Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'security'.
Found 2 results
I've been experimenting with running neolib and security recently but it's kind of messy and annoying to deal with the critique interactions. How do y'all feel about running neolib and running security as a case turn on heg flows? Would this be effective?
Ummm the Alt in this K has been hurting my head I i do not get it cause I feel its easy but more nuanced then I actually think. The alternative is anti-security. An unflinching rejection of security discourse is the only emancipatory political option. Neocleous and Rigakos, 2011 (Mark Neocleous, Professor of the Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University London, Editor of the journal Radical Philosophy, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Middlesex University London, and George S. Rigakos, Chair of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from York University, 2011 (“Anti-Security: A Declaration,” Anti-Security, Edited by Mark Neocleous and George S. Rigakos, Published by Red Quill Books, ISBN 9781926958149, p. 15-19) The purpose of the project, put simply, is to show that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion. Less simply, that security is a dangerous illusion. Why ‘dangerous’? Because it has come to act as a blockage on politics: the more we succumb to the discourse of security, the less we can say about exploitation and alienation; the more we talk about security, the less we talk about the material foundations of emancipation; the more we come to share in the fetish of security, the more we become alienated from one another and the more we become complicit in the exercise of police powers. Fleshing out how we got here is the first challenge; showing how damaging this has been is an even greater challenge; doing these things in a way that contributes to a radical, critical and emancipatory politics even more so. But it is a challenge that must be made, and must be made collectively. As a start, we therefore offer the following declarations about an Anti-Security politics. [end page 15] We deny all false binaries that obfuscate and reify the security problematic and serve only to reinforce its power. We therefore reject: * Liberty versus Security: In the works of the founders of the liberal tradition - that is, the founders of bourgeois ideology - liberty is security and security is liberty. For the ruling class, security always has and always will triumph over liberty because ‘liberty’ has never been intended as a counter-weight to security. Liberty has always been security’s lawyer. * Public versus Private: No post-hoc juridical determination about accountability, legal standing, uniforming, or legitimate use of force can undo the historic inter-operability of public and private police, state and mercenary armies, corporate and government security, or transnational corporations and international relations. The public sphere does the work of the private sphere, civil society the work of the state. The question is therefore not ‘public versus private’ or ‘civil [end page 16] society versus the state’, but the unity of bourgeois violence and the means by which pacification is legitimized in the name of security. * Soft versus Hard: Such dichotomous constructions – soft versus hard policing for suppressing dissent; soft versus hard military intervention for stamping out local and indigenous resistance; soft versus hard power to impose global imperial hegemony – are but aspects of the unity of class violence, distracting us from universal pacification carried out in the name of capital. * Barbarism versus Civilization: The history of civilization after the Enlightenment is the consolidation of wage labour, the cultural and material imposition of imperial domination, and the violence of class war. In the form of the ‘standard of civilization’ the majesty of the Law was central to this project. To civilize is to project police power. ‘Civilization’ is code for enforcing capitalist relations; which is to say: bourgeois civilization is barbarism. [end page 17] * Domestic versus Foreign: The greatest tyranny of security is its insistence on the construction of the ‘other’. Security creates both internal domestic and external foreign threats, generating the fear and division that underpins raison d’état. The colonial pacification of subjects abroad is soon turned into domestic pacification of subjects at home. New international policing initiatives are but a laboratory for the militarization of domestic security. The ‘war on terror’ is a permanent multi-front assault that lumps jihadists with peaceniks, feminists with Islamists, and socialists with assassins. No pretence at a distinction is necessary because the capitalist state is insecure in all directions. * Pre- and post-9/11: Let’s be clear: the murder of 3,000 on September 11, 2001 was horrific, but it did not change anything. To believe so is to engage in a deliberate act of forgetting. The security apparatus that revved up in the days after the attack had been in the making for decades as the [end page 18] terrain of the class war shifted. The targets of the new ‘war’ - this time on terror - were not new. The cry of ‘insecurity’ was again answered with two familiar demands: you consume, and we will destroy. Go to Disneyland, and let the state continue the work it had been conducting for generations. If 9/11 accomplished anything, it was to make security all but unassailable. * Exception and Normality: This is not a state of exception. The capitalist state riding roughshod over human rights in the name of security is normal. The ruling class carrying out acts of violence in the name of accumulation is normal. The devising of new techniques to discipline and punish recalcitrant subjects is normal. Targeted assassinations, the bombing of civilians, imprisonment without trial… normal, normal, normal. And, lest we forget: liberals falling over themselves justify such things? Normal. [end page 19] We understand instead that security today: * operates as the supreme concept of bourgeois society. * colonizes and de-radicalizes discourse: hunger to food security; imperialism to energy security; globalization to supply chain security; welfare to social security; personal safety to private security. Security makes bourgeois all that is inherently communal. It alienates us from solutions that are naturally social and forces us to speak the language of state rationality, corporate interest, and individual egoism. Instead of sharing, we hoard. Instead of helping, we build dependencies. Instead of feeding others, we let them starve… all in the name of security. * is a special commodity, playing a pivotal role in the exploitation, alienation and immiseration of workers. It produces its own fetish, embedding itself into all other commodities, producing even more risk and fear while intensifying and distracting us from the material conditions of exploitation that have [end page 20] made us inherently insecure. It makes concrete our ephemeral insecurities under capitalist relations. It attempts to satiate through consumption what can only be achieved through revolution. The call of this Declaration is that we: * name security for what it really is; * stand against the securitization of political discourse; * challenge the authoritarian and reactionary nature of security; * point to the ways in which security politics shifts attention away from material conditions and questions, in the process transforming emancipatory politics into an arm of police; * fight for an alternative political language that takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and its police powers… [This card is the full declaration; it ends with an ellipses.]