[Di Kevin Carson. Originale pubblicato su Center for a Stateless Society il 9 agosto 2016 con il titolo It’s Time to Destroy Elsevier (Just for Starters). Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.]

Giusto a giugno scorso Elsevier (una delle famiglie criminali più tristemente famose per come pompano i prezzi di opere editoriali proprietarie) ha acquisito SSRN, il più grande archivio ad accesso libero di opere accademiche. Proprio così: un editore che fa pagare trenta dollari per accedere a documenti di trent’anni fa, chiude le alternative legali gratuite e attacca siti di condivisione come Sci-Hub. Un sondaggio fatto dalla rivista Science, intanto, rivela come l’88% dei rispondenti consideri moralmente accettabile accedere gratuitamente ad articoli “piratati” su siti di condivisione, mentre il 25% di loro già lo fa ogni settimana (“In survey, most give thumbs-up to pirated papers,” Science, 6 maggio). Ora più che mai si chiede a gran voce che qualcuno faccia con l’editoria accademica quello che il movimento per la libera condivisione ha fatto con l’industria discografica.

In un momento in cui i prezzi degli editori accademici sono ai massimi (di norma, 25-30 dollari ad articolo), la preoccupazione principale degli attori principali dell’industria non è il prezzo d’accesso, ma (sentite questa) lo scaricamento gratuito. Alicia Wise, che dirige il settore accesso universale, ha scritto su Twitter lo scorso 14 marzo: “io sono per l’accesso universale, ma non per il furto!” Ma ciò che fa la sua azienda è un furto messo in pratica.

Fortunatamente, considerato il trattamento subito da The Pirate Bay, Sci-Hub sta facendo molto per venire incontro alle esigenze dell’editoria accademica, almeno in ambiente scientifico. Elsevier ha cercato soluzioni legali, compreso il sequestro del dominio, per chiuderlo. Ma Sci-Hub risiede in server russi, è fuori dalla portata della giustizia americana e se chiuso può riapparire immediatamente con un dominio diverso.

Come sostiene Jimmy Tidey, però, dobbiamo espandere il modello rappresentato da Knowledge Commons fino a comprendere tutta l’editoria accademica, e promuovere l’offerta di beni comuni a discapito degli interessi proprietari (“Designing a fair and sustainable system of academic publishing,” P2P Blog, 28 luglio).

Nell’articolo citato, Tidey demolisce gran parte degli argomenti portati contro Sci-Hub da Marcia McNutt, redattrice di Science, in un suo editoriale finalizzato alla diffusione del panico (“My love-hate of Sci-Hub,” Science, 29 aprile). La McNutt lamenta il fatto che i download illegali da Sci-Hub privano gli editori tradizionali degli introiti necessari a finanziare i loro legittimi costi operativi, e li derubano di quei lettori che cercano dati statistici sulle citazioni.

Come nota Tidey, però, potrebbe ciò potrebbe essere offerto da una struttura editoriale aperta e unificata governata secondo i principi della governance delle risorse comuni di Elinor Ostrom. Questa struttura potrebbe offrire ad un certo genere di lettori un database trasparente e un indice analitico delle citazioni, in alternativa all’offerta frammentaria fornita dall’attuale sistema basato sulle riviste o, per fini di autopromozione, all’interno dei dipartimenti universitari.

Le tariffe di accesso richieste per servizi come quelli offerti da Elsevier, inoltre, sono molte volte la cifra necessaria a coprire i costi legittimi, come la paga del personale e l’hosting del sito web. Non a caso il margine dell’industria editoriale proprietaria online è di circa il 40%; e a questi probabilmente si aggiungono costi generali enormemente gonfiati, investimenti irrazionali e conflitti di interessi, come accade in tutte quelle organizzazioni che hanno il profitto garantito dalla posizione monopolistica.

Grazie alla capacità delle reti autogestite di mettere sotto assedio istituzioni antidiluviane come l’impresa capitalista, e lo stato che ne è il servitore, siamo molto vicini alla realizzazione dell’obiettivo dichiarato da Aaron Swartz nel suo Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto. Da anni, nota Swartz, guerriglieri accademici condividono i propri privilegi di accesso agli archivi delle riviste, scaricando articoli per poi passarli ai colleghi fuori dal sistema. E grazie a servizi come Sci-Hub, queste persone rispondono all’invito di Swartz di…

“Prendere informazioni ovunque siano, farne copie e condividerle con il mondo. Dobbiamo prendere ciò che non ha copyright e archiviarlo. Dobbiamo acquistare database segreti e divulgarli in rete. Dobbiamo scaricare riviste scientifiche per caricarne i file sulle reti di condivisione.”

Come tutte le forme di autorità, la “proprietà intellettuale” è una forma di irrazionalità. Le persone libere, che creano e condividono il sapere gratis, trattano la “proprietà intellettuale” come un pericolo. E lo aggirano.

I: What is agorism?

There is a lot of what I’d call “201” discussion of agorism in this symposium but I think it’s helpful to take a step back and make sure we don’t let some of the fundamentals go under-analyzed.

For example, what is counter-economics? What counts as a counter-economic activity and what doesn’t? Does intent matter when we’re analyzing past, present or future counter-economic actions? Is agorism a philosophy or a strategy?

For the sake of time and space I’ll largely focus on the first and last question for right now but those other questions are worth considering as well.

To be clear, I do not consider myself an agorist and only consider myself someone who feels qualified to present the ideas and give both the pros and the cons of it. And though I do feel there are considerable upsides to the strategies and ideas of agorism I do not fully subscribe to Samuel Edward Konkin III’s (SEK III) ideas.

In terms of defining agorism, etymologically speaking agorism comes from the Greek word “agora” which meant market place, so agorism literally means market-ism.

For a more precise definition though SEK III defined it as:

…the consistent integration of libertarian theory with counter-economic practice; an agorist is one who acts consistently for freedom and in freedom.[1]

Others have more simply defined agorism as “revolutionary market anarchism” and Wikipedia says that it’s a “…revolutionary libertarian political philosophy that advocates the goal of the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics, thus engaging in a manner with aspects of peaceful revolution.”

Definitions are a tricky thing and heavily depend on negotiations and renegotiations with the larger culture so as to assert any sort of cogent meaning. Without any of these things ideology becomes a useless and asocial tool. And if we’re aiming for any sort of revolution then that’s something to avoid at all costs.

That said, I don’t think any of these definitions are helpful on the face of things because they require deeper discussions about what libertarianism is, what is consistent with it, the importance of consistency itself, etc but they’re decent starting points at any rate.

But while that might be bad for those who want to theorize about agorism or use it as a label for themselves, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that most definitions tend to encounter similar problems. Anarchism could simply be defined as a philosophy that advocates the end of rulership. But then what is rulership? What is the best way to end it?

I can’t recall the last time I told someone I was an anarchist and they looked at me and said, “Oh yeah, sure, an anarchist!” and that was the end of the conversation, even amongst other anarchists.

Another clarification to keep in mind: Agorism and counter-economics are different things.

Agorism subsumes counter-economics as the philosophy that counter-economics has as its framework. And this makes sense when agorism is understood as the philosophy and counter-economics the tactic, more on this later.

Here’s my best crack at a definition of agorism, to help the differentiation be a bit clearer:

A philosophy whose advocates are anarchists (also called “New Libertarians”) in the tradition of SEK that advocates counter-economics (that is, the study and practice of economic relations that runs counter to the prevailing state-capitalist “order”) as one of the many means to a freer market place freed from the constraints of state-capitalism.

I would add that agorists see a market economy that tended towards self-employment and flatter firms as opposed to top-down and centralized firms. They use a mix of classic Austrian Economics and Left-Rothbardian analysis to reach this conclusion. And when it comes to strategy, agorists oppose voting and prefer building institutions so that the state may be abolished.

Here are some of the key points I take from agorism:

1. An emphasis on counter-economics, both as a study and as a tactic
2. An emphasis on peaceful revolution through alternative institutions
3. An emphasis on using Austrian Economics in counter-economics as a study
4. A hard lined emphasis on ideological consistency
5. A de-emphasis on parliamentary politics typically tending towards an absolute
6. A de-emphasis on non-scientific approaches to theory and application of theory

.II: Counter-Economics: A Tactic or a Philosophy?

Is counter-economics just a tactic or is it something else too? And further than that is agorism a tactic or a philosophy?

I believe that counter-economics is a tactic and a philosophy while agorism is just a philosophy. Agorism is a philosophy or ideology because it isn’t just an idea of how to get from here to there, it’s an idea of how to live and identifying what we’re living in, how to get out of that condition and what that life could look like. So agorism isn’t just a tactic because if it were it wouldn’t prescribe and describe so many things, or contain so many components such as Austrian Economics, counter-economics and so on.

Counter-economics is defined by Konkin in the New Libertarian Manifesto as, “An explanation of how people keep their wealth and property from the State…” but is also, “…counter economic activity” when people, “avoid and defy the state…” .

This means, in effect, that counter-economics is both a study and a practice.

In the NLM Konkin writes that since the NLM is itself a counter-economic theory that when he speaks of counter-economics in NLM he is referring to the practice. Konkin further clarifies that this is the case in The Agorist Primer when he says that, “A Counter-Economist is (1) anyone practicing a counter-economic act: (2) one who studies such acts. Counter-Economics is the (1) practice (2) study of counter-economics acts.”

Further, the counter-economy is defined by all of those who commit non-aggressive action against others in the pursuit of profit at the state’s expense. So a counter-economist and the idea of counter-economics more generally is either a practice or a study, but the two are not mutually exclusive either.

The fact that counter-economics exists as both a study and a practice means that the idea is both applicable in terms of how to live and structure one’s life but also (and what’s most often used) how to get from here to there. As such, counter-economics is about how to get from the current statist society to a freed society where markets aid mutually beneficial relations.

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has refused to stand during the playing of The Star Spangled Banner, traditionally played before most football games.

Like Gabby Douglas’ “refusal” to put her hand over her heart during the playing of the United States’ national anthem at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio last month, Kaepernick’s actions have angered patriotic Americans on both sides of the no man’s land that stands in for electoral politics here.

The similarities between America’s response to Douglas, who later said she neglected to put her hand over her heart in the heat of the moment, and Kaepernick, who has decided purposely not to stand, are striking. There is next to no nuance in the discussion around our national anthem and who has to stand at attention during its performance.

But to be clear, Kaepernick does mean it; he is not going to stand for the national anthem until the grievances he has – and shares with millions of men and women around the country – are redressed.

“Ultimately, it’s to bring awareness and make people, you know, realize what’s really going on in this country,” Kaepernick said in a locker room press conference Monday. “There are a lot of things that are going on that are unjust, that people aren’t being held accountable for, and that’s something that needs to change.”

Asked if he would continue to sit during the national anthem, Kaepernick said, “I’ll continue to sit; I’ll continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me this is something that has to change.”

“Police are getting paid leave for killing people,” he added. “That’s not right; that’s not right by anyone’s standards.”

Philadelphia Eagles linebacker Myke Tavarres will be joining Kaepernick in his silent protest.

Kaepernick’s critics now range from those who take umbrage at his perceived slights toward the US military to those, like former congressperson Joe Walsh, who question Kaepernick’s very “Americanness.”

Walsh, a talk radio host and Donald Trump supporter, tweeted Monday, “Are we certain that those tattoos all over #MuhammadKaepernick’s body are Bible verses? Or from the Koran?”

Kaepernick’s protest, and the ensuing nationalist backlash from liberals and conservatives alike, is the latest in a long and storied history of athletes performing politics outside of acceptable boundaries.

He currently stands among sporting greats like baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who refused to stand and sing the anthem at the 1947 World Series; Muhammad Ali, who refused to fight in Vietnam; and John Carlos and Tommie Smith, track athletes who performed the Black Panther salute at the 1968 Olympics instead of holding their hands over their hearts.

For the folks who have thus far lambasted Kaepernick over his actions, their primary objection is that sports should be somehow “apolitical;” what they actually mean is that the politics of sport should never diverge from the politics of the status quo, and any deviation should not only be considered unamerican, it should be considered unsportsmanlike.

They have called for his team and the NFL to sanction him for his actions, effectively eliminating an individual’s freedom of speech in defense of the status quo – one that is killing his friends and neighbors, including those who served in the military.

Luckily, Kaepernick’s family, teammates, coaches and the head of the NFL Players Association are all on his side.

It’s time for us to join him. It’s time to have a frank discussion about poisonous nationalism, police who kill black men and women and and face next to no repercussions for it, and why we reify the military regardless of their own actions or requests or how the state uses them.

It’s time to sit in defiance, with clear eyes and full hearts, rather than continue to stand blindly in support of a toxic system.

[Di Sheldon Richman. Originale pubblicato su Center for a Stateless Society il 2 agosto 2016 con il titolo NATO and Trump’s Misconceptions. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.]

Ancora una volta Trump capisce il contrario. Secondo la logica interna della Nato, gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero pagare i paesi membri (non il contrario) perché questi forniscono servizi all’impero e ottengono un viaggio in prima linea. Il fatto è che l’impero non protegge. Semplicemente provoca e semina guai. Chi vorrebbe pagare per qualcosa del genere?

Così nota Andrew Levine, riprendendo Andrew Bacevich:

La Nato era un problema particolare. Negli anni novanta diventò parte integrante del progetto imperialistico americano, ma con la scomparsa del Patto di Varsavia, e la fine della Guerra Fredda, è difficile inventare ragioni che possano attirare qualcuno se non chi è nell’ambito propriamente bellico.

Ma i tenutari dell’impero avevano bisogno della Nato perché non potevano, o non volevano, fare i poliziotti imperiali da soli, e perché non si poteva contare sull’acquiescenza dell’Onu, almeno non con tutti quei pestiferi piccoli paesi con idee diverse nell’Assemblea Generale, e non con la possibilità di veto di Russia e Cina nel Consiglio di Sicurezza.

La Nato, d’altro canto, era un’utile organizzazione internazionale che gli Stati Uniti potevano controllare, e poi potevano usarla per tenere a bada le potenze europee nell’improbabile caso in cui qualcuna decidesse di alzare la testa.

Secondo Bacevich, questo è ciò che nascondevano le macchinazioni americane nell’ex Yugoslavia, una volta divenuto chiaro che gli Stati Uniti non potevano restare indifferenti al fatto che quel paese, un tempo socialista e multiculturale, potesse disintegrarsi senza cedere potere ai tedeschi e altri parvenu europei.

Per [Bill] Clinton (o, meglio, per i Clinton e quelli che pensavano come loro), gettare bombe sui serbi era un modo per dare importanza alla Nato e per assicurare agli Stati Uniti il ruolo di guida nel cosiddetto Mondo Libero.

La Nato è il trastullo dell’America. Gli stati membri non ne hanno bisogno. Le élite di governo americane sì. Queste élite rimasero sconvolte nel 1966 quando il presidente francese Charles de Gaulle, offeso dall’invadenza americana, ritirò il proprio paese dalla struttura militare Nato e chiese il ritiro delle truppe Nato dalla Francia. (La Francia tornò ad essere effettivamente membro militare nel 2009). L’America ha sempre appoggiato l’atteggiamento di George H. W. Bush nel 1990-’91 mentre si preparava a mandare i suoi militari alla guerra contro l’Iraq: “Conta solo quello che diciamo noi”.

E Trump mostra sempre questa incapacità di portare a termine l’affare: ironico, vero? Gli è capitato più volte di sollevare questioni su problemi legittimi, ma poi sembra che non gli interessi sfruttare fatti e argomenti per trarne un buon punto da campagna elettorale, e allora finisce per raffazzonare tutto. Io credo di sapere perché: il trucco di Trump consiste nel far passare gli Stati Uniti per la nazione vittima, sfruttata da tutti per colpa di leader stupidi e deboli. Per un demagogo populista che vuole aizzare gli elettori ignoranti questa è adrenalina pura. Ecco perché non può dire alcunché che suggerisca che gli Stati Uniti, lungi dall’essere la vittima, sono quelli che creano vittime. Quando è stata l’ultima volta che un demagogo ha detto: “Il nostro paese ha tiranneggiato il mondo per troppo tempo! Intendo mettere fine a questa devastazione!”?

Certo gli Stati Uniti non dovrebbero affatto pagare i paesi membri della Nato. Bisognerebbe invece smantellare l’alleanza. Non è mai stata un’alleanza difensiva, e l’ultimo velo è caduto quando il Patto di Varsavia e l’Unione Sovietica si sono sciolti. Da allora è diventata apertamente aggressiva, ha incorporato ex alleati russi ed ex satelliti sovietici per spostarsi fino al confine sovietico, violando la promessa fatta da Bush 41 a Gorbaciov nel 1990. Per giunta, sono anni che gli Stati Uniti dicono di voler portare le ex repubbliche sovietiche di Ucraina (dove l’amministrazione Obama ha appoggiato un golpe) e Georgia dentro la Nato, come se il fatto non possa essere considerato una provocazione da qualunque leader russo assennato.

Trump, nonostante le sue tante brutture, potrebbe aver offerto un servizio utile portando seriamente allo scoperto la questione Nato. Peccato che la sua demagogia prenda il sopravvento su tutto. Non riesce a riconoscere che il problema dell’America (e del mondo) non è la sua debolezza ma la sua forza.

Introducing the 2016 September Mutual Exchange Symposium 

The Monthly Mutual Exchange Symposium is C4SS’s effort to achieve mutual understanding through exchange. September’s Mutual Exchange Symposium will explore the philosophy of agorism. Originally coined by radical libertarian social theorist Samuel Edward Konkin III, agorism is a theory of social change that aims to bring about a completely free and voluntary society through counter-economics, black market arrangements, and decentralized, peaceful cooperation unhindered by the iron fist of the state. Exploring the nature and purpose of agorist theory and practice is vital to moving forward in a statist world and developing a comprehensive, consistent theory of anarchist social change.

Is agorism merely a philosophy of social change or can it also inform us about our end-goals as well? Should agorists align themselves with other movements, such as illegalism, syndicalism, feminism, and anarcho-capitalism? What are the potential pitfalls of such alliances? How do we ensure agorism, in practice, actually serves state disruption instead of status quo hegemony? What is the relationship between agorism and theories of class? What is the relevance of increasing advancements in technology and decentralized production for agorism? Lastly, how does agorism relate to discussions of public policy and anarchist justice? These questions, and more, will be discussed in our monthly symposium by a group of anarchists who I hope, despite their diverse experiences and sometimes radically differing opinions, walk away from the conversation with a greater mutual understanding than they went in with.

Nick Ford opens our discussion with a reminder about the basics of agorist theory and, along with Logan Glitterbomb, explores the pros and cons of an agorist-syndicalist coalition. Glitterbomb goes on to discuss the intersections between agorism and illegalism, as well as “ethical consumerism.” Nathan Goodman, after examining the prospects of an agora-feminism, expresses some doubts about illegalist and syndicalist alliances, to which Ford and Glitterbomb both respond with more optimism about such tactics. Derrick Broze also takes issue with Goodman’s coalitional concerns, while articulating some of his own regarding the union of agorism and anarcho-capitalism. Broze also examines the modern agorist movement in the framework of Konkin’s four-stage spectrum, mapping the shift from a statist society all the way to a libertarian one. Dillon Williams examines agorism in the past, present, and future, while Jason Byas lays out a libertarian theory of politics beyond policy, utilizing agorism’s approach to social change. Finally, Chris Shaw, with an eye to the future of agorist practice, discusses the role of technology and burgeoning black markets in agorist theory.

Agorism drives a litany of libertarian and anarchist social movements today, making it a crucial philosophy to critically examine every now and again, lest our strategies for freedom become as stale and uninspiring as the statism we fight against. I hope the following symposium serves to deepen the conversations surrounding agorism, both within libertarian and anarchist communities, and outside of them.

Preliminary Works on the Subject:

Mutual Exchange is C4SS’s goal in two senses: We favor a society rooted in peaceful, voluntary cooperation, and we seek to foster understanding through ongoing dialogue. Mutual Exchange will provide opportunities for conversation about issues that matter to C4SS’s audience.

Online symposiums will include essays by a diverse range of writers presenting and debating their views on a variety of interrelated and overlapping topics, tied together by the overarching monthly theme. C4SS is extremely interested in feedback from our readers. Suggestions and comments are enthusiastically encouraged. If you’re interested in proposing topics and/or authors for our program to pursue, or if you’re interested in participating yourself, please email C4SS’s Mutual Exchange Coordinator, Cory Massimino, at cory.massimino@c4ss.org.