Center for a Stateless Society » workers

Con una legge chiamata la “Legge Fifa”, lo stato ha istituito, per tutta la durata della coppa del mondo di calcio, le cosiddette “aree di commercio esclusivo” a tutto vantaggio della Fifa.

L’articolo 11 di questa legge stabilisce che è compito dello stato garantire “che alla Fifa e ai suoi rappresentanti sia permesso pubblicizzare in esclusiva i loro marchi, distribuire, vendere o comunque reclamizzare i loro prodotti e i loro servizi, così come altre attività promozionali e commerciali che si svolgono nelle strade, nei Siti Ufficiali delle Gare, nelle loro vicinanze e nelle principali vie d’accesso.” Il paragrafo 1 precisa che per vicinanza si intende un’area nel raggio di 1,3 miglia (2 km) dai siti delle gare.

È sempre successo che lo stato brasiliano abbia agito per il beneficio sistematico di un gruppo di plutocrati a scapito della popolazione. Ma la Legge Fifa è sorprendente perché non c’è neanche un pretesto. Come si giustificano da un punto di vista costituzionale queste aree commerciali esclusive? Come fanno a promuovere il bene pubblico queste aree esclusive in cui solo alcune aziende specifiche e i loro partner possono fare commercio? Non è altro che privilegio alla luce del sole. Come ai tempi del mercantilismo, quando i re garantivano il diritto “esclusivo” di produrre e vendere determinati prodotti.

Lo storico marxista Christopher Hill ha descritto così la vita dell’inglese medio nel diciassettesimo secolo: viveva in una casa fatta di mattoni prodotti da un monopolista e si pettinava con un pettine prodotto da un altro monopolista. Nel ventunesimo secolo questo rudere giudiziario è stato riportato in vita.

Anche i venditori ambulanti sono stati espulsi da queste zone. Quella economia informale che aggira continuamente la politica repressiva e l’imprevedibilità dello stato, che muove centinaia di miliardi di dollari ogni anno, non è stata invitata alla festa sportiva. “Migliaia di venditori ambulanti, privi di protezioni e di potere negoziale con lo stato, vengono mandati via dalle strade come se fossero macchie sul paesaggio,” dice la lettera aperta che la Commissione Nazionale dei Venditori Ambulanti ha pubblicato l’anno scorso.

Alcuni di loro sono riusciti a raggiungere qualche compromesso con il governo e la Fifa, assicurandosi il permesso di operare in queste “aree esclusive”, ma solo seguendo le regole e le linee guida imposte dalla Fifa. A São Paulo, ad esempio, l’accordo prevede che gli ambulanti possano vendere soltanto merce dei marchi sponsor (proteggendo così la loro “proprietà intellettuale”), a prezzi leggermente più bassi (solo prezzi di listino), e con il diritto al 30% dei profitti.

Cosa resta? Entrare in una di queste aree esclusive, occuparla con venditori ambulanti e altre attività commerciali non riconosciute, potrebbe provocare una reazione sproporzionata da parte dello stato, che ha mandato le forze di polizia militare e lo stesso esercito a garantire gli interessi della Fifa.

La prossima volta che vedete la polizia che confisca la merce di un ambulante con la scusa che non ha pagato le tasse, o che la sua licenza è stata revocata, ricordatevi che la Fifa non paga le tasse e guadagna miliardi dai suoi privilegi commerciali assicurati dal pugno di ferro dello stato. Allora capirete quanto è prezioso l’appello di Thoreau: “Lasciate che la vostra vita sia un freno alla macchina”.

Perché il mondiale di calcio è in Brasile, ma a fare affari non sono i lavoratori brasiliani.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Worker Exclusion Zones

Valdenor Júnior — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:00:39 +0000

Knowing Brazilian law is my trade, but I still get scared when I learn about the powers the Brazilian state possesses.

During the World Cup, the government established so-called “trade exclusion zones” in FIFA’s benefit, in a law called the “FIFA Act.”

Article 11 of the act establishes that the government guarantees “to FIFA and to its appointees the authorization to exclusively advertise their brands, distribute, sell, publicize or otherwise propagandize their products and services, as well as other promotional activities and trade in the streets, in the Official Competition Sites, their surroundings and main access ways.” Paragraph 1 determines that the limits of those surroundings extend up to 1.3 mile around the competition sites.

It’s always been the case that the Brazilian state functions to benefit systematically a group of plutocrats in detriment of the people. But the FIFA Act is surprising in that there wasn’t even a pretext. How are these trade exclusion zones constitutionally justified? How is public good promoted with the creation of exclusive trade zones for a specific corporation and its partners? It’s nothing but unmasked privilege. Just like mercantilism, when kings used to grant “exclusivities” for the production and sale of several items.

Marxist historian Christopher Hill described how life was to a common English person in the 17th century, living in houses made of monopoly bricks and setting her hair with monopoly hairbrushes. This judicial relic has been reborn in the 21st century.

Street sellers are also banned from these areas. The informal economy that continually routes around the repression and unpredictability of the state, moves hundreds of billions of dollars every year, wasn’t invited to the sports party. “Thousands of street sellers are being removed from the streets as stains on the landscape, having no security nor negotiating power with the government,” stated the open letter of the National Commission of Street Sellers last year.

Some street sellers were able to get some compromises from the government and FIFA and secured permits to operate in the “exclusion zones,” but only following the rules and guidelines set by FIFA. For one, in São Paulo, the agreement states that street sellers will only sell the sponsors’ brands (thereby protecting their “intellectual property”), offering slightly lower prices (only listed prices) and will have the right to a 30% share of the profits.

What’s left? Trespassing exclusion zones and having them occupied by illegal street peddlers, stores and other non-affiliated commerce can be met with overwhelming force by the state, which has positioned the Military Police and the army itself to guarantee FIFA’s interests.

Next time you see a street vendor having his merchandise confiscated with the excuse that she didn’t pay taxes or that her license was revoked, remember that FIFA pays no taxes and will make billions for their commercial privileges secured by the iron fist of the state. Then you’ll realize the urgency of Thoreau’s call: “Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.”

Because the World Cup is in Brazil, but its trade is not made by Brazilian workers.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations for this article:

Italian, Aree Interdette ai Lavoratori.

The Matter Of Public Workers: Should Anarchists Celebrate The Federal Government Shutdown?

Travis Eby — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:28 +0000

In their efforts to fight the Affordable Care Act, Republicans in Washington have “shut down” the Federal government to supposedly cut spending due to the costs of the health care legislation. On the first day of the shutdown most of us woke up, had coffee, and went to work. In other words, nothing had really changed for us. So the question is, what actually “shut down?” According to government officials, all non-essential government employees have been furloughed until an unspecified time. But this only accounts for less than a quarter of the Federal government.

It would appear that, in fact, the government has done nothing close to shutting down.

Despite the majority of Americans polled opposing the shut down and the bad press that comes with that, the people who should be affected, the political class, have not even been touched. Who, then, is being impacted by this political theater? The productive class.

Now, some will argue that public workers are not part of the productive class, and are parasites just like congress. But is that really fair? Sure, some or all of them may be foolish for believing that their job is funded through anything but theft. Some may also know that they are parasites, and don’t care. At the same time, we anarchists should be careful about judging other people from our lofty position as non-public workers and realize that for many people, no matter how duped they have been, regard their job at a public museum or a park as just that – their job. For them this “shutdown” is an example of how much the State does not care about them, and here lies our opportunity for discourse on the political class’s war on the productive class.

Our main job now is to keep those workers from going back to the State sector.

It is not unreasonable to say that in a free society we would see wilderness parks with caretakers, workers at centers for disease control and space exploration organizations. In other words, government technically provides services that the public might demand anyway in a free society; it is just that they do it via authoritarianism and coercive monopoly.

Anarchists do not support the State, its existence, or its theft, and we certainly do not support its violent co-opting of services that could otherwise be provided peacefully (and arguably much better) in a free society. Furthermore, even if only a few members of the “non-essential” government workforce are actually productive members of society, it is a shame to see their work stifled from full expression because of State monopoly. In some ways, it would be better to just pay them to stay home, or work peacefully on whatever they choose. More importantly, anarchists seek a smooth and peaceful transition into a stateless society, not through the further suffering of working people and families.

In all of this, though, is the opportunity for anarchists to show how such services would be better safeguarded in a free society. Building the new within the shell of the old becomes much easier when the crumbling system is shedding good, hardworking people that want to make a difference. While tyrants are often raised in the ashes of the old State, so too can a free society emerge readied with mutual aid services, security organizations, large, digitally linked networks of decentralized communities and so on. This illusionary “shutdown” has created a pathway for people to look for something different. Something sustainable. Something new. It is our job to show them the possibilities.