Endless War

According to the Associated Press, about a hundred self-identified anarchists entered an anti-racist rally in Berkeley, California, where they proceeded to beat up several people.

The group of more than 100 hooded protesters, with shields emblazoned with the words "no hate" and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. Then the anarchists blended with a crowd of 2,000 largely peaceful protesters who turned up to demonstrate in a "Rally Against Hate" opposed to a much smaller gathering of right-wing protesters.

"No hate" -- don't you just love that?  The hypocritical piety is practically Christian.  Even better, these goons went after isolated individuals they could gang up on with minimal risk to themselves.  Better still: the first guy they attacked is Japanese-American, which makes their assault a racist attack -- a hate crime.  (Or a "no hate" crime, which makes a big difference, I suppose.)  Luckily, almost miraculously, the police didn't seize the opportunity to attack the rest of the crowd, which is the normal police response to such incidents.

It has been educational to watch liberal and left reactions to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.  As I've noticed before, many of them are blurring the already vexed line between speech and violence, and eager to give the Trump administration the authority to decide what speech is acceptable and what isn't.  (I'm being slightly disingenuous there, since of course they fantasize that they themselves will make that decision; which shows that they're delusional, given existing historical and political realities in the US.)  They also exploit an ambiguity in the word "fighting," which can refer metaphorically to any kind of organized effort (including sports) against something, or to actual literal violence.

So, for example, I've often heard it said that Heather Heyer was fighting hate (or fascism or racism or Nazism, or fighting for what she believed in, whatever) in Charlottesville when she was killed by a white supremacist who drove his car into the crowd of people she was in.  Fighting (literal) doesn't seem to have been Heyer's style.  In any case, she was killed as she crossed a street at an intersection during (I think -- the chronology is muddled) the counter-protest.  I don't say this to minimize her death or its significance, only for clarity's sake.  That she wasn't clubbing down neo-Nazis makes her murderer even more cowardly and despicable.  While simply pepper-spraying and chasing a non-resisting individual isn't in the same class of evil (except perhaps metaphorically) as driving a car into an unarmed and nonviolent crowd, it's also cowardly and despicable.  Like this.

So when Ted Rall posted on Facebook last weekend that, "Considering the history of fascism, the debate over whether the antifa movement should resort to violence seems, well, quaint", I wasn't terribly surprised, though I was a bit disappointed.  I generally like his cartoons, and thought his book on Afghanistan, After We Kill You We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests (Hill & Wang, 2014), was excellent and important.  But he got things wrong this time, starting with the cartoon itself, which depicts a French couple at a cafe as Nazi troops march by in the street.  The Frenchman says, "Violence? But that would make us as bad as them!"

This is disingenous.  First of all, it's not as if the centrist liberals in Trump's America who call themselves The Resistance have renounced the use of violence in advance: the name they've chosen for themselves deliberately invokes those who fought against the Nazis in occupied France, though so far they haven't done anything much more strenuous than wear pink pussy hats and make memes mocking Trump.  Second, the situation in occupied France was not about whether or not to counter "free speech" with violence -- Germany didn't occupy France through free speech.  (Plus, the actual French Resistance was dominated by Communists, and if there's anyone liberal Democrats hate more than Trump, it's a leftist.  Unless it's a Jewish leftist.)

Second, debates in the US over the use of violence by minorities and dissidents have always been inadequate at best, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that things have changed.  The increasing boldness of white racists since Trump's ascendancy has been met with a lot of chest-thumping rhetoric about fighting Nazis in the streets.  I'm not objecting to the use of violence myself; I am, however, concerned with other questions, such as: Who's going to fight the Nazis?  When and where?  Who will lead?  Who will choose the leaders?  Who will determine strategy and tactics?  The neo-Nazis are organized and armed; how will "antifa" (a term I find about as annoying as The Resistance) violence be armed and organized?  These are not idle questions.

This weekend a video began to circulate online, which showed a white supremacist in Charlottesville trying to shoot a black counterprotester who'd made himself an impromptu flamethrower by igniting the spray from an aerosol can and aiming it at the racists.  By amazing luck, the kind of luck that convinces me there is no god, the would-be shooter had forgotten to disable the safety on his weapon, which slowed him down, and when he did fire, nobody was hurt.  The guy with the gun is being sought by the authorities, as they say.

What I find interesting about this scene is that ever since Trump made it clear he was appealing to a white-racist base -- hell, ever since Obama attracted racist hatred as a candidate and as President -- there has been a lot of agitation about how extremely dangerous white supremacists are, how they're the new Nazis and if we aren't ceaselessly vigilant there will be a replay of 1930s Germany here in the Homeland.  I don't dismiss these concerns, but I find it extremely interesting and significant that many of these same alarmists nevertheless seem to believe that white supremacists are not really dangerous at all, that because Antifa's heart is pure they need only to chant some slogans and the Fascists will collapse and surrender; the Fascists' bullets will either bounce off Antifa's Breastplate of Virtue, be repelled by Antifa's wristlets of power, or simply dissolve into the air.  There were many warnings about armed neo-Nazis, with heavy-duty weapons, gathering in Charlottesville, intent on mayhem.  It appears that even so, the Antifa mostly didn't consider them a real, serious threat, and those who did brought some homemade weaponry that would have been useless if the threat turned real.  Since we're not pacifists here, I can say that I wouldn't have been felt much sympathy if the guy with the aerosol can had gotten shot, because he was putting his unarmed anti-fascist comrades in danger, presumably without their consent or planning.

Or he was giving the police, who everyone assumed were on the racists' side, an excuse to stomp some hippies. (In a real Resistance situation, he'd likely have been court-martialed and shot by his own organization for such stupid criminal recklessness.)  Emptywheel pointed out last weekend that Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio was intended to send a message to his real base, the police, who supported him during his election campaign and support him still.

So while feeding his explicitly racist base with hateful rhetoric is important, it’s even more important to ensure that the cops remain with him, even as he fosters violence.

There is no better way to do that than to convey to police that they can target brown people, that they can ignore all federal checks on their power, with impunity (this is probably one key reason why Trump has given up his efforts to oust Sessions, because on policing they remain in perfect accord).
There is no better way to keep the support of cops who support Trump because he encourages their abuses then by pardoning Arpaio for the most spectacular case of such abuses.

The history Rall appealed to isn't reassuring.  There were street battles between Communists and Nazis in Germany during the 1930s; they didn't impede Hitler's rise to power.  Historians can probably explain why; I confess I haven't read enough about the period to have an opinion.  But whatever the reasons, street fighting didn't work for the Left; only for the Nazis.  In general, that has been true in the US as well.  In principle I fully endorse and support the right of African-Americans to defend themselves against police and government violence; but those who did, in the 1960s, seriously underestimated the power and ruthlessness of their adversaries.  And that leaves aside intra-movement violence, among the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, for example.  And yet many antifa sympathizers, in between attacking the police (sometimes justly), believe that when push comes to shove the police will protect them from that Bad Ol' Nazis.  They should, of course; but the historical precedents indicate that they won't.

As you can see, I don't mean to suggest that violence never works.  After its defeat in 1865, for example, the Confederacy used violence very successfully to establish white supremacy all over the South, and eventually managed to sell most white Americans on their Lost Cause myth of elegant Southern heritage violated by the brutish Union.  As with the successful use of violence by the Nazis, I don't know the history well enough to explain why with any certainty, but I feel sure it's at least partly because most white Americans in the North (including educated elites) were racist, and weren't at all uncomfortable with white supremacy as ideology or practice.  There was a brief blip of anti-racist action in the 1950s and 1960s, and though some gains were made, white-supremacist resistance, violent and nonviolent, never ceased, and many of those gains are in danger of being lost again.

But this reminds me of an anecdote in a book I read a week ago, Spare the Kids: Why Whupping Children Won't Save Black America by Stacey Patton (Beacon Press, 2017).  It's about the popularity of violence against children by African-American parents, and it's flawed but overall very valuable.  Many black parents, like many white parents, believe that beating children is the only way to keep them out of trouble and turn them into responsible adults.  There's an anecdote toward the end, told by an African-American woman, a single mother and a parent trainer:

Alvarez says she gets the "usual bullshit" from other parents who criticize her for not hitting her son.  "Spare the rod ... yada, yada, yada ... ain't nobody here for that.  My son, my rules.  As a parent trainer, when I hear parents swear by whupping kids, I ask, "How many here were whupped by parents?" Most will raise their hands.  Then I ask, "How many were whupped twice?" Most raise their hands.  Then I say, "So then maybe it's not that effective.  If it were, we'd only have to get beaten once to get the message" [214].

I feel the same way about violence aimed at stopping white racism: the most horrific war in history up to that point didn't stop it -- it barely slowed it down, and only briefly at that.  Maybe other avenues need to be considered.

I've also been thinking of something Noam Chomsky wrote about political violence about fifty years ago, and published in American Power and the New Mandarins (Pantheon, 1969, pp. 398-399):

It is quite easy to design tactics that will help to consolidate the latent forces of a potential American fascism.  To mention just one obvious example, verbal and physical abuse of the police, however great the provocation, can have only this effect.  Such tactics may seem "radical" and, in a narrow sense, justified by the magnitude of the infamy and evil that they seek to overcome.  They are not.

In fact, it is senseless to speak -- as many now do -- of tactics and actions are being "radical," "liberal," "conservative," or "reactionary."  In itself, an action cannot be placed on a political dimension at all.  It may be successful or unsuccessful in achieving an end that can be described in political terms.  But it is useful to remember that the same tactics that one man may propose with high conscience and deep commitment to radical social change may also be pressed by a well-placed police spy, bent on destroying such a movement and increasing popular support for the forces of repression. Consider the Reichstag fire, to return to a day that is less remote than one would wish. Or consider the act of a seventeen-year-old Jewish refugee from Poland just thirty years ago -- of Herschel Grynszpan, who assassinated a German official in Paris in November 1938.  It is difficult to condemn this desperate act, which set off violent pogroms throughout Germany and helped entrench more deeply the Nazi regime of terror; but the victims of Nazi terror would offer no thanks to Herschel Grynszpan.  We must not abandon the victims of American power, or play games with their fate.  We must not consent to have the same repression imposed on still further helpless victims or the same blind fury unleashed against them.

It seems to me that those who want to use violent tactics against the racist Right need to make very clear how they intend to use those tactics, why those tactics and not others.  So far I've seen a lot of grandstanding and posturing by people I wouldn't follow ... well, anywhere.  It's not as if there isn't a long history of political violence from which to learn, but I haven't seen any indication that the advocates of violence today have paid any attention to it.  Advocating violence, even or especially against fascists, without showing that you know what you're talking about doesn't establish your gravitas; it makes me suspect that you've played too many video games, or watched too many action movies, and mistaken them for reality.  I don't have the answers myself, and I'm not ruling out violence altogether; but I need better rationales for violent action than I've been hearing so far.  The burden of argument lies not on those oppose the use of violence, or starting a war, but on those who want to initiate it.  It's certainly interesting to hear nominal leftists using the rhetoric of the Bush administration when it insisted that we must invade the existential threat of Iraq now.  They are trifling with human lives, and if (or more likely when) it blows up their face, they won't accept responsibility, let alone accountability.

No-Thought Zone Enforced in US Political Discourse

Daniel Larison has written several strong pieces condemning those politicians who prattle about enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.  (Don't forget that Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of them.)  In one of his earlier pieces he'd said that he wasn't sure they really knew what they were calling for (which is probably true), and "Many of them would probably be horrified by the suggestion that they are endorsing a policy that could require shooting down Russian jets over Syria, and yet that is exactly what they are doing."  I commented that, unfortunately, "many of those who favor a no-fly zone are delighted by the idea of shooting down Russian planes."  And within a few days, several of them obligingly confirmed my understanding.  Just to make sure we know where he stands, Jeb Bush repeated himself:

“The argument is, ‘Well, we’ll get into conflict with Russia,’” former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said on CBS last week, referring to what critics say about the no-fly zone idea. “Well, maybe Russia shouldn’t want to be in conflict with us. I mean, this is a place where American leadership is desperately needed.”

Larison expressed the hope that candidates who expressed these dangerous views would be rejected by the voters.  One of his commenters countered:

Don’t count on it. If you aren’t belligerent you are weak. America’s bout of pacifism before the two world wars is long gone, and advocating caution and patience is blasted for failing to lead. I think you are spot on with respect to your views on Syria, but there are precious few people in power who espouse it.

I really don’t think so, but first of all this person is misusing the word “pacifism.” It’s a word that gets thrown around in contexts where “pussy” and “faggot” wouldn’t be appropriate, and it means anyone who opposes, for any reason, a war that the speaker wants to fight — or rather, wants to send other people’s sons and daughters to fight. Quite a few military men opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and I don’t think any of them were pacifists, but they were vilified by the chickenhawks anyway.

So, let’s lay to rest the idea that Americans had a pacifist period between the World Wars. As Larison has said several times, and so have I, it is not pacifism or (another favorite epithet) isolationism to lack enthusiasm for a war where your country’s interests are not at stake. Contrary to the chickenhawks’ claims, the burden of argument lies on the proponents of any war, not the opponents. And it took pretty hefty propaganda campaigns to fossick Americans up into support for both World Wars.

Were Americans un-pacifist after World War II? There’s reason to doubt that idea. Almost immediately after the Japanese surrender in 1945, US rulers wanted to get us involved in Southeast Asia, and there was a public outcry, in Congress and elsewhere, against using US forces and equipment to support the re-imposition of French rule on Vietnam.  The War in Korea wasn’t popular either, and the ruling elites knew it. During that period, into the 1950s, there was also a tendency in popular culture to look askance at men of veterans’ age who had had enough of bloodshed and just wanted to live quietly with their families for a while — see the lousy movie Shane which glorifies the professional killer at the expense of the solid father and family man, and centers on the loathsome little boy who wants to see a gunfight.

And surely we've all heard of the Vietnam Syndrome, much lamented in the corporate media and in elite government planning circles, which meant they had to find ways to get around the public’s disinclination to send their children off to be chewed up in the military meat grinder. Most Americans, like most people, aren’t really very interested in war, but there are always a few who never heard of a war they didn’t like, as long as someone else had to fight it -- and such people end up in decision-making positions far too often. Again, the burden of argument lies on someone who wants us to get into a shooting war with Russia in Syria, and as Larison keeps showing, they have no good arguments, and are frustrated that anyone should demand any.

Hey, Everybody! Let's Put on a War!

I'm almost done reading Michael B. Young's King James VI and I and the History of Homosexuality (Macmillan, 2000), a book I've often seen cited but hadn't got around to reading until now.  It's given me a much fuller picture of James and his reign than I had before, and I may write some more about it soon.  But for now I wanted to pass along an interesting passage from later in the book, about James's distaste for war and the reaction to it in some English circles.

After James died in 1625, his son Charles and his boyfriend George Villiers*, the Duke of Buckingham, promptly abandoned what Young calls James's "pacifism":

First there was the war on the continent.  Thomas Scott, the pamphleteer who had so fervently advocated war, was delighted with the transformation of the English into a fighting people.  Speaking now through the manly voice of Sir Walter Raleigh, Scott observed that 'Englishmen, who for the space of twenty-two years before, had but as it were dallyed and played with Armes, rather seeking to affect it for novelty then necessity, were now, in one yeares deliberate and materiall exercise, become so singular and exquisite' that they excelled the Netherlands in military prowess.  Under James, England's 'ease had made her grow idle', but now every child aspired to be a Hercules, and the whole island had become a 'Nurcery of excellent and exquisite Souldiers'.  In 1626 Scott was murdered by a soldier.  Life does have its ironies.

I'm tempted to say that the US might be better off if some of our warmongers suffered something like Scott's fate.  But I won't give in to that temptation.  Just the other day on Facebook someone wrote complaining about a bad experience he had with an online retailer, who refused to give him a refund on a purchase he found unsatisfactory.  Should he publicly shame the dealer on Facebook? he asked.  "In the great grand scheme of things, this is irrelevant. But also in the great grand scheme of things, I believe that karma is a bitch if you are."  I pointed out that karma cuts both ways, meaning that if this guy decides to take karma into his own hands, karma is supposed to turn around and bite him on the ass.  But people with vengeance (and macho pride) on the brain never think that far ahead.  (I don't believe in karma myself, but I was put off by his invocation of the doctrine in service of his personal pride.)

Scott's fate serves as a  metaphor for the war effort in general.  The war expanded to include Spain and France.  It brought the nation to the point of bankruptcy and political breakdown, and it led to the death of approximately 20,000 British fighting men.  James would not have been surprised.  In the words of Sir John Oglander, James 'was a good king and, in his death, said that our nation could not be contented for they desired war, and he prophesied that, when he was dead, they should have more war than they knew how to manage' [102-3].

Many people enjoy talking about war, strutting around with their chests puffed up and bellowing "We're Number One!"  In the same way, for many people, marriage is about weddings: the clothes, the presents, the spectacle, the overspending!  It's much the same for war: people love fantasizing about the uniforms, the parades, the sacrifice (almost always by other people), the spectacle, the overspending!  As with George W. Bush's Afghan and Iraq adventures, Charles's wars stopped being so attractive after they resulted in economic disaster for England and much loss of English life.

What Young is concerned with is the role of gender in such discourse.  James's homosexuality certainly was a factor in the reaction to his lack of bellicosity -- he was quite capable of violence when his majesty was impugned, however, imprisoning, exiling, and murdering rivals and critics -- but I think this was mainly a convenience.  Had he been exclusively heterosexual, he still would have been called effeminate and accused of buggery for refusing to entangle England in the wars that Elizabeth I had found necessary to compensate for being a mere woman.  That the accusation was probably true in James's case is unimportant: in the warmonger's mind, lack of aggression equals pacifism equals effeminacy equals taking it up the butt.  Any term in that equation can stand in for the others.

*Yes, I phrased that somewhat ambiguously.  I intended to.  Though Buckingham was James's boyfriend, and Charles was a militant flaunting heterosexual, Buckingham stayed on as a royal favorite well into Charles's reign.  Maybe Charles 'experimented,' or wasn't as able to reject his father's example as he wanted to; but that's just my speculation.  In any case, only after Buckingham's assassination, according to Young, did Charles settle down into domesticity with his wife Henrietta Maria, who became pregnant for the first time a few weeks after Buckingham's death, three years after they married.

Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

I was listening to Democracy Now's story today about Tomas Young, the wounded Iraq War veteran whose angry letter to Bush and Cheney has been getting a lot of attention lately, when I remembered the above meme, posted to Facebook last week by one of my right-wing acquaintances there.  The meme annoyed me, but for some time I couldn't think of what to say about it.  "Thank him for what?" was my first thought.  But that wasn't enough: I had to think of what I should say to a veteran.  Something not accusatory.

Today I realized that what I should say, and what I think almost all Americans should say to someone who fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, is simply I'm sorry.  Sorry for letting you be sent over there.  Sorry the antiwar movement wasn't able to stop Bush and Cheney's evil plans.   (Those who supported the war should apologize for that.)

By chance I also happened yesterday on a 1960 discussion, now available online, of Robert Heinlein's notorious sf novel Starship Troopers.  I haven't read all the contributions yet, but Damon Knight's startled me.  This part:

To a dedicated pacifist, "War is horrible" is a basic premise and is interpreted literally.  It follows that no recognizably human being could be a professional soldier.  But professional soldiers exist.  Therefore they must be essentially depraved and brutalized people.  When professional soldiers are depicted in fiction as being normal human beings, the pacifist's whole position is threatened; and he screams.  So would you.

I'm not a pacifist myself, dedicated or otherwise, but I'm alert to the use of "pacifist" as a straw man to distract attention from the issues when war is being discussed.  I have not read much of the literature of pacifism, a lack which I suppose I should rectify but doesn't seem all that important to me, because (as I argued in the post I just linked) the real question is whether a specific, given war should be fought, whether the default answer to that question should be (as it normally is) "Yes."  The burden of argument, I insist, should rest on the person who advocates bombing anyone else into the Stone Age, not on the person who opposes going to war.  But that goes against every instinct of civilized life.

My lack of literacy in pacifist studies is relevant now because I can't say for certain whether or not avowed pacifists hold that "professional soldiers ... must be essentially depraved and brutalized people."  I have never seen this asserted (though I welcome citations if my readers can supply any).  The only time I encountered such a suggestion (though not by pacifists), I argued against it.  Since Knight's accusation is so similar, rhetorically, to accusations generally made against opponents of war (they spit on our troops!  they want us to be overrun by the dirty Reds!), I think it's safe to dismiss it.  I can't imagine such a defense made of mundane-fiction books about war; those I've heard of or read don't depict soldiers as essentially depraved -- not all that surprising since they are often written by veterans.  It's the governments they serve, the men and women who run those governments, who are depraved, as we see over and over again.