The second campaign round of Brazil’s presidential election between Worker’s Party (PT) candidate and president Dilma Rousseff and Brazilian Social Democratic Party candidate Aecio Neves has started and a large portion of the electorate and the politicians connected to leftist parties have decided to take a stance.

The Liberty and Socialism Party (PSOL), for instance, drafted a note indicating a non-neutral neutrality: They do not support any of the candidates, but recommend that no one vote for Aecio Neves. Politicians from the party, including well-known deputies Marcelo Freixo and Jean Wyllys, have declared their support for Dilma, albeit they state they are taking a “critical” position and do not endorse all of her policies.

The voters are left in a curious position: In social media, it is possible to see PSOL sympathizers and militants saying they are voting for the “lesser evil,” who is supposed to be Dilma, in their opinion. The situation is so ridiculous that they even state that “her defeat would be our defeat, a defeat of the social movements and the left.” It is a cognitive dissonance that supposedly sees Dilma’s victory with disgust, but that effectively works in favor of PT’s project to stay in power.

A bigger defeat for social movements is that Dilma Rousseff will suffer no consequences for her actions and is still seen as a representative of the concerns of the left — in contrast to PSDB’s elitism, which is identical to PT’s. It does not matter that Rousseff and PT are strategic allies of large corporate conglomerates, subsidized by BNDES. It does not matter that PT campaigned for the violent expropriation of hundreds of thousands of families and created monopoly zones for the World Cup that excluded Brazilian workers. It does not matter that indigenous and riverside populations’ rights in the Amazon are continually violated. It does not even matter that PT’s policies contribute to expand Brazil’s housing deficit and push the poor away from urban centers. What matters is that leftists signal their opposition to an elite — to which the PT core leaders actually belong.

During the World Cup, Luciana Genro, the PSOL presidential candidate, stated that it was not a proper moment for protests. Genro’s and the Brazilian college left’s political convenience does not factor into common people’s considerations. That is why we spoke at C4SS in defense of civil disobedience during the World Cup, replacing FIFA’s authorized commerce with free street vendors, bazaars, and non-aligned ventures.

All these factors show the worst trait of the Brazilian left: Its slavish faith in the state. There is, in the left, a very messianic and Leninist notion of what is a political party: The Worker’s Party, despite all the injustice and suffering it promotes in its policies, symbolizes social change and should be kept in power at all costs.

That’s why Brazilian libertarian socialist Mario Ferreira dos Santos used to say that “politics, as a political method of the socialists, is but a means to an end,” but those means “end up becoming more important than the ends and replace them.” Mario noticed that political parties are a “false process of social emancipation” that replaces ends with means and through which we are “never able to reach the desired ends; when we achieve something, it’s always in spite of politics.”

The partisan left pro-Rousseff, nowadays, puts their political means on a pedestal and despises their supposed ends, deifying the role of PT in Brazilian history as a revolutionary vanguard. In doing so, they relativize the absurd injustices committed by their government.

Maybe these militants think they are fulfilling some sort of historical mission and that soothes their conscience, but it certainly does not return the dignity and homes of the evicted and the affected by the World Cup, nor does it give back to the Brazilian people the billions that capitalists pocketed in cooperation with the government.

Government is the enemy of the poor and the minorities. No supposed progressive vanguard can deny this fact.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, El partidismo servil de los socialistas brasileños.

Nell’ormai classico articolo “A esquerda punitiva” (“La Sinistra Punitiva”), Maria Lucia Karam critica la sinistra brasiliana aver abbandonato i propri principi profondi sul cambiamento sociale e per essersi unita a chi vorrebbe un inasprimento della legislazione come strumento per risolvere i conflitti della società e garantire la pace sociale.

Secondo la Karam, la sinistra dimentica che l’apparato repressivo dello stato è rivolto principalmente contro le persone ai margini e fa molto spesso pulizia sociale, e la proposta di ulteriore criminalizzazione e repressione (così come la lotta ai crimini finanziari) avanzata dalla sinistra non risolve le contraddizioni strutturali.

I problemi di sicurezza creati dal traffico di droga ne sono un esempio. Invece di chiedere più repressione per ridurre la sensazione di insicurezza, la sinistra brasiliana dovrebbe riflettere sul fatto che è la stessa criminalizzazione della droga a creare il circuito della violenza. La lotta alla criminalizzazione, dunque, diventa lotta alla violenza.

La Karam conclude notando che il ruolo della sinistra dovrebbe essere di critica al sistema prevalente, non di rafforzamento della sua logica.

Durante il dibattito elettorale del 29 settembre, il candidato cosiddetto minore Levy Fidelix, rispondendo ad una domanda dell’altro candidato Luciana Genro riguardo il matrimonio omosessuale, ha fatto alcune dichiarazioni omofobiche offensive sulla televisione nazionale. Fidelix ha messo in mostra la tipica repulsione eteronormativa verso gli omosessuali mascherata da “difesa dei valori famigliari”. Ed è andato oltre dicendo che il “sistema escretorio” non fa parte dell’apparato riproduttivo e che chi non è eterosessuale dovrebbe, in qualche modo, essere escluso dalla vita sociale. “Lontanissimo” dal resto della società così da poter curare i suoi presunti problemi affettivi e psicologici.

Molti a sinistra, non volendo perdere l’occasione, si sono detti a favore della criminalizzazione dell’omofobia, e hanno usato le parole di Fidelix come esempio di quello che bisognerebbe vietare. Secondo questa parte della sinistra, l’omofobia dovrebbe essere un crimine da trattare come il razzismo. Ma è proprio difendendo questo ragionamento che commettono l’errore della sinistra punitiva.

Criminalizzare un comportamento non può rappresentare il sistema principale per risolvere i conflitti sociali, perché si tratta di costrizione, che dovrebbe essere usata solo in caso di aggressione contro la libertà individuale.

L’idea di ricorrere alla criminalizzazione come soluzione di tutti i problemi è alla base dell’espansione drammatica della regolamentazione della vita da parte dello stato. In questo modo, qualunque comportamento può essere definito criminale.

La criminalizzazione delle opinioni inaccettabili è uno strumento diffuso, comune a tutti i regimi autoritari. Non è neanche uno strumento di cambiamento, ma di reazione. Non esiste una versione purificata perché in fin dei conti stiamo criminalizzando opinioni che davvero meritano disprezzo. È sempre e comunque uno strumento autoritario che serve a soffocare il dissenso.

Come fa notare Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature, i grandi cambiamenti storici non sono mai stati il prodotto della “criminalizzazione delle opinioni conservatrici” (cosa che un tempo non era neanche possibile), ma sono passati attraverso un processo storico più complesso che comprendeva la decriminalizzazione delle opinioni e la libertà di espressione. La grande scoperta liberale, se vogliamo garantire la pace sociale, è che non siamo obbligati ad essere d’accordo su tutto, ma solo su chi ha il diritto di decidere chi ha ragione: l’individuo.

Criminalizzare l’omofobia e il razzismo può avere esiti molto spiacevoli. Molti già accusano le femministe di misandria e il movimento Lgbt di “eterofobia”. Accuse assurde, ma non è difficile immaginare che qualcuno potrebbe chiedere la soppressione di queste espressioni, soprattutto se si criminalizza l’opposto, ovvero il machismo e l’omofobia. Nessuno garantisce che questi argomenti non possano in futuro essere criminalizzati come incitamenti all’odio, a tutto svantaggio della libertà di dibattito e dei diritti delle minoranze.

Ecco perché il modo migliore di combattere il razzismo, l’omofobia e le altre culture discriminatorie non passa per la criminalizzazione. Scrive Mano Ferreira in un suo articolo, “Por um principio da nao opressao” (“A Favore del Principio della non-Oppressione”): “Quando edifichiamo il principio libertario della non-oppressione, dobbiamo puntare all’espansione della libertà. Secondo me, è attraverso la cooperazione volontaria e il rafforzamento sociale degli oppressi che, legittimamente e efficacemente, si pongono le basi per la lotta all’oppressione. È necessario analizzare profondamente il meccanismo dell’oppressione e le possibilità di eliminarlo: in questa missione dobbiamo riconoscere l’importanza di autori che aderiscono a correnti epistemologiche diverse, capirli e ridare loro importanza.”

L’azione diretta e il boicottaggio sociale sono strumenti molto utili a questo scopo, come ho fatto notare a quelle femministe che combattono la cultura dello stupro.

Quando si lotta per il progresso della società è bene lasciar fuori la criminalizzazione delle opinioni. L’emancipazione delle minoranze si può ottenere, e si otterrà, attraverso un processo di consolidamento storico e di allargamento e svecchiamento delle reti della cooperazione sociale volontaria, dove la criminalità dello stato e l’oppressione sociale sarà rigettata per essere sostituita dalla libertà.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

C4SS Feed 44 presents Joel Schlosberg‘s “Our Bodies, Their Subsidies” read Christopher King and edited by Nick Ford.

Moreover, the Affordable Care Act is merely the latest in a century-long line of legislation ostensibly aimed at increasing the affordability of health care, but which by subsidy have locked in a status quo of needlessly high levels of costly treatment required in order to receive any level of health care, crowding out innovations in the lower-cost methods and self-help advocated by Dr. Gordon.

As Ivan Illich observed in 1975 in Medical Nemesis:

“Awe-inspiring medical technology has combined with egalitarian rhetoric to create the impression that contemporary medicine is highly effective. Undoubtedly, during the last generation, a limited number of specific procedures have become extremely useful. But where they are not monopolized by professionals as tools of their trade, those which are applicable to widespread diseases are usually very inexpensive and require a minimum of personal skills, materials, and custodial services from hospitals. In contrast, most of today’s skyrocketing medical expenditures are destined for the kind of diagnosis and treatment whose effectiveness at best is doubtful.”

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Federal officials are warning “U.S. law enforcement about the threat of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks against police officers, government workers and ‘media figures’ in the U.S.” Unfortunately many Americans will buy into the state propaganda, spurring even more authoritarian increases in police and military power.

But what reasons are there to think that Islamic terrorists are a significant threat to Americans? Simply put, there are none. But when has that ever stopped the government?

Lack of real evidence for danger hasn’t stopped government officials before and I suspect they will be damned if it gets in their way now. After all, the United States government has a long history of using scant (sometimes even completely non-existent) evidence to fuel increases in its power.

NBC reports that an ISIS recorded message urges, “lone wolf terrorists in Western countries to carry out attacks on, ‘soldiers, patrons, and troops … their police, security and intelligence members.’” In a separate incident, an Army Intelligence Bulletin warns that ISIS militants “called on supporters to scour social media for addresses of their family members.”

Even if these claims are true, this is hardly justification for any kind of panic or worry, let alone state action. After all, you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by  a terrorist. While terrorists killed 17 American citizens worldwide in 2011, police officers killed at least 155 that same year!

This is not to diminish the tragic death of those 17 human beings, but merely to put things into perspective and show what’s wrong with where our priorities actually lie. If you’re nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer, the so called “public servant” tasked with protecting you, than you are to be killed by a terrorist — you know, that group of people that the United States government has declared war on and spent $6 trillion dollars to fight — then who are the real terrorists? I doubt we’re going to see a “war on cops” anytime soon, despite the depressing statistics.

Economist FA Hayek warned that, “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” While it was said decades ago, there is no time that exemplifies the truth of Hayek’s insight better than the last 15 years. The war on terror and increased police militarization have destroyed not only security (they make us less safe, not more) and privacy, but also lives — American or otherwise.

If there was one quote that I could magically have every American understand the meaning of, it would be Hayek’s. The imperial presidency, the security state, the surveillance state and the police state are all built upon rampant fearmongering and so-called “emergencies.” But if more people grasped Hayek’s maxim, Leviathan wouldn’t have the power to spy, imprison, torture, bomb and murder like it does right now.

The recent worry over ISIS attacks on American citizens is merely the latest in a long history of propaganda peddling in order to create fear over non-existent threats, implicitly hiding the real ones, and ratchet up state power. It’s pure BS. The government knows it. We just need the American people to realize it.

La Federal Reserve ha l’incarico di mettere in pratica la politica monetaria americana. Considerato che dirige la più grande potenza economica mondiale, la Fed è ai vertici delle istituzioni di potere. Anche se guida la politica monetaria pubblica, la Fed è in gran parte privata. Dunque si muove in segreto, in assenza di controlli pubblici. Grazie a Carmen Segarra, però, ora possiamo dare uno sguardo all’interno della Federal Reserve.

Qualche tempo fa, la Segarra è stata assunta dalla Fed di New York come esaminatore bancario, cioè con il compito di controllare che la banca seguisse tutti i regolamenti interni e di “supervisionare” questa centrale di potere economico. Durante il suo lavoro, la Segarra ha cominciato a sospettare una certa condiscendenza della Fed con le banche d’investimento che avevano buone amicizie; soprattutto la Goldman Sachs, protagonista chiave della crisi finanziaria nel 2008. Per confermare i suoi sospetti, ha registrato 46 ore di incontri privati e conversazioni. Le registrazioni rivelano un atteggiamento piuttosto accomodante della Fed con le istituzioni finanziarie che avrebbe dovuto controllare. Prove alla mano, la Segarra ha dato voce alla sua protesta. È stata subito licenziata.

La donna è andata ad aggiungersi ai ranghi di altri informatori e ha passato le registrazioni a Jake Bernstein, un giornalista investigativo di ProPublica, e al programma radiofonico This American Life. In un’intervista con l’emittente Npr, Bernstein nota: “Questa è gente che lavora dentro le banche. Incontra queste persone tutti i giorni, ha bisogno di informazioni dalle banche. È più facile ottenerle se si hanno amici e buone relazioni, ma a volte si scade nell’ossequio.” Le registrazioni rivelano molte cose, come gli accordi segreti definiti “oscuri” dagli stessi rappresentanti della Fed, e rivelano la cultura corrotta che regna nella banca centrale.

“Scadere nell’ossequio” non è il termine appropriato. Meglio chiamarlo furto. La popolazione è derubata della propria libertà di agire e della propria sicurezza. Un furto sotto forma di salvataggi bancari e di una politica economica basata sul “troppo grande per fallire”, a vantaggio del capitalismo di stato.

Dopo le rivelazioni, il senatore democratico Elizabeth Warren, del Massachusetts, ha invocato un’indagine sulla corruzione della Fed. Assieme a lei il suo collega democratico Sherrod Brown. Illusioni.

Sono tantissimi anni che le grandi aziende e il settore finanziario godono di privilegi economici garantiti dallo stato con la premessa che queste istituzioni sono indispensabili alla società. La finanza è separata ma allo stesso tempo legata profondamente allo stato. Questo significa che l’economia della nazione è connessa direttamente con queste istituzioni. Questi legami danno forza ad un’economia politica corporativa in cui lo stato ha interesse diretto a far sì che queste concentrazioni di capitale, oggi definite “troppo grandi per fallire”, abbiano successo. Se vuole conservarsi in salute, lo stato deve garantire la stabilità del capitalismo.

Le normative appaiono così come uno spreco di tempo, energie e denaro pubblico.

Noi che apparteniamo alla sinistra di mercato siamo contrari a queste concentrazioni di potere e capitali, che in primo luogo permettono l’esistenza di istituzioni “troppo grandi per fallire”. Crediamo che spetti al potere della società, liberato dalla simbiosi stato-capitale, guidare il mercato. Immaginiamo un sistema economico e di governance decentralizzato e partecipativo. In una società basata sulla libertà personale e di associazione non c’è posto per il potere.

Chi è a capo della Fed, così come gli altri presunti controllori, crede di poter programmare l’economia. Il loro problema è che il mercato, come tutto ciò che dipende dal comportamento umano, non è fatto per essere programmato: il mercato è spontaneo. La volontà di controllare l’economia porta necessariamente all’ingabbiamento dell’attività umana e dell’innovazione. In un mercato liberato, al contrario, il potere sarebbe diffuso tra tutti, e questo richiederebbe libertà di agire e di seguire le proprie inclinazioni. È tempo di chiudere la Fed e di mettere in pratica un’economia basata sulla libertà.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

C4SS Feed 44 presents Nathan Goodman‘s “Don’t Reform the Surveillance State, Route Around It” read Christopher King and edited by Nick Ford.

Moreover, the state tends to secure its own interests and those of concentrated special interest groups first and foremost. Bills that pose a substantial threat to the NSA, their telecom company collaborators or profiteers like Booz Allen Hamilton will tend to be eroded or defeated due to the power of these predatory interest groups. Or worse, they will be twisted to serve the interests of these oligarchs.

Legislative reform is a dead end, but there’s a better way. We can route around the state, thwart its surveillance efforts, and make it progressively harder to intercept and watch our communications.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

In his recent Rolling Stone cover story (“In Defense of Obama,” October 8), Nobel Prize-winning economist,  peak liberal and New York Times commentator Paul Krugman lays out what he believes is a qualified defense of Barack Obama’s presidency: A sycophantic love letter from a man who surely must know better, but either has chosen to ignore six years of war, economic pain and social tension, or simply doesn’t care.

“Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history,” Krugman writes. His evidence? Health reform doesn’t suck nearly as much as it might, economic reform didn’t cripple nearly as many big cities as predicted, and most bafflingly, the Obama administration’s environmental policy is, in Krugman’s opinion, doing just fine and dandy, thank you very much.

Never mind that Detroit lies in ruins; that healthcare reform provides a larger conduit for profits and unfair advantages for health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies than at any point under the previous “free market” system; that one of Obama’s main environmental goals is construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, intentionally holding the ecosystem of the entire Midwestern United States hostage so that TransCanada can make money on the dirtiest form of fossil fuel known to humanity.

This is to say nothing of the Obama administration’s deleterious foreign policy; a domestic surveillance program that disregards every privacy law up to and including the constitutional ban on unwarranted search and seizure; a military-to-police equipment pipeline that gives local law enforcement the illusion of greater power and impunity to do worse and worse things to individuals.

Let’s not forget that it’s the Obama administration’s Justice Department that spied on the Associated Press. It’s the Obama administration that killed Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki with drones. Chelsea Manning languishes in prison for leaking information to Wikileaks under the Obama administration’s watch.

Krugman believes that the president has “[changed] the country for the better,” despite bitter opposition from the GOP in Congress and people from the left, right and center on the outside.

Krugman believes that the supposedly positive incremental changes the president has made are better than nothing. “No president gets to do everything his supporters expected him to,” he writes.

Reading Krugman’s assessment of the Obama presidency, one must assume that the president’s hands are tied on some issues, that he sometimes necessarily stands by, helpless to do anything while the machinery of the state churns onward, unrelenting. But the policies the Obama administration has carried out have not passed under his nose unnoticed. He is not ignorant of some of the most egregious civil liberties violations his government has perpetrated. It is true that the president is merely one man, but he is a man who stands atop a structure that relies on violence and pain to continue its existence, and he took the position knowing full well that that was the case.

The incremental, superficial change that Krugman lauds is just new window dressing on a house awaiting demolition. To be clear: There is nothing good about the Obama presidency; or any presidency, for that matter. It is the office itself that poisons what might have otherwise been decent people.

John della Volpe, che insegna Sistemi Elettorali presso l’istituto di politica di Harvard, qualche tempo fa ha fatto questa osservazione: “[i]nvece di rendersi utili in politica… i giovani elettori sono purtroppo sempre più disillusi, non si fidano di ciò che viene da Washington.” Volpe cita un sondaggio dell’istituto di politica da cui risulta che, tra i giovani della generazione Y, “la fiducia in quasi tutte le istituzioni prese in esame” è a livelli incredibilmente e tristemente bassi.

Secondo Volpe, il fatto che i giovani non si fidino della presidenza, del Congresso e di Washington in generale è un triste problema, qualcosa di cui i politici dovrebbero “prendersi cura”. Ovvero, dovrebbero trovare il modo di risvegliare la coscienza civile.

Essendo io stesso tra questi giovani, vorrei far notare che, sempre che il sondaggio di Volpe sia rappresentativo, il cinismo verso la politica della mia generazione, la nostra sfiducia, il nostro disgusto verso i politici e il governo federale, sono una risposta naturale e sana a ciò che ci circonda.

Quelli come Volpe, sacerdoti del culto politico, faticano a credere che esistano persone preoccupate per il benessere della propria comunità a cui non importa se l’ultimo vincitore alle elezioni era un repubblicano o un democratico. Non accettano il fatto che ci siano giovani che vedono la politica per quello che è: il linguaggio della forza, il sistema che permette a qualcuno di tiranneggiare gli altri. Contrariamente a quello che onestamente credono John della Volpe e i fedeli della politica, quest’ultima in realtà non è un modo onesto, tantomeno lecito, di affrontare “le sfide fondamentali dei nostri tempi”.

Alla base dalla politica c’è semplicemente un gruppo di persone che impone le proprie regole e il proprio volere sugli altri attraverso l’uso della forza fisica. La politica può apparire più o meno democratica, più o meno liberale, ma è sempre e ovunque la semplice maschera del dominio.

Deve essere difficile essere un non anarchico sincero. Davanti a qualunque questione deve seguire il cammino erratico dell’impulso e del capriccio di altri, deve concedersi a risposte e distinzioni casuali e arbitrarie. Invece che sul principio della sovranità individuale, deve confidare sull’espediente pratico, o anche solo su una sua idea, qualunque sia l’esito.

Pare un modo tutt’altro che ideale di fare un’analisi (se possiamo chiamarla analisi) delle questioni sociali, soprattutto a chi sta vicino a questi non anarchici e deve sottostare ai loro standard incostanti e illogici. Intendiamoci, un anarchico non è uno che pretende che tutte le questioni sociali siano risolte facendo ricorso alla magia della sovranità individuale, ma solo uno che ci vede il punto d’inizio e un principio guida.

Ovviamente, una volta stabiliti i nostri principi anarchici, rimangono infinite questioni. Ad esempio, cosa è l’autorità, o l’aggressione? La proprietà privata è assenza di autorità o un suo esempio? A queste e ad altre domande gli anarchici rispondono con un’infinità di sfumature diverse.

Ma la nostra risposta è così lontana da quella statalista che, anche senza accordo pieno, condividiamo lo stesso obiettivo: il massimo della libertà sociale ed economica per ogni individuo. Lo statalismo, al contrario, anche nelle sue forme più blande e liberali, significa soltanto controllo, dominio, aggressione e sfruttamento.

Se è vero che la generazione Y evita la politica, la conclusione potrebbe essere esattamente l’opposto di quello che pensa John della Volpe. Non ai nostri feudatari di Washington, a quei pesi morti venali e senza scrupoli che scrivono leggi a favore degli interessi particolari, ma a noi stessi dovremmo rivolgerci. Quando lavoriamo, collaboriamo e scambiamo quello che produciamo fuori dalle leggi e dai regolamenti dello stato, esprimiamo il massimo grado di coscienza civile.

L’evidente avversione della mia generazione per la politica non è apatia, ma repulsione cosciente e attiva. Sono contento di continuare ad evitare la politica e i seggi. Invito gli altri come me a creare qualcosa di nuovo e di meglio fuori dal loro mondo decadente.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

As discussões políticas nos Estados Unidos frequentemente deixam de perceber a diferença entre “pró-empresas” e “pró-mercado”. A incapacidade de observar as implicações dessa diferença leva os comentaristas políticos e os eleitores a acreditar que, se um candidato é pró-empresas, naturalmente deva ser um ardente defensor do mercado livre.

Ultimamente essa narrativa ultrasimplificada está sendo desafiada, uma vez que grupos empresariais como a Câmara de Comércio dos Estados Unidos cada vez mais apoiam democratas em vez de republicanos do Tea Party, que são percebidos como mais libertários que os republicanos tradicionais e assim mais dispostos a tomar medidas hostis aos grandes negócios.

Não importa quais sejam os ruídos populistas embutidos nos discursos de campanha, o fato mais óbvio é que ambos os grandes partidos americanos participam do mesmo jogo corporativo. Apesar dos argumentos contrários dos republocratas, no momento decisivo você não conseguirá encontrar um mísero defensor dos mais fracos entre os burocratas americanos. Pelo contrário, no final a discussão não é entre os grupos azuis e vermelhos — é entre o próprio processo político, o mecanismo da autoridade política, e o resto de nós, pessoas comuns e trabalhadoras que tentam pagar as contas.

Para vislumbrar o real relacionamento entre as grandes empresas e o estado, precisamos apenas examinar brevemente os dados sobre como os comitês de ação política (PACs) das maiores e mais influentes empresas do país gastam seu dinheiro. Considere alguns exemplos de 2010: naquele ano, o comitê da grande empresa de defesa Raytheon deu 56% de seu dinheiro para os democratas e 44% para os republicanos. A gigante aeroespacial Boeing dividiu suas doações quase ao meio, canalizando 53% delas para os democratas e 45% para os republicanos. A gigantesca firma do agronegócio Monsanto deu 46% do dinheiro de seu PAC para o Partido Democrata e 54% para o Republicano.

Essas divisões entre democratas e republicanos evidentemente variam a cada eleição, dependendo de fatores como a composição do Congresso e a probabilidade de vitória de cada um. E certamente diferenças marginais entre candidatos e partidos também pode se apresentar em dada eleição. O ponto aqui, porém, é que as entidades corporativas são como o próprio estado: não-partidárias, mas interessadas apenas em poder e engrandecimento próprio.

Não se engane, nossos leviatãs corporativos não se importam com os nomes que estão no poder, contanto que joguem de acordo com as regras, perpetuando um jogo venal de coesão pública-privada que nada tem a ver com a “liberdade e justiça para todos”. O que pensaríamos sobre um indivíduo que repartisse seu dinheiro quase igualmente entre os dois maiores candidatos ano após ano? Provavelmente que se trata de um louco ou alguém com múltiplas personalidades. Quando uma entidade corporativa o faz, contudo, nós consideramos sua ação (provavelmente de forma correta) como algo estritamente estratégico, uma ilustração da realpolitik e uma maneira com a qual as empresas contam para garantir boas relações com ambas as alas do establishment político.

Essa cumplicidade entre o poder corporativo e estatal não é necessariamente planejada ou premeditada, mas também não é acidental. Um sistema centralizado de política que dá poderes discrecionários e legislativos amplos a um pequeno grupo elitizado incentiva o abuso desses poderes em favor dos interesses dos endinheirados. Como o anarquista individualista William Bailie escreveu, “leis são feitas direta ou indiretamente de acordo com o interesse da classe capitalista e são sempre administradas e interpretadas (…) nesse espírito”.

Os anarquistas de mercado defendem um sistema econômico livre e justo em que os grandes negócios e o governo não trabalhem juntos para manipular as regras em prol dos poderosos e bem conectados. Consistentemente observadas, as liberdades de competição e trocas abalam o domínio das grandes empresas, que dependem atualmente do estado para possuírem seus muitos privilégios. Uma vez que nem republicanos nem democratas questionam as características fundamentais desse sistema estatal-corporativo, o caminho das mudanças reais não passa por nenhum deles.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

En el artículo ya clásico “A Esquerda punitiva” (“La izquierda punitiva”), Maria Lúcia Karam critica a la izquierda brasileña por traicionar sus convicciones profundamente arraigadas sobre el cambio social, uniéndose a los que desean fortalecer el derecho penal como principal medio de resolución de los conflictos sociales y garantizar la paz social.

Karam señala que la izquierda parece haber olvidado que el aparato represivo del estado se vuelve principalmente contra los grupos marginados, actuando las más de las veces como una forma de limpieza social, y que las propuestas de más criminalización y represión provenientes de la izquierda (como la lucha contra los delitos financieros) no resuelven esta contradicción estructural.

Un ejemplo de ello es el problema de seguridad creado por el tráfico de drogas: En lugar de apoyar una mayor represión del tráfico de drogas para reducir la sensación de inseguridad, la izquierda brasileña debe reflexionar sobre el hecho de que es la penalización de las drogas en sí misma la que crea el ciclo de la violencia relacionada con las drogas prevalente el país. Por lo tanto, luchar contra el derecho penal es luchar contra la violencia.

Karam concluye que el papel de la izquierda es criticar el sistema imperante, no reforzar su lógica.

En el debate presidencial de Brasil del 29 de septiembre, Levy Fidelix, apodado el “candidato enano,” hizo algunas declaraciones sumamente viles, homofóbicas y ofensivas en la televisión nacional después de que la también candidata Luciana Genro le preguntara acerca de su posición sobre el matrimonio gay. Fidelix mostró la típica repulsión heteronormativa a la homosexualidad disfrazada de “defensa de los valores familiares”, pero fue aún más lejos al declarar que el “sistema excretor” no es un órgano reproductor y que los no heterosexuales deberían ser excluidos de alguna manera de la vida social, “lejos” del resto de la sociedad para tratar sus supuestas afecciones y problemas psicológicos.

Siempre dispuestos a dar la pelea, muchos izquierdistas se manifestaron a favor de la criminalización de la homofobia y utilizaron las declaraciones de Fidelix como ejemplo de lo que el derecho penal debería prohibir. Según este sector de la izquierda brasileña la homofobia debería ser un delito a la par que el racismo. Pero al defender esa posición, cometen el error de la izquierda punitiva.

La criminalización de una conducta no puede ser el principal medio a través del cual se resuelve el conflicto social porque es la forma más coercitiva de hacerlo, y debería invocarse únicamente en caso de una agresión contra las libertades individuales.

La idea de la criminalización como solución para todos los problemas humanos ha ampliado dramáticamente la regulación estatal de la vida. Y de acuerdo con ese punto de vista, no hay comportamiento individual que no pueda ser potencialmente incluido en nuestros registros policiales.

Criminalizar las opiniones inaceptables ha sido una herramienta típicamente utilizada por todos y cada uno de los regímenes autoritarios de la historia humana. Nunca llega a ser una herramienta de transformación social, sino de la reacción. No va a purificarse porque por fin criminalicemos las opiniones que son realmente dignas de desprecio. Sigue siendo un medio autoritario para amordazar la disidencia.

Tal como lo demuestra Steven Pinker en Los ángeles que llevamos dentro, los grandes cambios en la historia de la humanidad no se han dado gracias a la “criminalización de opiniones conservadoras” (algo que ni siquiera era posible en ese momento), sino a través de un proceso histórico más complejo que incluyó la despenalización de las opiniones y la expansión de la libertad de expresión. El gran descubrimiento liberal es que para garantizar la paz social no tenemos que estar de acuerdo en todo, sino sólo en cuanto a quién debe tener el derecho de decidir quién tiene la razón: el propio individuo.

El proceso de criminalización de la homofobia y el racismo puede tener consecuencias bastante nocivas en el futuro: muchas personas acusan a las feministas de ser “misándricas”, y al movimiento LGBT de ser “heterofóbico”. A pesar de que estas son acusaciones absurdas, no es difícil pensar en una defensa de la supresión de su discurso por esos motivos, ya que sus polos opuestos (el machismo y la homofobia) pueden convertirse en crímenes. No hay ninguna garantía de que estos discursos no se criminalizarán y etiquetarán como expresiones de odio en el futuro, en detrimento del debate libre y los derechos de las minorías.

Por lo tanto, la mejor manera de luchar contra el racismo, la homofobia y otras culturas discriminatorias no es a través de su criminalización. Tal como lo expresó Mano Ferreira en su artículo “Por um Principio da nao opressao” (“Por un principio de no-opresión”): “En la elaboración de un principio libertario de la no-opresión, debemos tener en mente la ampliación de la libertad humana. Por lo tanto, creo que es a través de la cooperación voluntaria y el empoderamiento social de los oprimidos que construimos bases legítimas y eficaces para luchar contra la opresión. En ese proceso es necesario analizar en profundidad los mecanismos de opresión y las posibilidades de desarmarla – una misión en la que debemos reconocer la importancia de los autores que se adhieren a otras epistemologías, entenderlos y resignificarlos”.

La acción directa y el boicot social pueden ser herramientas muy útiles en este sentido, lo cual he sugerido en cuanto a la lucha feminista contra la cultura de la violación.

Hay que abandonar el paradigma de la criminalización de las opiniones en el contexto de la lucha por el progreso social, ya que la emancipación de las minorías se está obteniendo y se logrará a través de una consolidación, amplificación e iluminación histórica de las redes de cooperación social voluntaria, donde la criminalidad estatal y la opresión social se combatirán y rechazarán en favor de la libertad humana.

Artículo original publicado por Valdenor Júnior el 7 de octubre de 2014.

Traducido al español por Carlos Clemente a partir de la traducción al inglés de Erick Vasconcelos.

It’s well known that the United States has the largest prison population on Earth. It’s less obvious why this is the case. To truly understand mass incarceration, we should examine what caused America’s prison population to grow so dramatically over the last several decades.

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, a recent report by the National Research Council, helps explain the growth of America’s prison state. Last week I discussed the report’s findings regarding the impact of impact of mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws, truth in sentencing laws, and other harsh sentencing policies. This week I’ll discuss the report’s findings on the underlying causes of mass incarceration.

The authors begin by exploring how the federal government’s power and influence over criminal justice matters grew, and the substantial impact this had on the rising prison state:

Before World War II, the making, implementation, and enforcement of criminal justice policy in the United States were almost exclusively within the purview of the states or local authorities, not the federal government. From the 1940s onward, public officials and policy makers at all levels of government—from federal to state to local—increasingly sought changes in judicial, policing, and prosecutorial behavior and in criminal justice policy and legislation. These changes ultimately resulted in major increases in the government’s capacity to pursue and punish lawbreakers and, beginning in the 1970s, in an escalation of sanctions for a wide range of crimes. Furthermore, criminal justice became a persistent rather than an intermittent issue in U.S. politics. To a degree unparalleled in U.S. history, politicians and public officials beginning in the 1960s regularly deployed criminal justice legislation and policies for expressive political purposes as they made “street crime”—both real and imagined—a major national, state, and local issue. (105)

In response to race riots and other social unrest, “President Harry S. Truman and his supporters invoked the need for more “law and order” as they sought a greatly expanded role for the federal government in the general administration of criminal justice and law enforcement at the local and state levels and in the specific prosecution” (107). While Truman and his allies largely did not see their legislative proposals enacted, “all this legislative activity in the 1940s and 1950s deeply influenced how future discussions of law and order, crime, and the federal role in law enforcement would unfold. In advocating these measures, Truman and his allies helped establish a federal role in state and local law enforcement” (108).

The process of increasing federal control over criminal law continued, fueled by voices across the political spectrum. Civil libertarian impulses paved the way for an end to indeterminate sentencing and the rise of mandatory minimums. “The American Bar Foundation’s expansive research agenda in the 1950s and 1960s on the problem of discretion and arbitrary power also was a contributing factor to the political push for more uniformity, neutrality, and proceduralism in law enforcement and sentencing.” Also influential was “the American Legal Institute’s project to devise a Model Penal Code (to guide sentencing policy)” (108).

Of course, much of the political push for increased penal power came from the right. For example, the Goldwater campaign was among the first to push “law and order” as a key issue. After the Goldwater campaign, “the law-and-order issue became a persistent tripwire stretching across national and local politics. Politicians and policy makers increasingly chose to trigger that wire as they sought support for more punitive policies and for expansion of the institutions and resources needed to make good on promises to “get tough”” (108).

The 1965 Law Enforcement Assistance Act was a bipartisan bill that helped expand federal power in the realm of law enforcement. Liberal Democrats initially supported the act as a way of pushing proceduralism, police professionalism, uniformity, and fairness. However, more conservative politicians in both parties placed provisions into the act that served to expand police power and undermine the various rights that had been granted to suspects, defendants, and prisoners by the Warren Court. “Thus, with mixed motivations, both liberals and conservatives helped clear the political ground for this and subsequent measures that expanded the criminal justice system and ultimately gave local, state, and federal authorities increased capacity for arrest, prosecution, and incarceration” (110).

A similar process occurred with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The bill was initially supported by liberals, because early drafts “provided federal grants to police for equipment, training, and pilot programs and also greater federal investments in rehabilitation, crime prevention, and alternatives to incarceration” (110).  Republicans and southern Democrats substantially influenced the bill, however, and “successfully inserted provisions on wiretapping, confessions, and use of eyewitnesses that curtailed the procedural protections that had been extended by Supreme Court decisions” (111).

There were a variety of racial factors at play in the rise of the “tough on crime” politics that pushed increased incarceration. The Democratic Party’s split on Civil Rights issues enabled the Republican Party to use crime as a wedge issue and a key component of their “southern strategy.” Associating crime and racial fears for political gain was nothing new. The major distinction was the coded nature of this racism:

The southern strategy was different in that it rested on politicizing the crime issue in a racially coded manner. Nixon and his political strategists recognized that as the civil rights movement took root, so did more overt and seemingly universally accepted norms of racial equality.14 In this new political context, overtly racial appeals like those wielded by Goldwater’s supporters in the 1964 campaign would be counterproductive to the forging of a new winning majority. Effectively politicizing crime and other wedge issues—such as welfare—would require the use of a form of racial coding that did not appear on its face to be at odds with the new norms of racial equality. As top Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman explained, Nixon “emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while appearing not to [emphasis in original]” (Haldeman, 1994, p. 53). (116)

The southern strategy was key to the rise of mass incarceration, and white voters consistently support more punitive policies than blacks. However, it would be an oversimplification to suggest that black leaders and voters played no role in supporting the rise of punitive policies. For example, “some black activists in Harlem supported the Rockefeller drug laws, as did the city’s leading black newspaper (Barker, 2009; Fortner, 2013). In New York City and elsewhere, black leaders called for tougher laws for drug and other offenses and demanded increased policing to address residents’ demands that something be done about rising crime rates and the scourge of drug abuse, especially the proliferation of open-air drug markets and the use of illegal drugs such as heroin and then crack cocaine (Barker, 2009; Fortner, 2013; Forman, 2012)” (119).

Republicans often led the way in pushing punitive policies, but the push was generally bipartisan. Indeed, “The two parties embarked on periodic “bidding wars” to ratchet up penalties for drugs and other offenses. Wresting control of the crime issue became a central tenet of up-and-coming leaders of the Democratic Party represented by the center-right Democratic Leadership Council, most notably “New Democrat” Bill Clinton (Stuntz, 2011, pp. 239-240; Murakawa, forthcoming, Chapter 5; Schlosser, 1998; Campbell, 2007)” (120).

Ultimately, the U.S. government’s institutional features play a key role in explaining the rise of mass incarceration. As the National Research Council report notes, “the U.S. House and U.S. Senate have been far more likely to enact stiffer mandatory minimum sentence legislation in the weeks prior to an election. Because of the nation’s system of frequent legislative elections, dispersed governmental powers, and election of judges and prosecutors, policy makers tend to be susceptible to public alarms about crime and drugs and vulnerable to pressures from the public and political opponents to quickly enact tough legislation” (124). Electoral politics likewise makes prosecutors and judges behave in more punitive ways. “In the United States, most prosecutors are elected, as are most judges (except those who are nominated through a political process). Therefore, they are typically mindful of the political environment in which they function. Judges in competitive electoral environments in the United States tend to mete out harsher sentences (Gordon and Huber, 2007; Huber and Gordon, 2004)” (124).

This fits what we would expect from a public choice perspective. Research by Daniel D’Amico explores the perverse political incentives that give rise to disproportionate punishment in detail. Similar problems have also been explored in Paul Larkin‘s work on public choice theory and overcriminalization. This research can help us understand how America became the world leader in mass incarceration. Hopefully it can give us an idea of the institutional and ideological shifts that are necessary to change it.

Com o início da campanha de segundo turno das eleições presidenciais entre Dilma Rousseff (PT) e Aécio Neves (PSDB), parte do eleitorado e dos políticos ligado ao PSOL resolveu tomar uma posição.

O PSOL redigiu uma nota indicativa de uma neutralidade não-neutra: não apoia nenhum dos dois, mas recomenda não votar em Aécio Neves. Políticos do partido, como Marcelo Freixo e Jean Wyllys, declararam apoio à Dilma, ainda que tentem destacar que este apoio não significa um endosso completo das políticas dela.

Curiosa situação é dos eleitores: nas redes sociais, é possível ver simpatizantes ou militantes do PSOL afirmando estarem votando no “menos ruim”, que em sua opinião seria Dilma, mas fazendo campanha abertamente em seu favor e chegando ao cúmulo de afirmar que “sua derrota seria a nossa derrota, a derrota dos movimentos sociais e da esquerda”. É uma dissonância cognitiva que pretende ver a vitória de Dilma com desgosto, mas que efetivamente trabalha pela continuidade do projeto de poder petista.

Uma derrota muito maior é saber que Dilma não sofrerá nenhuma represália e continua sendo vista como a representante das preocupações dessa mesma esquerda – em contraste ao elitismo do PSDB, que não percebem que é idêntico ao elitismo do PT. Não importa que Dilma e o PT sejam aliados estratégicos de grandes conglomerados corporativos, subsidiados através do BNDES. Não importa que tenha desapropriado centenas de milhares de famílias e criado zonas de monopólio que excluíssem brasileiros para realizar a Copa do Mundo. Não importam os direitos de populações indígenas e ribeirinhas na Amazônia. Não importa nem mesmo que as políticas petistas contribuam para aumentar o déficit habitacional e empurrar os pobres cada vez mais para longe dos centros urbanos. O que importa é a sinalização de oposição a uma elite – da qual o núcleo petista faz parte, na verdade.

Durante a Copa, Luciana Genro, candidata à presidência pelo PSOL, afirmou que não era a hora de protestar. A conveniência política de Luciana Genro e da esquerda universitária brasileira, porém, não entra na consideração das pessoas comuns. Foi por isso que falamos em defesa da desobediência civil pela ocupação das zonas de exclusão da FIFA com livre comércio ambulante, bazares e outros estabelecimentos não-alinhados.

Tudo isso mostra a pior das características da esquerda brasileira: a fé servil no estado. Existe, dentro dessa esquerda, uma noção messiânica e leninista de partido político: o PT, apesar de toda injustiça e sofrimento que tenha de promover ao longo do caminho, simboliza as mudanças sociais e deve ser mantido no poder a todo custo.

É por coisas assim que o socialista libertário brasileiro Mário Ferreira dos Santos dizia que a “política, como método de ação dos socialistas, é um método indireto, mediato, o qual exige a ação de intermediários” e que “o meio acaba tornando-se mais importante que o fim, pois tende a substituí-lo, e a luta emancipadora, tendente para um ideal final, acaba por endeusar os meios”. Mário observava que os partidos tendem a se preocupar mais com os meios que com os fins e que é por isso que a política “o processo mais falso de luta pela emancipação social”, onde nunca “se consegue atingir os fins desejados e, quando se consegue alguma coisa, é sempre apesar da política”.

A esquerda partidária pró-Dilma, atualmente, coloca os meios num pedestal e despreza os fins, divinizando o papel do PT na história brasileira como uma vanguarda supostamente revolucionária. Ao fazer isso, relativiza as absurdas injustiças cometidas perpetradas pelo seu governo.

Talvez esses militantes pensem que estão cumprindo uma missão histórica e isso lhes afague a consciência, mas certamente não devolve dignidade e moradia aos desapropriados e atingidos pela Copa em geral, nem devolve ao povo brasileiro os milhões que empresários subsidiados pelo governo receberam. O governo é o inimigo dos pobres e das minorias. Nenhuma pretensa vanguarda progressista pode negar esse fato.

C4SS Feed 44 presents Daniel Pryor‘s “Threat Level: Pointless” read Christopher King and edited by Nick Ford.

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

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Links-libertarisme krijgt de laatste tijd veel aandacht in de bredere Amerikaanse libertarische gemeenschap. De term links-libertarisme is op vele manieren gebruikt binnen de Amerikaanse politiek, en er lijkt enige verwarring te zijn binnen de libertarische gemeenschap over wie die links-libertariërs nou werkelijk zijn.

De basisideeën van links-libertarisme, zoals wij ze bij Alliance of the Libertarian Left (ALL) en het Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) uitdragen, zijn breder dan alleen onze organisaties. De jaren ’90 vonden de oorsprong voor het huidige idee van libertarisme met een linkse oriëntatie, en het gebruik van vrije-markt ideeën tegen het kwaad van bedrijfskapitalisme. Een aantal denkers heeft onafhankelijk evenwijdige vormen van analyse ontwikkeld, en deze zijn uitgegroeid tot een grote, losse ideologische tendens. Maar gezien de onevenredige rol die ALL en C4SS hebben gespeeld in de groeiende bekendheid van deze tendens is het geschikt om uit te leggen wat wij bedoelen met links-libertarisme.

Het oudste en meest bekende gebruik van de term ‘links libertair’ dateert uit de late negentiende eeuw, en omvatte vrijwel de gehele niet-statelijke, horizontalistische, en decentralistische linkse beweging. Iedereen behalve sociaaldemocraten en Leninisten, eigenlijk. Het werd oorspronkelijk gebruikt als een synoniem voor “libertair socialist” of “anarchist”, en verwees ook vaak naar syndicalisten en radencommunisten, volgelingen van Rosa Luxemburg en Daniel DeLeon, etc. Velen van ons bij C4SS zien onszelf als deel van deze bredere links-libertaire gemeenschap, maar wat wij bedoelen met onze positie als “links-libertarisch” is meer specifiek.

Bij het horen van de term “links-libertarisme” zij mensen vandaag de dag geneigd om te denken aan een school van denken met als voorbeeld de ideeën van Hillel Steiner en Peter Vallentyne. De meeste aanhangers van deze filosofie combineert een geloof in zelfbeschikking en het non-agressie principe met linkse opvattingen over de beperkte mate waarin individuen eigendom kunnen verwijderen uit de gemeenschap door simpelweg hun arbeid er mee te mengen. Het overlapt sterk met Georgisme en Geolibertarisme. Hoewel deze versie van links-libertarisme niet de zelfde omvang heeft als wat wij bevorderen bij ALL/C4SS, en hoewel sommige van onze leden zich zouden verzetten tegen aspecten van deze filosofie, is het gemakkelijk ons voor te stellen dat een aanhanger van deze filosofie zich bij ons thuis zou voelen.

Binnen de Engelssprekende libertarische gemeenschap, en degenen die zich elders in de wereld omschrijven als (klassiek-) liberaal, zou “links-libertarisme” geassocieerd kunnen worden met de poging van Murray Rothbard en Karl Hess om en alliantie te vormen met anarchisten van Students for a Democratic Society rond 1970, en links-Rothbardistische bewegingen zoals Sam Konkin’s agorisme. Hoewel links-Rothbardisme en Konkins agorisme niet het officiële standpunt vormen van ALL/C4SS hebben wij wel enige organisatorische continuïteit met Konkins Movement of the Libertarian Left, en een belangrijk deel van onze oudste kernleden komen uit die links-Rothbardistische en Konkinistische traditie. Wij zijn een multi tendense coalite van links-Rothbardisten, klassieke 19^e eeuwse individualistische-anarchisten, Georgisten, en anderen.

Er bestaat ook de neiging onder Amerikaanse libertariers om ons te verwarren met Bleeding Heart Libertarians, wat eigenlijk de naam is van een specifiek blog. Hoewel er op het blog goede stukken staan en zij enkele stukken van ons hebben gepubliceerd zijn wij geen Bleeding Heart Libertarians als zodanig. Bleeding Heart Libertarians staan veel dichterbij “liberaltarian fusionisme”, met afwijkingen van Cass Sybsteins “libertair paternalisme” tot het verdedigen van sweatshops en Israëlische nederzettingen. Niet te vergeten zijn de meeste van hen geen anarchisten, wij wel.

Nu hebben we alle dingen besproken die wij bij ALL/C4SS niet zijn, en niet bedoelen met links-libertarisme. Waar staan wij wel voor? We noemen onszelf links-libertariërs, ten eerste omdat we de linkse wortels van het vrije markt libertarisme willen herstellen, en ten tweede omdat we willen aantonen dat de vrije markt relevant en nuttig is voor het aanpakken van de problematiek die de bredere linkse beweging hedendaags aankaart.

Het klassiek liberalisme en de klassieke socialistische beweging aan het begin van de 19^e eeuw delen vergelijkbare en gemeenschappelijke wortels in de Verlichting. Het liberalisme van Adam Smith, David Ricardo en andere klassieke politieke economen is praktisch te omschrijven als een linkse aanval op het gevestigde economische voorrecht van de gelande Whig oligarchie en het mercantilisme van de vermogende klasse.

Toen de de opkomende industrialisten in de 19^e eeuw de Whig grootgrondbezitters en merkantilisten versloegen en een overheersende positie binnen de staan in namen, nam het klassieke liberalisme geleidelijk de vorm aan van een verontschuldigende doctrine ter verdediging van de gevestigde belangen van het industriële kapitaal. Desondanks bleven de linkse – en zelfs socialistische – strengen van de vrije markt gedachte voortbestaan in de marges van het gevestigd liberalisme.

Thomas Hodgskin, een klassiek liberaal wie schreef van de jaren 1820 tot 1860, was een socialist die huur, winsten en rente zag als monopolie rendement op kunstmatig eigendom en voorrecht. Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker en de andere Amerikaanse individualisten hadden ook voorkeur voor een vrije markt versie van socialisme waarin ongebreidelde concurrentie huur, winst en rente zou vernietigen en zou garanderen dat “het natuurlijke loon van arbeid in een vrije markt haar product is”. Vele individualistische anarchisten die verbonden waren aan Tuckers Liberty groep hadden nauwe banden met radicale arbeids- en socialistische groepen zoals de Knights of Labor, de International Workingmen’s Association en de Western Federation of Miners.

Deze libertarische beweging is ook te plaatsen aan de kant van cultureel en sociaal links, het was nauw verbonden met bewegingen voor de afschaffing van de slavernij, voor rassengelijkheid, feminisme en seksuele vrijheid.

Terwijl de klasse oorlogen van de late 19^e eeuw op woedde werd de retoriek van de vrije markt en vrije onderneming binnen de mainstream Amerikaanse politiek steeds meer geassocieerd met een militante verdediging van het bedrijfskapitaal tegenover radicale uitdagingen vanuit de arbeids- en populistische agrarische beweging. Tegelijkertijd zorgde een interne splitsing binnen de anarchistische beweging tussen de communisten en individualisten er voor dat die laatste geïsoleerd en kwetsbaar werd voor kolonisatie door rechts. In het begin van de 20ste eeuw zou “vrije markt libertarisme” nauw worden betrokken bij de rechtse verdediging van het kapitalisme door Mises en Rand. De overlevende individualistische traditie werd ontdaan van zijn oudere linkse, pro arbeid en socialistische culturele tradities, en nam een steeds meer rechts apologetisch karakter aan.

Desondanks overleefde de oudere linkse traditie van het Amerikaans libertarisme. In het bijzonder sleurde de Georgisten en quasi-Georgisten zoals Bolton Hall, Albert Nock en Ralph Borsodi zich de 20ste eeuw door.

Wij van Libertarisch Links, vinden het uiterst pervers dat het vrije markt libertarisme, een leer die zijn oorsprong vind als aanval op het economisch voorrecht van grootgrondbezitters en kooplieden, gecoöpteerd is als verdediging van de gevestigde macht van de plutocratie en big business. Het gebruik van de “vrije markt” als legitimerende ideologie voor zegevierend bedrijfskapitalisme, en de groei van een gemeenschap van “libertarische” propagandisten, is evenzeer een perversie van de vrije markt principes als de coöptatie van retoriek en symbolen van de historische socialistische en arbeidersbeweging door het Stalinistische regime een perversie was.

Het industriële kapitalistische systeem dat de libertarische mainstream sinds het midden van de 19^e eeuw verdedigd heeft nog nooit ook maar enigszins de werking van een vrije markt benaderd. Het kapitalisme, als het historische systeem dat zich ontwikkelde in het begin van de moderne tijd, is in veel opzichten een direct uitvloeisel van het schofterige feodalisme van de late Middeleeuwen. Het werd gesticht op de ontbinding van de open velden, het omheinen van gemeenschappelijke woeste gronden en andere massale onteigeningen van de boerenstand. In Groot-Brittannië was niet alleen de plattelandsbevolking omgetoverd tot bezitloos proletariaat gedwongen tot loonarbeid, maar de vrijheid van vereniging en verkeer werden gecriminaliseerd door een draconische politiestaat tijdens de eerste twee decennia van de 19^e eeuw.

Op wereldwijd niveau is het kapitalisme uitgegroeid tot een internationaal systeem door de koloniale bezetting, onteigening en het tot slaaf maken van een groot deel van het Zuidelijke halfrond. Honderden miljoenen boeren werden verdreven van hun land door de koloniale machten en gedreven tot de loon arbeidsmarkt en hun vroegere bezit wereld geconsolideerd voor landbouw in handelsgewas, door middel van een globale herintreding van de omheining van Groot-Brittannië. Niet alleen in de koloniale maar ook de postkoloniale tijd zijn de natuurlijke hulpbronnen van de Derde Wereld ingesloten, gestolen en geplunderd door westerse zakelijke belangen. De huidige concentratie van Derde Wereld land in de handen van gelande elite die produceren in samenspan met westerse landbouw belangen, en de olie- en mineraalrijkdommen in de handen van westerse bedrijven, is een directe erfenis van vier eeuwen van koloniale en neokoloniale overval.

Wij van Libertarisch Links, zoals wij deze gedachte uitdragen bij C4SS, willen vrijemarktbeginselen terug nemen van de huurlingen van grote bedrijven en de plutocratie, en ze in zetten voor hun oorspronkelijke gebruik: een alomvattende aanval op de gevestigde economische belangen en de bevoorrechte klassen. Als het klassiek liberalisme van Smith en Ricardo een aanval was op de macht van de Whig oligarchen en de gegoede belangen, dan is ons links-libertarisme een aanval op de huidige instituties die hier vergelijkbaar mee zijn: global finance capital en de multinationals. We verwerpen de rol van mainstream libertarisme in de verdediging van bedrijfskapitalisme in de 20^e eeuw, en haar alliantie met conservatisme.

Wij van Libertarisch Links willen ook de relevantie van vrijemarktprincipes, vrije associatie en vrijwillige samenwerking demonstreren bij het aanpakken van de zorgen van hedendaags links: economische onrechtvaardigheid, de concentratie en polarisatie van rijkdom, de uitbuiting van arbeid, vervuiling en afval, macht van het bedrijfsleven, en structurele vormen van onderdrukking zoals racisme, seksisme, homofobie en transfobie.

Overal waar er roof is gepleegd of onrecht is gedaan nemen wij een onverschrokken positie voor volledige rectificatie aan. Grond dat in stand word gehouden als eigendom van neo-feodale elites dient te worden behandeld als het rechtmatig eigendom van degenen wier voorouders de grond bewerkte en onderhielden. Land waar boeren af werden verdreven, om handelsgewas voor Cargill en ADM te verbouwen, moet worden hersteld als het eigendom van de boeren. Haciënda’s in Latijns-Amerika moeten worden opengesteld voor onmiddellijke eigendomsverwerving door landloze boeren. De eigendomsaktes van leegstaand en onverharde grond, dat word ingesloten en buiten gebruik word gehouden door afwezige grootgrondbezitters, dienen ongeldig te worden verklaard. In het geval dat er mensen werken of wonen op land dat oorspronkelijk geclaimd is op grond van een dergelijk onrechtmatige titel dient de eigendomsakte van dat land overgedragen te worden aan hen. Zakelijk bezit van mijnen, bossen en olievelden verkregen door koloniale roof moet ongeldig worden verklaard.

Het minimale platform van de links-libertariër moet bevatten: afschaffing van alle kunstmatige eigendomsrechten, kunstmatige schaarste, monopolies, toetredingsdrempels, regelgevende kartels en subsidies, waardoor vrijwel de gehele Fortune 500 het grootste deel van haar winst verkrijgt. Het moet een einde maken aan al het afwezig grondbezit en onontgonnen land, alle monopolies omtrent “intellectueel eigendom”, en alle beperkingen op vrije concurrentie in het uitgifte van geld en krediet of op de vrije vaststelling van alle ruilmiddelen die worden gekozen door beide partijen bij een transactie. Bijvoorbeeld, zou de afschaffing van octrooien en merken een einde maken aan de wettelijke belemmeringen die Nike’s aannemers in Azië weerhouden van de productie van identieke namaak sneakers. Sneakers die vervolgens verkocht zouden kunnen worden aan de lokale bevolking voor een fractie van de prijs, zonder de Swoosh markup te berekenen. Het zou een onmiddellijke stopzetting betekenen voor de beperkingen op de productie en verkoop van concurrerende versies van medicijnen die onder octrooi rechten vallen. Wij willen dat het gedeelte van de prijs van alle goederen en diensten dat bestaat uit ingebedde huurgelden op “eigendom” van ideeën of technieken -vaak het grootste deel van de prijs- verdwijnt door middel van directe concurrentie.

Onze “politieke” agenda moet ook een einde bevatten aan alle kunstmatige belemmeringen voor zelfstandig ondernemerschap, ondernemen vanuit huis, en op inheemse of zelfgebouwde woningen en andere vormen van goedkoop levensonderhoud – dit omvat ook vergunningen en bestemmingsplannen. En het moet een einde maken aan alle wettelijke beperkingen op het recht van de arbeid om zich te organiseren en om haar diensten te onthouden onder alle omstandigheden of deel te nemen aan boycots, en een einde aan alle wettelijke privileges die gecertificeerde vakbonden het recht geven om wildcat en directe actie van hun leden te belemmeren.

In het geval van vervuiling en de uitputting van natuurlijke hulpbronnen moet de links-libertarische agenda een einde maken aan alle bevoorrechte toegang tot grond door extractie industrieën, alle subsidies aan energie en transport verbruik (met inbegrip van subsidies aan havens en luchthavens, met inbegrip de landroof die voor deze doeleinden door de staat ondernomen wordt), een einde aan het gebruik van landroof voor de olie- en gaspijpleidingen, de afschaffing van alle regelgeving die de aansprakelijkheid van olielozingen en vervuiling verminderd, een einde aan de leer van minimale wettelijke normen die strengere bestaande common law normen omtrent aansprakelijkheidsrecht in de weg staan, en een volledig herstel van de onbeperkte aansprakelijkheid (zoals deze bestond onder het oorspronkelijke common law van aansprakelijkheidsrecht) voor verontreinigende activiteit zoals fracking en bergtopverwijdering. En uiteraard moet het een einde bevatten aan de rol van Amerikaanse oorlogvoering in het beveiligen van strategisch toegang tot buitenlandse olie bassins of het openstellen van vaarroutes voor olietankers.

Bedrijfskapitalisme en klasse onderdrukking leven, bewegen en vinden hun oorsprong in staatsinterventie namens de bevoorrechtte en de krachtige. Waarachtige vrije markten, vrijwillige samenwerking en vrije associatie zullen fungeren als het dynamiet dat de fundamenten van dit systeem van onderdrukking zal opblazen.

Elke links-libertarische agenda die deze naam waardig is moet ook een bezorgdheid tonen voor sociale rechtvaardigheid en de bestrijding van structurele onderdrukking. Dat betekent, uiteraard, een einde aan alle door de staat afgedwongen discriminatie op basis van ras, geslacht of seksuele geaardheid. Maar het betekent veel meer.

Het is waar dat wij als libertariërs tegen alle wettelijke beperkingen van de vrijheid van vereniging zijn, met inbegrip van wetten tegen discriminatie door particuliere bedrijven. Maar we steunen enthousiast directe actie ter bestrijding van onrecht in de sociale sfeer. Historisch gezien functioneerde anti-discriminatie wetten alleen ex post facto om met tegenzin de winsten vast te stellen die behaald waren door directe actie zoals bus boycots, sit-ins en de Stonewall rellen. We moeten het gebruik van directe actie, sociale druk, boycots en maatschappelijke solidariteit ondersteunen om structurele vormen van onderdrukking, zoals racisme en verkrachtingscultuur te bestrijden, en geinternaliseede normen uitdagen die dergelijke systemen van dwang bestendigen.

Bij het aanpakken van alle vormen van onrecht moeten we gebruik maken van een intersectionele aanpak. Dat omvat ook een verwerping van de oude linkse praktijk om ras en gender de verwerpen als “splijtzwam” of iets dan uitgesteld zou moeten worden “tot later” in het belang van de klasse eenheid. Het bevat ook een afwijzing van raciale- en genderrechtvaardigheids bewegingen gedomineerd door upper-middle-class professionals, die zich uitsluitend richten op de zwarte of vrouwelijke “gezichten op hoge plaatsen” en “het kabinet en de bestuurskamer als afspiegeling van de samenleving” terwijl ze de macht van die hoge plaatsen, kabinet en bestuurskamers intact laten. De aanval op de ene vorm van verschanst voorrecht moet niet ten koste gaan van een andere strijd; elke strijd moet complementair en wederzijds versterkend werken.

Bijzondere zorg voor de intersectionele behoeften van de minst bevoorrechte kameraden in elke beweging voor rechtvaardigheid – vrouwen en gekleurde mensen in de arbeidersklasse; arme en werkende vrouwen, gekleurde vrouwen, transgender vrouwen en sekswerkers binnen het feminisme; vrouwen en armen en werkende mensen binnen de beweging voor rassengelijkheid; etc. – verdeelt deze bewegingen niet. Het versterkt hun verdediging tegen aanvallen van de heersende klasse om hen te verdelen en te veroveren door gebruik te maken van interne breuklijnen als een bron van zwakte. De grootgrondbezitters versloegen bijvoorbeeld de pachter vakbonden in het Amerikaanse Zuiden van de jaren ’30 door het stimuleren en benutten van raciale verdeeldheid en door de beweging te splitsen in witte en zwarte vakbonden. Elke beweging voor klasse, ras of seksuele rechtvaardigheid dat de intersectie van meerder vormen van onderdrukking negeert binnen haar eigen leden, in plaats van extra aandacht te geven aan de behoeftes van de minste bevoorrechte, stelt zich open voor het zelfde soort opportunisme. Uiteindelijk moet een dergelijke aandacht voor intersectionele betrekkingen een safe-spaces beleid voeren dat een welkome sfeer van echt debat voor iedereen creëert, zonder het verontrustende effect van opzettelijke intimidatie en laster.

Libertariërs – vaak door onze eigen schuld – worden door velen afgedaan als “wiet rokende Republikeinen”, vasthoudend aan een insulaire ideologie van voornamelijk blanke burgerlijke mannen. In maar al te veel libertarische publicaties en online communities heerst de reflexieve neiging om big business te verdedigen tegen aanvallen van arbeiders en consumenten, verhuurders tegen huurders, en Walmart tegen Main Street, om elke criticus weg te zetten als een vijand van de vrije markt en grote bedrijven te behandelen als zijnde proxies voor vrijemarktprincipes. Dit gaat gepaard met een soortgelijke neiging om alle zorgen om raciale en seksuele rechtvaardigheid te verwerpen vanwege “collectivisme.” Her resultaat is een beweging die door arme en werkende mensen, vrouwen en gekleurde mensen gezien word als volkomen irrelevant voor hun zorgen. Ondertussen legt de blanke mannelijke twintiger gebrek aan vrouwen en minderheden in de libertarische beweging uit aan de hand van hun “natuurlijke collectivisme,” en citeert somber Nocks worden uit Isaiah’s Job.

Wij van Libertarisch Links willen niet worden verbannen naar de catacomben, of in koffiehuizen samenkomen als salonsocialisten. We willen niet klagen over hoe de samenleving naar de knoppen gaat, terwijl de meerderheid van de mensen die vechten voor verandering ons negeren. Wij willen dat onze ideeën een middelpunt vormen overal waar er word gestreden voor rechtvaardigheid en een beter leven. En we kunnen dit alleen doen door de werkelijke zorgen en problemen van mensen te behandelen met respect, en ze te laten zien op welke wijze onze ideeën relevant zijn. Dit is wat wij pogen te doen.

Vertaald vanuit het Engels door: Christiaan Elderhorst

Un artículo reciente en el Wall Street Journal destaca la “creciente lista de países” que ahora quieren expresar su opinión acerca de las grandes fusiones corporativas del mundo. Dada la interconexión de la economía global de hoy en día, no es de extrañar que más de 100 jurisdicciones internacionales se anhelen autoridad antimonopolio para examinar las transacciones, todas ellas “proponiendo diferentes enfoques para evaluar si una fusión podría perjudicar a los consumidores”.

La manera más efectiva de evitar el monopolio (el objetivo aparente de la ley antimonopolio, también llamada “ley de protección de la competencia”), no es instituir nuevas reglas y regulaciones arbitrarias, sino permitir a cualquier persona participar en cualquier negocio pacífico y voluntario que le interese. La constante amenaza de nuevos competidores es el contrapeso más eficaz a la potencia comercial de los gigantes corporativos tradicionales.

Dado que estas empresas tradicionales están más arraigadas y son más cercanas a los legisladores y reguladores, apoyarse en instrumentos legales y reglamentarios en lugar de la competencia abierta simplemente crea oportunidades para la corrupción y el abuso que surgen con la “captura del regulador”. Los grupos de presión y cabildeo cuentan con el acceso y los recursos para moldear la política pública a favor de sus fines privados.

La legislación antimonopolio es solo un ejemplo más del afán de planificar la economía, basado en las mismas falacias que sustentan otros controles económicos centralizados. Los esfuerzos por determinar o predecir qué fusiones y adquisiciones dañarán el ambiente competitivo asumen que sabemos mucho más acerca de la economía en general de lo que jamás podríamos. Representan lo que Friedrich Hayek célebremente denominó La fatal arrogancia.

Hayek entendió que los mercados en los que los individuos interactúan y comercian libremente son la única manera de organizar y coordinar la profusión de conocimiento disperso que llamamos “la economía”. Y así como nosotros no sabemos y de hecho no podríamos saber todo lo que es necesario para planificar una economía, tampoco podemos predecir las consecuencias de, por ejemplo, permitir algunas fusiones e impedir otras.

Aún así, los anarquistas de mercado son tan críticos del poder corporativo como cualquier otro representante de la izquierda política. Nosotros también creemos que hay que hacer algo para remediar la dominación explotadora de las grandes empresas, pero la teoría y la observación nos han enseñado que el Estado es la enfermedad, no la medicina. De hecho, es el privilegio otorgado por el estado el que le permite a las potencias corporativas de hoy estrangular las relaciones económicas.

Una vez los privilegios coercitivos y criminales del Estado se eliminen del sistema económico no habrá necesidad de “leyes de competencia” diseñadas para evitar que cualquier actor de mercado se haga demasiado grande y poderoso. Estas leyes parecen deseables sólo cuando las barreras regulatorias y de licenciamiento ya han ilegalizado la competencia en sí, dándole una ventaja a grupos favorecidos.

En lugar de añadir nuevas capas de reglas sin sentido y arbitrarias — para ser administradas por abogados y burócratas — los anarquistas de mercado proponen que le demos una oportunidad sincera a la libre competencia de la que tanto hemos oído hablar. El poder político y económico se necesitan mutuamente; en realidad, puede que sea un error considerarlos como fenómenos separados y distintos, ya que históricamente siempre han estado profundamente entrelazados.

Las enormes corporaciones multinacionales de hoy son en gran medida una creación del poder estatal, los sucesores del “sistema mercantil” criticado por Adam Smith. Para frenar su poder solo necesitamos permitir la competencia plena y genuina. El sistema más libre posible también sería el más justo, por lo que eliminaría la necesidad de la ley antimonopolio.

Artículo original publicado por David D’Amato el 6 de octubre de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Carlos Clemente.

America leads the world. No other nation imprisons more people than we do. Over 2.2 million men, women, and children currently reside in penitentiaries; another 4 million are under criminal supervision. In the past forty years, the incarcerated population has increased by a factor of five. Billions of our tax dollars are spent maintaining prisons and jails [PDF]. The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik writes, “The scale and the brutality of our prisons are the moral scandal of American life.” In an effort to ameliorate this sad state of affairs, many have proposed sentencing reforms, educational programs, statutory alterations, and other tweaks of the system.

Maybe it’s time to radically rethink the nature and purpose of criminal law itself. Maybe it’s time to look to another legal theory — contract law.

Despite sharing common roots, criminal law and contract law are different. In the United States, as in other jurisdictions, contrasting theory, substance, and procedure distinguish the two doctrines. Many people consider criminal behavior to be a breach of the social contract. If so, then why don’t we apply contract law principles to crime?

Crime as Breach of Contract

Consider Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s formulation of the “social contract”:

What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, 1851)

Proudhon equates the social contract with social expectation: how do individuals expect each other to behave under normal circumstances? Indeed, every society establishes its own norms to which its members are expected to adhere. Yet to truly be a “social contract” the state must also be party to it.

Criminal behavior amounts to a breach of the social contract and a violation of implicit social norms. For example, we do not expect our neighbors to take our stuff. We denounce theft as an illegitimate means of acquiring property.

Contract Law Principles

In general, contract law attempts to put victims of breach in as good a position as they would have been if the contract had been performed. The “expectation principle” requires the breaching party to compensate the victim just to the point of making her as whole as she had expected to be (either by economic equivalence, restitution, or both) and not beyond.

The remedy for property crimes (as social contract breach) seems intuitively obvious: give the victim back her things. After all, the point of contract remedy is to compensate the victim, treat the breaching party fairly, and promote economic efficiency. As Oliver Wendell Holmes declared, “The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it — and nothing else.”

Penalty Clauses

Because of these broad principles, penalty clauses are not enforceable. A clause that reads, “If Smith does not pay Jones $20, then Smith must pay $100 instead,” would not be upheld in court. Holdings barring the enforcement of contractual penalties and quasi-penalties litter American case law.

Penalties have been questioned and derided for centuries. In Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, the villainous Shylock agrees to loan Antonio money. However, under the contract, if Antonio defaults, he must forfeit a pound of his flesh.

Shylock: Go with me to a notary, seal me there
Your single bond; and, in a merry sport,
If you repay me not on such a day,
In such a place, such sum or sums as are
Express’d in the condition, let the forfeit
Be nominated for an equal pound
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken
In what part of your body pleaseth me.

Why the harsh penalty? “If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.”

Antonio defaults. At trial, someone offers to pay twice the contract price to save Antonio from Shylock’s knife. Shylock, however, insists the court enforce the deathly penalty. After ostensibly honoring his wish, the judge cleverly turns Shylock’s argument against him, preserving Antonio’s life.

Social Contract Penalties

The social contract includes at least two penalty clauses. First, if a party breaches, then he is punished (the “criminal”). Second, if a party breaches, then the aggrieved party (the “victim”) is cast aside and ignored.

Under the current bifurcated system, a criminal caption reads State v. Smith, not Jones v. Smith. The victim is not a party to the suit. Instead, the state assumes its position as a placeholder for the victim, whether or not the victim approves. Like Shylock, the state then begs for the enforcement of penalty clauses. Someone breached the social contract. Punish her!

In equating justice with punishment, we forget about the victim. Sadly, with full enforcement of the penalty clause against the breaching party, the victim also suffers a penalty — she is cast aside and ignored. Our addiction to penalties has given rise to the largest prison population in the world. In contrast, a more rigid application of contract law principles would preclude the application of penalty clauses, focusing instead on fulfilling expectations, compensating for losses, and making the victim whole again.

Many crimes violate person, not property. How would we remedy social contract breaches such as battery, rape, and murder? While the answer is not clear, to enforce penalties seems dubious at best. Civil rights attorney Clarence Darrow once noted, “All communities and states are in reality ashamed of jails and penal institutions of whatever kind. Instinctively they seem to understand that these are a reflection on the state.” Perhaps Darrow was correct in thinking that “nearly every crime could be wiped away in one generation by giving the criminal a chance.”

Moreover, common law courts rarely award emotional damages resulting from a contract breach. Such damages fall into the realm of tort law. However, Hadley v. Baxendale, a seminal case from nineteenth century Great Britain, established the “foreseeability rule.” If damages resulting as a consequence of breach could have been reasonably foreseen, then they can be recovered. All parties to the social contract certainly can “reasonably foresee” the consequential emotional damages of violent acts like rape.

The law treats contracts differently than it treats crime. But should it? Isn’t criminal behavior just a breach of contract — the social contract? When a thief steals from his neighbor, doesn’t it make sense to repay the neighbor and restore her expectations? In criminal law, penalties deprive liberty without compensating the victim. We punish both the criminal and the victim; only the state comes out ahead. The common law refuses to enforce contractual penalties for good reason. Perhaps that principle should be applied to criminal law, as well.

American political dialogue often overlooks the difference between “pro-business” and “pro-market.” Failure to observe the implications of this difference leads both pundits and voters to believe that if a candidate is pro-business, naturally he is a zealous crusader for free markets.

Lately this oversimplified narrative finds itself challenged as business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce increasingly back Democrats as opposed to Tea Party Republicans perceived as more libertarian than the traditional GOP and thus more willing to take policy positions hostile to big business.

Whatever the populist noise embedded in campaign talking points, the simple fact is that both major American political parties play the same corporate, big money game. Despite everything Republocrats say to the contrary, when the rubber hits the road you just won’t find a champion of the little guy among the elected American officialdom. On the contrary, in the end the real struggle isn’t between the Blue and Red teams — it’s between the political process itself, the whole mechanism of political authority, and the rest of us ordinary, working people just trying to pay our bills.

To glimpse the true relationship between big business and the State, we need only briefly examine the data on how the political action committees (PACs) of the nation’s largest and most influential companies spend their money. Consider a handful of examples from 2010: That year, major defense contractor Raytheon’s PAC gave 56 percent of its money to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. Aerospace giant Boeing’s PAC split its donations almost down the middle, shelling out 53 percent to the Dems and 47 percent to the GOP. Colossal agribusiness firm Monsanto gave 46 percent to Democrats and 54 percent to Republicans.

These divisions between donkey and elephant of course vary from election to election, depending on everything from the composition of congress to the likelihood of incumbent victory. And certainly marginal differences between individual candidates and even parties themselves may present themselves in a given election. The point, though, is that corporate entities are very much like the state itself, ultimately nonpartisan, interested only in power and self-aggrandizement.

Make no mistake, our corporate leviathans couldn’t care less who is in office as long as she plays ball, perpetuating a venal game of public and private sector cohesion having nothing whatsoever to do with “liberty and justice for all.” Consider what we might think about a single individual who split his money almost evenly between the two major parties year after year; we may think he was crazy or had multiple personalities. When a single corporate entity does so, however, we regard the move (probably very correctly) as strictly strategic, an illustration of realpolitik and a way for a commercial enterprise to hedge its bets, ensuring good relations with both wings of political establishment.

These concrete collusions between corporate and State power are not necessarily planned or premeditated, but neither are they accidental. A centralized system of politics which grants sweeping law-making and discretionary powers to a relatively small, elite group incentivizes the abuse of those powers in favor of moneyed interests. As the individualist anarchist William Bailie wrote, “Laws are made directly or indirectly in the interest of the capitalist class, and they are always administered and interpreted … in the same spirit.”

Market anarchists look forward to a free and fair economic system in which big business and big government aren’t working together to rig the rules for the powerful and connected. Consistently observed, the freedoms of competition and exchange would in fact undermine the dominance of big business, which now relies on the State for countless special privileges. Since neither Republicans nor Democrats question the fundamental characteristics of this state-corporate system, the road to real change runs through neither.

Cory Massimino discusses Ron Paul and thick/thin libertarianism.

Ryan Calhoun discusses the anarchist as lover.

Anthony Gregory discusses modern Progressive class analysis.

Stephen Kinzer discusses lessons to be learned from WW2.

W.T. Whitney Jr. discusses U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Michael Tracey discusses how the Center for American Progress is selling out the anti-war left.

Dave Lindorff discusses whether the new war in Syria is a war crime or not.

Peter Certo discusses the new war in Syria and Iraq.

Daniel Pye interviews John Pilger on Cambodia and U.S. policy.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the new phone standards and law enforcement access.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses freedom and exception making to it.

Jason Hirthler discusses the new war in Iraq and Syria.

Dan Glazebrook discusses the war in Syria.

Ben Reynolds discusses the absence of moderate Syrian rebels.

Wendy McElroy discusses how legitimate rights belong to us all.

Sheldon Richman discusses U.S. policy and alienation of Muslims.

Justin Raimondo discusses empire and liberalism.

David S. D’Amato discusses open competition as a remedy to corporate power.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses the legacy of Hayek.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the impending ISIS takeover of a Kurdish town.

Kevin Carson discusses Damon Linker’s recent critique of libertarianism.

Sarah Lazare discusses ending the war in Afghanistan.

Yasmin Nair discusses how liberals helped build prison America.

Justin Raimondo discusses the reasons for the new war.

Lucy Steigerwald discuses whether Obama is better on foreign policy than Bush.

Kevin Keating discusses the breakdown of state militarties and G.I. resistance.

Melvin A. Goodman discusses Leon Panetta’s memoir.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown discusses the practice of making rape victims pay for their own examinations.

The following article was written by Dyer Lum and published The Alarm, June 13, 1885.

An Appeal to the Wage Slaves of America.
Should American Workingmen Arm Themselves?
An Old Soldier Utters a Cry of Warning.
Private Capital Demands Its Pound of Flesh at the Point of Bayonet.
Slaves or Freemen? Which?

Comrades. You have heard the cry “To arms! To arms!” What reply shall we give?

Shall we ignore it with a sneer as the vaporings of European revolutionists who do not understand the genius of our institutions; shall we deride it as the catchword of professional agitators; shall we continue to flatter ourselves that as Americans – sons of patriot sires – we have no wrongs which we may not redress by the ballot?

Let us face the problem. Let us ask ourselves if there be indeed any valid reasons for alarm. Let us consider for a moment whether as with advancing years, our position is growing brighter or more hopeless, whether great famine and distress lurks near our door ready to swoop down upon our loved ones.

In all our industrial centres the Red Flag of the International is unfurled, from every quarter comes the wail of despair from the pinched lips of starved wives and children, and the low muttered curse of the idle bread winners; on every breeze is wafted these signals of social discontent, and men find their skill, their will, their brawn powerless to protect their dependent ones.

It is not a European question, but an American one I ask you to consider. How near are you to the same brink? How many weeks of enforced idleness separate you from utter destitution? 52? 26? 13?

You work for wages. Are they increasing?

Is your position a guaranteed one, or is it dependent upon the state of the market or the law of demand? Are you to-day satisfied or are you hoping for something better?

In fact, it is a personal question. A very few years ago such questions would have been idle, to-day they find receptive ears. Is there not in this fact a pregnant opening? Do you not realize yourselves that times have changed since our civil war, if your memory goes back beyond that event?

You are a mechanic. Have you the opportunity now that there was then for the man of small means to start in business for himself? Is not the small manufacturer, the small trader being driven to the wall? Can the capital of a few hundred dollars compete with that of millions? Is not your routine in life becoming a fixed one?

Let us leave on one side all theoretical questions of abstract rights for the present.

You feel the lines drawing yearly more closer which hold you in the rut of wage labor; you realize more and more the lack of opportunity to escape by raising yourself above your comrades; you look ahead to old age and can see no relief unless it be a seat beside a son’s or daughter’s hearth, who is following the same weary round where your strength was worn out.

As an American you, of course, read the papers. You read of strikes and lockouts, of suffering communities struggling for better remuneration, of families in need of the common necessaries of life. In your walks you meet idle men who would work as gladly as you if the law of demand would permit. You are familiar with the tenement-house quarters of our cities, perhaps necessarily so. You know its influence on health, on the morals of your children, on the happiness of your family circle.

As an American I ask you is this continued discontent cropping out everywhere the necessary outcome of our republican institutions? Is there virtue in the Constitution to heal the growing division between capital and labor; is there power in legislation to remove the causes which compel you to bring up your children in a human bee-hive; will the ballot restore the faded cheek of your wife or preserve the bloom of health on the faces of your children?

Let us consider these questions first.

Let us weigh existing “remedies” before considering new ones.

Was your father a wage worker before you in this land of the free? Is your condition better? If so, has it been acquired by means of your political freedom?

You may attend church. Has religion done aught for your economic condition other than teaching contentment and submission? You know it has not, neither do you look to it for such relief.

Is it not equally true that political freedom has done absolutely nothing to better your economic condition? You know that neither the realm of religion nor politics intersect that of economy under our present system.

You have mental freedom but long years of conflict and bloodshed were necessary to establish it. You fully recognize the right of every one to the free use of his reason; that there can be no greater blasphemy than the denial of freedom of thought; that what was once the prerogative of God is now the treasured right of self. In the world of mental relations you deny authority and proclaim liberty; in other words – Anarchy, the absence of government, self-rule.

You have inherited this as your birthright. The men who wrested this from the hands of authority did not obtain it by prayer, but by revolt. They relied on force to extort it from authority.

You also inherit political freedom. Our fathers (for the writer is of Puritan and Revolutionary descent) achieved it by their swords. It is a legacy of which we are proud, nor would I undervalue it. Not, on the other hand, should we overvalue it.

Mental freedom! Political freedom!

These are acquired. We need not contest for them; they are ours.

But economic freedom?

Have you advanced toward that? You are nearer it because of the previous conflicts; these issues are removed, and you are now face to face with this alone. Otherwise they have not helped you.

Is it not the direct line of progress?

The world’s workers have risen slowly from slavery to serfdom, from serf to wage labor. Is this the end? Do you believe the onward march of personal freedom will stop short of emancipation – liberty? Ask yourself the question. Interrogate your discontent, your cravings, your wife’s blanched cheek, your child’s peevish wail, who like you feels something is wanting in the normal condition of happiness.

“But we can do nothing!”

Stop! Do you admit that economic freedom is desirable? That control over the means of labor — and thereby over your life, that of your family, your material well-being – should not be vested in the hands of a few?

Do you believe that you have a right to labor – that you should not be held subject to arbitrary states of the market? Will you assert that you have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that whatever condition renders this right nugatory is unjust? Do you deny the right of the possessor of wealth to hold in his grasp the means of life and to permit you their limited use only so far as it may conduce to his profit?

Is not possession of the means of life as necessary to your well-being, to liberty, as free thought and a free ballot?

This admitted, what follows?

When our ancestors asserted a right they stood ready upon a suitable occasion to maintain it. We believe the right we assert to be an outgrowth from the tree they planted and watered with their blood.

We have agreed that the end is a desirable one. We have settled the why and the how comes next in order.

The occasion will never arise if all refuse to look for it. But thousands of your comrades are already convinced. Here is one step gained. If you are in sympathy with them, if you believe in your theoretic right to labor, not as a boon to be craved, a sop to be thankful for – but as a social right, join with your comrades who believe likewise. In the first place learn to know each other, organize meetings for the discussion of these questions, seek to understand the philosophy of the labor movement, sift the arguments pro and con, study Socialism, what it proposes, its methods and aims. In all cases preserve your personal independence, hold fast to the cardinal principle of liberty, and not overthrow one tyranny to erect another.

Be your own man. Seek to own yourself.

In the second place you will begin to see that the conflict between labor and capital is not to be settled by the shrieks of armed plunderers who fear the coming day of judgment; not to be allayed by double-leaded editorials of journals dependent upon these plunderers for their bread and butter; not to be quieted by rose water sermons from mealy mouthed gospelers preaching to rich pew holders.

Before settling the How, before the inevitable OCCASION shall arise, you need arms. Already the blood of your comrades has been shed, wives widowed and children made fatherless. On every hand you witness an increased reliance on the militia to protect “invested rights.”

You are not blind. You see all these signs of the times. You are a witness of this increased reliance on force to uphold American freedom. You see the old garment of the constitution stretched to cover emergencies never dreamed of by its framers. You are forced to reflect that graver issues are now before us than the legislation of the last century had knowledge of and demanding a new and different settlement. You, like thousands of others, have vaguely felt that that antique work is not as elastic as human progress, that as a reservoir of the political wisdom of the eighteenth century it may be a matchless work of art, but when it becomes a dam to the engine of progress toward freedom, you like thousands of others, will be tempted to join in their cry and damn the constitution!

The necessity for arms is thus answered on every hand by the signs of the times — it is in the air!

Finally — THE OCCASION.

When Paul Revere galloped out from Boston in April 1775 to carry the news that the British were moving in force, he was told by a soldier “Do not make so much noise.”

“Noise,” replied Paul Revere, “you’ll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out.” So he galloped on from house to house, arousing the inmates from their slumber to immediate action. The farmers grasped their flintlocks. Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill followed.

If the great railroad strike of 1877 were to be repeated to-day would it not be such an occasion? Let another commercial panic — those periodical visitations of a bourgeois providence- throw vast numbers of our workers into idleness, would not a spark as small as the firing of the militia on the unarmed populace of Lemont be an occasion?

We are told that panics and commercial depressions are necessary, and must be accepted. When armed, we will not only accept it — but wait for it!

Hungry bellies will make occasion!

Have no fear that the occasion will not arise – it will arise. Then you – though now undecided and satisfied that your pay is secure — homeless and hungry will be looking around to see where you can seize a gun and join your more far-sighted comrades.

You realize that the discontent of labor is growing in intensity, in bitterness, that it expansive power will be greater the longer it is repressed.

Here we all agree.

You realize that the avaricious greed of the capitalist is also increasing in like ratio, that the greed for wealth was never greater, never more disposed to stalk over all obstacles for individual enhancement; never more reckless of human suffering and misery; never more ostentatious in its display of luxury.

Here, again, we all agree.

Under such conditions will not the possession of arms be a provident forethought?

Get them now, before your economic masters use the ballot to deny you even that privilege. It will not be money thrown away. A rifle or revolver is “a handy thing to have about the house.” Some day you may meet a robber; who knows? You may find it a convenient article against the banditry of “law and order” — some thief who has robbed you may be tempted to enforce a new demand upon you.

It is well to be prepared for emergencies!

Sons of patriot sires, greater perils than your fathers faced are before you! Will you shirk the assertion of a right, neglect preparation for the maintenance of what you believe, dodge the inevitable issue that must be fought out on American soil? Be not alarmed lest some views you are not prepared to admit will triumph. Neither you nor I can forecast the exact course of progress — we can but do our share to remove barriers. Humanity is greater than leaders; the wisdom of the whole will prevail over any folly of a few. Trust Humanity.

Those who control our labor can and do control our votes. Economic bondage destroys political freedom. To arms! To arms! Va victis!

At the Washington Post‘s Wonkblog, Jason Millman argues that expensive drugs are often worth the cost (“Why extremely expensive drugs are often worth the cost,” October 6). Although expensive specialty drugs like Sovaldi for Hepatitis C cost thousands of dollars a month, they may provide significantly greater benefits than traditional drugs — including “treatments for complex diseases with few or no previously effective options.”

Neoclassical economists say that price is set by the marginal utility of a good to the buyer. That’s true, as far as it goes. But taking that language according to its ordinary meaning, we get the extremely misleading, simplistic impression that price is set by how much something’s worth to us. “Marginal utility” carries a very specific technical meaning: The utility to the consumer of the last (or marginal) unit consumed. Marginal utility depends on the total supply and demand under the spot conditions of the market. When goods are reproducible and there are no artificial constraints on production, the supply will tend to fluctuate in response to demand until the amount demanded equals the amount supplied. The last unit supplied sells at a market clearing price equal to the cost of production.

We only see reproducible goods priced at their absolute utility to consumers when things go wrong — i.e., when output is artificially restricted or the seller is a monopolist, and thus able to price the good based on how much the consumer needs it rather than how much it cost to produce. This is called monopoly pricing or price discrimination. The classic example of setting a price based on what something is worth to the buyer is the $10,000 glass of water sold to a desert traveler dying of thirst.

Big Pharma defenders argue that patents are necessary because marginal cost pricing won’t repay the large initial R&D investment for developing drugs. But most drug R&D actually goes to gaming the patent system — developing “me too” versions of drugs whose patents are about to expire, or testing to secure patent lockdown on every major variant of a drug — not developing new drugs.

The other side of monopoly pricing is targeting the price to individual consumers’ ability to pay. In traditional manufacturing this was called “dumping.” A company would run its lines at capacity to minimize unit costs, selling as much of the output at the monopoly price. Then they would sell what was left over at whatever lower price less affluent consumers could afford — often dumping part of it at less than the cost of production. We see the analog of this in drug commercials all the time: “If you’re unable to afford [drug], [company] may be able to help.”

Medicare D and Obamacare amount to subsidizing people who can’t afford to buy glass of water insurance so that they’ll be able to afford to pay the water salesman $10,000. They amount, therefore, to massive subsidies to the drug companies and to healthcare providers. Thanks to government, Big Pharma is able to price gouge an even larger share of the population who would previously have been able to pay.

The proper approach is to remove the monopoly — in the case of drugs, by eliminating the patents on them. Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever happen regardless of which major party is in power. It would be an unthinkable assault on the basic foundations of corporate capitalism in a country where the state has always — even (or especially) during “progressive” times like the New Deal — been intimately connected with corporate power.

Instead the most viable solution is likely to be bypassing the unholy alliance between the state and the pharmaceutical industry, using the rapidly developing capabilities of do-it-yourself biotech to produce illegal open-source knockoffs of expensive drugs. In every area of economic life, capitalists depend on state-enforced monopolies and enclosures of one kind or another. But the rise of people’s technologies like cheap, small-scale means of production are making such monopolies increasingly unenforceable. The days of the Lords of Scarcity are numbered.