The Depoliticization of Violence
State-sanctioned brutality is never OK
Every time the system lashes out or is exposed for being fundamentally violent, we are told that this is merely the result of a bad apple or some other individual. the apologists told us that this was merely a result of Derek Chauvin being racist and that there was nothing wrong with the problem of policing itself despite the fact that its flaws became all the more apparent during this time.
Violence like this never really results in the sort of condemnation that it should from the status quo. under George W. Bush, for instance, sure, people might say it was a mistake, but this is a far cry from capturing the true horror of that conflict. Hundreds of thousands of people died, and an entire region was destabilised, yet the most condemnation it gets from the political establishment is to say it was a mere mistake.
When George Floyd was murdered, the apologists told us that this was merely a result of Derek Chauvin being racist and that there was nothing wrong with the problem of policing itself
On the other hand, whenever violence is conducted against the system or in a way that challenges the established order, it is met with the utmost condemnation. People will treat Hamas as though they are some uniquely evil phenomenon while at the same time ignoring or negating the violence .
The point here is that violence is politicised when it suits the narrative of the oppressor. Only violence that challenges social norms or the established order gets condemned as violence while the political establishment refuses to acknowledge the basic fact that violence is required to uphold their system of choice.
A question of violence
To quote Max Stirner, “T, but that of the individual, crime.” What he was getting at when he said this, was to point out how the state or government commits acts of violence on a daily basis while at the same time condemning the violence of the everyday person.
It’s a similar idea to when people point out that legality is not morality. Most people, I hope, can agree that just because something is legal or was in the past, does not mean it was right. Likewise, just because something is illegal does not mean it is morally wrong.
Returning to my point about George Floyd and policing, what people don’t understand, because they take it for granted, is that politics and policing are inherently violent constructs. A government is a body that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, meaning that the violence carried out by the government is legitimate, and the police are a means of using this violence.
If you step outside the bounds of what is permissible by a given state, you will be met with . Even if you don’t do anything wrong, this will often happen, as we constantly see the police killing innocent people or killing people who are not a threat to the police or anyone else. I would once again bring up George Floyd as an example of this, or Eric Garner, officers in the US.
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime”
Likewise, we never see discussions of government conduct or police conduct as being centered around the violence they commit. If you mention police violence to people, they will likely think of the most overt examples of police brutality when, in fact, the entire premise of policing is that they enforce the law of the state through violence. If someone does something illegal, they are taken away and arrested, which is surely a violent act, even if you disagree with the initial illegal act.
If for example, you break the speed limit and get pulled over by police, you will be fined. However, if you refuse to pay your fine, there will be escalating consequences until eventually you wind up being arrested. The reason why this is an act of violence is you have no choice in the matter.
I can even remember a story from a couple of years ago about women to feed their children. This is obviously illegal and would likely result in legal ramifications should they be caught, especially if it happens more than once. You do not have an option here and you are forced to go along with being arrested, a violent act.
A government acts violently because that is the only means by which they are able to enforce their rule; if the rule of the state is voluntary, it is no state at all, and so violent force is required. The police are a means through which the state carries out violence against the population.
Let us not forget that the first police force was started in London as a means of quelling that had been occurring throughout England in the early 19th century.
Crucially, this is violence that is carried out for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Police as a violent institution uphold the status quo by force and thus will never be condemned as violent, perhaps partly because if they were, people would be more likely to question their authority or act against it.
The violence of the status quo is taken to be a natural, acceptable act, or is never actually called violence, even in the most extreme cases. If for example, you look at the United States it spends on its military, you see that it clearly serves a specific function of upholding U.S. hegemony and securing America’s political and economic dominance on the world stage.
To any doubters, I would simply ask: why do you think the U.S. spends so much on its military? A country wouldn’t do this unless there was a political and economic incentive to do so.
In the West, we live lives that are (for the most part) sheltered from some of the most overt political violence. I think this is part of the reason why, when we do see overt acts of violence, it tends to shock us in ways that it otherwise wouldn’t.
Looking at the most overt acts of violence in the Vietnam War for instance, , these are things that we typically do not see in the West. It’s part of why the war in Ukraine was such a big deal in the West; in fact I even remember conservative remarking (falsely) that it was the first war between civilised countries in his lifetime.
Equal violence
I think the best illustration of the overall point here, that violence that upholds the status quo is depoliticised while violence that challenges it is hyperpoliticised, said “When they do it it’s terrorism, when we do it it’s counter-terrorism” in discussing the war on terror.
You can only look at the wholesale destruction that has been wrought upon Iraq, Libya, and other nations to understand this point. Even in Northern Ireland, the British were an occupying army during and were viewed by many people there as terrorists. Yet the label of terrorism is only ever applied to the IRA even though the British killed many civilians, including those in , before the IRA engaged in any combat.
What we all need to understand is that fundamentally, all politics is violence. It doesn’t matter whether you are liberal, conservative, communist, or are on any other part of the ideological spectrum — all politics fundamentally require violence in order to function.
All political systems require their will to be enforced upon the population. The capitalist system we live under requires its rule to be enforced upon the working class in a given country, just as the imperialist system requires its rule to be enforced upon Global South countries.
In our liberal, capitalist status quo, we never focus on the brutal state-sponsored violence required to uphold our system, yet any violence that challenges it is met with the utmost condemnation and repression.
We must ask ourselves why is this? And further, why is this acceptable?
For more stories about the importance of challenging the status quo, follow Fourth Wave. Have you got a story or poem that focuses on women or other targeted groups? Submit to the Wave
