The state does not exist to “reconcile” the interests of the various classes; The state exists for the subjugation of workers and oppressed people by the dominant, or ruling, class. This is expressed in the formation of police, the army, prisons, and other instruments of coercion aimed at keeping working people in line.At some level this is obviously true. The police certainly are agents of the state, and whether or not the state exists expressly to defend the bourgeoisie, it certainly exists to defend the status quo. Given that the status quo benefits the bourgeoisie first and foremost, perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.
But the distinction does make a difference, for lots of people have a vested interest in the status quo. Any retiree (myself included) definitely depends on the social security checks coming in. Anybody who's bought a house assumes their property rights will be protected. An employee counts on the state to enforce contracts regarding pay and benefits. We all assume that a dollar bill will be worth something tomorrow--and not just tomorrow but thirty years from now--an assumption that depends on the indefinite duration of the status quo. Any serious disruption in any of these institutional arrangements will not likely auger in a better world, but rather the complete collapse of civilization. See, e.g., Venezuela.
It's not that Mr. Leslie is wrong--the police do, above all, defend the bourgeoisie. But they defend almost everybody else, too, and somehow he misses that.
This is illustrated most poignantly by an elderly Black woman living on social security in Minneapolis. She--interviewed by Fox News--was in tears: the grocery store, Target store, and the Dollar General in her neighborhood had all been looted and burned. The buses weren't running and she didn't have car. How was she supposed to buy food and necessities? Where were the police when she really needed them?
But, according to Mr. Leslie, she should be grateful. For the cops have a rap sheet a mile long that disqualifies them from stopping looters and arsonists in Minnesota. A partial list (my comments in italics):
- "The origins of police in the U.S., especially in the South, can be partially traced to the slave patrols formed to catch runaway slaves." The police are mentioned in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, where they're called a "well-formed militia."
- "In Italy and Germany, during the rise of fascist movements, there was cooperation between police and fascist groups." I'm sure that comforts the lady from Minneapolis.
- "...in Houston, in the 1970s, it was estimated that as many as 40% of the police department were members of the KKK." This is likely not true, and Mr. Leslie cites no reference. Either way, why should Ms. Minneapolis have to go without groceries?
- The racist attitudes of the Philadelphia police department culminated in the May 1985 bombing of the MOVE house on Osage Avenue. ...Rather than use the fire department to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to “let the fire burn” ultimately destroying 61 homes, leaving 250 people homeless, and killing 11 members of the MOVE organization, including five children. This is at least half the truth--I don't know the other half. Mr. Leslie's implication is that cops always and everywhere behave that badly, which is obviously not true.
You get the idea--Mr. Leslie strings together random charges of malfeasance, not all of which are true and none of which reflect the true role of a police department. For every extreme, alt-right racist on the force, there's another guilty white liberal, or Black man trying to improve his own community.
Yet it is seemingly true that the police disproportionately target Black people. Isn't this on its face racism? The answer is no, as this data indicates.
| Total | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 14,123 | 10,914 | 3,180 | |
| White | 6,088 | 4,255 | 1,832 | |
| Black | 7,407 | 6,237 | 1,168 | |
Three premises: 1) Blacks are 13% of the population; 2) Homicide counts are pretty accurate since it's hard to hide a corpse, unlike, say, robberies, which often go unreported. 3) Blacks are overwhelmingly murdered by other Blacks, and whites are overwhelmingly murdered by other whites. Therefore the race of the victims (given in the chart) is a very good proxy for the race of the perpetrators.
Note that there were more Black victims than white victims--though for females that isn't true. But using the "total" values, and assuming a perfect relationship between race of victim and perpetrator, one gets that Blacks commit 52% of all murders, or a bit over four times their ratio in the population. (Hispanics are victims in about 15% of murders--roughly in proportion to their population.)
So the cops are not being irrational. It is obvious that Blacks are picked on because they're more likely to commit crimes. Scenes from Baltimore's Westside and Chicago's Englewood neighborhoods support the conclusion. Therefore the anecdotes Mr. Leslie presents are not evidence of "systemic racism" (at least not by police) but rather precisely the opposite--namely an effort by the police to stop crime that hugely and disproportionately victimizes the majority of Black people who are not criminals.
Attentive readers will recall that I claimed the police "defended almost everybody else," in addition to the bourgeoisie. Who is excluded by that almost qualifier?
It's certainly not the proletariat--or more precisely, the lower middle class--people including the Minneapolis retiree. People who work at Target or the grocery store or Dollar General have no interest in being unemployed. Even people who don't work there shop there--and especially for poor people it's difficult and expensive for them to travel far to other neighborhoods. None of these folks benefit from looting and burning their own stores.
Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat benefit from looting and burning--the police are supposed to protect them all. The only people who come out ahead are the lumpen proletariat. They have no money and can't go shopping. They have no jobs--certainly not at Target or Dollar General. So for them--and them only--it's all just free stuff, celebrated by having a big party. No wonder they demand "Defund the Police!"
Wikipedia defines lumpen proletariat this way (emphases mine):
And he calls himself a revolutionary.
Down With Poverty!
Further Reading:
Note that there were more Black victims than white victims--though for females that isn't true. But using the "total" values, and assuming a perfect relationship between race of victim and perpetrator, one gets that Blacks commit 52% of all murders, or a bit over four times their ratio in the population. (Hispanics are victims in about 15% of murders--roughly in proportion to their population.)
So the cops are not being irrational. It is obvious that Blacks are picked on because they're more likely to commit crimes. Scenes from Baltimore's Westside and Chicago's Englewood neighborhoods support the conclusion. Therefore the anecdotes Mr. Leslie presents are not evidence of "systemic racism" (at least not by police) but rather precisely the opposite--namely an effort by the police to stop crime that hugely and disproportionately victimizes the majority of Black people who are not criminals.
Attentive readers will recall that I claimed the police "defended almost everybody else," in addition to the bourgeoisie. Who is excluded by that almost qualifier?
It's certainly not the proletariat--or more precisely, the lower middle class--people including the Minneapolis retiree. People who work at Target or the grocery store or Dollar General have no interest in being unemployed. Even people who don't work there shop there--and especially for poor people it's difficult and expensive for them to travel far to other neighborhoods. None of these folks benefit from looting and burning their own stores.
Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat benefit from looting and burning--the police are supposed to protect them all. The only people who come out ahead are the lumpen proletariat. They have no money and can't go shopping. They have no jobs--certainly not at Target or Dollar General. So for them--and them only--it's all just free stuff, celebrated by having a big party. No wonder they demand "Defund the Police!"
Wikipedia defines lumpen proletariat this way (emphases mine):
Lumpen proletariat is a term used primarily by Marxist theorists to describe the underclass devoid of class consciousness. Coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1840s, they used it to refer to the unthinking lower strata of society exploited by reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, particularly in the context of the revolutions of 1848. They dismissed its revolutionary potential and contrasted it with the proletariat.So there you have it: Mr. Leslie champions (or at least passively condones) looting of stores by "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" forces. What a guy!
And he calls himself a revolutionary.
Down With Poverty!
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment