Considerato che le elezioni presidenziali sono state aggiudicate con un margine esiguo, e che l’elettorato di Sao Paulo ha votato in gran parte per il candidato dell’opposizione Aecio Neves, i sostenitori della secessione sono diventati un po’ più visibili.

A Sao Paulo, però, l’idea di una secessione non è legata specificamente agli ultimi dodici anni di potere del Partito dei Lavoratori. Risale a prima, ed è sostenuta da ragioni e pretesti diversi, dalla migrazione proveniente dal Nord-est ai soldi delle tasse che da Sao Paulo sono ridistribuite in tutti gli altri stati del Brasile. Nonostante sia uno degli stati più ricchi della nazione, è il ragionamento, Sao Paulo è impedito dal fatto di far parte del Brasile.

Ma esiste anche un altro movimento secessionista, molto meno conosciuto: il Movimento per l’Indipendenza del Nord-est, le cui ragioni contrastano fortemente con quelle della sua controparte di Sao Paulo. Nel suo articolo “Neocolonialismo Interno Brasileiro e a Questao Nordestina” (Il Neocolonialismo Interno Brasiliano e la Questione del Nord-est), Jacques Rimbeboim spiega come lo sfruttamento di Sao Paulo sia un mito. La logica della federazione brasiliana, è il ragionamento di Rimbeboim, è la logica di un neocolonialismo interno:

Nello lo scenario attuale, il Sud-est importa manodopera e materie prime a prezzi repressi (ovvero, bassi) ed esporta verso il Nord-est prodotti finiti a prezzi alti e protetti. È così che nel mercato interno il Nord-est è costretto a pagare per un automobile o per altri beni di consumo più di quanto pagherebbe nel mercato mondiale se ci fosse libertà di scelta. In altre parole, paga un’addizionale per la manodopera paulista, addizionale che va a sostenere l’industria di Sao Paulo.

La dipendenza del Nord-est dal Sud-est ha avuto origine da un processo storico che ha portato il governo centrale, in un momento d’isteria espansionistica, a proteggere l’industria nazionale esistente contro ogni genere di concorrenza. L’economia è chiusa, a tutto beneficio di un’industria che, sebbene concentrata per lo più in una piccola regione del Sud-est, è stata eletta a rappresentante di tutta l’economia brasiliana. Il settore manifatturiero nazionale è sempre stato il settore manifatturiero di Sao Paulo.

Avrebbe più senso, per dire, che gli stati amazzonici, data la posizione geografica, commerciassero con i paesi andini. Ma questo non è possibile perché Brasilia considera il Mercosur qualcosa di sacro.

È così che il Nord-est e l’Amazzonia sono stati danneggiati dai sussidi che il governo nazionale concede a Sao Paulo. Queste regioni, relativamente più povere, sono state costrette a comprare prodotti più cari per finanziare i presunti beni pubblici di uno sviluppo nazionale che, in realtà, non sono altro che assistenzialismo a favore delle industrie del Sud-est.

Morale: Il secessionismo di Sao Paulo non fa altro che nascondere sotto il tappeto quella serie di aiuti di stato e protezionismi denunciati dai secessionisti del Nord-est.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

And since the presidential election was decided on a very slight margin, and considering too that the Sao Paulo electorate cast their votes mostly for opposition candidate Aecio Neves, secessionist voices have gained a little more momentum.

However, Sao Paulo secessionism is not tied specifically to the 12 years that the Workers’ Party has been in power. It is an older idea, upheld for various reasons and pretexts, from the Northeast migration to the taxes from Sao Paulo that are redistributed to other Brazilian states. Despite being one of the richest states in the nation, the argument goes that Sao Paulo is being held back by being part of Brazil.

There is, though, a far lesser known secessionist movement: the Independent Northeast Movement, which stands in sharp contrast to the arguments offered by their Sao Paulo counterparts. In the article “Neocolonialismo Interno Brasileiro e a Questao Nordestina” (“Brazilian Internal Neocolonialism and the Northeast Issue”), Jacques Ribemboim shows that the economical exploitation of Sao Paulo is a myth. Ribemboim argues that the logic of Brazilian federation is the logic of internal neocolonialism:

“In the current scenario, the Southeast imports labor and raw materials under depressed prices (cheaper) and export to the Northeast manufactured products under high and protected prices. That way, the Northeasterner is compelled to pay more for an automobile or any other consumption item in the internal market as opposed to a free choice in the world market. In other words, she pays an additional labor value to the Paulista to prop up the Sao Paulo industry.”

This Northeastern dependence on the Southeast has occurred because of a historical process in which the central government, in its developmentalist hysteria, has come to protect the existing national industry against any kind of competition. The economy is closed off to the benefit of an industry that has been elected to represent the whole country of Brazil, even though it is actually concentrated mostly in a small swath of the Southeast. The national manufacturing has always been mainly Sao Paulo manufacturing.

It would make sense, for instance, that the Amazonian states should engage in trade with the Andean countries, given their geographical proximity, but that is not possible because according to Brasilia, the Mercosur is sacred.

Thus, the Northeast and the Amazon have been harmed by subsidies in favor of Sao Paulo. These poorer regions have had to buy more expensive products to finance the supposed public good of national development which, in fact, amounts to corporate welfare to the Southeast industry.

Sao Paulo secessionism sweeps under the rug subsidies and protectionism that Northeast secessionism denounces.

Translated by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations of this article:

• Spanish, “Secesionismo brasileño: Sao Paulo contra el Noreste“
• Italian, Secessionismo Brasiliano: Sao Paulo Contro il Nord-est

What was his crime? Witnesses say another street vendor had had all his merchandise — DVDs — confiscated by the police and, in reacting indignantly, was taken down to the ground by two cops after a physical altercation. A small crowd gathered and protested against the police action: “Don’t beat him!” “There are a bunch of thieves around and you want to beat a worker up?” One of the cops drew his loaded gun and pointed it at the unarmed citizens. Carlos was among them. When the cop tried to use pepper spray, Carlos tried to stop him and was shot in the head.

Carlos is survived by his wife, Claudia Silva Lopes, and three children — the youngest a 4-year old and the oldest 12. Claudia reports nonchalantly that she has been subjected to police violence even when she was pregnant, denouncing how common police abuses are in the lives of street vendors in Brazil.

The street vendor is harassed and prosecuted for taking free trade everywhere. Countless customers find, every day, through their work and investment, an alternative to satisfy their demands for goods and services. It’s a face-to-face economy, where demand is met with flexibility and adaptability. Everyone’s lives get better with this network of exchanges that, annually, moves hundreds of billions of dollars.

So that actually takes place, a large portion of street workers lives is spent finding with ways to route around the state, avoiding its repressive apparatus, or at least trying to salvage some of their investment and the fruits of their labor. Police generally represses street vendors and workers using several justifications: Lack of permits, discretionary permit repealing, intellectual “property” protection or non-payment of taxes.

Which just goes to show how the state is an institution opposed the worker and the poor.

In a country where the government prides itself on having a detailed legislation to “protect” laborers, the fact is that informal workers are very vulnerable to being bullied by the state, which confiscates their products and physically aggresses against them — in some cases, using lethal force, as in Carlos Augusto’s case. Permits for commercial activities in the streets are also very unreliable, and municipal authorities can and often do suspend their licenses.

In Brazil, taxes are supposedly used to fund education, health care and welfare, but the brunt of the tax burden not only is footed by the poor rather than the rich, but by women and black people rather than white men. Informal trade relieves the poor and minority groups from part of that weight. Government can’t stand that.

Here, workers such as Carlos are often persecuted while megacorps like FIFA enrich themselves via state action, as I’ve written during the World Cup.

All these injustices notwithstanding, it’s likely that Carlos’s death would’ve been reported as a “resistance file,” and it wouldn’t have been investigated if no one had taped what happened. Resistance files are no more than licenses to kill that create a presumption that the police version is true. If it weren’t for the crowd and the video, Carlos would’ve become a new “resisting” victim, and his death chalked up to normal police activity against criminal behavior.

Carlos Augusto’s death can’t be forgotten. None of the abuses perpetrated by the state should be. We owe it ot him not only to judge the police officer who shot him, but to abolish this unjust and unfair system that treats free trade and workers as criminal cases.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

I recently enjoyed watching “180° South,” a film about Jeff Johnson’s journey to Patagonia, Chile to climb Corcovado Volcano, surfing along the way and retracing Yvon Chouinard’s and Doug Tompkins’s 1968 trip.

Yvon, in the film, says,

(Jeff’s) just a dirtbag. He could live out of his car, climbing in the Valley … He’s just hustling his way along so he can stay on the road. He reminded me a lot about how I used to be … Life was pretty easy in the ’60s. I mean you could buy an automobile for 15 bucks and live out of your automobile and camp out.

Yvon’s right, and it disappointed me, because life should be much easier now.

Global markets and technology have made us significantly more productive today and has allowed for great wealth creation. We are able to provide for our needs with extraordinarily less effort than in the past. We shouldn’t need to work as hard as we do.

I am not necessarily supporting unproductiveness, although I highly value leisure, adventure and their uplifting benefits, but rather lamenting how much interventionism has impoverished us. I’m disheartened at how much worse off we are and how many people suffer unnecessarily because of governments’ intrusions into human rights and the free, voluntary trade amongst individuals that improves everyone.

The costs of the machinery of coercion are high. Taxes, inflation, debt, war (especially war!), regulations, tariffs, subsidies, bailouts, sanctions, licensing, bureaucracy, liability caps, all dramatically raise the cost of everything. And, most all of this adds nothing to our qualities of life nor betters the greater good.

These policies don’t benefit consumers, laborers or entrepreneurs. They obstruct and burden us while benefiting special interests and larger outfits that can more easily absorb these costs and they are often the ones who collude with legislators and bureaucrats to obtain unfair market leverage to drive out competitors and externalize their costs and risks. It’s been said that no one hates capitalism more than capitalists. In free markets, prices and profits trend towards zero. Despite any good intentions, interventionist policies protect cartels, diminish real wages, increase prices, decrease quality and safety, and cause scarcity.

Raw materials, nourishing ourselves with healthy foods, energy, clothes, homes, hot outdoor showers, educating ourselves and our children, providing for our health care and safety, protecting our environment, aiding others and engaging in the activities in which we delight all cost more due to the weight of interventionism.

It’s not just the pursuit of a simpler life that is harder, but also productiveness and endeavor, caring for our families, running businesses, creating art, science, innovation and discovery. This system discourages ingenuity, risk-taking, and adventure, the ingredients of self-satisfaction, joy, and human progress.

“180° South” also reaffirms how governments dispossess individuals and deliver land and usage rights to others. The film explains how so many Chileans have been stripped of their homesteading and property rights, as land, rivers, coastlines, and water rights are taken from individuals and given to corporations who are protected from recourse despite spoiling others’ land and water and damming up rivers. The film nicely displays Yvon’s, Doug’s, and their wives’ extensive conservation successes in Patagonia through their organization, Conservacion Patagonica.

Coercion isn’t the blueprint for a harmonious society, but rather unbalances us, creating frictions and conflicts. It has a way of turning would be cooperative participants into adversaries and is a terrible waste of human creativity and capital. Cooperation, not conflict, promotes peace, freedom and welfare. Things could be much better, more peaceful, fairer and greener. We could be healthier, more prosperous — happier. We could be both “dirtbags” and endeavor greatly.

Due to the crash’s violence, it took a week to transport Campos’s remains back to Recife, Pernambuco, the state he governed for eight years. His funeral was televised as an all-day Sunday spectacle. His pitiful performance in Tuesday’s interview was all but forgotten, his malformed thoughts elevated to slogans. “We can’t give Brazil up!” is shared and exploited as a catchphrase, while Recife’s people take the streets to sing “Eduardo/warrior/of the Brazilian people!” during the funeral.

Perhaps the exploitation of a famous politician’s death by the army of individuals who salivate for a piece of his memory is natural. Campos has been described as a “promising leadership,” a “negotiator,” a “statesman” who “transcended party lines.” All of these are lies. And that’s why it’s even more necessary to set the record straight on what Campos was and represented. He was an old school politician, inserted in the old system by the old elite, who protected our old crony capitalism; a personalistic politician firmly entrenched in the old habits of the Brazilian northeast’s elites.

Powerful institutions tend to perpetuate themselves and fluster attempts by outsiders to enact change. But Eduardo Campos wasn’t an outsider. He lived his life comfortably positioned inside in the power ranks, where he was placed by his grandfather, former Pernambuco governor Miguel Arraes. Campos wasn’t trying to subvert structures, but to put them to his service.

The state government employs “at least a dozen” of his or his wife’s relatives. Having supported the allied base of the federal government for many years, Campos successfully campaigned for the appointment of his mother to the Federal Court of Accounts and placed two of his relatives in the state Court of Accounts, a branch of government responsible for overseeing his own actions. Recife’s mayor is one of his trusted men, an unknown before the election, but leveraged by Campos’s name. Eduardo Campos justified the omnipresence of his relatives in the state as a result of their “abilities.” A prodigious family indeed.

Eduardo Campos has been described by the international press as “amicable” to markets and the Sao Paulo stock exchange reacted poorly to his death. That’s unsurprising: Tax exemptions and direct subsidies signs are displayed in front of virtually every industrial plant in Pernambuco. The Pernambuco Military Police, under the direct control of Eduardo Campos, repeatedly acted to protect the interests of the construction companies from the Novo Recife project — consisting of the privatization of very well located land in the Pernambuco capital to benefit contractors — beating up protesters and, later on, stating they wanted to talk. Marina Silva, his vice-presidential candidate, then hypocritically said she was against police violence and that several people in the movement against Novo Recife were members of her party.

On other occasions, Campos had no problem in giving building companies the land they demanded, such as when they wanted to build Riomar Mall over a swamp area, displacing hundreds of people from their stilt houses. These people had similar fates to the thousands of families who were expropriated and forcefully evicted for the construction of the Arena Pernambuco for the World Cup. It’s not by chance that construction companies, formerly lukewarm toward Campos’s party, made generous donations this year to the Socialist Party of Brazil. And it’s not by chance that large banks, industries and agribusiness companies lamented the loss of such a trustworthy ally.

His mellifluous narrative of favoring the poor hid a policy of control, suppression and infiltration of social movements. Campos’s political choices were always obfuscated by the convenient lie of “efficiency” in public management. In a recent interview, he said that abortion should not be legalized, reaffirmed his support for the war on drugs, recycled the tired idea that crack cocaine is a vicious drug that enslaves people, and stated he wanted to put “drug dealers” behind bars.

The more than 100,000 people who cry on streets because Eduardo Campos is dead remember only his most cynical side: The “modern” politician, who wanted to rid the country of “cronyism” and “favoring,” someone who was willing to “build alliances,” promote “sustainable growth,” “think about the poor,” and to defend “more humane politics.”

Someone like that really would have a lot of problems in the political system. Eduardo Campos didn’t have many.

He died, but his ideals live on — unfortunately.

As I left home here in Pernambuco’s capital, Recife, the prevailing sensation was that nothing had changed. Pernambuco is one of the most violent states in the country, and Recife is the 39th most dangerous city in the world, with 36.82 homicides per 100,000 people. When the police function normally, we are in constant peril. Without them, was it actually more dangerous or had little changed?

What actually changed was people’s perceptions. They thought no one could be punished for crimes anymore. People took the streets and plundered. Big retail stores moved their merchandise and were able to protect themselves, but many small businesses lost everything. The situation seemed to have gotten out of control, but government decided to exercise its monopoly of violence radically and put army tanks on the streets. I imagine they hoped to blast some people who were getting away with stolen TV sets — the World Cup is less than a month away, TVs are valuable right now.

But the perception that there weren’t any police was much stronger than reality: The truth is that Pernambuco never actually has a police force. When it does, it’s seen as a threat, not as protection, by 80% of the population. In our everyday lives, we hardly ever feel protected by the police and nothing had changed in that regard on Thursday. If, on any given day, people decided to do the same they did then, they would be able to and would go unpunished. They just haven’t realized their power yet, but the police are nothing but a small group of people, incapable of dealing with a much larger number of people who are not willing to obey them.

The fact that the police stopped working and everything came crashing down so quickly was supposed to show us how essential the police really are, but the message seems to be the very opposite. In Recife, 1,416 people died in 2013 — almost 4 each day. On the 15th, when anomy and anormality supposedly reigned, there were 7 deaths. The police strike should make stop and think for a moment that, ultimately, the Military Police are an exercise in futility, an institution that survives on stated purpose rather than results.

Order only survives when people believe it will survive; if people believe that it is government’s enforcement branch that keeps order, this order will only subsist while government does. Thus, order is not sustained by force, but by culture — and the same goes for rulers. If people, collectively, stop thinking that the police are needed, there will be order and freedom without looting, depredation or deaths. Power is just a public fiction, something that does exist, but which can disappear with a simple change in public opinion.

Ayn Rand would say that power only exists by the sanction of the victim. La Boétie asks us which power our rulers have, if not those we give them. David Hume concludes that power is sustained by little more than opinion; while Gramsci knows that any order is created and maintained by a cultural system that legitimizes it. And, as Lord Varys puts it, on Game of Thrones, “Power resides where men believe it resides.”

On Thursday, people took the power they always had and used it for evil. And, by the end of the day, they decided to hand it over to the police, that announced the end of their strike — but if the people didn’t want to hand power back over, what could the police do? When cops announce their next strike, maybe the people will realize they don’t really need them and will keep on living normally. Because order exists where people believe it exists.

Tairone Leão, a close friend of mine, is an adjunct professor at the University of Brasilia at the Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine School in Brasilia, DF, Brazil. He is an Agronomist from Rio Verde, GO, Brazil where he was born and raised. He holds a graduate degree in Agronomy from the University of São Paolo and also a PhD in Geology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville – where we became quick friends. Rio Verde is located 430 km away from Brasilia where he lives now.

In this article, Tairone shares with us his thoughts on Brazil’s social movement – questions were developed with the help of C4SS contributors:

C4SS: A picture says a thousand words. This picture was taken at a recent demonstration, can you explain what is happening here?

Tairone: This picture was taken in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil during last week’s protests. The protests took place in front of the National Congress building where there is a small lake, the ministry buildings can be seen at the back. At some point protesters tried to invade the building across the lake and were repelled by the police with tear gas and batons. They are known to have been using rubber bullets as well. Later in the evening the protesters broke through and ended up on top of the building. It was a huge symbol to Brazil when they broke through. A few of them were quoted as saying something in the lines of “we are taking our home back”. A  picture from the media will help show what happened.

C4SS: Brazil as a nation-state – what exactly is going on? What sparked so many people to take to the streets?

Tairone: As of now nobody knows for sure what is going on. We are slowly understanding the process and the direction it might take. A couple of weeks ago everything seemed perfectly normal. The president was going on TV, talking about the world cup, how inflation was under control and enjoying approval rates of up to 70%. However, behind all of that something was bubbling. The amount of taxes paid by Brazilians reached 700 billion Reais (1 Dollar is roughly 2 Reais), the amount of money spent on construction for the world cup kept rising well beyond the initial budget and several planned infra-structure works got cancelled because of budget and scheduling issues. FIFA (the soccer federation) enjoyed unlimited fiscal benefits and controls where, when and if things are going to happen. Meanwhile people die in hospital rooms because there are not enough doctors, equipment and money, public transportation in major cities is nothing less than chaos because of lack of basic infra-structure, and basic and high-school level teachers get paid R$ 1567.00 a month (around 700 U$). The straw that broke the camel’s back was a raise in public transport fare from R$ 3.00 to 3.20 in Sao Paulo city. A few hundred people from the Movimento Passe Livre (Free Public Transportation Movement) took the streets to protest and were violently repelled by the Sao Paulo police. The next day the word spread in social media and hundreds of thousands of people went to the streets, but now it wasn’t about bus fares only, people were now crying for political reformation, punishment for corruption, against the exorbitant amount of money spent in the world cup and against the PEC-37, a proposal of an amendment to the constitution limiting federal prosecutors to investigate crimes (mainly corruption by high ranked politicians). From there the thing took off and a couple of weeks ago more than one million people were on the streets protesting and rioting.

C4SS: Are you involved in any way? Do you support the movement? Why, or why not?

Tairone: I am trying to spread the word. I live in Brasilia and I went to the congress twice last week but people were dispersing at the time I got there. I fully support the movement. I was upset a week before the protests about how much we pay on taxes and how little we get back in public services because of corruption and the ridiculous amount of money spent to support politicians and their mostly useless staff.

C4SS: What do the activists on the ground think is happening? Are there goals?

Tairone: The main goal was at first to lower the bus fares. When the thing took off it became a fight against corruption and the exorbitant amount of money spent in the world cup while the population gets nothing in return. Last week the protests focused on the PEC-37 which was voted and did not pass. I think now the focus will be on several high-profile politicians which were convicted for corruption and are still in power such as Renan Calheiros (President of Senate) and congressman José Dirceu (ironically or not, he was convicted for active corruption and later became president of the Justice and Constitution Commission in the congress). The ultimate goal of the movement might be political reformation. As of now politicians cannot be judged as common citizens and this has been a major problem since they rarely or never get punished for anything. This is an old law that was meant to prevent politicians from being judged and condemned for activism during the military rule which horribly backfired in our faces.

C4SS: What are the main concerns?

Tairone: There are not a lot of thought put on concerns about where the movement is going. At first my main concerns where that the movement wouldn’t go anywhere or that it could throw the country in a chaotic state. Regarding the first, a few important changes in the congress have already been achieved, although there is a lot more to be achieved, we can already say the movement is successful. I also don’t think it will lead the country to total chaos, as violent protests and ransacks have not been as frequent. The media have been criticizing rioters nonstop; I however think that they might have their place in the long run.

C4SS: How are the protests organized? Are there known grassroots groups coordinating the protest? Is it spontaneous?

Tairone: At first it was coordinated by the Passe Livre Movement. After the first week it went viral and it has been controlled by social media. There is no clear leadership; protests are being organized mainly by Facebook. Anonymous Brasil has been playing a part in the movement as well, however as violent protests have been shunned by the majority, the amount people wearing Guy Fawkes masks is much less than it was a week ago. People are being encouraged to show their faces and show who they are in the movement instead of hiding behind a mask. The call for protesting is now coming from nearly all sectors of society, it is spontaneous at this point, and there are no political parties involved.

C4SS: Are there non-state solutions to social/economic/environmental problems being explored?

Tairone: The concept of a stateless society is very little explored and knowledge about it is almost nonexistent here. In my point of view most people here were never exposed to that idea. We have a culture that goes way back to the Portuguese empire and monarchy in Brazil, followed by Presidents and military rule so people are indoctrinated to have someone in power telling them what to do. The idea of not having a leader, a strong figure in power, a savior of the country is seen by many as a passport to chaos and anarchy. Of course they understand anarchy in the derogatory sense of the word, not as a political system. I am and have always been open to the idea of a society organized in a way that each individual is free and knows his or her role to the functioning of the community and executes it without having to be told by an authority figure how and when to do it. We have a lot of NGOs here but in the end they all have their own agenda and their effectiveness addressing these issues is limited.

C4SS: Is this a leaderless (horizontal) movement?

Tairone: It is now for what I can see. Since there are no political flags it is hard to see who is behind it. The traditional leftist social movements such as the CUT (Workers Central), PT (Workers Party) and MST (Landless Workers Movement) that used to be behind all protests in the past are not being very welcomed this time because of their association with the corrupt government. The role of social media where everyone has an equal voice in raising awareness to the issues and the organization of the protests is a clear sign to me that people might not need leadership (or a formal state for that matter) to direct them in the long run.

C4SS: There have been reports that people have been reclaiming large tracts of land and farming it, is there a back to the land constituency?

Tairone: Up to now the MST or other agrarian reformation movements have not been directly involved in the protests. The agrarian problem in Brazil is very complex and probably needs to be addressed on its own. It involves big farming companies, logging corporations, native Brazilians struggle for land demarcation, small, medium and large size farms and the government. To understand a little more about the land problem here I highly recommend the documentary film Vale dos Esquecidos (Valley of the Forgotten) by Maria Raduan

C4SS: There has been talk, or at least insinuation, about right-wing and neo-nazi presence or influence in the protests, have you noticed this?

Tairone: Very little. Some of the more violent riots had skinheads and traditional anarchists involved. As people have been calling for dropping the masks and not using any political flags or t-shirts the participation of these groups is now minimal. At some point last week the media and sectors connected with the PT and the government tried to classify the movement as extreme right in order to weaken it and cause internal division. This however has been proven false.

C4SS: Are there noteworthy tendencies in how Brazilians have participated in the protests along regional, race, gender, and class lines?

Tairone: Protests are now occurring in all regions of the country, from the extreme south to small cities in the Amazon region. Besides the major concerns, every city has its own problems that are being addressed by the protesters. Specific classes are also protesting for specific problems, such as the medical class, cab drivers and others. For what I’ve seen, for the most part, the movement is mainly composed of young people, mainly high school and college students and young workers.

C4SS: There seems to be hostility to party flags, a growing narrative of opposition to corruption, and the preeminence of Brazilian flags. While the latter might be problematically nationalist, the former seem on the face of it quite praiseworthy from an anarchist perspective. What, in your perspective, is the make-up of the crowds? Do you see a generalized left libertarian populism being built that is critical of both state politics and neoliberalism?

Tairone: I see the nationalism as a positive thing in the sense that people are seeing themselves as the country. It is different from what happens in other countries. People don’t use the flag as a means of showing power and national pride but as a symbol for saying something in the lines of “we are this country, the politicians are not this country and we deserve better than this”. It is hard to say what the average political make up of the crowd is. Libertarianism is a concept little known by us, myself included. What I can say for sure is that the leftist populism is a big part of what brought us to this situation. Former president Lula was an extremely populist leftist leader and is now being viewed by many as the root of many of the problems being addressed including political corruption scandals and the FIFA sellout. Neoliberalism is not very well seen by most people. We had a strictly neoliberal president before Lula, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Although Cardoso is a highly regarded intellectual, scandals related to the privatization of public service companies during his government have caused the term “neoliberal” to have a bad connotation around here.

C4SS: As an academic, have you felt pressure from the state, from corporatism? If so, do your peers share your concerns – is this movement supported by the intelligentsia?

Tairone: The academia in Brazil is seen mainly as leftist in its core. Many of the traditional loud voices in the past are now silent because they were/are connected to or supported the government somehow. However every one of my colleagues I have spoken with fully supports the movement. Until now the government has not pressed us in any way. However the participation of academics in the frontlines of the movement has been minimal. A lot of the intellectuals and preeminent “bossa nova” musicians who were pivotal to the end of the military rule are also silent now because of their support of the government and PT in the past.

C4SS: What are your hopes for the revolution?

Tairone: From my part I would expect a more concrete revolution with the replacement of the form of government we have now by something more universal and with less monetary onus to the taxpayers. I don’t think that is going to happen though. In the end the politicians are rushing trying to approve laws and meet demands from the protesters in order to save their necks and their political careers. They might make enough changes to please people and get to stay in power and that is my greatest fear.

C4SS: Afterward – do you feel the current movement is the beginning of a better society

Tairone: It might be. People realized that they have much more power than they thought. But in the end for a better society we have to change ourselves. What we do ourselves is what makes a better society. We voted for these politicians in the first place. We are the ones trying to get personal benefits from them, we are the ones who cut in line, who throw garbage on the floor, try to cheat on exams or on taxes. When we realize that these small actions are what will help make a better society and that the politicians we put there are a reflection of us we will have a better society. Brazil have a culture of trying to find the easy way, not always legal, through things (The Brazilian Way or Jeitinho Brasileiro), when we change that mentality we will be a step closer to a better society.

Related articles

• Brazil Protests Reach Confederations Cup Final As Demonstrators Clash With Police Outside Rio’s Maracana Stadium (huffingtonpost.com)
• They are listen our voice! Brazil protests spread in Sao Paulo, Brasilia and Rio (kelts.wordpress.com)
• Brazil protests spread in Sao Paulo, Brasilia and Rio (arunbabyveranakunnel.wordpress.com)
• Protester killed, dozens injured as Brazil police face off with a million in 100 cities (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
• Unrest in Brazil: More than a million protest (fggam.org)

Com os níveis de uso de drogas nos Estados Unidos essencialmente os mesmos que — e os níveis de violência relacionada com drogas iguais ou mais baixos (*) que — os daqueles em países, como a Holanda, com leis liberais relativas a drogas, o apoio público à Guerra às Drogas parece estar esmorecendo. Isso foi mais recentemente evidenciado na vitória de importantes iniciativas de descriminação de drogas no Colorado e em Washington. Alguns comentadores equivocados chegam a ponto de dizer que a Guerra às Drogas é “um fracasso.” Aqui, para botar as coisas nos eixos, estão quinze aspectos sob os quais ela é retumbante sucesso: (* Email privado – Obrigado, Murilo. Realmente deveria ser “mais altos”.)

1. Ela contornou as restrições da Quarta Emenda a “busca e apreensão,” e disposições similares em constituições estaduais, abrindo brechas de “boa fé,” “suspeita razoável” e “expectativa razoável de privacidade” suficientes para transformar em papel higiênico tais restrições, para todos os efeitos práticos.

2. Em assim fazendo, criou precedentes que podem ser aplicados a amplo espectro de outras missões, como a Guerra ao Terror.

3.Tornou farmácias e bancos em braços do estado que constantemente informam acerca de seus clientes.

4. Via programas como o DARE, transformou crianças em informantes que vigiam seus pais para as autoridades.

5. Como resultado do modo pelo qual o DARE interage com outras coisas tais como as políticas de Tolerância Zero e inspeções sem mandado por cães farejadores de drogas, a Guerra às Drogas tem condicionado crianças a acreditar que “o policial é amigo delas,” a ver alcaguetagem como comportamento admirável, e a instintivamente procurar uma figura de autoridade para dar-lhe informação no segundo mesmo em que vejam qualquer coisa ainda que minimamente excêntrica ou anômala.

6. Via confisco civil, capacitou o estado a criar extorsão lucrativa em propriedade furtada de cidadãos nunca acusados, menos ainda condenados, por qualquer crime. Melhor de tudo, mesmo possuir grande quantidade de dinheiro, embora não tecnicamente crime, pode ser tratado como evidência de intento de cometer crime — o que poupa ao estado o trabalho de converter em forma líquida toda a propriedade tangível larapiada.

7. Possibilitou a forças policiais locais terem treinamento militar, criarem equipes paramilitares SWAT para funcionarem exatamente como a instituição militar dos Estados Unidos em país inimigo ocupado, obterem milhões de dólares em excedente de armamentos militares, e vestirem uniformes pretos realmente atraentes, exatamente como os da SS.

8. Entre as guerras ao comércio urbano de drogas e aos laboratórios rurais de metadona, tem mantido sob constante assédio e vigilância dois dos grupos demográficos de nosso país — os pretos dos centros decadentes das cidades e os brancos rurais pobres — menos socialmente condicionados para aceitar ordens da autoridade, tanto no local de trabalho quanto no sistema político, e componentes vitais de qualquer movimento em potencial por liberdade e justiça social.

9. Além disso, ela leva aqueles que com efeito caem nas garras do sistema de justiça criminal a um ciclo de anos de duração de controle direto por meio de encarceramento e liberdade condicional.

10. Mediante destituir do direito ao voto criminosos condenados por crimes graves, restringe a participação, nos processos “democráticos” do estado, a apenas cidadãos predispostos a respeitar a autoridade do estado.

11. Junto com programas como Lei e Ordem e COPS, condiciona os cidadãos da classe média a aceitar o autoritarismo e a falta de legalidade da polícia como necessários para protegê-los da terrível ameaça representada por pessoas que ingerem voluntariamente substâncias que entram em seus próprios corpos.

12. Por meio da retórica “se você nada tem a esconder, nada tem a temer,” condiciona o público a assumir que o estado de vigilância é bem-intencionado e só quem faz coisas erradas objeta a vigilância onipresente.

13. Em conjunto com infindáveis aventuras militares no exterior e com a retórica do “os soldados defendem nossas formas de liberdade,” condiciona o público a venerar figuras com autoridade que vistam uniforme, e o predispõe a aceitar de bom grado futuras expansões da autoridade militar e policial sem um pio de protesto.

14. Cria oportunidades enormemente lucrativas para os grandes bancos — um dos mais importantes reais eleitorados do governo estadunidense — lavarem dinheiro oriundo do tráfico de drogas.

15. Graças a importantes centros de produção de drogas tais como o Triângulo Dourado do Sudeste Asiático, a indústria de ópio no Afeganistão, e a indústria da cocaína na América do Sul, capacita a CIA — a maior quadrilha de narcotráfico do mundo — a obter enorme receita de financiamento de operações clandestinas e esquadrões da morte ao redor do mundo. Essa rede clandestina de órgãos de inteligência, narcotraficantes e esquadrões da morte, aliás, é outro importante eleitorado do governo estadunidense.

A Guerra às Drogas seria com efeito um fracasso se sua real função fosse reduzir o consumo de drogas ou a violência relacionada com drogas. Contudo, o sucesso ou o fracasso das políticas do estado é julgado, em realidade, pela medida em que essas políticas promovam os interesses servidos pelo estado. A Guerra às Drogas só será um fracasso se o estado existir para servir você.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 10 de março de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

Não há nada tão engraçado como a visão dos funcionários autoritários de uma ordem fenecente tentando reprimir uma revolução que não entendem — e fracassando miseravelmente.

A tentativa do Departamento de Estado de censurar arquivos imprimíveis de armas de fogo em 3-D doDEFCAD é a mais recente — e uma das mais divertidamente hilariantes — tentativa dos Senhores da Escassez de tentarem entender a revolução da Abundância que ameaça o poder deles. Menos de um dia depois de o DEFCAD ser forçado a removê-los, os arquivos apareceram em A Baía dos Piratas e Mega. Este último caso é especialmente engraçado; Kim Dotcom está provavelmente morrendo de rir a respeito.

Qualquer pessoa que já tenha ouvido falar do Efeito Streisand poderá ter contado a você que isso aconteceria. Tentar suprimir informação na Internet só faz chamar mais a atenção para a informação original — que permanece facilmente disponível — e outrossim deixar constrangido o pretenso supressor na medida em que a tentativa de supressão torna-se, em si, uma narrativa. Já perdi a conta do número de pessoas, ontem, que disse nunca ter ouvido de Cody Wilson ou de armas de fogo imprimíveis em 3-D antes da história da ação do Departamento de Estado tornar-se conhecida, mas pretendia ir à Baía dos Piratas – TPB e verificar. Graças aos não pretendidos esforços promocionais do governo dos Estados Unidos, provavelmente cem ou mil vezes mais pessoas sabem onde obter os arquivos imprimíveis de armas de fogo de Cody Wilson, em comparação com antes.

Nada obstante, os bocós que se congratularam há poucos dias a propósito de tirar do ar aqueles arquivos de armas de fogo imprimíveis não são exatamente o tipo de pessoa que você suporia ter ouvido falar do Efeito Streisand — obviamente. São como o parceiro do comediante que recita as frases que dão ao comediante a oportunidade de fazer piadas nessa peça, atuando só para nosso divertimento. São como a Matrona da Sociedade que entra no salão de jantar num curta dos Três Patetas e demanda: “Qual é o significado disto?!!” Para eles, a Internet é apenas uma grande Série de Tubos, e tudo o que eles têm a fazer é fechar uma válvula em algum lugar para controlar o fluxo de informação. Acontece apenas que a Internet não funciona assim. Na memorável frase de John Gilmore, ela trata a censura como estrago e a contorna.

Lembram-se do gracejo de Joe Biden acerca de “furto” de “propriedade intelectual” não ser diferente de “assalto-relâmpago na Macy’s”? A abordagem do governo dos Estados Unidos em relação ao DEFCAD ilustra a mesma fundamental concepção equivocada. Trata informação digital infinitamente replicável como se fosse bem finito e excluível existindo numa localização física, sobre a qual alguém pode exercer controle ou posse física do mesmo modo que se fosse apenas um sapato ou uma cadeira.

A lógica jurídica deles — legislação de controle da exportação — exibe o mesmo fracasso conceptual. Eles não conseguem entender que os “bens” que o DEFCAD estava “exportando” chegavam a seus portos de destino em todo o mundo no mesmo segundo durante o qual era feito o upload dos arquivos para o website.

Um arquivo digital pode ser replicado infinitamente com custo marginal próximo de zero; o mesmo padrão de informação pode existir num número ilimitado de lugares simultaneamente. Vê só? Acabo de fazer isso com a função copiar-colar de meu browser. Tente fazer o mesmo com a joalheria do Macy’s. Não é possível “furtar” uma canção ou um filme digital — o ato de replicação não afeta as cópias já na posse de outras pessoas, mas apenas aumenta o número de cópias no mundo. Eis porque copiar não caracteriza furto. Analogamente, você não consegue privar o mundo de acesso à informação mediante remover a cópia em um website.

Olhar para essas pessoas que ficam tentando usar ferramentas conceptuais da era da escassez para combater a abundância é como olhar Napoleão tentar derrotar Heinz Guderian ou Erwin Rommel com canhões em cima de duas rodas e infantaria em massa em formações de linha e coluna. Eles não detém as ferramentas conceptuais para entender, menos ainda para combater, a nova sociedade cujo nascimento estão tentando impedir.

Eis porque as tentativas do governo para impor escassez artificial falham toda vez, independentemente de quantas vezes ele lhes mude o nome — ACTA, CISPA, etc. — e tente de novo. Não há como consertar a estupidez.

Assim, para vocês, Senhores da Escassez — representados desta vez por seus lacaios nos Departamentos de Estado e de “Defesa” dos Estados Unidos, tenho uma mensagem: Vocês não têm nenhuma autoridade que devamos respeitar.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 12 de maio de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

It’s a perfect case study of statist attack on public property, on an autonomous initiative that produced a highly valued cultural offering for the community with a clear potential of standing on its own financial feet.

But because it was homesteading a space within a crumbling state-owned building neglected by years of governmental missmanagement, it was considered a threat to the bureaucrats who claim they have a better use for the space.

And while nobody knows with certainty what those plans are, the evicted artists’ suspicion that it involves “privatizing” the building for the benefit of a few corporate cronies seems perfectly reasonable, specially given the philosophy and track record of the current government of the city.