STIGMERGY: The C4SS Blog
The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 103

Gareth Porter discusses how the U.S. could end Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the myth of the antiwar Democrat.

David S. D’Amato discusses private property.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Hilary’s war in Libya.

Robert Fantina discusses Hilary

Dan Sanchez discusses U.S. intervention in the Arab Spring.

Robert Koehler discusses the Afghan war.

Philip Giraldi discusses war crimes and the U.S.

Uri Avnery discusses Israel.

Andrew J. Bacevich discusses building up armies and watching them fall.

Joseph R. Stromberg discusses the inherent criminality of air power.

David D’Amato discusses the question of who is a capitalist.

Andrew Stewart discusses Israel.

Sheldon Richman discusses the anti-politician politician.

James C. Wilson discusses a book on the underground economy.

Kevin Carson discusses charter schools.

Alex R. Knight the third discusses the natural state of freed markets.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses gun control and Nazi Germany.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses Pinochet’s assassination of a former Chilean official.

Peter Jaworski discusses allowing people to sell their blood.

Lawrence W. Reed discusses Bastiat.

Nicola Nasser discusses smashing the Abbas icon of Palestinian non-violence.

Vijay Prashad discusses what remains in Afghanistan.

Alessandra Bajec discusses justice in Egypt.

Charles Davis discusses anti-imperialism 2.0.

Nick Gillespie discusses Joe Biden.

Nick Gillespie and Amanda Winkler discuss lies about Snowden.

Ronald Bailey discusses crony capitalism.

Anthony L. Fisher and Mike Weiss discuss the Syrian disaster and Obama’s blame for it.

Nick Gillespie discusses the faux withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Gillis at The Future of Politics Conference

C4SS fellow William Gillis will be speaking on anarchism at The Future of Politics Conference in Oakland, California this Sunday.

11218849_10206010394833789_2372897720320525529_n
Anarchism in Germany

“Anarchism’s lone objective is to reach a point at which the belligerence of some humans against humanity, in whatever form, comes to a halt. And with this end point in mind, people must transcend themselves in the spirit of brother and sisterhood, so that each individual, drawing on natural ability, can develop freely.” — Gustav Landauer, Anarchism in Germany

Available as an ebook (PDF).

ScreenshotALLland

Available as a ready-to-print zine (PDF).

Media Coordinator Report, September 2015

Some numbers and interesting notes about C4SS media activities in September:

Now, we also continue to cultivate a good relationship with outlets such as CounterPunch, Antiwar.com, the Augusta Free Press, and a few others. As I stated last month, our focus is gradually shifting to online media, and I think our numbers from now on will start to reflect that.

One thing I should note: I’m settling on dates around the 10th of each month to publish our Media Coordinator report. That gives me more time to check if our pieces were republished and makes it less likely that we miss a pickup. Our late month reports didn’t work well for pieces published by the end of the month.

If you think we’re doing good work, help us spread the word of anarchy even more! Make a donation!

Erick Vasconcelos
Media Coordinator

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 102

Robert Parry discusses U.S. hypocrisy on bombing.

John Feffer discusses modern day population transfers in the Middle East.

Richard Falk discusses the situation in Yemen.

Uri Avnery discusses Nasser.

Michael Welton discusses Canadian foreign policy.

Dan Sanchez discusses the recent bombing of an Afghan hospital.

Roderick T. Long discusses banking freedom in ancient Athens.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the U.S. bombing of an Afghan hospital.

Dan Sanchez discusses Israeli foreign policy.

Ivan Eland discusses reality and symbolism in public affairs.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses U.S. hypocrisy with respect to Cuba.

George H. Smith discusses John Locke on private property.

Dahr Jamail discusses justice for Iraq and one man’s mission.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the U.S. in South Korea.

Sheldon Richman discusses proposals to deal with gun violence.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses U.S. tyranny and Bobby Fischer.

Jeffrey A. Tucker discusses the prison state.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the media coverage of the recent attack on an Afghan hospital.

Andrew Levine discusses Obama’s losing game in Syria.

Ryan McMaken discusses gun control.

Robert Koehler discusses the bombing of an Afghan hospital.

Michael Brenner discusses two new books on Henry Kissinger.

Franklin Lamb discusses what should be done about the recent U.S. bombing of an Afghan hospital.

Brian Cloughley discusses the recent bombing of an Afghan hospital and the U.S./NATO propaganda machine.

Uri Avnery discusses Abbas.

Gary Leupp discusses the six most disastrous interventions of the 21st century.

John Feffer discusses the Obama war on whistleblowers.

Robert Fantina discusses Canadian universities and Israel.

David Price and Juan Gonzalez discuss the use and abuse of culture in Afghanistan.

Louis Proyect discusses the end of academic freedom in America.

Nobel Peace Prize 2015

Though I’m unfamiliar with the work of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, I was nonetheless pleased to see the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a non-government official. Other (unworthy) candidates this year included Angela Merkel, John Kerry and Javad Zarif.

In “War and Peace as States of Mind” (published in Marc Guttman’s excellent anthology Why Peace), Butler Shaffer hits the nail on the head:

Contrary to our politically directed thinking, peace is not just the absence of war, a condition to be turned on or off as suits the needs of nation-states in manipulating their respective populations. When promoters and conductors of the war system are Nobel Peace Prize recipients, it becomes evident that the popular meaning of the concept has become little more than a confused and contradictory strategy to be employed in fleeting service to the interests of coercive power structures.

A Reminder on the Origins of American Gun Laws

…from James Wasserman’s “Pulling Liberty’s Teeth,” published in the third (2008) edition of the anthology Rebels and Devils: The Psychology of Liberation:

America’s first state and local gun laws were nearly all designed to keep guns out of the hands of slaves. These included laws passed prior to the American Revolution. After the Civil War, nearly every American gun law sought to keep guns out of the hands of freed former slaves. Thus, gun control has always had a particularly odious racial cast.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 101

Rami G. Khouri discusses the GCC intervention in Yemen.

Robert Parry discusses whether neocons are an existential threat.

Alfred McCoy discusses Obama’s policy towards China.

Nick Turse discusses the meaning of assassination.

Vijay Prashad discusses rogue states and diplomacy with Noam Chomsky.

Yves Engler discusses the Canadian contribution to British colonialism.

Glenn Greenwald discusses a good interview of a British Saudi loyalist.

Aisha Maniar discusses the efforts to hold torturers accountable.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses whether we’re getting somewhere on tech privacy.

Laurence M. Vance discusses the legitimacy of gambling laws.

Bill Buppert discusses American policing and the coming domestic insurgency.

Martha Mundy discusses the war in Yemen.

Ivan Eland discusses why the U.S. shouldn’t go to war with China.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the spread of the War on Terror to Syria.

Adam Dick discusses ending sin taxes on marijuana.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses why libertarians don’t compromise.

Leonard Read discusses the penalties of surrender.

James Bovard discusses the Supreme Court’s record on freedom.

Jeffrey A. Tucker discusses Auberon Herbert.

Lawrence W. Reed discusses an antiwar hero.

Sheldon Richman discusses Planned Parenthood, social peace, and the libertarian approach.

Sheldon Richman discusses ending gun violence.

Sheldon Richman discusses why the politicians really need us.

David S. D’Amato discusses the right to rule.

Abigail R. Hall discusses the distrust of Uncle Sam.

Lucy Stegierwald discusses the rotten character of U.S. policy.

Glenn Greenwald discusses how U.S. bombs keep dropping in places where wars have allegedly ended.

Roderick T. Long discusses economic freedom in Athens.

John Pilger discusses Wikileaks.

Joshua Frank discusses the need to oppose all foreign intervention in Syria.

How Would Dual Power and Agorism Create a Free Society?

“Dual power” can be nicely summed up by the popular Wobbly phrase of “building the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.” Proponents of a dual power strategy share a belief in developing, at the grassroots level, an “alternative social infrastructure” that piece-by-piece replaces our statist, capitalist, society. Simply put, this revolutionary tactic involves competing with the state by building and utilizing counter-institutions that allow us to live in the type of non-oppressive world we want (as much possible) in the present. Dual power is seen as another form of civil disobedience and/or nonviolent direct action in agorist circles, but with the capability of vastly restructuring our society for ourselves and one another, while the state is left out to dry.

Insofar as how agorism may be used to create a free society, agorists believe that by using markets that operate outside the state’s purview (black and gray markets), a new economy is created alongside the existing “official” economy, slowly eroding the latter. Agorism was developed by Samuel Edward Konkin III, the late radical Rothbardian theorist, as a counter political-economic philosophy.

Examples he and modern day agorists share in vision include communities built around excess networks of producer and consumer cooperatives, small enterprises, mutual aid institutions, do-it-yourself collectives, community gardens, and credit unions that both do and do not directly conflict with capitalist institutions. If a monopoly is in operation with diseconomies of scale, dual-power should involve the act of providing the service at a smaller scale, at a more competitive ideal firm size, properly controlled and “regulated” by unionization of the working members within those firms. This “dual-power economy” would disengage, as far as possible, from the formal capitalist market economy, and increasingly create, over time, its competition within the black and gray market — leaving agorists substantially liberated to organize, produce, labor and exchange however they wish in this untaxed, non-state regulated counter-economy.

C4SS is Now on Patreon

We’re pleased to report we’re now on Patreon. Please visit our page and consider chipping in to our vital efforts on a monthly basis. Whatever amount you can give to C4SS is meaningful.

There are already countless ways to give to C4SS. Whether you want to make a one time gift or recurring monthly donations, there are a variety of ways to do so and multiple platforms to pick from. Whichever way you choose to give to C4SS, your contribution will go a long way towards helping us introduce market anarchist ideas into the stale mainstream debate.

Thanks from all of us here at the Center for a Stateless Society.

Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Market Anarchism

What’s the difference between “market anarchism” and “anarcho-capitalism”?

The difference between market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is contentious, and somewhat semantic. Anarcho-capitalists choose to use the word “capitalism” because they believe it denotes a laissez-faire system of economics, free from government control. Market anarchists are far more critical of capitalism, as they believe the term “capitalism” does not denote a truly freed economic system. Market anarchists avoid using the word “capitalism” because it often refers to our current, unfree economic system, dominated by corporations and vast income inequality. Market anarchists say that “capitalism” places too much emphasis on capital, implying rule by the owners of the means of production, a form of oppression which market anarchists oppose. Many market anarchists believe that in a freed society, the world would look very different from how it looks now under state capitalism. They believe that freed markets would not result in corporate domination and hierarchical firm structure. If such firms did exist, they would be few and far between. As Gary Chartier and Charles Johnson write in Markets Not Capitalism, “Market anarchists believe in market exchange, not in economic privilege. They believe in free markets, not in capitalism.”

Adherents of anarcho-capitalism believe a capitalist, laissez-faire economic system is desirable for maximum freedom and human flourishing. Market anarchism does not seek to prescribe a desirable economic system. Instead, market anarchists recognize that not everyone in a free society will desire to engage in a profit-oriented market, and alternative voluntary economic systems, such as cooperatives, gift economies, and communes, may flourish. While market anarchists may often advocate market exchange, pluralism and decentralization are also of great significance. As long as these different voluntary economic systems can peacefully coexist, market anarchists take no issue with such alternatives.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 100

Tom Engelhardt discusses 14 years on from 9-11.

Sheldon Richman discusses the Kim Davis issue.

Nick Turse with additional reporting from Gabriel Karon discusses U.S. military policy in Africa.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses 9-11 and blowback.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy.

Kevin Carson discusses peace through strength and other lies.

Chad Nelson discusses how Obama’s legacy will not be one of peace.

David R. Henderson discusses why the return of conscription won’t substantially reduce the probability of war.

Michael Bassett discusses the weaponization of human rights in the context of the Korean situation.

Patrick Cockburn discusses drone executions as a mark of tyranny.

Stephen Kinzer discusses the war against ISIS and staying out of it.

Todd E. Pierce discusses how U.S. war theories target dissenters.

Jonathan Cook discusses Israel.

Jacob Sullum discusses a call to bring back the War on Drugs.

George H. Smith discusses the traditional Christian take on private property.

Dan Sanchez discusses why peace can’t be achieved through politics.

Michael Swanson discusses a book about militarism.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses bringing Cold War murderers to justice.

David Boaz discusses Rand Paul.

Franklin Lamb discusses the situation in Lebanon.

Ramzy Baroud discusses Palestine and refugee crises.

Ajamu Baraka discusses the Yemen tragedy and the ongoing crisis of the left in the U.S.

David Swanson discusses Bernie Sander’s position on Saudi Arabia.

Thomas Mountain discusses blaming Africans for Western crimes.

Fred Kaplan discusses the GOP debate and foreign policy.

Dan Sanchez discusses Obama’s drone war.

Matt Peppe discusses U.S. relations with Cuba.

Nick Gillespie discusses Rand Paul’s performance in a recent GOP debate.

Cory Massimino discusses the Constitution.

Michael Swanson discusses empire, security, and the war state.

Editor’s Report, September 2015

As always, C4SS had an active month covering the world’s major headlines. Dawie Coetzee explained how the Volkswagen scandal will only serve to empower the established auto industry, Volkswagen included. Dylan Delikta looked at the Syrian refugee crisis and the insidious role that nation-states and borders play. And Ryan Calhoun took apart the Kim Davis saga, destroying the phony good vs. evil narrative surrounding Davis and Judge Bunning.

C4SS also published ACLU Sr. Editor Matthew Harwood’s excellent review of David Graeber’s The Utopia of Rules. Even Graeber himself stopped to take notice on Twitter.

We also reprinted several left-libertarian luminaries, including material from Karl Hess, Robert Anton Wilson, SEKIII and Voltairine de Cleyre. If you have requests for reprints of other anarchist classics, please reach out to us.

Finally, we’ve ramped up our output on the Stigmergy blog. We aspire to post daily and we encourage you to weigh in via the comments section.

Don’t you think this stellar output deserves a donation? It doesn’t have to be huge — whatever you can contribute will help keep C4SS going and growing.

PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A ONE TIME DONATION via Paypal:

Many thanks,
Chad

Animal Rights

I hope to review Gary Francione‘s Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? here next month. I’ve found much of what I’ve watched and read thus far from Francione compelling. In the meantime, here is a good snippet on the topic of animal rights from Corin Bruce’s essay, Green Anarchism: Towards the Abolition of Heirarchy,

The idea of animal rights proposes that the kind of moral consideration that is often granted to members of our own species should be extended to non-human animals as well. This thinking goes hand in hand with green anarchism, because it can be seen to argue — upon recognising that the hierarchies that pervade our own society should be abolished — that the hierarchies that involve the human subordination of other species of animals should be abolished for much the same reasons.

Central to this approach is the notion of ‘speciesism’, which refers to a prejudice in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species, and against the interests of members of other species. This type of hierarchy is not based upon the recognition of any actual capacities held by members of other species, but instead on the mere fact that they are not members of our own group. Importantly, the logical structure of speciesism is argued to be the same as all other forms of social hierarchy. For example, it is integral to the attempted justification of racism, which locates what someone’s race happens to be as a basis for dominating them, and just as well to sexism, which depends instead on one’s sex. As such, proponents of animal rights argue that speciesist logic is just as irrational as that of any other form of domination: just because someone else is different to me, does not mean that they do not count morally, or that they can be dominated as if they were a resource for my own ends.

If we remove the veil of speciesism, and recognise the capacities that non-human animals often genuinely do possess, then what are we left with? Despite the sometimes vast differences between humans and non-human animals, one property that we seem to hold in common is that which is argued to be crucial for moral consideration: ‘sentience’. Sentience is understood as the capacity to be conscious of the world, or in other words to have experiences from one’s own point of view, which — perhaps most importantly for animal rights — translates into the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. It follows that when a sentient non-human animal such as a pig, donkey, or fish is dominated by a hierarchical structure, that they suffer harm in much the same way that a human being does. As such, it is argued that what species one happens to be a member of is ultimately irrelevant, and that it is whether or not one is sentient — be they human or not —  that is crucial for moral consideration, meaning that anarchist struggles should be broadened to include animal liberation as well.

See also David Graham, Walter Block, and C4SS Senior Fellow Roderick Long on the issue. Chapters 2 and 5 of C4SS Senior Fellow Gary Chartier’s book, Anarchy and Legal Order, briefly touch on the issue as well.

In an email exchange, Gary also shared the following: “By far the most interesting libertarian writing about the issue of animals is Stephen R. L. Clark. (Stephen sometimes calls himself a libertarian, sometimes an “anarcho-conservative.”) I would heartily recommend The Moral Status of Animals and Animals and Their Moral Standing.”

The C4SS Q4 Tor Node Fundraiser

Essentially, the tragedy of past revolutions has been that, sooner or later, their doors closed, “at ten in the evening.” The most critical function of modern technology must be to keep the doors of the revolution open forever! –Murray Bookchin

Part of the dissolutionary strategy advocated by C4SS is called Open Source Insurgency or embracing institutional, organizational or technological innovations — low-tech or high-tech — that render centralized or authoritarian governance impossible (or so damn costly as to be regarded impossible). One of these innovations is Tor. And, so, C4SS maintains an always-on Tor Node. But we need your help.

C4SS has maintained a Tor relay node for four years. This is our fourth quarter fundraiser for this project. Every contribution will help us maintain the node until January 2016.

We encourage everyone to consider operating a Tor relay node yourself. If this, for whatever reason, is not an option, you can still support the Tor project and online anonymity with a $5 donation to the C4SS Tor relay node.

C4SS maintains a Tor relay node with a freedom friendly data center in the Netherlands. The relay is part of a global network dedicated to the idea that a free society requires freedom of information. Since June 2011 C4SS has continuously added nearly 10 Mbps of bandwidth to the network (statistics). Although we can’t know, by design, what passes through the relay, it’s entirely likely that it has facilitated communications by revolutionaries, agorists, whistleblowers, journalists working under censorious regimes and many more striving to advance the cause of liberty and the dissolution of authority.

If you believe, as we do, that Tor is one of the technologies that makes both state and corporate oppression not only obsolete, but impossible, please consider operating as a Tor relay or donating to support the C4SS node.

The State is damage, we will find a route around!

If you are interested in learning more about Tor and how to become a relay node yourself, then check out our write up on the project: Stateless Tor.

Please donate today!

Bitcoin is also welcome:

  • 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB
Leader of the Opposition?

While the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party has injected some novelty into the utterly stale state of affairs that is British party-politics, he leaves much to be desired for those seeking radical change.

My fellow traveller, Pete James put it rather well:

It took me most of the week to decide what to think about Jeremy Corbyn’s victory. Quite a discrepancy from the 2 minutes flat in which I made my mind up about the previous leader of the UK Labour party. As the days wore on that discrepancy was telling me something in itself. What was so different about Jeremy ‘hard-left’ Corbyn?

First of all he seems to have some principles. That puts him way out in from of almost everyone else in Parliament in one jump, especially most of the rest of his slimy traitorous party. His anti-war credentials are solid, he’s against the monarchy and he’s pro-trade union. These are all good things. The right wing media have him placed a little to the left of Lenin but in reality if he’s a socialist at all he’s clearly a fairly mild one and I have to say, he’s definitely too authoritarian for my taste.

Nevertheless he belongs in the small and varied little handful of British politicians who have been known to stand their ground and have even been known to risk venturing some interesting opinions (should I say wasting some interesting opinions?).

Steve Baker (Con) has come out in favour of mutualising public services and is big on money reform. Quote: “It is bitterly disappointing that so many Labour members can see nothing but either charity or the state, forgetting that the old, old Left believed in the dignity of voluntary association for mutual benefit.”

Caroline Lucas (Green) has a left-libertarian attitude to most things (of sorts) and the Greens have been particularly good on open borders and redistributing power, considering both to be an important matter of justice.

Frank Field (Lab) has some interesting ideas about mutualist style welfare provision that on second glance don’t really need the state to remain in the picture:

I propose establishing four mutuals covering pensions, a new care pension, unemployment cover and increasing over time the funding of the NHS. Each mutual would have a membership board elected by each contributor, each of the four boards would have the power to set contribution rates and entitlement so that a clear link was established between the two. Each board would also have the power to set the general strategy of the mutual and to dismiss the management board if members were so disaffected with their governance.

In fact the more I think about it the more I realise that I probably wouldn’t really have spared much of a thought for an old school, big government lefty like Jezza, but since he’s a player now he’s obviously worth talking about.

Unfortunately despite his good points I’m almost certain that he will turn out to be a disappointment, especially if he gets power. Just look at what happened with Syriza in Greece. We were all excited, then they went back on their promises, then we were all disappointed for a bit, now we’ve just forgotten about them and moved on. This pattern will repeat itself over and over again until we stop looking for a saviour and start making the changes happen ourselves.

Why the cynicism? The state is a tool for managing capitalism, the modern state developed for that purpose. Just as you wouldn’t try to do the ironing with a hammer there is no sense at all in trying to use the state to achieve socialism. Its internal logic does not allow change to come from within or from the top down. It just makes a bloody mess.

Change begins with us building the new world within the shell of the old, not as an integral part of it, or as a dependent of it but as an alternative. It is probably possible to make the state less destructive and harmful for the time being and I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that I believe some people are trying to do that but that is not the real task at hand. The big job, the one that the vast majority of us need to be urgently getting on with is making all that good stuff happen ourselves. As a big, subversive, society.

Anarcho-atheism

Over at Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux remarks on the arrogance of Pope Francis. Boudreaux is troubled by the Pope’s “jetting ostentatiously around the globe” telling other people how to arrange their economic affairs. Amen.

Unfortunately, Boudreaux’s criticism is limited solely to the Pope’s economic pronouncements. More troubling is the monopoly all Popes, the Catholic Church, and religions in general, pretend to have over morality.

As Emma Goldman stated in The Philosophy of Atheism: “Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment.”

I’d prefer the Pope stick to economic commentary. It’d make him far less dangerous.

UPDATE: Kevin Carson asks, “If Boudreaux doesn’t like the Pope jet-setting around giving other countries economic advice, I wonder what he thinks of the Chicago Boys and AEI?”

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 99

George H. Smith discusses whether Jean Meslier was a communist anarchist or not.

Michael F. Cannon discusses one GOP proposal to replace Obamacare.

Louis Lo discusses how free speech is under attack in Hong Kong.

Meagan Stiles discusses D.C.’s war on CrossFit.

Bobby Ghosh discusses an infamous bombing in Iraq.

Louis Proyect discusses an article on the conflict in Syria.

James Jay Carafano discusses America’s five worst military defeats.

Richard Burt and Dimitri K. Simes discuss foreign policy by bumper sticker.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses why great national purposes mean less freedom.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses a new conservative hero.

Spencer Ackerman discusses a call for the U.S. military to target legal critics of the War on Terror.

Ryan Calhoun discusses the colonial mindset of the Oath Keepers.

Laurence M. Vance discusses whether libertarians should vote Republican or not.

Matt Ford discusses an academic paper advocating the targeting of War on Terror critics.

Anthony Billingsley discusses why bombs can’t bring peace to Syria.

Iona Craig discusses how the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is killing civilians.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses Dick Cheney.

Laurence M. Vance discusses Obamacare and the GOP.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses closed borders between the states.

Justin Raimondo discusses the question of who will stand up to the war party.

Kevin Carson discusses Jeffrey Tucker’s book on Bitocin and P2P.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the U.S. boycott of China’s celebration of WW2.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the U.S. use and sale of cluster bombs.

George H. Smith discusses a thinker’s view of property.

Roderick T. Long discusses market competition and war.

Roderick T. Long discusses justice.

Roderick T. Long discusses how competition created Greek philosophy.

Patrick Higgins discusses his recent Jacobin article on Syria.

Ann Garrison discusses Samantha Power.

Rachel Herzing discusses police abolition.

Media Coordinator Report, August 2015

This is my first Media Coordinator report and I have a lot of ground to cover. August was the month I took over the media operations and was also the month I had to take an extended leave to get a back surgery. Thankfully, my back is fixed, bolted in place, and media coordination is up and running. Below, I post numbers for July — which I believe needed to be covered in more detail — and August. Also, I’ll make some remarks on the direction I’m taking C4SS’s media operation.

July numbers and notes:

Numbers and other interesting notes for August:

C4SS’s Media Coordination activities are undergoing an overhaul. During the many years of Tom Knapp’s tenure, C4SS’s main outreach operation was focused on trying to get our op-eds on local newspaper pages. I believe, however, that we haven’t given proper attention to websites, which have gained relevance over the years. Thus, I’ll try to do in the English Media Coordination the same thing I’ve done successfully in the Portuguese Media Coordination (which has been under my watch for over a year now) and shift focus to the internet.

My goal is to build a sizable list of local web outlets that will be getting a stream of our content — and I’ve already started doing it, having compiled a 700+ list of addresses.

Not only that, but since C4SS works on a wide range of topics, my goal is to strengthen relationships with several outlets that share some our ideas and should be open to our writing. I’ve already compiled several lists of internet media outlets that focus on a variety of topics (environmental, educational, leftist, libertarian, foreign policy, and so on), and that have been and should be open to our work. Also, since these outlets tend not to be constrained by the usual op-ed style rules, I will be sending our feature articles to the appropriate outlets as well.

The objective is to get more eyeballs on our content, and I’m determined to do it!

And if you want to support that goal, do make a donation!

The Center for a Stateless Society is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, hence any donation to us is tax-deducible.

Help us get anarchy in ever more papers and — from now on — screens!

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review 98

Jonathan Marshall discusses Chuck Schumer’s troubling Mideast record.

Robert Parry discusses the dangerous redefinition of “terrorism”.

Uri Avnery discusses the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Doug Bandow discusses why North Korea may never negotiate on nukes.

Daniel McAdams discusses the neocon foreign policy Walmart.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the plight of Syrian Kurds.

George Leef discusses government vs progress.

Doug Bandow discusses licensing and having to get permission from the government to work.

Richard Ebeling discusses the human cost of socialism in power.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses immigration policy.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses why FFF doesn’t compromise.

Todd E. Pierce discusses Ron Paul’s new book on war.

Nick Gillespie discusses why there’s no war on cops.

Jacob Sullum discusses five drug scares vs reality.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the Iranian regime’s “justice” system.

Sheldon Richman discusses Donald Trump.

Andrew J. Bacevich discusses Randolph Bourne.

Dan Sanchez discusses the creation of huddled masses.

Ivan Eland discusses the situation in Iraq.

Jonathan Cook discusses the Israeli prime minister’s push against the Iran deal.

Eric Draitser discusses America’s imperial footprint in Africa.

Glenn Greenwald discusses Hilary’s recent militarist speech at the Brookings Institution.

Nick Turse discusses special ops training missions.

Ivan Eland discusses the U.S. response to the Syrian refugee crisis.

Robert Parry discusses how neocons destabilized Europe.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses 4 wars that are undermining our freedom.

Laurence M. Vance discusses the simplicity of libertarianism.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the way back from 9-11.

David S. D’Amato discusses occupational licensing.

Peter Beinart discusses Cheney’s lust for war with Iran.

Anarchy and Democracy
Fighting Fascism
Markets Not Capitalism
The Anatomy of Escape
Organization Theory