It’s not about being governed or not, it’s about who is going to do the governing. Who would we want to sit on the Iron Throne if not a “specialist?” Someone who wouldn’t be driven by politico-ideological passions, but by the “industrial values” Veblen cherished. Someone to oil up the gears of this great machinery that is society.

That is all hogwash, of course, because when we talk about politics, we talk about ideology — about prioritizing, about choosing one collective goal as preferable to another. However, there are no macro social ends, at least not apart from a sum of individual goals or as a mere metaphor. Which is also the reason why it isn’t possible to put public management under the control of experts, because the very definition of what constitutes “public management” is an ideological question subject to political negotiation and resistance.

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

È neanche una delle ideologie più recenti: Thorstein Veblen parlava di una tecnocrazia formata da ingegneri già negli anni venti. Veblen, nel suo famoso The Engineers and the Price System parla degli ingegneri (i “tecnici”) come di una classe di persone in grado di promuovere i principi della “gestione scientifica” rivolta alla produzione, opposti ad un sistema di mercato in cui i prezzi fungono da segnale. Veblen non vedeva niente di strano in un’organizzazione corporativa, che lui voleva far assurgere a modello universale e fondamento della società, eliminando le limitazioni tecniche di quelli che lui chiamava “valori industriali”. A loro volta, questi ultimi erano dipendevano dall’efficienza produttiva e non avevano niente a che vedere con gli incentivi del mercato; anzi, vi si opponevano.

Veblen promosse le sue idee riguardo l’industria e la tecnologia come punto di partenza di quella società basata su una produzione di massa da lui immaginata. Questa società, e i suoi valori, avrebbe dovuto far nascere, tramite i lavoratori dell’industria, una nuova forma di democrazia, gestita in maniera innovativa in modo da promuovere l’efficienza, la conoscenza tecnica e l’amministrazione della cosa pubblica. Ovvero una macchina perfettamente calibrata per il dominio e il controllo della società.

Questo ideale distopico riuscì a trovare adepti. Nel corso del ventesimo subì poche modifiche, perlopiù ad opera di progressisti come Joseph Schumpeter e John Kenneth Galbraith. Oggi ne sentiamo parlare soprattutto per bocca dei politici, che pensano di parlare con la voce dell’innovazione quando sostengono la necessità di mettere specialisti in posizioni di governo. È anche una comoda ideologia per un gran numero di burocrati perché non mette in dubbio l’esistenza di un dato incarico di governo, ma semplicemente si chiede chi dovrebbe ricoprirlo. La questione non è se un governo è necessario o meno, ma chi andrà a governare. Chi vorremmo sul Trono di Ferro se non uno “specialista”? Qualcuno che non si lasci trascinare da passioni politico-ideologiche, ma da quei “valori industriali” vagheggiati da Veblen. Qualcuno che olii gli ingranaggi di quel grande macchinario che è la società.

Certo sono tutte sciocchezze, perché quando parliamo di politica parliamo di ideologia, di priorità, della scelta di un obiettivo collettivo piuttosto che di un altro. Ma non ci sono fini sociali, a meno che non si consideri la somma dei singoli obiettivi individuali in senso puramente metaforico. Che poi è la ragione per cui non è possibile affidare la gestione della cosa pubblica al controllo degli esperti, perché la definizione stessa di “gestione della cosa pubblica” è una questione ideologica soggetta a negoziati politici e opposizioni.

Non è possibile rimuovere l’ideologia dal governo perché il governo stesso è un’ideologia: l’ideologia del potere, del controllo e della soppressione della dissidenza. L’ideologia della conformità, della dimensione macro-sociale, della società intesa come astrazione, mai riconducibile alle sue componenti individuali.

Governare, lungi dall’essere un’attività senza ideologie e programmi, consiste nel cucire assieme i programma della maggioranza all’interno di una gerarchia. Non c’è da meravigliarsi se il movimento anarchico tende storicamente verso rapporti orizzontali e la creazione del consenso come strategia che consenta di evitare la nascita di maggioranze e di strutture burocratiche di potere. Questa idea di un rapporto orizzontale ha l’obiettivo di mitigare gli effetti di particolari ideologie quando queste vengono applicate alla collettività. Al contrario una tecnocrazia, con il suo tentativo di razionalizzare i processi, ricorda un dispotismo illuminato. Certo è positivo che un processo socialmente desiderabile debba essere efficiente e consenta un risparmio di risorse, ma prima dobbiamo sapere quali sono i processi socialmente desiderabili. E non lo sappiamo.

È molto ironico il fatto che i politici di lungo corso siano i più grandi (e forse i più cinici) proponenti del credo tecnocratico. Lo stesso Aecio Neves, nonostante i suoi richiami all’amministrazione tecnocratica, è specializzato in una sola cosa: la poltrona. È stato direttore di una grossa banca pubblica, segretario alla presidenza, deputato, governatore e senatore.

Forse Aecio Neves oggi è un fantoccio della retorica che lui stesso ha messo su; un ostaggio. Perché Aecio Neves non è mai stato un tecnico; il tecnico è quello che realizza i suoi programmi politici.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

And it isn’t one of the youngest ideologies: Thorstein Veblen talked about his technocracy of engineers in the 1920s. Veblen, in his well-known The Engineers and the Price System described engineers (“technicians”) as the class capable of promoting the principles of “scientific management” for production — as opposed to a system of market production with effective price signaling. Veblen didn’t have any problems with the corporate organization and intended to universalize its model as the foundation of society, eliminating technical limitations to what he termed “industrial values,” which were connected to productive efficiency (and had nothing to do with, and indeed were opposed to, market incentives).

Veblen championed his ideas on industry and technique as the starting point of the mass production society he envisioned. That society and its values would give rise, through industrial workers, to a new democracy with a new management style that promoted efficiency, technical knowledge and administration. That is, a machine perfectly adjusted to the control and regulation of society.

This dystopian ideal was able to find adherents and modify itself slightly during the 20th century, especially in the works of managerial progressives such as Joseph Schumpeter and John Kenneth Galbraith. Nowadays, we hear it from politicians who may think they speak with the voice of innovation when they say that specialists should fill government positions. It’s also a convenient ideology for a number of bureaucrats because it doesn’t ask whether such government positions should exist at all, but only who should fill them. It’s not about being governed or not, it’s about who is going to do the governing. Who would we want to sit on the Iron Throne if not a “specialist?” Someone who wouldn’t be driven by politico-ideological passions, but by the “industrial values” Veblen cherished. Someone to oil up the gears of this great machinery that is society.

That is all hogwash, of course, because when we talk about politics, we talk about ideology — about prioritizing, about choosing one collective goal as preferable to another. However, there are no macro social ends, at least not apart from a sum of individual goals or as a mere metaphor. Which is also the reason why it isn’t possible to put public management under the control of experts, because the very definition of what constitutes “public management” is an ideological question subject to political negotiation and resistance.

It’s impossible to remove ideology from government because government is an ideology: The ideology of power, control and suppression of dissidence. The ideology of conformity, of the macro-social, of the idea of society as an abstraction, never reducible to its individual components.

Governing, far from an activity without ideology and plans, is the stitching of majority plans within hierarchy. It’s no wonder that anarchist movements have historically tended to horizontalism and consensus-building as strategies to avoid the formation of majorities and bureaucratic power structures. These ideas of horizontalism are intended to mitigate the effects of particular ideologies when applied to the collective. In contrast, technocracy looks like a form of enlightened despotism with its attempt to rationalize processes. Of course, it’s a positive thing that socially desirable processes should be efficient and demand less resources — but we must first know which ones are the socially desirable processes. They’re not a given.

It’s somewhat ironic that lifelong politicians are the biggest (and maybe the most cynical) proponents of the technocratic creed. Aecio Neves himself, despite his claims of technical prowess in administration, is a specialist in one thing only: Getting positions in the government. He’s been the director of a large state bank, secretary of the presidency, deputy, governor, senator.

It may be the case that Aecio Neves nowadays is a puppet of the narrative he’s built for himself, replicating it as a hostage of his own rhetoric. Because Aecio has never been a technician; the technicians are the arms that execute his political plans.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Elezioni e Ideologia Tecnocratica.

She also goes on to accuse libertarians of thinking that civil liberties violations allegedly created by Bush are actually the invention of Obama. A baseless charge for which I am aware of no evidence. As if that weren’t bad enough, she postulates that libertarians are just “ass covering”. A notion implying that they aren’t really seriously opposed to this stuff.

All that aside, the meat of the piece revolves around a contrast between the liberal and libertarian conceptions of policing. Her central piece of empirical evidence for the liberal conception is what happened when Liberal Democratic governor, Jay Nixon, got involved. She specifically mentions him putting the head of highway police, Ron Johnson, in charge, and his marching with the protesters.

The central problem with this line of reasoning is that Jay Nixon recently declared a state of emergency along with a curfew in Ferguson, Missouri. He also recently sent in the National Guard. There are also police abuses still occurring such as the threatening of reporter, Chris Hayes. Ron Johnson broke a promise to not enforce the curfew with military style trucks and tear gas. He also ordered the arrest of journalists. It appears that the old approach is still in effect.

Another major part of her thesis is that non-violence has proven itself more effective than violence. This is ironically combined with mentioning that Ronald Reagan cracked down on blacks carrying guns in the form of the Black Panthers. Not to mention that there is no unifying libertarian view on the use of violence against government as a form of protest. We can grant truth to her argument without believing it’s refuted libertarianism.

The final part of her piece worth addressing pertains to her queer view that libertarians view police as inherently authoritarian. This implicitly means all libertarians believe this. The fact is that some libertarians do oppose all police while others want to have private policing. Not all libertarians even think government police are inherently authoritarian. There are minarchists who support them.

That having been said, her liberal conception of government police as serving in an accountable “serve and protect” function ignores a number of factors. The factor of officer friendly belonging to a monopolistic organization. This means people can’t escape abuse easily. Another issue is that the government police may only be officer friendly for respectable members of the community who aren’t violating any unjust laws deemed socially necessary.

The final problem with her analysis is that all government relies on the initiation of force to survive. Officer friendly will eventually have to be unfriendly to anyone seeking the services of a non-government protective association. In the context of most governments, they also have to eventually be unfriendly to those evading compulsory taxation. Her goal of police who genuinely serve communities is better realized in left-wing market anarchy. One way to go about creating rights protection outside of government is to encourage things like non-government sanctioned neighborhood watch and jury nullification. Both of which can serve to protect rights without the state. The first by deterring violent crime through citizen watch and the second by freeing people unjustly headed for imprisonment. Please get started on this vital task today!

It’s a shame that Mezzomo isn’t willing to call what he defends by what it is: The violent expropriation of the favelas’ inhabitants of their legitimate property. Favelas are “irregular” only by a judicial formality. Outside a few efforts of urban regularization, favelados are still considered invaders and criminals almost by definition, although they homesteaded previously unowned and unused land.

That should explain why Mezzomo isn’t so anxious to leave his own house and go live in a favela, even though their dwellers are “superior citizens”: The truth is that there’s no privilege for those who live in the favelas. They are considered second class citizens, unworthy of basic guarantees, excluded from property rights and deprived of individual liberties.

Favela dwellers live with daily oppression by the police, with constant danger brought by drug dealers, with the threat of eviction (be it for “safety” reasons, against floods, for instance, or for urbanity reasons), with unhealthful environments (from trash and sewage), and with overall poor services. Living in favelas is clearly not the dream described by Mezzomo. Favelas don’t pay land tax, but I’m willing to bet few favelados consider the benefit worth the cost.

It’s symptomatic that Mezzomo mentioned the Tijuca neighborhood as an example of “devaluing” after the growth of favelas. Tijuca had been an upscale area, that decayed with the arrival of the favelas and, presumably, of the unwanted. The problem is that favelas, as irregular developments, are not a result of urban freedom, but rather the cruel consequence of years and years of violent intervention, urban zoning and the ban on the occupation of perfectly viable land.

The attempt to expropriate the poor who live in the favelas adds insult to injury, and is especially criminal because it removes citizens from the urban centers, where there are economic opportunities, and dislocates them to the periphery, far from the eyes and sensibilities of the rich.

For Mezzomo, “removals” are a taboo subject in Rio’s and Brazil’s politics. Complete lie. Removals are sanctioned and practiced as a consistent state policy, supported by the middle class. Evictions from the favelas are the modern enclosures.

In Rio, over 20,000 families have been evicted since 2009. It’s estimated that 250,000 people will be removed in preparations for the World Cup, though there are no precise data.

Minha Casa, Minha Vida program (“My House, My Life”), by the federal government, works diligently to enrich real estate developers and send the poor off to the urban outskirts.

I know I won’t convince the middle class or the rich with the above arguments, so I came up with a proposal that should make everyone happy: Let’s remove the rich and the middle class from the noble neighborhoods, put them on the periphery and give the poor their old houses and apartments in Leblon, Ipanema, and Copacabana. How about that?

Estado: Instituição que intervém no livre mercado através do exercício direto da coerção ou da concessão de privilégios (sustentados pela coerção).

Impostos: Forma de coerção ou interferência no livre mercado em que o estado coleta tributos (os impostos) que permitem que ele contrate forças armadas para agir de forma coercitiva na defesa de privilégios, além de se envolver em guerras, aventuras, experimentos, “reformas” e outras atividades custeadas não por seus próprios recursos, mas às custas de “seus” súditos.

Privilégio: Do latim privi, privado, e lege, lei. Uma vantagem concedida pelo estado e protegida por seus poderes de coerção. Uma lei em benefício privado.

Usura: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que um grupo, apoiado pelo estado, monopoliza a emissão de moeda e, com isso, cobra tributos (juros), diretos ou indiretos, sobre todas as transações econômicas.

Latifundismo: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que um grupo, apoiado pelo estado, passa a ser “dono” da terra e, assim, extrai tributos (rendas, aluguéis) daqueles que vivem, trabalham ou produzem nela.

Tarifas: Forma de privilégio ou interferência no livre mercado em que as mercadorias produzidas fora do estado não podem competir em igualdade com aquelas produzidas dentro do âmbito do estado.

Capitalismo: Organização social que incorpora elementos como impostos, usura, latifúndios e tarifas e, portanto, é contrária ao livre mercado, embora alegue representá-lo.

Conservadorismo: Escola filosófica capitalista que afirma apoiar o livre mercado, mas que, na verdade, defende a usura, os direitos artificiais à terra, as tarifas e, às vezes, impostos.

Social-democracia: Escola filosófica capitalista que pretende corrigir as injustiças do capitalismo acrescentando novas leis às já existentes. Toda vez que os conservadores passam novas leis que criam privilégios, os social-democratas criam outras leis modificando esses privilégios, o que impele os conservadores a fazerem leis mais sutis que recriam os antigos privilégios e assim por diante, até que “tudo que não seja proibido é obrigatório” e “tudo que não seja obrigatório é proibido”.

Socialismo: Tentativa de abolição de todos os privilégios através da concentração de todo poder no agente coercitivo por trás dos privilégios, o estado, transformando a oligarquia capitalista em monopólios estatais. É o mesmo que tentar branquear uma parede pintando-a de preto.

Anarquismo: Organização social na qual o mercado opera de modo livre, sem impostos, usura, concentrações de terras, tarifas ou outras formas de coerção ou privilégio. Os anarquistas de “direita” preveem que, num livre mercado, as pessoas escolheriam voluntariamente competir mais do que cooperar; anarquistas de “esquerda” preveem que, num livre mercado, as pessoas escolheriam voluntariamente cooperar mais do que competir.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

DE STAAT: De instelling die de Vrije Markt belemmerd via de directe uitoefening ban dwang of het toekennen van privileges (gesteund door dwang).

BELASTING: Een vorm van dwang en belemmering van de Vrije Markt waarin de staat tribuut verzamelt (de belastingen), waardoor het strijdkrachten kan huren om dwang uit te oefenen en privileges te verdedigen, en ook om deel te nemen aan oorlogen, experimenten, ‘hervormingen”, enzovoort. De staat doet dit niet op eigen kosten maar ten kosten van haar burgers.

PRIVILEGE: Van het Latijnse privi, privé, en lege, wet. Een voordeel toegekend door de staat en beschermd doormiddel van dwang. Een wet voor persoonlijke bevoorrechting.

WOEKER: Een vorm van privilege die de Vrije Markt belemmert waarin een groep, gesteund door de overheid, het muntstelsel monopoliseert en daardoor tribuut (in de vorm van rente), direct of indirect, uit alle economische transacties weet te halen.

GROOTGRONDBEZIT: Die vorm van privilege of belemmering van de Vrije markt waarin een groep, gesteund door de overheid, eigenaar wordt van grote stukken land en daardoor tribuut (huur) kan afdwingen van degenen die op het land wonen, werken of produceren.

DOUANERECHTEN: Een vorm van privilege of belemmering van de Vrije Markt waardoor goederen die buiten de Staat geproduceerd worden niet vrij zijn om op gelijke voet te concurreren met goederen die binnen de staat geproduceerd zijn.

KAPITALISME: De inrichting van de samenleving waarin belasting, woekeraars, grootgrondbezit en douanerechten de dienst uit maken. Deze toestand belemmert de Vrije Markt terwijl het juist de Vrije Markt probeert te illustreren.

CONSERVATISME: De school van de kapitalistische filosofie die trouw beweert aan de Vrije Markt terwijl het in feite woekering, grootgrondbezit, douanerechten en soms belasting ondersteunt.

LIBERALISME: De school van de kapitalistische filosofie die probeert de onrechtvaardigheden van het kapitalisme te corrigeren door nieuwe wetten toe te voegen aan bestaande wetten. Elke keer dat conservatieven een nieuw privilege toekenennen maken de liberalen een wet om dit voorrecht te wijzigen, waarna conservatieven een meer subtielere wet maken die het privilege in stand houdt, etc., tot dat “alles dat niet verboden is verplicht word” en “alles dat niet verplicht word verboden is”.

(STAATS) SOCIALISME: De poging tot afschaffing van alle privileges door de volledige macht te geven aan de vertegenwoordig van alle privileges, de Staat, waardoor de kapitalistische oligarchie omgezet word in een etatistische monopolie.

ANARCHISME: Die inrichting van de samenleving waarin de vrije markt vrij functioneert zonder belasting, woeker, grootgrondbezit, douanerechten of andere vormen van dwang of voorrecht. “Rechts-“ anarchisten voorspellen dat in de Vrije Markt mensen vrijwillig zullen kiezen om vaker te concurreren dan om samen te werken; “links-“ anarchisten voorspellen dat in de Vrije Markt mensen vaker vrijwillig zullen kiezen voor samenwerking dan concurrentie.

Robert Shea en Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

Vertalingen voor dit artikel:

• Deutsch, Begriffserklärungen und Unterschiede.
• English, Definitions and Distinctions

There are several hard realities that most liberals — as opposed to those of us on the genuine Left — are constitutionally unable to admit into their “Why Mommy is a Democrat” view of the world. Among them are the following: First, any legislation they reflexively pass pursuant to a moral panic over people getting hurt will also result in people getting hurt. Second, the kind of society they desire can only be achieved through the large-scale, lawless exercise of power by the state. And third, the state is inevitably run by the kinds of people who enjoy exercising such power.

Blogger thoreau, at Unqualified Offerings (“Finally, some political blogging,” May 26, 2013), addresses the first of these points in relation to the War on Drugs:

“There are few things that piss me off more than discussing drugs with over-educated white suburban liberals ….  [T]hey want to keep locking people up in the name of ‘But what if somebody gets hurt?’  Um, what do you call the world’s largest prison population?  What do you call the war in northern Mexico?  What do you call the actions of Afghan opium lords? What do you call daily gang violence?  I’d call that ‘somebody gets hurt’, wouldn’t you? ….  I can talk all day about the violence  and injustice of the drug war but they find one study on the effects of pot on short-term memory and my whole point is considered invalid.  Because if we end this war Somebody Might Get Hurt.”

Liberals — the kinds of people who say “the government is just all of us working together” — instinctively draw back from acknowledging the realities of power. But Chris Dillow of Stumbling and Mumbling blog — the kind of Leftist we need more of — is quite happy to rub their noses in it (“What Eton Knows,” May 26, 2013).

It seems New Labourites in the UK are in shock over a question about the Macchiavellian utility of shooting protestors in the entrance exam at Eton. “What Eton Knows,” Dillow writes, is that

“Political power rests, ultimately, upon force and violence. Plan A for the ruling class is to govern by consent. But there is a plan B …. Who, whom? Lenin got it right. Power is about who does what to whom? Eton’s examiners know that their charges will be the ‘who’ and the rest of us the ‘whom.'”

Naive, well-meaning liberals — as opposed to those who simply desire to amass managerial power over society in their own hands — fail to understand that coercive power in its essence is a mechanism by which those who exercise it benefit at the expense of those over whom it is exercised. It is a weapon by which some people do things to other people. And the idea that this mechanism, this weapon, is amenable to democratic control is utterly ludicrous. As Robert Michels noted a century ago, centralized, hierarchical institutions cannot be instruments of direct rule by the many. Whatever formally democratic rules of representation they are subject to in legal theory, in practice the delegates will gain power at the expense of the delegators; the agent will exercise de facto power over the principal.

The coercive state, by its nature, is the instrument of a ruling class. Sometimes the state functionaries themselves will supplant the old ruling class and constitute a new one, as in the case of the bureaucratic oligarchy that ruled the Soviet Union. More frequently, the regulatory and welfare state will align itself with the preexisting corporate capitalist ruling class, and incorporate itself as a junior member, as in European social democracy and American New Deal liberalism.

In either case, the vast majority of society will be the ruled. And the rulers will exercise their power over us in all sorts of unpleasant ways. Once you set up an enforcement bureaucracy of cops and administrative law courts capable of shooting or imprisoning people, or seizing their assets without proving them guilty of a criminal offense, they will happily exercise this power. Dillow writes:

“In creating so many new criminal offences and bolstering the power and self-importance of the police, [New Labour] thought it was acting out of good intentions but was … merely giving them licence to bully old ladies. Good intentions are not enough.”

So if your automatic response to every moral panic is to pass another law to stop people from getting hurt, stop and think it over some more. You’re just giving the state — and the interests that control it — power to hurt people.

FREIER MARKT: Der Zustand der Gesellschaft in dem alle ökonomischen Handlungen (Geschäfte) auf Freiwilligkeit basieren, nicht auf Zwang.

DER STAAT: Die Institution die den freien Markt behindert durch die direkte Anwendung von Zwang oder die Gewährung von Privilegien (unterstützt durch Zwang).

STEUER: Die Form des Zwangs bzw. Behinderung des freien Marktes durch den der Staat Abgaben kassiert (die Steuer), die die Anheuerung von bewaffneten Truppen ermöglichen welche den Zwang ausüben und Privilegien verteidigen, auch die Beteiligung an Kriegen, riskanten Unternehmen, Experimenten, Reformen, etc. wie es ihm beliebt, nicht auf eigene Kosten, sondern auf die Kosten seiner Propanden.

PRIVILEG: Von Latein: privi – privat und lege – recht. Eine Bevorteiligung, die durch den Staat garantiert wird und von seinen Kräften mit Zwang geschützt wird. Ein privates Vorteilsrecht.

ZINSWUCHER: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei dem staatlich- unterstützte Gruppen das Geldsystem monopolisieren und dadurch Abgaben (Zinsen) einnehmen, direkt oder indirekt, von allen bzw. den meisten ökonomischen Transaktionen.

GROẞGRUNDBESITZ: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei dem eine staatlich unterstütze Gruppe Land „besitzt“ und dadurch Abgaben (Pacht) von denen einnimmt die dort leben, arbeiten oder produzieren.

ZOLL: Die Form von Privileg bzw. Einmischung in den freien Markt bei Waren die ausserhalb des Staates produziert wurden nicht in gleicher Weise mit den Waren konkurrieren die im Staat produziert wurden.

KAPITALISMUS: Die Gesellschaftsordnung bei der Elemente der Steuer, des Zinswucher, des Großgrundbesitzes und des Zolls eingebettet sind, welche den freien Markt verweigert während sie so tut als würde sie ein Beispiel für diesen sein.

KONSERVATIVISMUS: Die Schule der kapitalistischen Philosophie die behauptet loyal zum freien Markt zu stehen, während sie eigentlich Zinswucher, Großgrundbesitz, Zoll und manchmal Besteuerung unterstützt.

LIBERALISMUS: Die Schule der kapitalistischen Philosophie welche versucht die Ungerechtigkeit des Kapitalismus durch neue Gesetze zu beseitigen. Jederzeit wenn Konservative ein Gesetz erlassen das ein Privileg erschafft, erlassen Liberale ein anderes Gesetz um das Privileg zu modifizieren, dies veranlasst Konservative mehr raffinierte Gesetze zu verabschieden die das Privileg wiederherstellen, usw. solange bis „alles was nicht verboten ist Zwang ist“ und „alles was nicht Zwang ist verboten ist“.

SOZIALISMUS: Die versuchte Abschaffung aller Privilegien durch die Wiederherstellung der vollständigen Zwangsgewalt hinter allen Privilegien, dem Staat, wodurch die kapitalistische Oligarchie in einen staatlichen Monopolismus umgewandelt wird. Eine Wand kalken, indem man sie schwarz streicht.

ANARCHISMUS: Die Ordnung der Gesellschaft in der der freie Markt ungehindert agiert, ohne Steuern, Zinswucher, Großgrundbesitz, Zoll und anderen Formen von Zwang oder Privilegien. „Rechte“ Anarchisten prophezeien das die Menschen in einem freien Markt freiwillig mehr miteinander konkurrieren statt kooperieren würden, „Linke“ Anarchisten prophezeien das es mehr Kooperation als Konkurrenz geben wird.

Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

Die ursprüngliche Version dieses Artikels wurde von Robert Shea und Robert Anton Wilson veröffentlicht.

Übersetzung aus dem Englischen: Sascha Bose

Embora pessoas como Bill O’Reilly habitualmente refiram-se aos liberais do establishment como a “extrema Esquerda,” trata-se de duas coisas muito diferentes.

O que identificamos como liberalismo do Novo Pacto de meado século 20 tem suas raízes no Progressismo da virada do século 20. Os Progressistas eram principalmente oriundos das classes gerenciais-profissionais de colarinho branco que controlavam as grandes organizações burocráticas — corporações gigantes, órgãos do governo, universidades, fundações e institutos de pesquisa interdisciplinar — que dominaram a sociedade estadunidense depois da Guerra Civil. Muitos Progressistas do mundo corporativo tinham formação em engenharia indutrial. Os tipos de pessoas que formavam a base demográfica do Progressismo viam a sociedade estadunidense como extensão das grandes instituições hierárquicas que geriam, e achavam que a sociedade podia ser gerida do mesmo modo que um engenheiro geria processos industriais.

Nutro grande afeição pela Esquerda, e considero-me parte dela. Pelo liberalismo só sinto desprezo. Para ilustrar a distinção, Woodrow Wilson — bom liberal — praticamente liquidou com a genuína Esquerda Estadunidense durante e depois da Primeira Guerra Mundial.

Karl Hess, em A Maior Parte do Tempo na Margem, prezava-se de, embora ter ocupado posições no espectro político que foram desde isolacionista da Antiga Direita a Trabalhador Industrial do Mundo da Nova Esquerda, poder dizer verazmente nunca ter sido, na vida, um liberal.

Falando dos tipos de pessoas que leem The Nation e Mother Jones — pessoas que vejo como liberais — Alexander Cockburn (o tipo de Esquerdista que apoiava o direito a armas de fogo e odiava nazistas da dieta como Michael Bloomberg e Meme Roth) disse que tentar levar a Esquerda convencional a aceitar novas ideias era “algo assim como chegar a uma cidadezinha no ano de 1348 com escritas no rosto as palavras ‘Deixe-me entrar.’”

Pessoas como Rachel Maddow, de pé diante da Represa Hoover e conclamando os Estados Unidos a de novo fazerem “grandes coisas,” e Michael Moore, conclamando Detroit para que produzisse carros e ônibus elétricos, regridem ao coração das trevas da produção em massa do liberalismo de meado século 20. Até o Partido Verde foi praticamente sequestrado pelo liberalismo este ano, com a “rede inteligente” e o “Novo Pacto Verde” de Jill Stein — traindo uma fé galbraithiana quase religiosa em economias de escala ilimitadas e nas virtudes do centralismo burocrático.

Pior de tudo, porém, é a polícia do pensamento liberal profissional que instintivamente denuncia qualquer forma de horizontalismo ou descentralismo como “direita.” Thomas Frank, obviamente, vem fazendo isso há anos. Em recente troca de mensagens comigo no Twitter, Doug Henwood, editor da Left Business Review, essencialmente expressou as ideias de Frank ao desqualificar os movimentos  P2P e Cultura Livre como retorno ao entusiasmo Dotcom da era Web 1.0 dos anos 1990. Isso mesmo: Henwood, numa exibição de desmazelo intelectual que deixaria orgulhoso Robert Welch, identificou Richard Stallman e Linus Torvalds com Bill Gates por causa de similaridade superficial na retórica deles.

Ultimamente tem havido uma cepa caseira de liberais que considera qualquer tendência descentralista ou horizontalista de que não gostem como um cavalo de Troia da Direita. Mark Ames e Yasha Levine têm repetidamente escrito artigos para The Nation desqualificando a reação organizada contra o invasivo regime apalpar-ou-espiar de “segurança” de aeroportos da Administração de Segurança dos Transportes – TSA como sendo uma espécie de iniciativa direitista mascarada de iniciativa popular dos Irmãos Koch.

E o Centro Sulista de Assistência Jurídica aos Pobres - SPLC vem incluindo anarcocapitalistas e voluntaristas em sua grande e amorfa lista de “extremistas” (também chamada de “coisas das quais não gostamos”). Minha amiga Katherine Gallagher (Twitter: @zhinxy) compara-o aos profissionais itinerantes que costumavam deleitar plateias protestantes cheias de curiosidade com historinhas prurientes acerca dos papistas, tais como túneis secretos entre mosteiros e conventos e sepulturas secretas cheias de esqueletos de crianças.

Pois bem, como anarquista de mercado esquerdista — ou socialista libertário de mercado — na tradição de Benjamin Tucker, percebo a maioria dos anarcocapitalistas desagradavelmente direitistas e dados a apologética pró-corporativa. Sem embargo, a sugestão de que a ideologia de David Friedman ou Murray Rothbard tenha o mesmo código de endereçamento postal da Milícia Hutaree é essencialmente um atestado de que quem diz isso é extremamente néscio.

E entendam isto: Os profissionais itinerantes do SPLC identificam, como sinal de “extremismo”  de alguns anarcocapitalistas, o fato de eles considerarem a vitória Federalista como tendo sido um golpe. Ora bem, já li toda uma leva de historiadores revisionistas, de Charles Beard a Merrill Jensen a Howard Zinn, que descrevem a política dos anos 1780 como guerra de classes na qual os interesses plutocráticos triunfaram com a ratificação da Constituição. Nunca havia percebido que essas pessoas eram “direitistas.”

Minha impressão é a de que pessoas como Ames, Levine e Mark Potok desqualificariam Ivan Illich e Paul Goodman como “direitistas” por terem atacado a “educação pública.” Elas colocariam Huey Newton e Robert Williams na mesma categoria de Wayne LaPierre por eles terem considerado armas de fogo privadas defesa contra a opressão.

Trata-se de concentração de estupidez pura, densa a ponto de criar seu próprio horizonte de eventos.

Eis porque — esquerdista radical, se já existiu algum — não gosto de liberais.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 21 de dezembro de 2012.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.