Realistically, anarchists cannot expect much from the Coalition government. Reducing the size of the state occurs only rarely, and usually as a means to election victory rather than as a statement of sound ideological intent.

Nonetheless, perhaps one cheer may be given to several reforms in the Autumn Statement. In the wake of the Thatcherite fetishisation of home ownership, Osborne’s overhaul of stamp duty (changing stamp duty tax bands from absolute to marginal) will rejig state intervention in the British housing market to benefit less well-off buyers. It’s even been lukewarmly welcomed by the staunchly anti-Tory Guardian. Of course, the Chancellor has completely ignored the most pressing issue for the housing market: Government strangling supply.

Other measures introduced by Osborne include a further rise in the tax-free allowance, which follows increases in previous budgets to provide an important boost to the incomes of the poorest. Another freeze in fuel duty will translate into a real fall in costs for motorists, but enthusiasm needs to be tempered with considerations of how privileging car culture in the taxation system may not send the right message.

There’s plenty in the Autumn Statement that’s incontrovertibly bad news too. The Coalition has unsurprisingly continued to fatten Britain’s sacred cow — dedicating an extra £2 billion per year to NHS spending. As Kate Andrews from the Adam Smith Institute commented, “no one is willing to have a serious conversation about the reforms that could make the NHS financially viable for the next ten years, let alone for future generations; like charging small fees for non-emergency visits.”

Meanwhile, a new “Google Tax” on multinationals diverting profits away from the UK is also cause for concern. It will most likely be ineffective at raising revenue, harmful to business investment and above all a distraction from the reasons why these firms are so powerful and prevalent in the first place: such as intellectual property law and state-sponsored gigantism.

Unsurprisingly, Osborne heavily emphasised progress on reducing the structural deficit during his speech. His deficit reduction program does at least put spending under greater scrutiny, but a sovereign default on national debt would be preferable: Removing our reliance on intergenerational theft to finance a bloated government.

Some of the aforementioned concrete changes are to be welcomed with muted, apathetic applause. But for the radical free marketer, Osborne’s political gambits are little more than a distraction from the need for more fundamental structural change. This is unlikely to come from politicians. Organic, grassroots changes in civil society are ultimately going to be more effective at moving towards anarchism than piecemeal state reform.

“Yes” netting 44.7% of the tally undermines a 300-year consensus and the devolution of substantial political power to Scotland is already conceded. Such a near-tie is far more problematic for an existing political system struggling to maintain its legitimacy than for a new one trying to find its feet. And the concerns raised in advance of the referendum persist.

With the burden of proof shifted onto them, the social-contract arguments for existing states were drawn out from the shadows of handwaving and dimly-remembered civics classes.

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

The only likely change in behaviour amongst the British public is a greater feeling of dread when they see someone who looks “a bit foreign.” This fearmongering serves the state’s agenda of control and power by applying the timeless formula of uniting the population against “the enemy within.” It fits seamlessly into the narrative of xenophobia peddled by successive governments, so successfully that around three quarters of people in Britain are now anti-immigration. In the absence of any sort of protective value, Theresa May’s much-publicised announcement can be viewed as a further attempt to galvanise support for the next election. This support is built on the practice of blaming anyone and everyone but politicians for the country’s economic and social difficulties.

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

Con il suo 44,7%, il “Sì” rimette in discussione un consenso che durava da trecento anni. La devoluzione di una fetta sostanziale del potere politico alla Scozia è già una concessione. Questo quasi pareggio è più problematico per un sistema politico, come quello inglese, che si sforza di mantenere la sua legittimità, che per un sistema nuovo che cerca di affermarsi. Le preoccupazioni della vigilia rimangono intatte.

Con l’onere della prova a loro carico, chi giustificava l’esistenza degli stati sulla base di un presunto contratto sociale esce dall’ombra dei discorsi vacui e delle quasi dimenticate nozioni di educazione civica. Il culmine lo ha raggiunto il ministro degli esteri spagnolo José Manuel García Margallo, che ha contrastato le teorie indipendentiste dei catalani dicendo: “Ogni singolo spagnolo è proprietario di ogni singolo centimetro quadrato di questo paese.” Per sostenere la legittimità dell’unione anglo-scozzese è stato più volte ricordato l’accordo firmato con il parlamento scozzese tre secoli fa, facendo notare così come raramente i moderni territori politici siano unicamente il frutto di una conquista militare.

Molto dell’impeto dietro il “sì” veniva dal desiderio di liberare la Scozia dalle armi atomiche. Questo non risolveva il problema pratico di come operare una difesa militare convenzionale, ma ovviava in gran parte la solita domanda: “e la difesa?” Gli unionisti, poi, sono arrivati ad agitare l’immagine di una Scozia tramutata in una nuova Svizzera, come se questa fosse una brutta cosa.

Una parte molto più grande dei commenti è stata dedicata al problema dell’incertezza economica in caso di indipendenza. Critici come Paul Krugman hanno sostenuto validamente che, siccome l’economia scozzese attualmente dipende dal sistema finanziario globale con tutta la sua instabilità, l’indipendenza politica avrebbe ridotto le sue possibilità di assorbire i danni provocati da crisi economiche più ampie, verso le quali sarebbe rimasta vulnerabile.

La questione ha diviso l’élite economica, con la British Petroleum (BP) prevedibilmente dalla parte del “no” mentre i settori più globali erano a favore del “sì”. Il grosso delle terre scozzesi, intanto, resta nelle mani di una élite: il 50% è di proprietà di 432 famiglie appena. Le singole proprietà immobiliari stanno già passando dalle mani delle vecchie famiglie aristocratiche a quelle di un gruppetto di speculatori globali.

Con il calo dei proventi di petrolio e gas, l’economia scozzese è stata colpita particolarmente dalla deindustrializzazione. Ma man mano che la tecnologia post-industriale diventa la norma, una base economica diversa diventa sempre più percorribile. I servizi chiave possono essere liberati dalle costrizioni geografiche; il referendum ha ricevuto gran parte dell’impeto dal fatto che la Scozia avrebbe avuto una scelta limitatissima tra il Regno Unito e l’Unione Europea. Ma una concorrenza piena tra valute, per dirne una, non dovrebbe limitarsi all’alternativa tra l’euro e la sterlina. E un decentramento portato al livello dei singoli clan tradizionali non sarebbe più un ricordo romantico, ma una realtà di tutti i giorni.

Il sole sta tramontando sull’impero.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

“Yes” netting 44.7% of the tally undermines a 300-year consensus and the devolution of substantial political power to Scotland is already conceded. Such a near-tie is far more problematic for an existing political system struggling to maintain its legitimacy than for a new one trying to find its feet. And the concerns raised in advance of the referendum persist.

With the burden of proof shifted onto them, the social-contract arguments for existing states were drawn out from the shadows of handwaving and dimly-remembered civics classes. This culminated in the astonishing rationale against Catalan independence expounded by Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo: “Each and every Spaniard is the owner of each and every square centimeter of the country.” The formation of the Scottish-English union via agreement of the Scottish parliament was frequently invoked as a source of its legitimacy three centuries later, underscoring how rarely modern political territories are not solely the result of conquest.

With much of the impetus of the “yes” side stemming from a desire to get nuclear weapons out of Scotland, even with the practicalities of operating a domestic conventional military unresolved, the textbook objection of “but what about defense?” was largely obviated. Naysayers even seriously presented the prospect of Scotland becoming the new Switzerland as if that were a bad thing.

Far more of the commentary was devoted to economic uncertainty in the case of independence. Critics such as Paul Krugman raised the valid point that since Scotland’s economy currently relies on the global financial system, with all its instability, political independence would have reduced its leeway to absorb the damage from wider economic crises to which it would have still been vulnerable.

The question split the economic elite, with British Petroleum predictably backing “no” and the more global sectors favoring “yes.” Meanwhile, ownership of the bulk of Scotland’s land itself remains with the elite, fully half in the hands of a mere 432 families. Ownership of individual estates has already been shifting away from old-money aristocratic families to a global pool of speculators.

The Scottish economy, with its diminishing oil and gas revenue, has been hit particularly hard by deindustrialization. But as post-industrial technology rapidly becomes the norm, an economic base is increasingly viable. Key services can be unbundled from geography; the referendum received much of its impetus from the effects of the most limited competition of Scotland being able to pick and choose between the UK and the EU. And full competition of currencies, for one, will go far beyond the choice between the pound and the euro. Decentralization to a point matching the level of the traditional Scottish clan system will no longer be a romanticized memory, but everyday reality.

The sun is setting on the imperial state.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, La Scozia Conquista il Regno Unito.

Ovviamente, il mio amico non ha cambiato i suoi programmi. Quasi nessuno lo fa. È probabile che l’unico cambiamento nel comportamento delle persone consista in un maggiore senso di paura quando vedono qualcuno dall’aspetto “vagamente straniero”. Seminare paura serve al governo, che ha tutto l’interesse a controllare e dominare la popolazione usando lo stratagemma di sempre: compattare la popolazione contro “il nemico tra noi”. Si adatta perfettamente alla definizione di xenofobia, spacciato dal governo con un tale successo che circa tre quarti della popolazione britannica oggi è contro l’immigrazione. In assenza di qualunque genere di valore protettivo, il tanto pubblicizzato annuncio di Theresa May si può considerare un tentativo di galvanizzare il supporto in vista delle prossime elezioni. A tenere in piedi questo supporto c’è la pratica di scaricare le colpe dei problemi economici e sociali del paese su tutti tranne i politici.

Chi ha scelto di non prendere sul serio l’innalzamento del livello di allerta ha risposto britannicamente con la presa in giro, con numerose parodie di #ThreatLevel che fanno il giro di Twitter. Quando la probabilità di morire annegato in una vasca da bagno è quattordici volte quella di essere vittima di un attacco terroristico, questa incuranza per i livelli di allerta del governo è comprensibile. Gli attacchi terroristici sono orribili, nessuno lo nega. Ma che voi (o qualche vostra conoscenza) possiate diventare vittima di un attacco terroristico è incredibilmente improbabile.

È vero che c’è qualche britannico che combatte per l’Isis in Iraq e Siria. Ma è anche vero che tutto questo strombazzare l’innalzamento del livello di allerta non potrebbe nulla se dovessero decidere di compiere un attacco terroristico. Forse se i politici sostituissero queste pose inutili con un esame del fallimento della politica estera, darebbero un vero contributo alla sicurezza dei britannici. Finché questo non avviene, non ci rimane che l’ironia cupa: gli “allarmi terroristici” del governo britannico non aiutano nessuno e, se presi seriamente, servono solo a creare altro terrore.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

My friend did not change his plans, of course. Few — if any — do. The only likely change in behaviour amongst the British public is a greater feeling of dread when they see someone who looks “a bit foreign.” This fearmongering serves the state’s agenda of control and power by applying the timeless formula of uniting the population against “the enemy within.” It fits seamlessly into the narrative of xenophobia peddled by successive governments, so successfully that around three quarters of people in Britain are now anti-immigration. In the absence of any sort of protective value, Theresa May’s much-publicised announcement can be viewed as a further attempt to galvanise support for the next election. This support is built on the practice of blaming anyone and everyone but politicians for the country’s economic and social difficulties.

Those who chose not to take the raised alert level seriously displayed the typically British response of taking the piss, with numerous “#ThreatLevel” parodies doing the rounds on Twitter. When you’re nearly fourteen times more likely to die drowning in a bathtub than as the victim of a terrorist attack, such disregard for government threat levels is understandable. Terror attacks are horrific, and no reasonable person would say otherwise. But you (or indeed someone you know) being a victim of an attack is stupendously improbable.

It’s true to say that a small number of Brits are fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It’s also true to say that making a huge song-and-dance about raising the terror threat level will do absolutely nothing to prevent them from staging a terrorist attack. Maybe if politicians replaced such needless posturing with an examination of the failures of interventionist foreign policy, they might make a real contribution to the safety of Brits. Until then, we are left with a grim irony; the British government’s “terror alerts” help nobody and — if taken at all seriously — only succeed in creating terror.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Livello di Allerta: Insensato.

People were persuaded, coerced and sometimes forced to become members of the state because it was in their own interests. Who would want to face a life out in the wilderness, struggling to make ends meet? Under constant threat, with very little security? It seemed like an obvious decision to make. Lets step inside this “state”, lets live under its roof and lets prosper, together, as a society.

The premise of the state and its controlling figures, the government, was that with them people were better off. We were all in a more beneficial situation. The state was like a house whereby we would all have comfort, we would all have security and all of us would live a better life in this house, than we would out of it. To continue this analogy of a state being a house, that would mean the government were a sort of estate agent. Their role being fairly straightforward, to sell the house to investors, to adequately furnish and maintain the house, and to make sure the day to day running goes smoothly. This was the basic idea.

So everyone was a member of the state. We were under its roof and we were better off for it. The estate agents took care of the house, and by association, they took care of us. However, we are neglecting a key detail about estate agents, and that is that they do not tend to care about the occupants. As any student will tell you, they care primarily about money. Outside of money their highest concern is then with the house itself, as this is their source of money. What condition is it in? Will it need a lick of paint before some new occupants arrive? Would it perhaps benefit from some fencing around the front garden? At no point are the occupants of the house given priority. The occupants of the house are of little concern, as long as the money keeps coming, and as long as the house does not get destroyed, then the estate agents aren’t particularly bothered.

Surely they should be bothered though? If the house represents the state, and the people in the house represent us, the population of the state, surely we should play some sort of role in the decision making process. Was not the entire intention of the state to provide a place whereby the people were better off being members of it?

Just as the estate agents care more for their house than they do the occupants, so our governments care more for the state than they do the people.

Let us have a look at some examples. The NASA space programme in the United States was not created, or sustained, for the benefit of any of the people within the state of America. Poverty levels did not decrease, education levels did not improve and the average American was not better off. Undoubtedly space exploration and moon landings are incredible feats of technology, wonderful achievements, but who was in aid of? Who was it all for? For the people living in the house? No. It was for the house itself. It was for the glory, for the fame and to show the rival house across the road that it was not as good.

The recent introduction of workfare schemes in the UK, and zero hour contracts. Were these introduced for the people? Did the people ask for these, or even need these schemes? No. Once again these were introduced to improve the states economy. Schemes such as these are attractive to multi national businesses and investors. The schemes were for them. The house had been re-decorated, but not for the benefit of the occupants, it was for businesses.

Nuclear weapons is another blindingly obvious issue whereby matters are decided not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of the state. There is vast amount of data across a huge number of countries that clearly show worldwide public disapproval of nuclear weapons. The official government line, the line the estate agents sell to us, is that nukes make us safer, we need them. What the “we” in these statements is actually referring to however is the state. The state needs these weapons, the state wants these weapons. For states, a nuclear weapon is a sign of prestige, they are bragging rights on the international stage. In a public opinion poll in 2000, a staggering 84% of people said they did not feel safer knowing the US and other countries had nuclear weapons. But these are the opinions of the occupants there is no need to listen to them. The state does not exist for them, it exists for itself.

Why are anarchists considered such a threat? Why do governments put so much negative spin on the belief system and the ideas? Anarchists are no danger to the people but they are a danger to the state. It is the states own self-preservation that is at stake here and so anarchy, the discussion of and the association with, is a bad thing.

The state cares only for itself, the mechanisms of the state work only to sustain it. Improvements for the people are of secondary importance. If this was not the case, if this was not the true reality, then why would the state spend more than £79bn in a war when there are 25,600 elderly people dying in the winter because their homes are too cold? Why would the state bail out reckless bankers to the tune of £850bn when there are an estimated 185,000 people a year affected by homelessness? Why would the sixth largest economy in the world have the need for over 180,000 charities to supply services and to look after the people? If the state, if the house, really existed for the benefit of the people, why would a single one of those charities need to exist?

I am not sure the house is the best place for us. I am not sure the estate agents care for our well being at all. I think maybe it is time we opened the front door and stepped outside.

As alegações, contudo, soam ocas … ou pelo menos hipócritas:

• O governo israelense usou abertamente armas químicas na Margem Oeste pelo menos tão recentemente quanto em 26 de abril.
• O governo francês agrediu com gás centenas de manifestantes em Paris pelo menos tão recentemente quanto em 24 de abril.
• Armas químicas são usadas sistematicamente pelas forças do regime dos Estados Unidos para propósitos tão desimportantes quanto dispersar festas turbulentas de universitários. E se quisermos expandir nosso foco para armas mais gerais de destruição em massa, os Estados Unidos remanescem como o único país a jamais usar armas nucleares contra grandes populações civis. Suponho que poderíamos também discorrer acerca de fósforo branco e urânio empobrecido, mas vocês já entenderam a ideia.
• Tanto os Estados Unidos quanto o Reino Unidofornecem armas químicas a regimes repressores em todo o mundo.

Se lhes parecer inadequado comparar CS (“gás lacrimogênio”), a arma química específica usada por todos esses regimes como descrito acima, com GB (“sarin”), o agente que eles acusam Bashar al-Assad de usar, pensem outra vez: CS é especificamente projetado como arma química, tão ilegal para uso na guerra internacional quanto GB, nos termos da Convenção de Armas Químicas de 1997.

Os governos de França, do Reino Unido e dos Estados Unidos assinaram e ratificaram aquela convenção. O governo de Israel a assinou, embora ela permaneça não ratificada pelo Knesset. No entanto, todos aqueles quatro governos livre e frequentemente usam uma arma química ilegal “contra seu próprio povo,” os israelenses a usam em áreas estrangeiras que ocupam militarmente, e os Estados Unidos e o Reino Unido exportam-na para uso por outros governos “contra seus próprios povos” — enquanto condenam o governo da Síria por alegadamente exercer exatamente a mesma isenção doméstica/interna. Não que a Síria precise de tal isenção; ela é um dos cinco governos que nunca assinaram nem ratificaram a Convenção de Armas Químicas.

A definição de “arma química” e “arma de destruição em massa” é inflada ou desinflada como necessário para servir aos propósitos de uma classe dominante do regime, tanto no país quanto no exterior.

Quando um avião não tripulado [drone] acerta um míssil Hellfire II com uma ogiva de 8 libras de fragmentação/antipessoal numa festa de casamento no Paquistão, está tudo certo. Quando Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alegadamente explode duas panelas de pressão cheias de pólvora e bolas de bilha na Maratona de Boston, isso é “uso de arma de destruição em massa.”

Quando o governo dos Estados Unidos usa tanques para bombear CS numa igreja estadunidense, incendiar o edifício e metralhar os residentes em fuga, isso é “fazer cumprir a lei.” Quando Bashar al-Assad alegadamente usa sarin contra opositores armados que tentam depô-lo, isso é “assassinar seu próprio povo.”

Por que se mostram os governos tão ávidos em fazer distinções entre tipos de armas? Porque sem isso esses governos são parecidos a ponto de serem indistinguíveis uns dos outros.

Artigo original afixado por Thomas L. Knapp em 30 de abril de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

But the allegation rings hollow … or at least hypocritical:

• The Israeli government openly used chemical weapons in the West Bank at least as recently as April 26.
• The French government gassed hundreds of protesters in Paris at least as recently as April 24.
• Chemical weapons are routinely used by US regime forces for purposes as unimportant as breaking up rowdy college parties. And if we want to expand our focus to more general weapons of mass destruction, the US remains the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on large civilian populations. I suppose we could also talk about white phosphorous and depleted uranium, but you get the picture.
• Both the US and the UK supply chemical weapons to repressive regimes around the world.

If it seems perverse to compare CS (“tear gas”), the particular chemical weapon used by all these regimes as described above, to GB (“sarin”), the agent they accuse Bashar al-Assad of using, consider, think again: CS is specifically designated as a chemical weapon, just as illegal for use in international warfare as GB, under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

The governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have signed and ratified that convention. Israel’s government has signed it, although it remains unratified by the Knesset. Yet all four governments freely and frequently use an illegal chemical weapon “on their own people,” the Israelis use it in foreign areas they militarily occupy, and the US and UK export it for use by other governments “on their own people” — all while condemning Syria’s government for allegedly exercising exactly the same domestic/internal exemption. Not that Syria needs such an exemption; it is one of five governments which has never signed or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The definition of “chemical weapon” and “weapon of mass destruction” gets inflated or deflated as necessary to serve the purposes of a regime’s ruling class, both at home and abroad.

When a US drone fires a Hellfire II missile with an 8-pound fragmentation/anti-personnel warhead into a wedding party in Pakistan, that’s just cricket. When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly sets off two pressure cookers filled with black powder and ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, that’s “using a weapon of mass destruction.”

When the US government uses tanks to pump CS into an American church, sets the building on fire and machine-guns the fleeing residents, that’s “law enforcement.” When Bashar al-Assad allegedly uses sarin on armed opponents trying to overthrow him, that’s “murdering his own people.”

Why are governments so eager to make distinctions between types of weapons? Because those governments are otherwise so much alike as to be indistinguishable one from another.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Os de Sempre versus Síria: Armas de Destruição em Massa – WMD para Nós mas não para Vós.