Monday, 12 January 2015

AND STILL MORE.

Another interesting look at "hebdo".....


NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

There's been an outpouring of tributes for Charlie Hebdo following Wednesday's massacre in Paris -- from Jon Stewart and Conan O'Brien to scores of journalists throughout the world.


But some others are pushing back, contending that much of the magazine's work has been crass and not worthy of such high praise.


Charlie Hebdo didn't just skewer Islam, as it did with its notorious and much-discussed depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. Christianity and Judaism were also targets of the magazine, along with other groups.

One cartoon portrayed France's black Justice Minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey. Another mocked the sex slaves of the militant group Boko Haram. An issue that followed the death of Michael Jackson depicted the pop star as a skeleton with a caption suggesting he realized a dream to be a white man.

Defenders of the magazine have been quick to note that in the portrayal of Taubira, for example, the intent was to mock her prejudiced detractors.

Nevertheless, the satire hasn't been universally celebrated.

Writing for Jacobin Magazine, the author Richard Seymour drew a distinction between mourning the deceased and extolling Charlie Hebdo's satire.

"Now, I think there's a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow 'legitimate targets,' and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication," wrote Seymour.

Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo who was among the 12 killed in Wednesday's attack, had disputed charges of racism.

In a piece written in 2013 that was republished by the Toronto Star, Charbonnier wrote that "anti-racism and a passion for equality among all people" were "founding principles" of the satirical publication.

"We refuse to run away from our responsibilities," Charbonnier wrote. "Even if it's not as easy as it was in 1970, we'll continue to laugh at the priests, the rabbis and the imams -- whether that pleases people or not. Are we in the minority on this? Maybe, but nonetheless we are proud of our traditions. And those who maintain that Charlie is racist should at least have the courage to say it loud, and under their own name. We'll know how to answer them."

charlie hebdo pens

Since Wednesday's atrocity, many have suggested that the republication of the magazine's Mohammed cartoons -- a dilemma that many news outlets wrestled with -- was the clearest way to show support for western principles such as freedom of expression.

But others, like the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, have challenged this narrative.

"When did it become true that to defend someone's free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas?" Greenwald said on Twitter. "That apply in all cases?"






BEFORE YOU GO.....

Before you go into the street, marching arm in arm with your fellow citizens smugly proclaiming your defense of western bourgeois liberalism, try reading this...

On Charlie Hebdo, freedom of speech, terrorism, and the value of lives

Muslims, especially in France, have nothing to apologize for. This does not mean they shouldn't take a stance and condemn these acts of violence. But they should not apologize.
Footage of US airstrike in Baghdad, 12/7/2008, killing at least 12 civilians, 2 of whom were journalists. Wikileaks.Footage of US airstrike in Baghdad, 12/7/2008, killing at least 12 civilians, 2 of whom were journalists. Wikileaks.
An attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a controversial French satirical magazine, and the mainstream discourse immediately rehashes the same concepts and talking points about the importance of safeguarding freedom of speech, battling an ill-defined notion of terrorism, and maintaining western values. However, the essential queestion of whose lives have value continues to be disregarded.
There are a few points that need to be addressed about the public discussions after the deaths of at least 12 people in Paris yesterday.
First, and most notable for me, I take issue with the argument made by some that Charlie Hebdo's staff are “heroic” because of their past publishing cartoons and articles that attack and mock Islam. While it is true they also have a history of publishing material that mocks other religions and ideologies, I highly doubt Charlie Hebdo would have been as "courageous" in mocking Judaism with the same robustness they do in mocking Islam, for example. In fact, looking at its history, the magazine fired one of its cartoonists in 2008 over a satirical statement that it argued was ‘anti-semitic’.
There is a fine line between satire and offensive material that Charlie Hebdo wilfully dances around. I think much of their material is offensive, Islamophobic (and anti-Semitic, as well as racist, sexist, and homophobic), and the argument that it is "freedom of speech" is a very crude way to allow offensive material to be published. “Freedom of speech” gets thrown around quite easily during events like yesterday's, but serious public debate about the parameters and nature of “freedom of speech” are few and far between.
I see nothing heroic about a bunch of elite white writers and artists picking on the identities and beliefs of minorities. Satire is supposed to be an act that punches up to power, and not down to the weak. The argument for “freedom of speech” and freedom of the press should not, and must not, place aside the question and understanding of privileges and differing power dynamics that are at work. By acknowledging and understanding that, perhaps we can all work to refine and develop a notion of freedoms that is truly universal and conscious of its role and duties. What is common today is that freedom of speech and freedom of press is brought up to espouse Islamophobic sentiments, and maintain power, but is ignored when facing issues of immigrant rights at home or wars fought abroad. In other words, “freedom of speech” is already restricted in many ways.
Muslim communities, immigrants, and "others" will pay dearly, and already are in France and elsewhere. French (and European) politics will sway more to the right. French support of repressive states and its military 'adventures' in North Africa and West Asia will continue.
The knee-jerk romanticizing and mythologizing of victims, particularly if the perpetrators are Black, Brown, or Muslim, that occurs after such acts, allows the perpetuation of this cycle of violence. Anyone who dares to mention facts, make critical assessments, or initiate a thoughtful debate is quickly chastised, and accused of siding with “terrorists” which, in effect, silences them. Yet, it is rare for free speech advocates to come to the aid of those raising serious questions; instead, this freedom of speech is used, time and again, to vilify such individuals.
After the launch of the American “Global War on Terror” 14 years ago, the level of the debate has stagnated as a righteous binary, and absolutist statements reign supreme. Much needed nuance, contexts, and depth are quickly swept aside.
This leads to the second point.
I find it interesting how there is an almost immediate expectation that Muslims apologize and take responsibility for the horrible attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is interesting because not once is there an equal expectation in regards to westerners (shall say Christian or Jewish?) to take responsibility or apologize for the killing of Al-Jazeera's staff by US forces in Iraq (as well as a number of other Arab journalists later on during that horrendous war) or the killing of tens of Palestinian journalists by the Zionist forces over the past decade. This is never expected, nor demanded, or even ever considered by the mainstream press.
But Muslims, especially in France, have nothing to apologize for. This does not mean they shouldn't take a stance and condemn these acts of violence as individuals. Collectively, however, apologizing implies responsibility – one that is not theirs to bear.
The only responsibility "Muslims" (whatever that means) have is to confront forces of repression, whether internal or external, and that does not mean apologizing for being a Muslim. And yes, I do think, that there is a lot that individuals within Muslim communities should and can do in combating fundamentalism and narrow-thinking, but that does not mean they should be collectively punished, harassed, mocked or immediately grovel when events like yesterday’s occur.
I make the same argument for any group; just like we shouldn't attack or punish all Jews for the brutal crimes of Zionism, or all Christians because of the horrors of colonialism, and the same holds true for Muslims. This is an important distinction that fundamentalists, of varying stripes, do not make and we must.
In fact, I argue that the French state has the largest share of the blame for:
a) Not creating a system that allows certain communities to assimilate easily into society. I'm talking politically, socially, and economically;
b) Pursuing a foreign policy that is destructive of other societies, and furthers repression;
c) Not coming to full terms, acknowledging, and apologizing for a history of military occupation and intervention in the North African and West Asian region (as well as elsewhere in the world). This is a history that continues to shape actions, ideas, and positions today, and has yet to be adequately confronted within French society;
d) Being supportive and part of the political support of states like Saudi Arabia (the beating heart of ferocious Islamic fundamentalist tenets) and Israel (the nation of Zionism, a racist and violent ideology, born out of ethnic cleansing and continued incremental genocide).
We need to understand context. We need to understand history. We need to understand power dynamics and inequalities.
Terrorism, or as I define it, political violence, and indeed most violence, does not happen in a vacuum, and without understanding the historical and contemporary strands, we will be dragged deeper into a cycle of violence, counter-violence, and destruction. We need to understand that these men who committed these acts are not “foreign entities” but most likely are a product of French society, a society that does not make integration easy for everyone.
Much of the reaction yesterday and today calls for blood. It is a position that is reactionary.
And even then, it's interesting how it seems that one society's call for blood is more acceptable than another's...
And we arrive to one last point, and this is about the value of lives. I have witnessed on social media and on news agencies a flurry of articles, statements, and dismay about the lives lost in Paris. Twelve people have died, people are horrified, and rightly so.
Yet, on the same day, a car bomb exploded in Sanaa, Yemen, killing at least 38 people. At least nine people, including two children, have died in attacks in Afghanistan, and an unknown number of dead as the violence rages in Syria and Iraq.
What is true today, and has been true for a while, is that 'white' lives matter more. It garners more of an emotional reaction. It horrifies, and causes dismay, shock, and tears. Their faces and names will be etched in collective memory. Politicians will read eloquent, heart-felt eulogies.
Black and Brown misery and deaths, on the other hand, have become so normalized, so accepted, so routine. They are numbers, footnotes, and statistics. There was no personalized video message by US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in the language of the victims, that offered sadness over the killing of seven pro-Syrian regime journalists after gunmen attacked their offices in June 2012. There were and are no Twitter hashtags for the dead civilians who were killed by French airstrikes during their military adventures in Mali, North Africa, and elsewhere. No one paid attention to the (terrorist?) bombing of the Colorado Springs offices of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) on January 6.
Lives are simply not equal. We must ask ourselves why? To quote the American philosopher Judith Butler, “Who counts as human? Whose lives count as lives? And, finally, What makes for a grievable life?”
These are key questions that are necessary and the answers can help us move on collectively, and the answers, I think, offer more solutions that simply hunting down and killing “terrorists.”

This article is jointly published with Al-Akhbar English

Sunday, 11 January 2015

CORRECT

Once again, the RCP's newspaper says it like it needs to be said. Read this, and tell the mainstream media to fuck off......

On Events in Paris

January 10, 2015 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us
On Wednesday, January 7, 12 people were killed and 11 wounded in a raid carried out against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. As of this time, there has been no official statement claiming responsibility or giving an explanation for this action. At this point, the people whom the authorities assert are responsible have been killed, even as massive dragnets and repression continue in Paris. Even had such a statement been issued, or even if it is soon issued, no one should take at face value the explanations and claims of the news media and government leaders.
But some things ARE clear:
ONE: The murder of people for expressing disagreements is an outrage. This is true no matter who does it—whether it is the imperialists themselves (who have a long history, including in this country against the Black liberation struggle as well as around the world, of silencing and, yes, murdering critics), or those who claim to be opposed to them.
TWO: Whoever was behind this and whatever their intent, besides causing the deaths and suffering of innocent people, the event has actually benefitted the imperialists. These killings will now be seized upon to further repress people and justify any actions, however unjust, undertaken by the governments in response, as well as the demonization of whole sections of people. The act in Paris can in no way be seen as justifying yet more acts of aggression or repression—yet more drone bomber strikes against civilians, as well as other forms of aggression which take the lives of more innocent people, more repression against immigrants, more spying and surveillance—all or some of which will very likely be mounted “in response.”
THREE: The imperialist system itself is the cause of massive suffering in the world and ultimately bears responsibility for creating conditions that give rise even to very wrong-headed and cruel actions in opposition to it. This can be seen by taking a day to study the history of France and the literally tens of millions of people not only heartlessly exploited and tortured, but murdered in North and West Africa, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere—throughout history and down to today. And the same could be said of the U.S., Britain, and other imperialist powers. But things like the attack in Paris are most definitely NOT in the interests of masses of people all over the world, and can in no way be justified.
FOUR: What is urgently needed right now—in opposition to these kinds of harmful acts—is, in countries like the U.S. (and France) and all over the world, the building of massive political resistance and opposition to what the imperialists, led by the U.S. imperialists, are doing—the many crimes they have committed and are continuing to commit—and to the way in which they will seize on this incident to seek to justify and carry further these crimes. This should include resistance against repressive measures directed at immigrant communities and opposition to demonization of immigrants—measures and demonization which had been gaining momentum well before this incident.
FINALLY: A genuinely emancipating revolution—a communist revolution—involves millions and millions of people who are determined to bring about a radical change in society and the world. This communist revolution aims to overturn the grotesque and horrific systems and relations in the world that cause such untold and unnecessary suffering for literally billions throughout the globe, and which themselves also give rise to and are ultimately responsible for grotesque forms of opposition to this. The nature and aim of this revolutionary struggle is nothing less than the conscious and determined struggle of millions and ultimately billions, throughout the globe, to bring into being a whole new world without exploitation, oppression, and social inequalities.
As is pointed out in “Some Crucial Points of Revolutionary Orientation—in Opposition to Infantile Posturing and Distortions of Revolution:”
In a country like the U.S., the revolutionary overthrow of the system can only be achieved once there is a major, qualitative change in the nature of the objective situation, such that society as a whole is in the grip of a profound crisis, owing fundamentally to the nature and workings of the system itself, and along with that there is the emergence of a revolutionary people, numbering in the millions and millions, conscious of the need for revolutionary change and determined to fight for it. In this struggle for revolutionary change, the revolutionary people and those who lead them will be confronted by the violent repressive force of the machinery of the state which embodies and enforces the existing system of exploitation and oppression; and in order for the revolutionary struggle to succeed, it will need to meet and defeat that violent repressive force of the old, exploitative and oppressive order.
In short, revolution—truly fundamental change, truly uprooting oppression—is a serious thing and it must be approached in a serious way—soberly, with science, commitment, and maturity.

Saturday, 10 January 2015

PIGS TAKE PEDOPHILE'S SIDE

In yet ANOTHER incident of the pigs not asking questions, but using the full power of the state to murder someone and leaving her 5 children without a parent, the fucking idiots shot and killed a woman who was confronting her husband about molestation allegations.

The Senseless, Illegitimate Police Killing of Mayra Cornejo

January 5, 2015 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

Revcom.us/Revolution received the following correspondence:
People who knew her said 34-year-old Mayra Cornejo was a joyful person who loved her five children and loved to have fun. She lived in Compton, California, and according to family members, her youngest daughter had told her mother that she was being molested by her father late at night when everybody was asleep. To protect her children, Mayra Cornejo filed a complaint and her husband was arrested. But then, instead of charging him, the Compton sheriffs let him go.
Mayra was shocked and upset and determined to protect her children. On December 31, 2014, New Year’s Eve, she reportedly brought a gun to a gas station and confronted her husband to stop him from harming the children. LA County sheriffs then rolled up and shot her seven times—shooting at her even after she fell down. Mayra Cornejo died in the hospital. Family members say she was trying to protect her children at the time and are demanding answers into why she was shot. Law enforcement went to a relative’s house and took away the five children. The family is now fighting to get them back.
On Friday, January 2, some of us took Revolution newspaper to Compton. Standing around the memorial of flowers, candles, and Mayra Cornejo’s picture at the gas station where she was killed, friends and relatives said the sheriffs should have tried to talk to her, it wasn’t right. According to relatives, there was no “freeze,” no “drop the gun”—sheriffs just opened up on Mayra and killed her. There is deep anger and pain at this senseless and illegitimate murder. Some of the friends and family knew about the struggle in Ferguson, Missouri, against the police killing of Michael Brown and the nationwide movement to stop police murder, and some did not. They all think that what happened is wrong and needs to stop. Newspapers and whistles (to alert people about the police) got into people’s hands. Widespread anger is simmering beneath the surface in Compton. At the nearby train stop and shopping center, everyone who heard about the murder was outraged. A Black woman whose son was shot by sheriffs came by the memorial to support the family. Carl Dix’s statement, “Murder by Police Should Not Be Tolerated!” resonated with many.

Friday, 9 January 2015

MORE ON FRANCE....

A little more insight into the social situation leading up to the shit.

France: Thousands defy ban on pro-Palestinian protests

In the Paris suburb of Sarcelles.
In the Paris suburb of Sarcelles.
According to the French newspaper Le Monde, on July 19 between 6,000 and 8,000 people showed up at a banned demonstration in Paris to support the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Their main slogan was “Israel is an assassin, [French President] Hollande is an accomplice.” (Reuters, July 19) Demonstrations, likewise officially banned, also took place in Sarcelles, a small city north of Paris, and Nice in southern France and in a number of other cities where they weren’t banned.
The previous Sunday, July 13, a pro-Palestinian march of 30,000 in Paris was brutally attacked by the Jewish Defense League. Minister of the Interior Bernard Cazeneuve used this attack as an excuse to claim the projected demonstration was “a threat to public order” and supported the decision of the prefect of police, the official in charge of the cops in Paris, to ban it.
Speaking from the former French colony of Niger, President François Hollande said: “France cannot allow conflict to be imported. It cannot have demonstrations which confront each other, risking public disorder.” (Libération, July 19)
A number of protesters told the semiofficial television chain TV2 that the people of France have the democratic right to protest and march. Street protests and marches are a very important and normal part of French political life.
Both Libération and l’Humanité media outlets ran live tweets of the protest as it took off so it is possible to reconstruct what happened.
When the CRS [French national] riot police blocked the protest from marching, some of the protesters threw rocks and bottles, and the cops responded with tear gas and stun grenades. The cops used so much gas that the polluted air made it hard to breathe.
As the confrontations with the cops were becoming sharper and more intense, most of the families and left-wing political leaders left the march. The only party to officially call for the march on July 19 was the New Anti-Capitalist Party, but leaders from most of the left parties were present.
Along with some Israeli flags, some cop cars and some other official vans were burned by the protesters. Libération reported 44 arrests and 17 cops injured.

ON THE SURFACE....

On the surface, this seems like a stupid question, but this analysis is both simple and concise.

The year of the pig: Should workers support police strikes?

CopsThis updated article first appeared in the Jan. 29, 1971, issue of Workers World newspaper. The writer was a founding member and chairperson of Workers World Party.
Are strikes by the police to be regarded approximately the same way as strikes by ordinary workers? A reading of the treatment accorded to the New York police strike by the Daily World (the paper of the Communist Party which professes to be Marxist-Leninist) clearly conveys this impression. A column by George Morris, the Daily World’s labor analyst, waxes eloquent about the cops’ strike and says “it is in the spirit of rebellion we see everywhere today as in unions against the long entrenched bureaucracy.” He further says that the cops are “beginning to see themselves as in much the same position as other city employees and workers.” Finally, he admonishes his readers that “fire should not be blunderbussed against all on the police force.”
You see, the way to look at it is that there are good cops and bad cops, just like there are good capitalists and bad ones. We must assume then, that there are good storm troopers and bad ones if we use the logic of George Morris. In this way, Morris substitutes bourgeois morality for Marxist analysis of class antagonisms and contradictions between class groupings.
The cops’ strike is not an isolated phenomenon. There is one in progress right now in Milwaukee. Earlier there were strikes or stoppages in Detroit and Youngstown, Ohio. Strike preparations are underway in perhaps a dozen other cities throughout the country. It is therefore necessary and in the vital interests of the working class to restate the fundamental position of revolutionary Marxism on this crucial question. Should strikes of cops be treated on an equal level with workers’ strikes?
Emphatically, no! A striking worker and a striking police officer may on the surface appear to have the same immediate aims — to get higher pay and better conditions for themselves. But this is to take an extremely narrow and superficial view of their apparently similar situations. The truth, however, is that there is objectively speaking not a shred of class identity between workers and the police. The fundamental interests of the workers are diametrically opposed to those of the police and are absolutely irreconcilable with them.
Producers or parasites?
A worker is, above all, a producer. The police officer is a parasite who lives off what the worker produces. No truer words could be said! All the material wealth which is now in the possession of the capitalist class was produced by the workers. When a worker goes out on strike she [or he] is merely trying to retrieve a portion of the wealth which her [or his] labor power produced. The worker gets back in the form of wages only a portion of what he [or she] produces. The rest is what the capitalist class retains in the form of profit (really the unpaid labor of the workers).
The gross national income of the U.S. last year reached the astronomical sum of one trillion dollars. It was all produced by workers: Black, Brown, white, men and women and even children. The struggles of all the workers, insofar as their immediate demands are concerned, are merely to retrieve a larger portion of this wealth which they produced for the bosses and which the bosses keep for themselves.
Contribute nothing to social wealth
What have the cops contributed to the production of this unprecedented amount of wealth? Nothing at all. In fact, their principal function is to guard the wealth for the capitalists, protect their monopolist profits from the demands of the workers. Even as the New York cops were out on strike, their emergency crews were busily clubbing the heads of striking telephone workers. That’s the very essence of a cop: to crack the heads of strikers and practice the most inhuman brutality against the Black, Puerto Rican and Chicano/a communities.
A cop is a mercenary hired by the capitalist class through their agent (the city government) to keep the mass of the workers and the oppressed in complete subjection. They utilize all the forces and violence at their disposal whenever the masses rise up in rebellion against the unendurable conditions imposed by the master class.
The police are the most parasitic social grouping in society. When they work — if that’s what it can possibly be called — their labor is directed against the workers and oppressed. Graft, corruption, intimate collaboration with all sorts of underworld figures and enterprises such as gambling, narcotics and a thousand other shady businesses — that’s what cops are really engaged in.
They are utterly inseparable from crime and corruption itself. One could not exist without the other. Both are nourished and supported by the nature of the capitalist system itself. To put the police on a par with the workers is to erase the difference between the persecutors and their victims.
Such incidental operations of the police as traffic control and other related useful functions for society are deliberately tacked on by the government to police control when they in reality should be separate and independent activities of workers apart from the parasitic regular police functions.
What about German ‘Social Democrat’ cops?
The police in every capitalist country are trained in the spirit of civil war against the workers and the popular masses in general. This is so even in the rare cases, like pre-war Austria and Germany, where substantial sections of the police considered themselves “socialists” or “social democrats” because a large section of the populations of these countries were either socialists or communists.
However, at the critical moment when Hitler made ready to seize power by a fascist coup, the police unanimously and cheerfully lined up with him and opened up a civil war against the workers of Austria. In Germany proper, they joined the storm troopers. They played a prime role in Hitler’s attempt to ferret out every militant worker and every progressive person and haul them off to the concentration camps. These same police systematically carried out the torture of hundreds of thousands of socialists and communists, not to speak of the unbelievable atrocities against the Jews.
In this country, who does not know that the Klan and the John Birch Society are the most intimate collaborators with the police and in some cities actually control the police?
Who does not know that almost all the strike-breaking agencies in the country work hand in glove with the police? Both are in the service of the industrialists as soon as the workers make an independent move of their own.
Army of occupation in oppressed communities
In the Black and Brown communities, the police play the role of a foreign occupation army and practice a form of cruelty and brutality which differs only in degree from the U.S. occupation army in Vietnam and Cambodia. As a token of the high esteem and affection in which these communities hold the police, they have coined the word “pig” as synonym for cop and this word has passed into the universal language of the oppressed.
It is utterly false to compare the rebellion of the cops with that of the workers and oppressed people, as does Daily World columnist George Morris. Only one who has renounced Marxism would do that.
The police strikes, if they can be called that, are in the nature of pro-slavery rebellions whose ultimate effect is to strengthen the capitalist state against the masses everywhere. A victory for the cops means extra privileges for these parasites. This will embolden them and encourage them in the use of violence in future struggles against the workers. Every cent paid to the police comes out of the hides of the workers. Every cent they get is at the expense of welfare, housing, schools, and other facilities and services that are needed by the people. And the police are now the biggest item in New York City’s budget!
Unlike workers, when police go out on strike they are not trying to retrieve money withheld from them for useful work done on behalf of society. Their services are solely and exclusively in the interests of one class of society only: the ruling class. Clarity on this point is absolutely indispensable. If the police find themselves in a controversy with the ruling class over the amount of money they should get as mercenaries, the workers should treat this as an internal struggle in the camp of the enemy and not confuse it with a struggle of their own class.
But that’s exactly what George Morris does! His article is an affront to every worker who has ever felt the brunt of a police club.
The Boston police strike of 1919
Of course, there are exceptional cases where police strikers, in a struggle with the capitalist state, have no alternative but to turn for support to the workers. These cases are rare indeed, such as the Boston police strike of 1919, which Calvin Coolidge, then governor of Massachusetts, broke. In such cases it is the duty of the workers’ leaders to adroitly intervene in the struggle.
In doing so, they must make clear that their intervention is not motivated by any class solidarity with the police (who on the morrow of their victory will again proceed to club the heads of striking workers) but out of motives of working-class expedience — that is, to help the police undermine the capitalist state structure. The longer a police strike lasts, the more it undermines capitalist law and order. In that task, a revolutionary worker should help, while helping even more to build workers’ self-defense groups.
The various parasitic elements which constitute the capitalist state are always in conflict with each other on how to divide among themselves the juiciest portions of the city, state and federal treasuries. Like thieves, they are invariably at each other’s throats, each seeking a greater share of the loot. These parasitic elements comprise the police, detectives, prison officials, executioners, various state and local anti-subversive squads, and the judicial bureaucracies. These are not to be compared to firefighters, sanitation workers or other workers who have been co-opted by the government into the capitalist state apparatus so as to keep their wages in check. These workers perform useful tasks and will continue to do so even in the highest form of socialist society. Morris deliberately confuses the issue when he compares police to workers.
Will there be cops when classes are gone?
One way for a Marxist to judge whether a specific social group in the present capitalist state setup is parasitic or really performs socially necessary and useful work is to ask whether such groupings would be needed in a socialist system after the abolition of all class rule. Clearly police will not be needed. With the abolition and disappearance of all vestiges of class privilege, the need for a coercive special force, even a workers’ militia, becomes superfluous.
However, men and women who work to make a more sanitary social environment and make it free from all sorts of hazards, such as fire, will of course be needed. If even in a socialist society the need for a coercive force such as police continually diminishes as the socialist system develops to a higher and higher form, then all the less do we need police in a capitalist society. Here its fundamental function is to suppress the working class and in particular use the most brutal violence against the Black, Chicano/a and Puerto Rican people.
It is to be noted that the current wave of police insurgency comes after a considerable period when they have been engaged in actual civil war against the Black and Brown communities. The ruling class has felt itself more and more indebted to the police precisely because of this. Having been highly flattered for their brutal role in the recent period, the police are now demanding extra privileges and remuneration for their storm trooper role in those communities and on the college campuses as well as in the recent strike struggles throughout the whole country.
The police have also become more vociferous in denouncing the so-called lenient judges and demanding that the government “take the handcuffs off the police.” This cry is nothing but a fascist demand for the right to unrestricted use of force and violence against the civil population. It is in this context that we must view the police strikes as well as the general historical role that they play in the class struggle.
Paris Commune dispelled cops — and crime
That the working class needs no capitalist police to secure and defend them was never more clearly demonstrated than in the first great proletarian revolution more than a hundred years ago — during the Paris Commune. Scarcely had the Paris Commune been established (the first truly working class government had just begun to survey the tasks ahead of it) when the world had its first vision since the dawn of class society of what would happen to the entire capitalist police establishment on the day of the proletarian revolution.
“No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies,” says Karl Marx about the Paris Commune in his celebrated book, “The Civil War in France.”
“In fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848,” he remarks, “the streets of Paris were safe and without police of any kind.”
Is there a capitalist government anywhere in the world that can make such a boast even for one day? Is there any large city anywhere in the capitalist world which is free even for a single day of any crime and could do without any police of any kind as was the case with the Paris Commune? Merely to ask the question is to answer it. To put an end to crime it is first of all necessary to put an end to the thoroughly criminal rule of the bourgeoisie. It is their very existence which breeds not only crime and corruption but virulent racism, imperialist war and genocide.
To infuse the working class with a revolutionary attitude toward the police is at the same time ideological preparation for the overthrow of the capitalist class.

THE SHIT ON THE RIGHT

Unfortunately, the terrible events now transpiring in france will only fuel the already racist atmosphere in that and many other european countries. There have already been attacks on mosques, and no doubt that attacks on civilians of Arab descent will follow, if they haven't happened by now.
   There is an okay article about france and their history of colonialism right here . It's from time magazine, which is okay sometimes, and total shit at other times. Read it.