[Peace-discuss] Reflections on a recent Greenwald interview about BLM

[David Green]

It's Anarcho-neoliberalism with an unlimited time horizon, in order to milk
as much $ from foundations in the meantime.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020, 10:43 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Brussel, Morton K wrote:
> > The BLM “movement", which arouses such fervent antagonism by David, has
> had worthy
> > manifestations throughout the country, and elsewhere. I have not seen
> the evidence
> > that they were financed/supported by Soros and/or specific groups. There
> were all
> > kinds of participants in the protests, aroused by the killing of George
> Floyd.
> > David seems to relegate the protests to a false issue; i.e., by ignoring
> willfully
> > the crucial class and revolutionary issues. It’s as if the mass protests
> were bad,
> > i.e., counterproductive. But they did reveal the pernicious actions of
> the present
> > system and the Trump government, viz Portland.
>
> I was watching Glenn Greenwald's latest interview
> (https://youtube.com/watch?v=I_2CVBN4mlo) which is with Andray Domise
> (described as
> "definitely a militant supporter of [Black Lives Matter]" at 2m40s). I
> think this
> interview eventually gets into something relevant to this discussion: BLM
> co-optation. I think this ends up backing up David Green's criticism of
> BLM
> (particularly when he wrote that "[BLM's] analysis is preposterous, with
> no material
> component whatsoever.").
>
> I think that Greenwald is too generous to Domise in trying to find a nice
> way to say
> that BLM needed to have announced what they stood for a while ago.
>
> I'm hesitant to recommend this video for running during either AWARE on
> the Air or
> News from Neptune because it's too long for what little value the
> interview has. The
> video is worth seeing for about 15 minutes worth of BLM critique starting
> around 23
> minutes in, and for the talk after about 1 hour in.
>
> Here's some more detail on my take on BLM based on what I saw in this
> interview. I'll
> try to hit the highlights because, frankly, this interview felt to me like
> quite a
> slog to go through.
>
>
>
> I still don't know what BLM stands for even after watching this talk.
> BLM's choices
> strike me as indistinguishable from ethics-washing neoliberalism (I'm not
> sure what
> the right term is here, but I think of "ethics-washing" for neoliberal
> interests to
> be akin to what the term "greenwashing" means for businesses that operate
> in
> anti-environmental ways). I'm all for cops not killing people, but there
> has to be a
> plan of action to make that come about. It can't just be a vision with
> implementation
> detail left unsaid which is what gives me the impression the practical,
> challenging-police-policy part is left out. And what's left (painting
> slogans on
> signs, floors, streets, and the phrase "defund the police") seem to me to
> be
> distractions.
>
> It's not clear to me how Domise holds the views he does and is still a
> "militant
> supporter of BLM". I doubt even he could give the 10-point list of demands
> he said
> BLM might need. Domise said, "I don't even know where a [Black Lives
> Matter]
> manifesto would begin...they [Black Lives Matter] have on their website
> their policy
> goals, their ideology -- everything is already there" which doesn't
> address how
> little any goals are seen in the protests on the street, what the
> adversely affected
> need now, and that goals without clear strategy reads as lofty ideas with
> no
> implementation details.
>
> Domise claims that BLM doesn't want to put effort into making "specific
> and cogent
> demands" because the media won't accurately echo BLM's demands. He claims
> this
> repeats an experience he had with his speaking to people at Occupy Wall
> St.:
>
> > Domise: When I spoke to people at Occupy, they made a pretty convincing
> case to me
> > that, well, yes: it would be a lot easier for people to digest at home
> if we had a
> > crisp and tight set of demands. But then the question is, are those
> demands going
> > to be good enough? Are they [the media] actually going to repeat what we
> say on
> > the evening news? Even the things that we have been saying that we say
> right in
> > front of news cameras when we're being interviewed. They're getting,
> let's say,
> > like two-second snippets out of everything that we've just said and
> they're
> > describing us as being not only leaderless but pointless as well. And I
> kind of
> > got that; there is going to be that obscurantist mode that media takes
> that even
> > when you've done the work of making these very specific and very cogent
> demands
> > they're still going to make it seem like disorganized movement of the
> disaffected
> > and apathetic anyway. So I kind of get that.
>
> I found this to be a very revealing quote because to me it says that BLM's
> organizers
> haven't yet learned that in life you can only control what you do, not
> what other
> people do. You're always better off explaining what you stand for as
> clearly as you
> can (even revising it later as you learn more or are better at explaining
> what's in
> your head). By the same token, this is why I find that the best evidence
> against
> BLM's choices are found on their own website: there they have full control
> over their
> own message. No other media gets in the way of passing their message on to
> us. Yet
> there I find nothing specific, actionable, and cogent. Real-world needs
> such as
> Medicare for All, rent forgiveness/control/strikes, a universal basic
> income,
> guaranteed housing, and a national jobs program are all class concerns
> that speak to
> what we urgently need (now more than ever) yet go unaddressed on BLM's
> website.
> Community control over police is a good idea but going about getting that
> is
> difficult, even after the recent police murders.
>
> Later Domise said:
> > Domise: I don't think you're ever going to be able to stop the process
> of
> > recuperation and co-optation regardless. You know, four years ago I
> don't know
> > that we would have seen corporations tweeting out and saying on
> instagram, or
> > putting in hashtags, "Black Lives Matter". But does that matter anyway?
> That
> > itself is the process of capitalist recuperation: that is, willing to
> say the
> > thing that you want to hear because it's going to adapt, it's going to
> organize
> > itself in such a fashion that it's going to tamp out resistance to
> itself. So when
> > corporations are tweeting out "Black Lives Matter" but then continuing
> practices
> > as status quo they're still lobbying the federal government for money,
> they're
> > still lobbying to keep the minimum wage low, they're still stamping out
> unions
> > does that actually make any difference? And I don't know that words are
> going to
> > be enough. I think it's going to be specific actions to limit the power
> of
> > corporations, to get money out of politics, to give more power to people
> [...]
>
> I found this revealing too. Here are some points that came to mind during
> this
> section of the interview:
>
> - One problem with BLM is framing this in terms of "stop[ping] the process
> [of
> co-optation]" instead of asking why BLM's name is so easily co-opted by
> the
> establishment. Domise asked "does that [co-optation] matter anyway?": Yes,
> if those
> are BLM goals being minimized or rendered toothless in the co-optation.
> Domise said
> "I don't know that words are going to be enough". Words are enough to
> indicate what
> side BLM is on.
>
> If BLM had published a series of clear, specific, and actionable
> statements on its
> own website detailing what needs to be done and how to reach those goals,
> perhaps it
> would be much more difficult to co-opt what BLM was saying. For example, I
> occasionally hear BLM activists advocate for raising the minimum wage but
> the action
> on that comes from other activists that don't have any visible connection
> to BLM. I
> see nothing on BLM's website actionably describing steps to raise the
> minimum wage,
> create more (presumably worker-run) unions, or organizing people to lobby
> their
> Congresspeople to not give big businesses more money (ala CARES Act
> largesse).
>
> Domise's framing helps BLM to try to make the task of being specific and
> actionable
> seem insurmountable or unnecessary, even unwise. And the results from when
> BLM began
> and now appear to be that there will be no serious policy changes in
> police behavior.
> Without serious police policy change and proof of compliance with the new
> policy, it
> seems fair to ask what BLM's goals are and how are those goals being met?
>
> - "Getting money out of politics" is a phrase I've heard before in
> progressive
> political interviews. I've yet to hear an interviewer require the speaker
> to define
> what that means or point out a direct conflict with freedom of speech. It
> seems more
> practical to me to come up with ways to deal with that than repeat this
> long-repeated
> but apparently inactionable catchphrase. Carl Estabrook came up with a way
> to
> accomplish this in the context of political candidates not being heard
> from on TV and
> radio: as a condition of keeping a public broadcast license, add a
> requirement that
> any public-airwave broadcaster must run during prime-time a 1-hour,
> uninterrupted,
> and uncensored piece from each ballot-qualified candidate who submits such
> a piece to
> be run. This allows political candidates running for office to get one
> hour of
> airtime that costs a campaign real money and helps the public who
> sees/hears it make
> a more informed choice when they vote.
>
>
>
>
> Regarding this exchange when Greenwald pressed Domise to say what BLM
> stands for:
>
> > Greenwald: [...] What, to you, are those really meaty critical issues,
> like? What
> > are the goals of this movement whether unrealistic but nonetheless
> worthy to
> > strive for and advocate, or actually realistic?
> >
> > Domise: I mean...If I was to say, for example, that the goal is the
> abolition of
> > police in the carceral state, a lot of people will say 'well, what does
> that even
> > mean?'. Well, it means the abolition of police in the carceral state. It
> means no
> > more prisons. It means no more police officers. It means that we are
> able to
> > manage our own affairs. 'Well, how do you get rid of police in the
> carceral
> > state?' You cannot have a system that doesn't produce criminals unless
> you get rid
> > of the system altogether which means ending capitalism. That means
> realigning our
> > social arrangements such that we are operating under a socialist system.
> Is having
> > a social system going to solve the cultural state? No absolutely not.
> There are
> > societal problems that we're going to have to address at the micro
> level. So then
> > the question becomes, well, how do solve all these problems at once and
> you have
> > to take steps towards it. So the tough part and getting to people to
> radically
> > reimagine our system of social relations is people are a lot more
> comfortable, or
> > I shouldn't say comfortable, but they're a lot more willing to move away
> from pain
> > than they are toward pleasure and the pain of unfamiliarity, that is,
> what does a
> > system look like without police, if you read "The End of Policing" for
> example,
> > there are many examples and many suggestions for which a system that
> doesn't have
> > policing actually looks. You know, who do we bring in in the place of
> these armed
> > agents of the state, the people that have the monopoly on the use of
> violence? But
> > getting people to actually read a book or getting people to understand a
> different
> > form of social relations -- people talk about, like you know, capitalism
> and
> > socialism et cetera as if it's economics, it's not, it's how we related
> to one
> > another. And I don't quite know how you do that. [...]
>
> and later when Domise offered some "steps that we can to get there if
> we're talking
> about specific policy solutions":
>
> > Domise: Well, I don't even think that taxing billionaires more is even
> going to be
> > the answer. I think having a strict set of guidelines, that is: a CEO
> and the
> > executive board [of a] company cannot earn more than this multiplier of
> their
> > workers. That bringing back labor power to the workplace where workers
> can
> > collectively organize without being undermined by their bosses. [Example
> of an
> > unnamed worker-led union being fired immediately after unionizing, and
> he says the
> > US needs "a real left party" if we're going to pursue policy changes
> through
> > electoral politics which he has abandoned]
>
>
> - Domise's policy points are all given in the hypothetical. This left me
> unclear as
> to whether this is what BLM stands for or if this is what Domise wants
> independently
> of BLM.
>
> - It took almost an hour to get to this point. That is way too long to get
> to
> something approaching a description of what BLM might stand for.
>
> - Assuming, for a moment, that this is what BLM stands for, BLM is not
> spelling this
> out to their audience in their protests or on their website. But this is
> an example
> of a message which establishment figures would not have echoed (co-opted)
> if
> establishment figures knew that that's what BLM stands for.
>
> - I see some goals (such as having no police) but no means to reach those
> goals. This
> particular example is troublesome (see what David Green mentioned --
> Chaz/Chop was an
> unmitigated disaster). Chop was arrived at undemocratically as well. While
> having no
> police might be realistic, it clearly needs to be thought through more
> than it was
> with Chop. And it's the responsibility of someone who advocates for an end
> to police
> to be clear about how police tasks will be handled.
>
> - "[A] system that doesn't produce criminals" would seem to mean
> decriminalizing the
> actions that we call criminal, but which actions are those? To me this too
> needs some
> more consideration. I suggest understanding why criminal acts occur and
> addressing
> those issues more specifically: if, for example, people are stealing food
> to feed
> their families, perhaps we should provide everyone with good food gratis.
> Another
> example of something to consider: Portugal decriminalized all drugs and is
> using
> police to help addicts get rehabilitation. This appears to have
> significantly reduced
> drug abuse. That seems more specific and actionable than what I heard
> Domise say,
> certainly something worth looking into for those who understand and
> advocate for the
> goals Domise described. I'm sure there are other 'threats of a good
> example' we ought
> to consider.
>
> - a more minor point: I think that Domise should get used to repeating
> what he wants
> people to know instead of glibly repeating the exact same words again (as
> he did in
> his own example of "abolition of police in the carceral state" and what
> that means),
> or laughing at the idea that we need policy decisions (which Domise did
> just before
> the last quote above), or pointing to a book (such as "The End of Police")
> followed
> by criticizing his audience for not reading that book. It's reasonable to
> expect
> people to ask you to explain what you mean when you're addressing
> something
> unfamiliar. I think there's a great agreement that we don't want to see
> the police be
> a killing squad. How to get there in a sustainable way and understanding
> the
> tradeoffs in denying the police that power will need some thinking through
> and some
> explaining.
>
> -J
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200801/cbfe2c1c/attachment-0001.htm>