There is something that I find to be utterly unbelievable: the inability of many to recognise that the current political structures to which the West is subject(ed) to are inherently vile, despicable, and insufferable to their very core.
These systems are not broken—they aren’t because how they function is exactly how they are meant to function. Liberalism was born conterminously with the birth of slavery. Liberalism formed—apropos violence—the subjectivity shaping abstractions of private property, solvency, race, among others; as well as how each intersect with varying moral valuations, demonisatons, and criminalisations of employment and unemployment.
Racism and class warfare—intersecting with the drive for capital accumulation and profit—are vital, originary realities within Western political existence. They are the breath of life by which all that follows is deemed “good”. They are constantly sublimated, disavowed, reorganised—but, at all times, they are its basis and foundation—the force that sets, adjusts, adapts immanence.
It is these realities that bear witness to the fundamental illegitimacy of any state founded upon them. If one is not able to speak to this truth, one has openly and properly capitulated to said forces. They cannot be reformed incrementally, they cannot be reshuffled and adjusted with a little work, a new figure with a vision will not fix the contractions—for each and any attempt is ideologically accounted for. Every change will be appropriated, compromised, and warped. Liberalism is a field of distortions that makes reality a lie.
It is in this sense that, when one sees clearly how our world functions (Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice), the calling for justice, for reform in the system, for a slight recalibration of the as/is, all miss the basic reality that how things work is how they are meant to work. We will not get what we want—what we need. No state leader will guide this programme.
Peace and justice are abstractions tacked onto a world founded, immanently, by power/force and violence. Violence is a language—a language that knows nothing of “good and evil”—forged in force. Violence begets violence as much as life begets life—that is to say, it does so, except when it doesn’t. The world of liberalism, capitalism, and (oligarchic) “democracy” is one forged in the violent assertion of (white) force. Violence was the conditioning language of what those forces destroyed and created.
Yet, as we know that a fact and an interpretation are differentially related events (a fact is the basis of an interpretation, the interpretation the motive force of a fact), violence is a determined language and method. Violence exists in a field of desires that it articulates as language.
If we were to assess liberalism counter-historically, one might sense in it a multitude of fears, resentments, bare assertions of will formed out of a psychotic desire to preserve those immediately identified—through an intersection of defining abstractions in class, race, and religion—as similar (kith and kin). The opportunistic, determining violence of this group’s power/force birthed liberalism and has adapted to continue it since. It formed the modern distinction between bourgeois and proletariat, capitalist and worker, black and white, and so on.
It is in this that we witness the vileness and utterly reprehensible nature of our current political structures. This is how they are maintained—and how they will continue to be. They cannot be defended—this is how they work.
Violence is a language—albeit one that is malleable and volatile, as it is conditioned by how a whole field of needs and desires and assumptions. The oppressed can take up violence, because violence is the only language the structures of this world understand. Yet what the oppressed bring to this language will be different because they sense that what those who lead cannot deliver—trapped as they are by the grounding assumptions of their language. Forces are the means by which anything expands; as such for anything named justice to become, those who can properly recognise its sense—the oppressed—must realise it, through their own violence.
This new violence and violent language is the only conceivable method for bringing about a different whatever-it-might-be, surrounded as we are by over-determined state calls for non-violence (a method always-already interpolated into the dominant violent-language). We need a new violent-language to realise something else, because violence begets violence—except when it doesn’t. This axiom (“violence begets violence”) is an abstraction, closed to immanence and the differential nature and flow of things.
Every moment is, potentially, the end of a world—of a language, of a determining set of assumptions. Were we to realise this in form of a new violence and violent-language, begetting would give way to building—building a new politics and life.
The present structures are at an impasse—and we need to get out, violently. Despair-tinged calls for reform are impotent—hopelessness and disillusion their only conclusion. Liberalism is illegitimate at its core—founded and extended by methods weighted against all. Violently, this is how we must proceed.