Feature Articles
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!

A Teenager Slain

On Saturday, August 9, eighteen-year-old Michael Brown was walking with a friend on the 2900 block of Canfield Drive in Ferguson, Missouri. He was on his way home on the hot, humid afternoon, walking down the middle of the street when the two were approached by Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. Reports of what happened next continue to change, but in the final analysis, Brown tried to flee, the officer raised his firearm, and a series of gun shots shattered the peace. Six bullets pierced the young mans flesh. The teenager fell face down on the hot asphalt as the officer towered over his slain body, radioing it in, preparing for paperwork.

Brown was unarmed. Witnesses say he had his hands raised in the air at the time he was shot.

Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!

The day following the shooting, police stated the officer had been pushed inside his car during a scuffle, noting Brown was shot multiple times after the incident and died on scene. A candlelight vigil was held for Brown later in the evening. After the vigil community members began protesting against police violence. In military garb, the police were ready to fight. As community members and police clashed, a riot ensued. When guns were aimed at the crowd, many protesters dropped to their knees and raised their hands toward the night sky, chanting, “hands up, don’t shoot!”

On August 11, protests against police spread throughout the town of Ferguson. In what are now dramatic images all over the Internet, a militarized police force launched tear gas at unarmed protesters. As violence erupted, it became clear that police were no longer “keepers of the peace” but rather “enforcers of the law.” As opposed to protecting property owners, police sought crowd control by aggressive tactics, aiming loaded automatic weapons at protesters. Violence escalated throughout the night.

By August 12, the eyes of the world were on Ferguson. “Hands up, don’t shoot” is now burned into all of our memories. Police in full combat gear, referred to as “warrior cops,” with automatic rifles, tear gas, and military vehicles turn their weapons toward an unarmed populace — “Hands up, don’t shoot! Hands up, don’t shoot! Hands up, don’t shoot!” The image is too powerful for words.

Nationwide social media explodes. Solidarity movements pop up around the country. At Howard University, students gather together and tweet a now iconic photo with #handsupdontshoot — it quickly goes viral. Many in the United States begin to question why the police are so heavily armed — “Why does a working class neighborhood look like a war zone? Why are so many guns pointed at United States citizens? My God, that could happen here. He could have been our son.” The warrior cop is now on the minds of millions.

On August 13, there is even more outrage as journalists are arrested at a local McDonald’s. The press is not free to report and information is being withheld from the public. That night, police violence again escalates. Somewhere in the crowd a protester fills a glass bottle partway with gasoline, inserts a soaked rag or t-shirt and lights a molotov cocktail, hurling it at police. Police respond with more tear gas and smoke bombs.

On August 14, there is a sea change. A block party of sorts starts as a less combative highway patrol, led by Ferguson native Captain Ron Johnson, patrol the streets as opposed to police force. The peace was short-lived, however, as a video of the murder is released to the public. The police came back, aggressive tactics were again used on the crowd and, as of August 19, the National Guard has now made its way into Ferguson.

Police order is crumbling, however, as there is growing strength in protest and crowds. “Hands up, don’t shoot!” is the theme of the revolution. The tables have turned, the state is looking for a fight — the protesters are looking to challenge the existing order . As explained by Jelani Cobb of The New Yorker who is present in the Missouri town:

The conversation here has shifted from the immediate reaction to Michael Brown’s death and toward the underlying social dynamics … disparity in education funding for Ferguson and more affluent municipalities nearby … Six black men I spoke to, nearly consecutively, pointed to Missouri’s felon-disfranchisement laws as part of the equation. “If you’re a student in one of the black schools here and you get into a fight you’ll probably get arrested and charged with assault. We have kids here who are barred from voting before they’re even old enough to register,” one said. Ferguson’s elected officials did not look much different than they had years earlier, when it was a largely white community.

We are all watching.

Hotter Than a Match Head

Dressed in camouflage pants and black body armor, wearing gas masks and military visors, it is clear the local police in Ferguson, Missouri are not out patrolling a beat to keep the peace, they are prepared for war.

This is no hyperbole, the very uniforms worn by police (and now the National Guard) can escalate the risk of violence in this already tense situation. As reported by Vox, former Seattle police chief Norman Stamper warns that when police dress in military uniforms, they contribute to an atmosphere of hostility. Stamper warns of the Warrior Cop mentality, noting the military garb can lead police to “view the community as the enemy. In the process they [police officers] become an occupational force where they are in charge — in the name of control, in the name of public safety, taking actions that actually undermine legitimate control.”

Accompanying the outfits is the military issue M-4 Carbine. The rifle is a favorite of United States military personnel. Weighing in, loaded, at roughly 7.5 pounds, the M-4 enables the police in Ferguson to engage the public in both close quarters and at extended range. It is an exquisite weapon, slowly replacing the M-16 as the military firearm of choice because it is shorter and lighter than the standard issue rifle. It is an automatic, and can also pump out three round bursts. The rifle is accurate and lethal. In the hands of police, it is being pointed at everyday people like you and I at will. Whether packed with live rounds, rubber or wooden bullets it is sure to instill fear.

Also making headlines is police use of tear gas. This past Sunday, August 17, an eight year old boy was left hysterical, sobbing and gasping for breath when a gas canister burst where he was standing. Tear gas is a chemical mist or gas that is utilized to irritate the mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, mouth, and lungs. When used, the gas is fired from shells that serve as dangerous projectiles in their own right. Once ignited, the chemical agent not only produces tears, but can cause coughing or choking if inhaled. The symptoms are usually temporary, but they are frightening and in severe cases tear gas can cause asthma attacks, eye/nerve damage and chemical burns. Adding insult to injury, Vox further informs:

The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the US is a party, prohibits the use of tear gas in combat. However, that treaty contains an exception for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes,” which allows tear gas to be used by police officers in situations like the Ferguson protests.

That means that using the gas in Ferguson doesn’t necessarily break the law, but the U.S. army would be violating a treaty if it used the same tactics in Afghanistan.

In addition, police are driving around in Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs). These are military vehicles built to withstand land mines or homemade bombs. These rigs were designed specifically for the Iraq invasion, making their debut in the desert nation in 2007. They now line the streets of a working class American neighborhood, transporting warrior cops from street to street, intimidating American citizens.

And the protesters? It is August in the south. It is hot, but more than just the heat, it is thick and humid. The combat gear, the M-4s, the tear gas and the MRAPs are being deployed against folks in flip-flops, shorts and tank-tops.

It is this image, the warrior cop against the working class civilian, that has sparked outrage across the nation. The cops are not the good guys this time. The politicians, such as Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, are having their motives questioned. All eyes are on Ferguson, not because of civil unrest that threatens the fabric of a nation — but because of the nation. For the first time there is a clear line in the sand: It’s the state against you.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald recently wrote that the events unfolding in Ferguson are “the destructive by-product of several decades of deliberate militarization of American policing.” He is accurate in his statement. When Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) the federal government started arming police with military grade weapons. A provision in the NDAA allowed the military to transfer gear from the Department of Defense to local police, largely to fight the drug war. After 9/11 and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, police militarization was used for counter terrorism measures.

Nearly half a billion dollars worth of military gear was distributed to thousands of police departments in 2013 alone. As we can see, these weapons are not used for drug regulation or counter terrorism — they are used on an engaged populace. The people of Ferguson are rightly protesting the murder of one of their own by the hands of a cop. They now have an army of cops escalating violence in their grief-stricken community.

But the eyes of the world are with them. Solidarity campaigns are popping up everywhere. The United States government has been fending off a major rebellion for some time now. The events in Ferguson show systemic racism and classism. The events have opened old wounds while bringing new ones into discussions at the dinner table. Around the country, people are becoming less docile and we are questioning each other: “How does something like this happen, and more importantly, what are we to do?”

A Power Greater Than the State

It seems all the combat gear has done nothing to deter direct protest. To date, more than 50 people have been arrested in protests following the death of Michael Brown. Protesters have even chose to directly engage the police station. “They brought this on themselves,” says Adam Burcher of Ferguson. He has been standing outside the Ferguson Police Department with a sign that reads “Stop Killing.” In fact, even outside of Missouri, solidarity protests have popped up around the country and there are those who sympathize with protesters around the globe. The state has ensured its own fate in this situation, it responded in typical top-down fashion — use violence to create quiescence within the community.

Instead of quiescence state action has sparked rebellion. Some protestors are meeting police force with violence, others with peace, all with resolve. Protesters have not been swayed by aggression, but in a twist that happens all too often, they have actually been empowered by it. When out gunned, the power of the crowd pulled them through. “Hands up, don’t shoot!” has painted the perfect picture for the eyes of the world.

What we are witnessing in Ferguson is the pure power of democracy. A movement has been born in the crowd. Contrary to what is being reported in the media, there is not true chaos in the streets. The elements of violence have been exacerbated by the police. What we do see, however, are cooperative individuals trying to achieve a mutual goal — the end of systemic racism, classism and liberation from police violence. The protesters have not lost their minds, they are united. There is solidarity in revolution and it proves social power is greater than state power.

In the days since the shooting the local QuikTrip gas station/convenience store, looted and burned on the second night of protest, is, now, a gathering place for organizers and activists within the community. As again explained by :

The front of the lot bears an improvised graffiti sign identifying the area as the “QT People’s Park.” With the exception of a few stretches, such as Thursday afternoon, when it was veiled in clouds of tear gas, protesters have been a constant presence in the lot. On Sunday afternoon the area was populated by members of local churches, black fraternity and sorority groups, Amnesty International, the Outcast Motorcycle Club, and twenty or so white supporters from the surrounding area. On the north side of the station, a group of volunteers with a mobile grill served free hot dogs and water, and a man stood on a crate, handing out bright yellow T-shirts with the logo of the National Action Network, the group led by Al Sharpton.

Folks are reclaiming their town. As much as systemic racism is part of the story in Ferguson, so is systemic poverty and abuse of power. As mass demonstrations rise (and they will continue to rise) we will witness a game change in our towns. We will seek the decentralization of power, rid ourselves of corrupt politicians, liberate markets, boycott exploitative business practices and seek equality. In order to do this, there will have to be a reclaiming of the commons — and that is exactly what is happening in Ferguson.

Henri Lefebvre was a French Marxist philosopher famous for his observation that there are no neutral places in the city. Power moves throughout public spaces, rendering them not public at all, but rather places of state. Capital again secures one status in the city, causing a rather large problem in low-income communities. Lefebvre argued being a community member should not be dependent on property ownership or access to capital, but by democratic participation. In reclaiming the convenience store, by taking to the streets at night and standing up to police and state enforced curfew, the protesters are sending a clear message: This is our town.

A fundamental issue being addressed right now is power and property dynamics. Will the folks in Ferguson be able to maintain control of their town from the state? Can they prevail against state power and state capitalism? As tax money is thrown at more affluent areas, can an Ostromite interpretation of common ownership build a more perfect community, liberated from top-down decree? Will it hold? Can the powers that be allow it? This is of course radically complex, but we have seen sparks of hope before — 300 citizens took back Taksim Square in Turkey, after all, while the burn of tear gas still occupied the air.

The ramifications of what is occurring in Ferguson go far deeper than the politics normally addressed, if sustained, it will start a wave of revolution — it may join the ranks of the Occupy and Liberty movements in the United States. Another age of change may have a chance to rise.

For the Long Haul

There is a growing sentiment today within political circles that folks are tired of tried and failed conservative institutions, existing solely to uphold the existing social order. There is also a distrust of high liberalism, seeking to empower these institutions even further. The ranks of people who no longer endorse the existing halls of power grow with each passing day. We do not want to play witness to a simple change in institutional order, we want to take our place in history and change how we organize our lives.

There is no electoral way to move forward on this goal — only direct action. Only in rendering institutions useless, only by starting our own alternatives will we be successful. There is no single answer to the problems that have given rise to the situation in Ferguson, there is no way top-down decree will ever successfully manage the lives of individuals who simply long to be free of institutionalized repression. Addressing problems from the top down, via the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and so on and so on only exacerbates the problems of everyday people.

No more can we look to vertical power structures. We need a polycentric approach. How liberating it will be to embrace the idea that we can manage ourselves! Is this not the very essence of the “hands up, don’t shoot!” movement? Is it not the idea that social power is the answer to police violence, racism within the justice system and class warfare? I think it is, we are looking at systems of power, noting how they are all related and seeking our individual and collective liberation. As we walk into this period of revolution, once we really start talking to one another, we will scale these problems up to all institutions — damn right a change is going to come!

I think it is healthy that we are doubting the dogmatism. Conservatives don’t think so, we are leaving their institutions behind. Liberals fear the populace, for we seek to strip them of their beloved institutions as well. It is libertarianism that empowers us the challenge and question the existing order, and it is anarchism that will allow us to dismantle systems of illegitimate authority and oppression. In Ferguson we are not taking the bait, we don’t believe the police are just trying to maintain the peace — a look at one photograph makes that notion ridiculous. Power should lie with the protesters.

Social power is continuing its rise against state power. The revolutionary spirit is incredibly human. It is my hope that we continue to reclaim the commons. If solidarity movements can spread like wildfire in the face of combat police, I have no doubt that we will win in our march toward liberty. In doing so, property and community will no longer be utilized to keep us apart, by reclaiming them we will come together. There is no greater way to invade the state than to demand agency. For this reason, and so many others, I am in solidarity with folks on the streets of Ferguson, in the hollers of Appalachia, the canyons of Utah, in the streets of Gaza, the halls of Israel and where all seek the destruction of illegitimate authority.

At this time, may we pursue absolute liberty? May we achieve the goal of dismantling coercive power structures as opposed to altering them? The current potential for societal change is astounding.

I don’t know what has given rise to past revolutionary movements. I don’t know what sparked radical politics at Berkeley in the 60’s, protests against the Vietnam War, peace movements, opposition to racism in the deep south, slave rebellions, establishment of the underground rail road, women’s liberation, confronting combat troops in the streets of Ferguson and so on — but in the face of all these entrenched systems of power people did rise. Today the people rise again.

It is time to earn whatever lies beyond the next great social movement. We will be better because of it — Hands up, don’t shoot!

Commentary
Brazil: Presidential Candidate Dies, His Ideals Unfortunately Live On

On August 12, Brazil’s largest news program, Jornal Nacional, interviewed presidential candidate Eduardo Campos. Of his 15 minutes replying to questions, he spent at least 10 of them touting the presence of his family in the state apparatus. He filled the remaining time with banalities such as “we can’t give Brazil up.” The following morning, Campos’s private jet crashed in Santos, a coastal city in the state of Sao Paulo, killing the candidate, his advisers and the two pilots.

Due to the crash’s violence, it took a week to transport Campos’s remains back to Recife, Pernambuco, the state he governed for eight years. His funeral was televised as an all-day Sunday spectacle. His pitiful performance in Tuesday’s interview was all but forgotten, his malformed thoughts elevated to slogans. “We can’t give Brazil up!” is shared and exploited as a catchphrase, while Recife’s people take the streets to sing “Eduardo/warrior/of the Brazilian people!” during the funeral.

Perhaps the exploitation of a famous politician’s death by the army of individuals who salivate for a piece of his memory is natural. Campos has been described as a “promising leadership,” a “negotiator,” a “statesman” who “transcended party lines.” All of these are lies. And that’s why it’s even more necessary to set the record straight on what Campos was and represented. He was an old school politician, inserted in the old system by the old elite, who protected our old crony capitalism; a personalistic politician firmly entrenched in the old habits of the Brazilian northeast’s elites.

Powerful institutions tend to perpetuate themselves and fluster attempts by outsiders to enact change. But Eduardo Campos wasn’t an outsider. He lived his life comfortably positioned inside in the power ranks, where he was placed by his grandfather, former Pernambuco governor Miguel Arraes. Campos wasn’t trying to subvert structures, but to put them to his service.

The state government employs “at least a dozen” of his or his wife’s relatives. Having supported the allied base of the federal government for many years, Campos successfully campaigned for the appointment of his mother to the Federal Court of Accounts and placed two of his relatives in the state Court of Accounts, a branch of government responsible for overseeing his own actions. Recife’s mayor is one of his trusted men, an unknown before the election, but leveraged by Campos’s name. Eduardo Campos justified the omnipresence of his relatives in the state as a result of their “abilities.” A prodigious family indeed.

Eduardo Campos has been described by the international press as “amicable” to markets and the Sao Paulo stock exchange reacted poorly to his death. That’s unsurprising: Tax exemptions and direct subsidies signs are displayed in front of virtually every industrial plant in Pernambuco. The Pernambuco Military Police, under the direct control of Eduardo Campos, repeatedly acted to protect the interests of the construction companies from the Novo Recife project — consisting of the privatization of very well located land in the Pernambuco capital to benefit contractors — beating up protesters and, later on, stating they wanted to talk. Marina Silva, his vice-presidential candidate, then hypocritically said she was against police violence and that several people in the movement against Novo Recife were members of her party.

On other occasions, Campos had no problem in giving building companies the land they demanded, such as when they wanted to build Riomar Mall over a swamp area, displacing hundreds of people from their stilt houses. These people had similar fates to the thousands of families who were expropriated and forcefully evicted for the construction of the Arena Pernambuco for the World Cup. It’s not by chance that construction companies, formerly lukewarm toward Campos’s party, made generous donations this year to the Socialist Party of Brazil. And it’s not by chance that large banks, industries and agribusiness companies lamented the loss of such a trustworthy ally.

His mellifluous narrative of favoring the poor hid a policy of control, suppression and infiltration of social movements. Campos’s political choices were always obfuscated by the convenient lie of “efficiency” in public management. In a recent interview, he said that abortion should not be legalized, reaffirmed his support for the war on drugs, recycled the tired idea that crack cocaine is a vicious drug that enslaves people, and stated he wanted to put “drug dealers” behind bars.

The more than 100,000 people who cry on streets because Eduardo Campos is dead remember only his most cynical side: The “modern” politician, who wanted to rid the country of “cronyism” and “favoring,” someone who was willing to “build alliances,” promote “sustainable growth,” “think about the poor,” and to defend “more humane politics.”

Someone like that really would have a lot of problems in the political system. Eduardo Campos didn’t have many.

He died, but his ideals live on — unfortunately.

Portuguese, Stateless Embassies
Eduardo Campos morre, mas suas ideias infelizmente sobrevivem

Na última terça-feira (12), o então candidato à presidência Eduardo Campos dava entrevista ao Jornal Nacional. Dos quinze minutos que passou respondendo perguntas, ao menos dez foram gastos falando sobre a presença de sua família dentro do aparato estatal. O restante foi composto de banalidades do naipe de “Não vamos desistir do Brasil”. Na quarta (13), pela manhã, o jato particular de Campos caía em Santos e matava o candidato e seus assessores, além dos pilotos do avião. Sete vítimas.

A violência da queda foi grande a ponto de atrasar o transporte dos restos mortais de Eduardo Campos para Recife, Pernambuco, estado que governou nos últimos 8 anos. Seu velório foi televisionado e espetacularizado durante todo o domingo. Seu desempenho sofrível na entrevista de terça-feira foi esquecido, mas seus semipensamentos foram elevados a slogan. “Não vamos desistir do Brasil” foi um chavão amplamente compartilhado e explorado, enquanto muitos pernambucanos nas ruas cantavam “Eduardo/guerreiro/do povo brasileiro” durante o velório.

Talvez seja inevitável que a morte de um político expressivo seja explorada de maneira sórdida pelo exército de interessados em se beneficiar de parte de sua memória. Eduardo já foi lembrado como uma “liderança promissora”, um “negociador”, um “estadista” que “transcendia divisões partidárias”. E isso tudo é mentira. Por isso talvez seja mais necessário ainda lembrar o que a entrevista de terça-feira de fato mostrou o que Eduardo Campos era: um político da velha guarda, ligado ao velho sistema e à velha elite, ao velho capitalismo de compadrio; um coronel personalista na tradição nordestina de fazer política.

O poder e as instituições tendem a se perpetuar e a frustrar as tentativas de outsiders de fazerem mudanças em suas estruturas engessadas. Mas Eduardo não era um outsider. Era alguém confortavelmente posicionado dentro do poder, onde foi colocado jovem por seu avô, o ex-governador de Pernambuco Miguel Arraes. Eduardo não tentava subverter qualquer estrutura, mas colocá-las a seu serviço.

No governo estadual, estão presentes “pelo menos uma dezena” de parentes seus ou de sua mulher. Tendo composto a base aliada do governo federal por anos, Eduardo Campos fez campanha bem sucedida pela nomeação de sua mãe para o Tribunal de Contas da União, além de ter encaixado dois parentes no Tribunal de Contas Estadual, que fiscalizava suas próprias contas. A prefeitura do Recife hoje é ocupada por homem de confiança seu, sujeito desconhecido pré-eleições, mas alavancado por seu nome. Campos justificou a onipresença de seus familiares em todas as esferas do aparelho estatal como resultante dos “predicados” que todos eles possuem. Aparentemente é uma família prodigiosa.

Eduardo Campos foi descrito na imprensa estrangeira como candidato “amigável” ao mercado e sua morte empurrou para baixo as cotações da bolsa de valores de São Paulo. Não é para menos; placas de isenções tributárias e subsídios diretos figuram em virtualmente todas as fábricas que povoam a zona da mata pernambucana. A PM pernambucana, sob comando direto dele, agiu para proteger os interesses das empreiteiras do projeto Novo Recife — que consiste na privatização de terrenos extremamente bem localizados na capital pernambucana em benefício de construtoras — espancando manifestantes e, depois, pregando o diálogo. Marina Silva, vice em sua chapa, à época, hipocritamente afirmou ser contra a violência policial e que diversos participantes do movimento contra o Novo Recife faziam parte de seu partido.

Em outras ocasiões, Eduardo Campos não teve problemas em ceder terrenos para empreiteiras, como para a construção do Shopping Riomar, que levou à desapropriação e expulsão de diversos moradores de palafitas da região. Essas pessoas tiveram destinos parecidos com os das milhares que foram expropriadas e desalojadas para a construção da Arena Pernambuco para a Copa do Mundo. Não à toa, as empresas de construção civil, antes pouco empolgadas com o partido de Campos, fizeram, neste ano, gordas doações ao PSB. E não à toa as grandes indústrias, os grandes bancos e empresas do agronegócio lamentaram a perda de um homem tão confiável.

Seu discurso melífluo de favorecimento aos mais pobres escondia uma política de controle, supressão e infiltração dos movimentos sociais. As escolhas políticas de Eduardo Campos foram sempre escondidas pela conveniente narrativa de “eficiência” na gestão pública. Em entrevista recente, dizia que o aborto não deveria ser liberado, reiterava seu apoio ao combate às drogas, reciclava o batido discurso de estigmatização do crack e afirmava que traficantes devem ir para trás das grades (assim como “quem estrupa” [sic]).

As 100 mil pessoas que lamentavam nas ruas no último domingo lembraram apenas do seu lado mais cínico: o político “moderno”, que queria livrar o país do “clientelismo” e do “favorecimento”, alguém para “construir alianças”, promover o “desenvolvimento sustentável”, “pensar nos pobres” e fazer “uma política mais humana”.

Um indivíduo com esse perfil realmente teria muitas dificuldades dentro do sistema político. Eduardo Campos não teve tantas.

Ele morreu, mas seus ideais vivem. Infelizmente.

Stigmergy - C4SS Blog, The Weekly Abolitionist
The Weekly Abolitionist: Chris Burbank and the Myth of “Good Cops”

Last week, Radley Balko published an interesting piece on the question “After Ferguson, how should police respond to protests?”  He contrasted the militarized approach seen in Ferguson and in the Battle of Seattle with less reactionary and more cooperative forms of policing. One police chief Balko praised was Chris Burbank of Salt Lake City, my hometown. In particular, Balko emphasized the manner in which Chief Burbank evicted Occupy protesters from Pioneer Park. His department gave protesters advance notice and did not bring riot gear or other military equipment to the eviction, thus avoiding much of the violence and conflict seen in other police crackdowns on Occupy.

Last year, as part of a series on the police reform movement in Utah, Balko published a profile piece praising Chief Burbank. Balko summarizes Burbank’s approach as follows:

Unconventional has been Burbank’s modus operandi since he was appointed chief of police in 2006. Be it the drug war, immigration, or the handling of protests, Burbank’s mantra to his officers is the same: Use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation. Or as Burbank puts it, “It’s not can I do it, but should I do it?”

His comparatively peaceful approach is not the only thing that makes Chief Burbank more likable than the average cop. He also attempts friendly relations with groups often at odds with abusive police officers. Transgender individuals face brutal repression and violence from police across the country, but Chief Burbank attended and spoke at Utah’s Transgender Day of Remembrance service last year, mourning trans people who had been killed. This year he spoke at Salt Lake City’s SlutWalk, a protest against mistreatment of sexual assault survivors. Several years ago both Burbank and myself were attendees at the ACLU of Utah’s annual Bill of Rights Celebration. If you want to find an image of a “good cop,” Chris Burbank is probably one of the best examples you’ll find. When an incredibly astute critic of police abuse like Radley Balko praises a police officer, that officer is probably above average.

So it’s pretty telling when Burbank and his subordinates behave in the same destructive ways as any other cops. And they do that all too often. Last week, Salt Lake City police officers shot and killed an unarmed man, 20 year old Dillon Taylor. His brother, Jerrail Taylor, witnessed the killing and described it to the Salt Lake Tribune:

“We’re walking out of the 7-Eleven with a drink, when the cops show up and start harassing us with guns,” Jerrail Taylor told The Salt Lake Tribune Tuesday night. South Salt Lake police, who are investigating the shooting, said Salt Lake City police were answering a 911 call reporting a man there was waving a handgun; Dillon Taylor purportedly matched the description of the armed man.

Dillon Taylor was wearing headphones and didn’t respond to the three officers until they surrounded him, Jerrail Taylor said.

“He couldn’t hear them, so he just kept walking. Then … they had guns pointed at his face. That’s when he turned off the music,” he said. “I saw them point guns at my brother’s face, and I knew what was going to happen.”

One officer told Dillon Taylor to get on the ground, while another told him to put his hands on his head.

“He got confused, he went to pull up his pants to get on the ground, and they shot him,” Jerrail Taylor said.

Witnesses said they heard two shots. Taylor died at the scene; his brother and cousin were detained for questioning.

So Chief Burbank’s subordinates surrounded a man and pointed guns at him, then shot him when he attempted to pull up his pants. And they almost certainly won’t face the kinds of criminal charges we would expect if a private citizen committed this sort of shooting.

This June, Salt Lake City Police Officer Brett Olsen entered a fenced yard without a warrant and shot a dog named Geist. After massive public outcry over this shooting, Chief Burbank criticized the public for much of their anger. Or, as J.D. Tucille of Reason put it, “Police Chief Chris Burbank stepped in front of a camera — and acted pissy that anybody would dare criticize his officers.” The SLCPD eventually concluded that Olsen “acted within policy.”

In 2011, attorney Andrew McCullough represented two escort services in a lawsuit challenging a Utah law that allowed police officers to arrest suspected sex workers for touching themselves, exposing themselves, or acting in any lewd manner. McCullough argued that this criminalized perfectly legal expressive activity routinely engaged in by strippers as part of their job, and thus violated the First Amendment. Chief Burbank had lobbied for the law and continued to defend it during this suit. His argument for the law was based on the idea that officers were being asked to behave inappropriately when they conducted undercover operations to catch sex workers. In other words, because he wanted it to be easier for his employees to identify and coerce sex workers for their choices of what to do with their bodies, he supported an overly broad law that could threaten legal businesses and free expression.

What can we learn from all this? What I take from it is that even the better police officers still respond to the structural incentives associated with policing. Police are granted a monopoly on legal force, and along with that are given privileges to use force we would consider criminal if carried out by a mere mundane. Police officers are also rewarded for enforcing vice laws, and they thus have incentives to seek expansive powers for enforcing such laws. Moreover, they are a concentrated and too often revered interest group that can easily influence legislative bodies in order to claim these expansive powers. Burbank’s actions show that even cops who emphasize treating the public with respect and preserving civil liberties will respond to the perverse incentives embedded in policing itself. They will almost inevitably find themselves helping killer cops escape accountability and seeking more power to coerce people who pose no threat. Given these perverse incentives, I think we should take the advice of Anthony Gregory and abolish the police.

Books and Reviews
New Forms of Worker Organization

Immanuel Ness, ed. New Forms of Worker Organization: The Syndicalist and Autonomist Restoration of Class-Struggle Unionism (Oakland: PM Press, 2014) (Amazon link).

In his foreword to the book, Staughton Lynd describes the official model of unionism in the United States, first pioneered by the company unions under the American Plan (especially by the company union in Gerard Swope’s GM), and then codified into law by the Wagner Act:

  1. Unions compete to become the “exclusive” bargaining representative of a so-called appropriate bargaining unit. The employer has no legal obligation to negotiate with a union made up of a minority of its employees.
  2. When a given union has been “recognized,” the employer becomes the dues collector for the union. Every employee has union dues deducted from his or her paycheck automatically.
  3. The union conceded to the employer as a “management prerogative” the right to make unilateral investment decisions, such as shutting down a particular plant or workplace.
  4. The union deprives its members of the opportunity to contest such decisions by agreeing that there will be no strikes or slowdowns during the duration of the collective bargaining agreement.

In short, the main function of Wagner-style business unions is to enforce labor contracts against their own rank-and-file and “let management manage,” in return for productivity-based wage increases, seniority an a grievance process.

This book is about a different kind of unionism, breaking out all over the world today. “It is horizontal rather than vertical. It relies not on paid union staff but on the workers themselves.”

These kinds of alternative unions, editor Immanuel Ness argues, “are more relevant to today’s workers than institutional and bureaucratic compromises with the capitalist class and state.” The new unions are a revived form of a form of labor organization that was dominant before Wagner and similar labor charters with capitalist states around the world. “…[T]he new workers’ organizations are descendants of the socialist and anarchist labor formations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”

Some of the new formations have a praxis centered on prefigurative politics, envisioning their action in the workplace as part of a larger fight to transform the entire economy.

The book is made up of a series of case studies of independent and democratic unions — drawing on a variety of autonomist, syndicalist and other ideas, but all “fundamentally opposed to bureaucratic domination, class compromise, and concessions with employers” — in the global North and South.

Au Loong Yu and Bai Ruixue, “Autonomous Workers’ Struggles in Contemporary China.”

In China, industrial strikes — both against official plans for “privatization” and against foreign employers like Honda and other auto companies — have been wildcats, or informal unions organized entirely outside the framework of the state-recognized ACFTU labor federation. Indeed, in some cases strikers have been brutally assaulted by members of the official union.

At the same time, this wave of strikes has had an ameliorative effect on state policy. In the face of such pressure, the ACFTU has increasingly intervened to mediate settlements with significant improvements for workers. And the state itself has introduced genuinely progressive legislation. Like the FDR administration’s support for the Wagner Act, the Chinese state is fundamentally capitalist — but is willing to institute genuine reforms, under pressure from below, in the interest of long-term stability.

Still, Chinese workers find themselves compelled to work outside or against the official framework more often than not. When the ACFTU does intervene to negotiate a settlement, it usually does so only when compelled to when an autonomously organized strike gets too out of control.

Arup Kumar Sen. “The Struggle for Independent Unions in India’s Industrial Belts: Domination, Resistance, and the Maruti Suzuki Autoworkers”

The Maruti Suzuki auto plant at Gurgaon township in the state of Haryana, is made up mostly of temporary workers recruited through outside agencies. In theory the temporary workers can advance to permanent worker status with higher wages, but only a minority actually do. The temporary majority who share rent houses live in the next thing to a company town, with landlords and shop-owners disciplining factory workers under pressure from the company.

Internal factory conditions are highly oppressive, with employment hinging on the signing of “standing orders” that prohibit “slowing down work, singing, gossiping, spreading rumors, or making derogatory statements against the company and management.” Temporary workers work sixteen hour days, with compulsory overtime.

The plant originally had a company union, but starting in 2011 there have been repeated mass strikes associated with attempts to form an independent workers’ union. The strikes have typically resulted either in lockouts or factory occupations, with violence against strikers by state and local police. Their achievements in terms of working conditions and pay have been minimal.

One reason for management’s overall success in defeating challenges by independent unions has been their exploitation of resentments between the permanent and temporary workers, as well as those between those employed in the factory and the much larger reserve of temporary workers whose phone numbers management has on file to call on as strike-breakers.

Nevertheless the strike wave of 2011 at the Maruti Suzuki plant was “a landmark event in the history of the Indian labor movement.” It encouraged and strengthened organizing efforts in the production chain, including support from workers “in other Suzuki units and supply chain factories.” This was facilitated by the fact that workers from the auto plant and various supply companies lived in the company dorms, and most workers had friends in other factories or had worked at other factories previously themselves.

The relationship between the Haryani state government and foreign employers like Suzuki is reminiscent of colonial days, when local authorities would resort to brutal force against workers on behalf of investors in the British metropolis.

The overall failure of the independent labor movement seems to stem from its focus on the workplace and on large-scale declared strikes, at the expense both of solidarity with the outside community and direct action on the job.

Shawn Hattingh. “Exploding Anger: Workers’ Struggles and Self-Organization in South Africa’s Mining Industry”

Until 2009, labor struggle by South African mine workers took place largely within the official framework of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). As I have written elsewhere, thanks to the settlement Mandela made with foreign capital to abandon the ANC’s agenda for economic justice as a condition for his release from prison and majority rule, the ANC as ruling party became a component of the apparatus of domination by domestic and transnational capital. High-ranking ANC officials owned mines or stock in mining companies, and the NUM became a de facto company union whose main job was to keep mineworkers in line.

As Hattingh writes, some of the top ANC leadership have “joined the old white capitalists in the ruling class” and “used their positions in the state to amass wealth and power.” “…[A]ll the top ANC-linked Black families — the Mandelas, Thambos, Ramaphosas, Zumas, Moosas, and others — have shares in or sit on the boards of mining companies.”

But beginning in 2009, workers began to resort to wildcat strikes outside the framework of South African labor law and without the authorization of the NUM. By late 2012 sit-ins and wildcat strikes had escalated to include most mines in the country. At Marikana in August, in an incident reminiscent of the Sharpesville Massacre, police gunned down 34 strikers. Despite state restrictions on public gathering, police incursions into neighboring townships and rubber bullet assaults on crowds of demonstrators, in the end the workers’ militancy and self-organization resulted in victory, with major wage increases for rock drillers.

The success at Marikana led to a wave of wildcat strikes at mines nationwide between August and December 2012, coupled with sit-ins and occupations. They achieved significant gains at some plants but not others, and then the strike wave slowed down as workers regrouped for further struggle.

The struggle resumed in March 2013, with strikes in the coal sector shutting down 90% of Exxaro’s coal operations.

Interestingly, Hattingh cites Bakunin’s warnings that a revolutionary strategy based on capturing state power would lead to a new ruling class much like what the ANC became after the overthrow of the Afrikaner regime. Such a statist path would result in continued exploitation “because it did not abolish class power but simply changed the make-up of the ruling class.” By the nature of things, only a few can rule; the majority can never be directly involved in decision-making. As a result, revolutionary leaders entering state power become a new ruling class, because the top-down structure shapes them into one.

The struggle in the South African mining industry, Hattingh says

lays bare the true nature of the state and the role it plays in protecting the ruling class. It is not an unfortunate coincidence that the state, headed by Black nationalists and neoliberals, has been protecting the mines of huge corporations and has been willing to use violence to do so. Rather, that is one of the main functions of the state…: that is what it is designed for. For capitalism to function, and for class rule to be maintained, a state is vital. It is central to protecting and maintaining the very material basis from which the power of the elite is derived.

Erik Forman. “Revolt in Fast Food Nation: The Wobblies Take on Jimmy John’s”

This chapter begins on September 2, 2010 with five workers at a Minneapolis Jimmy John’s confronting their manager with the announcement that they’d formed an IWW local, along with a list of demands. Although normally given to drunken abuse — threats to shoot or stab workers, or statements that “your moma should have had an abortion” — she was extremely quiet during the confrontation, trembling and staring at the floor.

Jimmy John’s is a company on the same model as Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby, owned by an odious right-wing troglodyte who donates heavily to Joe Arpaio and tells management trainees at “Jimmy School” that he doesn’t “want anyone named Jamal or Tyrone running one of my stores,” and that they should always put a “pretty girl” on the register.

Forman does a brilliant job describing the motivation behind the supposedly “progressive” National Labor Relations Act. It was, he says, “passed in response to a series of insurrectionary strikes in 1934,” with the intention of avoiding such

“obstructions to the free flow of commerce” by removing class struggle from the shop floors and streets and confining it to offices and courtrooms. Under the government-run procedure, the bare-knuckled confrontations that had previously forced bosses to negotiate would be replaced by workplace-based elections for union recognition supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Union organizing was to become a “gentleman’s game.”

This amounted, Forman says, to the labor movement “trad[ing] its birthright for a mess of pottage.” Bosses were willing to negotiate with NLRB unions so long as they were backed by the threat of mass action as a last resort. But as workers got used to the business unions’ bureaucratic regime, “the fighting capacity of the unions atrophied.” The result, after big business decided the New Deal labor accord was no longer in its interest, was a ruthless wave of union-busting which labor was no longer able to fight within the NLRB regime.

The response, Forman continues, was a renewed interest in solidarity unionism, with an increasing number of activists “looking outside the mainstream for a source of union renewal” and specifically back to the radical methods used before the Wagner Act. This was reflected, among other things, in an attempt to rebuild the IWW [212]

The IWW gained notoriety with a Starbucks organizing campaign in New York. When an attempt at conventional NLRB certification failed at one Starbucks in the case of the usual management union-busting tactics, the workers didn’t throw in the towel as usual. They ignored the NLRB and instead resorted to direct action without bothering to certify their union.

Solidarity unionism doesn’t require union recognition or even a majority in the workplace. Rather than winning elections, it focuses on direct action on the shop floor, waging “a guerrilla war of small-scale actions against the boss over shop-level issues.”

In February 2007 a Wobbly organizer named Mike Wilkowicz began trying to organize the seven Jimmy John’s restaurants in the Minneapolis area — which led to the vignette at the beginning of the chapter. After a series of meetings with local Jimmy John’s workers to build up a union base, they staged their first action. Six JJ’s workers and five friends from the IWW met on the front porch of a woman fired from one of the stores for being absent too much with strep throat. The next day they and their friends flooded the store’s phone lines with complaints about the firing, “shutting down the store’s delivery operation during the busiest part of the day.” Next, the five committee members entered the shop and demanded to see the boss, and presented their demands in front of coworkers.

From there they staged confrontations at store after store, getting a boss to approve their schedule demands at one and actually getting the boss fired for sexual harassment at another.

By June 2010, 49 JJ’s workers out of 180 in the Minneapolis area had IWW cards. From there they went on to a petition drive that got eighty signatures. Having “built an organization that coul wage a guerrilla class war reaching every store in the area,” the IWW readied for battle. On the Thursday before Labor Day, Wobblies in every store in the area stopped work and presented their demands to management. In one store the manager actually ran from the union members, while in another the boss just “spent the next hour in a panic, pacing around the store, screaming, ‘Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!'” At 4:00 that afternoon fifteen Wobblies marched into the main store to demand negotiation with the Mulligan family who owned all the Minneapolis stores, but they had fled the premises. So the Wobs escalated it to the next level with a mass picket by more than a hundred IWW members and supporters at the main store to shut down the evening rush after the Twins game.

Despite a tough-talking press conference by the Mulligans, store managers immediately began giving raises from a quarter to $2 an hour, previously unheard of in the company, and did not fire a single worker for participating in the strikes.

The IWW followed up with a roving bicycle picket travelling from store to store, and a block party that shut down the Calhoun Square JJ’s at the height of the Saturday night club business.

Unfortunately, Mike Wilkowicz made the mistake of supporting an NLRB certification drive and persuaded a majority to go along with him, against the strenuous objections of those who preferred to ignore Wagner Act rules and stick to direct action. The Wobblies having agreed to play by rules made for the bosses, JJ’s immediately kicked in with the standard corporate union-busting playbook of anti-union meetings, red-baiting propaganda, lies (like promises, illegal under the Wagner Act, that things would get better if the union was voted down) and intimidation. The IWW lost the certification vote by a margin of two votes (87-85).

After the loss the IWW resumed its original model of direct action. Sentiment on the shop floor again began shifting against management; many of the 87 anti-union voters had been motivated by management promises of better conditions if the union was defeated, and became disgruntled when they found out it had been a lie.

The first post-election initiative was the Sick Day Campaign — a demand that workers not be fired for calling in sick, and that the company institute paid sick leave so that workers would not have to choose between working while sick and being unable to pay their bills. IWW members confronted Rob Milligan with the demand every time they saw him; when two more workers were fired for calling in, the Wobblies began a public propaganda campaign (open-mouth sabotage) directed at customers, informing them of the likelihood their sandwiches might have been made by a sick worker.

After the company fired six core organizers of the Sick Day Campaign, the union won a limited victory a year later when the NLRB found the complaint “had merit” and forced their reinstatement with back pay.

Since then the situation has remained more or less stable, with the union continuing to build solidarity and social capital through direct action to protect fellow workers against firings, confront abusive bosses, etc.

Comments

In the chapter on Jimmy Johns, the owner told workers he wasn’t legally obligated to negotiate with a union that hadn’t jumped through all the NLRB’s certification hurdles. That’s quite true.

But before the Wagner Act, employers weren’t obligated to negotiate either. Instead, unions resorted to a wide range of tactics aimed at making the employer want to negotiate. And these tactics were of course prohibited to unions certified under the terms of Wagner, which was passed precisely to prevent such devilishly effective methods from ever being used again.

Since then, employers have decided the New Deal labor accord no longer serves their interests. They have instead shifted to a labor model based on union-busting, offshoring and precarious labor (part-timers and temporary workers). Outside of a handful of dying industries, the New Deal model is increasingly irrelevant to today’s workers.

But the pre-Wagner model is becoming quite relevant. It includes such things as minority unionism (in which a minority of workers acts as a union without certification, as the Jimmy Johns workers did), which former IWW Secretary-Treasurer Alexis Buss wrote extensively about in her “Minority Report” columns. It includes the forms of on-the-job direct action described in the pamphlet “How to Fire Your Boss [PDF]” (all of which are prohibited during the duration of union contracts under the Wagner model): slowdowns, sick-ins, random unannounced one-day wildcat strikes, working to rule, “good work” strikes and (perhaps most relevant) “open mouth sabotage,” which is simply public whistleblowing about internal working conditions and the kinds of shoddy goods and services that result from management policy.

At the same time the increase in project-based rather than workplace-based labor (software, the building trades, apparel, etc.), and the increasing use of temps and other forms of precarious labor, forms of labor organization based primarily on social organization outside the workplace are also rising in significance. These include movements like the various anti-Walmart labor movements and the Coalition of Imolakee Workers that focus on informational and public pressure campaigns. They also include corporate campaigns in alliance with local community activist and social justice organizations, progressive churches, and the like. And they include revived guilds and working class mutuals for pooling costs, risks and income, insuring against sickness and unemployment, providing strike funds, certifying training, providing legal aid, and all the other kinds of working class solidarity outside the workplace described by E.P. Thompson and Pyotr Kropotkin that were crowded out or actively suppressed under the 20th century corporate-state model.

This book really doesn’t deal with the latter possibility much at all, which is a shame (although in fairness it only purports to be a book on syndicalist and autonomist unions). Still, it’s a good read and includes a lot of material relevant to workers in the Western customer service industries and in offshored sweatshops in the Third World, both of which have proliferated under neoliberalism.

Commentary
Ferguson: Nixon Would Make a Solitude and Call it Peace

Ferguson, Missouri is — pardon the unintended pun — a moving target. Events keep taking erratic directions, superseding comment as fast as it’s written. So I’ll open with context as of this writing: After a week of combat in the streets, governor Jay Nixon has ordered Missouri’s National Guard out to, as his office says in a statement, “help restore peace and order and to protect the citizens of Ferguson.”

The only part of the preceding statement to which we can reliably attribute any truth is the part about “order.” Police action in Ferguson has, from the moment of Michael Brown’s death, been about demonstrating who’s in charge and putting uppity citizens back in their place.

“Peace?” Let’s talk about peace. Peace was the situation in Ferguson before an armed government employee gunned down an unarmed young man in the street.

I lived near Ferguson for 12 years. I drove an ice cream truck up and down its streets for two summers. I seriously considered renting an apartment in Canfield Green, the complex Michael Brown lived in, in 2012. So I can say, on reasonable personal authority, that media portrayals of Ferguson as some kind of crime-plagued racial ghetto are baloney. Ferguson is, or at least was, an eminently peaceful community.

American “police forces” of today, on the other hand, are de facto military organizations, occupying  the communities they claim to “protect and serve.” They are part and parcel of a political system which, by its very nature, evolves continuously toward complete control of everyone and everything — the exact opposite of anything having to do with “peace.”

This happens to be especially true of the St. Louis County, Missouri Police Department. While democracy is clearly no panacea for the problem of emergent totalitarianism, at least an elected county sheriff must theoretically account to voters for his and his subordinates’ actions. St. Louis County abandoned even that small nod to popular consent in 1955, replacing the sheriff/deputy system with an appointed “police chief” accountable only to bureaucrats whose main concerns are maximizing government size and revenue while ensuring that the sheep dare not resist shearing.

Based on years of personal observation, I can confidently state that in St. Louis County, the primary functions of the county police and most local departments are 1) writing speeding tickets to motorists on the expressways; and 2) harassing young black males in hopes of finding “contraband” (drugs) to justify police seizure (referred to, in High Orwellian English, as “asset forfeiture” to reverse responsibility) of vehicles and other valuable property.

Yes, I just played the race card. The Ferguson uprising should not be ascribed entirely to race — if you bother to look, there are plenty of white faces on the barricades there — but it’s an indisputable fact that race plays a huge role in how police interact with the citizenry in the area.

But just letting it be about race would be a grave mistake. It’s about power, control and the evolution of “police” over the last two centuries from local night watchmen and constables serving and protecting a consenting populace (“peace officers”) into large, militarized, authoritarian organizations serving and protecting the state (“law enforcement”).

To let the uprising die in Ferguson as the National Guard moves in to suppress it, or to regard that suppression as “peace,” would likewise be a grave mistake. If what we really want is peace, we need — to steal a phrase from Nicholas de Genova — “a million Fergusons.” Or however many it takes to prevail upon these occupying armies we call “police forces” to stand down.

Stigmergy - C4SS Blog, Weekly Libertarian Leftist Review
The Weekly Libertarian Leftist And Chess Review 43

George H. Smith’s series on social laws is now on its third part.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the end of Iraq.

Cesar Chelala discusses war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

John Marciano discusses Obama’s response to the torture scandal.

Doug Bandow discusses the recent U.S. military action in Iraq.

Jay Stephenson discusses how network television presents moderate pro-war people and extreme pro-war people.

John Grant discusses how to break the cycle of war.

Tyler Durden discusses the complete history of U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Jacob Sullum discusses the panic about stoned drivers and marijuana legalization.

A. Barton Hinkle discusses the export-import bank.

Wendy McElroy discusses the War on Drugs and private shippers.

Ivan Eland discusses a scandal worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

David S. D’Amato discusses left-wing individualism.

Jason Lee Byas discusses the renewed U.S. intervention in Iraq.

J.D. Tuccille discusses five areas where libertarians get it right.

Brian Nicholson discusses imperial surgery in Iraq.

Cory Massimino discusses state support on behalf of the rich.
rtarian
Cory Massimino reviews Markets Not Capitalism.

William Blum discusses the U.S. government’s longstanding use of torture.

Justin Raimondo discusses Hilary Clinton and foreign policy.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman discusses Nixon’s treasonous behavior related to Vietnam.

Kelly Vlahos discusses how the child migrant crossings are partially due to the War on Drugs.

Sheldon Richman discusses the recent U.S. intervention in Iraq.

William Blum discusses attempts to overthrow the Cuban government.

David Stockman discusses the new intervention in Iraq.

David D. S’Amato discusses American Coup: How a Terrified Government is Destroying the Constitution.

Joel Schlosberg discusses Paul Krugman’s recent attack on libertarianism.

David Swanson critiques the renewed bombing of Iraq.

Anand beats Carlsen.

John E Oberg is defeated by W Wenz

Feature Articles
The Individualization of Labor Problems

Lysander Spooner wraps up his 1875 pamphlet Vices Are Not Crimes with,

[T]he poverty of the great body of mankind, the world over, is the great problem of the world. That such extreme and nearly universal poverty exists all over the world, and has existed through all past generations, proves that it originates in causes which the common human nature of those who suffer from it, has not hitherto been strong enough to overcome. But these sufferers are, at least, beginning to see these causes, and are becoming resolute to remove them, let it cost what it may. And those who imagine that they have nothing to do but to go on attributing the poverty of the poor to their vices, and preaching to them against their vices, will ere long wake up to find that the day for all such talk is past. And the question will then be, not what are men’s vices, but what are their rights?

Spooner was arguing against the Puritan idea of blaming the poor for their own exclusion. Individual vices couldn’t be the cause of general systemic poverty, according to him; if poverty was so widespread, it has been caused by something that transcends the individual.

The trend of individualizing social problems may sound like one of the old social pseudo-explanations typical of the 19th century, but it’s an idea that’s very much alive. As I’ve written, commenting on Brazil’s labor culture, the thought that individuals are responsible for their being unemployed for lack of qualification is very common in the government, businesses and unions.The discourse which favors training for the “job market” takes the current structure of production and employment as a given and, if workers are unable to place themselves in it, the problem can only be lack of individual initiative. This discourse, naturally, never shows up distilled, yet it is the foundation for the many defenses of “professional training” and the constant reminder that there are “job openings” just, somehow, there aren’t enough qualified people to fill them.

At the same time, we have the idea that the job market is more competitive and workers should adapt. This “education for competitiveness” is very common; colleges and technical schools are always flaunting this technique to show that their curriculum will prepare students for an environment in which jobs are scarce and the worker is replaceable – unless she takes action to counterbalance her economic ineptitude.

Obviously, real economic conditions have something to with this idea.

Overspecialization of labor is one of the collateral effects of corporate concentration. Subsidies to big business and favoring some players through market regulation (very common in the last 10 years in Brazil) extends the production chain and stimulates capital input in production. This extension of the production chain makes firms ever larger and less specialized. To fill specific job posts in the chain of production, however, workers have to become more specialized.

Thus, workers have to differentiate themselves because low specialization jobs are artificially devalued by corporate subsidies, which favor capital rather than labor inputs. And large businesses externalize training costs, outsourcing it to the government and unions.

These dynamics coupled with regulation (minimum wages, pay floors and ceilings, employees’ savings rules, urban laws, bans on street trade, home manufacture regulations, public transportation monopolies, etc.) systematically act to concentrate the market, favor a few established production methods, criminalize poverty and make self-sufficiency less attractive.

Because of that, at the labor end of the rope, “competitiveness” is always increasing in the corporate economy, while competitiveness at the (established) business end has settled at a comfortable enough level.

The professional qualification and job market competitiveness discourse are corporate economy rationalizations. They are the individualization of labor issues and the blaming of workers for their unfavorable position in the negotiation table.

Vices and individual inadequacy are not the reason people end up without jobs. And the attempt to frame the debate in those terms only diverts us from the real question. Paraphrasing Spooner, the question is not what are people’s shortcomings, but what are their rights?

Commentary
No, a Soldier Cop on Every Corner Does Not Sound Great

Hot Air Weekend Editor Jazz Shaw believes that pointing out police militarization – not just in Ferguson, Missouri but everywhere – is “a rather rapid rush to judgment and lacking in larger context.” He is flabbergasted that “one local disturbance has turned into a national demand to defang the police.” And he wants everyone to know that he finds this trend of thought insulting to first responders, because “police departments in cities and towns of all sizes have been equipped with more modern, military style equipment for quite some time now and they don’t seem to be converting the rest of the nation into a series of oppressive death camps.”

Ignoring Shaw’s obvious attempt to “Godwin” the conversation into the abyss, perhaps it might be a good idea to answer his objections charitably, providing the larger context he desperately seeks, starting with Ferguson.

The most obvious statement to make at the outset is that neither jaywalking nor suspicion of petty theft nor running away from cops are crimes punishable by death anywhere in the United States. The fact that Mike Brown was killed for one of those three things is outrageous, and people were rightfully angry about it. But that isn’t everything at work in Ferguson. The demography of the town is telling.

According to data taken from the US Census Bureau and a handful of news reports, roughly 64 percent of Ferguson’s population of 21,203 – 14,290 people – are black, yet its mayor, James Knowles, is white; five members of its six-person City Council are white; six of its seven school board officials are white; and out of the 53 sworn officers on the Ferguson Police Department, three – three! – are black.

There’s more. According to the Missouri Attorney General’s office, even though white people in Ferguson are statistically more likely to be found carrying “contraband” on their persons during police searches than black people, the latter are six times more likely to be stopped in their vehicles by local PD, 11 times more likely to be searched and 12 times more likely to be arrested.

Mike Brown’s murder served as a catalyst for an extensively racially profiled, harassed and disenfranchised population to attempt to fight back. And this is not an isolated incident. 2014 has seen several high profile cases of cops killing unarmed, nonviolent men of color, from Luis Rodriguez in Moore, OK to Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY. There have been four such cases in August alone, according to Josh Harkinson for Mother Jones.

Yet Jazz Shaw believes that those arguing against militarization of police, such as Radley Balko, Rand Paul and numerous others, are simply pining for the good old days of policing, or as he puts it, “the era of the lovable flatfoot, twirling his baton and wagging a finger at the precocious kid about to steal some penny candy.”

He wants soldier cops to protect him from riots such as the one in Ferguson (which was, for context, one night out of over a week of protesting and being battered by the riot squads) or the Rodney King riots from 1992. Protect him. He wants soldier cops to patrol the streets in full regalia at all times, in all communities, to protect him and those like him from school shooters, black people, and/or anyone else who dares break the necessarily conservative social contract he has created for us all.

“Before you’re too quick to demand the ‘demilitarization’ of the police,” he writes, “you might want to remember who it is that stands between the neighborhood you have now and South Central L.A. circa 1992.”

We remember. And we want full demilitarization, followed by complete abolition, of not only the Ferguson Police Department but all police, everywhere.

Life, Love And Liberty, Stigmergy - C4SS Blog
What to Make of Renewed U.S. Intervention in Iraq

A humanitarian rationale is being given for the recent renewed U.S. intervention in Iraq. The atrocities of ISIS are the latest excuse for U.S. military action in the country. There are even signs of a new U.S. push on Fallujah and Anbar generally. Fallujah is the site of two past U.S. assaults and some atrocities.

All of this should be deeply troubling for friends of liberty. George W. Bush had humanitarian reasons for his occupation and bombing of Iraq too. That didn’t make his actions in Iraq just. There were jihadists running around killing Shia and oppressing Christians during his term as well. The difference now is one of degree. ISIS is a lot more successful and powerful than other jihadist groups have been in Iraq.

One need not like ISIS to question further U.S. military action in Iraq. There is a very real possibility that further occupation of and airstrikes on Iraq will lead to sympathy for ISIS. They can play the defense against foreign aggression card. Not to mention that airstrikes will most likely result in the euphemistic concept of “collateral damage”. This can lead to further support for ISIS.

These possibilities were also present in the military action in Iraq prior to this latest round. That makes one wonder how people will react to it this time. If there is a positive reaction, the stigma surrounding war in Iraq created during the Bush era will have been defused. This could lead to an escalation of the intervention or military action elsewhere. An action that would no longer trouble the populace and thus not be politically dangerous.

The banishment of a stigma surrounding war from the public consciousness would be disastrous for people around the world. They would be subject to more U.S. murder and military intervention. This aversion to war and imperialism helps keep people alive. If nothing else, renewed U.S. military intervention in Iraq could have this awful effect.

Renewed militarism in Iraq could also involve the further use of extrajudicial killings via drone strike. This has been a horrific practice honed in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. A rational anti-militarist will not want it to spread to other countries. If they make an exception for this new military action in Iraq, they may very well be supporting what brings extrajudicial killing through drone strike to Iraq. One can only hope that further military action in Iraq doesn’t lead to any of the possibilities above.

One way to help is by donating to Antiwar.com.

Portuguese, Stateless Embassies
Ciberativismo libertário

No dia 28 de julho, a Folha de S. Paulo divulgou matéria denunciando que onze computadores do governo federal foram usados para alterar páginas da Wikipédia, de 2008 até 2014. Os IPs registrados em nome da Serpro (Serviço Federal de Processamento de Dados) e da Presidência da República editaram artigos que tratavam sobre aliados e opositores do atual governo, seja para acrescentar elogios ou suprimir críticas e vice-versa. Mais recentemente, em 12 de agosto, a revista Exame afirma que foram feitas 256 intervenções na Wikipedia por computadores conectados à rede Wi-Fi do Palácio do Planalto.

Controlar o conhecimento, a informação e a narrativa histórica sempre foi uma forma de exercer poder e arregimentar apoio popular, afinal são os vencedores que contam a história. Como a política funciona na base da obtenção e perpetuação do poder, sempre foi necessário persuadir as massas de que o sistema vigente é justo e deve ser mantido, ou que determinado grupo “merece” o poder, de modo a sufocar insatisfações.

Na extinta União Soviética, Stalin “apagou” dissidentes de fotos tiradas na época de seu antecessor, Lênin. No Brasil, Getúlio Vargas apresentou-se como um salvador das expressões culturais negras e populares pelo apoio (seletivo e controlador) de sua política cultural, relegando ao esquecimento como associações recreativas, esportivas, carnavalescas e dançantes da população negra e pobre das cidades, especialmente na capital.

A expressão máxima reescrita da história política e no controle da informação é foi contada em 1984, de George Orwell, que retrata um estado totalitário que a todos vigia, “o grande irmão”. No mundo ficcional, foi criada a novilíngua, um idioma cujo objetivo era o de oferecer um meio de expressão para a cosmovisão da ideologia dominante, impossibilitando outras formas de pensamento, de modo que a divergência seria literalmente impensável.

Os políticos sempre foram levados à manipulação, mas agora têm espaço para tenta-la. E o motivo são os avanços na tecnologia da informação, principalmente com a internet.

A recente tentativa do governo federal em editar artigos da Wikipedia é débil, comparada às tentativas do passado. A internet é a maior tecnologia para defender a liberdade de expressão, de pensamento e de imprensa. Pode-se manipular um site, mas não todos.

A Wikipedia, especialmente em inglês, é um excelente exemplo de como colaboração aberta e cooperação voluntária podem contribuir de forma positiva. O projeto utiliza o conhecimento presente em milhares de mentes em todo o planeta e disponibiliza esse volume enorme de informações para qualquer um com conexão à internet. Nenhum governo poderia fazer algo semelhante.

O governo federal tentou manipular alguns dos artigos da Wikipédia em língua portuguesa para seus próprios fins, alheios àquele que o site se propõe, mas seu intento revelou-se fugaz: as edições foram sendo retiradas por outros colaboradores da enciclopédia virtual, por violarem os termos de uso.

E, para deixar o estado brasileiro ainda mais vigiado, foi criada uma conta no twitter, @brwikiedits, que se descreve como “Bot cidadão que monitora alterações ao Wikipédia a partir do Senado, STF, Câmara, Serpro, Proc. Geral da República, Dataprev, Petrobras, BCB, BB e Caixa”. Já conta com vários exemplos de páginas editadas por servidores ligados ao governo, o que é, de fato, preocupante. Mais recentemente, foi criada também a página do Facebook.

Precisamos de mais dessa atitude em nosso país, de uma consciência ciberlibertária que se oponha veementemente à interferência do governo na internet. O cyber-libertarianismo é um ativismo que já tem rendido resultados muito interessantes, como a proteção da privacidade na internet contra a vigilância governamental por meio da criptografia da comunicação online e o reforço da economia P2P, sem passar por grandes corporações regulamentadas pelo governo, por intermédio de transações virtuais em criptomoedas fora do controle governamental, dentre as quais se destaca o bitcoin. O @BRWikiedits é uma iniciativa brasileira bem-vinda nesse cenário.

A aprovação recente do Marco Civil no Brasil, com pouca discussão da sociedade e apoio unânime do congresso (a serviço de quem?), prova a necessidade de maior ativismo virtual.

O governo não pode aumentar seu controle sobre os meios virtuais em detrimento da liberdade da informação, a maior garantia contra a reescrita da história e da liberdade de pensamento.

Feed 44
Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace “Anti-Capitalism” on Feed 44

C4SS Feed 44 presents “Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace ‘Anti-Capitalism’” from the book Markets Not Capitalism, written by Gary Chartier, read by Stephanie Murphy and edited by Nick Ford.

Defenders of freed markets have good reason to identify their position as a species of “anti-capitalism.” To explain why, I distinguish three potential meanings of “capitalism” before suggesting that people committed to freed markets should oppose capitalism in my second and third senses. Then, I offer some reasons for using “capitalism” as a label for some of the social arrangements to which freed-market advocates should object.

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

  • 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB
The Sheldon Richman Collection
Out of Iraq, Etc.!

Nearly a century ago, after four bloody years of World War I, British colonialists created the state of Iraq, complete with their hand-picked monarch. Britain and France were authorized — or, more precisely, authorized themselves — to create states in the Arab world, despite the prior British promise of independence in return for the Arabs’ revolt against the Ottoman Turks, which helped the Allied powers defeat the Central powers. And so European countries drew lines in the sand without much regard for the societies they were constructing from disparate sectarian, tribal, and ethnic populations.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations declared that former colonies of the defeated powers “are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” These included the Arabs (and others) in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the Levant (today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel). Because they were not ready for independence and self-government, the covenant stated, their “well-being and development” should be “entrusted to advanced nations who … can best undertake this responsibility.”

In other words, the losers’ colonies would become the winners’ colonies. British and French politicians would judge when the Arabs (and Kurds) were fit to govern themselves. Until then, they would remain under the loving care of enlightened Europeans. On the few occasions when Arabs failed to appreciate their good fortune and resisted, their benefactors had to punish them with tough love in the form of aerial bombardment and other means of modern warfare. It was for the natives’ own good, of course.

Or that’s had the imperialists told it. Only a cynic could believe that their economic and political interests lay behind this neocolonialist system.

We might keep this history in mind as we view with increasing horror what is taking place in the newly declared Islamic State (formerly ISIL or ISIS) in large parts of British- and French-created Iraq and Syria.

No one can say how the Middle East would have turned out if the Western powers had butted out after the Great War and let the Arabs, Kurds, and others find their own way in the modern world. But treating the indigenous populations like children cannot have advanced the cause of peaceful civilization.

It’s no exaggeration to say that virtually every current problem in the region stems at least in part from the imperial double cross and carve-up that took place after the war. And the immediate results of the European betrayal were then exacerbated by further acts of intervention and neocolonialism, most recently: President George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War and embargo on Iraq; President Bill Clinton’s continued embargo and bombing of Iraq; President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and overthrow of the secular regime of Saddam Hussein (al-Qaeda, of which the Islamic State is an offshoot, was not in Iraq before this); President Barack Obama’s support (until recently) for the corrupt, autocratic Shi’ite government in Baghdad; and Obama’s throwing in with those seeking to oust secular Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which made that country a magnet for radical Sunni jihadis, the same who are now threatening genocide against Shi’ites, Christians, and Yazidis in Iraq. (Thus Obama’s policy is at war with itself.)

History alone does not tell us what, if anything, outside powers should do now; there’s no going back in time. But we can say that without foreign interference, even a violent evolution of the region might have been far less violent than it has been during the last century. At least, the violent factions would not be seeking revenge against Americans.

The rise of the brutal Islamic State, with its unspeakable violence against innocents, is an appalling but unsurprising outcome of the last 100 years, including seven decades of neocolonialist American intervention. This suggests that U.S. intervention at this stage will only come to grief by boosting anti-American jihadi recruitment and even encouraging the targeting of Americans at home. Wars never go as planned. After all this time, any so-called “humanitarian” intervention will be interpreted in imperialist terms — and should be.

The U.S. government must get out of Iraq (etc.). Intervention not only violates the rights of Americans; it is sure to exacerbate the violence in that pitiable region.

Portuguese, Stateless Embassies
O magnata dos ônibus e a coleção de vinis que você comprou para ele

Vinte centavos levaram milhões de pessoas às ruas no Brasil em julho de 2013. Foram vinte centavos que canalizaram toda a insatisfação popular, direcionaram toda a raiva para as ruas, escancararam toda inaptidão do governo para lidar com os problemas do brasileiro. Foram apenas vinte centavos. Um pulo de R$ 3,00 para R$ 3,20 na passagem de ônibus em São Paulo. Cerca de 6% apenas.

Alguns zombaram do valor irrisório do aumento que levou tantos para as ruas. Mas a maioria dos brasileiros entendia: os 20 centavos esfregavam sal na ferida. O brasileiro passaria a pagar mais para andar em ônibus superlotados, parados por horas em um trânsito caótico, sem conforto e sem alternativas. Logo os manifestantes passaram a explicar que não era só pelos 20 centavos. Era um princípio em jogo, a ideia de que os 20 centavos a mais eram apenas a ponta do iceberg de um problema social muito maior, muito mais abrangente e sistêmico.

Mas, no final, não passavam de 20 centavos.

Voltando para 2014, recentemente, o New York Times publicou uma reportagem (“The Brazilian Bus Magnate Who’s Buying Up All the World’s Vinyl Records“, 8 de agosto) que conta a curiosa história do dono de uma empresa de ônibus com uma coleção impressionante de vinis. É impossível exagerar a extensão da coleção de Zero Freitas, de 62 anos, dono de uma empresa que atende a periferia de São Paulo: ele mesmo só consegue estimar os números da coleção chegando a “vários milhões”.

Freitas não economiza na sua obsessão nem coloca barreiras à coleta de discos. Nunca vendeu seus álbuns, nem os repetidos, e compra de todas as partes do mundo. Já importou cerca de 100.000 discos de Cuba. Emprega muitos estagiários para catalogar os discos guardados em um enorme galpão. Não discrimina entre estilos: de acordo com a reportagem, nem mesmo álbuns de polka estão a salvo de sua sanha acumuladora.

Zero Freitas é certamente uma figura curiosa, fã de Roberto Carlos, usa camiseta e bermuda cáqui, tem visual hippie e orçamento ilimitado para a compra de discos.

A matéria do New York Times, porém, deixou uma parte interessante de fora em sua tentativa de encontrar o ângulo humanizado da história: a empresa de Freitas é parte de um dos oligopólios mais criminosos do Brasil.

Você não precisa acreditar em mim, mas deve acreditar nas milhões de pessoas que saíram às ruas em 2013. Todas as pessoas que viajam ensardinhadas diariamente em São Paulo e em todo o Brasil nos coletivos provam que o transporte coletivo não se trata da área de atuação comercial mais honesta que existe atualmente.

Motoristas e cobradores das empresas de ônibus em São Paulo fizeram greves por melhores salários e condições de trabalho em maio de 2014, em setembro de 2013, em maio de 2012, em fevereiro de 2012, em julho de 2011. Levando em conta somente os últimos quatro anos.

O que foi negligenciado pela matéria é que a empresa de Freitas age em um mercado que não apenas impede a entrada de novas empresas de ônibus, mas que restringe quaisquer alternativas para o transporte na capital. Vans e mototáxis são desconhecidos em São Paulo. Licenças de táxis custam centenas de milhares de reais. Uber, que acaba de chegar, está sendo perseguido na cidade.

Não só as alternativas de transporte público são suprimidas, mas São Paulo convive com o rodízio de carros particulares desde 1997, tornando veículos particulares ainda menos atraentes (embora ainda melhores que o transporte público, como mostram os engarrafamentos recorde em São Paulo).

Por todos os lados, os paulistanos veem tentativas de restringir sua locomoção e inflar artificialmente o valor dos transportes. Incansavelmente, o governo e a quadrilha de empresários do transporte público trabalha para extrair o máximo possível da renda do indivíduo e aleijar seu movimento dentro da cidade.

E, para isso, queriam os 20 centavos em 2013.

Ninguém contou para os brasileiros que os 20 centavos por passagem seriam repassados a empreendedores milionários Zero Freitas, com a ambição de criar uma extensa biblioteca musical de milhões vinis.

Certamente os brasileiros ficariam satisfeitos em contribuir para uma causa tão nobre e talvez não tivessem tomado as ruas em 2013 para se recusarem a ser explorados.

Afinal, eram só 20 centavos e Zero Freitas, nos seus anúncios de compra de vinil, afirma que paga preços “mais altos que os de qualquer um”.

Stigmergy - C4SS Blog
Market Anarchy Reading Groups for Students!

I’m very proud to announce that both of Students For Liberty’s (very quickly!) upcoming Virtual Reading Groups for this Fall are related to market anarchism, and both of them include C4SS Senior Fellows as Discussion Leaders.

The first, led by Charles W. Johnson (with my assistance) will be a general overview of left-libertarianism, individualist anarchism, and free market anti-capitalism. We’ll focus on readings from Markets Not Capitalism, but also include plenty of material not found there. The group meets every other week on Monday nights at 7:00pm EST/4:00pm PST, with discussions typically going for about an hour and a half. The first meeting is on September 8th.

Also, Roderick Long and Kevin Vallier will be co-leading a general overview of Murray Rothbard and his place in libertarian history. Readings will primarily come from Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, but will also include plenty of other material not found there. The group meets every other week on Tuesday nights at 7:00pm EST / 4:00pm PST, with discussions typically going for about an hour and a half. The first meeting is on September 9th.

From the official announcement:

SFL Virtual Reading Groups operate like Liberty Fund symposiums, in which participants are given a list of readings on the intellectual underpinnings of a free society and are then given the opportunity to share their own thoughts on the readings with each other. By creating a space for active discussion with other intellectually engaged students, led by capable and informed discussion leaders, VRGs give participants a unique chance to truly delve into a text in ways they might not have been able to on their own. Each reading group will meet every other week for 8 meetings over the course of 16 weeks. All readings are provided by SFL. 

Importantly, the deadline to apply for either (or both) of these Virtual Reading Groups is Sunday, August 31st. You can find more information about the VRGs and how to apply at the link just provided.

Feature Articles
Let Chaos Reign in Ferguson

This week, as a result of the murder of Michael Brown by cop occupiers, the suburb of Ferguson saw a confrontation between the citizens of and the police who claim the right of ruler over them. It wasn’t long before this breakdown in the police’s order led to looting and other acts of unfocused violence against community storefronts and individuals. In response, a state of effective martial law was enacted which banished journalists, further protests and even planes from flying over the city in order to establish a “safe environment for law enforcement”. As of last night, sniper rifles were aimed at citizens, peaceful protests were violently disbanded and journalists and nonviolent protesters were jailed.

In many ways, most major American population centers do not have police forces. If we are to go by the long-dead title of peace officer as representative of their profession, then there are agencies which operate under this guise, but are totally detached from community protection and exist to enforce only their own will in direct opposition to the communities they claim to represent. What we have across this country are occupying forces, who have no discernible rules of engagement except what they can get away with.

When a monopoly is held over the right to enforce and carry out laws with no regard to the interest or preference of local communities, once this enforcement apparatus has been successfully confronted and intimidated with the righteous anger of the citizenry, disorder ensues. As Wolfi Landstreicher puts it, order and disorder are not chaos. Rather, disorder exists as a result of systems of power breaking down, an inevitability to say the least. In his words, “Disorder is order fucking up.” Once order has been interrupted, disorder reigns. Preventing what it sees as disorder by, in this case, murdering an unarmed black male teenager, the police begin a chain of unintended consequences in an attempt to restore a semblance of order.

Chaos is not order, but it’s not disorder either. Chaos is allowing for the free and unhindered actions of individual parts to determine what order may emerge. It is temporary and it never ceases. It too influences the order we live under now.  Chaos flourishes where it is permitted, or more often where it is forgotten.

All police order, all state order, is an intrusion on our lives. Whether it be the supposedly well-intentioned order of preventing murder and theft (by means of murder and theft) or the more malignant and often unintended order of institutional racism, by trying to route around the chaos of actual community control, police create insurmountable disorders. If the occupiers claim to represent peace, then they would do their part to cease aiding in its destruction by eliminating all non-state alternatives to enforcement of law and by disarming themselves when it is clear that their order is unworkable or undesirable.

Instead, once they have violated the communities they rule over one too many times, the communities themselves break down. The murder of Michael Brown is most certainly not the first murder of an unarmed, peaceful individual by the police in and around St. Louis – and it will definitely not be the last. When the community has had enough, what right does anyone have to expect peace, or mutual aid and protection? After relying on police officers as the sole protectors of their shops, what right do owners have to expect their protection by anyone but themselves? When we eliminate what we see as chaos and uncertainty in favor of order, stability, homogeneity, we can only expect this order to break down – as they all do.

What does opposing order in favor of chaos look like? The promised leaks by Anonymous give us a glimpse at what upsetting the police order in Ferguson looks like. Police are masters of control; so when faced with a threat like Anonymous, they fall apart. Anonymous and other hacktivists exist beyond the rule of laws and guns, and they have promised that officer information will be leaked and infrastructure will be targeted in order to disrupt the state’s order. What’s happening to the police now is the imposition of incentive, a force which police rarely have to face. Anonymous has done their part in aiding the deterioration of order in favor of chaos.

And now, as the natural results begin to backfire on police, as one of their own is exposed to the destruction he helped create in this world, the establishment is claiming there is a breakdown in civility. There is no breakdown in civility. There is only the environment these pigs have created. As Anonymous reveals the identity of Michael Brown’s murderer, people call their actions irresponsible and put on a show of concern for the officer. But of course he still has the guns of the state on his side, guns which continue to surveil and oppress the people of Ferguson.

We all know that if the tables had been turned, if a young black man killed a police officer in broad daylight, that there would be full knowledge of the individual’s identity. Local news stations would run their Two Minutes Hate segments against the assailant non-stop. By what logic do police call for slow, proportional, judicious behavior from those outraged by Brown’s death and seek some sort of justice, for once, to come to the hired guns of the state? In the event a confirmed identity of Brown’s shooter is leaked and action is taken against them, his fate will have been sealed because of the system he chose to uphold.

If Ferguson exists as anything but a political construct drawn up by elites with guns, then it must embrace community chaos over police order. Michael Brown died not because the world is an unpredictable and unfair place. On the contrary, his death and the deaths of many other black men, and all our disempowered comrades is horribly, sadly predictable. It is time we give up on systems of control in favor of decentralized, spontaneous protection against tangible threats to our lives and desires. Arm the citizens of Ferguson and the world until they are citizens no longer, but free men and women who determine and bare the responsibility of their own choices.

Commentary
The Bus Magnate and the Vinyl Collection You Bought Him

Twenty cents of real (roughly 8 cents of a dollar) brought millions of people onto the streets in Brazil in July 2013. Those twenty cents channeled all popular dissatisfaction, directed all anger to the streets and showed the government’s ineptitude in dealing with the Brazilian people’s problems. Only twenty cents. An increase in the bus fare from R$ 3,00 to R$ 3,20 (or roughly $1.32 to $1.40). About 6%.

Some made fun of the tiny increase that revolted many. But most Brazilians knew better: The 20 cents only rubbed it in. People would pay more to ride overcrowded buses slugging through hours of traffic jams with no comfort nor alternatives. Soon protesters started explaining that it wasn’t about the 20 cents. It was the principle; the idea that an increase in 20 cents was but the tipping point of a larger social issue, a wider and systemic problem.

But, in the end, it was 20 cents.

Fast-forward to 2014, and recently the New York Times published a story (“The Brazilian Bus Magnate Who’s Buying Up All the World’s Vinyl Records“, August 8) on the Sao Paulo bus magnate who owns an astonishing vinyl disc collection. It’s impossible to exaggerate the extent of the collection held by Zero Freitas, 62, owner of a bus company that serves Sao Paulo’s suburbs: He himself is only able to estimate that he possesses “several million” discs.

Freitas doesn’t hold back in his obsession. He has never sold an album, not even duplicates, and buys from all over the world. He has imported around 100,000 discs from Cuba. He employs a dozen interns to catalog the albums that he keeps in a huge warehouse. He doesn’t discriminate between music styles: According to the Times story, not even polka albums are safe from his hoarding impetus.

Zero Freitas is indeed a curious figure, a Roberto Carlos fan who wears a common t-shirt and khaki shorts, sports a hippie style and has an unlimited budget for buying discs.

The Times story, however, left out a very interesting part of Freitas’s trajectory in their attempt to find a more humanized angle: His company is part of one of the most criminal oligopolies in Brazil.

You don’t have to believe me, but you should believe the millions of people who took the streets in 2013. All the people who ride buses daily like canned meat in Sao Paulo and in the rest of Brazil prove that public transportation is not the most honest line of business nowadays.

Their drivers and ticket collectors went on strikes for better pay and working conditions in May 2014, September 2013, May 2012, February 2012, and July 2011 — I’m limiting myself to the last 4 years.

What the story neglected is that the company headed by Freitas acts in a market that not only curbs the attempts of new competitors to enter the market, but also restricts any and all alternative modes of transportation in the capital. Vans and mototaxis are unheard of in Sao Paulo. Licenses for new cabs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Uber, which has just arrived, is being chased off already.

Not only public transportation alternatives are suppressed: Sao Paulo even lives with road rationing since 1997, which bans the circulation of given cars on certain days of the week in parts of the city, making private vehicles even less attractive (though still a better alternative to public transportation, as Sao Paulo’s record traffic jams show).

From all sides, Sao Paulo dwellers are faced with attempts to restrict their movement and artificially inflate costs of transportation. The government and the bus racket work together to extract the maximum rent from the individual and cripple his or her ability to move around.

That’s why they wanted the 20 cents in 2013.

No one told Brazilians that the 20 cents would be passed on to millionaire entrepreneurs such as Zero Freitas, with his ambition to create the largest music library in the world.

Certainly Brazilians would be more than willing to contribute to such a noble endeavor and perhaps they wouldn’t have taken the streets in the 2013 to refuse exploitation had they known about that incredible collection.

After all, it was only 20 cents and as Zero Freitas states, in his vinyl buying ads, he pays “HIGHER prices than anyone else.”

Portuguese, Stateless Embassies
Bibliotecas de sementes: A lei é o problema; contorne-a

Recentemente foi viralizada a matéria sobre as ameaças do Departamento de Agricultura do estado da Pennsylvania, nos EUA, contra uma biblioteca de sementes de Mechanicsburg, sob alegações de que ela violava as regulamentações contra o “agroterrorismo”. Para obedecer às regulamentações, a biblioteca teria que se limitar à distribuição de sementes compradas em lojas e não distribuir quaisquer sementes que sobrassem de anos anteriores. Quem estipulou essas regulamentações, a Monsanto? A história destacava a óbvia simbiose entre os departamentos de agricultura e o agronegócio, que estabeleceram um monopólio corporativo sobre nossa cadeia produtiva de alimentos.

Porém, ao que parece, a batalha nem sempre é vencida pelo mais forte. Davi ainda tem algumas pedras em seu arsenal. Em um artigo publicado pelo Shareable (“Setting the Record Straight on the Legality of Seed Libraries“, Aug. 11), Neal Gorenflo, o Sustainable Economies Law Center e o Center for a New American Dream relatam sua impressionante investigação legal sobre a interpretação judicial de estatutos e regulamentos similares em todo o país e mostram que há potencial significativo para a exploração de brechas legais.

Eu tendo a argumentar, junto com meu companheiro de C4SS Charles Johnson, que um grama de fuga da lei vale um quilo de trabalho dentro do sistema para mudá-la.

“Se você coloca todas as suas expectativas de mudança social na reforma legal (…), você perceberá que está sempre um passo atrás daqueles com bolsos mais cheios, maior acesso à mídia e melhores conexões. Não há esperança de voltar o sistema contra eles, porque, afinal, o sistema foi feito por eles e para eles. Campanhas políticas reformistas inevitavelmente sugam muito tempo e dinheiro para dentro da política sem resultar em reformas significativas.”

Pode-se conseguir muito mais, segundo ele, a um custo muito menor, “pelo contorno das leis, tornando-as irrelevantes à sua vida”.

O lobby contra as leis draconianas de copyright como as do capítulo de propriedade intelectual da Parceria Trans-Pacífico e do ACTA foi bastante positivo, mas a criptografia, proxies e melhorias na tecnologia de compartilhamento de arquivos alcançaram muito mais resultados práticos. Antes mesmo de o ACTA ser votado, várias extensões para o Firefox estavam disponíveis para simplesmente contornar nomes de domínio tomados pelo governo federal, indo direto para o endereço de IP numérico. É assim que as pessoas têm acesso aos vários sites e mirrors do Wikileaks em todo o mundo.

Em outras palavras, parafraseando uma famosa citação, trate a lei como dano e contorne-a.

Mas às vezes a melhor forma de alcançar um objetivo é utilizando a própria lei como arma. Os wobblies (trabalhadores sindicalizados da Industrial Workers of the World) e outros sindicatos radicais têm um nome para isso: “work-to-rule”. Considerando a estupidez do processo de estabelecimento de regras em hierarquias autoritárias, não há forma mais eficiente de sabotar toda uma organização do que obedecer as regras do ambiente de trabalho literalmente. O mesmo se aplica às leis e regulamentações estatais. Uma lei pode ter sido passada com o objetivo óbvio de proteger as empresas de sementes capitalistas da competição livre e aberta. Apesar de seu objetivo, porém, quando uma política é colocada em vigor, ela é limitada por seu próprio texto. Como o homem-marshmallow Stay Puft nos Caça-Fantasmas, o destruidor está sujeito às limitações da forma em que está incorporado.

E como os autores da pesquisa afirmam, o texto e as interpretações jurídicas subsequentes sobre regulamentações de sementes nos Estados Unidos são bastante convenientes. Se interpretadas literalmente, as regras se aplicam no máximo, à distribuição de sementes através de vendas comerciais, trocas ou escambo — isto é, quando uma troca recíproca de valor por valor ocorreu envolvendo um contrato implícito ou explícito. Embora aqueles que pegam sementes da biblioteca de Mechanicsburg sejam estimulados a devolvê-las mais tarde quando seus cultivos derem novas sementes, para perpetuara a biblioteca, não há obrigação contratual de fazê-lo. O único requisito das distribuições de sementes como a da Pennsylvânia é o pagamento de uma taxa de licenciamento de US$ 25. Os autores sugerem que a biblioteca de sementes pode simplesmente fazer isso, continuando a operar como antes e aguardando as próximas ações do estado (sem dúvida incentivadas pelas empresas de sementes). E, se o estado agir, nós vemos mais tarde o que acontece quando ele for testado nos tribunais.

(O Shareable criou um Hackpad aberto para aqueles que desejem compartilhar os resultados de suas pesquisas sobre regulamentações estaduais de sementes, inclusive.)

É claro, se isso não funcionar e os tribunais novamente protegerem os interesses das companhias de sementes, será o momento de dar um passo adiante nos esforços de contorno legal (falo por mim mesmo aqui, não pelos autores — eles sugerem que o experimento acima seja combinado com esforços de lobby, que eu não considero uma alternativa tão empolgante). A resposta do movimento de compartilhamento ao fechamento do Napster foi a tomada de um caráter mais disperso, genuinamente P2P, abandonando eventualmente a hospedagem em servidores fixos. Com o fechamento das bibliotecas de sementes, jardineiros orgânicos poderiam usar aplicativos ou sites de compartilhamento para reunir pessoas com ofertas e necessidades de sementes específicas, deixando que elas façam o resto por si mesmas. Se o estado corporativo reagir com ainda mais força, talvez seja necessário relocar os sites de compartilhamento a servidores em países fora da cortina de patentes e que os compartilhadores de sementes se relacionem através de mensagens criptografadas.

O estudo também aponta para outras informações interessantes. A Receita Federal americana reconhece que bancos de tempo são diferentes de escambos taxáveis pelas mesmas razões por que bancos de tempo são isentos de regulamentações de sementes. Não há quid pro quo contratual; embora haja uma “troca” informal de favores, não há obrigação legal de devolver um favor. Com a diminuição e o barateamento dos requisitos de capital para produzir uma fração cada vez maior de nossas necessidades de consumo, além da possibilidade de sua produção individual ou em redes multifamiliares, segue-se que uma grande parte de nossa produção total usada para atender às nossas necessidades de subsistência tenda a sair do nexo monetário e do radar do estado, entrando em economias informais e de doação. Numa escala maior, em que uma coordenação mais definida é necessária (como a das redes de crédito mútuo de Tom Greco), o sistema pode operar dentro da darknet quando os os benefícios justificarem custos de transação .

Assim, a própria tecnologia está levando parte de nossas vidas produtivas para fora do nexo corporativo-estatal, tranferindo-as para associações voluntárias e mecanismos de ajuda mútua de que falava Kropotkin em seu artigo sobre o anarquismo na Enciclopédia Britannica, definindo-os como características definidoras da ordem anárquica. O aproveitamento das vantagens dessas tecnologias pode nos ajudar a fugir do domínio corporativo e construir o mundo que desejamos.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

Stigmergy - C4SS Blog
Ferguson 187: Comment Copy/Paste

The occasion is a CNN Money story relating that Anonymous has divulged name and photo of someone they allege is the Ferguson killer cop (the dominant area street gang, which calls itself the “St. Louis County Metropolitan Police Department,” denies the ID — here’s a more detailed story, including screen caps, etc. from before Twitter shut down the Anon account). My comment on the story:

If a police officer had been gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of the street by a young black man, the suspect’s name would have been released within minutes, charges would have been formally filed within hours and the suspect would have been taken into custody as soon as humanly possible.

Since it was a young black man gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of the street by a police officer, it is now days later and the suspect’s name has not been released, charges have not been formally filed and the suspect has been put on paid vacation while the police department runs through sequential conflicting versions of the story it is putting together until it has everyone worn out and confused enough not to burn the city down when it announces “we’ve determined that the un-named police officer was acting according to department policy.”

Like the pigs (equivalency definitely intended) in Animal Farm said, “all animals are equal — but some animals are more equal than others.”

Tamara (my spouse) noticed this morning that the victim lived in Canfield Green, an apartment complex that we considered moving into a couple of years ago. If you’ve never been to Ferguson, don’t take the media portrayals of it as “ghetto town” seriously. It’s a nice, normally peaceful, lower-middle-class suburb (apropos of the race-baiting, it’s not “as black” as the town I lived in for 12 years, 4 or 5 miles to the south). I’ve driven every last one of Ferguson’s streets and probably sold ice cream to the victim when he was a young kid.

Ferguson is the kind of town where it takes a lot to get a crowd out on the street facing down armed thugs with badges.

[Cross-posted from KN@PPSTER]

Studies, The Pyotr Kropotkin Collection
Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow

Introduction to the C4SS Edition of
Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow
Kevin A. Carson

Download a PDF copy of The C4SS Edition of Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow.

This book is actually a heavily abridged version of Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops, edited by Colin Ward with a lot of his commentary thrown in. And to top it all off, the C4SS edition throws in Murray Bookchin’s essay “Towards a Liberatory Technology” from the book Post-Scarcity Anarchism.

So when C4SS Director James Tuttle asked me to write an introduction, I felt like I’d hit the trifecta. I read Kropotkin’s original version, the Ward commentaries, and Bookchin’s essay all around roughly the same time, along with other writings by Ward on neighborhood workshops as a means of communal self-provisioning by the unemployed and underemployed, and similar ideas by Karl Hess in his and Morris’s book Neighborhood Government. Their ideas all clicked together for me and produced the conceptual framework that I expressed first in Chapter 14 of my book Organization Theory, and then grew into a book of its own with the publication of The Homebrew Industrial Revolution.

It was also a pleasant surprise because Ward and Kropotkin are two among several anarchist thinkers I’m writing a series of appreciations on for C4SS. Both Kropotkin and Ward were libertarian communists of sorts, but there was so much sheer muchness to their thought it’s impossible to encapsulate with any such ideological label. Compared to their love for the irreducible particularity of all the near-infinity of local examples of human-scale self-organization and cooperation, labels like “communist,” “individualist” or “syndicalist” are like stale bread crusts.

Kropotkin was much like William Morris in his affection for the free towns of the High Middle Ages, and all the horizontally organized fraternal associations for mutual aid and solidarity within them. Like Morris, much of his fondness was purely aesthetic – for the beauty and craftsmanship that surrounded most townspeople’s lives – not to mention a material standard of living, in terms of the purchasing power of labor, that would not be reached again in the modern age for over four hundred years. His faith in the human capacity for mutual aid and cooperation, and in the ability of ordinary, face-to-face groupings of people on the spot to develop workable arrangements among themselves, was coupled with a love for all the unique and quaint things buried in the nooks and crannies of history: folkmotes, nineteenth century mutuals and friendly societies, and the open-field villages that survived into modern times in some parts of Europe. This reverence both for the positive side of human nature and for the infinite variety of its flesh-and-blood expressions could not be reduced to any ideological formulation or “ism.”

Ward had this same quality in high degree. Among his best scholarly works are historical surveys of self-organized alternative schools, cooperative healthcare through friendly societies and other mutuals, and self-built unconventional housing. For Ward, anarchism wasn’t a doctrinaire theoretical model prescribing the kinds of institutions to be built after the Revolution. It was a description of the endless variety of things people are doing right now, on their own, without waiting for the Revolution or for anarchist theoreticians to stamp their imprimatur on it.

As for the actual book, Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops and Colin Ward’s commentary – as well as Bookchin’s essay, which is appended to the C4SS edition – are uniquely suited to each other. Fields, Factories and Workshops was a book on the decentralizing potential of electrical power in industry – a common theme at that time. And the work on neighborhood and garage industry by Ward, Bookchin and Hess was in many ways a rediscovery of this potential nearly a century after it was thwarted by capital in league with the state.

To see the significance of the technological revolution Kropotkin explored in this book, we need to step back and take a look at what came before. In the age of steam and water power – what Lewis Mumford called the Paleotechnic Era – large centralized factories resulted from the need to conserve on power from prime movers. Steam engines were governed by fairly steep economies of scale, so that the unit cost of generating power got smaller the bigger the engine was. So it made sense to build a large steam engine and run as much production machinery off it as possible. That meant mills full of machines all lined up in rows, powered by pullies running from a common drive shaft.

Electrically powered machinery offered the potential to end all this. With the invention of the electric motor, it was possible to build a separate prime mover into each machine, and to locate the machines where the output was needed. So instead of a giant factory at a centralized location, producing in large quantities for long-distance distribution, it would be possible to introduce a decentralized economy of lean production for local markets. Individual machines could be scaled to production flow, production flow could be scaled to demand, and the entire production process could be sited as closely as possible to the point of final consumption. This would mean small-scale shops with electrically powered, general-purpose machinery integrated into craft production, turning out a wide variety of products and frequently switching between production lines, on a demand-pull basis for local markets. Lean, agile and low-overhead.

This is essentially the economy Kropotkin described in Fields, Factories and Workshops: Local communities with small-scale manufacturing shops, the blurring between town and country as manufacturing and soil-intensive horticulture were integrated into village economies, and the blurring between intellectual and manual labor as production shifted from deskilled proletarians as appendages of machines to machines run by skilled craft workers.

Mumford referred to this new industrial era, centered on electrical power, as the Neotechnic. And Ward quotes him in his introduction to this book. Kropotkin, Mumford wrote,

grasped the fact that the flexibility and adaptability of electric communication and electric power, along with the possibilities of intensive biodynamic farming, had laid the foundations for a more decentralized urban development in small units, responsive to direct human contact, and enjoying both urban and rural advantages.

Kropotkin realised that the new means of rapid transit and communication, coupled with the transmission of electrical power in a network, rather than a one-dimensional line, made the small community on a par in essential technical facilities with the over-congested city. By the same token, rural occupations once isolated and below the economic and cultural level of the city could have the advantage of scientific intelligence, group organisation, and animated activities…; and with this the hard and fast division between urban and rural, between industrial worker and farm worker, would break down too.

Most agriculture would take on the nature of horticulture, with raised-bed gardens and small manufacturing shops integrated into village and small town economies. And in place of the factory worker, repeating the same operation over and over, there would be once again the craft worker of many-faceted skills, schooled in the scientific and engineering principles of her craft and applying critical intelligence to her work. It would be a return to the skilled master craft workers of the pre-industrial era – like, e.g., the printers and weavers who supplied so much of the working class intelligentsia of the early radical movements. With radically shortened work weeks of ten or fifteen hours, the whole idea of a full-time occupation would wither away, and instead the average villager might devote a few hours to working in the shop, a few more to pleasant garden chores, but most of all to leisure, conviviality and learning — much like Marx’s fully actualized human being in the communist future, who no longer “has one exclusive sphere of activity but… [can] to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”

Here’s Kropotkin’s description:

Have the factory and the workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens, and work in them. Not those large establishments, of course, in which huge masses of metals have to be dealt with and which are better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature, but the countless variety of workshops and factories which are required to satisfy the infinite diversity of tastes among civilized men. Not those factories in which children lose all the appearance of children in the atmosphere of an industrial hell, but those airy and hygienic, and consequently economical, factories in which human life is of more account than machinery and the making of extra profits, of which we already find a few examples here and there; factories and workshops into which men, women and children will not be driven by hunger, but will be attracted by the desire of finding an activity suited to their tastes, and where, aided by the motor and the machine, they will choose the branch of activity which best suits their inclinations.

Although this would have been the ideal industrial application of electrical power, from the standpoint of best utilizing its potential, that wasn’t to be. Instead, in the United States at least, the state tipped the balance with policies like the railroad land grants, industrial patents, tariffs and imperialism that made large-scale mass production artificially competitive against more efficient small-scale production. The result was not only the industrial gigantism of the 20th century, but a whole host of state measures aimed at remedying the problems of excess production capacity, surplus investment capital and inadequate demand that plagued the overbuilt corporate economy. These measures included enormous infrastructure projects like the civil aviation and Interstate Highway systems as capital sinks, as well as the Military-Industrial Complex and the state-subsidized car culture.

Mumford called it the “cultural pseudomorph,” after the tendency of minerals in the fossilization process to leach into the remains of a buried organism and take on its preexisting shape: instead of the new technology taking its ideal form and fully realizing its potential, it was instead coopted into the preexisting Paleotechnic institutional framework of the Dark Satanic Mills. So instead of small-scale craft production with general-purpose machinery, serving local markets, we had a mass-production economy of extremely expensive, capital-intensive product-specific machinery, which had to be run at full capacity day and night to amortize the capital outlays and minimize unit costs. To paraphrase Marx: “Utilize capacity, utilize capacity, utilize capacity; this is the law and the prophets.”

This meant production had to be undertaken entirely independently of, and without regard to, preexisting demand; and then the social system had to be organized around finding ways to compel people to consume the stuff produced whether they wanted it or not, lest the system become glutted with rising inventories and the wheels of industry cease to spin. So it was a society of mass consumption propaganda, planned obsolescence, and endless state-subsidized infrastructure projects and imperial wars to soak up excess capital, destroy surplus production capacity and remedy overproduction with overseas dumping.

But even at the height of the mass-production age – the age of Galbraith, Schumpeter and Chandler – there remained apostles of economic decentralism like Ralph Borsodi. In a prolific body of work in the 1920s and 1930s, he showed that the most efficient way to produce a great deal of our consumption needs was still in the informal or household economy. This included growing and canning vegetables, grinding flour, sewing clothes, and producing some furniture in home wood shops.

Borsodi’s argument was that the “superior efficiencies” of large-scale production in these areas were spurious. The unit cost of production at the actual point of production might be less than the cost of making things at home. But since home production was at the point of consumption and directly geared to need, production costs were final costs; factory production costs, on the other hand, were just initial costs. The costs of factory administration, inventory, long-distance shipping and high-pressure marketing more than offset whatever efficiencies existed in production costs as such. According to “Borsodi’s Law,” production reaches a scale at a fairly low level of output where the economies of large-scale production are more than offset by the diseconomies of large-scale distribution.

The inefficiencies and chronic crisis tendencies of mass-production industry would likely have destroyed corporate capitalism in the Great Depression, had the great powers not pressed the reset button and postponed the crisis of overaccumulation for a generation by destroying most plant and equipment in the world outside the U.S., and creating a permanent war economy to soak excess capital and utilize spare production capacity. So the period from roughly 1940 to 1970 was the Golden Age of mass-production industry.

This came to an end around 1970, as Europe and Japan finished rebuilding the industrial capacity that had been destroyed in the war. The crisis of excess capacity and overaccumulation, and the declining rate of profit, both of which had almost destroyed the system in the 1930s, returned with a vengeance. At the same time, with Vietnam the U.S. finally began to reach the limits of its ability to promote capital export through imperialism. And it required more and more socialization of corporate costs, and more and more subsidized inputs, to maintain even minimal profitability — leading to what James O’Connor called “the fiscal crisis of the state.”

So mass-production oligopoly capitalism was losing its artificial efficiencies and ceasing to be viable.

Nevertheless, at the time Ward wrote his commentary on Kropotkin, the latter’s theses remained “as controversial and revolutionary today as they were when he formulated them.” To a large extent this was because the alleged superior efficiencies of industrial gigantism, capital-intensiveness and mass production were the dominant ideology of corporate capitalism. It was universally believed that this model of capitalism was the most efficient possible way of doing things, not because it was, but because the centralized machinery of corporation and state was run by people with a vested interest in the perception that no viable alternatives existed to a world run by people like themselves. To this very day paleo-Marxists, Galbraithian liberals and right-wing Austrian economists alike agree on the essential link between capital accumulation, “roundaboutness” and productivity.

Ward himself saw all the economic tendencies of his day, as late as the early ’70s, still leading away from the direction Kropotkin had pointed out. But Ward wrote at a time when the technological base of the successor economy was just starting to emerge, and the alternative choices had not yet sorted themselves out and become clear.

At roughly the same time a new generation of anarchist thinkers like Ward, Karl Hess and Murray Bookchin were discovering the potential of small-scale industry, new technological developments were once again tipping the balance in favor of small-scale production in the same way that electrical power itself had done a century before.

CNC (computer numeric controlled) machine tools had first been developed soon after WWII with Department of Defense R&D money and introduced in Air Force contractors as a way of deskilling labor within heavy industry. But by the 1970s the invention of cheap micro-processors and micro-controllers made it possible to integrate digital control into machinery scaled to – and affordable by – small shops. Such machinery became the basis of the industrial district economy in Emilia-Romagna, with production organized on a flexible craft basis much like Kropotkin had foreseen. It was also the basis for job-shop production in the Shanzhai enterprises of China, which sprang up in the ’80s and ’90s to engage in outsourced production on contract to Western transnational corporations.

The rise of cheap personal computers in the ’80s and the Internet in the ’90s made possible the horizontal coordination of production, as an alternative to both hierarchical administration and the anonymous cash nexus. A network of cooperative shops in a community could coordinate an industrial supply chain according to a common digital CAD/CAM file, with virtually no transaction costs.

This was the beginning of what Sabine and Piore called the “Second Industrial Divide” (the first one had been when Western economies chose between the Kropotkinian and mass-production models of industrialization and made the wrong choice). After a near century-long detour, industrial production was returning to the original promise of electrical power – but on an even higher level.

The problem was that, in the model of the ’80s and ’90s, while the production process itself was becoming somewhat more Kropotkinian or Mumfordian, it was still integrated into a centralized corporate framework when it came to finance, distribution and marketing. Transnational corporations managed this, even though a growing share of actual production was outsourced to small job-shops, by retaining control over “intellectual property.” So while sweatshops in Asia manufactured sneakers at a cost of a few bucks a pair, Nike’s trademark enabled it to function as a monopsonist – the only legal buyer for the output – and move the sneakers by container ship and semi truck to American retail chains, where it charged a 10,000% markup over the cost of production.

And with the turn of the 21st century came another revolution in downscaling and cheapening production technology of the same order of magnitude as that of the 1970s. This time the revolution open-source tabletop machine tools made it possible to produce routers, cutting tables, lathes, 3-D scanners and printers, etc., for less than $1000 each – ten times cheaper than their commercial predecessors of a decade earlier. This meant a garage shop with ten or twenty thousand dollars worth of machinery could produce goods of the same sort that once required a million-dollar factory.

So regardless of talk about “economies of scale,” mass production has never really been more efficient than small-scale craft industry, since (at least!) the development of electrically powered machinery in the late 19th century. Mass-production industry has always required the state to tip the balance and make it artificially competitive with small-scale production. The difference today is that even the state’s maximum feasible assistance is not enough to prop up the corporate dinosaurs. The state simply cannot provide subsidized production inputs on the scale required by big business, or spend on a scale required to absorb its excess output, without bankrupting itself. And because of advances in technology that render monopolies like “intellectual property” unenforceable, it lacks the capability to suppress competition by small producers outside the corporate framework.

As corporate capitalism continues to decay, and input crises like Peak Oil continue to increase transportation costs, we can expect a growing share of food production to be relocalized and industrial supply and distribution chains to be radically shortened.

We can plausibly speculate that relocalized, integrated industrial economies will come about through something like Jane Jacobs’ “import substitution” model. As Jacobs described the origins of the Japanese bicycle industry a century ago, it resulted from the need for cheap, locally produced spare parts. The bicycles were imported from Europe and the United States, and the manufacturers were unwilling to locate factories in Japan. So bicycle shops would get into the business of custom machining replacement parts for their customers. Individual shops would specialize in different parts, and they gradually began to network together and developed the capability between them to assemble a larger and larger share of a total bicycle, until finally bicycles were produced locally by a sort of flexible manufacturing network.

Similarly, as the rising cost of fuel for container-ships and trucks causes outsourced industrial supply chains to break down, people will increasingly turn to their neighbors’ workshops to custom-machine the replacement parts needed to keep their appliances going. Local re-industrialization will proceed from there.

When diesel fuel is $15 or $20 a gallon and the supermarket shelves are usually mostly empty, likewise, people will snatch produce and cheese off the tables as fast as it’s placed there at the farmer’s market. Ornamental lawns will be replaced by intensive gardens and edible landscaping, and home baking, brewing or sewing skills will be a valuable means not only of supplying oneself but of obtaining surplus goods in trade from the neighbors.

This will all be done, not through some centralized agenda, but through the spontaneous learning curve of the people themselves in the face of necessity. As Kropotkin said of the Bolshevik dictatorship’s attempt at imposing a revolution from above a century ago:

…it is impossible to achieve such a revolution by means of dictatorship and state power. Without a widespread reconstruction coming from below—put into practice by the workers and peasants themselves, the social revolution is condemned to bankruptcy…. [W]e must hope that… serious efforts will be made to create within the working class—peasants, workers and intellectuals—the personnel of a future revolution which will not obey orders from above but will be capable of elaborating for itself the free forms of the whole new economic life.

Friends, we are creating this revolution today.

Download a PDF copy of The C4SS Edition of Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow.

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