The following article is translated into Dutch from the English original, written by Kevin Carson.

Na het voeden van een menigte van vijf duizend man met vijf stukken brood en twee vissen werd Jezus Christus van Nazareth geïnformeerd door de handelsvereniging dat hij handelde in strijd met de Vermenigvuldiging-door-Wonderen wet.

Wonder verichtende rabbis zoals Mr. J. Christus, en hun vermeende eigendomsfraude, zijn de laatste jaren het middelpunt van een controverse. Ze zijn het doelwit van media campagne georganiseerd door de stichting Bescherming Rechten Etenswaar Industrie Nazareth-Galilea-Juda (BREIN). Brood en vis producenten menen dat de onwettige vermenigvuldiging van etenswaren hetzelfde is als stelen omdat het hun flink wat winst doet mislopen. Sympathiserende rabbi’s in heel Palestina dragen de berichten van BREIN voor in de synagogen. De media campagne van Brein heeft als doel het algemene beeld van piraterij te veranderen.  De rabbi’s vertellen hun volgelingen: “Verdienen de bakkers en de vissermannen het niet om betaald te worden?” Veel Thora scholen hebben nu anti-etenswarenpiraterij lessen in hun curiculum op genomen.

In een gerelateerd nieuwsbericht van vorige week; “De Wijn Industrie Vereniging van Palestina heeft uitspraken gedaan uit bezorgheid over de meldingen dat Jezus ook wijn uit het niets heeft gemaakt op een trouwfeest in Cana, Galilei.”

Helersverenigingen hebben laatst een onderzoek gepubliceerd waarin verslagen van ooggetuigen erop wijzen dat Jezus de heelkunde bedrijft zonder hiervoor een opleiding gevolgd te hebben. Een vergunning heeft Jezus ook niet voor het genezen van mensen. Deze illegale praktijken, als we de laatste berichten mogen geloven, hebben zich verspreid tot het genezen van lepra patienten, de kreupelen, de manken, de blinden, een man met een verlamde hand en een vrouw met bloedarmoede. De medische industrie veroordeelt de acties van J.Christus als oneerlijke concurrentie. Een woordvoerder van de Galileesche Vereniging voor Heelkunde laat weten dat “het oneerlijk is om van een legitieme heelmeester te verwachten om te concurreren met één of andere timmerman die met zijn handjes wuifd en mensen zo gratis zorg biedt. Vooral omdat legitieme heelmeesters jaren lang hebben moeten werken als student, en hierdoor ook een studie schuld moeten afbetalen.”

De Vakbond van Balsemers heeft ook geklaagd over de geruchten dat er mensen uit de dood opstaan. Rechtskundige laten weten dat er op dit moment geen wet bestaat die dit illegaal maakt.

Tegelijkertijd is er een groeiende beweging van mensen die zich tegen de label van ‘piraat’ keren. Ze beweren dat het kopiëren van eten geen diefstal is omdat het nieuwe eten niks veranderd aan de hoeveelheid van het oude eten. Visser Sjimon bar Jona van Galilei en zijn broer Andreas zijn het hier over eens “In plaats van het onderdrukken van de concurrentie zou de visindustrie zijn ouderwetse systeem moeten vervangen met een nieuw model. Er zijn gelegenheden genoeg voor iedereen die wil innoveren. Wij verliezen geen goudstuk door het delen van Jezus.”

Maar de autoriteiten pikken het niet. Pontius Pilatus, preafectus van Judea, heeft laatst laten weten dat hij hard zal optreden tegen smaakpiraten als Jezus. “Als je denkt dat ik water zal nemen en mijn handen zal wassen voor de schare dan heb je het mis. Het repliceren van brood, vis en wijn is hetzelfde als stelen. Hetzelfde als een ramkraak bij de Albert Heijn. Dit is godverdomme belangrijk!”

Volgende week: Johan Gutenberg, illegale boekendeler.

Originele artikel geplaatst op 6 September 2011 door Kevin Carson

Vertaald vanuit het Engels door: Christiaan Elderhorst

According to a recent survey at ZeroHedge.com, Americans age 18-29 respond negatively on net to the word “capitalism” (47/46), versus a net favorable (49/43) response to “socialism.”

A lot of the blame for response this can be laid at the feet of the capitalists themselves. As I’ve said many times, if the “free market” meant what capitalist apologists mean by it, I’d hate it myself. Young people constantly hear “free market capitalism” used as if it were one word. And hear see politicians, corporate spokespersons and media talking heads explaining that stuff like patent-inflated drug prices, skyrocketing CEO pay and stagnant wages, the Keystone XL corporate welfare scam and the Bain Capital model of strip-shop capitalism are all parts of “our free enterprise system.”

Twenty-somethings are presumably reacting to the connotations “capitalism” = “everyone gets screwed over so the rich can get richer, and “socialism” = “people are treated like human beings.” These connotations are promoted by both mainstream coalitions in our society; the only difference is people like Romney talk like it’s a Good Thing for people to get screwed over to make the rich richer.

Meanwhile, the dirty little secret of the Democratic side is that all these “progressives” promoting state intervention to make capitalism less onerous to those under its yoke (aka “help working families”) are just another wing of the same capitalist ruling class. The main reason they do this, and the main reason they expanded the social safety net under FDR and LBJ, is to stabilize capitalism — to enable it to extract profits on a more sustainable basis on the long run.

As Marx said of the Ten-Hour Day law in Britain, the primary function of “progressive” legislation by the capitalist state is to overcome Prisoner’s Dilemma problems among individual capitalists and force them to act in the collective interest of capital — in his words, to come to an agreement on the manuring of their fields so individual farmers don’t strip the soil in the interest of short-term profit.

I like to depict conservatives and liberals as farmers. The conservative farmer thinks she’ll come out ahead giving her livestock short rations, working them to death and replacing them. The liberal thinks she’ll get a higher margin in the long run by taking care of them and working them in moderation. What the Democrats and Republicans don’t tell us is that they both represent different factions of capital — both of them interested in us primarily for our services as livestock.

This is a huge opportunity for us on the libertarian Left to propagate the meme of freed markets as an egalitarian force against corporate power and plutocracy.

This target demographic, for the past several weeks, has had its YouTube videos repeatedly interrupted by Thomas Peterffy’s pearl-clutching at the idea of equality as if it were an abomination straight out of the Communist Manifesto. They’re wide open to be exposed to the truth: Present levels of inequality exist because billionaires, CEOs and corporate welfare queens are the primary beneficiaries of state intervention in the market.

What’s happened is, the 18-29s have bought into the meme that what we have now (corporate plutocracy) is what naturally happens when there’s no state interference in the market. Because neither the Democratic nor the Republican wing of the corporate ruling class has any interest whatsoever in challenging this misconception, these young people have predictably decided that Western European-style social democracy isn’t so bad after all. Of course! If I thought the only alternatives were the kind of banana republic people like Tom Delay and Dick Armey want, and German-style work hours and a social safety net, I’d choose social democracy myself.

So we need to be telling as many people as possible that these are not the only alternatives. We need to be promoting the hell out of the meme — something many have yet to hear for the first time — that the state is the chief culprit behind the system of corporate plutocracy we have now. We need to share the truth — carefully concealed by both Obama and Romney, that it’s the capitalists’ state.

Translations for this article:

• Russian, Ну конечно же они ненавидят капитализм.

There is a popular idea that a functional society requires a government to hold it together – a body of people who govern the rest. But what does it mean to be governed?

The first person known to adopt the label “anarchist” gives us some idea:

“It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be … exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused … disarmed … imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon gave us more verbs to go with that, but we’ll start here.

Government is not just a friendly association that keeps us safe, builds our bridges, cleans the streets – or contracts with private companies, often in backroom deals, to do these things.

Government is the body by which some people govern others – an instrument of rule by some over others. This is an inherently unequal relationship that allows people with the most access to power – typically those with something to offer other power players – to exert unfair advantages over other people. It sets up a hierarchy where some are expected to yield and some are given the privilege of initiating force due to the title of their office or the type of work clothes they wear. Being allowed to vote and protest does not mean that you are not expected to yield to the people in charge.

This is what I see as the foundation of the anarchist case against government.

Anarchy means without rulers. To the anarchist, no imposition of authority is considered legitimate.

Anarchy, put this way, is not an unachievable perfect utopia, nor something that we can have immediately, nor something that we have to wait generations for as we bide our time. But then again, it is kind of all these things.

The word anarchy can describe an ideal world where there is no authority, no subjugation, no rule of one individual over another – an ideal that societies move toward but can never fully reach. But anarchy can also describe a society where norms of anarchism are widely adopted – where impositions of authority are viewed as unjust and are met with efforts to resist or alleviate them.

In one sense we can we have this immediately – in everyday life, in social circles where individual autonomy and individuality are respected and suppressing them is not, and leadership in particular areas is gained through respect, not by pulling rank.

But to achieve this society-wide, it is necessary to create incentives that encourage others to behave and think this way in more social contexts, expanding communities of freedom.

Henry David Thoreau, who didn’t identify as an anarchist but was animated by the same libertarian spirit that drives anarchism, began his famous Civil Disobedience essay with a guiding principle.

“I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

How do people prepare for no government? The attempt to answer this question is one way to look at the anarchist project.

Some folks who agree with Thoreau here might say, “Right! We need to prepare people to govern themselves – by reducing the size of government and encouraging self-reliance.”

Others who read Thoreau might say, “Right! We need to use government to protect people from concentrated wealth while they prepare for self-governance.”

Still, others might say, “Right! Once we’re ready to make the revolution, the government will no longer be in the way of our efforts to make a free society!”

There is something to all of these views, but they don’t really connect to the track that anarchism is in – though people who identify as anarchists have expressed similar views.

Here we come to a real paradox of anarchism – it is a movement that cannot really be led in a traditional sense as you can’t force people to be free and coercing people to prepare for self-government would make you a ruler.

Yes, telling people why anarchy would be preferable to authority is important – but teaching requires more than preaching.

Education is one key to the anarchist project. It is not just about what is being taught but in how it is being taught. People participating in the pursuit of truth, often with the guidance of people with experience in the field, or collaborating with other learners, is not the same process as one group of people drilling dogma into the heads of others. Anarchists have recognized this. Their leading role in the Modern School Movement, which featured a student-directed approach aimed at developing children and adults, without regard to gender or class, into more complete individuals, is one example.

Concrete incentives are important to getting people to move in an anarchist direction. This is not separate from education, as the access to a quality education that respects freedom and won’t put you in debt is a valuable product. But it goes beyond education. To put it simply, if a movement is seen as providing concrete benefits to an individual and the people he or she cares most about, that individual is more likely to support that movement. This doesn’t mean pandering or selling out – it means applying principles in ways that help people.

Don’t think that government is feeding the needy? Then establish ways for the needy to feed themselves. This principle goes for creating new organizations and turning existing organizations toward liberty.

Don’t tell me – show me! Even better, make the show a production I want to participate in.

Culture underlies all of this. It is important to establish culture that respects liberty and wants to make individual sovereignty mean something by helping individuals get what they need to become sovereign over their own lives – to have a good ability to choose who, if anyone, to depend on.

Where did anarchism come from?

Anarchism as an idea and a movement emerged in the mid-nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. It opposed both the monarchies of European reactionaries and the emergent capitalist order that many saw as exploitative. It came from the ideas of utopian experimenters, labor reformers, and classical liberal intellectuals – which were overlapping categories at the time.

They recognized that liberty, equality, fraternity, and individual sovereignty were threatened by the existence of the state and by the concentrations of economic power wrought by coercion. They understood that any state – even one run by workers – was a dangerous instrument of oppression.

A number of schools of anarchism have sprung up since Proudhon proclaimed himself an anarchist in 1840.

Those who most closely followed Proudhon’s economic system adopted the label mutualist. Typically mutualists support individual possession backed by mutual banking systems, emphasize associations between free laborers, and reject property titles not based on occupancy and use, such as the landed estates that rule over laborers based on historic access to state administrators. Like most anarchists, mutualists hold that resources will become more widely available as the restrictions and privileges upheld by the state are removed.

Individualist anarchism also took root in the 1840s. Josiah Warren’s experience with American utopian colonies had convinced him that upholding the sovereignty of the individual and ensuring that every person received the full value of his labor were crucial ingredients for a successful equitable society. His writings had a profound influence on other libertarians in America. In Germany, Max Stirner came out with his 1845 book The Ego and His Own, which rejected morality and absolutes. Stirner’s egoism later became an influence on anarchists, and many, including Benjamin Tucker, incorporated Stirner’s ideas into their thought.

Collectivist anarchism, which was advocated by international man of revolution Mikhail Bakunin, emphasizes the collective association of workers instead of individual ownership like the mutualists and individualists. Labor was seen as a social endeavor and individuals could access the products of society so far as they contributed to it with their own labor.

Anarchist communism, advocated by Peter Kropotkin, goes farther by holding that individuals should work in common and receive resources based upon their needs, rather than upon their deeds.

Anarchist syndicalism takes the federated labor union as the basis for organizing revolutionary action as well as the basis for economic organization in an anarchist society. Workers’ federations would run factories, farms, and other workplaces.

Anarcho-capitalism was first expressed in the mid-twentieth century by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, but was largely anticipated by Gustave de Molinari in his 1849 essay, “The Production of Security.” Anarcho-capitalists draw heavily on studies in economics, often in the Austrian school, to advocate a society where services typically provided by government are instead provided by market actors. Anarcho-capitalists generally see exchanges in a free market as choices made among equals and are therefore less concerned about credit, interest, rent, and labor issues than other anarchists.

Note that some anarchists would exclude other categories from anarchism. To me if the anarcho comes first and the economic preferences second then an advocate of any of these schools can rightfully be categorized as anarchist.

A number of other labels have been adopted by anarchists to show a particular emphasis in their goals and methods, and adopting one label by no means excludes the ideas of another. Anarcho-pacifism, related to Christian anarchism and the writings of Tolstoy, opposes any use of force or violence as inherently authoritarian. Green anarchism, of which primitivism is one subset, has a particular focus on ecology. Anarcha-feminism analyzes and combats patriarchy with anarchist principles. Anarcho-transhumanism explores the relationship between anarchist thought and major scientific advancements in human longevity and capability. Agorism sees opportunities for liberation in markets that aren’t sanctioned by the state.

All anarchists seek the greatest freedom for each individual, unrestrained by political, social, or economic authority.

The state is nothing mystical, but is an institution made of people. It is a social organization that incentives certain behavior, generally worse behavior than that encouraged by free association on principles of cooperation and solidarity. The state relies for its existence on force and deference to people of higher rank. It enforces its own monopoly. To get to the top, political leaders must please powerful interests and usually continue working with certain interests in order to stay in power.

Reforms that pass down through the government structure are filtered through layers of bureaucrats and administrators who will do what they can to improve their position and pass on the weight of governance to others. Government agencies are oriented to please politicians, not the public, and government enforcers owe allegiance to internal culture and rules, not to the outside community.

Social authority is the power exercised by prevailing custom, privileging some customs and lifestyles over others. When social harmony is based on respect for individuality and people are free to develop according to their wishes rather than fit into roles that others have given them, it creates a favorable environment for individual freedom and social progress.

Authority in the economic realm exists because the ability to achieve economic security and advancement is restricted by state regulations and economic elites, putting some in a disadvantageous or even desperate position.

Free association on anarchist principles will make society more productive and decrease inequality. Any inequality that does arise from different choices will be much less threat to liberty and autonomy because there will be greater alternatives in place and greater opportunity to create alternatives.

Anarchists who favor market mechanisms as an important component of a free society could be called market anarchists.

Do the words market and capitalism mean the same thing? This brings up a worthwhile semantics discussion.

The word capitalism, by its etymology, suggests an ideology of capital, favoring one factor in production over another. What is commonly called capitalism is often characterized by separation of ownership and labor, and a hierarchical employer-employee relationship (not to mention banksters and annoying over-commercialization).

A market could have these things – but a market itself is just a space of buying and selling. With a dispersal of economic power, more people have the power to buy and sell.

Some anarchists disagree. They think that the existence of a market means people will use their accumulated capital to take advantage of others.

The amount of wealth people have will never be equal and no attempt at perfect economic equality should be made, but when people are economically secure and value freedom highly they will protect their freedom, not sell it, so there would be nobody for the rich to take advantage of.

Economic security is one cornerstone of autonomy, and market anarchism shows its egalitarian nature as it aims for more generalized prosperity.

But action always proceeds from values and a free society must have the values of solidarity and  mutual aid – part of a complete package of upholding individual autonomy. The sovereignty of the individual requires individuals to have power over their own lives.

The value of mutual aid – helping people when they need it and expecting they will do the same for you – has been demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Many first-hand reports underscore the lack of help from government agencies or the Red Cross. But a massive community response through personal connections and local organizations has arisen. A big one is the Occupy movement, which declared its intention to Occupy Sandy and launched massive efforts to provide relief. The benefit of motivated individuals drawing on local knowledge and networks to help each other has proved to be of immense value.

Anarchism envisions an active civil life of voluntary organizations operating on libertarian principles – social action that fills the gaps now held open by authority and its impact on personal life. Growing the libertarian social sphere makes the anarchist society more viable.

Getting to the world where no authority is recognized as legitimate will not be easy. The state and authoritarian structures are deeply rooted. But by dealing honestly and effectively with today’s problems, libertarians can invite participation in exciting and innovative paths toward liberty. In doing so, we prepare people for government which governs not at all – by motivating them to prepare themselves.

The following article is translated into Dutch from the English original, written by Nathan Goodman.

De meest voorkomende mythe over de politie is dat de politie er is om het volk te beschermen tegen criminaliteit. Soms doen ze dit werk goed maar meer dan eens is de politie zelf crimineel bezig. Hier heb ik het niet alleen over kleine vergrijpen; ik heb het over aanranding en verkrachting.

Neem bijvoorbeeld de zaak van politie agent Michael Vagnini uit Milwaukee. Op 9 oktober werd Vagnini aangeklaagd voor het onvrijwillig binnendringen met zijn vinger in de anus van verdachten wegens het ‘op zoek zijn naar drugs’.

De FBI omschrijft verkrachting als het “penetreren van de anus of vagina doormiddel van een object of lichaamsdeel”. Door deze definitie te gebruiken heeft Vagnini meerder mensen verkracht terwijl hij zijn werk uitvoerde. Naar verluidt zorgde dit bij een verdachte tot anale bloedingen die meerdere dagen duurde.

In plaats van het beschermen van het volk kozen andere agenten ervoor om hun collega te beschermen en te assisteren. In een incident werd een verdachte vastgehouden door andere agenten terwijl Vagnini hem verkrachtte. Daarbij was de politie van Milwaukee al ‘een paar jaar’ bekend met dit soort incidenten. Maar ze wachtte tot ‘de autoriteiten een patroon konden herkennen’ voor zij maatregelen zouden nemen om de agent verantwoordelijk te stellen. Oftewel; De politie wist dat Vagnini een verkrachter was, maar ze moesten wachten tot ze iets deden tot dat ze hadden vastgesteld dat hij een serieverkrachter was.

Dit verhaal is verschrikkelijk maar helaas geen uitzondering. In de Amerikaanse staat Utah is het bekend dat de politie katheterisatie onderzoeken doet. Hierbij brengen ze onvrijwillig een katheter in bij de urinebuis van een arrestant om de arrestant op drugs te kunnen testen. In 2004 werd Haley Hooper door vier agenten tegen de grond geduwd terwijl er een katheter bij haar werd ingebracht. Hoewel dit wettelijke als verkrachting moet worden gezien werden de agenten in kwestie beschermd door wetten die ambtenaren in functie hiervoor immuun stellen. Agenten die zich schuldig maakten aan andere gevallen van katheterisatie onderzoeken weren bevorderd in plaats van terechtgesteld.

Deze verkrachtingen gebeurden onder het excuus van het vergaren van bewijsmateriaal maar sommige agenten gaan nog een stapje verder. Craig Nash, een politieagent uit San Antonio (California, VS) verkrachtte naar verluidt een prostituee toen hij haar had aangehouden. In deze zaak was er DNA bewijs aanwezig, wat in normale omstandigheden meer dan genoeg bewijs is voor een veroordeling. Maar Nash wist zijn verdediging zo te voeren dat hij werd veroordeeld tot ‘ambtsrechtelijke onderdrukking’, waar maar een jaar celstraf op staat.

Tegelijkertijd werd het slachtoffer van de verkrachting, een transseksuele vrouw, opgesloten in een mannengevangenis. Hier werd ze waarschijnlijk opnieuw slachtoffer van meervoudig seksueel geweld en mishandeling. Als dit niet het geval dan komt dat omdat zij voor haar eigen veiligheid werd opgesloten in een isoleercel. Hoe dan ook werd het slachtoffer van Nash harder gestraft door het rechtssysteem dan de man die haar verkrachtte.

Dit zijn maar een paar voorbeelden. Charles Johnson van het Molinari Instituut heeft veel meer van dit soort zaken gedocumenteerd in een serie van blogberichten onder de naam “Rapists on Patrol.” (Verkrachters op Patrouille).

Verkrachtingen en aanrandingen worden vaak niet gemeld. Volgens het Amerikaanse ‘National Crime Victimization Survey’ worden 54% van de verkrachtingen niet gemeld bij de politie. Hiervoor zijn vele redenen. Bijvoorbeeld zouden slachtoffers bang kunnen zijn dat zij veel nauwkeuriger onderzocht zullen worden dan de daders, en dat de meest intieme details van hun privéleven gebruikt zullen worden voor slachtofferbeschuldigingen.

Maar wanneer de verkrachter een agent is wordt het nog onaantrekkelijker om het misdrijf te melden. De verkrachter wordt niet alleen beschermd door seksistische sociale normen maar ook door zijn machtige rol in het strafrechtssysteem. Hierbij zou ik stellen dat de verkrachtingen door agenten waar wij van afweten pas het tipje van de sluier doen oplichten.

Er wordt ons verteld dat de politie noodzakelijk is om ons te beschermen van de misdaad. Maar tegelijkertijd zijn het de politiemensen die zich ook schuldig maken aan dit soort afgrijselijke misdrijven. En vaak beschermd het rechtssysteem hen terwijl ze dit doen.

Tegelijkertijd is het rechtssysteem van de overheid ongelofelijk ongeschikt in het oplossen van verkrachtingen die door burgers gepleegd worden. Volgens het Amerikaanse ‘Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network’ zullen 97% van verkrachters geen nacht in een cel doorbrengen.

Om dit op te lossen hebben wij een nieuw systeem nodig – een systeem waarin alle daders van gewelddadige misdrijven verantwoordelijk zijn voor hun daden, zonder de bevoorrechting en onrecht die karakteristiek zijn voor de heerschappij van de overheid.

Originele artikel geplaatst op 12 October 2012 door Nathan Goodman
Vertaald vanuit het Engels door: Christiaan Elderhorst

Professors Horwitz and Shapiro both raise helpful, thoughtful questions about the persistence of hierarchy in a stateless society.

Per the request of BHL, the comments will be turned off here so that they can be redirected to the original article.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Além do Chefismo.

Remember two months ago, on the anniversary of Occupy Wall Street’s insertion into national and popular culture, when all the major media outlets declared Occupy dead?

Those very same media outlets had to swallow those words in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, when activists from OWS formed a new group — Occupy Sandy — to help afflicted communities in New York recover from the “superstorm’s” devastation.

They had to swallow their words again when Occupy Sandy began outperforming organizations whose very job it is to help communities bounce back after disasters. When the Federal Emergency Management Agency shut its doors at the onset of a second storm, a Nor’easter, blowing through New York City, Occupy Sandy picked up their slack.

This became such a big deal that even the New York Times — which historically has not been very kind to movements centered around highlighting economic inequality — could not ignore it:

Maligned for months for its purported ineffectiveness, Occupy Wall Street has managed through its storm-related efforts not only to renew the impromptu passions of Zuccotti, but also to tap into an unfulfilled desire among the residents of the city to assist in the recovery. This altruistic urge was initially unmet by larger, more established charity groups, which seemed slow to deliver aid and turned away potential volunteers in droves during the early days of the disaster.

In the past two weeks, Occupy Sandy has set up distribution sites at a pair of Brooklyn churches where hundreds of New Yorkers muster daily to cook hot meals for the afflicted and to sort through a medieval marketplace of donated blankets, clothes and food. There is an Occupy motor pool of borrowed cars and pickup trucks that ferries volunteers to ravaged areas. An Occupy weatherman sits at his computer and issues regular forecasts. Occupy construction teams and medical committees have been formed.

This is not the first time grassroots, activist-based aid groups have outclassed both federal and non-profit disaster relief. Hurricane Katrina saw the formation of the Common Ground Relief Collective. That organization, founded with the principles of horizontal, voluntary association and direct action in mind, began helping people in the Lower Ninth Ward before FEMA or the Red Cross could even set up camp.

These ad hoc groups of activists and volunteers seem to work better than the government or NGOs, but why?

One possible reason is that the activists and volunteers are pulled from the affected communities themselves, rather than coming from without — therefore, they understand the neighborhoods they’re working in, know the people and can gauge their needs quickly. However, this is not always the case; Common Ground was started by four out-of-town street medics.

Another possibility is that horizontally organized groups based on the principles of free association and mutual aid are just superior to organizations steeped in bureaucracy. The evidence for this is growing rapidly, as more people take control of their own lives and help their neighbors during times of crisis, economic, ecological or otherwise.

Like a scene from “Maximum Overdrive,” only with a Mitt Romney fan behind the wheel:

[Police allege that] Holly Solomon, 28, chased her 36-year-old husband Daniel Solomon with the family Jeep SUV on Saturday night over a political argument stemming from the fact he didn’t vote, CBS station KPHO in Phoenix, Ariz. reported. She pinned him between the underside of the SUV and the curb when he tried to run for help.

The husband told investigators that Solomon believed her family was going to face hardship from President Barack Obama’s re-election.

Witnesses told police that Solomon followed her husband in her car through a parking lot while screaming at him. He hid behind a light pole to protect himself while Solomon circled several times. She struck him as he tried to make a break for the main road.

Seems a little over the top, doesn’t it? Even if voting could change some things, Daniel Solomon’s vote wouldn’t have changed anything: Romney carried Arizona by close to 200,000 votes. And punishing all 4.6 million Arizona non-voters in this way might backfire and increase sentiment for a “crazed Republican driver” addendum to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.

Some terms and phrases are well suited to lucid discourse and even debate. This is generally the case when they have a commonly accepted meaning, when they are generally used–or are capable of being used–with some precision, and when they are not overloaded with connotations. The fact that people differ as to the value or desirability of what the terms signify does not disqualify them. Otherwise, debaters would have to employ different terminology, depending on which side they were on. For example, it seems to me that “free market” meets the criteria of a phrase well suited to discourse and debate.

That is, “free market” has a commonly accepted meaning, can be used with precision, and is not overloaded with meaning so as to be value-laden. A free market is a market open to all peaceful traders, one in which sellers are free to sell to the highest bidder and buyers are free to buy what they will from whatever seller they will. Or, to put it another way, it is a market in which buyers and sellers are free to contract without obstruction or interference from government.

Thus when government intervenes in the market so as to restrict the number of sellers or buyers, to set prices, or to prescribe quality, it is not a free market. It is possible to oppose or favor such a market while agreeing as to what constitutes a free market. Nor do differences as to the extent of freedom entailed necessarily rule out the use of the phrase in discourse.

In a similar fashion “free enterprise” and “private property” generally meet the tests as terms of discourse. Enterprise is free when all who can and will may produce and dispose of their goods to willing buyers. The opposite of free enterprise would be government-granted monopoly over any field of endeavor, or the restriction of it through franchises, licenses, or other devices which exclude some enterprisers. The phrase can be used both by those who favor and those who oppose it, though those who oppose it might prefer other language. Private property is simply property that is privately owned, and the owner is protected in his enjoyment of it by government. I have not, of course, exhausted the distinctions nor covered all the areas about which disagreement may exist for any of these phrases, but it was my purpose only to make a prima facie case for them as terms of discourse.

Capitalism: A Value-Laden Word

The same does not go, however, for capitalism. It does not have a commonly accepted meaning, proponents of it to the contrary notwithstanding. As matters stand, it cannot be used with precision in discourse. And it is loaded with connotations which make it value-laden. Indeed, it is most difficult for those who use it from whatever side not to use it simply as an “angel” or “devil” word, i.e., to signify something approved or disapproved. Meanwhile, what that something is goes largely unspecified because it is hidden beneath a blunderbuss word.

My considered opinion is that capitalism is not a descriptive word at all in general usage. Dictionary-like definitions may give it the appearance of being descriptive. One dictionary defines it as “a system under which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in large measure privately owned and directed.” On the face of it, the meaning may appear clear enough. We can come in sight of the difficulty, however, if we turn the whole thing around and look at what is supposed to be signified, shutting out of our minds for the moment the word used to signify it. Suppose, that is, that we have a set of arrangements in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods “are in large measure privately owned and directed.” I am acquainted with such arrangements, both from history and from some present-day actualities.

But why should we call such arrangements capitalism? So far as I can make out, there is no compelling reason to do so. There is nothing indicated in such arrangements that suggests why capital among the elements of production should be singled out for emphasis. Why not land? Why not labor? Or, indeed, why should any of the elements be singled out? Well, why not call it capitalism, it may be asked? A rose by any other name, Shakespeare had one of his characters say, would smell as sweet. That argument is hardly conclusive in this case, however, nor in others similar to it. Granted, when a phenomenon is identified it may be assigned a name, and in the abstract one name will do as well as another, if the name be generally accepted. In the concrete, however, the name should either follow from the nature of the phenomenon or be a new word. Otherwise, it will bring confusion into the language.

Marxist Derivations

Capitalism, as a word, does not conform to these strictures. Its root is capital, an already well established word in economics, used to refer to one of the elements of production. Moreover, capitalism gave a form to the word that already had a more or less established significance. When an “ism” is added to a word it denotes a system of belief, and probably what has come to be called an ideology. It is highly unlikely, if not linguistically impossible, for such a formulation to serve as a neutrally descriptive word for the private ownership of the means of production, and so on.

But we are not restricted to theory in our efforts to discover whether capitalism is simply a neutrally descriptive word. It was given currency in the highly charged formulations of Karl Marx and other enemies of private property. Marx’s fame hardly stemmed from any powers he may have had for neutral description. On the contrary, he is best known for his extensive efforts to reduce all of reality and all relationships to the point where they fitted within the ideological scheme of class struggle. He had the kind of mind that reduces everything to a place within a single dominant system. Thus, the private production of goods is a system, a system reduced in his scheme to capitalism.

In discussing the dictionary-like definition of capitalism, I dropped the word “system” used in the dictionary and substituted the word “arrangement” for it. I did so because it seemed to me that a society could have arrangements in which the production of goods would be privately owned without this constituting a system. Arrangements for distinguishing between claimants of property and protecting such claims are necessary in society. But “system” is ominous when linked to capitalism on the one hand and the production, distribution, and exchange of goods on the other.

Private ownership of the means of production does not dictate any particular mode of production. In point of fact, a great variety of modes of production do occur under private ownership. A man may own his own land and cultivating devices and produce what he will by his own efforts. Many have, and some do. Or, to take the other extreme, production may be organized in great factories by intricate division of labor and under extensive supervision and direction. Between these two extremes, there are in fact a great range of ways in which production and distribution have been and are carried on. Indeed, it is only where private property is the rule that this variety is possible.

In Marx’s mental world this variety and diversity could not exist, or, if it did, it could not last. It must all be finally reduced to a single system–capitalism. And capitalism led to greater and greater concentrations of wealth until all was in a few hands. Then, of course, the apocalypse must come, the revolution, in which an impoverished proletariat would rise up in its wrath and seize the instruments of production, and so on and on through the whole Marxian scenario. The word capitalism still carries the overtones of this Marxian analysis. For example, the dictionary from which was drawn the earlier definition gives as further definitions of capitalism: “the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, or the resulting power or influence,” and “a system favoring such concentration of wealth.” Another dictionary says, “The state of owning or controlling capital, especially when tending to monopoly; the power so held.”

The High Cost of Salvage

In sum, capitalism gained its currency from Marx and others as a blunderbuss word, misnames what it claims to identify, and carries with it connotations which unfit it for precise use in discourse. Even so, there has been a considerable effort to reclaim the word for discourse by some of those who are convinced of the superiority of privately owned capital in the production, distribution, and exchange of goods. It is a dubious undertaking. For one thing, Marx loaded the word, and when all that he put into it has been removed, only the shell remains. For another, linguistically, it does not stand for private property, free enterprise, and the free market. It is false labeling to make it appear to do so. Capitalism means either a system in which capital holds sway, which is largely what Marx apparently meant, or an ideology to justify such a system.

It is not my point, however, that it might not be possible to use capitalism as a label for private property, free enterprise, and the free market. Indeed, I think it has been done at what I call the bumper-sticker level of discourse in the United States. Undoubtedly, if enough effort were put into it the name of roses could be changed to “tomatoes.” But I doubt that the game is worth the candle. Moreover, there is no real discourse, nor discursive reasoning, at the bumper-sticker level. Bumper stickers assert; they do not reason or prove. So do titles of books, for example. But labeling is an inferior art, and name-calling is a form of propaganda. Thus the problem of discourse with a word such as capitalism remains.

It is not my intention, however, to suggest that we should discard the word capitalism. Far from it. Rather, I see the need for the use of the word in its inherent sense in serious discourse. A word, certainly a word formed with an “ism” suffix, is governed by and takes its meaning from its root. Granted, words sometimes slip their moorings in the course of time and lose all connection with earlier meanings. This is apt to happen, I suspect, when the root word has fallen into disuse. That has by no means happened in the case of capital. Capital itself is as important today as ever, and the word is still in widespread use to describe it with considerable precision. Moreover, something that I would like to see correctly identified as capitalism is widespread, if not rampant, in the world.

Keeping in mind that capitalism, because of the “ism,” is ideological in form, it means most basically an ingrained preference for capital over the other elements of production. That is, it means an imbedded preference for (or commitment to) capital over land and labor. Considered as a system, capitalism is the establishment of that preference by the exercise of government power. To put it into more precise economic terms, it is the forced transformation of some greater or lesser portion of the wealth of a people into capital. In political terms, it is the legalization and institutionalization of a preference for capital.

State Capitalism

Ironically, in view of Marx and socialist doctrine generally, capitalism is most rampant in communist countries. It is there that the most extreme measures are taken to accumulate capital. The Soviet Union, for example, has long used slave labor to mine gold in forbidding climes. It has done the same for cutting timber in the arctic cold of Siberia and for reaching other hard-to-get natural resources. The basic aim of much of this is capital accumulation to foster industrialization. There is perhaps no better way to visualize the preference for capital over labor than political prisoners (slave labor) working in gold mines. But it does take other forms. There is confiscatory taxation, in which most of the wealth of all who produce is taken away for use by the state. The capital hunger in Third World countries is ravenous today, as they reach out to try to obtain it from countries in which there is more wealth. The thrust is for industrialization, and the industries are usually owned by the government.

Some writers who have noted this penchant of socialist and communist countries for capital have called it state capitalism. While the phrase is not objectionable, it may well be redundant. If my analy-sis is correct, all capitalism is state-imposed capital-ism. Otherwise, it is most unlikely that there would be an established preference for capital over land and labor.

Granted, some people in their private affairs do evince a preference for capital over other sorts of expenditures. I have known men, for example, who were much more given to buying tools and various equipment than clothes. But then the same men often spend more on automobiles, not usually capital expenditures, than on either. Nor is it likely that businessmen, however enamored they may be with machinery or computers, will make so bold as to ignore the market for long in determining the mix of the elements of production. Only governments, because they spend what they have not earned, can afford to do that or have the power to require others to ignore the market. Capitalism is a will-of-the-wisp unless it is established by the state.

A Red Herring

The notion that the conflict in the world is between capitalism and socialism is a Marxian red herring. Whether Marx deliberately conceived a perverse term to designate the conflict or not, it has had remarkable success in confusing the issue. In Marxian terms, capitalism is not simply the private control over the instruments of production. It is the effective ownership and control over the instruments of production by a few men with vast concentrated wealth at their disposal. In Marxian terms, again, this great wealth was obtained by the ruthless exploitation of workers. To argue the opposite position is to risk falling into a fairly well-laid trap. At the most obvious level, it is to take on a variation of the old conundrum of whether or not you are still beating your wife.

Thus the defender of capitalism begins by granting that, sure, nineteenth-century capitalists were a hard lot. But that has all changed in the twentieth century, he maintains; humane legislation and genteel businessmen have changed all that. To sustain this argument, he grants more and more of the Marxist, or at least the socialist, case and justifies the increasing government control over private property. Those who argue in this wise have taken the socialist bait and rushed headlong into socialism with it.

But the heart of the difficulty is that the word capitalism as it is employed is a semantic trap. On the one hand, it makes it difficult to keep the issues in focus, because it is used in a confusing and misleading way. On the other hand, it blocks from our view a mass of phenomena which we need to see clearly and which capitalism used in its root sense would help to do. The issue is not between capitalism and socialism. There is an issue about private versus public ownership of the means of production, but there is no logical connection between that and capital or capitalism.

Whatever Marx may have thought about capital–all too little apparently–there is no substantial difference among the leaders in the world today over the necessity for and desirability of capital to aid in both agri-cultural and industrial production. If anything, socialist countries are more determined to get their hands on accumulated capital and concentrate it than what remains of so-called capitalist countries.

Every device, ranging from the most sneaky to the most openly confiscatory, is employed in this quest. I nominate as the most sneaky the monetizing of debt, by which wealth in private hands is sopped up by a process of monetary debasement. There exists now a vast series of banking-like mechanisms by which this money is sopped up and transferred to countries around the world where governments more or less own and control the instruments of production. Capital is what much of this is about, and if we could call it by its proper name, it would be called capitalism. As matters stand, however, we are denied the use of the very word that could help to bring all this into focus.

Freedom Versus Tyranny

The issue, I repeat, is not between socialism and capitalism, in any meaningful sense of the words. In the broadest sense, it is between freedom and tyranny. As regards capital, it is between whether men shall be able to keep the fruits of their labor and dispose of accumulations of it as they think best, or have it confiscated and used for politically determined ends. It is between the free market and the hampered market. It is between free enterprise and state-controlled activity under the direction of a vast bureaucracy. It is between dispersed wealth under individual control and concentrated wealth used to augment the power of the state. It is between the right to private property and the might of centralized government thrusting for total power. There are other dimensions, moral and social, to the contest, but the above are the major economic ones. Capitalism, as currently used, tends to act as a red herring to draw us off the scent and draw attention to largely extraneous issues.

So, I conclude, as regards the use of the word capitalism, sic et non, or, in English, yes and no. No, to take that part of the equation first, the word cannot be effectively used in discourse and debate in its Marxian or socialist sense. It cannot be used with precision because it is a loaded word, loaded with Marxian ideology. It has been severed from its root and made to connote what it does not clearly do. Nor does it have a commonly accepted meaning, or set of meanings, for Marxists and non-Marxists. Its use obfuscates the issues and conceals a major aspect of socialism (i.e., its capital hunger).

No, capitalism is not an apt word for the use of defenders of private ownership of the means of production. Linguistically, it does not mean private ownership, nor does the case for private property hinge upon its potential use as capital. The right to private property is grounded in the nature of life and labor on this earth, and it is, therefore, a gift of the Creator. Its use as capital is one of the possibilities of property. To defend private property from the perspective of the advantages of privately disposed capital is to approach the matter wrong end to. In any case, capitalism is still a misnomer for what the defenders are discussing; their flanks are exposed to the adversary because it is his chosen ground; and when the defenders have loaded the word with their own meanings it does not have a commonly accepted meaning for use in discourse.

Socialists Seize Capital to Achieve Industrialization

Yes, there is a place for the word capitalism in the language. There is an ideology and there are practices which cry out to have this word stand for and identify them. The ideology is the established preference for capital over the other elements of production. In practice, it thrusts to the use of government power to concentrate capital, to promote its accumulation, and to confiscate the wealth necessary to that end. Used in this way, the word capitalism helps to identify and bring into focus developments which are otherwise difficult to construe.

We can see clearly that capitalism is a disease of socialism, not the offspring of private property. It is not a system in which the instruments of production are privately owned, but one in which private property is taken to provide capital for publicly owned industries. Perhaps the most dramatic examples of it at the present time are the grants and loans to Third World and communist nations by which wealth from the United States and European countries is being appropriated for their industrialization. That, by my understanding, is capitalism, and it should bear the name and onus.

The following article is translated into Spanish from the English Original, written by Kevin Carson.

Si la elección presidencial hubiese resultado de otra manera, esta columna se habría enfocado en analizar a los que se llaman a sí mismos “conservadores”, acerca de las flagrantemente engañosas pretensiones que el movimiento tiene respecto al “gobierno limitado”, el “libre mercado” y el “individualismo”. Pero dado como terminó la elección en la realidad, la columna está dirigida a aquellos que se hacen llamar “progresistas”.

Disfruten plenamente este momento. Sáquenselo del sistema.

Si los hace sentir mejor, yo veo la victoria de Obama como considerablemente menos horrorosa que una victoria de Romney. El creciente autoritarismo de l estado de seguridad y los grandes rasgos de la aliazna corporativa-estatal se habrían mantenido iguales en cualquier escenario. Pero las vibras culturales del ala irregular del partido republicano, al mejor estilo de los camisas marrones de la Alemania de Weimar, me hacen temblar. Y Romney me da la impresión de ser el peor sociópata y mitómano que jamás haya visto en la historia de un partido mayoritario en toda mi vida.

Entiendo que Obama es un criminal peligroso, y lo odio a nivel intelectual. Puede que a ti te guste Obamacare. Si es así, no discutiré contigo. Como anarquista, en principio no tengo objeciones en cuanto a votar en defensa propia por el títere corporativo que uno encuentre lo menos intolerable posible.

Simplemente te pido que recuerdes que todo lo que hace a Obama y su partido más potables para los progresistas, también los hace más efectivos para favorecer la agenda explotadora de la clase capitalista regente.

Obama representa el ala “progresista” de esa clase. Esta ala apoya el derecho a decidir sobre el aborto y el matrimonio homosexual, en parte, porque sus miembros (a quienes David Brooks llamó “bobos”, yuppies con carreras gerenciales que compran en Whole Foods y escuchan la NPR) tienen cierta sensibilidad cultural típica de los estados azules. Pero ellos también saben que una clase regente que refleja los estándares culturales evolutivos de la mayoría, es más poderosa.

Hace un tiempo, la facción dominante de la clase corporativa regente usaba el racismo y la división racial para enfrentar a la clase trabajadora contra sí misma y facilitar su explotación. Pero el ala progresista de la clase regente ahora cree que el capitalismo puede funcionar de manera mucho más estable en el largo plazo si la clase dominante se hace más multirracial en su composición. Y francamente, estos idiotas con las bolsas de té, diciendo barbaridades y arrancándole la cabeza a pollos con los dientes, son una vergüenza.

Luego tenemos un fenómeno análogo a lo que sucedió cuando Nixon hizo su visita a China. En los años 90, Thomas Ferguson (en su libro The Golden Rule) especulaba que la razón por la que el capital financiero trasladó su apoyo hacia Clinton era que solo un demócrata podía salirse con la suya implementando la agenda neoliberal que la clase regente necesitaba (la ronda de Uruguay del GATT, el NAFTA, el DMCA) para consolidar el liderazgo del capital corporativo global en un orden mundial post-soviético. Clinton presidió el período de nacimiento del capitalismo global a ultranza, la erradicación de lo que quedaba del movimiento laboral estadounidense, la polarización del ingreso a niveles de la década de los años 20, y la explosión de la paga a los CEO’s a niveles que son 500 veces más altos que el salario del trabajador promedio. Pero los liberales siguen recordando a Clinton con nostalgia como “el buen presidente”.

Lo mismo pasa con Obama. Tal como lo dijo recientemente el libertario de izquierda Arthur Silber (en su artículo Yeah, Yeah, Nobody Knows Anything):

“Tanta gente que no pertenece a clase regente cree que Obama está de su lado. Incluso cuando Obama ha traicionado sistemáticamente a toda esa gente común y corriente durante los últimos cuatro años, siguen creyendo que está de su lado. Simplemente él no pudo hacer lo que quería hacer (que resulta ser exactamente lo que todos esos buenos liberales y progresistas querían que hiciera) porque: a) Los republicanos son el demonio; b) Los demoníacos republicanos le dejaron un lío muy, muy feo; c) Los republicanos del demonio siempre se meten con él; d) Los republicanos demoníacos.”

Por lo tanto, Obama puede entonar sus cánticos al mejor estilo Kennedy acerca de hacer crecer la economía “del centro hacia afuera”, y sobre las “familias trabajadoras que se sientan a comer en la cocina”. Y mientras tanto, puede asesinar a miles con vehículos no tripulados e implementar un orden mundial corporativo. Puede armar un equipo económico con piltrafas humanas de Citigroup y Goldman-Sachs. Junto con Biden, puede aprobar el totalitario RIAA/MPAA y la concomitante agenda de “propiedad intelectual”, que es el monopolio estatista que hace de núcleo central del poder corporativo global. Pero mientras use suficiente retórica pseudo-izquierdista, los liberales complacientemente seguirán decorando sus autos con pegatinas de propaganda del partido demócrata.

Estas monstruosidades requieren justicia, independientemente de la afiliación partidista de los culpables. Si tú sientes que el reinado de este criminal de guerra y títere corporativo demócrata te pesa menos sobre el cuello que un republicano, no te reprocho tu celebración momentánea. Pero la verdadera cuestión es: ¿Qué vas a hacer cuando la celebración haya terminado?

Artículo oroginal publicado por Kevin Carson, el 08 de noviembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Carlos Clemente.

Recently, I read a Center for a Stateless Society tweet linking to an interactive map on Slate.

The map compares the drone campaigns waged by the Bush and Obama administrations. Its description contends that “Obama has ratcheted up his predecessor’s tactic of deploying unmanned aircraft into Pakistan and Yemen to kill supposed terrorists …”

In replies to that tweet, I suggested that the alleged “five to one” increase in drone attacks comes not from a difference in policy between the two administrations but from an increase in drone production and deployment capacity. In other words, if W could have conducted as many attacks, he would have.

The number of drones in service over time corroborates my analysis. As of 2009, “… the total number of military drones has soared to 5,500, from 167 in 2001.” As of this year, the US drone fleet has grown to 7000 and Pentagon officials want $5 billion from Congress to buy more.

That comes to a 130% increase, but not all of those are attack drones. I am not sure exactly which models would qualify as such, but I think we can safely assume that the Predator and Reaper models constitute the bulk of them. In 2009, the Air Force owned 195 Predators. In 2010, that number increased by 137% to 268. In 2007, the Air Force owned nine Reaper drones. In 2010, 57 Reapers. That’s roughly a six to one increase.

So, not only do we see an increase in drone capacity, but we also see an enhancement in capability, as 2011 marked the last Predator delivery and its succession by the Reaper, which can deliver more ordinance and has longer range. And I think we can safely assume that the military has come into more attack drones by now. This six to one increase in Reapers obviously exceeds the five to one increase in drone attacks under Obama, and it does so for practical reasons.

Firstly, workers with the training to operate these drones were in short supply, at least as of 2009.

Secondly, it would appear that drone attacks don’t take place without some sort of diligence in terms of target selection. Or, perhaps we can just chalk it up to a shortage of targets. The Disposition Matrix should eventually fix that.

These drones do not and cannot come into the possession of the military at the whim of any president. Large military contracts take time to fulfill and contractors rarely deliver on schedule. And that comes on top of decisions and investments made well before Obama’s inauguration.

So, we ought not to draw a conclusion pertaining to Obama’s war policies and how they compare to W’s in terms of viciousness. Rather, these administrations share a more fundamental policy of class preservation, of maintaining the status quo. The defense contractor and military elites depend on their budgets and must constantly buy and deploy new toys to perpetuate that funding, and thereby their purpose as a class.

What we have often heard before from military-first proponents, that we must devise new weapons and procure more of them in order to preempt and counter our enemies’ countermeasures, does not work for drone warfare as we currently wage it. These proponents cannot make that excuse this time around. The likes of al-Qaeda have no means to counter drones beyond employing better operational security and adhering to it more strictly. What we have is simply blatant rent-seeking behavior.

If you found my previous arithmetic somewhat tenuous, that’s okay. I never intended to establish a strong correlation between the size of the attack drone fleet and the number of attacks. Obama simply has more attack drones at his disposal as well as a more developed means of producing them than his predecessor, so what else would he do? I suppose that if he really wanted, he could either let the drones sit idle or devote them entirely to the humanitarian/rescue missions that the industry never fails to mention in its public relations material.

But relegating to either fate an attack drone, something engineered as a weapon, would make it pointless. And that is one of the greatest threats to authority, that the people should realize that its stately investments are pointless, that the emperor wears no clothes. In one of my favorite films, Cube, the characters debate over the purpose of the terrible machination in which they find themselves trapped. One of them provides a succinct and chilling answer: “Because it’s here. You have to use it or admit it’s pointless.” Sadly, I have yet to hear a more apt analysis for Obama’s escalation of drone warfare.

I am puzzled by left-libertarianism’s prediction that a freed market will not contain a significant amount of “bossism,” to use Gary Chartier’s phrase in his BHL post. Alas, I have not read Markets, Not Capitalism, and perhaps the puzzle is something that is easily solved by reading the book. I offer the puzzle here because I suspect it may have occurred to other readers of this blog, and it may help elucidate important features of the left-libertarian view.

Workers in a coop in a freed market are allowed to sell their shares in the coop. Their rights to their shares in the firm include use rights, i.e., they decide the nature of work relations, working condition, pay differentials, managerial responsibility, etc., and income rights, i.e., they receive the net profits of the firms. There are two reasons why this sector will be likely be small.

First, it will be irrational for workers to concentrate their portfolio in their own firm, lest it go under. So they will want to sell some of their shares in their own firm and buy shares in other firms. Once that happens it is not hard to see how those who don’t work in the firm will come to own considerable shares of the firm (and of course that will include institutional investors) which means the end of an economy dominated by worker controlled firms. Now some coops may restrict outsiders’ rights in their firm, so that they are not able to have use rights, i.e., a say or a vote in how the firm is managed. But some coops won’t do this, and it is plausible that those who won’t do this and give outsiders full ownership rights will have a competitive advantage. This is because those who can attract more outside capital will have a competitive advantage in adapting to changing market conditions and those who will supply considerable capital will tend to want some way to monitor that their capital is being used in an efficient manner, which means some kind of say over how the firm is run.

Another reason workers will want to sell their shares is that when workers leave the firm — change jobs, retire, etc. — they will want to take their profits with them. Indeed, even before they leave they may want to cash out some of their profits, i.e., sell some of their shares.  And for reasons I just mentioned, those buying them may not be content with nonvoting shares. So again we get the scenario of outsiders coming to have full ownership rights in the firms, and it’s not hard to see how this will lead fairly quickly to an economy which is dominated by capitalist firms.

Now the prediction that a freed market will not contain a significant amount of bossism does not, I take it, entail a prediction that there won’t be a substantial number of firms which are not coops. It only entails a prediction that most of these firms won’t be hierarchical firms where workers get bossed around. Those firms which are smaller and flatter, to use Roderick Long’s terminology, minimize or eliminate this function of bosses. But here my puzzle continues. How do left-libertarians know these firms will tend to be small and flat? Firms which are financed largely by equity will, in a freed market, be those that maximize shareholder value, and how do we know that a substantial number of those firms won’t be hierarchical firms? I endorse Roderick Long’s argument that the larger the firm the more likely calculation chaos will impede efficiency, and it’s also true that bossing people around can impede efficiency. But those are ceteris paribus claims, and it may be a firm needs to reach a certain size in order to be efficient, and that too little hierarchy can impede efficiency. So I remain puzzled.

My puzzle to some extent also crosses over to the moral opposition to bossism. Bossing people around can certainly be bad; indeed at times it is positively evil. One of the nice features of being an academic is that one has a fair amount of autonomy in one’s job, so as a personal matter I share Long and Chartier’s outlook. But as libertarians we favor a vigorously competitive market, which means firms will have to be quite attuned to consumer sentiment and shareholder value, and so as libertarians I would think we would have to distinguish between different kinds of bossism. Bossism in the context of a competitive market is regrettable or perhaps a bad we have to put up with for the sake of greater goods or a just society, whereas bossism that has no connection with the rigors of a competitive market is unequivocally oppressive. So I am also puzzled how left-libertarians can say that they are opposed to bossism per se.

A brief addendum: in the above post, I only discussed coops and capitalist firms, but I did not discuss self-employed or being one’s own boss. But the same argument applies, perhaps a fortiori, to being one’s own boss. Being one’s own boss is quite a risky proposition, so I would be puzzled by a confident prediction that in a freed market this would be something a large percentage of people would choose even without state barriers that make it more difficult to be one’s own boss (occupational licensure, oppressive taxation, etc.)  And morally, being one’s own boss is hardly an unequivocal good. I would suck at it, and I would be puzzled by anyone who argued that I should choose a life at which I have no comparative advantage.

Per the request of BHL, the comments will be turned off here so that they can be redirected to the original article.

As Matt said in his post announcing this symposium, many of us who blog here are very sympathetic to the left-libertarian project, even as we have various criticisms. I count myself as one of those highly sympathetic critics. I have been known to refer to myself as a “libertarian of the left.” I recently gave a talk arguing that classical liberalism should reclaim its progressive identity and start to think of itself as “of the left.” And I especially share the left-libertarian criticism of corporatism and militarism, as well as its concern with issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation. I see my recent work on the family as being very much in tune with what the left-libertarians have to say. In what follows, I will expand on some points of agreement with left-libertarians, but also raise a fundamental criticism of some of their arguments (and I should note that I very much consider them to be comrades in arms in the larger libertarian project).

That criticism is that they often commit a rhetorical error that is something of the obverse of what they call “vulgar libertarianism.” Left-libertarians often seem to argue that even just a little bit of statism so distorts markets that the results produced by the mixed economy bear little relationship to what a freed economy would produce. Just as putting one drop of a liquid one owns into an unowned lake does not make the whole thing yours, neither does one drop of statism suddenly mean that the results of a mixed economy are vastly different from the results produced by a freed market. Overstating the transformation that freed markets would bring can lead left-libertarianism to both a dangerous utopianism about freed markets and a reluctance to challenge bad criticisms of really existing markets for fear of engaging in vulgar libertarianism. Neither vulgar libertarianism nor the more utopian moments of left-libertarianism are sufficiently nuanced to do the job. To use a phrase I used in an earlier discussion of left-libertarianism, we must carefully untangle the corporatist knot.

Let me start with some areas of agreement with the left-libertarians. One major point of agreement is that I would like to ditch the word “capitalism,” though I find myself somewhat unable to do so in my own work. Aside from the fact that the word does seem to mean very different things to different people, the word itself suggests that what capitalism-understood-as-free-markets is really about is the centrality of “capital.” If an “ism” is a belief system, then “capitalism” would seem to mean “a belief in the power of capital.” This suggests, especially when contrasted with its claimed opposite “socialism,” that a capitalist system works toward the benefit of capital (and socialism, by contrast, works toward the benefit of “society” as a whole). Using capitalism and socialism to describe what I think is better understood as a contrast between “free markets” and “social planning” as economic coordination processes inevitably biases the case: who could be against benefiting society as a whole rather than just the owners of capital?

Left-libertarians rightly argue, and the historical evidence amply supports, two related claims: 1) capitalists are not the primary beneficiaries of freed markets, society as a whole is and 2) capitalists are all in favor of using the state to advance their own interests in the face of free market results they do not like. Those who genuinely believe in freed markets could avoid a great deal of confusion by not using “capitalism,” a word that, in Alice in Wonderland fashion, seems to mean whatever the speaker wants to mean, and usually something bad. (In this way, it is much like “fascist.”) Instead, I think we are better off talking in terms of the degree to which economic decisions are to be coordinated using the institutions of the market or the institutions of politics. My own view is that this distinction is best captured by the contrast between “markets” and “planning” rather than “capitalism” and “socialism,” but I could be persuaded by other terminology. The key, however, is focusing on the processes and institutions by which decisions are coordinated, rather than terminology that builds in implicit claims about who does or does not benefit from such processes.

Similarly, I would like to see libertarians ditch the term “privatization” for two reasons. First, government “privatization” often means handing over to the private sector things no one should be doing, whether public or private. One need only think of what Halliburton and its successors have done. Second, in the cases where government is doing something that could be done in the market, I would argue that the real goal should be not “privatization” but “de-monopolization.” One of the great strengths of the left-libertarians is their consistent opposition to monopoly, which grows out of their 19th century influences.  Libertarians should first and foremost be anti-monopoly, and turning a public monopoly into a private one is therefore not a gain, and might well be worse! We need to be consistent and vocal opponents of all forms of monopoly privilege and barriers to entry. And I will note that this must include labor. I am sympathetic to the left-libertarians when they remind other libertarians that labor unions can and should have an important role in freed markets, but I, in turn, must remind them that unions must be on equal footing with other voluntary organizations, and that means making sure we reject any form of privilege for capital or labor.

The problem I often see in left-libertarian writing is the sense that the world of freed markets would look dramatically different from what we have. For example, would large corporations like Walmart exist in a freed market? Left-libertarians are quick to argue no, pointing to the various ways in which the state explicitly and implicitly subsidizes them (e.g., eminent domain, tax breaks, an interstate highway system, and others). They are correct in pointing to those subsidies, and I certainly agree with them that the state should not be favoring particular firms or types of firms. However, to use that as evidence that the overall size of firms in a freed market would be smaller seems to be quite a leap. There are still substantial economies of scale in play here and even if firms had to bear the full costs of, say, finding a new location or transporting goods, I am skeptical that it would significantly dent those advantages. It often feels that desire to make common cause with leftist criticisms of large corporations, leads left-libertarians to say “oh yes, freed markets are the path to eliminating those guys.” Again, I am not so sure. The gains from operating at that scale, especially with consumer basics, are quite real, as are the benefits to consumers.

Even as I agree with them that we should end the subsidies, I wish left-libertarians would more often acknowledge that firms like Walmart and others have improved the lives of poor Americans in significant ways and lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty in some of the poorest parts of the world.  Those accomplishments seem very much in tune with the left-libertarian project. To argue with such confidence that firms in a freed market would be unable to take advantage of these economies of scale might be cold comfort to the very folks who left-libertarians are rightly concerned about.

Another example of this problem is in left-libertarian discussions of labor markets. The prediction that a truly freed market, especially one in which corporate privilege was absent, would lead to more labor-managed firms and a less hierarchical workplace suggests that the dominant reason these forms don’t exist is because of the state. Granted, state intervention can alter the incentive structure within firms, but there are also very good reasons why workers might strongly prefer employment arrangements in which they don’t have to take on additional responsibilities or spend time engaging in collective decision making processes. To argue that freed markets would significantly transform the workplace seems to put a desire to appeal to leftists ahead of the economics of the situation.

Eliminating every last grain of statism does not magically transform everything we might not like about really existing markets into a form that will match the goals of the traditional left. One grain of statism doesn’t mean that the really existing world won’t essentially look like it does when markets are freed. My own conviction is that the underlying market processes carry more weight than the distorting effects of the state along more margins than the left-libertarians believe. I might well be wrong, but I worry that the promise of more transformation than a left-libertarian world can deliver repeats the very same utopianism that has plagued the left historically.

Finally, half a cheer for a form of vulgar libertarianism. Often times libertarians find ourselves “playing defense.” When critics of markets argue that firms like Walmart are bad, they are usually not arguing for an end to state privilege, but objecting to the market itself, including a freed market.  Whatever the imperfections of the status quo, we still do live in an economy in which the invisible hand operates, if with something of a palsy. One reason I leap to the defense of the Walmarts of the world is because they have done a great deal of good for the least well-off among us precisely due to the underlying market forces that critics would like to remove. In “playing defense” this way, I might look like a vulgar libertarian, but the larger strategic goal is to defend not the existing imperfect market processes but rather the freed market processes against those who would eliminate both.

Another example of “playing defense” in this way is the literature arguing that the conventional view that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer is wrong to one degree or another.  Faced with the claim that “capitalism” has generated massive inequalities, libertarians can adopt two kinds of strategies. One is to argue like the left-libertarians that state intervention is responsible for the inequalities and then argue that a freed market would, perhaps, produce less inequality. Another is to show that the data being trotted out are misleading about the real degree of inequality or income mobility and to argue that even with a palsied invisible hand, the underlying market forces are not producing massive inequality, the further impoverishment of the poor, or restricting mobility. One could make a similar argument about the very real increase in consumption possibilities available to poor Americans. Although I think the first strategy has some truth to it, I also think this second is both rhetorically effective and correct.

This isn’t vulgar libertarianism. If much of the claimed growth in inequality is the statistical artifact of the way in which people move through the life-cycle of income earnings and/or changes in the demographic characteristics of households, rather than a genuine increase in inequality or loss of mobility, there seems no necessary reason to reject that as being “vulgar libertarianism” and portray it as a defense of the statist status quo. To the degree that proposals to move us away from freed markets are based on a misreading of these data, defending the market forces at work in a mixed economy is not vulgar libertarianism, but an attempt to save us from even further statism and corporatism.

I happen to think the successes of firms such as Wal-Mart really do reflect market realities that would exist even in a freed market, even as I recognize the large role played by state intervention in such processes.  I also worry that the left-libertarian charge of “vulgar libertarianism” might cause libertarians to stop engaging in the “playing defense” project I describe above. Instead, we should more carefully examine what parts of the status quo are driven by the underlying market forces and which by the state. Charges of vulgar libertarianism against legitimate arguments for the robustness of markets will do more harm than good.

Per the request of BHL, the comments will be turned off here so that they can be redirected to the original article.

The following speech was written by Voltairine de Cleyre and delivered probably November 1897, Philadelphia. It is part of the collection The First Mayday: the Haymarket speeches and available as an audiobook on LibriVox.

Year after year, the rising sun of November 11th throws over the world the elongating shadow of the Chicago gallows. Year after year, the knowledge of the history of the governmental crime spreads and spreads. Year after year, the voices strangled to death cry louder through their silence.

It is as if all these years were a thin screen behind which walk the spectres of the Revolution, wearing on this day the faces of those men, done to death for speaking – Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Lingg, and Spies. It is as if these mute faces were bidding us remember their prophesies, and to note how truly they are marching to fulfillment. Every year the governments’ hands become redder with the blood of martyrs to free speech. Every year we hear yet more plainly the whizzing of the wings of ‘the birds of the coming storm’. Sometimes we fancy it is already the sound of the storm itself. And sitting in our corner we repeat the history of November 11th, and grind our hatred sharp.

We tell ourselves again of the famous McCormick Strike; we see the police riding down on the defenceless people, crying ‘Shoot the God damn sons of bitches!’ We see men clubbed, bruised, knocked under the horses’ feet  in the sacred name of the McCormick Reaper Works. We hear our comrades calling for a meeting of protest. We shift our eyes to the Haymarket on the 4th of May, 1886. We see Parsons, Spies, Fielden speaking from the wagon, and the crowd listening. Then the police, marching in double column, coming down Desplaines Street, turning about – firing! A man falls, struck by a police bullet. He clutches his side and writhes upon the ground; a thin line of blood oozes out. Others have fallen. Suddenly a Vengeance goes over our heads, a thing like a lighted cigar, that falls and bursts with a low, sullen, roar. And men fall everywhere.

Then comes the terror! People rushing to accuse, others to escape accusation. Imaginations become realities, and men see bombs reflected from their eyes wherever they look. The police, affrighted, become ferocious. They seize and club at every turn. It is indeed the Reign of the Police. And gradually the Anaconda of the Law coils tighter and tighter. It accuses our comrades – Parsons, who brought his wife and children to the meeting – presumably to be mangled by the bombs! – Fischer, because he set up the Arbeiter-Zeitung; Spies, because he was the editor; Engel, because he, too, set rebellious type; Fielden, because he spoke often at workingmen’s meetings, bidding them prepare for the violence of Capital; Schwab, mild and gentle Schwab, who also ‘wrote articles’; Neebe, for he had a red flag in his house, and organised trade unions; Lingg, oh! beatiful cold Louis Lingg, who was a bombmaker, but who did not even know till the next day that a meeting had taken place, and whose bombs bore no resemblance to the Vengeance.

They arrested them – all except Parsons, who voluntarily came into the court and himself up for trial , because he believed himself so sure of proving his innocence that he did not doubt the issue. Bitter mistake! The capitalists and their tools, Judge Gary and Prosecutor Grinnell, had determined to hunt Anarchy to death. The procession of iniquities, called ‘The Trial’. begins. The State’s Attorney boasts that he will have the jury packed to kill; boasts openly in the court that though these men are being tried legally for murder, or conspiracy to murder, it is Anarchy which is on trial. It is a political opinion which is to be hanged, here in this astounding Republic, which sprang into existence as the expression of the free political opinion.

Not a man on the jury who does not admit that he is already prejudiced against the prisoners. Not a single ‘peer’ among the twelve; all are of the very parasite class which our comrades had shown in their articles and speeches could not continue but at the expense of the slavery of the producers. The verdict was pronounced before a word of witness was taken, and we all knew it. Then the delays, the agony, the tigerish coquetting with justice of the prosecution. The horrible purrings about ‘our homes’, ‘our country’, and ‘our free institutions’. Then the speeches – immortal voices, going to the ends of the earth! And loud over them the frank, harsh, defiant, ringing sentence of him who was least an orator but bravest among those who were all brave: ‘I do believe in force – Hang me for it!’

Then the petitions to the governor, the telegrams from the ends of the earth, he pleadings of their families; the swaying of the popular minds towards mercy; the petition tables in the streets; the crowds rushing to sign or to knock the tables over, as they swing towards this or that; the forbidding of all public speech on the subject by Mayor Roach; the forbidding of the singing of Marseillaise – wonderful song that it should stir into prohibition our free institutions; the slow passing of days and the tightening, the relentless, desperate tightening, of the coil of the Anaconda.

The commutation of the sentence of Fielden and Schwab to life imprisonment. The refusal of Parsons to appeal for commutation, through he knew it would be granted if he did, preferring to die with his comrades, rather than oblige Grinnell and ‘do something to make the Anarchists hate them’.

November 10th! Lingg triumphs over Law through a dynamite cartridge given him in a cigar by a friend. He smokes the cigar and dies with Hoch die Anarchie! on his lips. In his cell at night, Parsons sings Annie Laurie, listens to the builders putting up the gallows, and sleeps.

November 11th! A thick cordon of police around the jail; Mrs Parsons and Mrs Holmes, with the Lulu and Albert Parsons, going from one to the other for permission for the promised last interview. Hustled on till at arrested and thrown in prison, even the little children’s bodies stripped naked in the terrorized search for dynamite. And so, with wife and children lying in cells, the condemned man goes to the gallows and never knows.

Waldheim! And the last act of sowing is completed. Under the raw autumnal sky, men with bare heads are baptized with the solemnity of that faith which already seems springing from the yet unclosed tomb.

And the years pass. The cemetery authorities forbid 11 November processions to the tomb. They cannot forbid the processions of thoughts and acts which go out from it. As the development of the struggle in which they died so early goes on , more and more clearly sound their prophesies, more and more clearly do we recognise that their work is our work, that one Vengeance is the mother of many, that the crimes of States are accumulating, and from the Chicago gallows to the Barcelona torture-room there is one logical alliance of the powers that starve men, and that from the corners of the earth to its centres there is growing the opposing solidarity of the starved.

We watch for the morning of the End, and the light grows over Waldheim!

The following article is translated into Portuguese from the English original, written by Claire Wolfe.

Dark Satanic Cubicles foi originalmente publicado em 2005 em Loompanics Unlimited, escrito por Claire Wolfe.

Você carrega dezesseis toneladas, e o que ganha com isso?
Outro dia mais velho e mais afundado em dívidas.
São Pedro, não me chame, porque não posso ir.
Devo minha alma à loja da empresa.
– Merle Travis, refrão da canção Dezesseis Toneladas

Em 1955, o voz-de-trovão Tennessee Ernie Ford gravou essa canção como lado B de um disco. Logo, ninguém conseguia lembrar qual era o lado A. Disc jockeys do país inteiro começaram a tocar o disco – e dentro de dois meses de seu lançamento Dezesseis Toneladashavia-se tornado o maior disco de lado de música única jamais vendido nos Estados Unidos.

Dezesseis Toneladas é uma fábula no estilo de John Henry acerca de um mineiro de hulha forte e determinado – um punho de ferro, o outro de aço. Ele é capaz de fazer o trabalho fisicamente mais pesado e derrotar qualquer oponente. Contudo, embora trabalhe nas minas desde o dia em que nasceu, não consegue ir para a frente. Merle Travis escreveu e gravou a canção em 1946. Até entretanto Ford tê-la interpretado, Dezesseis Toneladas não havia rendido nada a Travis.

Longe disso. Embora Travis fosse um patriótico jovem do Kentucky, o governo dos Estados Unidos achava que qualquer canção que reclamasse de trabalho duro e de dívida insolvível era subversiva. A canção rendeu a Travis ser rotulado de simpatizante do comunismo (rótulo perigoso naquele tempo). Um executivo da gravadora Capitol que fora disc jockey em Chicago ao final dos anos 1940 lembra-se de um agente do FBI ter ido à estação e adverti-lo para não tocar Dezesseis Toneladas.

Muita agitação por causa de uma pequena canção.

Em 1955, quando a canção finalmente alcançou enorme sucesso, a maioria dos estadunidenses já não tinha empregos do tipo mina de hulha. Era a época do Homem de Terno Cinzento, o homem da corporação, o especialista em eficiência, e de tremenda angústia devido à necessidade de conformidade – por parte de pessoas que continuavam impotentemente a viajar de casa para o trabalho e vice-versa, a consumir, a cooperar, a enquadrar-se – e a engolir seus calmantes Milltown e a procurar médicos para tratar suas úlceras geradas por tensão. Era um mundo distante, muito distante das minas de hulha, com um conjunto de tribulações aparentemente muito diverso.

Contudo, de algum modo aquele coro ainda ressoava: Outro dia mais velho e mais afundado em dívidas.

Além de toda a letra fantasiosa acerca de ter sido criado no canavial por uma velha mamãe leoa, Dezesseis Toneladas ainda ressoa.

Não trabalhamos para companhias de mineração que pagam em papéis só resgatáveis na loja da empresa. Trabalhamos como mouros, porém, e acabamos com cartões de crédito que nos atingem com 19,99 por cento de juros, $40 dólares por pagamento atrasado de taxas, e outras cobranças ocultas tão pesadas que é possível – comum, até – pagar durante anos e na realidade dever mais do que no início.

Trabalhamos horas ainda mais longas do que nossos pais, pagamos tributos mais altos, dependemos de dois salários para manter uma casa, empurramos nossos filhos alienados para creches ou acampamentos educacionais do governo, vemos nosso dinheiro ser sistematicamente consumido pela inflação, e sofremos enormemente de uma penca de doenças mentais e físicas relacionadas com o emprego.

Podemos não fazer trabalho manual. Trabalhamos, porém, mais horas do que nossos pais, pagamos tributos mais altos, dependemos de dois salários para manter uma casa, empurramos nossos filhos alienados para creches ou acampamentos educacionais do governo, vemos nosso dinheiro ser sistematicamente consumido pela inflação (enquanto a TV nos diz que o índice de preços ao consumidor está-se mantendo estável) e sofremos enormemente de uma penca de doenças mentais e físicas relacionadas com o emprego.

O que mudou, senão os detalhes? Apesar de todas as nossas posses materiais, estamos no mesmo velho ciclo de trabalho, ansiedade, e perda.

E embora o FBI possa não nos visitar para reclamar a respeito, rebelar-se contra empregos ainda é uma ameaça para as autoridades.

O governo não tem muito com que se preocupar no tocante a rebelião, porém. Pois hoje estamos programados, desde o momento em que acordamos até o momento em que vamos dormir, para valorizar empregos, grandes corporações – e as coisas que os empregos nos compram – acima dos reais prazeres – e das reais necessidades – do ser humano.

O noticiário diz-nos, todos os dias:

• 130.000 empregos foram criados em julho. Empregos = Bom.
• Estamos perdendo empregos no exterior. Perder empregos = Ruim.
• Os principais indicadores econômicos dizem. Indicadores econômicos (que diabo possa ser isso) = Importante.
• A média industrial Dow-Jones subiu… O mercado de ações = Vital.

Todo dia, na mídia, a saúde da nação é medida – por vezes medida quase exclusivamente – em empregos e ações, emprego e corporações.

Não pretendo implicar que renda, produção e outras medidas da espécie não sejam importantes. São importantes – em seu lugar. Em perspectiva. Entretanto, por que nós (via nossa mídia) acreditamos que esses poucos fatores sejam tão vitalmente e exclusivamenteimportantes quando se trata de determinar a saúde econômica de nossa sociedade?

Tomamos como dados que empregos = bom, que ações em alta = bom, e que trabalhar arduamente e gastar muito dinheiro = mais empregos e ações em maior alta.

Então disparamos para empregos que, na maior parte dos casos, detestamos. Ou dos quais gostamos, mas que nos tornam ansiosos, nos furtam de nossas famílias, e tornam nossas horas no lar num fardo fora de controle, no qual temos de lutar para fazer tudo, desde entreter-nos até criar tempo para afeição artificial com filhos que mal nos conhecem.

Há alguma coisa errada nesse cenário.

Em nossa atual organização econômica, a qual é um desdobramento evolucionário, não revolucionário, de há 250 anos, quando começou a Revolução Industrial, sim, os empregos são importantes. Contudo, isso é algo semelhante a dizer que a quimioterapia indutora de vômito é importante quanto você tem câncer.

Oh, sim. Melhor, porém, não ter câncer, certo?

Numa comunidade humana saudável, os empregos nem são necessários nem desejáveis. Trabalho produtivo é necessário – por razões econômicas, sociais e até espirituais. Os livres mercados são também algo estupendo, quase mágicos em sua capacidade de satisfazer biliões de necessidades diversas. Empreendedorismo? Excelente! Mas empregos – partir para um cronograma fixo para desempenhar funções fixas para outrem, dia após dia, por um salário– não são bons para corpo, alma, família ou sociedade.

Intuitivamente, sem palavras, as pessoas sabiam disso em 1955. Elas sabiam disso em 1946. Elas realmente sabiam disso quando Ned Ludd e amigos despedaçavam as máquinas do início da Revolução Industrial (embora os Ludditas possam não ter entendido exatamente por que precisavam fazer o que fizeram).

Empregos são maçantes. O emprego corporativo é fastidioso. Passar a vida enfiado em caixas das 9 às 5 é uma porcaria. Cubículos cinzentos são apenas uma versão atualizada dos sombrios moinhos satânicos de William Blake. Certo, os cubículos são mais iluminados e arejados; são porém diferentes mais em grau do que em natureza dos moinhos da Revolução Industrial. Ambos, cubículos e moinhos sombrios, significam trabalhar nos termos de outras pessoas, para os objetivos de outras pessoas, com sujeição ao arbítrio de outras pessoas. Nenhum desses dois tipos de trabalho usualmente resulta em tomarmos posse dos frutos de nosso trabalho ou termos a satisfação de criar algo do começo ao fim com nossas próprias mãos. Nenhum dos dois nos permite trabalhar em nosso próprio ritmo, ou ao ritmo das estações. Nenhum dos dois nos permite acesso a nossas famílias, amigos ou comunidades quando necessitamos deles ou eles necessitam de nós. Ambos isolam o trabalho de todas as outras partes de nossa vida.

E, puxa vida, especialmente se você trabalha para uma grande corporação, pode ter certeza de que Ebenezer Scrooge se importava mais com Bob Cratchett do que seu empregador se importa com você.

No decurso dos últimos 250 anos, as autoridades sempre temeram que entendêssemos isso tudo e tentássemos fazer algo a respeito. Por que outro motivo tentaria o FBI suprimir uma obscura pretensa canção folclórica? A história estadunidense está cheia de histórias veladas de milícias privadas ou do estado usadas para reprimir rebeliões e greves de trabalhadores. No dia dos Ludditas, o governo britânico chegou ao ponto de tornar sabotagem industrial crime capital. Em determinado momento coroa e parlamento puseram mais soldados para trabalhar massacrando os Ludditas do que tinham tido no campo combatendo contra Napoleão Bonaparte.

Agora, seria o caso de temer por você.

Nos dias de hoje, porém, não há motivo de preocupação. Tornamos a escravatura dos salários parte tão inconsútil de nossa cultura que provavelmente nem ocorre à maior parte das pessoas haver algo de anormal em separar o trabalho do resto de nossas vidas. Ou em passar nossas vidas de trabalho inteiras produzindo coisas que nos dão apenas satisfação pessoal mínima – ou nenhuma satisfação.

Somos felizes! É o que dizemos a nós próprios. Somos as mais prósperas! livres! felizes! pessoas a viver na Terra! Temos vidas mais longas, somos mais saudáveis, mais inteligentes, e de modo geral vivemos em melhores condições materiais do que qualquer pessoa, em qualquer época, no planeta Terra. Continuamos a dizer isso para nós próprios enquanto nos abalamos para nossos compromissos de aconselhamento profissional, tomamos nosso Prozac, ou fitamos os sedimentos no fundo da última garrafa de vinho.

Ora essa! Vocês sabem como soamos, quando afiançamos a nós próprios nossa boa sorte? Soamos como as vozes mecanizadas sussurrando para os bebês de proveta pré-programados no Admirável Mundo Novo de Aldous Huxley:

Crianças Alfa… trabalham muito mais arduamente do que nós, porque são extremamente inteligentes. Estou realmente muito feliz por ser Beta, porque não trabalho tão arduamente. E somos muito melhores do que os Gamas e Deltas.

Para acreditar no quanto somos felizes temos de ignorar nossos índices ascendentes de abuso de drogas, nossos índices em disparada de depressão, nossas dores nas costas, nossas síndromes do túnel carpal, e nossa síndrome de fadiga crônica. Temos de ignorar os biliões de dólares e biliões de horas que passamos sob o efeito de drogas psicoativas, aconselhamento profissional relativo a abuso de drogas, remédios para dor de cabeça, entretenimento voltado para escapar da realidade, creches para crianças, compra de status, pratos nostálgicos não saudáveis, acessos de compras descontroladas, e tratamentos com médicos para todas as nossas doenças vagas, não específicas, físicas e mentais.

Você acha que é dessa maneira que uma pessoa feliz gasta seu tempo e dinheiro? Tenha paciência!

Pare de ouvir aquele pequeno sussurro mecânico corporativo-estatal que diz a você o que você deveria considerar importante – que diz a você que os empregos deveriam ser o foco central de sua vida. Pare de ouvir aquela voz que diz a você que você é feliz, quando seu corpo e sua alma inteiros estão berrando para você que você é infeliz.

Eis aqui algo para você gritar para si próprio: Empregos são uma porcaria! Empregos fazem mal a você!

Grite isso até realmente ouvir-se gritando-se isso – em seguida caia fora da loucura do emprego, da escravidão dos salários, da moenda que mantém você devendo ao governo, ao chefe, ao banco, e à empresa de cartão de crédito.

Oh, mas espere! Você morrerá se não tiver um emprego, do mesmo modo que um paciente de câncer poderá morrer sem quimioterapia. Em nossa sociedade, se você não tiver emprego, estará às portas da miséria. Será um pobre infeliz. Um parasita preguiçoso. Será um sanguessuga. Um perdedor. E, realmente, na verdade, se você não tiver um emprego fixo de algum tipo, poderá acabar completamente falido.

Como indivíduo, obviamente você poderá escapar da armadilha do emprego, em certa medida. Como escritora autônoma, tenho conseguido. Ainda tenho de trabalhar para outras pessoas, mas consigo fazê-lo em ritmo natural. Quando o sol brilha, amiúde posso sentar-me no deque ou dar uma caminhada.

O homem que por vezes corta minha grama em certa medida escapou. Ele pode programar seu próprio dia sem ter de pedir permissão ou sem subverter a linha de produção de ninguém.

Meu ex-namorado o engenheiro de software também escapou. Ele trabalha em seu quarto de dormir extra e consegue viver e trabalhar no mundo de fantasia de computador que é do que ele mais gosta.

Eram assim as coisas para a maioria das pessoas, antes da Revolução Industrial. Talvez elas trabalhassem arduamente e não ganhassem muito. Como em toda época, elas tinham de conviver com a selvageria das lutas de poder da elite, com as guerras dos governantes, e com o confisco de propriedade pelos poderosos. De maneira geral, porém, elas podiam atravessar seus dias da maneira que as estações e suas próprias necessidades (e as necessidades de suas famílias e comunidades) ditassem. Mantinham conexão direta e pessoal com os bens que produziam e os serviços que prestavam.

Revendedoras Avon, carpinteiros autônomos, consultores de segurança, pessoas que ganham a vida vendendo bens no eBay, profissionais de reflexologia, vendedores em reuniões de troca e venda de produtos, jardineiros autônomos, lenhadores que trabalham por contrato, traficantes de drogas, tricotadores domésticos, médiuns – nos dias de hoje todos eles conseguiram escapar parcialmente da armadilha do emprego.

O escape, porém, poderá ser perigoso. Quando você é autônomo, amiúde não tem comoproporcionar-se a ‘rede de segurança’ que vem com o emprego (seguro-saúde, férias, subsídio de doença, seguro-desemprego etc.). E o problema ainda mais profundo é que a sociedade – essa abstração difícil de definir de modo preciso, mas vitalmente importante – ainda inflige seus valores e seus problemas a aqueles dentre nós que desenvolvemos nossos melhores esforços pessoais para escapar deles.

Você e eu podemos ser inteligentes e ter sorte suficiente para criar para nós próprios emprego sob medida que não nos force a cubículos cinzentos, a rotina das 9 às 5, a deprimentes viagens de casa ao trabalho e vice-versa, a almoços indutores de indigestão engolidos em nossas mesas de trabalho, colegas e chefes que escangalham nossos nervos, ternos com colete, meias-calças, e total exaustão ao fim do dia.

Você e eu, porém, os cautelosos autônomos, ainda assim somos aguilhoados pelas consequências de um sistema que produz crianças negligenciadas e defeituosamente criadas, uma cultura de consumo desenfreado, corporações impessoais, abuso de televisão e de drogas como meio de amortecer a dor, vizinhos e membros da famílias infelizes e não realizados e muitos, muitos problemas mais que nos atingem com tanta força quanto a com que atingem detentores de empregos.

Será possível, pois, criar uma sociedade na qual o trabalho seja mais satisfatório pessoalmente e se insira de maneira mais natural no resto de nossas vidas? Será possível criar tal escolha para todos aqueles que quiserem fazê-la?

Praticamente todo escritor que defende a abolição dos empregos e o elogio do lazer repete o mesmo punhado de mensagens interessantes, mas ligeiramente inúteis.

Primeiro, eles chamam a atenção para sociedades de caçadores-extrativistas (trabalhando, em média, 3 a 4 horas por dia) e dizem: Se eles podem, por que não nós? Deixam de observar que caçadores-extrativistas, quaisquer sejam suas outras virtudes, não inventam vacinas, não constroem dispositivos de alta tecnologia, nem gozam de amenidades tais como canalizações dentro de casa.

Os escritores contra empregos também falam de tornar o trabalho numa espécie de divertimento. Esse outro grande traço das sociedades de caçadores-extrativistas. É fácil divertir-se colhendo amoras ou caçando veados com um grupo de amigos. Ninguém, porém, constrói equipamento médico de precisão por diversão. Nem desce uma milha abaixo do solo para ‘carregar dezesseis toneladas de hulha número nove’ por diversão.

Finalmente os escritores contrários ao emprego são entusiastas da teoria utópica: A sociedade poderia funcionar muito bem se, apenas, se, somente. As propostas utópicas são inevitavelmente deficientes no tocante a detalhes fundamentais. Elas deixam de levar em consideração como nos desmamar da cultura de empregos corporativos sem coerção. Elas deixam de notar como os modernos bens e serviços poderiam ser produzidos sem as grandes, bem-financiadas – e alicerçadas em empregos – instituições que proporcionam tanto da vida moderna. (Você não consegue combinar genes, cindir átomos ou fabricar chips de computador em sua graciosamente antiquada oficina Amish.)

Portanto as perguntas são:

1. Será possível ter-se uma cultura natural de trabalho e lazer sem resvalar para sobrevivência em nível de subsistência?
2. E será possível termos os benefícios da tecnologia avançada sem ter de sacrificar tanto de nosso tempo, nossa individualidade e nossa sanidade para obtê-los?

Na medida em que o governo e seus fortemente favorecidos e subsidiados corporações e mercados financeiros governam nossos dias de trabalho, as respostas a essas perguntas nunca virão. Só poderemos encontrar nosso caminho rumo a uma sociedade de trabalho e lazer humana por meio de experimento e experiência. E seremos capazes de levar a cabo esses experimentos apenas em conjunção com (perdoem-me usar a expressão lugar-comum, mas precisa) mudança de paradigma. A atual cultura do emprego, que nos aprisiona nos grilhões de prata dos benefícios e nas cadeias da dívida, espreita sinistramente em nosso caminho.

A indispensável transformação profunda parece, hoje, muito longínqua. No entanto, paradigmas mudam. Instituições desabam. E amiúde caem exatamente quando o velho paradigma parece mais entranhado ou as antigas instituições parecem mais imutáveis.

Parte do maquinário da mudança já pode estar assestada. Por exemplo:

• Embora a automação ainda não tenha nos alijado dos empregos, ao contrário do que se supunha faria, ainda assim ela tem o potencial de eliminar muitos tipos de trabalho tipo escravo.
• Embora o trabalho relacionado com o conhecimento não tenha capacitado milhões de nós a sair do mundo corporativo e trabalhar em casa (ao contrário do que, repetindo, acreditava-se que faria), esse é mais um problema de psicologia do poderio corporativo do que de tecnologia. Nossos chefes temem deixar-nos trabalhar permanentemente em casa; afinal de contas, nós poderíamos tomar pausa para café de 20 minutos, em vez de 10! Mas e se, digamos, uma crise de combustíveis ou epidemia tornasse imperativo que a maioria de nós ficasse em casa para fazer nosso trabalho? O paradigma poderia mudar tão depressa que nossos chefes cairiam.
• Uma atitude de larga escala também poderia subverter a estrutura tradicional de emprego. E isso, também, poderá já estar acontecendo. Quantos pais e mães não estão olhando e dizendo: Essa porcaria de dois empregos não está-nos levando a lugar nenhum? É apenas um pequeno salto dali à verdade real: a porcaria de um emprego só também não satisfaz nossas necessidades reais. Quantos de nós gastamos 10 ou 20 ou 30 anos investindo no engodo empregos = bom; gastar = bom, só para no fim decidir distanciar-nos do labirinto do rato e fazer algo menos lucrativo mas mais gratificante?

Vocês veem muitas pessoas choramingando pesarosamente depois de se distanciarem do mundo do emprego e de criarem uma vida mais centrada no lar, na família, na aventura, no espírito, na comunidade? Apenas aquelas poucas que, por planejamento falho e muito má sorte, tentaram e não conseguiram.

Mesmo antes de a ilusão maior emprego = bom se despedaçar, é certamente possível que milhões de pessoas vivam vidas mais naturais sem a escravidão do emprego. À medida que mais pessoas declaram sua independência, mais redes de apoio surgem para ajudá-las (por exemplo, seguro de saúde acessível para os autônomos, ou proporcionadores de cuidados de saúde optando por proporcionar serviços mais acessíveis por meio de programas de pagamento unicamente em dinheiro como o Simple Care.)

E podemos começar a cogitar: Que tipos de tecnologia nos permitem viver mais independentemente, e que tipos de independência nos permitem tirar proveito de tecnologias de enriquecimento da vida mantendo-nos ao mesmo tempo fora daarmadilha do emprego degradante de nossa vida?

Arranje um emprego, e você terá vendido parte de você próprio a um dono. Você terá acabado de excluir-se dos reais frutos de seus próprios esforços.

Quando você é dono de seu próprio trabalho, édono de sua própria vida. É objetivo digno de muito sacrifício. E de muita reflexão profunda.

No entretempo, infelizmente, qualquer pessoa que grite Os empregos não são necessários! Os empregos não são saudáveis para adultos e outras coisas viventes! estará gritando no vazio. Nós os Elias e Cassandras podemos ter a certeza de que seremos tratados como idiotas minoritários. E qualquer pessoa que comece a apresentar algum plano sério que comece por derruir os alicerces da estrutura de poderio estado-corporação pode esperar ser tratada como Inimiga Pública Número Um e melhor fará em olhar por cima do próprio ombro. Porque, como Merle Travis e Ned Ludd,ela ameaça a segurança daqueles que têm poder sobre os outros.

Artigo original afixado por Claire Wolfe em 20 de setembro de 2012.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

Another election is behind us, and some people are still basking in the glow of democracy. You know those people — Chris Matthews of MSNBC comes to mind — who think there is nothing better in life than being able to vote for who will run the government. (Sometimes they say “run the country!”)

“Consider yourself blessed,” they say. “In other parts of the world, people can’t do what you have the right to do.” This implies that the most important thing those other people lack is the right to traipse to the polls and cast their one vote each, thus having a “say” in who will “lead” them. I’d say they’re lacking more important things; after all, one vote rarely makes a difference.

Look in the mirror. If that person stayed home election day, Barack Obama would still have been reelected. It doesn’t matter that if several million Obama voters stayed home, Mitt Romney would have won. No one person controls several million votes. Each individual decides for himself or herself whether to go to the polls, and no one decides for someone else. Hence your vote doesn’t count.

So this difference between societies that get to vote for their “leaders” and those that don’t isn’t as great as it may seem. Is there some other difference that may be more significant?

Here’s a possibility: Freedom of speech, or the right to speak out. For many civil libertarians this right is what distinguishes a free country from an unfree one. By golly, every person has a right express his or her opinion. As long as that’s true, we are free people. Or so we’re told.

It is true that we Americans can express our opinions generally without fearing government reprisal — and that’s good. This isn’t true in North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia, or even in some places that count as democratic. But is this really what makes a country free?

I’m not persuaded. Sure, it’s nice to speak out against a government policy. But does it do any good? I hate that the U.S. government has troops all around the world. I hate that the military occupies Afghanistan and meddles in civil wars. I hate that the president has a kill list from which he picks human targets and then dispatches remote-controlled drones to murder them with Hellfire missiles, often killing people other than the intended victims. I speak out and write about this all the time. What good has it done? Both presidential candidates supported these policies, which would have continued no matter who had won.

The freedom to speak out, then, is not quite what it’s cracked up to be. Maybe the people of North Korea, Cuban, Saudi Arabia, and those other countries wouldn’t be gaining quite as much as we like to think if that freedom were respected.

Actually there’s a more important freedom that they lack — one that we Americans lack too: the freedom to opt out. If you think the freedom to speak out is important, you should give some thought to the freedom to opt out. Now there is a freedom!

The freedom to opt out means that no one can force you to participate in any government activity that you object to. If you wanted to look after your own retirement pension, you could opt out of Social Security. If you wanted to arrange for your own medical care, you could opt out of Obamacare and Medicare. If you didn’t want to help agribusiness or Wall Street, you could opt out of subsidy and bailout programs. And so on.

Think about it: If you were repulsed by drone warfare against the children of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, you could refuse to pay for it. If you retched at the thought of monstrous-looking U.S. troops breaking down doors in nighttime raids in Afghanistan, you could withdraw your financial support. If you thought the war on certain drug makers, vendors, and consumers was immoral, you could just say no to those who perpetrate it.

This would not get rid of the government immediately, as we market anarchists would like. But it would sure beat the hell out of what we have now.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, Desligarse del Estado.

In this episode of Speaking On Liberty we have an interview with C4SS Senior Fellow Charles W. Johnson, co-editor of “Markets not Capitalism.”

http://youtu.be/rQiy4ICwnYA

Property is theft. –P.J. Proudhon
Property is Liberty. –P.J. Proudhon
Property is impossible. –P.J. Proudhon
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. –Ralph Waldo Emerson

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction “property” covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts attached for maximum clarity.

“Property₁ is theft” means that property₁, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property₁; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

“Property₂ is liberty” means that property₂ that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people’s interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other’s toes; only when rules of the game declare clearly “This is mine and this is thine,” and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

“Property₃ is impossible” means that property₃ (= property₁) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties₁ and properties₃ as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle*. He also forsaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.

It is not averred, of course, that property₂ will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most libertarians – especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand – is to assume that all property₁ is property₂. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, “Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?” If it be the former, it is property₂ and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property₁ and represents theft.

Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 767-68

*The SNAFU Principle is a sociological notion popular among Discordians. In its simplest form, it states that Communication is only possible between equals. In a hierarchy, people inevitably distort the truth when dealing with their superiors, in order to curry favor or escape punishment. As a consequence, said superiors operate from an increasingly distorted view of the world, resulting in bad decisions.

SNAFU itself is a military acronym for “Situation Normal, All Fucked Up”.

The following article is translated into Portuguese from the English original, written by Kevin Carson.

Com a rejeição do “Não Pergunte, Não Conte,” as forças armadas dos Estados Unidos puseram fim a pelo menos uma parcela importante de sua discriminação oficial com base em orientação sexual. Desde o acordo no Congresso no último outono — uma das poucas promessas do Presidente Obama que ele realmente levou adiante — a comunidade gay e lésbica vinha contando os meses, dias e horas. O MSNBC retumbava com brados de “Nunc dimittis!”  Assim, acrescentarei minhas próprias congratulações aos membros gay do serviço … acho.

À primeira vista, essa história parece uma grande vitória para qualquer pessoa que deteste ver instituições grandes e poderosas tripudiarem sobre a dignidade humana das pessoas e tratarem-nas como lixo. A um segundo olhar, entretanto, o que vocês acham que são as forças armadas do estado, afinal de contas?

Graças a esta recente abençoada ocasião, temos agora o prazer de saber que a tortura em Guantánamo — prisão cujo fechamento é promessa que Obama não levou adiante — é conduzida por uma instituição militar integrada não apenas sob o aspecto de raça mas também sob o aspecto de orientação sexual.

E as “entregas extrajudiciais,” as “técnicas rigorosas de interrogatório” na Base da Força Aérea de Baghram, e sabe lá Deus o que na rede de prisões secretas em todo o mundo — coisa que Obama nunca sequer prometeu fazer cessar — serão levadas a efeito tanto por gays quanto por heterossexuais. Que ótimo!

A missão principal de Exército, Marinha, Força Aérea e Marines é manter o mundo a salvo para as corporações transnacionais. E Deus tenha misericórdia de qualquer povo moreno em qualquer parte do mundo que se colocar no caminho de tal missão. Então agora gays e lésbicas têm direito igual de juntar-se à diversão de esfregar a bota de Tio Sam no rosto do mundo. Oba!

Este é um dos problemas do liberalismo da corrente majoritária: Substituiu a classe pela identidade. Em vez de questionar a estrutura do poder institucional nos Estados Unidos, e a exploração que ela possibilita, o liberalismo convencional meramente preconiza uma seleção representativa de mulheres, pretos, hispânicos e gays gerindo as instituições.

A série de Soledad O´Brien “Pretos nos Estados Unidos” na CNN, há alguns anos, mostrou um clipe do discurso do Dr. King “Eu tenho um sonho” — seguido por O’Brien dizendo solenemente que, como evidência da materialização daquele sonho, “Alguns são presidentes de empresas; alguns são secretários de estado.” Eu tenho um sonho pessoal: Ver o último presidente de empresa estrangulado com as vísceras do último secretário de estado.

Sugiro que, em vez de nos preocuparmos com se salas de diretorias corporativas, legislativos e gabinetes “têm cara de Estados Unidos,” preocupemo-nos com o domínio que essas instituições exercem sobre nossas vidas e nossos meios de subsistência. Como branco do sexo masculino, posso dizer que sei o que é ser intimidado, tratado injustamente e explorado até à alma por pessoas de aparência semelhante à minha — e, acreditem ou não, não é tão divertido quanto vocês possam supor.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 28 de setembro de 2011.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

From the Markets Not Capitalism audiobook read by C4SS fellow Stephanie Murphy.