Borba100 at SPAMaol.com Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Wed May 9 04:25:41 MDT 2001

(SORRY - sent this by error before spell checking, now everyone knows: I
can't spell)

In a message dated 5/9/01 11:53:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
juliohuato at hotmail.com writes, disputing Charles, that:

 The first sentence [i.e., that "Without the protection by the state power,
the capitalists would not last very long"] is an anarchist myth.  Marx
demolished it in Poverty of Philosophy and Engels in Anti-Duhring.  In
Mexico, without the protection of  the state power, capitalism would
reconstitute its state power.  What state
 power is protecting the drug cartels?  Yet, they are challenging the state
 power in the US. >>

1) "In Mexico, without the protection of  the state power, capitalism would
reconstitute its state power."  Perhaps, but how on earth does this prove
that Charles is wrong to say that without state power the capitalists
wouldn't last very long?  That you can RECONSTITUTE something hardly proves
you don't NEED it.  Obviously, that means - they need state power.  The fact
that a social class could theoretically reconstitute what protects them
obviously does not mean it is not protecting them. Like du-uh. Or, to put it
more elegant: pure sophistry. Shame!

Obviously Charles didn't mean that the state is some ideal construct, i.e.,
he was not making the argument that Marx was in fact refuting, namely that
the state exists  independent of class.  Marx and Charles are arguing that
the state is something a class indeed does create - although perhaps not in
full consciousness among all its members - precisely IN ORDER TO PROTECT
ITSELF. Hence Marx studied the Paris Commune to find out what state the
victorious working class would erect - to protect itself.

2)  "What state  power is protecting the drug cartels?"  I don't know what
state power juliohuato at hotmail.com  lives in, but on planet earth, let's see:
DEA, various branches of Mexican police, local police departments all over
U.S., Turkish police, KFOR in Kosovo, Taliban, etc. etc.  In New York when
the police went on strike in I think it was 1970 crime went down 50%. When my
ex-wife was busted for demonstrating in 1966 and was sent to New York's
Women's House of Detention the other ladies were ALL prostitutes NOT
CONNECTED WITH THE MOB.  They proceeded to educate my leftist wife: to the
effect that look, dearie, naturally - NATURALLY - the cops bust anyone not

That was on a petty scale. Big gangsterism, particularly drug-related
gangsterism, is in the modern age intimately intertwined with various States'
covert operations. That is, it is NOT the result of petty bribery, it is
state policy.

 AS you must know, this was revealed in Iran-Contra where a semi-gangster
creation (contras) was revealed to be supplied in a complex arrangement
involving Iranian  Islamists, drug dealers, Israeli semi-covert businessmen,
the CIA - you know, like the STATE, and not just one.    Similarly there were
intimate relations, during earlier period, between US intelligence, the
French police and gangs in Marseilles and Italy, used to break the left
unions, then later between the CIA, the Christian Democrats (i.e., in effect
the state,) and the Mafia, in Italy, then there was, in the 30s, the
involvement of gangsters and FBI working together (or should I say, gangsters
working for the FBI) against red unions on the NY piers - isn't this all
common knowledge?  Similarly, the U.S.-Saudia Arabia created Islamist
movement in Afghanistan  and the KLA (us-German created) in Kosovo are both
major parts of the drug criminal world.  Drug money, protected by a web of
state functions in the area, funds the Islamists attacking the former Soviet
Union.  And on and on and on.

In addition there is evidence supporting the charge that the covert apparatus
of the state (which is in my humble opinion the most revealing part) has made
sure that drugs were poured into US ghettos to produce pacification,
criminalize rebellious youth, etc.

In general one could say gangsters can ONLY exist with the connivance and
involvement of the state apparatus.  This is true for petty gangsters (who
relate to petty parts of the state, so that police and hoodlums are
interchangeable) and it is true on the biggest scale, where it reflects
policy for crushing rebellion. This all appears - indeed is MADE to appear -
as a matter of bad eggs in the state being bribed by drug money, or whatever.
IN FACT gangsters are tolerated/used by the state to perform various
functions, e.g., funding people like the Islamists and KLA.
And when they get out of line, they learn, the hard way, that some very BIG
gangsters (the state) have lots of fire power.

Jared Israel

More information about the Marxism mailing list