Center for a Stateless Society » china

Market anarchists follow a tradition of libertarian socialism inaugurated by radicals like Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker, for whom capitalism was something very different from a legitimate free market. Examining the economic system of their day, they concluded that it was one fundamentally defined by monopoly. While it was passing itself off as laissez faire and paying lip service to open competition, it was actually a system that privileged the owners of capital, outlawing the most important forms of competition.

So-called “intellectual property” is one such monopoly, an anticompetitive privilege masquerading as a legitimate individual right. This month, China established a court devoted solely to intellectual property issues, ostensibly signalling its commitment to global corporate capitalism. But again, corporate capitalism is no free market, and “intellectual property” is no legitimate property right.

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

But Who Will Build the Roads? (Maritime Edition)

Kevin Carson — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:00:49 +0000

China just announced a regional infrastructure plan to promote the integration of Asian markets under Chinese leadership — sparking predictably hypocritical outrage from the United States (“China’s Pouring $40 Billion Into a New ‘Silk Road,'” The Blaze, November 9). Chinese President Xi unveiled the Silk Road Fund to leaders of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Tajikistan as they prepared for a summit on Asian-Pacific affairs. The announcement follows the creation of a $50 billion bank last month by China and twenty other governments to finance regional infrastructure.

According to unnamed US officials, Silk Road is an unnecessary duplication of existing World Bank efforts. The subtext, of course, is that the World Bank and other Bretton Woods institutions, along with Western foreign aid programs, were created to integrate the world economy under the control of Western capital (primarily that of the US and its trilateral junior partners in Western Europe and Japan). China, as a rising regional power and the second largest economy in the world, challenges the hegemony of global economic governance institutions created to serve American interests — much as the rising power of imperial Germany a hundred years ago challenged Britain’s unrivaled naval and colonial domination.

The hypocrisy comes in when you consider the sheer scale of US government global infrastructure financing since World War II, and its pretense that the goal of this financing is service to the neutral interests of some “international community.”

Some people (especially liberals) frame state-funded infrastructure as a neutral good that benefits everyone. It is no such thing. Depending on its scale, structure, and degree of overlap between its funders and its beneficiaries, it benefits some economic actors at the expense of others like any other state-funded input. One stereotypical question we anarchists like to attribute to liberals — usually delivered in a whiny, quavering voice — is “but who will build the roooaaads?”

In fact, despite the lionization of “infrastructure” as “progressive,” every major, centralized, nationally funded infrastructure project in American history has had politically organized business interests as its main constituency, serving primarily to subsidize their business models. In early US history it was mainly the Federalists and Whigs, parties of the national commercial interests, who promoted federally-funded “internal improvements.” The massively subsidized national railroad system, with its high-capacity central trunk lines and reliable schedule, gave rise to a nationwide wholesale and retail ecosystem, which in turn enabled giant industrial corporations to produce on a continental scale. Like the railroad system, the federally subsidized civil aviation and Interstate Highway systems made large nationwide corporations artificially competitive against local producers by enabling them to externalize increased distribution costs onto the taxpayer.

Some right-leaning libertarians whose hearts bleed for corporate interests adopt a pose of ignorance, echoing liberal arguments that “the roads benefit anyone who wants to use them,” or disingenuously twisting left-libertarian arguments that subsidized roads benefit some business interests at everyone else’s expense as a condemnation of large corporations for “driving on public roads.”

Some use similar chicanery on a global scale, asking how libertarians could object on principled grounds to obviously “neutral” activities like the US Navy keeping world sea lanes open for commerce. This is just a larger-scale libertarian equivalent of “but who will build the roooaaads?” For an answer we need only consult Adam Smith, who argued that public infrastructure should be financed by its beneficiaries: That public bridges be financed by tolls based on the weight of vehicles passing over them, and that navies be financed based on the value of merchant cargo shipped under their protection.

The single largest component of US “defense” spending is the US Navy, due to the enormous capital outlays embodied in its ships. And the main purpose of all those carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific is to keep maritime choke points open and suppress piracy. Absent a state with the ability to tax society at large for the benefit of particular economic interests, merchant shipping (including oil tankers) would necessarily bear the full cost of this policing activity, adding significantly (to say the least) to shipping costs.

It’s hard to deny — unless one is economically illiterate — that this is a massively distorting subsidy, or that the provision of maritime protection on free market principles would result in a powerful shift of incentives toward supply chain relocalization and energy conservation.

Monopoly Privilege as “Individual Rights”

David S. D'Amato — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:00:08 +0000

A recent Pew Research study surveys 44 countries, revealing that the Chinese are even friendlier to free markets than Americans. Katie Simmons, a senior researcher at Pew, “notes that China has enacted numerous reforms to open up the country’s economy since the 1970s.” It probably shouldn’t surprise us that people living under the Communist Party of China’s rule are naturally less inclined to blame the free market for economic ills than are westerners. After all, any move in the direction of economic freedom offers potentially huge rewards to a country like China.

For the west, on the other hand, blaming “the free market” is often quite convenient. No one really seems to know what the phrase means, making it susceptible to several contradictory usages and flexible enough to subsume a wide range of economic systems. For example, the Pew survey seems to take it for granted that a free market system is simply the same thing as a capitalist system and that we should unquestioningly treat these as synonymous. But that is not at all clear. Ignoring the differences may in fact create more confusion, breaking down meaningful conversations about political economy before they even get started.

Market anarchists follow a tradition of libertarian socialism inaugurated by radicals like Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker, for whom capitalism was something very different from a legitimate free market. Examining the economic system of their day, they concluded that it was one fundamentally defined by monopoly. While it was passing itself off as laissez faire and paying lip service to open competition, it was actually a system that privileged the owners of capital, outlawing the most important forms of competition.

Patents and copyrights grant their holders a special, artificial right that no one could legitimately have — the right to dictate how all others may use their own property in perfectly peaceful and noninvasive ways. In an economy like today’s technology-driven Information Age, proponents of IP law cannot even pretend that they offer well-founded and reasonable protections to inventors.

The actual beneficiaries of IP today are giant multinationals, rich companies with proprietary business models they jealously protect from the competition from below that they so fear — true inventors and innovators. Corporate powerhouses devour patents and copyrights precisely because they forcibly prevent and impede innovation and progress. “Intellectual property” work sdirectly at odds with the rationale most often given in its defense — that it incentivizes new inventions.

The largest multinational companies sit on thousands of patents, holding the ideas they protect out of use, trolling to prevent others from using them and cutting in on their margins. IP does nothing so well as it protects corporate monopoly. To call such a monopoly system a “free market” is a bad joke.

Monopolists love the language of free enterprise, innovation, and competition. And why shouldn’t they? It sanctifies and legitimates their unearned and unjustified wealth and position within society. But the rest of us don’t have to accept their deceptive narrative, their claim to represent individual rights and freedom. Likewise, we needn’t accept coercive privileges like “intellectual property” as the embodiment of those principles.

Neighborhood Environmentalism: Building Sustainable Markets

Grant A. Mincy — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:00:40 +0000

We live in a time of precipitous biodiversity loss, on course to yield the sixth great extinction. In such a time there should be high priority placed on protecting biodiversity. Instead of curbing habitat loss, the leading cause of extinction, however, the Chinese government actively pursues it. In the rich bioregion of central China, home to numerous species of endemic plants and animals, the state is leveling 700 mountains for economic development.

An article published in early June by Chinese scientists in the international journal, Nature argues “the consequences of these unprecedented programmes have not been thought through — environmentally, technically or economically.” Such projects ultimately result in air and water pollution, soil erosion and large-scale geological hazards such as land subsidence. The authors conclude this project will lead to the vast destruction of forests – endangering rare flora and fauna.

State controlled media offers an alternative story, however, noting the loss of mountain habitat in the region will “lead to the creation of an environmentally sustainable economy based on energy-saving industries.” In their Nature article, though, the scholars note: “Many land-creation projects in China ignore environmental regulations, because local governments tend to prioritize making money over protecting nature.” The authors close by arguing the Chinese government needs to further research the project, recruiting help from other government organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey and an international association of hydrologist’s from the United States and Canada. Though I agree more environmental protection would relieve some ecological stress, these recommendations do not strike the root of the problem — state economic power.

If we instead apply laissez-faire politics to land management we may begin to view land as it is (natural, beautiful and important) as opposed to how it should be.

American libertarian and political philosopher Karl Hess Jr., in his book Visions Upon the Land: Man and Nature on the Western Range, attributes the decline in health of natural lands to inherent problems in government policy, ecological destabilization due to government intrusion and the destructiveness of sweeping land use policies. Hess believes that instead of looking for more laws and regulations to manage natural resources (inevitably enhancing state economic power) we should instead seek an economic system based on voluntary market interactions without the involvement of the state.

This adaptive approach to ecological protection yields incredible results. Take for instance the work of Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom. Her work reveals environmental sustainability is not the product of government intervention, but instead a result of self organized institutions where key management decisions are made as organically as possible. It is also wise to remember the old community based, sustainable management of village lands – suppressed by the great landlords, the communist state and the neoliberal state in succession.

Homogenization is dangerous for both world ecosystems and economics. Nature and human civilization are incredibly complex and dynamic – neither will be sustained by sweeping ideas of natural resource management.

Ecological systems and free markets share an affinity for diversity and both long for sustainability. The dissolution of power and control will advance best management practices. For this reason, we should not look vertically to state institutions, but horizontally to one another in the market. The goal should not be expanding the floor of the cage, the goal should be abolition. Neighborhood environmentalism will build sustainable markets — and markets are beautiful.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist and Chess Review 23

Natasha Petrova — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:00:39 +0000

Sheldon Richman discusses how Americans can help Ukrainians.

David Gordon discusses Gary Chartier’s new book on John Rawls.

Norman Solomon discusses the hypocrisy of senator Feinstein.

Christopher Brauchl discusses the hypocrisy of senator Feinstein.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the conflict between Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Cesar Chelala discusses the Syrian civil war’s impact on children.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the national security state and Latin America.

Joanne Knight discusses private prisons.

Jesse Walker discusses Reagan and foreign policy.

Sheldon Richman discusses the empire.

Julian Adorney discusses whether liberty is on the rise or not.

Gary M. Galles discusses the difference between the words liberty and freedom.

Silvia Borzutsky reviews a book on Operation Condor.

Uri Avnery discusses political coalitions in Israel.

Henry Clark discusses George H. Smith’s new book.

Bryan Cheang discusses Herbert Spencer and empire.

Gregory Bresiger discusses Robert Taft and isolationism.

Wendy McElroy discusses the prison population of the United States.

Laura Bachmann discusses civil liberties in China.

Maya Schenwar discusses harsh sentencing for gun law violations.

Ron Jacobs discusses islamophobia.

David Mizner discusses the drone strikes.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the implosion of Libya.

John Pilger discusses a U.S. carried out coup.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the War on Terror.

Jeffrey Tucker discusses the uproar over his brutalism article.

Kevin Carson reviews a book on power.

Peter Andreas discusses a book on illicit smuggling.

Bent Larsen beats Bobby Fischer.

Bent Larsen beats Boris Spassky.

John Kerry Returns To The Mekong Delta

Grant A. Mincy — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:00:44 +0000

United States Secretary of State John Kerry has been politicking through Southeast Asia the past few days. Kerry visited the Vietnam Mekong Delta, a place he knows well from his wartime adventures. US military interventionism in the region nominally passe, but there is another aspect of state violence still making headlines in the east: Environmental degradation.

Kerry traveled to discuss the rising urgency of environmental change to the Mekong Delta. Changing climate and enhanced erosion and sedimentation of the Mekong from upstream dam projects are now Kerry’s target of political opportunity. According to the Associated Press, Kerry has pledged $17 million to a program that will help people and the economy adapt to environmental changes in the region.

Keeping to form as a high-ranking state official, Kerry says he’ll work to ensure that none of the six countries that share the Mekong (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) will over-exploit the river so other populations suffer. Calling out China (which has plans for numerous dam projects along the Mekong) Kerry stated: “No one country has a right to deprive another country of a livelihood, an ecosystem and its capacity for life itself that comes from that river. That river is a global asset, a treasure that belongs to the region … The Mekong must benefit people not just in one country, not just in the country where the waters come first, but in every country that touches this great river.”

Crafty rhetoric, but governments will not protect natural resources. Nation-states work as rational actors to advance their own self interests and expand their power, largely through exploitation of natural resources. There is an inherent conflict of interest among states — the state with the most territory has the most resources for consumption. States will not share a territory or resource for too long. This is why war (be it military or economic) is the health of the state — it provides a monopoly over a territory and thus its resources.

Kerry, the US government, the Chinese government, any government will only enhance the complex wicked problems facing the world today. Progress, development, growth and industry are the objectives of states. States and their supported industries are rapidly using up the world’s natural resource base, especially water, to enhance their own power. It is the name of the game. Nation-states are large, bloated structures that require tons of resources — they will never protect the environment.

Free people will develop alternative federations and institutions to protect resources, however. It happens every day. People are becoming more aware of what burdens their societies. Education and awareness of public and environmental health are fostering concern for natural resources. Though markets are still largely controlled by the corporate state, liberation is coming. Contrary to the state, the liberated market, controlled and crafted by free human beings, will build the sustainable communities of tomorrow. Indeed, only in a liberated society, with no political boundaries, will human civilization realize its relationship with the environment.

History has been a dramatic race between state power and social power. Social power is growing. Human beings are connected like never before. Free people are building voluntary institutions that are rendering state monopolies useless. Freedom is back! May the old order soon be nothing but ashes. Our sustainability depends on it.

A Year of Upheaval, A Year of Upping the Stakes

Darian Worden — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:20:43 +0000

I’ll admit it’s a bit cliche to do a year in review article. We’re barely into December before we’re bombarded with “best” and “worst” lists, as if everyone’s taking the rest of the year off. But it’s good to pause for reflection as we near another milestone. It would require too much space to identify every important event of 2011, but some stick out as especially illuminating the times.

It was not frivolous for Time Magazine to name “the protester” as person of the year. The Arab world erupted. Egyptians ousted the tyrant Mubarak and their continued protests show that they won’t easily accept the conclusion that others have written for their revolution. Tens of thousands rallied in Wisconsin, disrupting the typical government way of cutting spending — one that follows partisan lines and cuts the bottom out from under people. Following especially shady elections, Russia erupted in disgust with the Putin regime. Disorder continues in Greece while alternative economic networks grow. China has not been left out of the uprising. As I write this commentary, Wukan, a town of about 20,000, is besieged by government forces after residents expelled officials and police.

Though the United States has seen a number of protest occupations in recent years, none captured public attention or shifted discourse as much as Occupy Wall Street and the movement it inspired. Occupy means different things to different people, and varies in quality in various places, but overall it remains a promising popular mobilization. Not only have Occupiers loudly raised questions about the concentration of wealth and power and collusion between economic and political elites, they’ve also invited the public to participate in crafting solutions, including though the consensus-based general assembly. The Oakland general strike, the West Coast port shutdown, the spread of Occupations out of coastal metropolises to cities across the country, and the movement’s ability to adapt while retaining its essential character all suggest that it will be a significant factor in days ahead.

But 2011 has not been an uncomplicated march toward liberty and justice for all.

None of the movements against concentration of power are irreversible. The revolutionary tendencies within them are not guaranteed to prevail, and the powerful have resources to use in holding onto their power.

Things have not been promising in the legislative sector. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act empowers the US government to indefinitely detain people without trial. The Stop Online Piracy Act tightens restrictions on Internet traffic, making it easier for the government to control the flow of information. Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law has brought harsh repression upon innocent workers, but will likely be profitable for prison corporations.

Let’s not forget who’s in the oppositional faction of the ruling class. Newt Gingrich, for example, in 1996 proposed the death penalty for importing more than two ounces of certain drugs, including marijuana. Last year he said “There is no reason for us to accept” the building of an Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan, a project which he compared to Nazis putting up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum.

Yet some things are especially difficult to pin one meaning on.

When Osama bin Laden was killed and when the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks passed, how many took the opportunity to step back from nationalist triumphalism to question the path that self-proclaimed leaders would lead us down?

What does the downgrade of the US government’s credit rating really mean?

How much popularity will Ron Paul need for the party establishment to let him get near enough to power to draw back its worst excesses, and how would his policies be mediated through layers of government?

Big things are ahead for 2012, and not the kind of cataclysm that is the stuff of bad movies. What will happen with the US election and its discontents, the spring of Occupy, the next stage of the Arab Spring, tensions in Europe, more Chinese resisting exploitation, the growth of Anonymous? The list goes on.

Whatever happens, freedom is best served by creating incentives to exit from the current system in favor of respect for the liberty and dignity of individuals, rooted in solidarity and mutuality.