And as far as the whole "duuuhhh a cop "saved" AOC so some cops are good mkay" take goes....
....Congratulations :amerikkka-clap: to our resident crypto-chuds for spending a whole month wracking your brains just to come up with the most media-conformist horseshit take of the year so far
Because yes, lets HELP the media rewrite history by pretending that it wasn't the DC pigs who let the "cOup fOrCeS" into the building, and that the class character of those people wasn't exclusively made up of COPS, off-duty cops, former cops, the fail children of cops, the fail mothers of cops, the fail uncles of cops who also happen to be cops, Military cops, cops temporarily suspended for killing black people and car dealership owners who are all informants for said cops
FUCK THAT PIG AND FUCK THE MEDIA :acab:
Going to commit a cardinal sin and repost a bit of analysis I wrote up in the previous thread because it got buried due to the progenitor of the comment chain getting banned (rip bozo)
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fascism’s role is and how it relates to the current situation.
Fascism is not an ideology that is independent of or diametrically composed to liberalism; rather it’s a mechanism of capital to be leveraged by the bourgeoisie to supplement their hegemony and serve as a bulwark against leftism. It is not a genuinely popular movement, but masquerades as one. It adopts the trappings of one and often co-opts leftist rhetoric but it is incapable of, materially or ideologically, sustaining any sort of insurrection against the bourgeoisie state because it supports the bourgeoisie state and thus cannot nor does it have any interest in popular uprising.
Fascists can only take power by grafting themselves onto — and not usurping — existing institutions, often with the support of the bourgeoisie if not directly installed by them. We see this example in Hitler’s Germany, who was funded by the billion by industrialists and permitted into government as Chancellor for fear of the KDP, Italy where Mussolini came into power by coalition government and instituted the typical bourgeoisie-friendly economic policies under the auspices of a liberal financial advisor, Japan, Chile and the Chicago boys, etc.
Premature Fascist attempts at violent seizures of power would miserably fail, only for them to get remarkably lenient treatment and be gradually reintroduced to combat leftism. The SDP, that unleashed the Freikorps on the Spartakists, would ban the German Communist Party’s paramilitary wing and very soon after lift Hitler’s ban on public speaking. Liberals will show disgust to Fascism, but always side with them against socialism because their common interest and purpose is the preservation of the propertied classes.
This is also why you see the Proud Boys and other similar groups cooperating with police officers in protests — again, despite the occasional rhetorical effort at portraying themselves as against government overreach — because they’re an auxiliary of the bourgeois state and far from being able to supplant it, cannot exist without it. It is the bourgeois media that platforms it’s adherents, again feigning disgust but we know perfectly well that they’re more than capable of completely blocking out anything they actually don’t want people to hear about like Modi’s prosecution of Muslims and the newest pink wave in South America, and lavish money upon their figureheads.
The reactionaries were called to the capitol and enabled merely to serve their utility for intimidation and the stirring of fervor and passion in the Republican base. These reactionaries acted too prematurely, were promptly disavowed and dispersed without difficulty — and again, as usual, with practically a slap on the wrist because the bourgeois still has use for them.
The issue with the narrative of a credible Fascist coup getting fended off is that it implies that they exist as an independent and opposed force to the American state and liberalism, and they do not. It implies that the American bourgeois republic is something that is a ‘better’ alternative to Fascism, when the reality is that these reactionary nationalists are an vital instrument that helps to guarantee the survival of the capital and the bourgeois republic. If they posed any genuine threat to the current order, if Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi truly believed these people were actually an dangerous threat to their livelihoods and safeties, then there would have been a thorough investigation and purging of all responsible parties and organs. But there wasn’t, because they’re not — they’re useful.
I am not understating the threat of Fascism or white nationalists. They are dangerous and I know this very well — My mother’s birth certificate lists her race as ‘negro’ and I live not very far away from places where black men were lynched and transgender black women were killed last year in response to the George Floyd protests — but they cannot be effectively combated if we cannot recognize their actual nature and how they operate as a component in capital’s myriad methods of hegemony.
Thanks for reposting — this is the best analysis I’ve seen on this topic on this site.
Thanks for reading. I'm glad you found it useful.
Edit: I'd also be glad to expound upon any element for anyone on the offhand chance people have any questions.
This is a good analysis, but I do have one possible disagreement: did the "riot", even if not a danger to the system, still pose a personal danger to specific officials? (Other than aoc, I've seen pelosi, romney, and pence mentioned often, with various levels of evidence given.) So that seems to put these reps/senators in a contradictory position where their personal motivations (personal safety) are opposed to the needs of their class (keeping organized fascists around as a tool like you describe).
Basically either (a) they were never actually in much danger, because the cops (to spite appearances that day) were actually doing that part of their job effectively (which reduces the stakes/ reduces the contradiction) or (b) they fight back against a group that their class may need later, or (c) they just accept that some amount of risk to themselves is acceptable as long as their class benefits from it.
Personally I think all 3 of those are partially true, which is why the whole response seems kind of muddled so far.
Good question. First off, I'm far from an academic expert (not that you should necessarily trust those without reservation) so I encourage to take everything I say critically. That said, it's important to note a few things in no particular order:
I. Becoming a congressional politician often requires a variety of maladaptive personality traits and oddities. Experiencing war and sometimes injury or torture firsthand does not stop many military veteran politicians from being fervent warhawks, like John McCain nor did the personal tragedy of losing a son to illness sway Joe Biden to support universal healthcare, former Black Panthers defending an status quo that saw their brethren murdered, etc. Some bask in the contempt they receive; according to Politico Mitch McConnell 'reveled in criticism, even decorating an entire wall of his office with negative newspaper cartoons about himself.'
A common characteristic seems to be the tolerance of cognitive dissonance and not allowing personal discomfort or dispositions to get away with long-term political expediency. The very day of the attack on the capitol? 121 out of 209 Republicans in the House of Representatives would immediately walk in and vote to arbitrarily toss out the Arizona, in a entirely performative effort to adhere to Trump's 'stolen election' narrative
II. People are people, with their own idiosyncrasies, habits and beliefs. There were perhaps a few members who were genuinely shaken and outraged to their core about what occurred, but they are statistically meagre and we speak in general, broad terms that reflect the general zeitgeists, trends and dynamics of the bourgeoisie and electoral machinations.
III. All of their actions have the effect of increasing poverty, terrorism, crime and etc, it's part and parcel of the continual siphoning of wealth to the bourgeoisie. It's why they comfortably seclude themselves with the ivory tower phenomenon, there's little danger in running into ruffians or miscreants in gentrified gated communities.
So, overall I'd sum it up as politicians are already accustomed to the reality that their actions directly contribute to deteriorating material conditions and thus theoretical danger to their person. By very virtue of their positions, they're also usually more than willing to dismiss events that affect them personally for careerism.
It's very likely that they, holistically, don't view these reactionaries as active perils that require introspection and change, but rather just another mild ambient hazard that's a component of fulfilling their role, no different to the rise of left-wing radical 'terrorism' in the 70-80s or Islamic extremism: they'll make sure they're, in the vast majority of instances, well insinuated from any meaningful consequence and shrug off the occasional brush with danger while continuing to cynically exploit these groups for maximum benefit.