With this work I intend to provide a draft of a possible scheme for the anarchist critique of the contemporary state. To the extent that this criticism is proposed to start to realize our specific problems as activists propose the categories are abstractions constructed from Argentina's history of the twentieth century.
The starting point is the following question. Although the State is always controlled, hierarchical, violent, does not always exercise their controls, their hierarchies and violence the same way. I think that diversity of strategies we should oppose a variety of resistances. That would be the underlying problem, but in this work I'll just state strategies.
To distinguish these changes within the state of position I will return a sense of Foucault. In The birth of biopolitics he proposes the replacement of a conception of the State entificada a reformulation in terms of practices of nationalization. The state, says Foucault, it has no guts; is the sum of estatalizantes practices that can be carried out or not, their bodies and affecting us in many different ways as appropriate.
I think this approach can be productive and that during their "evolution" the State has managed well enough to adapt to an environment that is hostile, and even to shape that environment in their favor, and that's what I would start to discuss today. The state remains the state, and the main objective of this paper is to address the idea, widely held, that Western political organizations progress from despotism to democracy. This idea seems wrong for two reasons. First, the State never resign especially its violent practices. They remain always, more or less latent, overlapping with other modes of intervention. Secondly, it gives me the impression that even those areas that are usually considered more democratic and free of coercion (such as universities), imply a degree of nationalization and much less explicit, but much deeper than the rest.
In this sense I think we can distinguish, through the evolution of the Argentine State, three modes of state intervention that overlap and complement each other.
Sometimes the state behaves surgery. His other is like a tumor that must be removed before it affects the rest. In this case, the State challenges us as criminals. Such practices are carried out mainly by security forces. is advantageous [1] because it can move effectively and can show results quickly. But it is disadvantageous in so far as it involves a clean break between society and state, and becomes, therefore, difficult to sustain over time. Violence is given. Local examples would be military intervention during strikes in Patagonia in the early twentieth century and the mechanism of forced disappearance of persons put into operation during the last military dictatorship.
But the state also moves so brace. In this case the other is not perceived as a tumor that must be removed, but as a healthy member may deviate from normal development. Such practices are fundamentally I think regulators, and are carried out by bureaucrats and lawyers. In this case the State appeals to us as citizens. It is advantageous to the extent that the illusion of recognition of the individual as a citizen, in his dual nature of the subject of copyright law and (indirectly) from that which they operate. Its disadvantages are that it is by definition an area of \u200b\u200bnon-intervention and restricts the ability of state action with a series of internal controls. This way I think nationalization is the one embodied in the public administration and the courts. Local examples would be the process of regulation of labor relations and the gradual regulation of labor organizations in the first half of the twentieth century.
Finally, the state also adopted eugenic practices. And is not removed or direct, but to produce or bring into being a matter as yet formless. Is the set of state practices in education, health and welfare. Is carried out by highly skilled bureaucrats and involves the injection of resources and knowledge in society. Its main advantage lies in the ability of overlapping state and society, allowing it to strike deep roots and create an illusion of almost total freedom or independence. Its main disadvantage is the handling time (far more extensive than the previous) and vulnerability that characterizes until it is firmly established. Local examples would be the creation and development of ministries of education, health and welfare, with the vast network of devices that were deployed over time.
It seems important to consider a couple of points in this scheme. First, it is simultaneous and complementary practices, and even when an apparent precedence over the others in a particular circumstance, the truth is that all three are deployed in a delicate balance that allows the survival and the extension of nationalized processes taken together. Secondly that, regardless of appearances, in all three cases these are practices that control us, and we violate our nest. The only difference is that I called surgical practices act on our bodies, freeing our heads, and the eugenic free our bodies, but only as and have operated over our heads. Challenges us as criminals, citizens or people, are always subject to the state (in the sense of subjects) of law. But as the state questioning change, I think they should modify our strategies of resistance, and so nationalization as complementary modes should also be complemented by our actions.
One last point I would leave mentioned, and that requires a lot of work still is the remarkable ability to learn the state. In other words, not only is a machine that represses, but also a learning mind. The self-help labor organizations of the early nineteenth century urban forms of resistance carried out by the strikers in the early twentieth century and the decentralized guerrilla '70s have in common have been co-opted by the state under the forms of social assistance, the reconfiguration of police strategies and weaponry and the adoption of state terrorism.
Martin [1] At this point, and those that follow, the term beneficial I mean the kind of benefits that may accrue to the State, either for its maintenance or expansion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment