The Political Economy Of Gang "threats" And A Critique Of State "security” Agenda. --Lecture 9

Front 1

UNDERSTANDING STATE “SECURITY”UNDER CAPITALISM.

Back 1

-Accordingto Marx and Engels (1848, p.30): “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing thecommon affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”.

-Whatdoes this statement tell us about the inordinate focus of government attentionon the “socialdynamite”such as youth gangs?

-Whose“security” constitutes state “security” andwhy?

-And who determines state “security” policies?

-Fromboth INSTRUMENTALandSTRUCTURALMARXIST PERSPECTIVES, what is the objectiveofthese “security” policies?

Front 2

A/c to Spitzer(1975, p. 642), groupsare problematized/ criminalizedand targeted for control “whenthey disturb,hinderor callinto question ANY of the following

Back 2

1.capitalistmodes of appropriating the product of human labor (e.g., when the poor “steal” from the rich);

2.thesocial conditions under which capitalist production takes place (e.g., those who refuse or are unable to performwage labor);

3.patternsof distribution and consumption in a capitalist society (e.g., those who use drugs for escape andtranscendence rather than sociability and adjustment);

4.theprocess of socialization for productive and non-productive roles (e.g., youthwho refuse to be schooled orthose who deny the validity of ‘family life’[uponwhich future workers depend]).”

5.thecapitalist ideology and/or advocate for alternative economic systems/socialorganization.●

Front 3

CONCEPTUALIZING “PUBLIC” INSECURITY INA CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

Back 3

UNDERSTOODAS ADISRUPTION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURES:

1. THESUBSTRUCTURE/INFRASTRUCTURE (ECONOMICSPHERE).

(a) forces of production(capital, land, labour,machinery, etc)

(b) social relations of production(employer-employee relations, working conditions, propertyrelations, etc).

2. THE SUPERSTRUCTURE (NON-ECONOMICSPHERE)- sourcesof both “insecurity” and “control”

(a)Political institution (political power structure)

(b)Legal institution (e.g., therule of law; lawand order)

(c)Education (compulsoryeducation: production of labour,conformity, etc).

(d)Social Stratification (forsegregation and social control:class,race, gender, etc).

(e)Religion (which encourages conformity)

(f)Military (used in the defense of the capitalist order)

Front 4

STRATEGIES used to Protect the “Security” of the Capitalist State.

Back 4

-EconomicPolicies:

-Keynesianism(welfarestate): afterthe Great Depression

-Neoliberalism:late1970s -Great Recession (institutions: IMF, World Bank, and WTO).

-SocialPolicies: minimum wage, mortgage system; studentsloan, social medicine.

-StrongArmed Forces (external).§RepressiveState Apparatus (Internal) - criminallaw, police, courts, prisons, intelligence/surveillance services, armed forcesetc.);

-IdeologicalState Apparatuses (extensiveuse of the media,religion, education, etc. to mobilize public support of thecapitalist ideal).

Front 5

THE BELLIGERENT PSYCHOLOGY OFSTATE “SECURITY” UNDER CAPITALISM

Back 5

(1)Any DIFFERENTWORLDVIEW (or systemof accumulation) is considered aTHREAT. Thus: (a) the targeting of groups that operateoutside the social architecture of wagelabour (e.g., gangs, sex trade, panhandling,etc). (b) the constant resort to the use of force (orWar, for external threats). (c) the use of Militaristlanguagein policing internal threats (e.g., War on Crime, War on Drugs, War onGangs, War on Terror, etc). (d) the use of specialtask forces in policing(e.g.,ProjectPathfinder, Gunand Gang Task Force, etc).

(2) FORCE and IDEOLOGY critical fortheenforcement and thedefense ofthe capitalist ideals (both domestically and internationally).

Front 6

NeoliberalEconomic Policy (limited government):

Back 6

-since 1980s:gangs emerged:

(a) to fill the vacuumcreated by the retreat of the state (as a social security institution),and

(b) following the decline of social welfarepolicies / Keysianism(Hagerdon,2005), gangs became the employers of last resort forthe poor (Davis,2008).

-The politicization of the “war ondrugs”: toprotect thesocial architecture of wage-basedcapitalism; and toasphyxiatealternatives towage labour (Gordon, 2005).

Front 7

ECONOMIC SURVIVAL IN TORONTO’S13 “PRIORITY AREAS.” (replacedin 2014 with NeighbourhoodImprovement Areas).

Back 7

•The Original13 Toronto neighbourhoods designated by the city as “PriorityAreas”(Jamestown, Jane-Finch, Malvern, Kinston-Galloway, Lawrence Heights,Steeles-L’Amoreaux, Eglinton East-Kennedy Park, Crescent Town,Weston-Mt.Dennis, Dorset Park, Scarborough Village, Flemingdon Park-VictoriaVillage, and Westminster-Branson)

•CensusCanada (2006) and City of Toronto (2010) indicate that the rate of unemploymentin Jane& Finch (for example) was over 27%;another 40%work in the manufacturing/warehousingsector (minimum wage job).Similarexample: •Studyof BlackKnightsat RobertTaylor Homes at the South Side of Chicago, nowdemolished (Venkatesh, 2008).

Front 8

Critical Security Framework

Back 8

-rejectsthe dominant (mainstream) conception of security (state-centric/enforced by force);

-offers the improvement of humanconditions (economic, social, political,etc) asthe best guarantee of security;

-theneed to move away from state-centric(“realist”) interpretation of security;andto focus on removingthe structural barriers thathinder human (socio-economic) progress and thus provoke the breakdown ofsecurity.§HumanSecurity: “freedomfrom want” and “freedom from fear” are better guarantees of security(UNDP, 1994).