At the same time that the new pseudo-libertarian government of Javier
Milei implements its policy aimed at reducing the State apparatus in
social matters with a view to adjusting the most vulnerable sectors of
society, with the same speed it launches the growth of repressive
apparatus of the State to try to prevent resistance against the
adjustment program. That is to say, while measures are being put in
place to reduce the intervention of the State in its social role, in
parallel others are being taken to make the State increasingly present
in its repressive aspect, in particular, in everything related to the
strike. and to the protest.
If we take as an example one of the objectives announced by the
ill-fated Omnibus Law project, which was the limitation of "all state
intervention that is not necessary", we must conclude that, in light of
the growth of the repressive apparatus that is taking place, the The
only state intervention necessary for the new government is that aimed
at limiting and repressing the protest. On the contrary, the
intervention of the State in social matters, a phenomenon that emerged
mainly from the interwar period of the 20th century as a response of the
dominant sectors to the growth of the organized labor movement, is now
presented as unnecessary, thus accelerating the process. of reduction of
social policies and transfer of these resources to the dominant sectors,
a process that had already begun during the previous governments of
Macri and Fernández with the return of IMF policies.
The most visible face of this Police State is the Minister of Security
Patricia Bullrich, whose first measure in this sense was the
self-proclaimed "Protocol for the Maintenance of Public Order before the
Traffic Road Blocking", issued barely two days after the Minister of
Economy, Luis Caputo, will announce on December 12 the first fierce
devaluation measures of the official exchange rate, generating an abrupt
rise in price levels in the face of an already impoverished population
with miserable incomes.
This new protocol, unlike the one dictated during the Macri government
in 2016, does not contemplate any instance of mediation between the
repressive forces and the protesters. The logic that applies this new
protocol is a particular interpretation of art. 194 of the Penal Code
(crimes against the operation of transport), considering included in it
all cases of impediment to the normal operation of transport. In this
way, all those people who would be obstructing traffic are considered
criminals caught in the act, which would enable the repressive forces to
prevent the continuation of the alleged crime, without the need for
judicial authorization and being able to proceed to make arrests.
One of the aspects that show that the true purpose of the protocol is to
avoid protests is the fact that it expressly authorizes the intervention
of repressive forces, even in those cases in which there is no dangerous
situation and even when there are. other alternative circulation routes.
Therefore, if the legal asset to be protected would supposedly be the
security of transportation as provided for in art. 194 of the Penal
Code, the need in these cases to apply the protocol is not explained,
with alternative routes existing so that transportation can continue and
without dangerous situations for people.
The judicial application carried out to date of this protocol with
respect to the protesters detained during the treatment of the Omnibus
Law project, also leaves in view that true purpose intended to prevent
the protest itself under the excuse of pursuing the commission of some
alleged crime. crime. In fact, in many of these arrests, after the
release has taken place, the demonstrators are prohibited from being
able to approach less than a thousand meters from Congress as a
restriction while the cases continue. If we take into consideration that
these are open cases due to alleged resistance to authority and without
the intention of applying any criminal offense related to obstruction of
the normal functioning of Congress, the meaning of this restriction is
not explained. Congress is not the object of the alleged crime for which
they are being prosecuted. The only possible explanation is to want to
prevent them from continuing to demonstrate against the bill that was
being discussed in Congress. In this sense, the case of one of the
detainees was clearer; because he lived a few blocks from Congress, his
restriction was that he could not approach any demonstration.
An example of the Police State nature that the new government is
assuming is the regulation on public meetings and demonstrations
contained in the Omnibus Law project. It is known that it established
that any public meeting or demonstration of 3 or more people must
require prior authorization from the Ministry of Security. The tiny
number of people required by the project generated all kinds of comments
about it, which led Bullrich to modify the project by raising the
minimum number of people to 30, a regulation that for the moment was put
on standby with the drop in treatment of the Omnibus Law project.
But what few know is the reason why the original project provided for a
minimum number of 3 people to require prior authorization. This is
because art. 210 of the Penal Code, when it classifies the crime of
illicit association, provides for a minimum number of 3 people as
members of the association for this crime to be classified. In this way,
in an analogical manner, the regulation of public meetings and
demonstrations contained in the Omnibus Law project applied the same
minimum number of people provided for the crime of illicit association.
If we continue the reasoning followed by this regulation, a meeting or
public demonstration of 3 or more people could be an illicit
association, a situation that would require prior authorization from the
Ministry of Security, which could oppose its holding for security
reasons that They are not specified in the project.
Now, what differentiates this regulation of public meetings or
demonstrations from the criminal figure of illicit association is that
in the latter it is also required that the association's purpose is to
commit crimes. On the contrary, in the Omnibus Law project, the mere
fact of it being a meeting or demonstration of 3 or more people enabled
the application of this regulation and the intervention of the Ministry
of Security. It can be said that, for the latter, the criminal purpose
of the eventual meeting or demonstration was not required to apply this
regulation, the meeting or demonstration alone was enough to enable its
intervention. That is to say that the figure of the illicit association
takes only the minimum number of people and not its purpose, the latter
situation which is what precisely qualifies the association as illicit
and would justify its penalization in some way. Now, however, what is
dangerous for the State is the meeting or demonstration of people
themselves, regardless of their possible criminal purpose.
It is inevitable to remember the criminal cases for illicit association
initiated against FORA societies during the Uriburu dictatorship, for
the sole fact of being groups destined to carry out direct action
measures in defense of their rights and achieve better living and
working conditions. Once again, as has happened in numerous stages of
our history, the State feels threatened by protests and the
concentration of people on public roads, which leads it to dictate this
type of regulations aimed at preventing and persecuting public meetings
and demonstrations. . This attitude and procedure of the State is what
qualifies it as a Police State, which sees the population itself as a
whole as a threat, to the point that it justifies its repressive
intervention at any minimal sign of possible resistance or collective
expression of that population. . This is what leads him to place
security as his main banner.
The reconfiguration of the State towards a Police State with the
characteristics that we have been pointing out does not occur just by
itself, but rather responds to a broader strategy of big capital that
takes advantage of an evident moment of resounding decline of the
workers' organization, to take measures aimed at concentrate the
productive process and capitalist exploitation in a few hands, at the
expense of the entire class that lives from its work, imposing profound
labor, social, environmental and public accounts reforms that favor the
business of concentrated groups. The degree of setback experienced by
the organized labor movement is the kick that allows the State to reduce
its role in social matters and as a mediator in the face of class
conflict for the continuity of the capitalist economic order, going on
to reconfigure itself as a Police State at the service exclusive of the
dominant classes in order to drastically implement their adjustment
policies.
The abandonment of the role of the State in social matters as a means to
try to alleviate the enormous inequalities generated by the capitalist
system of production, not only implies a change in strategy of the
dominant sectors with respect to the role of the State, but also
involves an enormous transfer of resources. provided for these purposes
towards concentrated groups, as is happening, for example, with ANSES
resources to respond to public debt. To this example we can add the
current government's projects to privatize public companies, eliminate
restrictions on land sales and transfer to the national treasury all the
assets of the Sustainability Guarantee Fund of the retirement and
pension regime.
The considerable strengthening of the dominant sectors that allows them
to consider themselves in a position to implement all these fierce
adjustment policies, is a product, as we said, of the great setback
experienced by the organized labor movement in the years of the
Fernández government that, together with the complicity of the
bureaucracies entrenched in the leadership of the union organizations,
have dedicated themselves to militating the quietism and the paralysis
of the union struggle. All this within the framework of the
implementation of IMF adjustment policies that have led most of the
population to poverty and the loss of purchasing power of salaries and
pensions. Just an example of this is the fact that Alberto Fernández
ended his term with 40% poverty and without a general strike declared
during his entire government, the only president without a single
general strike since the fall of the civil-military dictatorship.
The fear that the ruling classes have of collective demonstrations and
protests, expressions of the principle of direct action, shows its
enormous potential to prevent the advance of adjustment and light the
spark for social transformation. No form of State has prevented sooner
or later the popular masses from rising up against those who starve them
and make their lives precarious, to which we must add to this fight as
forumists the principles of horizontal and federative organization for
the construction of a new social order and stop handing over our
destinies to supposed representatives of the people.
LEONARDO ELGORRIAGA
https://organizacion-obrera.fora.com.ar/2024/03/27/el-estado-policiaco-como-parte-del-programa-pseudo-libertario-del-gobierno-nacional/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Milei implements its policy aimed at reducing the State apparatus in
social matters with a view to adjusting the most vulnerable sectors of
society, with the same speed it launches the growth of repressive
apparatus of the State to try to prevent resistance against the
adjustment program. That is to say, while measures are being put in
place to reduce the intervention of the State in its social role, in
parallel others are being taken to make the State increasingly present
in its repressive aspect, in particular, in everything related to the
strike. and to the protest.
If we take as an example one of the objectives announced by the
ill-fated Omnibus Law project, which was the limitation of "all state
intervention that is not necessary", we must conclude that, in light of
the growth of the repressive apparatus that is taking place, the The
only state intervention necessary for the new government is that aimed
at limiting and repressing the protest. On the contrary, the
intervention of the State in social matters, a phenomenon that emerged
mainly from the interwar period of the 20th century as a response of the
dominant sectors to the growth of the organized labor movement, is now
presented as unnecessary, thus accelerating the process. of reduction of
social policies and transfer of these resources to the dominant sectors,
a process that had already begun during the previous governments of
Macri and Fernández with the return of IMF policies.
The most visible face of this Police State is the Minister of Security
Patricia Bullrich, whose first measure in this sense was the
self-proclaimed "Protocol for the Maintenance of Public Order before the
Traffic Road Blocking", issued barely two days after the Minister of
Economy, Luis Caputo, will announce on December 12 the first fierce
devaluation measures of the official exchange rate, generating an abrupt
rise in price levels in the face of an already impoverished population
with miserable incomes.
This new protocol, unlike the one dictated during the Macri government
in 2016, does not contemplate any instance of mediation between the
repressive forces and the protesters. The logic that applies this new
protocol is a particular interpretation of art. 194 of the Penal Code
(crimes against the operation of transport), considering included in it
all cases of impediment to the normal operation of transport. In this
way, all those people who would be obstructing traffic are considered
criminals caught in the act, which would enable the repressive forces to
prevent the continuation of the alleged crime, without the need for
judicial authorization and being able to proceed to make arrests.
One of the aspects that show that the true purpose of the protocol is to
avoid protests is the fact that it expressly authorizes the intervention
of repressive forces, even in those cases in which there is no dangerous
situation and even when there are. other alternative circulation routes.
Therefore, if the legal asset to be protected would supposedly be the
security of transportation as provided for in art. 194 of the Penal
Code, the need in these cases to apply the protocol is not explained,
with alternative routes existing so that transportation can continue and
without dangerous situations for people.
The judicial application carried out to date of this protocol with
respect to the protesters detained during the treatment of the Omnibus
Law project, also leaves in view that true purpose intended to prevent
the protest itself under the excuse of pursuing the commission of some
alleged crime. crime. In fact, in many of these arrests, after the
release has taken place, the demonstrators are prohibited from being
able to approach less than a thousand meters from Congress as a
restriction while the cases continue. If we take into consideration that
these are open cases due to alleged resistance to authority and without
the intention of applying any criminal offense related to obstruction of
the normal functioning of Congress, the meaning of this restriction is
not explained. Congress is not the object of the alleged crime for which
they are being prosecuted. The only possible explanation is to want to
prevent them from continuing to demonstrate against the bill that was
being discussed in Congress. In this sense, the case of one of the
detainees was clearer; because he lived a few blocks from Congress, his
restriction was that he could not approach any demonstration.
An example of the Police State nature that the new government is
assuming is the regulation on public meetings and demonstrations
contained in the Omnibus Law project. It is known that it established
that any public meeting or demonstration of 3 or more people must
require prior authorization from the Ministry of Security. The tiny
number of people required by the project generated all kinds of comments
about it, which led Bullrich to modify the project by raising the
minimum number of people to 30, a regulation that for the moment was put
on standby with the drop in treatment of the Omnibus Law project.
But what few know is the reason why the original project provided for a
minimum number of 3 people to require prior authorization. This is
because art. 210 of the Penal Code, when it classifies the crime of
illicit association, provides for a minimum number of 3 people as
members of the association for this crime to be classified. In this way,
in an analogical manner, the regulation of public meetings and
demonstrations contained in the Omnibus Law project applied the same
minimum number of people provided for the crime of illicit association.
If we continue the reasoning followed by this regulation, a meeting or
public demonstration of 3 or more people could be an illicit
association, a situation that would require prior authorization from the
Ministry of Security, which could oppose its holding for security
reasons that They are not specified in the project.
Now, what differentiates this regulation of public meetings or
demonstrations from the criminal figure of illicit association is that
in the latter it is also required that the association's purpose is to
commit crimes. On the contrary, in the Omnibus Law project, the mere
fact of it being a meeting or demonstration of 3 or more people enabled
the application of this regulation and the intervention of the Ministry
of Security. It can be said that, for the latter, the criminal purpose
of the eventual meeting or demonstration was not required to apply this
regulation, the meeting or demonstration alone was enough to enable its
intervention. That is to say that the figure of the illicit association
takes only the minimum number of people and not its purpose, the latter
situation which is what precisely qualifies the association as illicit
and would justify its penalization in some way. Now, however, what is
dangerous for the State is the meeting or demonstration of people
themselves, regardless of their possible criminal purpose.
It is inevitable to remember the criminal cases for illicit association
initiated against FORA societies during the Uriburu dictatorship, for
the sole fact of being groups destined to carry out direct action
measures in defense of their rights and achieve better living and
working conditions. Once again, as has happened in numerous stages of
our history, the State feels threatened by protests and the
concentration of people on public roads, which leads it to dictate this
type of regulations aimed at preventing and persecuting public meetings
and demonstrations. . This attitude and procedure of the State is what
qualifies it as a Police State, which sees the population itself as a
whole as a threat, to the point that it justifies its repressive
intervention at any minimal sign of possible resistance or collective
expression of that population. . This is what leads him to place
security as his main banner.
The reconfiguration of the State towards a Police State with the
characteristics that we have been pointing out does not occur just by
itself, but rather responds to a broader strategy of big capital that
takes advantage of an evident moment of resounding decline of the
workers' organization, to take measures aimed at concentrate the
productive process and capitalist exploitation in a few hands, at the
expense of the entire class that lives from its work, imposing profound
labor, social, environmental and public accounts reforms that favor the
business of concentrated groups. The degree of setback experienced by
the organized labor movement is the kick that allows the State to reduce
its role in social matters and as a mediator in the face of class
conflict for the continuity of the capitalist economic order, going on
to reconfigure itself as a Police State at the service exclusive of the
dominant classes in order to drastically implement their adjustment
policies.
The abandonment of the role of the State in social matters as a means to
try to alleviate the enormous inequalities generated by the capitalist
system of production, not only implies a change in strategy of the
dominant sectors with respect to the role of the State, but also
involves an enormous transfer of resources. provided for these purposes
towards concentrated groups, as is happening, for example, with ANSES
resources to respond to public debt. To this example we can add the
current government's projects to privatize public companies, eliminate
restrictions on land sales and transfer to the national treasury all the
assets of the Sustainability Guarantee Fund of the retirement and
pension regime.
The considerable strengthening of the dominant sectors that allows them
to consider themselves in a position to implement all these fierce
adjustment policies, is a product, as we said, of the great setback
experienced by the organized labor movement in the years of the
Fernández government that, together with the complicity of the
bureaucracies entrenched in the leadership of the union organizations,
have dedicated themselves to militating the quietism and the paralysis
of the union struggle. All this within the framework of the
implementation of IMF adjustment policies that have led most of the
population to poverty and the loss of purchasing power of salaries and
pensions. Just an example of this is the fact that Alberto Fernández
ended his term with 40% poverty and without a general strike declared
during his entire government, the only president without a single
general strike since the fall of the civil-military dictatorship.
The fear that the ruling classes have of collective demonstrations and
protests, expressions of the principle of direct action, shows its
enormous potential to prevent the advance of adjustment and light the
spark for social transformation. No form of State has prevented sooner
or later the popular masses from rising up against those who starve them
and make their lives precarious, to which we must add to this fight as
forumists the principles of horizontal and federative organization for
the construction of a new social order and stop handing over our
destinies to supposed representatives of the people.
LEONARDO ELGORRIAGA
https://organizacion-obrera.fora.com.ar/2024/03/27/el-estado-policiaco-como-parte-del-programa-pseudo-libertario-del-gobierno-nacional/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten