The American Congress failed to reach a budget agreement with Obama, and the American state has more or less “shut down”—so far, by about a third, they say.
The “shutdown” is clearly a hot topic in the American press, appearing under headlines like “Horror! Horror!” and “Who Will Build the Roads?” Here, the same event will most likely be served up with the sauce of “look how honest everything is” and “there you have it, the rule of law.” You and I both know that our state cannot be stopped by any budget problems, since it feeds not so much from the budget as from whatever it can find—as they say, straight from the field. So the American experience of “shutting down” (by the way, this is far from the first time) will be broadcast into the minds of Ukrainians as a manifestation of the democracy, human rights, and other values we so desperately need. Look, they’ll say, how honest and transparent—didn’t collect enough money, and here is the result: the state shut down. A social contract in action, as it were.
In reality, however, this whole story benefits only the state, not human rights and other such pretty notions. First, as I said, the “shutdown” falls under the heading “Horror! Horror!"—meaning people are told that the social services they’ve grown accustomed to expecting from the state will no longer function for lack of money. The entire thrust of this narrative pushes toward restoring those functions as quickly as possible, because “who will build the roads” and all that. Second, with this framing, basic questions go unasked like “why do you need so much money?” and “where is it going and how, if it’s not enough?” Third, the angry public’s gaze immediately turns toward various “fat-cat bourgeois” and the like, while tax dodgers and evaders appear doubly villainous. In such a situation, the intensification of repression is met with “hooray.” Fourth, of course, even fewer people are willing to ask the straightforward question “does the state actually work when it’s running?” What exactly does it do, and why? For instance, my friend in the USA has been waiting six months for some “necessary paperwork.” Without that paper, he couldn’t come to Ukraine. Meanwhile, American officials explain nothing. “Wait,” they say—that’s the whole answer.
“Turning off the state” would be honest and actually useful if, during these moments, they didn’t conveniently “forget” about one simple thing: the compulsory monopoly. They turn it off, yes, but it conveniently “forgot” to remove itself from the road. If the state cannot perform some function and doesn’t have money for it, let me do it. Or that person. Or anyone willing. But this doesn’t happen, and—I draw your attention to this—you will not encounter such framing in the media. The state “turns off,” but no one is allowed to take its place. There’s not even talk of it. So when they tell you that a shutdown is a triumph of this or that principle and that it’s, they say, honest—don’t believe it. Honest would be when those who want to and can work come to replace those who don’t want to and can’t.