textbook in American schools, has become rather iconic of fascism:

magnus hirschfieldThe photo shows a massive book burning, but rarely do the books that were burned–or the collector of those books–get mentioned.

The image is from the Nazi-ordered destruction of the books contained in the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the research library founded by Magnus Hirschfeld. Hirschfeld started the field of sexology, studying and openly embracing homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, and many other variant forms of sexual and gender expressions which the Nazis saw as ‘degenerate.’

In Italy and Spain, similar moves to restore society to more conservative morality resulted in the arrests and deaths of academics, artists, homosexuals, queers, and many others.  The political rhetoric which led to this repression focused heavily on the decadence of urban environments, particularly as opposed to the more folkish and morally-upstanding rural and village folk.

Berlin at the time of the Reichstag fire had a 1% church attendance rate, was an enclave of sexual, gender, occult, and social experimentation, and represented for the fascists all that had gone wrong with the Nation. People had become weak, feeble, consumerist, and polluted by the degenerate ideas of the cities. Civilization was in a fallen state, and both Mussolini and Hitler made great use of this ideology, iterated by ‘Traditionalists’ such as Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola and others now known as ‘esoteric fascists.’

 The Crisis Now

InstagramCapture_99d8c83a-23db-4a9b-b113-99dc683eb7f9

Many Liberal Democracies have adopted extreme austerity measures in the last few years, aiming to decrease their social assistance budgets. In many of these countries, infrastructure like water, rail, and energy have either been privatized or decay in awful states of disrepair.

While many are quick to blame “neoliberalism” or Free Market faiths as the culprit for austerity and crumbling infrastructure, few delve much deeper than this. Why would Liberal Democrat governments abandon their promises and risk public revolt merely for an ideology?

The answer is that they have no choice.

As mentioned in previous essays, it is the Capitalists who primarily fund Liberal Democracies, either through the taxes they pay or through the taxes paid by their workers. If Capitalists don’t profit, they withdraw their support, and even the most progressive and socially-democratic government eventually has to do what they say or go bankrupt.

The wealthiest Capitalists profit either from financial speculation, resource extraction, or by selling consumer goods in wealthy markets that were made by workers in impoverished markets. In all cases, though, the workers in Western Democracies have less access to waged jobs, the only means by which one can legally make a living if you’re not a capitalist.

But if those workers have no jobs, they have no money to purchase products, which means the Capitalists earn no profit.  But likewise, Capitalists won’t hire workers at traditional wages in Liberal Democracies for the same reason–they won’t profit.  Capitalists, therefore, are holding the leaders (and the people they are supposed to represent) hostage, relying on the state to reduce the living standards of their citizens (and back this up with violence) in order to decrease wages.

“Immigrants Stealing Our Jobs”

One of the other ways wages are deflated is immigration, a fact non-Marxist Liberals and Progressives don’t like to talk about much.

Immigrants (and especially refugees) who come from poorer countries are willing to work for lower wages in their new countries (especially if they are without status). But as wages start to decrease and the sorts of jobs non-foreign workers were used to finding disappear, they blame what looks like to them the obvious culprit: the immigrants.

Liberal Democracies know they need more immigrants to keep Capitalism alive.  But as poor workers grow increasingly resentful and the supporters of Liberal Democracy (including social justice advocates) side with Capital, only nationalist political parties seem to offer a ‘true’ analysis of the situation.

Thus, Brexit. Thus, also, the appeal of far-right parties in Europe, like the Front National in France or Golden Dawn in Greece.  Thus, too, the increasing right-wing turn even of the traditional ‘liberal’ Democratic party in the United States, and the hard right-turn of Libertarians and other variants of conservative political parties.

Immigrants are caught in a horrible position. Brought in by Liberal Democracies to undermine the power of left-wing labor movements, leaving (and often fleeing) from countries devastated by trade and military policies coming from the same Liberal Democracies where they now live, they have very few allies.

The Social Justice narrative gives them some leeway, but in order to be fully accepted they must buy in to the rest of the program, including adopting cultural forms they lived their entire lives outside of. For instance, in Germany, a Turkish immigrant declined to shake the hand of his child’s female teacher, an event now repeated ad nauseum in German newspapers as proof that immigrants are anti-women and don’t belong in Europe.

If Liberal Democracy were truly the enlightened end-point of history as it claims to be, then such criticism of immigrants would be logical. But as mentioned in my previous essay, what Liberal Democracy (and particularly Social Justice) celebrates as freedom and enlightenment is hardly universal. A lesbian soldier from the United States now free to kill on behalf of the State could never be seen by the widows or children of the man she killed as a triumph of equality.

Terror in Our Midst

While anti-immigrant sentiment grows within every Liberal Democracy, terrorist attacks become more frequent. France–a stalwart of freedom and tolerance– has seen three such events since 2015, the latest just last week. Even before Daesh had claimed responsibility for this recent slaughter, the French government has already linked the event to Islamic radicalization.

The details are gruesome, the scores of videos taken by witnesses horrible to watch. Anyone who’s ever been in such a street celebration can imagine how awful it must have been, to be walking without care after a firework display and see your lover suddenly hit by a truck, to regard children and old people flying through the air like ragdolls when, just moments ago, they were having fun.

How do you fight such things? According to Liberal Democracy, you suspend civil rights, give police more powers, and attack an unrelated country. Consider the early response from the President of France, François Hollande:

…the president announced a three-month extension of the state of national emergency, which allows police to conduct house raids and searches without a warrant or judicial oversight and gives extra powers to officials to place people under house arrest.

He insisted: “Nothing will make us yield in our will to fight terrorism. We will further strengthen our actions in Iraq and in Syria. We will continue striking those who attack us on our own soil.” (link)

Passport controls were re-instituted between France and other EU countries (supposedly eliminated by the Schengen treaty), the number of military reservists were doubled, and the State of Emergency, due to expire in just a few days, was extended for another three months. But for political leaders on the far-right, these weren’t enough, and the President was loudly booed by mourners at a memorial service for the victims.

The problem is that Liberal Democracy cannot actually respond effectively to terrorism. It is impossible to keep people from enacting horrific violence, be it in the name of religion, ideology, nationalism, or mental-illness. Taking guns away doesn’t help when airplanes and trucks can be used as bullets and bombs, and there is no amount of police or military that can be everywhere at once.

So the promise of the Liberal Democratic State as the final arbiter of violence and justice is impossible to keep. The State doesn’t have a monopoly of violence, and can only become more repressive to combat potential terrorism. This, then, means that it can no longer claim to guarantee civil rights, either, without constantly invoking states of exceptions or emergency.

The State of Emergency

Fortunately, a man named Carl Schmitt outlined for them a legal justification for such suspensions of rights. His theory was that sovereignty (political power, or the right-to-rule) doesn’t derive just from the social contract that Hobbes outlines, but from the very fact that the government has the ability to suspend the contract at will:

Sovereign is he who decides on the exception

(At this point, I should probably also mention Carl Schmitt was the primary legal theorist for the Nazis.)

As his primary critics at the time (Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt) and a later critic (Georgio Agamben) all noted, Schmitt’s reasoning on the exception has already been adopted by Liberal Democracies. War, internal uprisings, natural disasters and economic crises have all been used by Liberal Democracies to suspend civil rights and guarantees.

This trend has only increased in the last 20 years in response to “Terror.” Endless ‘elevated threat levels,’ extensions of States of Emergency, extrajudicial killings (including drones), and increased repression of left-wing dissidents and minorities have all become not the exception, but the rule of Liberal Democracy.

That is, Liberal Democracy has adopted much of the political program of fascism already…but it’s not enough.

The Resurgence of the Fascist Right

InstagramCapture_d8fd3a36-2af0-455d-b9db-8e73af459533

Hollande’s response to the mass-murder of celebrants in Nice was met with intense criticism from the right and far-right political parties in France–not because it is too harsh, but that it is not harsh enough. Marine le Pen, the leader of the Front National (a racist, Nationalist, and anti-immigrant party with increasing membership in France) called for a declaration of war against Islamist Fundamentalists, the shutting-down of mosques, and the deportation and reversal-of-citizenship for those who hold radical views. Nicholas Sarkozy, the former right-wing president of France, has demanded that Muslim prisoners who’ve finished their sentences must then go to ‘de-radicalization’ centres until they’ve been certified as harmless. And other right-wing leaders are demanding the formation of new police agencies, stricter border controls, and more State power to suspend civil liberties.

All of this, of course, before any Islamist group had been shown linked to the attack.

In the United States, groups of armed men have been forming to protect a presidential candidate from Black Lives Matters protesters, calling them “a terrorist threat.’ A few weeks ago, three Pagan writers (two who have written for this site, a third for A Beautiful Resistance) attended a protest where a neo-fascist threatened the protesters with a loaded gun. And a Fascist Pagan candidate–Augustus Sol Invictus, is running openly for office in Florida.

In Europe, political parties such as PEGIDA, the Golden Dawn in Greece, the Front National and Nouvelle Droite in France, and the UKIP in the United Kingdom have increased their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim campaigns, with their supporters often enacting violence against their targets.

In all cases, their criticisms are near identical to the early Fascists. The State is too weak on criminals, foreigners, degenerates, immigrants, and minorities. Likewise, they all share an intense hatred of Marxist and Anarchist critiques, particularly those regarding equality.

Many (though not all) employ some degree of antisemitism, though some (like the FN in France) have attempted to whitewash their earlier hatred by courting Jews against the Muslims.

Worst of all, they are all much better organized–and better funded–than most leftists groups in their countries. Part of their funding derives from their ability to court Capitalists who have become panicked about their ability to profit, but their superior organisation to leftists has much more to do with Liberal Democracy’s long suppression of anti-capitalists than anything they’ve done themselves.

It’s this last bit which should trouble us most.

When the Nazi party began actively recruiting, they were met with fierce and violent opposition from leftist groups, many of whom were the first to be arrested when the Nazis finally gained power. Similarly, Mussolini’s rise was constantly thwarted by Socialist and anarchist syndicalists in Italy until he made stronger alliances with the Catholic right.  And when Francisco Franco attempted to overthrow the Socialist Republic of Spain, the result was a three-year civil war against an initially united front of anarchists, communists, and Liberal Democrats.

Where would such a resistance come from now? What hope could we possibly have of fighting the new fascists?  To such a question I’m tempted to answer as Walter Benjamin did, quoting Kafka in his journal as he faced the choice of certain death at the hands of the Gestapo, the Stalinists, or his own:

“There is plenty of hope. But none for us.”

InstagramCapture_1f3f00de-2c97-4c81-9d2d-17b6dfeefd63

But I won’t end this here.

As I write these final words, I am sitting at a table in an apartment in Berlin, Germany. I’m the guest of an anarchist friend who curates a museum for refugees next to a refugee camp filled with the very same people the Fascists want us to fear.

It’s also Gay Pride week in this city. There are over a hundred gay bars, restaurants, cafes, clubs, darkrooms, cultural centers, and sex shops in this city, many of them located in neighborhoods with high Turkish and Muslim populations.

There’s art everywhere, graffiti and wild gardens. Grapevines and trees grow in the cracked pavement where once bombs fell to defeat a regime which saw Berlin as the height of degeneracy. The very way of living the Fascists tried to crush resurged back more fiercely than before.

The other day I walked with a friend through the holocaust memorials in this city (most of the pictures accompanying this piece are from there). One, particularly, has haunted me ever since I saw it.

It’s a large black monolith, flat and polished on all sides, with a small black window on one face.  As you approach, you can see there’s something moving inside, a black&white film of two young men.

InstagramCapture_ccd29a1f-3713-453d-a668-183ef67fa71b

They’re standing in the same spot as the monolith, near the entrance to a massive park.  You can see the same trees, the same massive rocks in the distance.

They’re facing each other. They look around, a little worried they might be watched.

But then their fear fades away, overcome by something more urgent. One whispers in the ear of the other and then they kiss as you watch through the black window, entranced, aware of how what they are doing is still dangerous  despite all the promises of Liberal Democracy to protect them.

There is plenty of hope.

And also for us.

Next: Gardens From Ashes

 

Rhyd Wildermuth

InstagramCapture_37ba565d-4170-4912-a207-ca5e5f5ddbf9Rhyd is the co-founder and managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He’s usually in a city by the Salish sea in occupied Duwamish territory, but he’s been trekking about Europe for the last two months, with more to go. His most recent book is A Kindness of Ravens, and you can follow his adventures at: PAGANARCH.


A Beautiful Resistance: The Fire is Here has a lot more essays, poems, and art like what you see on Gods&Radicals. Order it here.

 

 

 

 

Social Justice…or Revolution?

This is the third essay in a series on the Death of Liberal Democracy

In the previous essay in this series, we looked at Liberal Democracy’s inherent violence through the State and our intimate identification with that violence. The execution of two Black men in the United States this last week unfortunately provide poignant examples of that violence.

Such things aren’t supposed to happen within Liberal Democracies, and yet they do. Worse, as Liberal Democracies begin to fail, violence against the oppressed only increases, as well as the deep divisions over its justifications.

Because our understanding of violence is always subjective, whether or not the State killing of Black men is ‘justified’ depends on whether or not we identify more with the victims of that violence, or with the State (and its values, and its agents). A Capitalist is more likely to defend the State’s actions than will those whom they exploit, because police don’t exist to keep Capitalists (most of them white) in line.

In such events, the veneer of Liberal Democracy cracks and fall off, showing something much darker—and much more violent—underneath. And like any other disillusionment, we experience the apparent short-circuit of the mythic and the real of Liberal Democracy as a kind of trauma, one our minds scramble furiously to repair.

Religion is a good parallel. When we experience a crisis of faith, particularly related to the Divine, we have two options. The first is to stare deeply into the sudden Abyss which has opened up, the chasm between what we believed was true—what we shaped our lives around—and what we now see as true.

But that’s really hard, so many opt for the second option: dig in our heels, insist that what we thought was true still is and cling harder to the external rituals of that belief until the doubts and questions go away.

They don’t, of course. And that trauma re-asserts itself in bizarre behaviour, and can produce both fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Relationships are another place where this happens. When you discover that the love you shared with another is no longer there–that you or the person(s) you loved no longer feel love for each other–you again have two options. You can begin the really difficult and painful process of unraveling your relationship, staring deeply into the Abyss of sorrow, loneliness, and separation.

Or, you can pretend nothing is wrong, try harder, and hope love comes back.

In each case, both choices are very, very human. No forsaken lover can really be blamed for their denial. No true believer can be faulted for their desire to return to a more innocent belief. And none of us should feel shame that we’ve clung so long to the myths of Liberal Democracy, even as we learn how violent and destructive it is.

Unfortunately, denial causes more harm than acceptance. The lover who ‘won’t let go’ sinks deeper into misery and unhappyness, worsening the tensions in the relationship. They can become controlling and abusive, blaming the other for their refusal to love. The believer who refuses to embrace the new truth misses the beauty of a deeper relationship to the Divine and may attack others for their ‘impiety,’ sometimes resorting to violence

But what about those who cling to the myth of Liberal Democracy? Who, though they’ve seen the very violence at its core, refuse to admit it and instead try to ‘fix it?’

We need to have a talk.

Utopian Socialism & Social Justice

Cave gate

When Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, they were not the first to criticize Capitalism and the State. They also were not just attacking Capitalism, but a rival ideology which promised more than it could ever deliver: Utopian Socialism.

Utopian Socialists criticized many of the same problems as Communists and Anarchists in the 18th and 19th century. But rather than advocate an overthrow of the State and a seizure of the factories from their owners (‘the means of production’), they thought that Liberal Democratic governments could be reformed through education and enlightenment. With enough time and effort, they reasoned, Capital would become less violent, wealth would become more equitably shared, and class and race divisions would eventually just fade away.

To get to such a point, Utopian Socialists tried to educate the masses on right behaviour. They reasoned that most of the problems of society came from ignorance, and if people only understood how their actions hurt others (including the actions of rulers and Capitalists), humanity would eventually become free and peaceful. In essence, once enough people changed their morals—replacing hate with tolerance, altruism for greed, solidarity for individualism—we would finally become equal.

Marx and Engels disagreed.

The primary argument against Utopian Socialism, from both Anarchists and Communists, was that the State would never relinquish power willingly. More so, the State existed to do the bidding of the Capitalists; without revolt, no amount of incremental change would ever suffice, because Capitalists always exert more power through their wealth.

If Utopian Socialism sounds a little familiar, it should. It never actually went away, but has taken many new names for itself. In the United States, for example, it’s been known as Progressivism. In many European countries, it’s called Democratic Socialism. And in most English-speaking countries in the world now, it’s called Social Justice.

And it’s failed.

The Limits of Social Justice

Like Utopian Socialism, Social Justice attempts to educate the masses on the causes and results of inequality in order to eradicate it. They believe that, once people understand that they are being racist, sexist, homophobic, fat-phobic, trans-phobic, misogynist, privileged, ableist, colonialist, white, classist, xenophobic, nationalist, and elitist, they will eventually stop.

By educating the masses about these things, Social Justice then aims to transform society into something more fair and just. If enough people understand these problems and seek to fix them, they can then transform the institutions (including the State) that benefit from these ills into something that will uphold equality.

There is a problem, of course: for as many people who embrace Social Justice and attempt to adjust their actions, there are more people who answer such complaints with, “no. I’m not.”

More so, those who wish to continue their behavior have all sorts of arguments in their defense. A person who does not want to be around trans people, for instance, may invoke religion (be it Christian Fundamentalism or Dianic Witchcraft), or safety, or the right to choose whom they associate with. An institution that believes same-sex relationships are immoral might likewise invoke ‘religious freedom’ as a defense.

In fact, Social Justice is a double-edged blade. New Right Heathen and polytheist theorists invoke the same arguments used to defend indigenous, First Nations, and other oppressed peoples to defend their own oppressive ideologies. Stephen McNallen and his fellow racists, for instance, insist that their ‘indigenous European culture’ deserves the same protections as others, and thus they should be able to exclude people of non-European descent from their groups.

While this may seem like a mere cynical attempt to hijack Social Justice language, it isn’t. The morality inherent to Social Justice is subjective and not actually part of its framework; people with opposing moral views can easily use the same framework.

There’s a long explanation for this, but here’s the short version: since Social Justice does not directly attack the foundations of inequality (Capitalism and the State), the original goal no longer matters. Once untethered from that goal, it becomes like a religion empty of its gods, or a relationship where love has died.

To understand more how this happened, we need to look more at Social Justice and its relationship to the State and Capital.

Social Justice and the Capitalist State

Pyramid-of-Capitalist-System

Neither Utopian Socialism nor Social Justice rely on education as the sole means of affecting social change. Instead, both attempt to increase the rights recognised and granted by the State in order to increase equality and enshrine a more just morality. Protections for disabled people, ethnic, religious, and racial minorities, anti-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation and social welfare programs are all strategies used to correct inequalities within Liberal Democracy and move towards a more just and equal society.

The problem? This strategy requires a violent and powerful State.

As described in the ‘social contract’ which Hobbes outlines in Leviathan, Liberal Democracies offer rights and protections to their citizens in return for the consent to rule. Those rights are then guaranteed and enforced through State violence, whether through the judicial system or military and police actions.

Unfortunately, using the apparatus of the State (and its violence) to create the sort of equality that the Social Justice framework demands gives more legitimacy to the State. The State then becomes empowered to use its violence (be that direct or indirect) to enact the will of the people in cases of discrimination, punishing individuals and businesses who, for instance, refuse to cater gay weddings, provide accommodations for wheelchair users, or hire Black people.

I use those three examples for a reason, as each involves Capitalism. First, though, let’s be clear:

Each of those scenarios are sites of inequality—no Marxist, Anarchist, or Social Justice advocate would disagree here.

We should also dismantle the Free Market/libertarian argument against such interventions, which asserts government should not interfere with the demands of Capitalism. This argument insists that the Market should decide whether the actions of those businesses are just, rather than the State. For them, The Market serves as a proxy for the divine mandate of the people. They reason that businesses which discriminate against others would fail because of loss of profit, and thus Capitalists would thus be more ‘moral’ out of self-interest.

Besides relying on religious faith in the Market, this argument also ignores the power (including State power) that Capitalists have over those without Capital. Most laws within Liberal Democracy exist to protect property and business, and the police exist to enforce these. That is, the Capitalist already wields State power, and isn’t eager to see this challenged.

Social Justice doesn’t question State power. Instead, when moral arguments regarding tolerance and acceptance fail to correct oppression, Social Justice demands that the State intervene. This State intervention does work, as least for a little while (as in desegregation in the American South, hate-crime laws in most Liberal Democracies, etc.). Unfortunately, by demanding these guarantees of rights (and the punishment of those who violate them), Social Justice empowers the State to enact more violence.

Thus, the police who arrest perpetrators of hate crimes are also police who kill Black men during traffic stops, the same courts which try cases of discrimination also prosecute homeless people for vagrancy. The State becomes more powerful through our reliance on it, and we find ourselves in a tug-of-war over control of State violence. We can’t win, because the State cannot exist without the Capitalists who fund it. As Audre Lorde pointed out:

…the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.

Capital has its own logic, one that transcends and transforms the values of the individual Capitalist. Capital’s primary demand is profit, and in order to profit, the Capitalist must exploit others. Capitalists must employ others to work for them at wages lower than the amount they sell the results of that labor for. In order to maintain this relationship of economic exploitation, there must also be hierarchy, with the owner(s) at the top and the workers at the bottom.

Hierarchy and exploitation spread throughout all other relations within Capitalist societies. Your boss is never ‘your equal,’ because your boss will always have more Authority (and money!) than you. Further, the boss must be able to maintain inequality in order to profit. As a result, even the most anti-racist and pro-Social Justice Capitalist can find themselves employing State violence to protect their Capital, calling the police when a homeless, Black, or other poor person steals from them.

Expand this use of State violence from the individual small Capitalist to an entire society, and you can see how the interests of Capital oppose the goals of equality espoused by Social Justice.

But without attacking Capital, Social Justice can only rely on the same State as the Capitalist in order to repair the damage Capitalism causes. Welfare, affirmative action, housing assistance, education grants—all these exist to lessen the damage of Capitalism, but none of them ever succeed in create equality precisely because Capitalism always requires inequality to function.

Also, everything the State does (including welfare, etc.) is paid for by taxation. The only way for the State to derive enough taxes to fund these programs is to have a thriving economy, with Capitalists reaping enough profits to bear the burden of taxation. Thus, the State is used both to fix the problems caused by Capitalism while also encouraging more Capitalism, with one hand repairing only some of the damage that it causes with the other hand.

Unfortunately, Social Justice enables this process.

Social Justice has also relied on the support of Capitalists in order to fight inequality. While recognition of gay partnerships and increased access for disabled people by large corporations is certainly a good thing, the ‘victories’ of such support then replace the criticism of the corporations themselves and enable those Capitalists to exploit others without question. Worst of all, it then creates a new dynamic of identity politics which both State and Capital are very good at exploiting.

Identity Politics and the Exploitation of the World

bloodied_child_3[1]
Father carrying dead daughter after bombing by Liberal Democracies, Iraq 2004
The United States Military recently joined the rest of the ‘civilized world’ (that is, Liberal Democracies) by allowing homosexuals to ‘serve’ openly and women to ‘serve’ in combat. It was hailed as a victory for Social Justice and equality by many gays and Feminists, seen as progress and the victory of tolerance over inequality.

An Arab woman who loses her children and husband to the bullets of an American lesbian soldier probably won’t see this as a victory of equality.

If this sounds harsh, good. We must be harsh in order to cut through the manipulation of our identities by the State.

During the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, many gay men and feminists called for support of these military actions on behalf of the gays and women in those countries, employing a narrative of Liberal Democracy versus the uncivilized (i.e.; Muslim) world. That same narrative repeats today—calls for stricter policies against immigrants to protect gays and women (especially after the Orlando massacre), relentlessly recycled news stories on the slaughter of gays by Daesh, calls by polytheists for the US military to send more troops to the Iraq to support Yezidis and stop the destruction of ancient sacred sites.

In all those cases, identity becomes a weapon of the Liberal Democratic State to gain consent for more violence, more conquest, more slaughter.

By refusing to attack the State and Capital directly and instead focusing on incremental change, Social Justice fails to challenge the global inequality of Liberal Democracy. As a result, we find ourselves as women fighting for equal pay from corporations which employ near-slave labor of other women, gays celebrating the ‘right’ to become soldiers in imperialist wars and killing other gays, and many other contradictory positions which Liberal Democracy is happy to exploit.

This isn’t to say that multiple inequalities cannot be fought at once. But because Social Justice doesn’t challenge Capital and relies on the State to achieve its goals, it helps the State turn our identity against us and make us complicit in the very exploitation it enacts.

Was this the intention of Social Justice? No. But it is its fatal flaw, and why it cannot liberate any of us.

And for each new right and protection gained by a minority in a Liberal Democracy, we become hostages to the State.

Moralism versus Revolution

CC Gerry Lauzon
CC Gerry Lauzon

The goals of Social Justice are good goals, but they cannot be accomplished without dismantling Liberal Democracy. And therein’s the problem, because if Liberal Democracy falls, the rights, protections, guarantees, and equality gained through Social Justice are directly threatened.

Thus, we cannot challenge its violent core because we rely on that State for our protection, and we fear what may come after.

It’s for this reason so many people in the U.K are terrified of what will come after Brexit, and they should be. It’s for this reason so many people in the United States are terrified of how much more violence there will be against Blacks and other minorities if the State is led by the next likely president.

And in the United States as I write, more Black men have been killed by agents of the State. Protests are arising everywhere, but some of the narrative has finally begun to shift away from the Social Justice framework.

This is a very good sign.

For decades, the primary tactic to address police slaughter of Black people has been to demand better training and education of police, as well as arrest and conviction of the police officers. The hope has been that police needed only more morality and more checks on their power in order not to be so violent.

Such a strategy ignores the role of police as agents of State violence, aiming instead to correct an apparent malfunction of an otherwise necessary machine This strategy has failed, and not because the millions of people who have protested against these deaths and demanded accountability didn’t try.

The system isn’t malfunctioning at all—it’s working precisely as it is supposed to.

Black people are criminalized in the United States not because Americans haven’t adopted the right morality, but because police exist to enforce the will of the State and the Capitalists who support it. The system oppresses Black people because it needs to.

If Black people were ever truly granted full equality under Liberal Democracy, if Racism were ever to fade away, Capitalism would go into crisis. Racial difference keeps the poor fighting each other rather than fighting the wealthy; as long as Blacks are considered dangerous and less worthy of life than whites, the white poor and working class will stay on the side of the white Capitalists and white State.

The same is true for immigrants, particularly in Europe. If European-born workers and immigrant workers were ever to unite, no amount of State violence could ever protect the Capitalist.

Because Social Justice fights only the symptoms of Capitalism, because it attempts to change society through morality and State power, it plays perfectly into the hands of Liberal Democracy. White heterosexual cis-males are definitely privileged by most Liberal Democracies; unfortunately, by attacking their privilege we cannot actually eradicate the source. Privilege doesn’t derive from those, it derives from the State, and the State is more than eager to grant out piecemeal rights and privileges in return for our embrace of the Liberal Democratic State.

As in South Africa under Apartheid, Liberal Democracies are founded upon unequal relations. Whites there enjoyed immense benefits and wealth at the expense of the majority Black population, and even those who believed Apartheid was immoral still feared what might come after. Would the oppressed Blacks rise up and slaughter all the whites? Would the Blacks in turn do the exact same things to whites as was done to them?

Because of the Truth&Reconciliation movement, the feared massacre didn’t happen. But South Africa was not a massive imperial power, exploiting millions outside of its borders, extracting their wealth and bombing their villages to pieces. The same cannot be said of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, or any of the other large Liberal Democracies. If the oppressed people within those countries don’t rise up, there are many more outside waiting to demand justice, too.

In each of these countries, the promise of an eventual equal society has proven false. Equality is impossible under Capitalism, and even as we in those countries try to gain more rights, we help Liberal Democracy destroy the lives of others.

Besides, decades and centuries of struggle to gain equality for minorities are now becoming reversed, and the State is increasing its violence: both abroad with its endless wars in oil-rich nations and within its borders against Blacks and immigrants, dissidents and the poor.

Liberal Democracy is dying, and Social Justice can’t fix it.

Moving On From Social Justice

InstagramCapture_1f1a406c-5003-4823-94b4-47355582928c

For most who cling to the Social Justice framework, I’m not really telling you anything new.

We already knew this. We’ve known this for awhile, but have been in denial. Like noticing that love no longer leaps between ourselves and a partner, we’ve not quite wanted to admit it. Like when we have a crisis of faith, we haven’t been quite certain what to do next.

It’s okay. We’re human.

But it’s time to move on. We need to look into that Abyss waiting for us. Just like clinging too long to a lover who no longer loves us, just like holding too tightly to the forms of a religion long after it becomes false, insisting that Liberal Democracy can be reformed will only cause more damage, more hurt, more sorrow.

Not moving on from the promise of Social Justice is already making us awful. Just like the religious person who tries to rekindle their lost faith by blaming infidels, we can find ourselves crippled by blaming other people’s privilege for our inability to act. And just as the lover in denial may begin to hate the person they once loved, we can find ourselves hating the very people who want to build an equal society with us.

And in both cases, the greatest loss is our own magic, our own power. The faith we once had can be had again, but this time not built on illusion and priests who knew no more about the divine than we do. The love which drove us to want to change the world will not die, but we will find a new way of loving that can last.

We can do this, and we must do it soon. We’re not the only ones noticing Liberal Democracy is dying.

And they’re more prepared than we are.

Next: The Resurgence of the Fascist Right


Rhyd Wildermuth

InstagramCapture_c8489ee1-3139-487c-92b9-271ba38254daRhyd is the co-founder and managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He’s usually in a city by the Salish sea in occupied Duwamish territory, but he’s currently trekking about Europe for the next three months. His most recent book is A Kindness of Ravens, and you can follow his adventures at: PAGANARCH.

 

Rhyd Wildermuth’s essay, “We Are The Rude,” is featured in A Beautiful Resistance: The Fire is Here.

The State of Violence

In the first essay of this series, I discussed the relationship of several recent events (Brexit, the strikes in France against the Loi Travail, and the massacred of Oaxaca) to Liberal Democracy and what appears to be its impending collapse. This essay will discuss the core of Liberal Democracy: violence.

As a reminder, Liberal Democracy is a specific relationship between Capital and The State, and is currently the dominant form of government in the world. With it comes apparent great benefits, like peace, stability, protections of individual rights, and a general trend towards freedom.

But does it really? If so, why are the largest Liberal Democracies always at war with weaker—and usually non-white—nations? Why are so many unarmed Black people killed on the streets in the United States, why do so many armed police show up to anti-war and anti-capitalist protests? Why do so many Liberal Democracies have standing armies with large military budgets? Why so many prisons? Why so many police?

The answer is both deeply complex and also very simple. But to get there, we need to look at the matter of violence and our own relationship to it.

“Nasty, Brutish, and Short”

Thomas Hobbes famously wrote those lines in his manifesto on State power, “The Leviathan.” According to him, life in a ‘state of nature,’ –that is, outside a strong State– was violent, full of retributive justice and vengeance killings, civil disorder, greed, and chaos. Without strong leaders, people remained in a state of violence, unable to live peaceful lives and strive towards more than just subsistence living.

It was a grand work of propaganda, one which most of us have an awful time unraveling. Because we did not live in the past—and because there’s no one around from those times to interview—we can only ever build an understanding of what life was like back then by imagination, informed by ‘history.’

That ‘history’ is actually the story of civilization, and one that is constantly open to interpretation. The well-known adage that ‘history is written by the victors’ is actually a bit misleading. Most historians were involved in no wars of conquest and subjugation. Rather, they’re individual academics trained to narrate the past. And they disagree, often vehemently, crafting sometimes warring narrations about events and historical processes.

Historians themselves aren’t the victors; they’re just academically-trained storytellers. It’s the State and Capital (particularly through the media) who chooses which narratives to privilege and which narratives to silence.

Certain histories benefit the continuation of a civilisation, other histories threaten its survival. Histories which tell useful stories to the powerful get favored; histories which tell darker tales and remind of the violence perpetrated by the powerful are at best ignored but, more often, actively marginalised and silenced.

An example from the country I know best will help show this. The dominant history of the founding of the United States, taught to every child in every school, is that a group of religious Pilgrims settled on the eastern shores of North America in search of religious freedom. They were fleeing religious persecution, and came to America in home of a better life.

Every American knows this story. Few Americans think much about the pilgrims in question, the Puritan sect of Protestants who smashed statues in European churches, heavily persecuted and attacked Catholics and heretics, and for a little while possessed great power in England. When they were no longer in power, they in turn became the ‘persecuted.’ Many fled first to extremely tolerant Holland before being ejected for being too violent, and took a charter from England to colonize the ‘new world.’

This other part of the story doesn’t get told much. It greatly complicates the founding myth of the United States, and most children might be turned off from such details. And though such details are well known and considered historical consensus, none of the powerful people in the United States have any interest in correcting the public perception.

This same selection occurs for the history of violence and the State, as well. While violence certainly existed before Liberal Democracy, it has not gone away now. States have always been violent, and Liberal Democracy is not different. But Liberal Democracy has perfected a trick that previous forms of government never quite could.

That trick? Violence in your name.

The Leviathan

Hobbe’s Leviathan deserves a little more examination. Examine the frontispiece from the original edition for a moment–The image shows a sovereign giant made up of millions of people, the model for the ‘commonwealth’ and later Liberal Democracy:

frontisLiberal Democracies are generally ‘republics’ or constitutional monarchies. In both cases, the government is given the power to rule on behalf of the people. In such an arrangement, the leaders are elected to act as representatives of the entire public, either directly as in France or the United States, or elected as part of a parliamentary party as in the United Kingdom or Germany.

Whatever the government does, then, is considered to be the ‘will of the people,’ done for them and done on their behalf as if the people themselves have done it. Because the government leaders are elected by the people, the decisions of the government then act with what can only be described as a divine mandate.

Previous governmental forms sought sanction from religious leaders in order to gain this divine mandate. This is why European kings, queens, and emperors were crowned by Popes and Archbishops, and why the state priesthood in the Roman Empire had so much power. Though that mandate now comes from people rather than gods in Liberal Democracy, it still functions the same way.

Likewise, kings and emperors once sought the blessing of religious leaders to justify large military actions. Why? Whether or not the Christian god actually approved of those wars is not something we can know, and actually, it was probably never the point. Instead, leaders needed the approval of ‘god’ in order to win the support of their own people.

It’s hard to convince someone to go die for you, even if you’re offering money. And judging from the tales of my friends in the US military, soldiers are never paid well. To pay soldiers enough to justify the likelihood of death would drain the coffers of any king or government.

Religion can often succeed where direct threat or bribe fails. It’s a lot easier if you’ve got something to tempt them with, be it innumerable virgins in paradise, a full drinking horn in Valhalla, or reduced time in purgatory. And in each of those offers there is also a threat, because once the god/gods have given their blessing on a war through their priests, to not join, to not support or—much worse, to act against the war—is to go against your community and the divine itself.

Liberal Democracy (mostly) dispensed with the need to gain support for violence from what we normally think of as the divine. But it still relies on all the same sort of divine blessing that previous governments required. The ‘divine’ is now the people, the Leviathan itself, with the leaders at the head.

That is, we are the ones who grant legitimacy to State violence, even if we never say yes.

State Monopoly on Violence

I’ve used the word ‘violence’ quite a few times so far without defining it. In fact, we face a problem whenever we try to define violence if we live in Liberal Democracies—we can rarely agree on what actually counts as violence because of the State’s monopoly on it.

By ‘monopoly on violence,’ I mean simply this: the government is the sole legitimate agent of violence within Liberal Democracy. That is, agents of the state (police, military, etc.) are legally empowered to perform violence on behalf of the people, and all acts of violence not by the State are illegitimate (that is, illegal).

If you kill someone, or assault them, or take their property, or raze their house and burn their fields, you have used violence illegally, regardless of your reasons. The victim in this case may have been someone who slaughtered your family and poisoned your water and raped you: regardless of that, you have used violence illegitimately, and if caught will be subject to state violence. Only the State is allowed to do such things within Liberal Democracy.

What sorts of violence the State can use is supposed to be restricted by laws. Those laws, of course, are passed by the government (through representatives elected by people, or in rare cases by referendum), and though States often make appearances to obey these limits on its power, the State—being the only one empowered to enact violence–is always able to make exceptions.

The State, being the only legitimate agent of violence, is empowered within Liberal Democracy to enforce laws and punish those who break them. When the State enacts violence against individuals or groups within the Leviathan, it’s called Justice. Violence outside the Leviathan—that is, against other states and foreign individuals—often also falls into the category of Justice, especially in the last hundred years, despite the fact that laws can only apply within the State which makes them.

Justification for foreign wars doesn’t come from their legality, though—it derives solely from the assumed consent of the people, the ‘divine mandate.’ The State has all sorts of tricks to maintain that consent, including propaganda, religious rhetoric, identity politics and other ways to manufacture consent (including, unfortunately, the social justice framework, which will be addressed in my next essay).

Justice for Most

Manchester Fence Concertina

While all Liberal Democracies enshrine some concept of equality in their founding documents, none actually deliver that equality. In the United States, for example, though everyone (except felons and those who cannot afford identification documents, usually poor and people of color) have the right to vote (assuming their ballots are counted, assuming they can take time off work), it hasn’t always been the case. Originally, only white men were allowed to vote, and it took more than a century for women to be given that right.

The United States, like European Democracies and other former British Colonies, is mostly ruled by white men with money. In all these countries, white men without money are given more privileges by the powerful (note the language here: privilege is something given, not something inherent to the person) than others, in return for their support of the governing class.

Not all Liberal Democracies are white (but most are!); however, they all follow the same pattern of favoritism given to a lower class of people who resemble the people in control.

Those who are given fewer privileges tend to dislike having fewer. In fact, they tend to resent this greatly, and either demand more rights (as in the Civil Rights movement in the United States) or stop seeing themselves as part of society—unconsciously withdrawing from the Leviathan. Those in that latter case have less respect for the laws (many of which are designed to keep them in line anyway) and for the unspoken sacredness of certain institutions and modes of being. That is, they become criminal.

That’s not to say that criminals are all making conscious choices to reject the ruling class, or that criminal behaviour doesn’t have other causes too, like abject poverty. In fact, Liberal Democracies actually create the conditions which lead to criminal behaviour, including defining criminal behaviour in the first place.

And what does the State do to criminals? It uses violence against them, violence derived from its supposed ‘divine mandate’ from the people.

That violence takes many forms, and here’s where we can finally start to define violence. Police employed by the State are empowered to physically detain, assault, subdue, imprison, and even kill ‘criminals’ on behalf of the State. Of course, this is all before a trial has occurred to determine if the victim of state violence was actually ‘deserving’ of these actions (that is, was ‘guilty’ of a ‘crime’).

Of course, if the victim is dead, there is no way to determine their guilt or innocence, so in many places (especially the United States), killing a ‘suspect’ is actually a wiser choice than arrest for many police officers worried about civil rights lawsuits for wrongful arrest.

Since police officers are employed as agents of State violence, and since the State acts on our behalf, than the police, also, are acting as our agents of violence. When we call the police because of a robbery or assault, we are notifying the police that we would like them to find and enact violence against those who wronged us, rather than us doing so ourselves. And though there are many cases where someone else perpetrating violence on your behalf makes sense, it is the victimization of one person (or group) which then demands the victimization of those who perpetrated the violence.

In essence, the police act as agents of violence for others, no different from hired mercenaries or assassins except in one specific way: they are actually paid for and under the employ of the State, not by the victims.

Within Liberal Democracies, the people (who give the divine mandate to the State) are both separated from the violence the state enacts and also intimately connected to it at the same time. When police kill a murderer, we feel a sense of relief and of justice being ‘served,’ though we did nothing at all and may not even be able to know if the person actually murdered anyone. We become accustomed to believing that the police, because they act on our behalf, are doing good things, and except in rare cases we tend never to question their actions.

If anything, our relationship to them is similar to that of a fan of a sports team, overly identifying with players they’ve never met. “Our team won” means nothing at all, unless you are on the team or one of the owners of the sports franchise, yet that identification is unshakeable. That same identification occurs between us and the police and the military, particularly if we are within the class of people who are given more privileges than others by the government–and thus less likely to be on the wrong end of a police officer’s nightstick or assault rifle.

Violence is always subjective—that is, subject to our perceptions. A fist to the face is violent, certainly, but it’s less violent if we feel that the person deserved it, or if that fist was meant to stop more violence. A rape is violent, absolutely, yet those who are more likely to identify with the perpetrator than the victim are quick to re-conceptualize that violence through that same logic (how was she dressed, how drunk was he). Basically, we skew our judgments about justice according to our identification with those involved.

Liberal Democracy benefits greatly from this process. In fact, it encourages and abuses it, wielding our identifications and subjectivity as a bludgeon against enemies both foreign and domestic. As much as we all mitigate violence through identification with either the victim or the perpetrator on an individual level, we do the very same thing to a greater (and more destructive) degree with State violence.

Did any of the recent unarmed Black men in the United States ‘deserve’ to be killed by police? The answer, unfortunately, depends on whether or not any of us have done the work to see beyond our identifications with State violence. It also depends on whether or not we identify more with the interests the State is trying to protect by such murders, or with the victims. A white Capitalist who relies on the police to prevent theft from his business in a Black neighborhood is likely to identify with the police, rather than victim.

Do anti-capitalist protesters deserve to be beaten, pepper-sprayed, and arrested? That depends on how much we identify with the State and its protection of Capital and Property, or with the concerns and actions of the protesters.

And what about in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria—do the people there deserve to be killed by ‘our’ soldiers? Again, it depends on whether or not you identify more with the military or the people being killed by them, and for the majority of people in the countries whose governments are engaged there, the soldiers are more culturally, racially, and linguistically familiar than the victims are.

There’s one vital thing that none of these examples addresses, though. In each case, the question is whether or not the use of violence is justified, and this is always a subjective question. But what is almost never questioned is the role of the State (the police, the military) as agents of violence.

This is how Liberal Democracy is able to obscure its true violence from us, whether we identify with the unarmed Black men or the police officers who shoot them. Liberal or Conservative, ‘Social Justice Warrior’ or Right-wing racist, none actually threaten the State’s monopoly on violence, only question its uses and demand it be used to implement their vision of Justice.

And so Liberal Democracy has been able to carry on, unchallenged in its core violence, a lumbering Leviathan with tanks and guns, until the zero-sum game of Terrorism began.

The Upturned Table

anti-terrorism soldiers, Toulouse, France
anti-terrorism soldiers, Toulouse, France

Acts of non-state violence in the cultural and financial centers of Liberal Democracies have occurred for centuries, both from the ‘right’ and the ‘left.’ Regardless of their causes and justifications, so-called acts of ‘terrorism’ challenge the Liberal Democratic state more than any progressive or reactionary ever could.

The reason is simple: while Left-wing or Right-wing political movements can at any time take over the government, they never actually threaten the existence of the government. Communists on the Left and Fascists on the Right only want to claim the State for their own to enact their political goals. “Terrorists,”on the other hand, destabilize the State, forcing it either to abdicate its monopolistic claim on violence (which they’ll never do) or to further solidify its monopoly on violence.

That, unfortunately, is where we are now. Every Liberal Democracy has enacted anti-terrorist legislation and claimed new powers in order to combat the threat of non-state violence. To do so, they have necessarily had to curtail the freedoms granted to the people they rule over, and no longer bother much even with the appearance of law and constitutional guarantees.

One can argue, as Georgio Agamben, Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt all have, that this process started much earlier than the recent ‘wars on terror.’ Liberal Democracies began to pass ‘State of Emergencies’ all throughout the 20th century, particularly during times of war, but not until World War II did these exceptions start to become the rule.

It was a Nazi jurist, Carl Schmidt, who first defined for all later governments the justification for the suspension of law. “Sovereign is he who decides the exception,” he wrote, asserting that it is the very fact that a State can suspend all rules in order to survive that grants the State power, not the supposed ‘divine mandate.’

From the actions of recent governments, it’s clear Liberal Democracy took his words to heart. “Free speech zones” in the United States, individual interdictions (including house arrest) from attending protests in France, suspension of freedom of movement and just-cause in the name of anti-terrorism in the UK and elsewhere—Liberal Democracies have responded to terrorism precisely as Fascist theorists would have urged them to.

And just as we tend not to question State violence against those we do not favor, we are now caught in an even greater trap. As terrorist actions continue, we are faced with the apparent choice of either supporting the restrictions of our freedoms ‘for our own good,’ or risking our lives when the next bomb or mass shooting happens. And since acts of terrorism only increase whenever the State goes to war, the cycle is likely to accelerate, pushing all of the Liberal Democracies into crisis for which, unfortunately, Fascism has always offered an answer.

It’s one we must not accept.

 

Next–“Assuming the State” (on Social Justice, Human Rights, and the Crisis of ‘The Left.’)

(for more on Leviathan and recent events, see Heathen Chinese’s  essay at The Wild Hunt)

Rhyd Wildermuth

InstagramCapture_c8489ee1-3139-487c-92b9-271ba38254daRhyd is the co-founder and managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He’s usually in a city by the Salish sea in occupied Duwamish territory, but he’s currently trekking about Europe for the next three months. His most recent book is A Kindness of Ravens, and you can follow his adventures at: PAGANARCH.

The Death of Liberal Democracy?

This is the first in a series addressing the failure and apparent destruction of Liberal Democracy, and what might–and can–come after.

On Thursday, June 23th, 2016, a majority of people voting in a referendum in the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union.

On June 19th, 2016, the Mexican state began arresting and killing striking teachers in Oaxaca.

On June 17th, 2016, French workers filled the streets of every major city as part of a general strike against a new labor law.

Though each of these three events involved radically different circumstances, politics, and players, they are alike in one specific way: they are reactions to State power and its collusion with Capital.  That is, they are also crises of Liberal Democracy.

To compare the three may seem initially irresponsible. Many people have died in the latest uprising in Oaxaca, while no one has died in France from the strikes. And despite a leader of the Brexit campaign stating that ‘no shots were fired’ in the movement to leave the European Union, one Labor MP was indeed killed by a far-right gunman for her insistence that the UK remain as part of the EU.

Likewise, the movements in Oaxaca and France are being led by Leftists; in France, the uprising against the government’s Loi Travaille (which would significantly destroy hard-won worker protections) comes from Left and Far-Left unions and poltical parties, while in Oaxaca, the resistance comes from Leftist autonomist movements. In the UK, however, the majority support for the exit vote came from the Right and Far-Right; in fact, the referendum was initiated by the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron in order to deal with divisions in his own party between reactionaries and more mainstream politicians. More so, the Brexit vote was heavily fueled by anti-immigrant (particularly anti-muslim) sentiment; in France, the far-right party (Front National) is a primary supporter of the Loi Travaille, and Oaxaca (as well as the rest of Mexico) has a net loss of population to immigration, rather than on account of it.

Obscured by these many differences, however, is the primary agent of the conflicts which led the UK to vote to leave, French workers to protest en masse, and Oaxacan teachers to risk getting murdered or disappeared.

In all three cases, the cause is Capital, and the primary agent of Capital is the State. And while French workers and Oaxacan teachers rose up to fight their government’s collusion with Capital, people in the UK (many with racist and xenophobic intentions) voted to strengthen their own government against the influence of foreign Capital while—frightfully–setting the stage for a vast reduction in government protections for their own minorities.

All of these cases are symptoms of the impending death of Liberal Democracy, and a crisis of Capital. For Pagans, queers, transfolk, disabled folk, people of color, immigrants, and every other minority who relies upon the State for their protection, this should be very worrying—and also a wake-up call to build something more resilient, and soon.

To understand how to do this, though, we must understand the relationship between Capital and the State, and before that, we need first to look at what Liberal Democracy is.

img_1513

Smashed Bank, Rennes, France (photo by Alley Valkyrie)

“The End of History”

In 1989, an advisor to president Ronald Reagan named Francis Fukuyama wrote a highly influential essay called “The End of History?”, in which he suggested the Liberal Democracy is the end point and highest evolutionary state of political governance. Citing the fall of Fascist governments in Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as the failure of State-Communism as seen in the then-crumbling Soviet Empire, Fukuyama suggested that Capitalism and Democratic forms of government were the destiny of humanity. Though his essay (and subsequent book) have fallen mostly out of favor, the sense that we are now living in the most peaceful, advanced, and static form of society has become so entrenched that few even see the matter as open to debate.

The consequence of this thinking, however, is that most people see Capitalism as an inevitability and the modern Liberal Democratic State as unquestionable. Not only that, but it’s difficult for many people to conceive of a form of existence outside of the present state of affairs, as the system in which we live has become almost invisible as a thing at all.  Thus, Capitalism seems to have ‘always existed,’ and many instruments of modern State violence (the police, the military, private property) seem to be as necessary as air or food for the existence of humanity.

Only in moments when Liberal Democracy doesn’t function the way we have been taught to believe it does do we ever notice its existence. When police kill an unarmed Black man in the streets in America without reason, when we see photos or hear reports of wretched prisoner abuse by US soldiers, or in large-scale terror (in Paris, in Orlando) or riot (Ferguson, Oaxaca), the invisible tapestry of Liberal Democracy seems to rip before us.  At such times, it is almost as if a wall we never noticed is breached, and we get a brief glimpse into the world outside before the opening is repaired.

Thus,  if it were really true that Liberal Democracy is the best form of government, then events like those in Oaxaca and the United Kingdom make no sense. Why would the Mexican government gun down teachers for protesting an educational reform? Why would the United Kingdom vote to leave perhaps the greatest triumph of Liberal Democracy, the European Union? And why would workers in France choose to shut down commerce, energy distribution (including nuclear power plants and gas refineries) rather than just vote for a more sympathetic government?

To some degree, all three events seem regressive or reactionary, a revolt of backwards people against the flow of history. And that’s precisely how these events become painted by the media and by leaders: the Oaxacan teachers are violent primitives, the Brexit-Leave voters are all racist and idiots, and the French strikers are lazy and unwilling to adapt to the future.

These narratives function as a way of closing the breached wall, or repairing the invisible fabric of our present world-view. Once the crisis is averted or resolved, the events are re-written in our histories (not just by historians, government officials, or the media but by ourselves, as well) to return to the status quo we were familiar with before. Life returns to normal and the State is no longer questioned. That is, we return to ‘The End of History’ where Liberal Democracy is the highest form of society, Capital is unquestioned, and the State continues.

InstagramCapture_1f1a406c-5003-4823-94b4-47355582928c

The Core of Liberal Democracy

Before I continue, I should to define some stuff, as terms like the State, Capital, and Liberal Democracy are not always clear-cut, and it will help to make sure we’re on the same page.

First of all, Capital is wealth used to derive more wealth through investment. Capital refers to all the money invested in factories, tech companies, stocks, property, and anything else that might make a profit for the investor. Capital seems to have a logic and an egregoric life of its own. That logic? To reproduce itself—basically, to have more Capital through profit.

By “The State,” I mean governments and all the instruments of government. So, in the United States, “The State” is the president, the congress, the supreme courts, as well as all the other government agencies and agents (including police and the military) which exist to enforce its will. Just as with Capital, The State functions as an egregore, a created entity which seeks its own survival and reproduction, which is its central logic.

Liberal Democracy is the name of a specific sort of relationship between State and Capital, a specific kind of government for which Capitalism is the primary economic relationship (“Liberalism”) and Democracy (that is, the appearance of collective will of the people) is the primary mode of governance. The United States, all the countries in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and also Mexico (as well as many, many other countries in the world) are Liberal Democracies.

Liberal Democracy has several primary attributes that are important to remember (and will be addressed again later in this series).  They are as follows:

    • The State is the agent of the People (the Leviathan): Under Liberal Democracy, the government is seen as the voice of the people it rules over and their empowered representative. Since people can vote for their rulers, it is expected that their rulers are imbued with the power to enact the will of the people, and act not only on their behalf, but as their sole agent.  Similar to the Catholic doctrine of the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ,” governments speak and act not just through the will of the people, but as if the people speak through them.
    • The State Monopoly on Violence: In Liberal Democracies, the government is authorised to enact violence on behalf of the people, and as the sole agent of violence. By ‘violence,’ I mean both the overt and obvious forms (foreign war, police arrests, capital punishment, imprisonment) and the less overt forms (laws which curtail freedoms, determine and enforce boundaries and borders).
    • The State As Sole Agent of Justice: Because the State is the only one who can enact violence, Justice can only be accomplished through government action and the legal system.  So, in a rape case, it is up to the government to find and punish the rapist, or if a corporation pollutes the air of a poor neighborhood, the only ‘just’ way to fix the problem is to go through the courts or environmental agency.  Individual or group action outside of the legal system to right a wrong can–and often is–harshly punished by the State.
    • The State as the Protector/Originator of Rights: What distinguishes Liberal Democracies from earlier forms of government is a contractural agreement between the State and the people it governs regarding the rights of citizens. Often times, these contracts were born of some struggle which threatened the ability of the State to maintain power (for instance, the Magna Carta in Britain, or the US constitution).  Also, rights are constantly negotiated: female–and later Black–suffrage, the protection of disabled people, sexual and other minorities, the 35-hour work week and 5 weeks paid vacation in France are all examples of rights demanded by people and later “recognised” and enshrined into law by governments.  In exchange for recognizing these rights, the government gains the consent to rule the people, and becomes the sole guarantor of those rights.
    • The State as the Protector of Capital: Liberal Democracy is ‘Liberal’ on account of its relationship to Capitalism. Though ‘Liberal’ has a very narrow definition in the United States, more broadly it is understood as a position towards the freedom of Markets.  Even under ‘conservative’ governments, States privilege the economic activity of wealthy individuals and groups over the potential damage that activity may cause to the poor or less wealthy.  Thus, Liberal Democracy guarantees the right to “Private Property” (land and its uses) so that Capitalists can make money and help fund the activities of the State (including wars) through taxes.
    • The State as the Sovereign Exception: Along with the previously mentioned attributes, Liberal Democracies claim the ability to suspend rights, protections, and other guarantees in order to protect the State from crises which may cause the State to be destroyed.  Anything seen as an ‘existential threat’ to the government, then, can be met with a ‘State of Emergency’ where the contract between people and the leaders are temporarily suspended until the crisis is averted.  This, by the way, is not an idea originating with Liberal theorists at all, but rather from Nazi jurist Carl Schmidt and later adopted by Liberal Democratic governments after World War II.

To understand each of these need to look at the relationship of Liberal Democracy to Capitalism, and the best way to see this is through the state guarantee of Private Property.

(Future essays in this series will cover these aspects of Liberal Democracy. What is likely to replace it, if we do not create something better, should terrify anyone who cares for equality, peace, freedom, and the earth. What could replace it, though, is precisely why Gods&Radicals exists in the first place.)

The Dance of State and Capital

Liberal Democracy is ‘classically liberal’ precisely because of its stance on freedom–that is, the State should guarantee the freedom of the people it rules in order to continue governing.  And while freedoms such as the Right to Free Speech or the Freedom of Religion are definitely worth keeping around, other freedoms such as the Right to Private Property are the foundation of Capitalism and directly curtail the freedom of others.

Private Property, of course, doesn’t refer to the socks on your feet or your personal electronics; rather, it refers to the right to own land and be the sole person who may use it as you will.  Unlike other rights like religion or speech, Private Property is founded upon a pre-requisite that is not available to the majority of humans in the world: wealth.

Private Property requires money to purchase. More so, it also requires exclusion.  Unlike Freedom of Speech (which doesn’t require other people stay silent) or Freedom of Religion (which doesn’t require other people be excluded from religion), Private Property is a guarantee that the government will protect your right to keep other people from using your property.  More so, you are free to own as much of it as you like and never sell it, thus taking away the ability of other people to own property, as land is a limited resource.

Though framed as an individual right, Private Property is a guarantee only to a specific class of people within Liberal Democracies: those with property or the money to purchase it.  Though apparently meant to protect people who own small bits of land where they might subsist or live, the right to Private Property instead favors those who use their property to derive more wealth from it and therefore gain more property.

That is, the right to Private Property is a protection of Capital.

What interest might a State have in protecting Capital, though?  The primary argument of Liberal Democracy for the protection of Capital (and therefore Capitalism) is that the rich ‘generate’ wealth for others by paying others to work for them.  The poor who have no property have no other way to survive, and because hungry people are likely to steal or revolt, the poor need access to food. Capitalists pay their workers, who then use the money to buy food from other Capitalists who pay their workers, who then use the money purchase other goods from other Capitalists who pay their workers, etc..

In an ideal version of such a system, everyone is fed and can get access to what they need, and thus the government doesn’t need to use violence to sustain its existence and doesn’t need to use its resources to keep its citizens alive.

Of course, that’s not how any Liberal Democracy has ever functioned, but because we accept the idealised situation as the way it ‘should’ function and see exceptions as aberrations, Liberal Democracy and Capitalism continue mostly unchallenged. But there’s another reason why Liberal Democracies safeguard this system–taxes.

Without money, a government can do nothing. It cannot pay its soldiers or police, its representatives or chancellors or presidents or judges. And because Capitalism is predicated on individuals and groups being free to act without interference by the government, Liberal Democracies cannot generally make money outside of taxes, unlike State-Communist governments or so-called Petro-States.

So, all the governments of Europe, North America, and much of the rest of the world rely primarily on tax revenue for their income.  Without active (and inflationary) economic activity, there is less of a resource pool to tax.

Liberal Democracies tend to glean their taxes from exchange (sales, VAT, wages/income) and static wealth (land, houses). If an economy is inflationary (that is, always growing), a government can have a constant and increasing access to taxes without raising tax rates.  And fortunately, taxes on static wealth (land, housing) help insure that economies become inflationary and more Capitalist.

This latter part is particularly interesting, and rarely addressed by urban activists concerned with gentrification. When taxes on housing increase, landlords can either take less profit from the rents they charge their tenants, or increase the rent. Increasing rents then reduces the amount of money the tenants have after their income, so they must either work more, spend less on other things, or find a cheaper living situation.  Pressured in such a way by government taxation, the tenants (who are usually workers and already paying income taxes) ,then either demand higher wages (increasing income-tax revenue), work more (again, increasing income-tax revenue), or reduce their spending (causing the government to raise property taxes to increase revenue, thus causing Capitalist property owners to seek more profits and increasing the cycle).

Photo by Alley Valkyrie
Photo by Alley Valkyrie

Held Hostage by Liberal Democracy

As I mentioned, though Capitalist exchange seems to be an ideal situation for the state to maintain itself, Capitalism never delivers the ideal. More so, people who cannot secure what they want through the economy are liable to do so outside of legal means or even revolt.

Thus, Liberal Democracies have adopted certain Socialist programs in order to lessen the damage that Capitalism causes. Universal health care, funding for the un-employed, food and transportation aid, minimum wage guarantees and other such programs act as bandages on the places where Capitalism causes more damage than good. And while Liberal/Progressive/Social Justice movements in many Liberal Democracies see such programs as signs of increasing fairness and justice, these programs actually function to pacify resistance to Capitalism and the State, particularly since they are funded by revenue derived from Capitalist activity.

In fact, such a contradiction is a great benefit to the continuation of Liberal Democracy.  People who might otherwise be very critical of Capitalism and the existence of the State find themselves in a position where they rely on the continuance of both for their existence. People suffering from illnesses for which medication subsidized by the government (and paid for by Capitalist-derived taxes) is the only way to survive thus need Liberal Democracy to continue.

This is where the Brexit vote becomes primarily interesting. Many leftists in the United Kingdom are quite terrified of the likely reductions in benefits and social programs for vulnerable people after the exit from the European Union. They have great reason to worry, too, as the European Union did significantly help increase funding for social programs and force the UK government to adopt more open policies on immigration, gay rights, and other protections for minorities.  The European Union represented the height of Liberal Democracy, and the U.K.’ exit from it signifies not only an early symptom of the death of Liberal Democracy, but a significant short-term (and possibly long-term) increase in suffering for those who relied on its promises.

But it also means a blow to Capitalists, as well, who now face new barriers to trade and cheap labor through immigration. Also, the Liberal Democratic policies of the European Union significantly stabilized markets, making it so that Capitalists could plan profits long-term. The drop in the Euro and the Pound, as well as respective stock markets, is a symbol of the panic felt by Capitalists who fear loss of profit.

To see the other side of the European Union one only need to look at the situation in France. The Loi Travail in France was crafted as a way to liberalise (that is, open up) the labor markets in France, giving employers more flexibility in hiring by taking away worker guarantees. French workers still have some of the strongest protections and benefits in Europe, and empowered workers mean less profit for Capitalists. Thus, Liberal Democracy, particularly through the open-market policies of the European Union, needed to reduce worker rights in order to ensure Capitalists invest enough money to start the economic cycle which generates taxes.

More so, French workers enjoying more protections than many other workers in Europe destabilizes the labor market, encourages Capital to look for cheaper workers elsewhere, and gives basis to workers in other countries to demand more. The manifestations and strikes in France, then, are not just an attack on employers but on the State and Capital itself, as well as the Liberal Democratic foundation of the European Union.

The situation in Oaxaca has nothing to do with the European Union, but operates on the same logic.  Mexico is a Liberal Democracy that faces financial ruin on account of a Liberal Democratic trade agreement (the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA). In order to generate more tax revenue, as well as stave off the governance problems associated with widespread poverty, the government borrowed money from international financial organisations in return for ‘liberalizing’ their markets and creating new ones, including in education:

The reasons why the Mexican government wants to impose the Educational Reform, even if it means killing people, as with the massacre in Nochixtlán by repressive state forces on June 19, are rooted in economic objectives guided by international financial organizations. The reform, proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with the OECD-Mexico Agreement to Improve the Quality of Education in Schools of Mexico, aims to lay the groundwork to shift education from being a State responsibility to instead being resolved in the realm of the financial market.

In order to comply with these objectives, the Mexican government passed educational reforms which took away rights from teachers. In Oaxaca, one of the strongest bastions of Leftist organisation, the teachers went on strike, and the state responded with violence.

While both Capitalists and the poorest will initially suffer from crises of Liberal Democracy, as in Brexit, Capitalists are usually able to recover from such crises.  In fact, it’s precisely in such crises that Capitalists are able to influence their own governments more, convincing them to lessen worker protections (including wages) as in France, or selling off specific resources as in Oaxaca.

And if the people resist, Liberal Democracy has a particular weapon that proves generally irresistible: violence, upon which it holds a monopoly.

Next: Liberal Democracy and Violence

 

Rhyd Wildermuth

InstagramCapture_c8489ee1-3139-487c-92b9-271ba38254daRhyd is the co-founder and managing editor of Gods&Radicals. He’s usually in a city by the Salish sea in occupied Duwamish territory, but he’s currently trekking about Europe for the next three months. Follow his adventures at: PAGANARCH.

 


A Beautiful Resistance: The Fire is Here is now available for immediate download.