Narri N. (they/them)

‘Law and order’ is a phrase mouthed by hypocrites to command the obedience of cowards. The capitalist class buys law as it does labor, using the one to fleece the other, and what it means by “law and order” is cringing submission to slavery.

• E.V. Debs

The pigs can cry all they want about the attackers being motivated by “extreme leftist ideology”. The liberal states in Europe have ran their course. They cannot produce an improved existence for the working masses, only for the bourgeoisie. The cops, the laws and the whole of European society now exists (and has existed for a while) to protect and elevate the rights of the bourgeoisie – the class of people who own the means of production. Once those interests contradict – when the masses protest against the cuts in welfare caused by the neoliberal ideology of the bourgeoisie – the state’s monopoly on violence is turned against the masses to protect the rights of the bourgeoisie, whose class interests dictate the whole of society. When the state is unwilling (or unable) to provide concessions for the protesters (masses) demands, the police’s only resort is an initial show of violence to hopefully force the protesters to withdraw. When this doesn’t work the possibility of violence grows. Only once the state is willing to offer those concessions the violence and protesting can end, but when the interests contradict again (i.e. when the state grows unwilling or unable to provide concessions again) the violence will come also. One must solve the contradiction of state’s interests vs. the masses’ interests to solve the issue of societal tumult.

I replied too fast, got thrown off by you putting the global south into quotation marks. Why did you do that, what did you mean by that? I’m struggling to understand your points.

For what it’s worth, my home country (in the EU) has some 550 000 immigrants living here, about 10% of the population. I suspect those are mostly people doing “shit jobs” (ie. cleaning, thrash management, other manual labor) that the locals refuse to do (because the work is hard and the pay is shit), preferring the status of labor aristocracy (ie. white collar jobs, tech sector etc.) and petit bourgeoisie (ie. small business ownership or other such) over those they see inherently lesser than them (as a consequence of the culture of white supremacy they grew up in). This would be aligned with European post-WWII culture of unequal exchange with the countries of the global south. I understand that these camps wouldn’t be used (at least immediately) against already established labor force, but against “illegal immigration”. My question would be who is responsible for determining which immigration is illegal and what is stopping them from narrowing the scope of legality (say, deporting LGTBQ+ people fleeing repression in Russia to some third country, thereby placing them in even more danger because immigration from Russia can be deemed illegal at will). Even more disturbing is the (imo) very real possibility of the EU sinking ever deeper into the same kind of fascism as contemporary US, and eventually using these same processes of deportation to silence and remove internal dissidence (eg. anti-war, pro-socialism).

Btw, it is not the “bourgeoisie” where anti immigration parties are the strongest but their stronghold is among the working class, interestingly not limited to those without immigration background.

Again with the quotation marks. But indeed, it is thanks again to the white-supremacist culture in which these anti-immigration working class people have grown. There is an important sentence in the communist manifesto: “The ideology of all hitherto existing societies is the ideology of the ruling class”. This ruling class in capitalist societies is the bourgeoisie. This page and that part especially explains the concept of ideologies in Marxism and its contradictions within the working class.

My comment wasn’t based on the current existence of European deportation camps, or even their stated use. But when capital goes into a crisis and the contradictions within capitalist societies heighten, what I wrote could as well eventually come to be. Who do you think were the first ones into Nazi concentration camps, or what kind of a society was the one from which Nazism awoke, or whose colonial practices those camps were based on? History doesn’t always repeat, but it sure does rhyme.

Edit: I see many downvotes, but zero replies or elaborations. Curious. If you have replied, then I have blocked you previously. You can keep eating shit.

deleted by creator

One-way ticket into a concentration camp in an undisclosed third country in the global south. Brought to you by the liberal, rules-based world order of the EU, I remember reading about the legislature surrounding this (possibly earlier this year, but weeks are like decades sometimes). The US is on the back-foot, throwing its various vassals under the proverbial bus to save its own ass, and in the wake the EU is receding to fascism to protect the capital and bourgeois rule. The situation in Europe seems increasingly unstable, as rioting swells in multiple countries with leaders in France at least unwilling to make really any concessions to the people, whose problems are consequences of the bourgeoisie’s actions. The bourgeoisie here has been calling for increased military spending to make the continent ready for war by 2030, though they call it “preparing for invasion” to manufacture consent for increased military spending as a way out. In reality that spending will be used to further surveil and control you to prevent the people from organizing against the state, and to empower and arm the police to be used against the people in future riots. The bourgeoisie will never consider the working class’s well-being over their own class’s well-being.

Rules-based order at work, nothing to see here.

^rules for thee, but not for meeee^