josephbaines1 wrote:Moreover, it's worth noting that the World Cup is also, in some respects, a huge government-corporate experiment on controlling potentially restive populations.
This is not a new development. During the 2006 WC in Germany there was an art exhibition
with critical positions about the event, focussing, among other things, on the "crowd control" topic. There was also a conference about this, and the Policing Crowds
project seems to continue (website somewhat broken). Note that according to this crowd control becomes an increasingly privatized (i.e. capitalized) activity.
As to mass unrest: I think it is important to distinguish resistance within
the context of capitalism, i.e. which does not fundamentally question it, and a breakdown of capital as a mode of power
either due to a revolution or under its own weight. Resistance within capitalism may be overcome by "policing measures", the breakdown not, by definition. One must note that security business is itself a business. Collapse of capitalism implies collapse of business as the oranizational logic of the regime. Simply put: Who pays
security if the financial system, or at least all other business which finances security, collapses?
People working in security experience the same degradation of labor conditions as elsewhere. What would make them defend capitalism if it is really near collapse? The breakdown of the alleged "socialist" regimes in 1989 took place, in part, because the regime had lost its faith to such an extend that all the "security" people just didn't go against the uprising. In Eastern Germany, it was reported, there were 1 million under arms for the defence of the regime (out of a population of 17 mn) -- yet, none of them left their barracks.
Of course, a collapse of capitalism, without any idea of what would cold positively replace it, will likely lead to a highly violent social situation, perhaps much like the "failed states" we already see ("failed state of capital"). "Autonomy of barbarie" -- texts by Castoriadis are still relevant in this context (e.g. "What democracy?" 1990) if one reads his economic reasoning with a CasP eye.