To glimpse the true relationship between big business and the State, we need only briefly examine the data on how the political action committees (PACs) of the nation’s largest and most influential companies spend their money. Consider a handful of examples from 2010: That year, major defense contractor Raytheon’s PAC gave 56 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. Aerospace giant Boeing’s PAC split its donations almost down the middle, shelling out 53 percent to the Dems and 47 percent to the GOP. Colossal agribusiness firm Monsanto gave 46 percent to Democrats and 54 percent to Republicans.

These divisions between donkey and elephant of course vary from election to election, depending on everything from the composition of congress to the likelihood of incumbent victory. And certainly marginal differences between individual candidates and even parties themselves may present themselves in a given election. The point, though, is that corporate entities are very much like the state itself, ultimately nonpartisan, interested only in power and self-aggrandizement.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Lately this oversimplified narrative finds itself challenged as business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce increasingly back Democrats as opposed to Tea Party Republicans perceived as more libertarian than the traditional GOP and thus more willing to take policy positions hostile to big business.

Whatever the populist noise embedded in campaign talking points, the simple fact is that both major American political parties play the same corporate, big money game. Despite everything Republocrats say to the contrary, when the rubber hits the road you just won’t find a champion of the little guy among the elected American officialdom. On the contrary, in the end the real struggle isn’t between the Blue and Red teams — it’s between the political process itself, the whole mechanism of political authority, and the rest of us ordinary, working people just trying to pay our bills.

To glimpse the true relationship between big business and the State, we need only briefly examine the data on how the political action committees (PACs) of the nation’s largest and most influential companies spend their money. Consider a handful of examples from 2010: That year, major defense contractor Raytheon’s PAC gave 56 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. Aerospace giant Boeing’s PAC split its donations almost down the middle, shelling out 53 percent to the Dems and 47 percent to the GOP. Colossal agribusiness firm Monsanto gave 46 percent to Democrats and 54 percent to Republicans.

These divisions between donkey and elephant of course vary from election to election, depending on everything from the composition of congress to the likelihood of incumbent victory. And certainly marginal differences between individual candidates and even parties themselves may present themselves in a given election. The point, though, is that corporate entities are very much like the state itself, ultimately nonpartisan, interested only in power and self-aggrandizement.

Make no mistake, our corporate leviathans couldn’t care less who is in office as long as she plays ball, perpetuating a venal game of public and private sector cohesion having nothing whatsoever to do with “liberty and justice for all.” Consider what we might think about a single individual who split his money almost evenly between the two major parties year after year; we may think he was crazy or had multiple personalities. When a single corporate entity does so, however, we regard the move (probably very correctly) as strictly strategic, an illustration of realpolitik and a way for a commercial enterprise to hedge its bets, ensuring good relations with both wings of political establishment.

These concrete collusions between corporate and State power are not necessarily planned or premeditated, but neither are they accidental. A centralized system of politics which grants sweeping law-making and discretionary powers to a relatively small, elite group incentivizes the abuse of those powers in favor of moneyed interests. As the individualist anarchist William Bailie wrote, “Laws are made directly or indirectly in the interest of the capitalist class, and they are always administered and interpreted … in the same spirit.”

Market anarchists look forward to a free and fair economic system in which big business and big government aren’t working together to rig the rules for the powerful and connected. Consistently observed, the freedoms of competition and exchange would in fact undermine the dominance of big business, which now relies on the State for countless special privileges. Since neither Republicans nor Democrats question the fundamental characteristics of this state-corporate system, the road to real change runs through neither.

In einem abscheulich lächerlichen Washington Post Kommentar („Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.“ 28. November) legt Stuart Stevens, der Mann, der als Hauptstratege in Romneys Kampagne gearbeitet hat, dar, dass sein Kandidat „die Mehrheit jeder ökonomischen Gruppe, bis auf derer, die weniger als 50.000$ im Jahr als Haushaltseinkommen aufweisen können, erlangt hat.“

Angesichts dieser Tatsache argumentiert Stevens, dass „jede Partei, die die Mehrheit der Mittelschicht erobert, etwas richtig machen muss.“ Stevens Behauptung gibt eine andere, einige Monate zurückliegende, sinnlose Bemerkung von Romneys Seite wieder, Romneys 47-Prozent-Ausrutscher, dass die politischen Lektionen den Republikanern offensichtlich abhandengekommen sind (nicht, dass dies schlecht wäre).

Die Kampagne, durch ihren Kandidaten, behauptete, dass arme Menschen Demokraten wählen, da sie von der Regierung abhängig sind. Nun deutet Stevens an, dass Menschen, die hart arbeiten und gutes Geld machen, republikanische Politik unterstützen. Die Ironie liegt natürlich dabei, was Marktanarchisten kontinuierlich verdeutlichen angesichts solch idiotischer Verunglimpfungen der Erwerbsarmut – dass die republikanische (und übrigens auch die demokratische) Version des „freien Unternehmertums“ ein aufgeschichteter Stapel ist, der systematisch Arbeit zugunsten von Kapital benachteiligt.

Staatliche Privilegien umgeben Big Business, schützen es vor Wettbewerb und unterwerfen Arbeiter der Gnade von Bossen, die ihnen Pennies des produzierten Dollars als Löhne zahlen können. Die Reichen können sich zurücklegen und die Spitze der harten Arbeit der Angestellten abschöpfen, da Landzuteilungen, Subventionen (direkte oder indirekte), Regierungsaufträge und teure regulatorische Auflagen gemischt die ökonomischen Interessen der Elite vor Wettbewerb schützen.

Die anzügliche Prunksucht, dass Republikaner gut ohne die Stimmen dieser ungewaschenen Massen unter 50.000 zurechtkommen, ist verblüffend anzuschauen. Stevens würde davon profitieren, das ökonomische System „republikanischer Ideale“ aufrecht zu erhalten gegen einen legitimen – und momentan natürlich rein hypothetischen – befreiten Markt, besonders wenn der Median persönlicher Einkommen in diesem Land bei ca. 40.000$ liegt.

Sollte er dies tun, würde es wohl klar werden (obwohl es Grund gibt, dies zu bezweifeln), dass „Reiche lange genug das Ziel von Wohltätigkeit gewesen sind“, wie es Ezra Heywood formulierte. Marktanarchisten würden die Privilegien der Mächtigen und einflussreichen Kräfte in der Wirtschaft beseitigen und somit das kapitalistische System zugunsten wirklich freien Wettbewerbs und freier Märkte auflösen. Freiwilliger Tausch und Kooperation, losgelöst von den Fesseln eines einst von Anarchisten so bezeichneten „Klassenrechts“, sind nicht nur unschädlich, sondern ein großer Segen.

Republikaner, Demokraten und der Rest der verfassungsgebenden Teile des politischen Systems dienen solchen missbräuchlichen Privilegien – das ist ihre Aufgabe auf einer wesentlichen Ebene. Statt ihnen Ehrerbietung oder selbst Beachtung zu widmen, sollten wir uns daran machen, die Gesellschaft zu schaffen, in der wir auf einer gegenseitigen Basis leben wollen, mit unseren Freunden und Nachbarn, praktische Politik für eine Weile verwerfend, oder sogar für immer.

Der ursprüngliche Artikel wurde geschrieben von David S. D‘Amato und veröffentlicht am 01. Dezember 2012.

Übersetzt aus dem Englischen von Achim Fischbach.

Doy por hecho que ningún político es merecedor de otra cosa que no sea desprecio y escarnio, de que casi la totalidad de ellos representan un sistema de poder y privilegio que equivale al robo legalizado a gran escala. Bueno, dicho esto, los republicanos — por su alucinante habilidad para apartarse de la realidad — podrían conseguir el premio a los más desconectados de ésta.

En un execrablemente ridículo artículo de opinión en el Washington Post (“Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.” 28 de noviembre), el hombre que trabajó como jefe de estrategia de la campaña de Romney, Stuart Stevens, señala que su hombre “llegó a la mayoría de cada grupo económico excepto en aquellos con ingresos familiares inferiores a 50.000 $ al año.”

Dado este hecho, argumenta Stevens, “cualquier partido que capte a la mayoría de la clase media debe de estar haciendo algo bien.” El argumento de Stevens refleja otra observación estúpida de hace meses desde la parte de Romney, la metedura de pata de Romney y el 47 por ciento, las lecciones políticas por las cuales los republicanos están, obviamente, superados (no es que eso sea algo malo).

La campaña, a través de su candidato, decía que la gente pobre vota a los demócratas porque son dependientes del gobierno. Ahora, Stevens sugiere que la gente que trabaja duro y gana un buen dinero apoya las políticas republicanas. La ironía, por supuesto, es una que los anarquistas de mercado continuamente plantan en la cara de este tipo de insultos imbéciles a los trabajadores pobres — que la versión republicana (y casualmente demócrata) de la “empresa libre” es una baraja con las cartas marcadas que sistemáticamente perjudica al trabajo en favor del capital.

Los privilegios estatales rodean a la gran empresa, protegiéndola de la competencia y dejando a los trabajadores a merced de jefes que pueden pagarles unos centavos por dólar producido como salario. Los ricos pueden recostarse y llevarse lo mejor de la parte dura del trabajo, gracias a las cesiones de terreno, los subsidios (directos e indirectos), los contratos con el gobierno y una combinación de costosas obligaciones normativas para proteger de la competencia los intereses económicos de las élites.

La pomposidad de insinuar que a los republicanos les va bien sin los votos de esas sucias masas que ganan menos de 50k es asombrosa. Stevens se podría beneficiar de sostener el sistema económico de “ideales republicanos” contra un legítimo — y actualmente, por supuesto, estrictamente hipotético — mercado liberado, especialmente cuando los ingresos medios por persona en este país son unos 40.000 $.

Si lo hiciera, le podría quedar claro (aunque uno pueda dudarlo) que, como dijo Ezra Heywood, “los ricos ya han sido los sujetos  de la caridad el tiempo suficiente”. Los anarquistas de mercado eliminarían los privilegios de las fuerzas poderosas e influyentes  dentro de la economía para así disolver el sistema capitalista en favor de una competencia y unos mercados realmente libres. El  intercambio voluntario y la cooperación, cuando son liberados de los grilletes de lo que los anarquistas una vez llamaron “legislación de clase,” no son sólo inocuos, sino una gran bendición.

Republicanos, demócratas y el resto de las partes constituyentes del sistema político sirven a estos abusivos privilegios — ese es fundamentalmente su trabajo. En lugar de concederles deferencia o incluso atención, debemos ponernos manos a la obra para crear la sociedad en la que queremos vivir de manera común, con nuestros amigos y vecinos, desechando la política práctica por un tiempo, incluso para siempre.

Artículo original publicado por David S. D’Amato el 01 de diciembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Tomás Braña.

In an execrably ridiculous Washington Post opinion piece (“Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.” November 28), the man who worked as the Romney campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, points out that his guy “carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.”

Given that fact, Stevens argues, “any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.” Stevens’s argument reflects another witless remark from the Romney side months ago, Romney’s 47 percent gaffe, the political lessons of which are obviously lost on Republicans (not that that’s a bad thing).

The campaign, through its candidate, was saying that poor people vote for Democrats because they’re dependent on the government. Now, Stevens suggests that people who work hard and make good money support Republican policies. The irony, of course, is one that market anarchists continually point out in the face of this kind of imbecilic insult to the working poor — it’s that the Republicans’ (and Democrats’ incidentally) version of “free enterprise” is a stacked deck that systematically disadvantages labor in favor of capital.

State privilege surrounds big business, protecting it from competition and throwing workers at the mercy of bosses who can pay them pennies on the produced dollar in wages. The rich can recline and skim off the top of labor’s hard work, because land grants, subsidies (direct and indirect), government contracts and costly regulatory obligations blend to protect elite economic interests from competition.

The pomposity of insinuating that Republicans are just fine without the votes of those unwashed masses making under 50k is amazing to behold. Stevens would benefit from holding the economic system of “Republican ideals” up against a legitimate — and now, of course, strictly hypothetical — freed market, especially when the median personal income in this country is about $40,000.

If he did so, it might become clear to him (though one has reason to doubt it) that, as Ezra Heywood said, “Rich people have been the subjects of charity long enough.” Market anarchists would remove the privileges for powerful and influential forces within the economy and thus dissolve the capitalist system in favor of real free competition and markets. Voluntary exchange and cooperation, when delivered from the fetters of what anarchists once called “class legislation,” are not only innocuous, but are a great blessing.

Republicans, Democrats and the rest of the political system’s constituent parts serve those abusive privileges — that’s their job on a fundamental level. Instead of granting them deference or even attention, we ought to get down to the business of creating the society we want to live in on a mutual basis, with our friends and neighbors, discarding practical politics for awhile, even forever.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, Privilegio y pomposidad en la política.
• Deutsch, Privilegien und Prunksucht in der Politik.

Es el “juego de la gallina” de Rebelde sin Causa que vuelve a repetirse. Pero esta vez están conduciendo TUS autos.

Mientras republicanos y demócratas van a toda velocidad hacia un supuesto “abismo fiscal”, cada uno esperando que el otro salte de su auto primero, sus partidarios guardan la esperanza de que los hechos se pierdan en la palabrería. Repasemos esos hechos.

Primero, el “abismo fiscal” es una fantasía creada por los políticos. No existe un “problema de ingresos”. El “problema” está en el lado del gasto. Los ingresos del gobierno de los Estados Unidos han aumentado 19% desde el 2009. No creo que la mayoría de los lectores de este artículo hayan corrido con la misma suerte. Por alguna razón, los políticos nunca aprenden a gastar menos de lo que les ingresa, independientemente de lo rápido que crezcan esos ingresos.

En segundo lugar, ninguno de los dos partidos propone recortes generales en los gastos del estado. Los pocos recortes reales son discretos y sobre programas específicos, y además son más que compensados por el crecimiento proyectado en otros, gracias al método contable del baseline budgeting usado en Washington para calcular el presupuesto del gobierno federal.

Tercero, todo el discurso sobre “bajar los impuestos” (para quien sea) es ficticio. Si el gasto del gobierno aumenta, los impuestos tienen que aumentar también. Los aumentos impositivos pueden estar escondidos en la devaluación de la moneda emitida por el estado, o puede que los pagos de los aumentos se difieran temporalmente al añadirlos a la “deuda nacional”. Pero no hay almuerzos gratis.

Toda la controversia sobre el “abismo fiscal” es simplemente otra de las tantas telenovelas politiqueras. Obama, Boehner y compañía quieren que tú estés tan preocupado sobre si a uno o al otro se le queda la manga atascada en la manija de la puerta y caiga al vacío hacia una muerte entre las llamas, que se te olvide que son TUS autos (con tu chequera en la guantera) los que fueron robados por los políticos para usarlos en su último despliegue de machismo.

Si a los políticos les importase de verdad evitar el desastre, propondrían recortes verdaderos. Se harían cargo de su adicción al despilfarro, balancearían sus chequeras y no gastarían más que sus enormes ingresos (los ingresos presupuestados del gobierno de Estados Unidos para el 2013 llegan a 5,5 billones de dólares, o 18.000 dólares por cada hombre, mujer y niño del país).

Pero los políticos solo se toman en serio el echarle la culpa a las víctimas. Todo es culpa tuya, por ser tan tacaño… ¿Es que no lo ves? Tú (y todos los demás estadounidenses) ya le regalan a los políticos el equivalente de un sueldo mínimo de tiempo completo todos los años. Pero eso no es suficiente. Tal como diría Jim Stark, “¡Los estás destrozando!”.

Como todos los parásitos, el estado ha evolucionado hacia una y solo una manera de sobrevivir: su instinto es chuparte la sangre, crecer a costas tuyas, hasta dejarte seco por completo. El drama del “abismo fiscal” no es más que el equivalente político de la garrapata que se esconde entre tu vello corporal, o una sanguijuela que excreta un químico analgésico para que no te des cuenta de su presencia y efecto.

Al fin y al cabo, si llegases a ver al parásito y a saber lo que en realidad es, te lo arrancarías, lo tirarías al suelo y lo pisotearías con fuerza. Lo cual es, por supuesto, exactamente lo que deberías hacer.

Deja que Jim y Buzz manejen “sus” autos hacia el despeñadero. No trates de detenerlos. No trates de rescatarlos. Y no vuelvas a dejar tus llaves en el encendido.

Artículo original publicado por Thomas L. Knapp, el 29 de noviembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

As the Democrats and Republicans in government race toward an alleged “fiscal cliff,” each hoping the other will leap from his vehicle first, their supporters hope that a few facts will get lost in the trash-talk. Let’s go over those facts.

First, this “fiscal cliff” is entirely of the politicians’ own making. There is no “revenue problem.” The “problem” is entirely on the spending side. The US government’s income has increased by 19% since 2009. Has yours? For some reason, the politicians never can find a way to live within their means, no matter how fast those means grow.

Secondly, neither side is proposing real overall spending cuts. The few real cuts are discrete cuts to specific programs, which will be outweighed by projected “baseline budgeting” growth in others. Most of the cuts are just cuts in that projected growth. Under even the most “draconian” proposals, the size and cost of the federal government will continue to grow indefinitely.

Third, all talk of “tax cuts” — for anyone — is smoke and mirrors. If government spending increases, taxes must increase as well. Those tax increases may be hidden through debasement of the regime’s fiat currency, or payment of the increases may be temporarily deferred by adding them to the “national debt,” but There’s No Such Thing As A Free Dollar.

This whole “fiscal cliff” controversy is just another trumped-up passion play. Obama, Boehner et. al want you to be so concerned that one side or the other might get its jacket sleeve caught on the door handle and plunge to a fiery death that you’ll forget it’s YOUR vehicles — with your paychecks in the glove compartments, by the way — that they stole from the curb and took out for their latest display of machismo.

If the politicians were serious about averting the crash, they’d put real spending cuts on the table. They’d rein in their spending addiction, balance their checkbook, and live within the insanely large means already available to them (budgeted US government revenues for 2013 come to $5.5 trillion, or about $18,000 from every man, woman and child in the United States).

But they aren’t serious about anything except blaming the victim. It’s all your fault, see, for being so stingy. You (and every other American) are already handing over more than the equivalent of a full-time, minimum-wage paycheck to them every year, but that’s just not enough. As Jim Stark might say, “you’re tearing [them] apart!”

Like all parasites, the state is evolved toward one and only one means of survival: It is driven to suck your blood, growing itself at your expense, until it has drained you dry. The “fiscal cliff” drama is just the political class equivalent of a tick hiding in your hairy places, or a leech secreting a pain-killing chemical to keep you from noticing its presence and its effect.

After all, if you see the parasite and know it for what it is, you might tear it off, throw it to the ground and stomp, hard. Which, of course, is exactly what you should do.

Let Jim and Buzz drive “their” cars off the cliff. Don’t try to stop them. Don’t try to rescue them. And don’t leave your keys in the ignition again.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, El “Abismo Fiscal”: Jim y Buzz Redux.

The conflation problem is an idea popularized by Roderick T. Long: it is when people conflate two disparate or conflicting ideas as a “package deal” and argue for or against the whole package on the grounds of being for or against one piece of the package. The context he usually uses this in is that of free-markets being conflated with the sort of “pro-business ” intervention of modern capitalism, but it applies most to democratic/republican politics. Especially in the US where we have such a strict two-party electoral system, rather than a parliamentary system.

Political parties are agglomerations of disparate demographic groups with their own outlook and agendas. The job of the party is to tie all these groups together with some sort of mythos that makes them feel united ideologically. There’s no reason for the “fiscal conservatives”, the “gun nuts” and the Christian fundamentalists to be united in one package. Nor is there any reason for civil liberties, “nanny-statism” and “welfare statism” to be united necessarily. The Democratic party has come up with a better story tying their demographics together, but that story is also a lie. Groups that don’t absorb the whole inconsistent “package deal” are portrayed as “kooks” or “radical fringe” because their very existence threatens the gossamer web of the party’s mythology.

What the two parties either don’t realize, or are afraid to acknowledge, is that the kooks are becoming the largest demographic. The Republican strategy so far has been to “double down” on their rhetoric. What this does is force the Democrats to shift rightward, in order to capture people who are marginally Democrats but don’t buy the traditional democratic package deal.

Where this has gone wrong for the Republicans is that most people who aren’t Christian fundamentalists can’t stand them anymore and are not willing to swallow that bitter pill in order to get the rest. So the Democrat’s “rightward shift” has actually destroyed the Republican party for now. What it’s also done is alienate the part of the Democratic party that think things like civil liberties and peace are actually important. There is a gap to exploit, but neither the Republican or Democratic party, at this point, can fill the gap without abandoning a ruling class agenda.

That gap will continue to grow as more people lose faith in “the story” and start to develop their own opinions about various issues. One thing for sure, the 2012 election was a referendum against Christian fundamentalism. The short-lived return of theocracy in the USA has come to an end.

As for “fiscal conservatism”, that’s an idea that needs a lot of unpacking. Given a certain level of government spending, it has to be paid for either with visible taxation or with deficit spending. Yes, higher taxes overall are bad, but all spending is essentially covered by one tax or another. Deficit spending is a regressive tax, first off because it’s initially covered by inflation, regardless of how that debt eventually gets paid. And the interest goes largely into the hands of the wealthy and the banks (i.e. the wealthy), who are the ones who buy huge amounts of t-bills to hedge their investment portfolios. In a sense it’s a form of “reverse robin-hood” redistribution. One interesting feature of the Democratic “rightward shift” is that they have pointed out that the Republicans seem to always rack up massive deficits. As for cutting spending, the Republicans always seem to go after social services and “welfare” as the first, sometimes only, areas to cut. Those add up to a tiny sliver of overall spending. So what’s the story demographically? There’s not much in the Republican program for the average middle class person. They personally won’t see much in the way of a tax break, and they’ll end up paying more in “hidden taxes” because of the deficits. It’s great for the wealthy, for a few reasons. They pay less taxes, they profit off the eventual interest on the t-bills, and having less people on welfare also drives average wages down, given a significant enough level of unemployment. The wealthy are a tiny voting bloc. However the wealthy also spend a lot more on campaign propaganda. And who is this propaganda targeting? The segments of the middle class that will vote against their economic interests. This tends to be racists/xenophobes and Christian fundamentalists. Even though to the middle class, welfare doesn’t put a noticeable dent in their income, and more white people than black people are on welfare, the anti-welfare rhetoric portrays a myth of inner cities full of unemployed “minorities” buying gold chains and lobsters with their “welfare checks”, then going down to the club to take drugs and have unprotected sex, after which they will abort the fetuses at taxpayer funded clinics, presumably.

Neither party, at least lately, has shown any interest in seriously cutting the largest segments of the budget. To their credit, the Democrats are at least a bit more willing to let the major beneficiaries of our current government pay for it themselves. That is to say, if anything, they are more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. Their overall strategy is an ancient and hallowed one: Panem et Circenses. Bread and circuses for the masses, and let the rich at least partially fund their own interests. The republican strategy seems to be: We’re going to send you to die, we’re not going to let you enjoy your spare time, and we’re going to make you pay the bills for it too. Because we’re better than you, and you couldn’t even tie your shoelaces without someone like us showing you how. Wow, how surprising that message isn’t resonating with the population at large.

In some sense the myth of the Republican party as relatively pro-big-business is correct, in that they are against everyone else. And the Democratic party is the moderate Republican party of 1976.

For everyone else, there’s Nobody. Nobody stands for the person who doesn’t want the government in their bedroom, kitchen or living room. Nobody is for the person who is compassionate for the poor, but doesn’t want to pay for war. Nobody is for the person that doesn’t want to support the rich but wants to become rich from his own efforts. Nobody is for the person who realizes that if we get rid of big business, big government and big agriculture, environmental destruction wouldn’t be a big problem. Nobody is for the person that wants to live simply, and simply live, without someone trying to prevent him or her “for their own good.” And, like it or not, more and more people are becoming nobodies.