Di Citizen Ilya. Originale pubblicato il 23 marzo 2019 con il titolo How Putin’s Government Deals With Russian Anarchists. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Se seguite ciò che sta accadendo in Russia, probabilmente sapete cosa stanno passando attivisti politici e persone dell’opposizione. La dittatura putiniana si basa sulla tortura e il carcere per chiunque non condivida la sua autoritaria politica antisociale. Chi lotta contro la povertà assoluta e l’ingiustizia subisce la repressione di autorità come la FSB (reincarnazione del vecchio KGB), il Centro per la Lotta all’estremismo (detto Центр «Э», responsabile di gran parte delle torture), la polizia, nonché l’odio dei conservatori. Il terrore è l’unico strumento per mantenere il potere. Putin sta cercando di salvare il capitalismo di stato che dà forza a lui e ai suoi amici oligarchi. Gli anarchici sono tra gli obiettivi principali della macchina repressiva, perché appaiono i più pericolosi per lo stato. Ci sono alcuni casi degni di nota che vorrei illustrare.

La Rete

Ad ottobre del 2017, l’FSB, inventando accuse criminali contro anarchici e antifascisti, li ha arrestati sostenendo che facevano parte dell’organizzazione terroristica chiamata “La Rete”. L’FSB accusa gli arrestati di aver organizzato attentati dinamitardi in occasione delle elezioni presidenziali e della Coppa del Mondo. Gli accusati sostengono di essere stati sottoposti a torture, con l’intento di costringerli a dichiarare di aver fatto parte dell’organizzazione terroristica “La Rete”. Alcuni di loro, come Viktor Filinkov, sono stati rapiti dall’FSB. Viktor, informatico antifascista, è stato arrestato all’aeroporto Pulkovo di Pietroburgo il 23 gennaio 2018. Agenti dell’FSB lo hanno rinchiuso in un furgoncino dove l’hanno pestato e sottoposto a elettrochoc alla nuca, alla schiena e ai fianchi. Dietro le sbarre ci sono dieci antifascisti, tutti sottoposti allo stesso trattamento. Rischiano da cinque anni all’ergastolo. La repressione continua anche in carcere.

Gli Anarchici di “Autodifesa Popolare”

“Autodifesa Popolare” è un’organizzazione socio-politica che si ispira ideologicamente al comunismo libertario, una via di mezzo tra anarchismo socialmente orientato e marxismo non autoritario.

A febbraio dell’anno scorso, l’FSB della Crimea ha arrestato Yevgeny Karakashev. Karakashev è accusato di “incitazione all’odio” e “apologia di terrorismo” per aver pubblicato un video sul social russo VKontakte. Attualmente, si trova in carcere.

A novembre 2018, l’anarchico e animalista Vyacheslav Lukichev è stato fermato a Kaliningrad. È stato tenuto a digiuno, privato del sonno e torturato per 36 ore. L’FSB voleva che confessasse di essere il responsabile del canale “Prometheus” e di aver pubblicato un articolo a sostegno di Mikhail Zhlobitsky (diciassettenne anarchico che si è sparato nella sede dell’FSB di Arkhangelsk). Il 14 marzo Vyacheslav Lukichev è stato multato per 300.000 rubli (4.124 euro). La sentenza lo accusa di apologia del terrorismo.

A febbraio del 2019 a Mosca l’FSB e la spetsnaz hanno condotto perquisizioni di massa e arrestato molti anarchici. In seguito alle perquisizioni, undici anarchici sono stati arrestati. Le televisioni federali parlano di “terroristi anarchici” del movimento Autodifesa Popolare che sono stati arrestati. Tra questi Azat Miftakhov, che l’FSB ha sottoposto a torture con il fine di fargli confessare di aver prodotto esplosivi. Azat, che è stato pestato e torturato con un cacciavite, ha rifiutato l’autoaccusa. Un altro detenuto, Daniel Galkin, è stato torturato con una pistola stordente. Gli hanno intimato di testimoniare contro Miftakhov e collaborare con i servizi speciali, nonché di rilasciare dichiarazioni compromettenti all’emittente Canale Uno (Первый Канал). Tutti i fermati, tranne Azat Miftakhov, sono stati rilasciati nel pomeriggio. Azat è stato sequestrato dentro la stazione di polizia in presenza del suo stesso avvocato. Per quasi due giorni, si è persa ogni traccia di lui. Gli inquirenti si sono rifiutati di dire agli avvocati dove fosse. Il due ottobre è stato finalmente ritrovato in un centro di detenzione della città di Balashikha.

Anch’io, essendo anarchico, temo che la polizia possa rapirmi in qualunque momento e sottopormi a torture crudeli, mentre i veri criminali e i terroristi restano indisturbati. Oggi in Russia abbiamo una versione peggiorata del regime franchista spagnolo. L’FSB continuerà sempre a vantarsi delle operazioni contro gli anarchici, che utilizza per seminare paura e terrore tra la popolazione. Fin dall’inizio, il regime di Putin si è sempre basato sulla repressione spettacolare di qualunque forma di opposizione. Ma l’odio popolare cresce. Gli anarchici di tutto il mondo dovrebbero rafforzare la propria solidarietà con gli attivisti russi, solo l’aiuto reciproco può dare forza alle persone. La prossima ondata di torture e manganelli sarà ancora più dura, e può cominciare da un momento all’altro.

Let me begin by saying that I’m glad this book exists. Phillips and Rozworski are upfront about their book not containing any radical new insights into questions of economic planning, but instead they compile arguments made by others in a highly readable format, something that those on the left who argue for economic planning have needed for some time. The arguments I see online for economic planning tend to be fairly scattershot and unstructured; such a text will almost certainly improve their discipline.

Furthermore, despite disagreeing profoundly with the claims made in the book, I would still love to see further research done into the question of planned economies and voluntary attempts at a planned economy. While I think the objections I’ve laid out are pretty comprehensive, nothing would change my mind faster than seeing such projects carried out even on a relatively small scale. Not to mention, both empirically and theoretically, there’s a massive space to investigate common ownership and management of the commons using modern information technology that has gone unexamined, as well as potential failure modes.

Unfortunately, they break no new ground. Market anarchist critiques of the currently existing economy are incredibly potent at also knocking down this form of socialism. The insistence that Amazon and Walmart are successful islands of planned order within the chaotic market completely ignores larger questions of how our current institutional arrangement allows them to exist. The dichotomy between corporate capitalism and socialism-as-planning is false. As Phillips and Rozworski correctly point out, much of actually-existing-capitalism is planned. And such a framing also excludes serious non-capitalist market alternatives. While I’m sure Phillips and Rozworski would roll their eyes at such a distinction, our arguments are not so easily dismissed.

Let us start with the most erroneous claim. The supposed economies of scale that they champion as proof of planning winning out in the capitalist marketplace are in fact the result of deliberate state investment. Kevin Carson’s award-winning article on the subject of transportation subsidies makes clear the ludicrous degree to which the transportation network that firms like Amazon and Walmart rely on require the socialization of costs to the rest of society. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but I’ll quote the most damning part here:

Virtually 100 percent of roadbed damage to highways is caused by heavy trucks. After repeated liberalization of maximum weight restrictions, far beyond the heaviest conceivable weight the interstate roadbeds were originally designed to support, fuel taxes fail miserably at capturing from big-rig operators the cost of pavement damage caused by higher axle loads. And truckers have been successful at scrapping weight-distance user charges in all but a few western states, where the push for repeal continues. So only about half the revenue of the highway trust fund comes from fees or fuel taxes on the trucking industry, and the rest is externalized on private automobiles.¹

A similar argument can be made about why workers at these firms have to accept such low wages. The fact is that the state and capitalism conspire together to force workers into such positions (which should be no surprise to anyone familiar with Marx).

Phillips and Rozworski also stumble in trying to demonstrate the inefficiency of free markets. The example they use: an internal market set up by the Ayn Rand inspired CEO of Sears Edward Lampert, which failed dramatically and lead to all sorts of inter-firm conflict. However such an approach resembled not a networked market, but instead individual firms competing for a single entity. Contrast such an environment with the decentralized networked economy that operates in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy:

[Emilia-Romagna,] a vast network of very small enterprises spread through the villages and small cities of central and Northeast Italy, in and around Bologna, Florence, Ancona, and Venice… These little shops range across the entire spectrum of the modern industrial structure, from shoes, ceramics, textiles, and garments on one side to motorcycles, agricultural equipment, automotive parts, and machine tools on the other.²

The economy operates in a dynamic, organic fashion in which firms both compete and cooperate with each other:

The variability of demand meant that patterns of subcontracting were constantly rearranged. Firms that had underestimated a year’s demand would subcontract the overflow to less well situated competitors scrambling to adapt to the market. But the next year the situation might be reversed, with winners in the previous round forced to sell off equipment to last year’s losers. Under these circumstances, every employee could become a subcontractor, every subcontractor a manufacturer, every manufacturer an employee.³

This attitude of cooperation also undermines the cancerous data hoarding of companies like Amazon and Walmart. Consider for example the Chinese shanzai — underground small-scale hacker-manufacturers:

An estimate I heard places 300 shanzhai organizations operating in Shenzhen. These shanzai consist of shops ranging from just a couple folks to a few hundred employees; some just specialize in things like tooling, PCB design, PCB assembly, cell phone skinning, while others are a little bit broader in capability. The shanzai are efficient: one shop of under 250 employees churns out over 200,000 mobile phones per month with a high mix of products (runs as short as a few hundred units is possible); collectively an estimate I heard places shanzhai in the Shenzhen area producing around 20 million phones per month…

Interestingly, the shanzhai employ a concept called the “open BOM” — they share their bill of materials and other design materials with each other, and they share any improvements made; these rules are policed by community word-of-mouth, to the extent that if someone is found cheating they are ostracized by the shanzhai ecosystem.⁴

Now obviously such practices take place under capitalism and so I’m sure there’s a whole host of problematic aspects that occur in both examples. But it’s a quantum leap over the strawman that Phillips and Rozowski use to show how a competitive market breaks down. Also, I’m sure that in terms of the metrics we care about (worker treatment and negative externalities) these enterprises do considerably better than the giant firms that they hold up as examples of planning working.

But we could spend all day in citation wars over the particulars, endlessly caught in debate as to whether something was really a free market or planned, quibbling over to what degree an instance of planned economic activity worked because of larger institutional dynamics gets us into weeds where we get caught in counterexample after counterexample. I want a deeper analysis that gets to the roots of the debate. Thankfully, the authors link to a text that does exactly this.

Paul Cockshott and Allen Cottrell’s Towards a New Socialism (1993) is what they ultimately turn to when it comes to explaining how a planned economy will work, which explores the question in detail. To be fair, they don’t accept the claims in that book at face value and call for further investigation into the subject (a line of research that I 100% support despite my skepticism when it comes to planning). However, in taking such a line, they inherit structural problems inherent in the work that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has actually picked up on (not even Len Brewster of Mises.org in his 2004 review of the book).

As long as we have human labor, we need some way to evaluate the worth of that labor so calculation can occur. But the key question here is how does one differentiate between different forms of labor? The solution proposed by Cockshott and Cottrell is to assume that skilled labor is merely the product of the labor involved. I quote:

We can envision the establishment of a baseline level of general education: workers educated to this level only will be regarded as ‘simple labour’, while the labour of workers who have received additional special education is treated as a ‘produced input’, much like other means of production. This notion of skilled labour as a produced input may be illustrated by example.

Suppose that becoming a competent engineer requires four years of study beyond the basic level of education. This four-year production process for skilled engineering labour involves a variety of labour inputs. First there is the work of the student—attending lectures, study in the library, lab work, etc. As stated earlier, this is regarded as valid productive work and is rewarded accordingly. It is counted as a ‘simple labour’ input. Second is the work of teaching, distributed over the number of students being taught. This is a skilled labour input. Third, there is the ‘overhead’ work connected with education (librarians, technicians, administrators). This may be a mixture of skilled and simple labour.⁵

Such a scheme reads like a libertarian parody of a socialist society. While modern revisions of this plan might be open to alternatives models of education, one still has to overcome the gaping problem of quantifying the diversity of educational styles (not to mention the fact that many people learn outside of institutions or on the job). Oh and then there are the problems of useless investment in the educational institutions and what’s even being taught to students. Oh and there’s also the problem that such a mechanism is pretty useless at evaluating the labor of jobs that we don’t even know exist yet (and even when they do exist, there’s also the problem that the educational requirements may change over time). The contradiction of such an organizational approach with the demand for high-tech, dynamic social order is unresolvable. For all that the various thinkers on the subject of information age economic planning have done to try and distance themselves for the mess that was state socialism, such a solution immediately brings to mind the worst aspects of the bureaucratic stupidity that ensued in those system.

Despite many socialists claiming to have banished them, Hayek’s arguments about subjectivity and tacit knowledge haunt these arguments around planning. And where Hayek lurks, Mises is not far behind. Sure, once you have the labor values for everything in the economy, you can crunch the numbers for your plan in a couple seconds, but there’s the problem of negotiating between the preferences of everyone taking part in the economy. Cosma Shazili’s excellent article In Soviet Union, Optimization Problem Solves You! describes this problem perfectly:

There are many institutions which try to reconcile or adjust divergent values. This is a problem of social choice, and subject to all the usual pathologies and paradoxes of social choice. There is no universally satisfactory mechanism for making such choices. One could imagine democratic debate and voting over plans, but the sheer complexity of plans, once again, makes it very hard for members of the demos to make up their minds about competing plans, or how plans might be changed…

Dictatorship might seem to resolve the difficulty, but doesn’t. The dictator is, after all, just a single human being. He (and I use the pronoun deliberately) has no more ability to come up with real preferences over everything in the economy than any other person. (Thus, Ashby’s “law of requisite variety” strikes again.) He can, and must, delegate details to the planning apparatus, but that doesn’t help the planners figure out what to do. I would even contend that he is in a worse situation than the demos when it comes to designing the planning apparatus, or figuring out what he wants to decide directly, and what he wants to delegate, but that’s a separate argument. The collective dictatorship of the party, assuming anyone wanted to revive that nonsense, would only seem to give the worst of both worlds.

This brings us to the second political problem. Even if everyone agrees on the plan, and the plan is actually perfectly implemented, there is every reason to think that people will not be happy with the outcome. They’re making guesses about what they actually want and need, and they are making guesses about the implications of fulfilling those desires. We don’t have to go into “Monkey’s Paw” territory to realize that getting what you think you want can prove thoroughly unacceptable; it’s a fact of life, which doesn’t disappear in economics. And not everyone is going to agree on the plan, which will not be perfectly implemented. (Nothing is ever perfectly implemented.) These are all signs of how even the “optimal” plan can be improved, and ignoring them is idiotic.⁶

While they make mention of this article in the book, Phillips and Rozworski fail to address this essential point about negotiating between preferences. Sure, democratic management might be able to solve some big obvious problems we face today, but once that’s done we’ll be subject to harsh diminishing returns as the fractal complexity of individual desire becomes insurmountable. (Incidentally, this is probably why the most successful “socialist” economies are those of a wartime nature, as optimizing preferences for many becomes easier as desires are simplified to basic survival and destroying the enemy.)

However, to be fair, it’s likely that if such a social order was achieved, it would actually see a massive jump in terms of productivity and the reduction of externalities simply because our current system is so inefficient and broken. As Kevin Carson likes to point out, our modern economy is the equivalent of a horribly complicated Rube Goldberg machine which exists largely for the purpose of extracting rents and maintaining power imbalances. Supplanting such parasitic behavior would dramatically increase wealth for all, but socialists aren’t the only people calling for such changes. Libertarians, self-described neoliberals, left-liberals, heck even the alt-right are all partly aware of the degree to which our economy is restrained by the state. But this doesn’t make them right on anything else, nor does it even make their solutions to such state imposed scarcity correct. Even the most dumbfuck alt-right economic scheme might actually be better in the short term simply because disrupting our currently existing intellectual property regime would unleash so much wealth that forcing the most educated cohort out of the workforce and into the home might still be an overall positive economically.

Of course the real problem isn’t making the world a better place once we’ve won, but instead getting there. And again the knowledge/calculation problems that undermine planning also apply to basically every other aspect of social organization. And it’s here, in this space that was articulated by Hayek and Mises, but has since been expanded by our understanding of fields like cybernetics, information theory, and complexity theory, that any left-wing movement worth a damn needs to become comfortable. Not just for simple strategic reasons, but also because expanding individual agency is synonymous with increasing complexity, information flow, feedback, etc and as such there are good prefigurative reasons to investigate such questions so as to prepare for the world that we want.

Furthermore it explains why states and corporations haven’t won. If planning was as effective as Phillips and Rozowski say it is, we’d all be dead. The US empire would not be caught in endless war against insurgents abroad, activists at home would not be a constant thorn in the side of the state, and the broader open source movement would just be a cute sideshow if large hierarchical organizations were not constantly tripping and stumbling as they tried to move through the world.

By refusing to take such arguments seriously, socialists cut themselves off from some really good arguments against the current economic order. Phillips and Rozworski are correct to point out the contradictions within neoclassical economics that ignore the degree to which planning occurs within firms, but Johanna Bockman’s Markets in the Name of Socialism (2011) not only addressed such contradictions in significantly more detail, it also showed that just as many socialists as other economists came to the conclusion that free markets and socialism were in fact synonymous because of their capacity to enable decentralized networked organization.

Now of course, every ideology is guilty of not understanding such dynamics, but the left is both a) supposed to be better than this and b) not in a position where it can afford such mistakes. Trying to separate collective action problems from economics is impossible: organizational efficacy is tied to questions of information flow and processing, as well as broader questions about incentives. We want to unleash the individual agency of all and that means not tying them down in endless meetings and low bandwidth communication.

This reveals blind spots in the thought of radical intellectuals on the subject of organization and cybernetics, like Stafford Beer of CyberSyn fame. Calls for decentralization and autonomy are all well and good, but individuals quickly run into the problem of expressing preferences in a timely manner.  Democracy centralizes this process, stifles our capacity to express particulars, demands we sacrifice unpopular preferences in a zero sum game, and forces us to partake in fucking meetings. Centralized control over a complex system doesn’t magically get more effective because everyone gets a say in how the control is administered.

These problems of information flow and specificity have pervaded all forms of social organization. But in an age of accelerating complexities, these issues are exacerbated to the point where the usual tricks can no longer overcome them. The notion that we can get the dynamic technological world that Phillips and Rozworski call for when we’re dealing with such an outdated organizational form is questionable indeed.

And this is where currency proves itself to be incredibly useful. While it’s true that Hayek’s initial example about the price of tin reflecting disruption is dated in the age of ubiquitous communication networks (at least outside of circumstances in which such information is unavailable), there’s a lot more that prices give us than that. Prices let us compress the complexity of our subjectivity and knowledge into a single number that helps us interact with others, allowing the distances between our capabilities to be bridged by assumptions, to avoid the problems that come with delegating to experts (that inevitably emerge with a high tech complex social order). The capacity for prices to enable autonomous positive-sum relations between individuals is what has made capitalism capable of overcoming hurdles and challenges that would have destroyed any other system. However at the same time the current system must restrict our freedom of action so as to maintain the disparities of power. As such, despite all the noise made about revolutions in finance, currency as a technology remains limited in its capacity to augment our freedom by the demands of the survival of capitalism itself.

Capable of compressing a vast amount of information into a single value, money allows for the negotiation of preferences at a level that no other technology has achieved to date. Indeed, if Phillips and Rozowski can defend planning with an appeal to the corporate form by saying that it can be turned to good, then I can certainly defend currency just the same. Its capacity for enabling distributed, stigmergic action and it’s flexibility in how it can be created and used makes it one of the most impactful technologies we’ve ever uncovered, worthy of sitting alongside such inventions as language in terms of expanding our capacity for action.

So, while democracy may give us warm fuzzies when it comes to making collective decisions, it’s currency that lets individuals of radically different backgrounds work together, find common ground, and develop positive sum relations, or at the very least respect their differences. The turn of many libertarians towards reactionary ideologies is in part due to the realization that money allows and perhaps even encouraged fraternizing with The Other or The Outside.

In fact, I’ll go one further and state that I think it’s highly likely we’ll see the reactionaries advocating for economic planning within a couple of years (I’ll say by 2025 so you can hold my feet to the fire if it doesn’t happen).

After all, planning requires a highly legible economic sphere, as well as ways to objectively measure the labor of an individual and a defined list of what economic activity can be done. The capacity for such systems to be used towards reactionary ends is pretty obvious once one realizes their obsession with strict social roles and castes. Not to mention that the ability to define what is valuable completely removes the negotiating power of unwashed masses to route around moralistic impositions that come from above and also the capacity to stop any new products or services that might disrupt the “natural order” of things.

Such a drift would seem ludicrous to many, but the right, much like the left, is not built on any key foundational insights but instead the result of a happenstance alliance between social conservatives, anti-communists, and liberal capitalists, which itself was held together by a confusing mix of synthetic tradition, defenses of hierarchy, privilege, fear of communism, and — yes in some cases — a genuine (if distorted) desire for freedom. In the last decade, we’ve seen shifts in various directions that suggest such an alliance is on its last legs (and indeed probably would have died years ago if the US wasn’t a two-party state) which means the emergence of new approaches. From the French New Right (Guillaume Faye or Alain de Benoist), to American reactionaries that were kicked out of the conservative movement for being too openly racist (such as Samuel Francis), many reactionaries have converged on a localist, anti or limited market position in reaction to the destruction wrought on their traditions by global capitalism.

Now such a shift does not necessarily mean that they’ll embrace planning. But there’s a long history of once marginal figures on the right adopting left-wing ideas towards their own ends. The only thing that’s stopped them from investigating planned economies is likely the association with the USSR and the fact that the left has failed to articulate anything substantial in that regard. But such cross contamination is likely to occur as it has a long history. From the French New Right’s Gramsican influence, and Richard Spencer writing his master’s thesis on Adorno, to the emergence of softer social conservatives who say the future of their ideology is something closer to Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than the coalition built by William F. Buckley, or even those who advocate for state subsidization of working class wages in a dark parody of workerist leftism, there’s a long, if buried, history of such appropriation and mutation. How much of a leap is it from advocating for a protectionist conservative social democracy to straight-up defending a planned economy to defend your heritage? If fleshed out arguments for planning start gaining traction among the left, how long until the reactionaries start noticing?

Now, obviously none of this is to imply that Phillips or Rozworski or any of the left-wing thinkers they cite in defense of planning are reactionaries. What I am doing however is pointing out that economic planning, no matter how democratic, contains within it the possibility of drifting in unpleasant directions. The fact that few have made this connection is almost certainly due to how relegated planning has been in the discourse since the end of the Soviet Union, but there’s no reason to believe that it’ll remain a purely “left-wing” position in an age in which the political assumptions that defined the 20th century are shattered by the various accelerating forces that will define the 21st.

The fact such issues are left unaddressed is bad enough, but what’s worse is that it took until 2019 for someone to publish a comprehensive defense of economic planning in the age of ubiquitous computing. Sure, the left might be able to beat the neoliberals and implement their ideas of planning, but those ideas were built on shaky ground to begin with. Such a failure is the result of the left still being caught between deep insights into subjectivity, calculation problems, and a phobia of markets as a tool for overcoming them. Until it gets it shit together on these issues, it will forever be caught in an unresolvable tension that guarantees that any serious project it attempts will have inherent contradictions that doom it from the outset.

1. Kevin Carson, “The Distorting Effect of Transportation Subsidies,” Foundation for Economic Education, October 22nd, 2010.
2. Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, “Italian Small Business Development: Lessons for U.S. Industrial Policy” in American Industry in International Competition: Government Policies and Corporate Strategies, ed. John Zysman and Laura Tyson (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983).
3. Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 32.
4. Andrew “Bunnie” Huang, “Tech Trend: Shanzhai,” bunnie: studios. February 26th, 2009.
5. Paul W. Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, Towards a New Socialism (Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1993), 35.
6. Cosma Shalizi, “In Soviet Union, Optimization Problem Solves You,” Crooked Timber. May 30th, 2012.

Welcome to the second edition of the Against Utopia monthly newsletter, where I explore problems of social organization, philosophy, biology, politics, and more through an epistemological anarchist lens. Or in simpler (cruder) terms, analyzing the authorities’ basis of knowledge and mostly concluding that they should fuck off, so we can flex our autonomy.

If you’re returning from last month, hello and thanks! If you’re new, nice to have you! Share this newsletter and tell your friends to sign up here.

This week I want to have a quick word about “domestication” of humans by the state, the resistance of autonomous hill peoples, valley “civilizations”, and an interesting biological connection between them that can tell us quite a bit about how energy metabolism organizes social possibilities.

Upland Peoples and Their Strategies for Avoiding Lowland States

In The Art of Not Being Governed [3] by anthropologist and political scientist James C. Scott, he introduces the concept of “Zomia”[1], a term coined by historian Willem van Schendel to describe the upland region of Southeast Asia and southern China. This land mass encompasses the highlands of north Indochina (north Vietnam and all of Laos), Thailand, the Shan Hills of northern Myanmar, and the mountains of Southwest China. Some experts extend the region as far west as Tibet, Northeast India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, for sociological reasons that will become clear shortly.

These areas share some common features: they are elevated and arid, and have been the home of ethnic minorities who have fought against state intrusion to preserve their cultures and way of life, and in some cases like Afghanistan, have fought multi-generational wars to maintain their autonomy from the state.

The groups of people who reside in this region have made resistance a way of life. They’ve formally derived and practiced the primary forms of state evasion, and Scott makes these forms of autonomous social organization the focus of his work. In order to understand their resistance, let’s take a closer look at what the state is, what it’s trying to do, how it uses language, and the comparative anthropology of the folks escaping its wrath.

The state apparatus in these regions sounds violent and spooky, possibly corrupt, yet it is exactly what you are thinking it is when you hear “the state”: “the government”, “bureaucracy”, “MPs”, “Congress” etc. These are no spooks, they’re not some kind of “bad” version of government that would somehow be better if it was done right, they just are the government, and Scott’s case is built upon realizing that what these upland states are doing is a form of internal colonialism, that ALL states, including Western ones, are primarily tasked with. In Scott’s take, they are a primarily extractive entity.

Like all extractive state entities, they are concerned with who their people are, how many children they have, how to count them all accurately, how to tally their production, and how to bring them to heel, so that they can extract resources in the form of taxes and people for military or civil service.

One of the key factors driving this state formation, which later enabled the state to extract taxes and grow, is the development of observable economic activity. Scott spends a considerable amount of time talking about grain cultivation practices in rice paddies in the entire region, and how rice paddy development coincides with valley civilizations, because that’s where rice grows: semiaquatic tracts of arable land in wet valleys interspersed between the more arid hills and highlands. “Observable economic activity” very literally means the ability to observe with one’s own eyes what is being grown and what is eventually produced from plots, so it can be appropriated for state use.

Scott wrote an entire other book [2] about how and why specific lowland crops the world over seem to be the same ones that produce state-level entities, but it’s worth it to divert for a bit and dig deeper into this. In his opinion, it’s not a coincidence that the same handful of crops form the base of agricultural activity that drives state formation the world over – rice, barley, millet, and wheat. There’s a very simple reason for this: all of these crops are lowland crops that grow easily, and most importantly, observably. All of them can be counted, quantified, and taxed easily by a bureaucrat traveling far outside of a state center.

On the opposite end of this, if you’re looking to evade state control, you’re looking for crops that stagger their maturity patterns, grow fast, can grow below ground, are of little value per weight or per volume, have higher caloric yields per unit labor and per unit land, and ideally, are adapted to growth in slash-and-burn or swidden agriculture (more below on this term).

Oats, taro, yams, sago palm, cassava – mostly roots and tubers – fit the bill. Yams are suited to dry hillsides, grow wild in the mountains, and are less susceptible to attack from insects and fungi compared to rice. Taro has much of the same advantages but requires wetter soils to grow. With these advantages, these foods were referred to as “famine” foods in certain valley civilization lexicons like e.g. the Vietnamese state, because when famines hit and crops that were appropriated for state use became scant, even the lowlanders would resort to growing them to support themselves. The basis of a diet and lifestyle that gave one people their autonomy from the state, was to the subjects of the state, resilience for famines.

These two groups were not necessarily static. There’s evidence of dynamic adjustments to situational context, with groups adopting fluid ethnic identities, and fluid food development strategies seasonally as early as the 1700s if not earlier. In Laos under French rule, whole villages would move when their colonial responsibilities became too much to bear, e.g. living near a road that they were expected to maintain with corvée labor. Movement uphill was associated with swidden agriculture, as the Laotian peasantry knew that these activities were illegible to bureaucrats.

In New Guinea highland maroon communities under Dutch rule, the sweet potato paired with pig husbandry gave maroons (escaped slaves) the autonomy to get very high caloric yields per unit labor and meet all of their needs with a crop that outperformed all other crops at high altitude. It’s utility as a method of escape is best exemplified by the Spanish colonizers of the Philippines, who remarked:

[They move] from one place to another on the least occasion for there is nothing to stop them since their houses, which are what would cause them concern, they make any place with a bundle of hay; they pass from one place to another with their crops of yames and camotes [sweet potato] off of which they live without much trouble, pulling them up by the roots, since they can stick them in wherever they wish to take root.

Fig 1. Summary of escape characteristics of crops in the hill people repertoire. Crops that have higher-end elevation bandwidth in particular allow for ranging to higher elevations to escape state control (credit: James C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed).

The common pattern amongst all of these crops is that they 1) thrived at high altitude with little tending and 2) were not grains, and were in many ways nutritionally superior to grains. I won’t go into this too deeply, but it is a well-studied phenomenon particularly in the last 20 years that hill people, foragers, and hunter-gatherers were more robust physically than their valley agriculturalist counterparts. Their wide-ranging diets were more nutritionally complete than their agricultural counterparts, and as we will see below, agriculture’s ascendance coincided with a shrinking of the brain cavity and overall height in humans. The diet and lifestyles that statecraft selects for have a LOT to do with this.

Now, as these agricultural modes of state food production developed, alongside them grew a rich set of bureaucratic techniques, roles, and modes of social control, with new vocabularies beyond mere famine foods. The indigenous Yao people of southwestern China and Vietnam exemplify this. The term Yao originally was used to designate anyone who was obligated to perform corvée labor, which is unpaid labor for a feudal lord. As social forms continued to evolve, and feudalism receded with the ascendance of the administrative state, Yao became an ethnonym referring to anyone in the southwest and southern highlands who was essentially an unpaid laborer.

The Yao in particular are interesting – to this day, the Yao who are closer to the state, in the lowlands of southern China, have altered their social production forms to include rice paddy development and cultivation. The Yao who are closer to the highlands still practice hunting and foraging with a much smaller percent of their calories coming from rice. They also practice what Scott refers to as an “enemy of the state” – slash-and-burn agriculture or swidden agriculture.

Why is swidden agriculture so derided by bureaucrats? It’s pretty simple. Swidden agriculture allows many degrees of freedom that enable state evasion. For example, if you rewild areas of your land by planting 2-3 years in a row in the same plot, then let it all grow back and burn a new tract of land, it is extremely hard for a civil servant to determine what your production is on that one plot of land. Now consider that many of theseYao clans could number in the 50s to ~500s, and there is simply no “fair” way to begin to tax people based on an observable, justifiable metric of what they produced. You have to resort to violence and risk flight or revolt, or collect no taxes. We all know what states choose to do in this situation.

From the perspective of the administrative state, these upland people seem unruly, hard to control, difficult to find, and just plain rebellious. They have the energy and will to live hardy lives, and plan ahead by planting and hiding taro in unpredictable patterns 2-3 years at a time. They have the flexibility to grow lowland crops for trade, including things like opium. Anything and everything they could do maintain autonomy over their social organization.

What appears as backward agricultural practices in the state’s perspective is actually a volitional, political choice used as a tool in the fight against the loss of autonomy.

“Anarchist” Nutrition and Metabolism

Let’s switch gears a bit now and examine some other common features of hill peoples evading state control – nutrition and the benefits of living at high altitude.

Recall that these escape crops offered people the ability to evade state control by being simple to grow at high altitude, easy to hide, and also, by being nutritionally complete. A grain-based lowland diet holds numerous pitfalls if not properly supplemented. Diseases like pellagra, Ricketts’, scurvy, and beriberi were probably not common until a state came along and forced its people to live on subsistence diets of corn, soy, or rice, which lacked complete proteins, vitamin C, and the B vitamins.

On the other hand, all of the foods listed in the tables above and specified in individual cases have very high amounts of vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin C, B vitamins, fibers, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and a decent amount of protein and fats. Even more importantly, they don’t come with the baggage of complex food processing methods required to make them nutritionally complete or at least not poisonous and destructive. Here I’m thinking of e.g. the nixtamalization process required to prevent pellagra from corn consumption, or the B vitamin deficiencies caused by consuming a wheat-only diet which led to the fortification of grains in the 20th century by the US government (which has its own heinous consequences [4], but let’s focus).

All of these vitamins, minerals, and nutrients contribute to healthy oxidative metabolism and general physiological robustness. The B vitamin complexes are required for functional oxidative metabolism in the mitochondrion of every cell in your body. Without thiamine (B1) for instance, electrons cannot be transported for efficient oxidative phosphorylation inside of the mitochondria, and this is responsible for many of the cognitive deficits seen in childhood malnutrition. It’s very literally the inability to provide energy to brain mitochondria in a scalable way causing an observable mental deficit.

I’m over-indexing on oxidative phosphorylation here for a reason. Many of the maladies of civilization such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s [5], are now understood to have a mitochondrial etiology[6], or in other words, they seem to be diseases of mitochondrial energy metabolism which exact systemic consequences on the rest of the body as your physiology struggles to adapt to increasing demands without optimal metabolism. This only gets compounded by the mental stresses of modern life[7], which have been shown to have an almost equivalent effect on our biology as other types of physiological stress. In simpler terms, feeling psychologically stressed, like being stuck in traffic and not being able to escape, is almost identical to lacking the physical energy needed to meet a demand, like running away from an animal trying to eat you.

So what does mitochondrial biology, modernization, and psychological stress have to do with hill peoples and living in the highlands?

It turns out that in almost all highland peoples who maintain a form of life and social organization that approximates communal or pre-modern forms, chronic disease of the sorts described above is close to nonexistent. This connection also doesn’t disappear when one controls for infant mortality, epidemics, war, famine, and other commonly trumpeted reasons for the connection.

Robert Sapolsky cites research from anthropology, genomics, and paleontological physiology[8] showing that the ascendance of agricultural forms of social organization coincides with a near 30% reduction in lifespan, as well as far poorer bone and dental health in the fossil record[9].

In the modern era in Victorian England of 1883, the nutritional standards put in place by the state exacted such a toll that the infantry were forced to lower their height requirements from 5 ft 6 inches to 5 ft 3 inches – for men [24]!

We didn’t even touch on the fact that highlanders live comparatively slower lives[10], working as little as 2 hours per day to secure resources, avoiding commutes, engaging with loved ones more often, and avoiding the dominating psychological stresses of modern life which as we mentioned before have been shown to exact very real physiological tolls on the body.

Carbon Dioxide, Mitochondria, and the Secret to Upland Resistance

All of that being said, what’s left? Well, there’s a hidden feature of the life of hill peoples that is now being revived and actively researched after a long dormant period, that I think plays a huge role in giving them the ability and energy to resist, and ability to strive for better possibilities. This thing also contributes mightily to mitochondrial biogenesis and stability, and is one of the key diagnostic indicators of most chronic disease. That hidden thing is something swimming in the air all around us – carbon dioxide.

In 1977 in New Mexico, a study was conducted [11] on people residing at high altitude.. This study compared age-adjusted mortality rates for heart disease for white men and women living in Santa Fe from 1957-1970, in 1000 ft increments. For years before the study, it was believed that living at high altitude placed stress on our biology, as we struggled to adapt to a lower oxygen pressure.

What they found was the exact opposite.

The altitude groups 1-5 were arranged to start with the lowest altitude as group 1, with each subsequent group being 1000ft higher than the previous group, e.g. group 5 is 5000 ft higher than group 1. The death rates were normalized to the 1st altitude group, and it was found that there was a near linear relationship in the male death rate, with an effect size of 28% reduction in group 5.

This was an epidemiological study that was well controlled for race, migration, pre-existing disease, so the authors were able to eliminate a considerable amount of factors in explaining the association, but some factors remained. They comment in an apocryphal manner: “Further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanism of this association, if it is confirmed in other data.” It turns out that the association has been confirmed in myriad other data, but no one has as of yet elucidated a mechanism, at least officially in the literature. I will speculate about what the mechanism is at the end, but let’s take a closer look at a few more instances of this effect.

Seeking alternative explanations, some investigators expected a strong positive correlation between altitude and cancer mortality, particularly because the cosmic ray radiation at altitude could be much stronger than at sea level and was strong enough to be ionizing. Research over the decades preceding the study had shown ionizing radiation to be carcinogenic (usually nuclear bomb tests, etc).

Picking up on this, one of the other interesting studies [12] in this area sought to understand the connection between altitude, radiation exposure, and mortality specifically in heart disease and cancer. The authors began by commenting that several studies conducted in the US expected to find correlations between mortality rates for cancer and ionizing background (cosmic ray) radiation. The correlations were actually the inverse of what was expected, so this group fit models that incorporated altitude inputs as well as background radiation for predictors of mortality in order to elucidate what was going on.

The group found that negative correlations with cosmic rays and mortality from cancer and heart disease disappeared once the models included variations in altitude. Not only that, in the case of breast, intestine, and lung cancer, the correlations became positive!

On the other side of it, the correlations with altitude persisted when the model was modified to include adjustments for radiation. The altitude correlation had a significant and powerful effect in this (admittedly) observational data. The study authors concluded that one can’t neglect the negative mortality effects of radiation from this study, but that perhaps the reduced oxygen pressure of inspired air at high altitude is protective against certain causes of death.

In a 2009 retrospective cohort study of patients initiating dialysis in the US between 1995 and 2004 [13], it was observed that patients at higher altitude receive lower erythropoietin doses, yet achieved higher hemoglobin concentrations in serum. The authors expected the reverse, and along the way, also discovered yet again that in their data, patients at higher altitude also had lower mortality. Since it was 2009 and we had more powerful analytical methodologies at our disposal, the study authors had more room to speculate about the physiological effects responsible for the observed mortality increase.

By the time they wrote their conclusion, they were able to pull in recent findings from the study of cancer in hypoxia-induced factors. First, hypoxia-induced factors regulate enzymes that affect cardiovascular risk, such as VEG-F, heme oxygenase-1, i-NOS, and cyclooxygenase 2. The preceding enzymes are involved in inflammation, blood vessel growth and repair, and dilation / constriction. Enzymatic effects stemming from them and the subsequent effects on mortality had already been well established in studies at sea level. The connection the authors made here is that the benefits to mortality observed in this population most likely stem from the relative lack of oxygen, and possibly the addition of carbon dioxide replacing it.

This pattern was highly repeatable and conserved over time.

In one study [14] of 300 autopsies carried out at 14,000 feet in Peru, not a single case of death by heart attack, nor even moderate coronary artery disease was found.

Shepherds serum at high altitude has been found to exhibit profound anti-thrombotic effects [15] from life at high altitudes. Their vascular walls are also stronger and feature less clot activity. This could partly explain why they are so resilient to heart disease, stroke, and hypertension.

At a meeting of the World Health Organization in 1968 [16], it was reported that native populations in Chile and the Himalayas also had significantly less heart disease and cancer than populations at sea level.

Carbon dioxide has also been shown to inhibit in vivo generation of reactive oxygen species [17]. Essentially this is broad evidence for an overall systemic protective effect.

And so on.

But what of carbon dioxide? It seems a little out of place here. What does carbon dioxide have to do with mortality reduction? Isn’t it just waste, a byproduct of respiration?

Not really.

Besides the large effects observed in heart disease, altitude seems to have a large effect on cancers of all types, and it’s important to understand why that is.

Cancer, Carbon Dioxide, Lactate, and Acidity

Otto Warburg [18] received the Nobel Prize for discovering cellular respiration in developing sea urchin eggs. More importantly, towards the end of his career he discovered that cancer cells preferentially turn sugar into lactate, even in the presence of oxygen, a feature he called aerobic glycolysis. If you haven’t taken biochemistry, let me translate that for you.

When you sprint and your legs and lungs start to burn, the subjective experience and the measured physiological effects are typically attributed to the buildup of lactate. As you breathe harder and harder and pump your legs faster and faster, you build up this waste product, lactate, as you burn oxygen and sugar. Normally 95% of your energy is produced by oxidative phosphorylation, which produces ATP and carbon dioxide, but when there is not enough oxygen to burn your energetic substrates completely, your body switches to a form of energy production called glycolysis, which is the use of sugar to produce pyruvate and downstream of that, lactate.

Many, many cancers have the feature of over-producing lactate. Lactate has been shown to power angiogenesis, for example, which is the way that cancers begin to spread their tendrils and grow vascularity in order to get more oxygen, sugar, and fat supplied for their growth. Warburg’s great contribution was to show that even when you are sitting at rest, if you have a cancerous tumor, your body is basically panting. It’s stuck in glycolysis. It’s constantly turning sugar into lactate instead of carbon dioxide, even when there is plenty of oxygen around.

Now zooming back out, when you are at altitude, it might seem like you should be panting all the time, and that you would experience aerobic glycolysis [19], because there is less oxygen around. Based on everything I just said, you might predict that when we go to high altitudes, because we get tired faster and have less work capacity, that we’re producing more lactate, and that we might expect higher cancer rates. That would be true except for the implications of two key biophysical effects: the Haldane effect and the Bohr effect (which circumscribe the lactate paradox), which I think is what hill people above are inadvertently benefiting from.

The Haldane effect is relatively simple. John Scott Haldane discovered that in hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood, oxygen displaces carbon dioxide in proportion to its partial pressure in the environment. As you go higher and higher up in altitude, less carbon dioxide is displaced from hemoglobin, and cells throughout the body retain more of their carbon dioxide and bind less oxygen.

The Bohr effect is even simpler still – it was first observed by Christian Bohr in 1904, and is the ability of carbon dioxide to displace oxygen in hemoglobin as pH decreases. Surprise, surprise, as you go up in altitude, carbon dioxide works to form carbonic acid in the blood more easily, and the resultant decrease in pH (increased acidity) makes it harder to bind oxygen in the blood.

The downstream effect of this is that there is less oxygen in the mitochondria of the cells, and the oxygen is more efficiently consumed by oxidative phosphorylation, an energetic pathway that “competes” with glycolysis. I say competes in quotes because oxidative phosphorylation is dependent on the first part of the glycolysis pathway in order for the overall pathway to function, so competing is a bit of a misnomer. This is a detail that’s ancillary to the broader effect which basically demonstrates that if you are in an oxygen-scarce environment, more efficient use of oxygen results in far less lactate production and the reduction of aerobic glycolysis, the main feature of cancer energy production.

Whew, I know that was a mouthful of big words, but we’re almost done.

Mitochondria: The Powerhouses of Social Organization?

Now what evidence is there for this? Well, if we expect that there is less oxygen present at altitude, and this leads to increased absorption and efficiency of oxygen consumption, we’d expect the organism to also make more mitochondria to meet the demands of lack of oxygen. Either that, or we’d expect efficiency gains within the mitochondria themselves. And we’d expect less lactate production at altitude.

It turns out that all are true.

In an old study comparing cows raised at sea level and cows acclimated to very high altitudes [20], the high altitude cow had direct mitochondrial counts 40% higher than the sea level cows, evidence of massive amounts of mitochondrial biogenesis to acclimate to altitude.

Additionally, in a different study examining rat heart, liver, and kidney mitochondria [21], ND6, COX, and other genes involved in energy production within the mitochondrion all were 30-40% higher in rats acclimated to high altitude vs. sea-level rats. Ninety-five percent of all energy production in the rat (and us) occurs via oxidative phosphorylation which takes oxygen and sugar and turns it into carbon dioxide and energy. At these higher altitudes, it appears that the genes used specifically to upregulate oxidative phosphorylation and consequently produce more carbon dioxide were massively upregulated. Energy production became so efficient that the rats produced very little lactic acid / lactate.

Alan C. Burton, a founding father of biophysics, late in his career noticed this correlation between altitude and significantly reduced cancer rates[22]. He hypothesized that there is a connection between intracellular pH (not serum pH, which is buffered and strictly controlled by the body to a narrow range) and carcinogenesis. On its face, it seems like a reasonable assumption particularly if we take Warburg’s aerobic glycolysis into consideration.

Lactate produced downstream of aerobic glycolysis has a pKa of 3.82, which means above a pH of 3.82 it is lactate, and below it is lactic acid. We’re talking about finely tuned microenvironments here when we talk about the acidity of a cell. A cell’s momentary (over)production of lactate can easily produce pHs below 3.82 but that’s just a bit of speculation. The point is that at altitude, the increase in carbon dioxide creates momentary decreases in alkali reserve because the increased carbon dioxide creates carbonic acid through the buffer system in the blood. This results in a slightly reduced but still well-buffered pH at altitude, and as we saw before, a marked reduction in lactate.

Burton had speculated that if this is what happens at altitude, it might be possible to simulate this effect with a drug, acetazolamide, which blocks the enzyme responsible for the buffering of carbon dioxide in the blood. At the time of his writing, acetazolamide had been given to cancer patients and tumor reduction had been observed, but no one followed up to see if this was explicitly due to acetazolamide or some other factor. All we do know is that lactate production was observed to be lower in hill populations, and that this effect could be mimicked by a drug.

To date there has been only one study that I know of that demonstrates a full picture of increased carbon dioxide retention at altitude leading to biogenesis of mitochondria with increased efficiency with an observed effect of improving some disease state, and that is FZ Meerson’s work, as cited by Ray Peat[23]. Meerson was able to demonstrate that rats at altitude increased overall count of mitochondria per unit brain mass, with more efficient use of oxygen as a percent concentration of oxidative enzymes, leading to prosociality and increased learning ability.

Increased prosociality and learning ability as a result of mitochondrial energy production and efficiency.

Recently, the titan of mitochondrial genetics, Douglas C. Wallace, showed that in mice under acute psychological stress, mitochondrial functions modulated the neuroendocrine, metabolic, inflammatory, and transcriptional responses[7]. This study is broadly instructive and ties everything in the picture we’ve painted together, in my opinion.

Wallace’s group, in a very well-controlled study, was able to show that when you put mice in a restraint stress condition, which is putting them into a situation where they are enclosed and can’t escape, kind of like mouse prison, the explicit, minute functions of the mitochondria organize the overall physiological response and the ability to respond to stress at every level of organization. Let me restate that: when a mouse is under solitary confinement, Wallace’s group found that mitochondrial energy production quality facilitates the ability of its cells, organs, organ systems, and cognitive functions to respond to that stress. This takes shape in a few different forms in the data.

The mice in the study were modified in specific parts of their genomes to make mutant mice that would be bad at transporting the proteins necessary for energy production from the cell nucleus to the mitochondria. Other variants would specifically have defects in the electron transport chain, where electrons are transported from sugars and proteins in the mitochondria, terminating in oxygen to make carbon dioxide, and so on. Then, the researchers picked neurotransmitters, hormones, and other biomarkers that are indicative of the functioning of systems responsible for responding to stress in the mice. The systems in question in this study were the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis, and the study authors were interested in the levels of norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin, adrenaline, and other compounds generated as a result of the activity of these systems when the mice were placed in restraint stress.

What they found was that the mice with very specific defects of mitochondrial energy production experienced profound deleterious effects from the level of the cell all the way through to the entire organism. Their organs, their axes, and the entire mouse failed to adapt to the insult of restraint stress if the right defect in energy production was introduced. Some were more deleterious than others, but the overall point stands: if you can’t produce energy under stress, whether it’s psychological or physical materialist in its nature, you fail to adapt down to the level of your lived biology.

In my speculations, though this hasn’t been shown to be the case in humans yet, there is no reason to suspect that our own responses to psychological stress aren’t mitigated in the same or similar ways, and modern life in bureaucratic, systematic civilizations is one long constant stressor of domination that strips people of their autonomy. I think on a near societal scale we are experiencing learned helplessness from chronic psychological stress, and the people who have successfully evaded state control to self-determine their circumstances not only have a desire to do so, they also have real, material, physiological advantages, if the story I’ve woven together makes sense.

Conclusions

We’ve seen how hill peoples who are escaping (and continue to resist) early attempts at statecraft in valley regions used “escape crops” for self-determination of their way of life. This strategy coincides with the crops being nutritionally complete, and the interesting biological effect that rode along with these desires for freedom – residing at high altitude conferred benefits against cancer, heart disease, and other chronic illnesses, such that disease incidence drops by as much as 28% in the case of men living in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

This effect is probably mediated in two ways. First, mitochondrial resilience and biogenesis, and the proteins optimized to consume oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and energy, are all increased by adaptation to high altitude. Second, as a result of the lower oxygen pressure, lactate production from glycolytic energy pathways drops precipitously, which in my speculation, is probably responsible for the lower incidence of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. These diseases, especially diabetes, share the common diagnostic feature of increased lactic acid production coupled with lower serum (and breath) carbon dioxide.

Taking this into consideration, lastly, I’m going to enter the realm of pure speculation (to some) and say that, given Douglas Wallace’s intricate study of the modulation of the stress response in psychologically stressed rats, residing at altitude provides direct cognitive, energetic, and at times, survival competencies that aid the social behavior of peoples escaping state intrusion and domination. The complex forms of anti-authoritarian social organization, and the ability to address wide-ranging problems that for lowlanders requires e.g. centralized authority, 36 months, and a large budget, cannot happen if people don’t have a base level of food security, a good, healthy, plentiful environment, and thriving. Anything that aids this, as altitude seems to do, is indispensable. Stated more simply, residing at altitude confers energetic, health, and cognitive benefits that I think play a huge role for any group in the act of autonomous social organization. It’s not a coincidence that anti-authoritarians escaping the structure, simplicity, and violence of civilized life in a valley state live more complex lives at altitude – altitude aids their already existing desires.

Life may appear simpler when we lowland state inhabitants, embedded in our bureaucracies and technologies and structured urban life, hike up to a hill town to scenes of serene hill farms and animals and huts, but we who don’t have to make choices about how we get our water, how we get our food, and when a boss has outlived his welcome and can stop being a boss are the ones who actually have simpler lives. We’ve used the violence of bureaucracy and the state to artificially engineer possibilities out of existence. We have tamped down the complexity of our own lives with state bureaucracy and violence, but that will be a chat for another time.

As for what you can do with this information, besides running away from an oppressive valley civilization, acetazolamide, the B vitamins, aspirin, thyroid hormone, magnesium, have all been shown to increase oxygen consumption or carbon dioxide retention at sea level.

I personally try to spend at least a month every year in Santa Fe or Albuquerque, New Mexico, which are at 7200 feet and 5500 feet respectively.

Thanks for reading!

Bibliography

1. “Zomia (Region).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Dec. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_(region).
2. Scott, James C. Against The Grain: a Deep History of the Earliest States. Yale Univ Press, 2018.
3. Scott, James C. The Art of Not Being Governed: an Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press, 2011.
4. Dalton, Clayton. “Iron Is the New Cholesterol – Issue 67: Reboot.” Nautilus, 20 Dec. 2018, nautil.us/issue/67/reboot/iron-is-the-new-cholesterol.
5. Wallace, Douglas C. “A Mitochondrial Paradigm of Metabolic and Degenerative Diseases, Aging, and Cancer: A Dawn for Evolutionary Medicine.” Annual Review of Genetics, vol. 39, no. 1, 2005, pp. 359–407., doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.110304.095751.
6. Wallace, Douglas C. “Mitochondrial Diseases in Man and Mouse.” Science, vol. 283, no. 5407, 1999, pp. 1482–1488., doi:10.1126/science.283.5407.1482.
7. Martin Picard, Meagan J. McManus, Jason D. Gray, Carla Nasca, Cynthia Moffat, Piotr K. Kopinski, Erin L. Seifert, Bruce S. McEwen, Douglas C. Wallace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2015, 112 (48) E6614-E6623; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1515733112
8. Sapolsky, Robert. “Being Human: Life Lessons from the Frontiers of Science.” Guidebooks, guidebookstgc.snagfilms.com/1686_Being Human.pdf.
9. Kahn, Sandra, and Paul R. Ehrlich. Jaws the Story of a Hidden Epidemic. Stanford University Press, 2018.
10. “How to Change the Course of Human History.” Eurozine, 2 Mar. 2018, www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/.
11. Mortimer, Edward A., et al. “Reduction in Mortality from Coronary Heart Disease in Men Residing at High Altitude.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 296, no. 11, 1977, pp. 581–585., doi:10.1056/nejm197703172961101.
12. Weinberg, Clarice R., et al. “Altitude, Radiation, and Mortality from Cancer and Heart Disease.” Radiation Research, vol. 112, no. 2, 1987, p. 381., doi:10.2307/3577265.
13. Winkelmayer, Wolfgang C. “Altitude and All-Cause Mortality in Incident Dialysis Patients.” Jama, vol. 301, no. 5, 2009, p. 508., doi:10.1001/jama.2009.84.
14. Ramos, et al. “Patología Del Hombre Nativo De Las Grandes Alturas : Investigación De Las Causas De Muerte En 300 Autopsias.” PAHO/WHO IRIS, World Health Organization, iris.paho.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/15274.
15. Bekbolotova, A. K., et al. “Effect of High-Altitude Ecological and Experimental Stresses on the Platelet-Vascular Wall System.” Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 115, no. 6, 1993, pp. 636–639., doi:10.1007/bf00791144.
16. “Report of the WHO/PAHO/IBP Meeting of Investigators on Population Biology of Altitude.” World Health Organization, WHO/PAHO/IBP, hist.library.paho.org/English/ACHR/RES7_4.pdf.
17. Boljevic, S., et al. “Carbon dioxide inhibits the generation of active forms of oxygen in human and animal cells and the significance of the phenomenon in biology and medicine.” Vojnosanitetski pregled 53.4 (1996): 261-274.
18. Apple, Sam. “An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/magazine/warburg-effect-an-old-idea-revived-starve-cancer-to-death.html.
19. “Warburg Effect (Oncology).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology).
20. Ou, L. C., and S. M. Tenney. “Properties of mitochondria from hearts of cattle acclimatized to high altitude.” Respiration physiology 8.2 (1970): 151-159.
21. Shertzer, H. G., and J. Cascarano. “Mitochondrial alterations in heart, liver, and kidney of altitude-acclimated rats.” American Journal of Physiology-Legacy Content 223.3 (1972): 632-636.
22. Burton, Alan C. “Cancer and altitude. Does intracellular pH regulate cell division?.” European Journal of Cancer (1965)11.5 (1975): 365-371.
23. Peat, Raymond F. “A Biophysical Approach to Altered Consciousness.” Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry 4 (1975): 189-97.
24. Clayton, P.; Rowbotham, J. How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 1235-1253.

You can now subscribe to Mutual Exchange Radio on iTunes, Stitcher, and Spotify.

Today’s guest is Maggie McNeil, an author, journalist, blogger, sex worker, and expert on sex work. Maggie has written a series of short stories on sex work, Ladies of the Night,  runs her own blog, The Honest Courtesan, and has had her writings featured in outlets such as The Washington Post, Reason Magazine and Cato Unbound.

Most recently, she was featured prominently in the documentary The War on Whores, which you can rent on Vimeo. Today we discussed the legal and moral issues surrounding sex work in which Maggie gave her strongest case for decriminalization and responded to some common objections, as well as the social and moral implications of its decriminalization and normalization. You can tell that Maggie really knows the empirical literature on this topic and that made this an especially informative conversation. I hope you learned as much as I did.

Next month, tune in to hear our interview with Lyn Ulbricht. For those unfamiliar with the Silk Road case, Lyn is Ross Ulbricht’s mother and she became a crusader for due process after his 2013 arrest for developing the dark net trading site. In this episode, we consider issues of due process, the precedents set by the Silk Road case, and the right to privacy. An important conversation for anyone living in the Internet age! 

In the meantime, head over to the C4SS Patreon  and consider supporting this project. From there, you can support this podcast and other C4SS projects by making a monthly pledge of $5 or more. And we’ve extended the opportunity to be listed as an Associate Producer on the show! Anyone who pledges $10 per month or more will get a shout out in the credits of Episode 4 — and those who pledge $20 or more will gain access to additional content from our guests and scholars.

Thank you for your support, and look out for more fun prizes for our patrons coming soon!

Come evitare che i porci pascolino tra i beni comuni della conoscenza

Di Asem. Originale pubblicato l’undici marzo 2019 con il titolo General Intellect as a Vanguard: Keeping the Pigs from Grazing in the Knowledge Commons. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Non è un caso se quando in documenti o discussioni formali si parla di brevetti e copyright questi vengono sempre etichettati come “proprietà intellettuale” e quasi mai semplicemente “proprietà”. Definirli proprietà causerebbe confusione con altre forme di proprietà privata, come la terra, le auto, le azioni. In questo caso, la proprietà è governata da tutt’altro regime che, se applicato a brevetti e idee, ridurrebbe il loro valore di mercato a zero. Esempio: copiare un auto parcheggiata e andare via con la copia non viola la proprietà privata. Oppure, fingere di avere il cellulare guasto e chiederne uno in prestito al primo che passa per fare una chiamata urgente, farne dieci copie con il replicatore di Star Trek e offrirne una per 99,99 dollari è certamente scortese, ma non è un furto né una violazione della proprietà. Quando si crea un regime di proprietà intellettuale intervengono interessi di classe che fanno di tutte le erbe un fascio, proprietà intellettuale e proprietà privata, con chiare connotazioni che nelle democrazie liberali sono associate alla libertà personale. Se dovessimo dare una definizione più accurata del regime legale della proprietà intellettuale dovremmo parlare di cose come la Commissione Centrale per le Normative sui Permessi Esclusivi e l’Utilizzo del Pensiero Prodotto dall’Uomo.

John Locke sosteneva, analizzando la proprietà, che se nella Bibbia è scritto che il mondo è un dono di Dio all’umanità, nessuno può rivendicare la proprietà di un pezzo di terra. L’unico modo per appropriarsi di un pezzo di mondo consiste dunque nel mescolare il proprio sudore con le risorse della natura. Secondo Locke, Dio mescolò il suo sudore con l’energia e creò il mondo in sette giorni, e fu così gentile da cedere gratuitamente i diritti d’uso ai suoi inquilini senza l’obbligo di pagare l’affitto al proprietario, da allora conosciuto come “Il Signore”. Questo significa che la teoria liberale della proprietà si basa sul postulato di una gigantesca economia del dono partita dall’azione di un dio cristiano, e da qui deve partire l’individuo.

Quanto alla proprietà intellettuale, al fine di appropriarsi di un’idea, le “risorse naturali” da mescolare con il sudore non sono dono di Dio, ma vengono dal sudore e dall’intelligenza di altri uomini e donne, le cui origini risalgono ai primordi delle società umane, in campi che vanno dal linguaggio alla matematica alla filosofia a tutte le scienze e tutte le arti. E se è vero che sono morti, è pur vero che hanno centinaia di milioni di discendenti che hanno ereditato i loro diritti di proprietà, e non tutti sono generosi come Dio, anzi sono così carogne che Dio ha promesso di mandarli all’inferno. Seguendo questa logica, chiunque chieda il riconoscimento di un brevetto dovrebbe prima pagare le materie prime intellettuali, cosa che richiederebbe un conto chilometrico da trasportare con un camion, creando così posti di lavoro. Se così avvenisse, l’attuale proprietà intellettuale collasserebbe. Se non fosse che questa non serve a proteggere genericamente i diritti di proprietà, ma per beneficiare selettivamente la classe dei porci in doppiopetto e riempire le loro dispense, come ogni altro “diritto” di proprietà utilizzato dal capitalismo.

La proprietà intellettuale è la benzina che fa andare il capitalismo di oggi. Secondo una generosa stima, rappresenterebbe un terzo del pil americano. Ma è anche il regime di proprietà più facile da abrogare. Niente sceriffi con la pistola che eseguono uno sfratto, ma un semplice voto del congresso. Anche così, però, non avverrà mai. Abrogare le leggi sulla proprietà intellettuale significherebbe far scomparire un terzo dell’economia in un secondo, il più rapido trasferimento di ricchezza nella storia, e se in un solo giorno scompare un terzo dell’economia, questa si trascina dietro tutto il complesso finanziario e industriale. L’abolizione immediata della proprietà intellettuale negli Stati Uniti non passa per la testa di nessun politico dotato di un minimo di due neuroni. Ma questa non è una ragione per fare disfattismo.

La proprietà intellettuale, intesa come frutto del lavoro del proprio cervello, ha per natura un valore di scambio pari a zero. Anche se è la cura del cancro nei bambini o l’elisir di lunga vita, una merce intellettuale in un mercato davvero libero può essere venduta solo una volta prima che se ne facciano infinite copie facendo crollare il prezzo a zero. L’unica eccezione alla regola si avrebbe se un produttore potesse raggiungere la soglia della redditività con la vendita di un solo esemplare. Come possibilità realistica, resta il lavoro intellettuale in forma di lavoro intellettuale salariato, non di merce intellettuale da scambiare nel mercato. Questo non significa che un prodotto dell’intelletto non può avere valore per il suo produttore, ma solo che quest’ultimo non può tenere per sé tale valore. Esempio comune è lo sviluppatore di software open source o lo scienziato che accetta di lavorare gratis per produrre qualcosa di valore e condividerlo liberamente, salvo poi utilizzare il fatto per migliorare la sua reputazione e guadagnare come consulente. Anche così, chi produce non guadagna dalla sua opera iniziale, ma dalla possibilità di firmare un contratto per un lavoro intellettuale salariato, lavorando di più ma con una paga. Come la critica che le femministe fanno del mercato, per cui fare le faccende di casa e allevare figli, pur essendo l’equivalente di un lavoro a tempo pieno, vengono sfruttati come lavoro gratis affinché il capitalismo possa funzionare, così anche la proprietà intellettuale non ha una giusta collocazione nel modello del mercato. Sia il lavoro intellettuale che quello casalingo possono essere usati contro il mercato, o almeno contro la centralità del mercato, perché questi ambiti, che combinati rappresentano la maggior parte del valore in una società e in un’economia che cammina, non sono riconosciuti dalla tradizionale logica del mercato.

Quando ci si accorge che i beni intellettuali hanno un valore di scambio pari a zero, ecco che si comincia a chiedere di creare artificialmente un regime di scarsità, così che un bene intellettuale sia vendibile ad un certo prezzo e non sia disponibile gratis a tutti. Viene messo su un monopolio normativo governativo con il fine di controllare il copyright e le licenze d’uso, allargando il mercato ad aree in cui non potrebbe funzionare altrimenti, il tutto ironicamente in nome della libertà di mercato. Il ragionamento non è molto diverso da quello di chi espropria un bene comune per concentrarne la proprietà nelle mani di un singolo. E si giustifica l’atto con un ragionamento simile: non facendo così, il bestiame pascolerebbe liberamente fino a distruggere il bene comune, quindi occorre chiuderne l’accesso e trasformarlo in proprietà privata. Ovviamente, i tanti esempi di comunità che gestiscono risorse comuni in maniera molto efficiente ed equa vengono ignorati. Meglio affidarsi ad economisti guidati da interessi di classe, perché quando mai i contadini sono in grado di gestire la propria vita!

Nei Grundrisse Marx parla dell’Intelletto Generale come di un insieme di capacità pratiche e di conoscenze tecnico-scientifiche usate ai fini della produzione assieme a lavoro e capitale. Considerato lo stato dell’Europa ottocentesca, è facile intuire perché gli dedica solo qualche paragrafo e non diversi volumi come Das Kapital. Nel primo secolo della rivoluzione industriale non esisteva niente che fosse paragonabile alla legge di Moore, secondo cui un microchip raddoppia il numero di transistor e dimezza il prezzo ogni due anni, e secondo cui le macchine crescono nell’ordine delle migliaia in meno di un decennio. Un esempio moderno dell’intelletto generale è considerata la produzione paritaria basata su beni comuni, i cui maggiori esempi sono Linux e Wikipedia. Generalmente, questo sviluppo può esser fatto risalire a quattro correnti e movimenti sociali, ognuna con le sue caratteristiche uniche: il software libero, il software open source, i creative commons, e per finire un’ambigua disorganizzazione delle violazioni della proprietà intellettuale, che va dagli hacker che negli anni ottanta distribuivano software sprotetto per dimostrare le loro capacità, a tre attivisti svedesi padri di pirate bay, ma che comprende anche il tipo del negozio dietro l’angolo che fa da buon samaritano vendendo Rolex contraffatti cinesi sottobanco a clienti che non possono permettersi gli originali.

Aggirare la proprietà intellettuale è probabilmente il sistema più efficace per picconare l’attuale legislazione. Se il Pirate Party fa un lavoro ammirevole nella UE, in realtà è stato bittorrent a dare scossoni all’industria dell’intrattenimento offrendo gratis agli adolescenti di tutto il mondo gli album di Linkink Park. Per dieci anni, cartelli industriali come la RIAA e la MPAA hanno fatto lobby al congresso senza buoni risultati. Kevin Carson ci ha anche scritto sopra un libro. Niente di strano se un domani la gente piraterà motori d’aereo e ogni altra cosa in garage.

Ma aggirare la proprietà intellettuale ha i suoi limiti. Internet ha dato un colpo tremendo all’industria dell’intrattenimento, che non si è mai più ripresa, ma è anche vero che è ancora un’industria da un miliardo di dollari e che nessuna alternativa ha preso il suo posto. Si è comunque riusciti a dare più spazio ad artisti squattrinati. Resta però il fatto che Netflix ha un valore di mercato di miliardi e il capitalismo, come sempre, si è adattato alla situazione. Gli otto dollari al mese saranno pure stati meno di quello che la gente prima pagava a Blockbuster, ma sono pur sempre un’estorsione. Il prezzo naturale è zero.

Entro l’attuale sistema della proprietà intellettuale, il capitalismo è riuscito a far leva sulle leggi così che aziende come Netflix hanno vantaggi rispetto ad altri sistemi per la distribuzione di film. Ad esempio, utilizza un sito web gestibile con poche centinaia di dollari. Ora, Netflix vende comodità, non accesso, permette a Hollywood di fare ancora profitti, ma solo perché i consumatori preferiscono spendere qualche dollaro piuttosto che passare dieci minuti tra siti russi raffazzonati. Lo stesso vale per Spotify. I consumatori preferiscono spendere pochi dollari perché è la soluzione più economica sull’app store, e perché nell’app store non è ammessa la pirateria informatica. Possibilità extralegali esistono, ma non sono comode.

O la produzione di beni fisici. Sembra che prima o poi si potranno produrre beni industriali a basso costo in garage; già ora con una dozzina di ingegneri è possibile stampare un razzo in 3D. Entro il 2050, gli impianti industriali saranno dominio di giovani ragazze che busseranno alla porta: “Buongiorno, le interessa un forno fusorio per 19 dollari e 99 e una donazione per l’ospedale pediatrico Santa Mariella?” Ma questo non basta a generare la rivoluzione della produzione casalinga di cui parla Kevin; il capitalismo, benché azzoppato, si adatterebbe, troverebbe strozzature o le creerebbe. L’industria dell’auto, ad esempio, verrebbe mangiata viva se si affermassero i macchinari economici a controllo numerico e le stampanti 3D; niente potrebbe impedire ai rivenditori di stamparsi le proprie Ford e Toyota. Il problema sono le leggi, che ti mandano in galera se guidi senza l’omologazione. L’industria dell’auto lotterà fino alla morte per mantenere le omologazioni, arriverebbe a finanziarle pur di assicurarsi che ogni auto sulla strada paghi l’obolo a Detroit. Aggirare la proprietà intellettuale farebbe danni enormi a chi possiede copyright e brevetti, ne azzererebbe gli investimenti, ma sono le leggi sulla proprietà intellettuale a tenere in piedi le grandi aziende, e a permettere loro di fare miliardi. Bisogna eliminare la proprietà intellettuale!

Copyleft è un trucco che mina la proprietà intellettuale, usa le leggi per impedire che venga applicata. Il Movimento per il Software Libero, partito negli anni ottanta, nasce come rivolta degli hacker dentro le aziende e le università contro i loro stessi datori di lavoro che si appropriavano di tutto il software prodotto da loro. Da lì è nato il sistema GNU, software libero che ognuno può modificare e distribuire liberamente. Dopo un buon avvio, da qualche tempo GNU è fermo. Attualmente, l’unico componente importante dell’ecosistema GNU ampiamente usato è il compilatore gcc.

Il resto del movimento è stato accalappiato da Open Source, suo cugino minore. Il movimento è stato fondato da una fazione di furbi libertari di destra entro il movimento per il software libero, libertari che apprezzavano la superiorità della produzione collaborativa ma non volevano far parte di un movimento contro il capitalismo aziendale. Il progetto “Open Source” è pertanto diventato la versione amica delle aziende, che l’hanno adottato e che ha permesso loro di assumere gli hacker per far loro armeggiare il loro software in cambio di un salario. Oggi Open Source significa incentivi gratis per progetti costosi.

Quanto a Creative Commons, è imbarazzante dire che è il meno efficace tra tutti. L’idea è di Lawrence Lessig, liberal convinto che nel 2016 si è anche candidato per le presidenziali americane con un chiaro programma per prendere soldi con la politica. Lessig pensa che la condivisione di file sia una sorta di furto, e che ciò che occorra non sia l’abolizione della proprietà intellettuale ma un sistema di licenze più equo scritto dai legislatori. Attualmente, creative commons è solo un visto per artisti che vogliono distribuire gratis quello che fanno senza che le aziende ci lucrino sopra.

Il software libero, dopo qualche anno di militanza contro le compagnie di software, si è ridimensionato, il movimento per il software libero è stato cooptato dalla Silicon Valley, e creative commons è a un punto morto. L’errore comune è il fatto di non aver affrontato la questione dell’organizzazione dei lavoratori!

La lotta dei lavoratori è antica e mutevole. L’organizzazione dei lavoratori ha assunto tante forme: dalle corporazioni degli artigiani ai primi sindacati che davano una voce alle manovalanze, come l’IWW e più tardi la CIO nel pieno della grande depressione, fino ai lavoratori automobilistici neri di Detroit che si univano contro i vertici sindacali. Anche qui serve l’organizzazione dei lavoratori, perché copyleft non prevede una loro remunerazione ma li lascia alla mercé di sponsorizzazioni aziendali, donazioni o al volontariato. Se la conoscenza generale è considerata bene comune, il suo accesso deve essere limitato al fine di tenere fuori i parassiti, come le entità aziendale. Ad onor del vero, Richard Stallman dice qualcosa di simile nel manifesto della GNU, ovvero che dovrebbe essere governata in modo da mantenere il libero accesso, ma ritiene il pubblico dominio insufficiente a garantire ciò. Da qui la nascita delle licenze copyleft.

GNU non è nel pubblico dominio. Chiunque può modificare e ridistribuire GNU, ma a nessun distributore è permesso restringerne l’ulteriore ridistribuzione. Questo significa che le modifiche proprietarie non sono permesse. Voglio essere sicuro che tutte le versioni di GNU restino libere.

Ma a quanto pare non ha ancora risposto alla questione dei lavoratori. Dare pari accesso a GNU a tutti, comprese le aziende, non pareggia il campo delle possibilità a causa della questione della politica prefigurativa. Occorrerebbero beni comuni che siano inclusivi per la maggior parte e esclusivi nei confronti dei predatori come gli agenti del capitale.

La differenza principale tra l’intelletto generale di Marx e la produzione paritaria basata su beni comuni è che il primo è considerato componente integrato del modo di produzione tradizionale. La produzione basata su beni comuni, nei casi più elaborati, è considerata una forma di lavoro postcapitalista che opera in parallelo con forme produttive tradizionali. Sono entrambe forme utili ma, dal punto di vista del lavoro, la produzione basata su beni comuni è un parassita dell’altra. Il capitalismo si appropria di progetti comunitari e li usa per abbassare i costi produttivi socializzando il rischio, a danno di chi non ha un sistema che lo protegga dall’altrui azione predatoria.

L’intelletto generale dovrebbe agire da avanguardia dei lavoratori: i diritti di proprietà intellettuale devono essere riconosciuti e registrati come bene comune tramite una sorta di licenza copyleft, che come una trappola permetterebbe l’ingresso ma non l’uscita.

Questa avanguardia dovrebbe essere un’organizzazione ad ombrello che gestisce la governance in maniera simile a come fanno la Free Software Foundation, Mozilla o la Wikimedia Foundation, con membri che pagano per accedere all’intero bene comune e l’autogoverno dello stesso. Questa organizzazione offrirebbe una serie ben articolata di strumenti open source per la produzione e piattaforme online per coordinare e organizzare tale produzione. Le industrie più facilmente sviluppabili sarebbero quelle che investono di più in proprietà intellettuale. L’industria farmaceutica si ritroverebbe a competere con una grossa organizzazione in possesso di una serie infinita di medicinali con brevetto copyleft, medicinali facilmente accessibili a gran parte della popolazione ma non all’organizzazione stessa. In realtà, questa “organizzazione” è un fantasma, è fatta di tanti piccoli produttori di farmaci che producono in piccoli laboratori indipendenti o in industrie gestite dagli stessi lavoratori in cooperativa. I microprocessori potrebbero essere progettati e modificati online con un’organizzazione apposita, ma solo le fabbriche di proprietà dei lavoratori potrebbero produrli. La concorrenza sarebbe permessa ma solo entro il bene comune. Le officine automobilistiche cooperative potrebbero produrre pezzi in piccole unità produttive distribuite sul territorio in zone deindustrializzate per poi mandare questi pezzi ad un centro di assemblaggio gestito da loro stessi e quindi ottenere l’omologazione. Singoli consumatori potrebbero inviare i propri dati personali ad un cloud criptato, così che chi fa ricerca sull’intelligenza artificiale disporrebbe di dati migliori rispetto alle grosse aziende in lotta tra loro per creare ognuna il suo archivio di dati. Con un insieme di norme semplicissime, tutti i diritti sulla proprietà intellettuale verrebbero ceduti al bene comune con registrazione copyleft. Prendi quello che vuoi e lo rendi migliorato, senza chiedere.

Sorgerebbe ovviamente la necessità di compensare il lavoro intellettuale sennò il bene comune non durerebbe, e questo avverrebbe con un sistema economico interno allo stesso bene comune. Ma non dovrebbe basarsi su transazioni, perché altrimenti ricreerebbe la logica di mercato. Potrebbe avere un meccanismo condivisorio per cui chi produce beni fisici dà una quota del guadagno al bene comune così da tenerlo in piedi, ma senza farne una tassa, e senza dar vita a sistemi di tipo parlamentare che decidano sulla distribuzione delle risorse. Ogni attore avrebbe il diritto di spendere la sua quota su qualunque altra persona che contribuisca al bene comune, donarla a chi vuole purché rispetti delle norme generiche decise democraticamente.

Questo bene comune dell’intelletto generale non dovrebbe limitarsi all’azione indipendente, ma far parte di un più ampio movimento fatto di cooperative e attività artigianali connesse tra loro. Chi ancora lavora nell’industria tradizionale non dovrebbe essere visto come concorrente, ma come potenziale partecipante. Si potrebbero mettere da parte fondi di solidarietà per far fronte ad importanti scioperi, cooperative alimentari potrebbero donare alimenti a chi è stato licenziato per attività sindacali, e le cooperative di lavoratori potrebbero fare acquisti collettivi in attività commerciali specifiche. I lavoratori potrebbero fare rivendicazioni che abbassino il valore dell’azienda, salvo poi acquistare l’attività con pochi soldi, perché più l’azienda perde profitti meno vale e più è facile acquisirla. Chi andrebbe a comprare un’azienda i cui dipendenti hanno una cattiva reputazione? E una volta acquisita così l’azienda, i lavoratori potrebbero associarsi al bene comune. Il tutto potrebbe essere facilitato da una banca di credito cooperativo, che decide se concedere o meno mutui sulla base di particolari calcoli come il potenziale margine di profitto dopo l’acquisizione da parte degli ex dipendenti.

I lavoratori dovrebbero considerare l’intelletto generale un’infrastruttura di base, qualcosa che permette di riconoscere i diritti di proprietà intellettuale e distribuirli liberamente a tutti, ma non ai detentori di brevetti e capitali. Sarebbe un’evoluzione delle tradizioni del socialismo gildista più la democrazia industriale e il movimento tradizionale antiaziendale dei lavoratori. Quando era agli inizi, Steve Ballmer della Microsoft definì Linux un cancro perché le sue licenze GPL, diffusissime, obbligavano i software connessi ad avere ugualmente la licenza GPL. L’intelletto generale dovrebbe essere configurato in modo simile, come un cancro che si estende sul corpo del capitale, qualcosa per cui i politici precipitano nel panico e sono costretti ad allentare la legislazione sulla proprietà intellettuale, indebolire il movimento dei lavoratori sparandosi ad un piede. Altrimenti potrebbero morire di morte lenta aspettando qualcosa che non verrà. Una delle due.

If you follow the news about Russia, then you probably know what’s happening right now with opposition and political activists. Putin’s dictatorship focuses on torture and imprisonment of everyone who disagrees with authoritarian anti-social politics. If somebody is struggling against total poverty and unfairness, then they will face repression from  government structures such as FSB (the modern incarnation of the KGB), the Centre for Combating Extremism (so-called Центр «Э», most of the torture is organized by them), the police, and contempt from conservative people. The only way to stay in power is terror. Putin is trying to save the state capitalist system, which makes him and his oligarch friends stronger. Anarchists have become one of the main targets of the repression machine, because they seem to be the most dangerous for the state. There are several noteworthy cases that I would like to review.

The Network

In October 2017, the FSB fabricated a large-scale criminal case against anarchists and anti-fascists, whom they declared members of the terrorist organisation called “The Network.” The FSB claims that the detainees planned to arrange explosions during the presidential elections and the World Cup. The defendants claim that they were subjected to torture, during which they were forced to memorize testimony that they were members of the terrorist network “The Network.” Some of them got abducted by FSB, like Viktor Filinkov. Viktor is a computer programmer and anti-fascist, he was arrested on 23 January 2018 at Petersburg Pulkovo airport. FSB beat Filinkov up in a dark-blue minivan, shocked him through his handcuffs, on the back of his head, on his back, and on his groin. After all troubles and torments, there are ten antifascists behind the bars. Those arrested face from five years up to a life sentence in prison. They still experience repressions inside the jail.

“People’s Self-Defense” Anarchists

“People’s Self-Defense” is a socio-political organization whose ideology is libertarian communism, which is a combination of socially oriented anarchism and non-authoritarian marxism.

February 2018, Crimean FSB arrested anarchist Yevgeny Karakashev. He is accused of “inciting hatred” and “justification of terrorism,” or in other words, posting a video on Russian social media page VKontakte. Karakashev is currently under arrest.

November 2018, anarchist and animal rights activist Vyacheslav Lukichev was detained in Kaliningrad. For 36 hours, he was deprived of sleep and food and tortured. The FSB demanded that he confess to administering the “Prometheus” telegram channel and publishing a post in support of Mikhail Zhlobitsky (a 17-year-old anarchist who blew himself up in the Arkhangelsk FSB building). On March 14, Vyacheslav Lukichev was fined 300,000 rubles ($4,600). He was found guilty of justifying terrorism.

February 2019, in Moscow, the FSB and spetsnaz conducted mass searches and detentions of anarchists. As a result of searches, at least 11 people were detained. Federal TV channels have reported the detention of “anarchist terrorists” from the People’s Self-Defense movement. Among the detainees, Azat Miftakhov, while being tortured by the FSB, was instructed to confess  to the manufacture of explosives. Azat was beaten and tortured with an electric screwdriver, but he refuses to testify against himself. Another detainee, Daniel Galkin, was tortured by a taser. He was told to testify against Miftahov, agree to cooperate with the special services, and also to give a compromising anarchist interview to Channel One (Первый Канал). By evening, all the detainees were released, except for Azat Miftakhov. Azat was abducted inside a police station right in front of his lawyer. For almost two days, no one could find Miftakhov. Investigators refused to provide information on his whereabouts to lawyers. Finally, on the evening of February 2, he was found in a detention facility in the city of Balashikha.

Being an anarchist, I personally fear that the political police may kidnap me at any time, start torturing me soullessly, and the real criminals and terrorists will never answer for this. What we have today in Russia is a reflection of the Franco regime in Spain in an even worse form. The FSB will always gloat on anarchists, using them to sow fear and horror among the people. Putin’s regime has always rested on a society of spectacle and repressions against the opposition, but people’s hate is getting stronger and stronger. Anarchists around the world should enhance solidarity with Russian activists, and only mutual-aid strengthens people. The next wave of torture and batons will be worse, it can happen any day.

The allegations in the Operation Varsity Blues college admissions scandal outline a seemingly unlimited trove of dishonesty that wealthy parents have been using to get their children into top universities. Bribery, special accommodations under false pretenses, and even entirely made up athletic or classroom achievements, are some of the ways parents have tried to get their children into elite schools.

Yet the admission process at elite schools doesn’t require such fraud to favor the rich. Even when not overtly incorporating legacy preference policies favoring wealthy alumni families, this process can be gamed by those with economic means even without outright cheating.  Using fortunes that were themselves usually earned not through extraordinary intelligence, creativity, or hard work, but through a similar gaming of the political system via rent-seeking and corporate welfare, wealthy parents already have ways to ensure their children go to top schools. Meanwhile, graduates of more affordable community and public colleges are considered less worthy, even if they’ve worked harder than students at top schools in order to graduate.

Elite schools have many problems, but one cannot deny that they have a valuable academic product to offer, despite the fact that higher tuition and the evidently corrupt admission process have dissuaded many from applying there. But everyone could attend the Ivy League for free. Some years ago a Canadian man decided to attend the top universities of the United States for four years. He studied at Yale, Brown, UC Berkeley, and Stanford to mention a few. He just showed up classes nobody made him any trouble.

Meritocracy is the biggest American myth. As a narrative, it works to keep poor people quiet. The narrative says if people work hard and play by the rules they could be on the top. But this is a lie since 40% of Americans are one missed paycheck away from poverty despite working many more hours than their counterparts in other countries. Public education is no equalizer: a Boston Globe report on Boston Public School valedictorians found recurrent poverty even the ones who managed to graduate from college.

Higher ranking universities have specialized in producing politicians and CEOs who work to preserve the corporate-state in financing and directing the American Empire. The economist Murray Rothbard argued that, from a libertarian perspective, all universities including the elite private institutions are heavily tax-funded, so following the homestead principle: students, faculty, and workers who mix their labor with the stolen land should be able to take over the colleges from Board of Trustees and professional bureaucracy that only works against the interests of the community. Let’s give people all over America and the world the opportunity to study at top institutions. Free tuition is not enough in order to have a truly free education, it is time to tear down the campus wall.

Sadly, there are still some people — people within the activist left, even, who are pacifistic. When I describe someone as pacifistic, I do not only mean that they are intentional, explicit pacifists — though, yes, all pacifists are pacifistic. By ‘pacifistic’ I don’t mean that they are explicit pacifists, but that they are irrationally (in the instrumental sense) averse to violence. Perhaps an example will help.

I went to a protest, once upon a time. It was a protest against police violence. The object was to get in to see the mayor and make him aware of how we felt about the behavior of his armed goons. There were somewhere around 90 of us when I arrived at the scene. People were masked up, and they were passing a megaphone back and forth, aiming it at various windows inside the building where they thought that the mayor might be. It’s not actually clear to me, even now, what their criteria for deciding his location was.

Eventually, people made the decision to attempt to enter the building. However, there were two problems that we encountered in doing this. Both of them are illustrative of wider, more abstract issues. The first problem was that there were two police officers inside, guarding the entrance. They wore brown, demilitarized uniforms and had no visible guns. The second problem was that we lost about 2/3rds of the group, in the process of doing this — I counted around 30 after we were inside.

The first problem was interesting because there were so many of us relative to them — we outnumbered them fifteen to one. Still though, the group was stopped dead by the checkpoint, as though there were some invisible wall that we dared not cross. They started milling about, and passing the megaphone around to make speeches. Several demanded that the cops let us pass. Why make such demands? How would they stop us? If we all simply surged forward, we could have taken them. I did not go on my own, because I was sure that that would be a two-on-one battle and I would be arrested. It occurred to me that maybe others were having this thought, and we needed to coordinate a general push. I went around to those of them that I knew. They were fighters, all of them. One was even regularly mocked for his random, largely-pointless excesses. Another was known to give weapons training to other activists. These were, at least ostensibly, men of action with —if nothing else— reputations to protect. They each made their excuses, but encouraged me to rush through. They seemed optimistic, as though this were not a transparent cop-out on their part. Eventually, four more unarmed police officers showed up, but we still outnumbered them five-to-one.

The second problem is interesting because it raises the question of why those people were even there in the first place. They were almost all masked up! What was the point of masking up if you had no actual intent to do anything illegal? Is the black bandana a mere flag to fly? A simple uniform, devoid of non-symbolic purpose? As we walked past these people, these sidewalk-sitting faux-radicals, I spoke to them. I motioned and cajoled, telling them what we were doing, telling them to come with. Surely, after all, this was what they were here for. They must simply be motionless due to confusion. Some mumbled excuses. Most were silently confused, looking at me with a helpless awkwardness, as though I were speaking an unfamiliar language. Only one or two joined us as we went in.

Eventually, the police pushed us out of the lobby. Perhaps three or four of us gave some token resistance. The police seemed terrified of even this amount of push-back. One was heard muttering “…no, no, no, no, no…” over and over again, in a near-trance-like state. Simple shouts and face-coverings seemed to make their blood run cold. Still, it was not enough, and the protest was ended without much effort being expended on either side.

Before this day, I never much believed the rhetoric around ‘the-cop-inside-your-head’. I thought that was just a way for the overly edgy accused their political allies of cowardice. Now, though, I understand — the foremost weapon that authority, the state, and (most concretely) the police have is our fear of them, and our learned helplessness — our deeply-ingrained expectation that we can only act with their permission.

Thus, even though the majority of modern radicals abjure the idea of pacifism as ridiculous, they still act like pacifists do. They are afraid of the violence of authority, and —so much worse— afraid of their own violence. This will not do. We need to not just reject pacifism with our words, we need to also reject it with our actions. We have given up pacifism, and now we must give up being pacifistic.

All politics, including anarchist politics, is organized violence. Politics consists of theories about how society should operate, as well as the practice of making society operate that way. Society is an abstraction. It does not really exist. Individuals exist. This is true in much the same sense that a pile of sand does not exist, but the grains of sand do. “Society” is just the word that we use to refer to large groups of interacting individuals. To make any given individual interact or not interact in a certain way, you must either convince them to (or not to) interact that way or use some sort of material incentive. You cannot convince everyone of any given principle, even the most sensible one, which means every society ends up employing some material incentives: either the offer of a good, the offer of a service, or a threat.

The offer of any good is only meaningful if you can actually withhold the good if you want to. If you are unwilling (or unable) to use violence on the individual to stop them from taking the good, they can always eventually take it. Even if you are especially clever about withholding the good (for example, placing it inside a locked box and refusing to tell them the combination), they can always use violence on you (for example, beating you with a hammer until you tell them the code) if you are not willing to use violence to stop them. They can also eventually brute force through whatever non-violent defenses you have (for example, they can weld their way through the box) if you refuse to stop them.

The offer of a service can always be turned against you too, as violence can be used to make you give up said service for free. If you refuse to, or cannot, defend yourself you are liable to be enslaved whenever convenient; all due credit to the late, great Fred Hampton for the paraphrase. A threat is something that a pacifist (being someone who has publicly stated their refusal to engage in violence) can never credibly make.

Therefore, pacifists (and their unconscious kin, the pacifistic) are powerless over whatever portion of people they cannot convince to follow their ideals. Because of this, pacifism is nothing more than a public announcement by the pacifist that they will be subject to the whims of whoever is good enough at violence to beat out all other competitors to the ownership of said pacifist.

Excepting the pacifists themselves, society is composed of mutually-violent individuals attempting to use their violence to organize society however they see fit: along capitalist, communist, anarchist, fascist, ect. lines. All politics is the outcome of the process whereby factions of these violent individuals agree on how they would like to use — or withhold — their violence to affect society.

Thus: all politics, including anarchist politics, is organized violence. As pacifists are incapable of having an effect on the outcome of this organized violence, it is a contradiction in terms to say that pacifists can be political. Pacifists must either admit that they are lying, admit that they are incapable of having political opinions, or loosen their pacifism — at least to the minimum level of attempting to convince others to do violence on their behalf.

Pacifists, especially liberal pacifists, commonly do this. They will protest with the intent of implying that, if their protests are ignored, someone would engage in violence to accomplish their supposedly peaceful ends. They will vote, with the intent of causing new laws to come into being that will be enforced (violently) by police. They will strike, with the implication that someone will defend them if they are attacked. Still, though, they deny their own ability to engage in violence and attempt to deny what they are doing — and, of course, minimize their own political potential.

The pacifistic, though they do not make the same pronouncements as the pacifists, will suffer the same fate. The pacifistic currently will fight the fash, as the fash are as yet mostly devoid of the symbols of authority. They must go beyond that, and fight the police as well. They must give up the hangovers of liberalism, and see the world as it truly is: a grand struggle, one that they do not have the ability to escape. The pacifistic must join in, or else they will be just as useless as the pacifists.

In analogue to Marx’s concept of alienation of labor, let me put forth my own — the parallel idea of an alienation of violence. This is a product not of living in a capitalist society, necessarily — but, rather, of living in any statist society — regardless of its economic organization. If one is punished for defending oneself, if one is constantly told that one can expect for agents of the state to protect them from violence, and if one is told that what agents of the state do is never violent but instead only looks like it… well, one can easily come to the idea that violence could never impinge on one’s life. You might think that you are incapable of exerting violence (having been taught that you will be immediately stopped) and that others are incapable of exerting violence on you (for much the same reason). From there, it is easy to see how someone might come to the conclusion that their capacity for violence is not a part of them — they could easily come to see violence as a very occasional thing to be avoided, rather than an intrinsic part of life.

Denying their part in the violent struggle that is intrinsic to life, they deny their own existence — the pacifist is passive — and, thus, the state apparatus consigns yet another victim to learned helplessness and living death. For those of us still living, still proudly violent, we are consigned to hear them still — to listen to these ghastly pleas from the politically-dead to join them in their passive nothingness and pointless lifestylism.

The pacifistic are those that listen to these siren-songs, even as they deny doing so publicly. They are those who have not yet killed the cop-inside-their-heads, though they say they hate him. They are those who are alienated from their violence. They are those who have not broken free from their learned helplessness. The funny thing about learned helplessness, though, is that it often only takes one counter-example to banish the teaching. In India, to this day, they often use tamed elephants to conduct logging operations. However, most of these elephants are caught as babies, and shackled with iron bonds as they grow. A baby elephant can’t break these shackles, but an adult one easily can. The elephant doesn’t know that, though. It just knows that it’s never been able to break its bonds before. Sometimes though, an adult elephant does break its bonds, on accident. When that happens, it becomes very hard to control the elephant. This generally results in some dipshits who thought they owned an elephant dying.

Anarchist bookfairs are one of the most interesting features of anarchist life.

A bookfair is immediately recognizable as hierarchical. There are the booksellers and there are the consumers. What separates the two is not merely the physicality of a table, but the capital investment it represents. Those distroing have usually been required to purchase space in the bookfair. But moreover they have had to invest in the things they are now trying to sell.

And these investments are often well beyond the means of a good percentage of the anarchists they attempt to sell to. A table for a day can cost between 50 and 200 dollars, and while it used to be the case that anarchist bookfairs would usually provide extensive outdoor space for free tabling or blanketing, this practice has unfortunately dried up. While the SF Bookfair for example used to have dozens of folks laying out goods on blankets for free when it took place in peninsula park, these days you see at most two or four packed in on the sidewalk or side of a building. Where buying a table inside was once an act of luxury and largesse toward the organizers, today it is more of a requisite.

Few squatters or punks have that kind of money to casually throw away, and so there’s immediately a very clear ordering provided by the tables. Age, wealth, and social capital are tangled up in various ways table to table, but the looming sense of difference and inaccessibility is palatable.

Whereas, once upon a time, kids would casually bring their personal zines or collections of pamphlets in order to make a few dozen bucks, this is now blocked by the expense of formal tables. Thus, the only anarchists who can afford to table are largely publishing houses, formal organizations, and a few well established artists.

And the anarchist publishing houses sit on tens of thousands or even millions of dollars of built up investment. Staffed by bored middle aged punks going through formulaic interactions they’ve repeated in city after city, with the same people. Ostensible political enemies see each other in town after town, a cultured civility bleeding slowly into an old boy’s network dedicated to maintaining and containing the anarchist milieu. Today the nihilist has the syndicalist’s back, tomorrow the platformist calls the insurrecto to give him a heads up about some “crazy feminists.” While the kids party or fuck off, the elder book-slingers meet up in fancier restaurants afterwards in large polite clusters, perhaps dragging along a few new apprentices, dangling the promises of elite membership to them. Money is spent casually, to the silent alienated terror of the poorer friends dragged along, and rareified politicking is engaged in shamelessly.

Grumbling and snark about “Anarchy Mall” is universal among the rank and file, but it doesn’t change anything about the structure of the affair.

“Alas,” comes the immediate saccharine refrain, “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

At every moment, in every square inch of an anarchist bookfair, the tension is apparent and laughed off. “Is anything you do under capitalism ethical? Is working or buying anything ethical? Of course not.” The bookfair is then seen as a kind of extension of the tensions and hypocrisies that we are forced into in our daily life, a space where we directly generate and replicate those tensions because, “what are you gonna do, you gotta earn a living.”

The problem here — and one of the core reasons that edifices of social capital are able to be built in backrooms of the anarchist milieu — is that a confused and impossible ideal is used to blind and derail all inquiry into better ways of relating to one another.

Anarchists have unfortunately been slid into opposing markets in and of themselves — seeing exchange, money, etc, as primordial evils or the core source and logic of capitalism.

As a consequence we dismiss considering how markets could be different as a reformist thinking. The notion of an “egalitarian” market is seen as an impossibility, and thus we surrender to the most perverse norms when we construct marketplaces.

This doesn’t have to be the case.

Let me elaborate on three possible changes, mostly centered around removing barriers to entry, and how existing hostility to markets impedes adoption of them.

1) Remove or dramatically undermine the cost and necessity of tables.

There are always tradeoffs when it comes to venues and the costs attendant to trying to make them accessible, but popup venues in parks or parking lots are totally possible. Imagine if bookfairs in a city were more frequent than giant annual events and more fluid. We might see anarchists doing small popup fairs where vendors mix alongside other uses of space like a free store or really really free market. Part of the reason bookfairs become such laboriously regimented and ossified undertakings is because few people are willing to put up with consistently organizing them, especially when there’s the cognitive dissonance of opposing markets. On the other hand small bands of young anarchists frequently find ways to put on small really really free markets and the like for marginal costs, but get starkly limited attendance in part because we frown upon selling and buying. Creating spaces where more individuals or informal groups are encouraged to have their own distro, art, or project and all table (or blanket) together would create more dynamism and active engagement. And if the giant publishers can’t afford to table in a random park this month in some town they don’t live in, with all the risk and randomness attendant to such schemes, all the better. That anarchism has for so long been dominated by Big Formal Publishers and Big Formal Organizations has always been an embarrassing disgrace.

2) Normalize putting your content online for free.

This one raises hackles because unfortunately many anarchists are gripped in the chains of marxist narratives around being owed reimbursement for your labor. In the worst form this looks like declarations that, “If you torrent a book you’re stealing from the author.” But more subtle variations are still common, “why should I put my manuscript online and deliberately hurt my own income?” Well let’s peel apart what’s unique about rendering information into a good in a transaction. When you sell someone pickles you are generally perceived as owing them honesty about the content of the good. A buyer can’t fully consent to a transaction when all the details about what is being transacted are hidden from her. The information asymmetry is sharp and can turn quite pernicious. Consider a famous writer whose books will be influential regardless of whether you find content in them deplorable. In order to stay aware of or craft defenses to his writing you are forced into paying him money. And this flips around to create barriers to the unknown writers tackling new material in challenging ways — why take a chance by buying a zine or book if you don’t know whether you’ll like it? Additionally while it’s easy to see people trading pickles in a free society, it’s hard to see intellectual property norms persisting, since they depend upon proactive censorship by the state. Information is not a naturally scarce good, unlike your particular batch of homemade pickles, it has to be forcibly made scarce. Anarchists of all stripes should see ourselves at war with the intellectual property norms of our society and seek to undermine respect for them in every way. A physical book is a scarce good with tangible costs to its construction, and there are reasons people can desire them instead of the raw text. Authors can always make money from their labor via explicit and more consensual methods of donation that don’t rely upon artificial information asymmetries. But most of all the distinguishing of an elite authorial class within anarchism is deeply pernicious and dangerous. An authorial class (and publishing house hierarchies) propped up by the state’s intellectual property norms is even worse. Whatever your position on property, treating information like property is far more pernicious than more normal sorts of property like pickles, and its unique injustices shouldn’t get obscured by “all property is bad” conflations.

3) Utilize sliding scales to blunt harm (and tax the rich).

It’s eternally amusing to me that we — the evil market anarchists — are frequently the only vendor at anarchist bookfairs utilizing an explicit sliding scale. Part of the reason for this is that making prices fluid feels like haggling to a lot of anarchists, and they want to avoid dwelling upon the reality of the transaction as much as possible. Money is typically exchanged quickly and with a faint sense of distaste and mutual apologia, the publisher grimacing when they give the price. But I feel it’s obviously unconscionable to charge a threadbare teen squatter the same as a surburbanite middle aged marxist. Sliding scale is often a fuzzy sort of haggling that leverages honor and personal ethics — and in rare instances someone openly takes advantage of it — but usually after the “well what do you suggest?” it becomes a more open and forthright conversation that helps situate both participants in the exchange to one another. Compassion and honesty is met with the same, a flickering moment of communism where both parties collaborate in figuring out how to reapportion goods between them to resolve issues of desire and cost. Unlike the imperious declaration of prices by some faceless org, this approach doesn’t hide from the nature of the exchange, but seeks to influence its character. It’s long been pointed out that one of the ways freed markets erode concentrations of wealth in the absence of the state is via an inability to hide behind some impersonal anonymization. The rich man always pays more at the local marketplace. And so to do the aloof bookfair tourists who I know won’t read or take seriously the things they buy. But there’s one more benefit of utilizing a sliding scale: it allows me to express on the market my own desire at getting certain material into particular hands. A pugnacious kid comes over to pick an argument and ends up being defused from the cartoonish narrative he came in with, hesitantly buying a single booklet while suspiciously eyeing another — I happily hand him the second for free. I write and reproduce the work of others in order to affect the world, to engage with it. If such effort has value to someone then I am happy to receive the gift of their money in exchange, but if not, then I have always been happy to substitute a little bit of pushing a mop or fixing a website to obtain the things of exchange value I want.

These three changes are not panaceas, there are deep and wider problems with the anarchist milieu and with the gentrified, centralized, precarious contexts of capitalism that frame us. But they would go a long way in revitalizing the rotting bookfair form. What they require is a solid sense of our core ethical values, and a less cartoonish and suffocating fear of markets.

The agora has always been a fecund site for anarchists. The marketplace a site for building prefigurative alternatives and mobilizing resistance. Selling burritos and tamales alongside IWW organizers shouting from soapboxes about the latest strike. We’ve allowed the simplistic middle class concerns about “consumerism” to crowd out the reflexive lumpen spirit of hustling.

So long as anarchists continue to fear markets we will lock ourselves up in tense hypocrisies that give cover to problematic dynamics and reinforce institutional power.

Di Logan Marie Glitterbomb. Originale pubblicato l’undici marzo 2019 con il titolo A Libertarian Take on the Green New Deal. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Con tutto il trambusto sollevato attorno al New Deal Verde e l’urgenza di combattere i cambiamenti climatici, uno si chiede da che parte stanno i libertari. Molti genericamente di sinistra lo approvano, ci vedono la prova del fatto che Verdi e movimenti progressisti sono riusciti ad influire sul dialogo. Anche tra gli anarchici e la sinistra libertaria c’è chi approva la cosa vedendoci un intervento transitorio incrementale che, per quanto non perfetto, potrebbe essere utilizzato per combattere alcuni dei peggiori effetti dei cambiamenti climatici prima che sia troppo tardi. Una cosa di cui molti non tengono conto è che il New Deal Verde non è un insieme specifico di proposte, ma solo il nome dato collettivamente a diverse ipotesi avanzate da Jill Stein, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez e altri sotto molti aspetti molto diversi.

La versione di Jill Stein è tutt’altro che perfetta, ma possiamo dire che molte delle sue proposte porterebbero a miglioramenti in molti campi, come la proposta di finanziare infrastrutture ambientali tagliando la spesa militare almeno del 50%. Il fatto è che però l’attuale disegno di legge del partito democratico tralascia del tutto questa possibilità per ipotizzare un finanziamento attraverso la creazione di banche pubbliche. Ora, se è vero che dobbiamo fare il possibile per combattere il complesso industriale militare e salvare vite umane, è vero anche che la creazione di banche pubbliche non è da disprezzare e potrebbe avere grosse ripercussioni ambientali ed economiche di cui parlo più giù.

Altra cosa da criticare di questa versione è il fatto che tra i sostenitori ci sia un gruppo conosciuto come Sunrise Movement, gruppo che si oppone fermamente a molte delle proposte di monetizzazione delle emissioni e ad altre simili soluzioni di mercato per la riduzione delle emissioni. Mentre Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sostiene una misura che tiene conto dei costi sociali delle emissioni, molti sostenitori dell’attuale New Deal Verde si oppongono a misure di mercato, come la carbon tax, apparentemente in nome di un malinteso pseudo-anticapitalismo. L’idea alla base di questo ragionamento sarebbe che l’ambiente non si “mercifica”. Sono sentimenti che possono avere un senso a livello molto superficiale, ma la realtà è che sotto l’attuale capitalismo l’ambiente è già mercificato. Aggiungere i costi sociali delle emissioni non lo mercifica ulteriormente, ma fa rientrare le esternalità nel conto che molte aziende sono riuscite ad evitare di pagare grazie a scudi protettivi, che in un mercato distorto come il nostro sono rappresentati da interventi economici e normative di favore. Scartare una soluzione di mercato in una società di mercato non ha molto senso. Anche se l’ideale finale è una società non di mercato, le soluzioni devono essere fatte con gli strumenti esistenti, non con quelli di un futuro ideale. Riportare queste esternalità dentro l’equazione costringe gli attori aziendali a tenere conto dell’impatto delle loro attività, e questo incoraggia ad avere un comportamento ecologicamente più responsabile sfruttando la ricerca del profitto delle aziende stesse. Questo non significa dimenticare i nostri ideali o comprometterli, ma solo che dobbiamo essere pratici con le strategie da adottare finché viviamo in questa società.

Alcune note su un punto toccato più volte da Kevin Carson: il posto di lavoro garantito per tutti. Credo che io e lui siamo d’accordo (non parlo a nome suo, però): se lo stato deve intervenire, allora è meglio che promuova alternative ambientaliste piuttosto che il contrario. Ora, se è vero che i poveri contribuiscono all’inquinamento più di altri in quanto le loro risorse limitate non permettono di accedere a strumenti ecologicamente migliori, è anche vero però che il posto di lavoro garantito per tutti non aiuta affatto a risolvere il problema. Questo modello si basa sul vecchio assunto capitalista per cui una persona vale quanto il lavoro che produce. In un’epoca di crescente paura dell’automatizzazione, appare strano e controintuitivo vedere che si cerca di creare artificialmente più posti di lavoro invece di separare il lavoro dalla ricchezza e il valore della persona.

È passato più di un secolo dalle prime lotte per la giornata lavorativa di otto ore, e però nonostante gli avanzamenti tecnologici lavoriamo sempre lo stesso tanto di ore, se non di più, e questo nonostante occorrano meno ore per produrre lo stesso stile di vita di prima. Non che dobbiamo smettere di migliorare la qualità della vita ma, visto lo studio sui “lavori stronzata” di David Graeber, gli enormi sprechi produttivi e la scarsità artificiale prodotta dagli interventi dello stato e dalla tendenza a produrre continuamente, ne deriva che per mantenere lo stile di vita sperato occorre molto meno lavoro di quanto non siamo disposti ad ammettere come società. Ma siamo ancora legati alla nozione per cui il valore di una persona dipende da quanto lavoro fa, siamo legati a modelli superati della produzione di massa.

Per principio, non sono contro la riconversione di vecchie fabbriche alla produzione di treni ad alta velocità o altri mezzi di trasporto ecologici, o all’energia pulita per combattere gli effetti negativi prodotti da secoli di capitalismo corrotto, ma non vedo la necessità di accoppiare queste forme di crescita al posto di lavoro universale garantito. Ci sono due modi per creare artificialmente posti di lavoro: o si utilizza la forza lavoro in maniera inefficiente, ovvero si impiega molto lavoro per fare ciò che con le moderne tecnologie si può fare con meno; oppure si utilizza la forza lavoro in maniera efficiente e si produce più del necessario contribuendo così agli sprechi produttivi che sono alle origini dell’inquinamento. Poi c’è chi vorrebbe incentivi ecologici e non fa nulla per eliminare gli incentivi che già ricevono i produttori di energia e le industrie agricole, e questo impedisce che si realizzino condizioni a favore di alternative ecologiche. Occorre premere per mettere fine agli incentivi e allo stesso tempo lottare per eliminare il nesso tra lavoro e ricchezza, così da permettere un uso più efficiente della forza lavoro senza inventarsi “lavori stronzata” o inutili sovrapproduzioni. Se si vuole promuovere l’energia pulita, l’unico modo per farlo passa per la parità di condizioni, ovvero occorre eliminare gli incentivi alle grosse società elettriche, mentre se vogliamo eliminare il nesso tra lavoro e ricchezza senza toccare l’attuale panorama non resta che istituire un reddito di base universale.

Quest’ultimo può essere realizzato anche senza aumentare le tasse. Grazie a un sistema bancario pubblico, che è uno degli elementi più radicali di questa versione del New Deal Verde. Con tutte le lamentele riguardo la banca centrale, la corruzione di Wall Street e il sistema fiscale da rapina, è strano che nessuno parli della proposta. Le banche pubbliche, pur essendo create dallo stato, sono proprietà pubblica dei cittadini di una certa area. Una banca pubblica non serve a gestire i patrimoni personali; per quelli ci sono le banche locali, le banche popolari, le criptomonete, o altre forme monetarie e di scambio alternative. La banca pubblica serve principalmente a finanziare infrastrutture e varie altre opere pubbliche. Finanzia mutui per realizzare opere pubbliche che eccedono le capacità delle banche locali o delle banche popolari, e usano gli interessi di questi mutui per finanziare altre opere. Questo permette allo stato di generare reddito senza ricorrere alla tassazione, e contemporaneamente toglie potere alle banche di Wall Street per riporlo nelle mani delle comunità locali, che così fungono da azioniste, con la possibilità di dire la loro sulla gestione e la destinazione dei fondi, e quindi con una spesa pubblica più trasparente. Perché mai un libertario dovrebbe opporsi ad un sistema bancario pubblico che genera più trasparenza negli atti pubblici, meno tasse, meno controlli da parte della banca centrale e Wall Street e più controllo da parte della comunità locale?

A dire il vero sulla questione non si è sempre taciuto. Per qualche tempo, vari libertari di destra hanno accarezzato l’idea di una banca pubblica come una sorta di “diritto di stato” (opposto al diritto del governo federale, ndt). Nel caso della lotta per la legalizzazione della cannabis, il governo federale ha mantenuto l’illegalità nonostante diversi stati abbiano stabilito altrimenti. Questo ha creato dei problemi perché all’industria della cannabis è vietato servirsi delle banche federali. Quando è sorto il problema, molti operatori hanno visto nelle banche pubbliche un’alternativa percorribile per quanto riguarda i finanziamenti in quegli stati in cui la cannabis è legalizzata. Ovviamente la questione è tramontata rapidamente, ed è ricomparsa solo con i fatti di Standing Rock, e questo ci riporta al New Deal Verde.

In seguito alla battaglia di Standing Rock, il movimento antioleodotto decise di puntare sul disinvestimento. L’obiettivo era di spingere amministrazioni locali, università e altre entità a rompere i legami con le industrie dei combustibili e con tutte quelle industrie i cui investimenti riguardano gli oleodotti. Nel contesto delle amministrazioni locali, questo significava prima di tutto togliere i fondi pubblici dalle grosse banche che investono in tali progetti per dirigerli verso alternative più pulite. Il problema è che non ci sono molte alternative che soddisfino i bisogni di un’amministrazione locale.

Le piccole banche locali non hanno la possibilità di finanziare grossi progetti e le banche popolari non hanno tali scopi. Una banca pubblica è alternativa perché è di proprietà della comunità e offre molta più trasparenza. Così da un lato le amministrazioni locali disinvestirebbero dalle grosse banche che finanziano opere ecologicamente disastrose, e dall’altro con il passaggio ad una banca pubblica sono i cittadini che possiedono la banca a decidere come spendere il denaro, e questo crea un maggior controllo democratico su come e dove vengono spesi i soldi pubblici.

E la campagna a favore dei disinvestimenti non si ferma alle aziende petrolifere con i loro oleodotti. Dopo i fatti di Standing Rock, l’appello a disinvestire si è allargato alle carceri private. Come denuncia la Campaign to Fight Toxic Prisons, molte carceri sono costruite su terreni da bonificare e contribuiscono ad alcuni dei peggiori disastri ambientali del paese. Se il New Deal Verde riesce nell’intento di far nascere un sistema bancario pubblico, la cosa può essere di grande aiuto per i movimenti che puntano al disinvestimento, priverebbe molte aziende dei soldi con cui finanziare attività pericolose.

I libertari non dovrebbero essere biasimati per il loro sostegno al New Deal Verde così com’è, come strumento per passare, anche se a piccoli passi, dall’attuale sistema distruttivo centralizzato ad uno che abbia un’anima un po’ più verde. Questa potrebbe essere l’occasione per i libertari di entrare nel discorso e offrire migliori soluzioni globali. Le prossime elezioni si avvicinano, e i libertari hanno l’opportunità di influenzare il discorso in tanti modi. Io credo che un New Deal Verde d’impronta libertaria dovrebbe avere gli strumenti per mettere fine agli incentivi all’agricoltura e all’industria dei combustibili fossili e allo stesso tempo spezzare il monopolio statale dei servizi e permettere alla gente di uscire dal sistema.

Un grosso aiuto viene anche dalla lotta contro i copyright, i brevetti, gli espropri e i piani regolatori. Copyright e brevetti permettono a compagnie come la Monsanto di proteggere con il copyright materiale genetico e usare i diritti acquisiti per far chiudere le piccole aziende promuovendo allo stesso tempo pratiche come le monoculture e l’uso di erbicidi e pesticidi pericolosi. Quanto agli espropri, permettono la diffusione degli oleodotti sfruttando la forza dello stato. I piani regolatori, infine, contribuiscono artificialmente allo sviluppo urbano, incrementando così l’uso dei trasporti, laddove un’espansione più intelligente ridurrebbe il bisogno di viaggiare in primo luogo.

Infine, se lo stato continua a voler costruire infrastrutture, non c’è niente di male a fare pressioni affinché le opere siano ecologicamente efficienti. Chiedere restrizioni ai piani infrastrutturali non è un male. Chiedere che lo stato faccia dei contratti di tipo privato basati su standard ecologici non è un male. Chiedere che dia la priorità a costruttori e fabbricanti che rispettano gli standard ambientali, o anche costringere i servizi con il voto a utilizzare risorse rinnovabili, finché siamo costretti a vivere in un sistema statocentrico può servire a cambiare le cose. E se si può finanziare il tutto tramite una banca pubblica invece di usare quel furto che sono le tasse, tanto meglio.

Ma occorre ricordare che si tratta di risoluzioni non vincolanti e loro non sono costretti a fare nessuna di queste cose. Il che significa che dobbiamo tenerli sotto pressione, fare pressione su gli aspetti del programma che condividiamo ma allo stesso tempo continuare a spingere per altre soluzioni. Non è un errore appoggiare l’attuale programma e ammettere allo stesso tempo che come soluzione di lungo termine non basta. Ma i libertari dovrebbero partecipare al dibattito e proporre le loro versioni, così come verdi e democratici hanno le loro. Forse si può combinare il meglio delle due versioni e aggiungere il nostro tocco proponendo un reddito universale di base finanziato con tagli alla spesa militare, un sistema bancario pubblico e standard ecologici da applicare a tutti gli edifici pubblici e le infrastrutture (finché sono loro al potere, almeno una pista ciclabile la voglio!), monetizzazione delle emissioni e altre soluzioni di mercato veramente ecologiche; soluzioni che potrebbero avere effetti solo nel lungo termine, ma che sono sempre meglio delle misure provvisorie a breve.

Di James C. Wilson. Originale pubblicato il 5 marzo 2019 con il titolo Review: Living Black in America. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Nell’episodio di debutto della nuova serie “Trigger Warning”, Killer Mike sfida se stesso a vivere per tre giorni consumando solo prodotti acquistati in attività gestite da neri. Michael Render, meglio conosciuto con lo pseudonimo di Killer Mike (si riferisce ai testi delle sue canzoni, non a precedenti violenti), è attivista politico, rapper e personaggio dei media originario di Atlanta.

Mike si è fatto un nome nei primi anni 2000 come autore per il duo hip hop OutKast quando questo era al vertice della loro carriera. Negli anni successivi ha pubblicato una serie di album da solista, ma senza mai raggiungere il successo a livello nazionale, finché non ha fatto coppia con il rapper di New York El-P, con cui nel 2013 ha dato vita al duo Run the Jewels. I Run the Jewels si sono dimostrati un successo di vendite e di critiche. I loro tre album sono un divertente miscuglio di giochi di parole osceni, spacconate grottesche, realismo crudo e commenti occasionali sulla società.

Il successo di Killer Mike con Run the Jewels gli è valsa la comparsa a vari talk show in tarda serata e un ruolo importante come supporter di Bernie Sanders in qualità di candidato democratico alla nomination per le presidenziali del 2016. Questa ricca carriera lo ha infine portato a gennaio alla nuova serie di Netflix “Trigger Warning with Killer Mike”. In “Trigger Warning” Mike si lancia in prima persona all’esplorazione di questioni importanti. Il primo episodio della serie, intitolato “Living Black” (“vivere da nero”, ndt) parla della scarsità di attività economiche di proprietà di neri in America.

Prima di parlare dell’episodio in questione, due parole sul nome della serie. Il termine trigger warning indica un avvertimento usato talvolta in ambito accademico o simile da persone che soffrono di disordini da stress post-traumatico. In queste persone, la comparsa improvvisa di qualcosa che ricorda un evento traumatico (come una sevizia o l’aver assistito a scene di violenza o di guerra) può essere scioccante. L’avvertimento previo serve proprio a far sì che possano prepararsi anticipatamente.

Purtroppo la destra usa la cosa per canzonare certi adolescenti dicendo che sono deboli e incapaci di affrontare il mondo fuori dalla loro bolla. “Trigger warning” è quindi diventato un insulto. Si banalizza il disturbo psichico. Pur senza intenzioni offensive, Killer Mike con questo titolo fa involontariamente il gioco di queste persone.

Il primo episodio di “Trigger Warning” comincia nella città natale di Mike, Atlanta, e prosegue ad Athens, in Georgia, per un concerto. Avendo deciso di “acquistare nero”, Mike deve rinunciare all’auto a favore di una bicicletta comprata in un negozio di neri che ricicla biciclette. In alcuni punti della narrazione è costretto a dormire all’agghiaccio e saltare i pasti. Ad un certo punto, per felicità sua, trova un buon ristorante di proprietà di neri, ma deve abbassare la forchetta quando il suo amico El-P solleva dubbi sull’identità dei fornitori della carne. Irritante è anche il fatto che non esista una catena di fornitura di marijuana tutta nera. Un fatto che costringe Mike a vivere il più lungo periodo di sobrietà della sua vita.

Per strada trova qualche buona sorpresa. Un supermercato affiliato alla Nation of Islam, uno strip-tease nero e una fattoria comunitaria che fa anche da scuola. Visita anche una sede di webuyblack.com, un sito che vende varie cose prodotte da neri, dal detersivo al dentifricio. C’è anche una compagnia di cellulari nera chiamata Figgers Communication, dal nome del fondatore Freddie Figgers. E poi Mike si ferma a discutere dei “libri verdi”, le guide che ai tempi della segregazione indicavano le attività economiche di cui potevano servirsi i neri quando viaggiavano.

Qui Killer Mike tocca un nervo scoperto. Nei cento anni seguenti l’abolizione della schiavitù, ai neri americani sono stati precluse le migliori possibilità d’alloggio, le migliori scuole e le migliori opportunità economiche. Gli era precluso anche il credito, se non alle condizioni più svantaggiose. E questo era opera dello stato e di pratiche esclusioniste nel settore privato, con il primo che spesso dava una mano al secondo. Per giunta, quei pochi neri che riuscivano ad accumulare una discreta somma diventavano oggetto di persecuzioni, violenze e furti. La polizia spesso fingeva di non vedere, se non era che partecipava attivamente agli assalti.

Come nel caso della famosa rivolta di Tulsa, nel 1921. I rivoltosi bianchi distrussero quello che a quei tempi era il quartiere commerciale nero più ricco del paese, misero a ferro e fuoco trentacinque isolati di attività in maggioranza proprietà di neri uccidendo un numero imprecisato di persone, probabilmente centinaia.

L’era Jim Crow è finita appena cinquant’anni fa, neanche una vita, e da allora sono trascorse poche generazioni. Ma a quel punto i bianchi erano già avvantaggiati perché potevano avere un lavoro migliore, istruzione, un buon posto in cui vivere, e accesso al credito con cui avviare un’attività e arrivare al successo molto più facilmente di altre persone a cui questi vantaggi erano stati negati. I vantaggi generazionali sono molto più diffusi tra i bianchi che tra i neri, e il primo episodio di Killer Mike è testimone di questa realtà.

I vantaggi accumulati dalle attività dei bianchi con la fine della segregazione sono cresciuti. Durante la segregazione, negozianti e clienti neri erano costretti a creare una “economia nera” parallela. Nell’impossibilità di acquistare in molti negozi dei bianchi o di fare carriera nelle loro attività, i membri della comunità nera dovevano arrangiarsi a commerciare perlopiù tra loro. Questo dava la possibilità a certe attività dei neri di servire una clientela che aveva poche possibilità di scelta. Con l’integrazione della società, bianchi e neri si ritrovarono a competere sempre più direttamente.

Da quando è nato, nota Mike, la percentuale di attività nere in quartieri storicamente neri è andata calando di pari passo con la crescita dell’integrazione. Se, da un lato, la fine della segregazione razziale ha significato nuovi diritti e libertà per i neri, dall’altro, nota, è iniziato il declino della “economia nera”, e questo rappresenta una perdita per la sua comunità.

In un certo senso, tutto ciò ricorda la morte di tante attività locali in quartieri prevalentemente bianchi a causa dell’invasione di grandi aziende possedute e gestite da persone che stanno altrove, le quali prendono il denaro dalla clientela e lo portano fuori dall’economia locale. Certo è un inevitabile riflesso delle scelte dei consumatori e della forza dello scambio spontaneo all’interno del mercato, ma anche le politiche statali contribuiscono ad alimentare questo dominio economico da parte di grosse attività che perlopiù appartengono a bianchi.

Come ho notato altrove in questo stesso sito, il sistema autostradale finanziato dai contribuenti (e edificato su terreni espropriati) alleggerisce le diseconomie di scala delle attività più grosse, come i costi di trasporto sulle lunghe distanze, il che dà a chi opera su queste distanze dei vantaggi che altrimenti non avrebbe. Grandi aziende come Walmart e Amazon prendono miliardi dagli stati e dalle amministrazioni locali sotto forma di terreni gratis o a prezzo di favore, infrastrutture, agevolazioni fiscali varie e credito, tutte cose negate alla piccola concorrenza. A questo si aggiunge il fatto che la crescita delle normative, il sistema delle licenze e i requisiti urbanistici rendono proibitivo l’ingresso nel mercato di piccole attività.

Lo svuotamento delle piccole attività per favorire il dominio del dettaglio da parte di grosse aziende assenteiste (la cui proprietà è altrove) è stato aiutato dallo stato, e questo vale tanto per le zone prevalentemente bianche che per quelle prevalentemente nere. Se i consumatori spesso traggono benefici dai prezzi più bassi praticati da queste attività, è anche vero però che questi prezzi sono spesso possibili grazie ad un mercato distorto dallo stato. In un sistema più libero, i benefici di scala e quelli della prossimità sarebbero più in equilibrio, mentre l’attuale sistema spesso avvantaggia artificialmente i primi.

Ma c’è anche un’altra cosa che nell’episodio non viene citata, ma che vale la pena commentare. Ed è il fatto che noi come individui traiamo guadagni enormi dallo scambio di beni con persone diverse da noi. Lo vediamo all’inizio dell’episodio, dove si vede Mike che possiede una bella casa, un’auto, vestiti e elettronica fabbricati da persone di razza diversa dalla sua. Se è vero che le differenze razziali tra imprenditori sono spesso il prodotto di secoli di ingiustizie, è però vero che anche in un ipotetico mondo ideale, in cui questa eredità non esiste, si avrebbero comunque vantaggi a fare affari con persone diverse. In una realtà economica più equa, le catene logistiche sarebbero ben diverse, più integrate rispetto ad ora.

Comprare unicamente da persone simili a noi significa impoverirsi. In una società equa e libera, beni e servizi si spostano in tutto il mondo unendo tra loro realtà etniche molto diverse. Molti amano l’idea di vivere in una comunità chiusa, ma nessuno vorrebbe fare affari unicamente con persone della stessa comunità.

E arriviamo alla politica protezionista di persone come Donald Trump, che con i suoi dazi e le guerre commerciali ignora quanto l’esistenza degli americani tragga vantaggio dall’acquisto di prodotti che vengono da fuori (per non dire dei vantaggi che hanno gli stranieri che vendono). E però anche Bernie Sanders, il candidato appoggiato da Killer Mike, condivide gli stessi impulsi protezionistici di Trump, anche lui pensa che cose come la libertà di migrare e di commerciare siano “roba dei fratelli Koch”.

In un’economia più libera e equa si potrebbe trarre il massimo vantaggio dai benefici del commercio globale senza che lo stato intervenga a favore delle grandi aziende e contro le economie locali. Una società libera porterebbe ad un equilibrio tra economie globali e locali. Ma è anche vero che nella realtà in cui viviamo ci sono gruppi a cui è stata negata la libertà per secoli. E Killer Mike, con il suo “Living Black”, rappresenta una divertente ma anche riflessiva ricerca sull’impatto prodotto da queste crudeltà storiche.

It is not a coincidence that when patents and copyrights are described in formal documents or discussions they are always labeled as “intellectual property” and virtually never as the simple term “property.” Calling it simply property would generate confusion with actually existing forms of private property, such as land, cars, and stocks. Such private property is ruled by an entirely different regime of rules that, if applied to patents and ideas, would reduce their market value to zero. Consider this: copying a car parked in a Taco Bell and driving off with a second car does not violate any property rights. Or pretending that your phone is dead and asking a random person for permission to use theirs for an urgent call — then making ten copies of the phone right in front of them with a Star Trek replicator, and offering to sell them one for $99.99 — is rude for sure, but still does not constitute theft or a violation of someone’s property. Rather, there is a class interest in creating IP regimes that lump up intellectual property with private property as simply another component, since private property has a positive connotation in liberal democracies and is associated with personal freedom. If we described IP laws more accurately, we’d be left with such names as the Central Agency Commission for Regulating Exclusive Permissions & Usage of Human Generated Thought.

In Lockean property theory, John Locke reasoned that if it’s documented in the Bible that the world has been gifted by God to humankind, no one but God can assert a claim to property on any piece of land. But people own themselves, and thus own their labor, so any extension of their labor is theirs too. So the only way to appropriate a chunk of the world is by mixing a person’s labor with natural resources. According to Locke, God mixed his labor with energy and created the world in seven days, and he was cool enough to waive his right to the land and give it to the tenants for free without paying rent to the landlord — since then, he has been known as ‘The Lord’. That is to say, liberal property theory is founded on the assumption of a grand gift economy initiated by a divine biblical christian god, and that’s the starting point for individuals.

When it comes to intellectual property, in order to appropriate an idea, the “natural resources” used along with a person’s labor aren’t freely gifted by God, but have been created by the labor and intellect of other men and women dating back to the earliest forms of human societies, from languages to mathematics to philosophy to every single scientific field, and every form of art. And even if dead, they surely have descendants in the hundreds of millions who inherited their property rights, and those people aren’t as merciful as God, those are the ones who God promised to send to Hell. With this logic, anyone claiming a patent should have to pay for these raw intellectual materials before claiming ownership, ideally generating a CVS-length receipt that requires a truck to move around, creating jobs in the processes. If property rights were so asserted, contemporary IP regimes would implode, but IP regimes aren’t meant to protect property claims, they are used selectively to benefit the class of suit-wearing pigs and to pour more grease on their bacon, just like every other property “rights” regime used by capitalism.

Intellectual property is the glue that keeps contemporary capitalism running. The biggest estimate is that it represents about a third of American GDP, at the same time, it is the easiest property regime to repeal. It would only require a single vote by Congress to make it disappear, it doesn’t even need a single sheriff clutching his gun or evicting a single person. But even so, that would never happen. Repealing IP laws entirely would mean one third of the economy vanishing in a second, arguably the fastest transfer of wealth in history, and if a third of the economy disappears in a single day, it would drag down the entire financial industrial complex along with it. The immediate abolition of the U.S. IP regime is out of the question for any level headed lawmaker. But this shouldn’t be an excuse for defeatism.

Intellectual property, if defined as any product a person creates using his intellectual labor, has a natural market-exchange value of zero. Even if it’s a cure to cancer for children or the elixir of youth, a truly free market means an intellectual commodity can only be sold once before endless copies are made and price drops to zero. The only profitable exception to the rule would be if a producer can guarantee the sale of his commodity with a breakeven volume of one. This leaves the only realistic option for intellectual labor as intellectual wage labor, and not as intellectual commodity production to be exchanged in the market. This isn’t to say intellectual products can’t be of value for the producer, but they can’t capture and hold that value. A common example is the open source software engineer or scientist who would labor for free to create a product of value and share it publicly for free, then use that to polish his reputation and make income as a consultant. Even with that, the producer is not rewarded for the initial labor, but is rewarded with the option to sign a contract for intellectual wage labor and work more hours, only this time paid. Much like the classical feminist critique of markets, that house chores and raising children are the equivalent of a full time job, but end up being treated as free labor for capitalism to function, intellectual property isn’t well accounted for in market models. Both intellectual labor and household labor can be used as arguments against markets, or at least market centrism, since these sectors — that when combined should represent a majority of the value created in society and in a functioning economy — aren’t covered by traditional market logic.

When realizing that intellectual commodities have a market-exchange value of zero, arguments arise to artificially create scarcity, so that intellectual commodities can be sold for a price tag rather than be freely available to all. A regulatory government monopoly is installed to control copyrights and usage licenses, stretching the market into areas that it cannot function in, an ironic market intervention in the name of free markets. This reasoning isn’t much different from arguments to enclose common property and consolidate property rights within a single party. It is argued in similar ways too, with a thought experiment of cattle herders grazing a commons, until the open field is destroyed, hence the need to enclose it into private property. Of course this ignores the many real-world examples of communities managing common resources quite efficiently and fairly, but yes, let’s defer to class-interested economists because who would think farmers can manage their own lives.

Marx’s Grundrisse mentions General Intellect as a collection of skills, technical expertise, and scientific knowledge used along with labor and capital in production. Given the type of life in 19th century Europe, it is understandable why it was only allocated a few paragraphs, rather than a multiple volume book such as Das Kapital. Nothing existed during the first century of the industrial revolution like Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors on a computer chip doubles and drops in price roughly every two years, and that machines grow by the thousandfold in less than a decade. A modern iteration of the General Intellect has been described as commons-based peer production, Linux and Wikipedia are used as flagship examples. And generally this development can be traced back to four currents and social movements each with its own unique characteristics: free software, open source software, creative commons, and finally the ambiguous disorganization of IP violation, ranging from hackers in the 80s distributing cracked software just to show their 3DGY $K1LLZ, to three Swedish activists establishing a torrent pirate bay, or simply good samaritans in neighborhood stores selling Chinese Rolex knockoffs off the books for people who can’t afford the real thing.

IP circumvention is arguably the most effective method for undermining the current IP regime. While the Pirate Party in the EU is admirable in this area, it was bittorrent that really sent painful shocks through the entertainment industry and gave teenagers all around the world Linkin Park albums for free. Industry cartels such as RIAA & MPAA spent a decade lobbying congress without any good outcome for them. Kevin Carson even wrote a book about this, and we should expect this kind of circumvention to extend to manufacturing plane engines — and just about anything else — in backyards soon.

But IP circumvention has its limits. While it’s true the internet gave a hard blow to the entertainment industry which has never fully recovered, it’s still a billion dollar industry, and no new mode of organization has replaced it. What this did achieve, however, is a market with more room for low budget artists. Beyond that, Netflix now has a market value of billions, and capitalism has, like always, adapted with the new landscape. The $8 per month price Netflix started out with may be lower than what people were paying at Blockbuster before that, but it’s still an extortion! The natural price is zero.

With the existing IP regime, capitalism has leveraged the legal system to give companies like Netflix an edge over other methods of distributing movies, such as a website that costs no more than a few hundred dollars to operate. Now, Netflix is selling convenience, not access, allowing Hollywood to still be profitable, only due to consumers choosing to pay a few dollars rather than spending ten minutes on sketchy websites promoting Russian drugs. Same goes for Spotify. Users would rather pay a few dollars because it’s the cheapest option on the app store, since pirate apps aren’t legally allowed to step foot on the app store. Non-legal options exist, they just aren’t convenient to use.

We can also look at manufacturing. While it seems it will only be a matter of time for manufacturing to be cheap enough to make industrial goods in home garages, currently it’s possible to 3d print an entire rocket with a dozen engineers. By the 2050s, makers of industrial machinery might be in the domain of girl scouts, knocking on doors with a smile: “Hello sir, would you like to buy our metal casting machine for $19.99 and support South Town Children’s hospital?”. But by itself this wouldn’t be sufficient to sustain Kevin’s home-brew industrial revolution, capitalism would likely adapt — though damaged — by finding chokehold points, or creating them. For example, the auto industry would be eaten alive with the rise of cheap CNC mills and metal 3D printers; nothing would stop local auto shops from manufacturing Fords and Toyotas. The problem is the existing regulatory body, where driving without a licenses plate could lead to jail. The auto industry would fight to death to maintain the DMV, and probably even fund it themselves if required to ensure each car on the road paid IP rent to Detroit’s big three. So, while IP circumvention could do amazing damages to patent and copyright holders and drag their investments to the ground, the existence of a legal IP regime would still allow large corporations to function, on a scale of billions too. IP abolition is necessary!

Copyleft is a clever trick to undermine IP, using existing laws to prevent them from being appropriated. The Free Software Movement has been a pioneer, starting in the 80s as a revolt by hackers in companies and research universities against their own class of employers who were enclosing every software they could put their hands on. The GNU system was born in reaction, software that is free and everyone can freely edit and distribute it. Starting with a decent burst, GNU has been stagnant for some time. Currently the only important component of the GNU ecosystem widely used is the gcc compiler.

The rest of the movement has been taken over by its younger cousin, Open Source. This movement was founded by a faction of  sharp minded right-libertarians within the free software movement, who liked the superior mode of collaborative production but didn’t want to be part of a social movement against corporate capitalism. “Open source” projects thus became the business-friendly version for companies to adopt and allowed them to hire hackers to tinker with their software in-house for a wage. Open source is now a codeword for free subsidies to expensive operations.

Finally, Creative Commons is embarrassingly the least effective of them all. The project was founded by Lawrence Lessig, a sincere liberal, who even attempted to run for president in 2016 on an explicit platform to get money out of politics. Lessig believes that filesharing is still a form of theft, and what is needed isn’t IP repeal, but a more fair licensing scheme by lawmakers. Currently, creative commons is only a rubber stamp for artists who want to distribute their content for free without companies making money from them.

Free Software has dwindled away after a few years of militancy against software vendors, the open source movement became a pool of free labor for Silicon Valley, and the creative commons is dead in the water. Where they all failed is in addressing the question of organized labor!

The struggle of labor has been a long one, and constantly changes shape. From artisan radicals forming guilds, to the early industrial unions organizing unskilled workers such as the IWW, later the CIO during its militant phase in middle of the Great Depression, and black Detroit auto workers forming unions against union bosses, labor organizing takes many forms. A call for organized labor is necessary here too as copyleft fails to reward labor and allows laborers to remain at the mercy of corporate sponsorship, donations, or just volunteer opportunities. If general knowledge is seen as a commons, it needs to be fenced in to keep freeloaders from using it, just like every other living corporation. In fairness, Richard Stallman mentioned something similar in the GNU manifesto, that it should be governed in such a way as to remain open, and that he didn’t think public domain would be sufficient to do so, hence creating copyleft licenses.

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

But it appears he hasn’t figured out an answer to the question of labor. Giving everyone equal access — including corporations — to GNU, won’t create an equal playing field due to issues of prefiguration. What is needed is a commons that is governed to be inclusive for most while being hostile to predatory actors such as agents of capital.

The biggest difference between Marx’s General Intellect and commons-based peer production is that General Intellect is perceived as a component integrated in the legacy mode of production. Commons-based production, at the most thoughtful level, is considered to be some form of post-capitalism working in parallel to legacy production. Both are useful but, when it comes to labor, in the case of commons-based production, one mode of production is leeching off the other as a freeloader. Capitalism keeps appropriating community projects and using them as an opportunity to lower production costs by socializing the risks to others, with no protection mechanisms from outside predatory actors.

General Intellect should act as a vanguard of labor, in which intellectual property rights are asserted and registered to a commons with some type of copyleft licenses, working as a trap door where things go in but can’t come out.

This vanguard would be an umbrella organization that manages governance, similar to the Free Software Foundation, Mozilla, or Wikimedia Foundation — with dues paying members for access to the entire commons, and self government inside the commons. This organization would provide  a long list of open source tools for manufacturing and online platforms for coordinating and organizing production. Industries with a heavy investment in IP can be easiest to grow, and the pharmaceutical industry would end up competing with a large organization possessing an endless collection of copyleft drug patents, where the majority of the population can use them, but not the organization itself. In reality, the ‘organization’ is a phantom, it is made of small pharma producers, either working as independent shops or factories managed as worker cooperatives. Microprocessors can be designed and edited online with ad-hoc organizing, but only worker-owned chip foundries are allowed to fabricate. Competition is allowed among different actors inside the commons. Cooperative auto shops can start manufacturing auto parts in neighborhood garages scattered across the rust belt and send them to an assembly ‘front’ managed by them to get a regulatory approval stamp. Individual consumers can submit their personal data to encrypted clouds, so AI teams can have superior data to the mega corporations who fight over recreating piles of data for each company. With very simple rules, all intellectual property rights are surrendered to the commons licensed as copyleft, what you take you give back if improved on — and do not scab!

There might be a need to compensate intellectual labor in order to keep the commons running, with an internal economy within the commons itself. But most importantly, it shouldn’t be transactional, otherwise it would recreate market logic. Perhaps it should have some income sharing mechanism where those who produce commodities give back to the commons to maintain it, but one maintained in such a way as to avoid the coercive nature of taxation, and also not create a form of some parliamentary system tasked with distributing resources based on their own opinion. Each actor has a right to spend their own ‘tax’ on what they see fit to any other actor who contribute to the commons, to gift to whom they please as long as it fits a broad set of rules democratically agreed upon.

This General Intellect Commons shouldn’t restrict  itself to acting independently, rather it should it see itself as part of the labor of movement of cooperative companies and networked craftsmen. Workers in other legacy industries shouldn’t be seen as competitors, but as workers yet to join. Solidarity funds can be set aside for critical strikes, cooperative food stores can develop an ethic to send free groceries to ease the life of those recently fired for workplace militancy, and collective buying from a specific store by a group of well funded worker cooperative can expand its operations. If workers understand that they have a chance to devalue their bosses equity by raising labor demands, then take it over, each dollar earned in wages is a dollar lost in profit, meaning devaluation in stock price, and a cheaper price to buy their own company. With enough militancy and outside support, workers could eventually reach a point where it becomes possible to purchase their own company from their employer below market rate – because who wants to buy a company with nasty workers — and with the understanding that once a worker cooperative, the commons suddenly becomes open to them for use as new revenue sources and fast company rejuvenation. A mutual bank can help facilitate this transition, and probably even have its own formula to decide whether to loan or not based on special calculations such as potential profit margins after becoming worker owned with new revenues from the commons.

To conclude, the general intellect should be seen as a foundational infrastructure for labor, by asserting intellectual property rights and freely distributing them among each other with a few exclusionary exceptions for holders of patents and capital. It can be best seen as a evolution of the traditions of guild socialism along with industrial democracy and the traditional workers movement against bosses. Steve Ballmer of Microsoft once called Linux in its early days cancer, describing its viral GPL licenses which forces any link to other software to be licensed under GPL as well. General Intellect should be configured in a similar way too, as the cancer spreading on the body of capital, whether it unleashes a moral panic among politicians to ease IP regimes to weaken the power of the labor movement and shoot themselves in the foot, or wait and die a slow and painful death. Both are positive outcomes.

Original : William Gillis. The Case Against Voting. Traduit par Pierre Dufour.

Nous avons survécu à une nouvelle période électorale ainsi qu’aux leçons inévitables des socialistes libertaires comme Chomsky à propos de l’abstention des anarchistes.

Je vais être clair : les résultats des élections sont importants. À moins de miser sur la tendance accélérationiste, élire un centriste un peu benêt vaut toujours mieux qu’élire Hitler. Aujourd’hui, alors que le Parti républicain se rapproche des nationalistes blancs les plus extrêmes, l’argument « de toute façon, les partis politiques sont tous les mêmes » ne semble plus assez convaincant pour le plus grand nombre. Cependant, si les résultats des élections importent, cela ne signifie pas votre vote individuel fait la différence.

La probabilité que votre simple vote influence drastiquement des élections est infiniment petite. Cela est irréfutable. Dans une démocratie représentative, il n’y a pas d’entre-deux : un homme politique est élu, un projet de loi est voté, ou rien du tout. À moins d’être capable de peser dans la balance d’une quelconque manière, votre vote n’a aucune influence notoire sur le résultat. Dans mon État, les résultats des élections  sont habituellement départagés par des centaines de milliers de votes. Peu importe pour qui vous votez, votre voix n’aura aucune influence sur le résultat.

Oui, les enjeux des résultats électoraux peuvent être déterminants pour des millions de personnes, mais les chances d’influencer les quelques élections dont les enjeux sont si importants sont pour la plupart généralement inférieures à un sur un trillion. Vous pourriez influer la société bien plus si vous donniez 20 € à un SDF, si vous vous occupiez des personnes qui sont chères à vos yeux, si vous bâtissiez des infrastructures alternatives en vue d’aider ceux dans le besoin, ou si vous cherchiez tout simplement à préserver votre santé mentale.

Le vote en soi est bien plus irrationnel qu’acheter un ticket de loterie. Le billet de loterie a au moins le mérite de présenter une certaine utilité économique pour les plus pauvres qui profitent d’une chance sur un milliard d’avoir un retour sur investissement. Bien entendu, il existe des exceptions où des résultats d’élections très serrés sont connus presque à l’avance, mais cela n’arrive presque jamais, et encore moins en 2018.

Votre vote n’a aucune influence, mais le fait qu’un grand nombre de gauchistes le pense montre l’irrationalisme collectif dans lequel nous baignons et qui EST important, car cela aura pour conséquence d’influencer toutes les autres formes d’activisme réellement pertinentes.

Les arguments en faveur du vote sont très kantiens : « Agis de telle sorte que tu traites l’humanité[…] » et « Si personne ne vote, alors le vote reprendra de son importance » ; mais si personne ne vote, alors le gouvernement ne serait plus légitime. Et dans tous les cas, il n’y a aucun lien de causalité. Votre démarche n’incitera pas les autres à en faire autant comme par magie : vous êtes un être distinct doté d’une personnalité qui vous est propre. De même, les conséquences de vos actes individuels sont faibles par opposition à par votre vote/choix. Vous pourriez tout à fait lancer une campagne pour influencer – ou tromper – l’opinion de milliers de personnes et ne pas voter vous-même, puisque votre vote seul n’a aucune importance. Je connais en effet des libéraux très futés qui agissent de la sorte.

Malheureusement, l’opinion générale de la gauche sur le vote est de plus en plus influencée par cette pensée délirante. Ils veulent monter des organisations gigantesques, des armées géantes, le tout composé d’individus qui agissent tous sans attendre aucune conséquence importante de leurs actes, dans l’espoir de contrôler les effets qui en découlent. Ce qui les intéresse n’est pas l’action directe et responsable qui entraîne des conséquences notoires. C’est pourquoi les gauchistes sont enfermés dans le schéma de pensée du « Vous devez participer à ces manifestations dénuées de tout sens ». Les manifestations seraient embarrassantes s’il n’y avait que quelques milliers de personnes présentes, mais imaginez la tempête qu’elles pourraient causer si des centaines de milliers de personnes envahissaient un bâtiment pour demander du changement ! Si vous continuez de voter, de vous présenter aux manifestations, et d’acheter des tickets de loterie, alors peut-être bien que…

La pensée démocratique est intéressée avant tout par les chiffres : « plus » de personnes est la définition même du succès. Quand elle influence le point de vue que l’on a des organisations, on ne considère plus l’activisme comme une action directe qui a des conséquences importantes.

On continue de nous demander de nous présenter dans des réunions d’organisations qui ont l’espoir qu’un jour ce rituel civil deviendra le catalyseur d’une force animée par le désir de changement. Sauf que la participation devient au bout d’un moment la finalité et non un moyen. Le nombre de participants devient alors le seul critère d’évaluation du succès. Le sentiment d’appartenir à une « communauté » devient alors la gratification de ceux qui participent à ces rituels.

Tout comme la démocratie nous apprend qu’il faut attendre les élections pour accomplir quelque chose, les gauchistes nous apprennent qu’il faut plutôt attendre la révolution. Les mouvements sont alors pensés pour attendre le moment de rupture où tous nos investissements paieront soudainement.

Bien sûr, dans l’attente de ce moment, une personne de plus inscrite au mouvement ne le fera pas progresser davantage. On voit ici les gauchistes devenir obsédés par l’idée d’instaurer une sorte de gommage de l’individualité rationnelle du peuple, de la même manière que le fait un gouvernement démocratique. Participer devient un symbole de vertu en soi, les actes sont contrôlés et récompensés d’une manière de plus en plus dissociée de leurs conséquences. Organiser le rituel devient plus important que son but, ses retombées et tout le reste.

Des actions collectives comme le vote ont besoin de prendre place dans une société pyramidale, qui exige au préalable de sacrifier sa liberté individuelle afin que tout le monde marche du même pas.

C’est pourquoi les anarchistes, et non les gauchistes, ont refusé de renoncer à leur capacité à agir et à prendre du recul sur la situation. Nous refusons de ne faire qu’un avec un système, des institutions, ou des stratégies faisant perdurer cet état d’esprit.

À la place, nous recommandons l’action directe et la recherche de nouvelles méthodes de production qui n’ont pas besoin de s’inscrire dans un premier temps sur une échelle démesurée. Nos projets sont étudiés pour fonctionner à long terme avec des effets progressifs ; nous refusons cet état d’esprit du « tout ou rien ». De cette façon, tout temps et énergie supplémentaire dépensés dans ce projet entraînent des effets concrets, comme nourrir des SDF ou armer des femmes transsexuelles. Ce n’est pas le cas du vote, qui force la convergence de tous les efforts vers un horizon contrôlé par le pouvoir mis en place, ce qui rend votre participation inutile jusqu’à ce qu’un certain nombre de personnes s’implique à leur tour. C’est pourquoi notre approche est bien plus efficace : chaque personne voit ses actes récompensés. Plutôt que de se fatiguer à lutter contre l’application de lois rendant illégal l’avortement, il est possible de mettre en place des réseaux d’aide à l’avortement qui ne répondent à aucun gouvernement. Ainsi, chaque nouvelle cellule ou établissement construit est une victoire. Les individus impliqués sont alors informés en temps réel de la portée de leurs actions ; ils savent pourquoi ils s’impliquent, et se voient récompensés tout au long de leur engagement. Nos projets et nos plans d’action sont fertiles à une culture d’engagement à tout instant ; ce qu’elle n’est pas, c’est une incitation à la passivité, à la complicité avec des institutions de plus grande taille, et à avoir un comportement irréprochable.

Même quand nous travaillons pour l’accomplissement d’un but lointain, comme la transformation de la société, nos efforts nous rapprochent idéalement de cette transition. Nous ne sommes peut-être pas encore assez pour rendre commune cette norme sociale ou pour construire un projet, mais ce jour approche, de même que la fin de cette situation temporaire. Dans notre démocratie, le résultat d’un scrutin n’est pas effectif au moment où une décision récolte assez de voix. Elle le sera peut-être des années plus tard, si des élections ne remettent pas cette décision en jeu.

En tant qu’anarchiste, ce qui importe le plus dans le rejet de la psychologie démocratique est d’être activement à la recherche d’actions individuelles à entreprendre. Quand les esprits individuels acceptent que les institutions soient les uniques agents actifs de la société, l’anarchisme redonne à tous la possibilité d’être responsable individuellement, facteur souvent oublié ou camouflé par la pensée démocratique. Être anarchiste signifie devoir se demander à tout moment « Que devrais-je faire pour tous nous libérer ? » Il faut, pour cela, constamment réévaluer le monde qui nous entoure et nos interactions avec celui-ci.

C’est pourquoi les anarchistes saisiront toujours l’opportunité d’effectuer des actions conséquentes, comme pirater des entreprises, développer des logiciels de chiffrement utilisés par des millions d’utilisateurs, ou assassiner des dictateurs. Nous sommes ceux qui imaginent sans cesse des nouveaux outils, qui réalisent des œuvres d’art, et qui sont heureux d’aller en prison pour avoir empêché un massacre et avoir sauvé des centaines de personnes. Quand il s’agit de faire une différence, les fruits sont récoltés par tonnes. Un de mes amis me disait : « Dans une société brisée, il n’y a aucune excuse pour n’avoir essayé de sauver individuellement des milliers de personnes. »

Si la pensée démocratique est influencée par Kant, alors le schéma logique et les rituels qui l’accompagnent sont profondément gravés dans nos esprits, quels qu’en soit leur efficacité ; elle nous endoctrine pour nous réduire en esclavage, avec un policier dans chacun de nos esprits pour nous rappeler à l’ordre. L’anarchisme contraste par son repos sur la théorie conséquentialiste, qui demande de prendre en compte à tout moment les causes et les conséquences, et de rester ouvert à des situations uniques.

Bien sûr, il existe des situations où un vote a effectivement une influence notoire sur une décision. Et les conséquences sont importantes. La police de la bienpensance anarchiste ne vous arrêtera pas pour avoir voté. Mais ces situations sont très rares pour nous autres les Américains, vivant dans des États et des comtés collés les uns aux autres. C’est même quelque chose que jamais nous ne vivrons. Il est important de s’en rendre compte, car mettre en déroute la pensée démocratique est indispensable si nous voulons renverser le cours des choses.

L’argument « Oui, mais si tout le monde pensait comme toi » ne veut rien dire, car le choix personnel de voter ou non n’a aucune influence sur celui des autres. Dans le meilleur des cas, la contestation de la psychologie démocratique et des arguments dogmatiques comme ceux cités précédemment nous aidera à nous créer un espace culturel où chacun peut agir plus librement, et penser plus rationnellement, voire peut-être même persuader de nouvelles personnes à nous rejoindre. Mais surtout : si nous étions plus nombreux à partager la même pensée, il serait plus facile de récolter tous les fruits de nos actions.

Original : Frank Miroslav. The Future of Digital Proudhonism. Traduit par Pierre Dufour.

Le dernier article de Gavin Mueller consultable sur le journal en ligne boundary2 intitulé « Le proudhonisme numérique » est une critique marxiste de ce que Mueller décrit comme étant le « proudhonisme numérique », un terme sans substance pour ceux qui pensent que la technologie réduit les inégalités entre les classes sociales. Le proudhonisme numérique n’est pas une idéologie formelle, mais plutôt un courant de pensée mineur porté par une multitude d’individus qu’on retrouve dans l’ensemble du spectre politique. Pour Mueller, le proudhonisme numérique est la pensée non officielle de ceux pour qui abolir la propriété intellectuelle est un moyen de destruction des concentrations de richesse ainsi que des structures injustes du pouvoir dans notre société C’est d’après lui une position procapitaliste, ou du moins qui se prête à la récupération par les capitalistes. En effet, il affirme que plusieurs des composantes de la pensée sont bienveillantes vis-à-vis du capitalisme.

Le premier problème concerne les proudhonistes numériques qu’il décrit : ils sont tous originaires de milieux économiques et politiques différents. Pour rendre mon analyse moins confuse, je ne parlerai que des principaux penseurs politiques de gauche qu’il mentionne dans son essai ; les autres issus de la droite et du centre ne se soucient pas de mettre fin au capitalisme. Cependant, rétrécir le champ de notre étude à ce petit groupe ne la rend pas pour autant plus simple.

Voici une rapide présentation de leurs convictions :

• Cory Doctorow est une sorte de penseur libertarien ordinaire de gauche, il entretient ouvertement l’idée d’établir une économie planifiée.
• Paul Mason se décrit comme un « social-démocrate radical » qui voit l’intervention du gouvernement dans les secteurs financiers et énergétiques comme un facteur vital lors de la transition vers une société postcapitaliste ; il préconise également des réformes comme la création d’un revenu universel de base.
• Enfin, Kevin Carson est un anarchiste « tout court » désirant que l’activité économique ait le moins de liens possible avec la sphère monétaire, tout en admettant l’utilité des marchés pour coordonner les activités.

Pourtant, même inspiré par la pensée complexe de ces individus, Mueller a tort sur la nature essentielle des rapports entre la propriété intellectuelle et le capitalisme moderne. Son ignorance des mécanismes du capitalisme est révélée quand il affirme que le capitalisme sans la propriété intellectuelle serait « le capitalisme tel que Marx l’avait exactement décrit ». Une telle affirmation révèle un profond manque de compréhension de l’économie moderne. Aujourd’hui, les sources de profits primaires ne sont plus générées via l’appropriation de la plus-value produite par les ouvriers, mais plutôt par l’obtention de diverses rentes exploitant l’activité économique.  Bien que les sources de ces rentes proviennent pour l’essentiel de la possession de biens privés, les plus lucratives sont en fait la rente financiarisée de produits ou de services, et bien sûr la propriété intellectuelle.

Je serais curieux de connaître le modèle économique des entreprises évoluant dans la société sans propriété intellectuelle imaginée par Mueller. Au débotté, je suis capable d’affirmer que la propriété intellectuelle débarrassée des contraintes légales annihilerait l’industrie du divertissement et du logiciel, et mettrait à mal celle du matériel informatique, ainsi que de la biotechnologie ; et ça ne serait que les effets à court terme. Oui, l’agriculture, les manufactures, le commerce, la production d’énergie, tout cela resterait sous le contrôle des capitalistes, mais refuser d’appliquer les lois relatives à la propriété intellectuelle provoquerait le plus grand transfert de richesse que l’humanité ait jamais connu ; il serait rendu possible tout simplement par le refus de condamner ceux qui enfreignent la loi. À l’inverse de la propriété de biens privés, qui peut être protégée sans l’aide de l’État, la propriété intellectuelle sans régulation peut rapidement nous échapper.

Mueller affirme ensuite que la concentration des marchés est un processus naturel, mais ne le justifie que grâce à la théorie de Marx vieille de 150 ans. Cependant, comme nous l’avons vu, le capitalisme moderne se nourrit des rentes, elles-mêmes alimentées par les pénuries artificielles organisées par l’État, ce qui prouve que le marxisme orthodoxe comme outil d’analyse du capitalisme moderne est terriblement dépassé. Le dénigrement des théories de Kevin Carson comme « des fantaisies risibles » prouve le manque d’attention portée à son analyse rigoureuse et radicale du capitalisme moderne et de ses diverses alternatives. Lorsqu’il propose sa vision de la production de biens de consommation dans un monde dominé par le proudhonisme numérique, Mueller mélange la vision (libérale) de Chris Anderson, qui imagine des artisans envoyer des fichiers CAO aux fabricants pour qu’ils produisent ensuite à leur tour les objets dessinés sur ces plans, avec l’approche de Kevin Carson, bien plus radicale.

En effet, Carson n’est pas seulement contre cette approche économique pour des raisons éthiques, il l’est aussi pour des raisons économiques ! La critique que Mueller formule sur sa pensée néglige entièrement son raisonnement extrêmement détaillé à propos des raisons d’adopter à nouveau un modèle de production locale et collectif. Sa vision n’est pas le fruit d’un rêve du retour à l’autosuffisance comme au Moyen Âge, de la paralysie délibérée de la production économique pour réaliser les fantasmes des trublions de l’ère de l’information, elle est plutôt le résultat d’une analyse radicale sur le fonctionnement des marchés, tournés délibérément vers la production et la vente de masse, pour servir l’État et le Capital. Kevin Carson a montré de manière indiscutable pourquoi le modèle de production en usine n’était viable qu’au XXe siècle grâce à la présence très forte de l’État dans l’économie, en plus d’être favorisé par la suprématie des États-Unis dans le contexte de l’après-guerre. Tout ceci a facilité son exportation dans le reste du monde1. L’amalgame d’une analyse radicale avec celle de Chris Anderson, qui écrit à l’attention des masses populaires, est indubitablement fallacieux.  

Mais ça ne veut pas pour autant dire que la critique marxiste est complètement dépassée. Je pense que certains de ses arguments sont toujours pertinents, notamment les éléments de réponses apportées sur la question des industries fortement capitalistiques, comme les fabricants de semi-conducteurs, ou les technologies avant-gardistes telles que les nanomachines ou les réacteurs nucléaires modulaires au thorium, qui ont tendance à être plutôt chers à l’origine. Ce type de technologie pourrait être la cause des concentrations économiques incontrôlables que craignent les marxistes. Affronter le problème sera vital si l’on veut progresser ; j’aimerais beaucoup que ces questions prennent plus d’importance dans les débats entre anarchistes. Malheureusement, la réponse formulée par Mueller et inspirée des dogmes marxistes n’apporte presque rien de nouveau au débat. Ce n’est pas parce que les concentrations économiques sont possibles qu’elles se réaliseront. Les libertariens ont dévoué une grande partie de leur temps à étudier la variété des mécanismes capables de mettre à mal les tendances d’accumulations, ainsi que les méthodes qu’emploie l’État pour étouffer ces contre-pouvoirs, en faveur du Capital.

Mueller n’a pas entièrement faux non plus. Une de ses suggestions est très intéressante : « les créateurs devraient se regrouper avec les autres sur la chaîne de production afin d’être considérés comme des travailleurs, plutôt que de s’éparpiller dans des groupes hétéroclites de producteurs. Ainsi, ils pourront former des organisations, comme des syndicats, et porter leur parole au niveau politique. »

Bien que cette proposition néglige le potentiel de décentralisation du travail numérique, il y a largement matière à critiquer les « artisans numériques » qui utilisent des outils électroniques pour travailler, et ont un impact négatif sur les pays où ces outils sont créés, ou détruits. Comment le hacker anarchiste cryptant ses données ou élaborant un drone pour déjouer la police peut-il tenir compte des ouvriers produisant le matériel de pointe sur lequel il travaille ? Ouvriers qui, dans la plupart des cas, évoluent dans un cadre de travail désastreux et sont exposés à des toxines environnementales. Répondre à ces questions est tout à fait pertinent.

Même ici, la critique proudhoniste de la propriété intellectuelle est appropriée ! Le matériel électronique moderne n’a pas été conçu pour être recyclé convenablement, ni même pour être amélioré. Nous n’avons pas de technologies modulaires combinables selon notre volonté : nous devons travailler avec les outils qui nous sont imposés. L’état actuel du marché est largement influencé par les lois relatives à la propriété intellectuelle, qui rendent illégale la modification des technologies, tout en rendant plus compliqué pour de nouveaux acteurs de produire des technologies plus durables. Il est impossible d’ignorer l’influence de ces dynamiques sur la structuration des économies dans nos sociétés.

Un autre argument de Mueller montre qu’il n’a effectué que des recherches basiques, car il avance très douteusement que « la révolution est silencieuse ; elle ne nécessite aucune grève ou confrontation avec les capitalistes. » Cependant, Kevin Carson, en tant qu’anarchiste, a bien sûr écrit un nombre incalculable de pages sur la lutte contemporaine entre l’État et le Capital. Il a également proposé une excellente vue d’ensemble sur les différents points de vue des philosophes sur la nature des futurs conflits connectés2. Il sera nécessaire de nuancer les propos avancés car ils ne sont ni exhaustifs ou gravés dans le marbre : le futurisme est un art et non une science. Néanmoins, cela reste un argument de taille en faveur de l’organisation de forces en réseaux décentralisés qui auraient la capacité de faire face à des forces structurées hiérarchiquement, bien mieux équipées et beaucoup plus importantes. Évidemment, il voudrait éviter que la poursuite d’un monde meilleur s’accomplisse sans conflit direct, mais dire qu’il en rejette la possibilité est risible.

À mon avis, les solutions proposées par Mueller n’apportent rien de nouveau. Appeler au « contrôle démocratique » du travail numérique est une belle plaisanterie, mais à quoi cela ressemblerait si ça devait se produire ? Les problèmes administratifs observés sur les réseaux sociaux comme YouTube et Twitter ne sont pas survenus de par leur manque de démocratie, mais plutôt à cause de leur taille. Je fais encore moins confiance aux réseaux sociaux nationaux « démocratiques » qu’aux monopoles privés. De surcroît, qu’est-ce que ça veut dire, contrôler démocratiquement les moyens de productions de contenu culturel ? Avons-nous réellement besoin d’une supervision démocratique pour de création d’outils comme GIMP ou Audacity, qui sont déjà modifiables au gré des utilisateurs ? Pour donner un exemple où la socialisation est même plutôt appropriée, les producteurs de films hollywoodiens gourmands en effets spéciaux se reposent en majorité sur des employés pour créer ces effets à l’aide d’outils physiques peu coûteux en comparaison3. Qu’est-ce que signifie socialiser les outils quand le coût le plus important n’est pas le matériel mais la main-d’œuvre ? La réponse d’un proudhoniste numérique serait de donner l’accès à ce matériel à tous, de rendre libre tous les logiciels, et de laisser chaque individu s’organiser de la manière qu’il souhaite. Les processus de calcul intensif pourraient être partagés entre des superordinateurs ou des grappes de réseaux selon un emploi du temps donné. La solution de Mueller, qui repose sur des « syndicats et des partis politiques » n’est pas seulement abstraite, elle ignore également tout ce qui a été accompli auparavant à travers des actions directes comme la création de logiciels libres ou inversement le piratage de logiciels privés ; en d’autres termes, la saisie des moyens de production.  Bien entendu, il est probablement possible de créer un espace où les partis, mais aussi les institutions, peuvent ouvrir des portes que des individus seuls ne peuvent ; idéalement, nos pratiques devraient préfigurer au mieux le monde tel qu’on l’idéalise. Essayer d’appliquer une solution datant du XIXe au XXIe siècle entraîne bien des problèmes.

Mais ce n’est rien quand on lit la comparaison risible établie par Mueller entre le proudhonisme numérique et le fascisme moderne, coupables par association. Dans son paragraphe le plus irréel, il affirme :

« Proudhon et ses idées correspondent à l’idéologie dominante autour du Bitcoin et des autres cryptomonnaies : les problèmes économiques sont causés par des manipulations conspirationnistes des monnaies “fiduciaires” orchestrées par les gouvernements et les organismes financiers comme la Réserve fédérale américaine. À la lumière des récentes analyses qui suggèrent que le Bitcoin fonctionne moins comme un moyen d’échange que comme une formation sociotechnique à laquelle sont associées une série d’idées erronées de droite sur l’économie, et que des groupes fascistes actuels utilisent ces monnaies pour financer leurs activités, il est clair que le proudhonisme numérique a trouvé sa place aux côtés des idéologies réactionnaires. Historiquement, cela était également vrai en ce qui concerne les travaux de Proudhon. Comme Zeev Sternhell le mentionne, les membres d’une organisation politique française du début du 20e siècle appelée Le Cercle Proudhon étaient captivés par l’opposition de Proudhon à Marx, son dégoût de la démocratie, et son antisémitisme. D’après Sternhell, ce groupe a influencé la pensée protofasciste française. »

Je m’attendrais plutôt à voir ce genre d’amalgame farceur et de réflexion bateau dans une vidéo d’InfoWars ou dans un article de Breitbart, et non pas écrit par un académicien marxiste pour une foutue revue révisée par des pairs. Tout d’abord, suggérer que les proudhonistes numériques orientés ouvertement à droite (Mason, Carson et Doctorow) « se placent sans trop de souci » à côté des idéologies les plus réactionnaires est absurde.  Mason et Carson ont écrit des guides stratégiques détaillés sur les moyens de combattre les dernières réapparitions d’idéologies réactionnaires en Occident. Ensuite, Doctorow est un vétéran des libertés technologiques au sujet desquelles nous sommes tous concernés, et c’est une des personnalités les plus en bute à la « guerre à l’informatique ». Si pour Mueller cela équivaut à du fascisme, j’aimerais entendre ce qu’est pour lui une position agressive.

Enfin, il faut noter que Proudhon n’était pas un fervent partisan de l’étalon or, son opinion sur la monnaie était plus proche de celle de David Graeber que des libertariens : que la monnaie est créée à partir de la dette, plutôt qu’à base de produits finis ayant une valeur intrinsèque. Ceux dont les idées se rapprochent le plus de la tradition intellectuelle de Proudhon, comme beaucoup au C4SS, n’ont pas accepté le Bitcoin sans critique. Depuis que cette technologie est apparue, le Centre a publié des critiques du Bitcoin (et des cryptomonnaies en général) écrites par des individus venant de tous les horizons. Bien que le Centre n’ait aucune position fixe sur le sujet, de nombreuses personnalités ont mis en exergue le besoin de proposer diverses options dans le futur.

Examinez l’analyse du problème du Bitcoin par Kevin Carson :

« Mais ce qui est plus important que la question de la sécurité et de la transparence de l’État c’est celle du […] rôle fondamental du Bitcoin en tant que réserve de valeur et sa capacité à mimer l’économie. Donc, si aucune des deux parties n’a de Bitcoins lors de la transaction […] il n’y a aucune source de liquidités pour des échanges de services entre eux […] C’est mal adapté aux principes primordiaux des monnaies alternatives : fournir une monnaie d’échange entre les individus membres d’une même économie locale, membres qui ont besoin de transformer leurs services en pouvoir d’achat dans un environnement économique stagnant et dans lequel il n’y a pas d’argent4. »

De même que la critique de William Gillis sur l’approche actuelle des cryptomonnaies :

« L’objectif implicite d’une devise forte est aussi irraisonnable que celui d’un syndicat surpuissant. Une monnaie unique mondiale n’arrivera jamais à satisfaire aux critères de confiance et de réputation ordinaires, et à échapper aux réalités humaines sur laquelle elle repose ; les instabilités masquées seront toujours là. Introduire sur le marché des devises parallèles concurrentes, façonnées d’après le rêve de la devise universelle, ne règle en rien le problème. »

J’ai tendance à penser que des systèmes basés sur la facilité d’échange des données personnelles tendrait à l’établissement d’un modèle fédéral rhizomatique où chaque groupe, collectif ou association évoluerait en utilisant sa « devise » respective, imaginée pour être reconfigurée dynamiquement, assistée par des protocoles de routage traitant de la topologie du réseau à la volée pour les transactions individuelles, tout en conservant des informations beaucoup plus ciblées sur les protocoles de confiance et de réputation.

Cette analyse est sûrement absente de la pensée vulgaire des libertariens qui se sont tournés, ou vont se tourner, vers l’extrême-droite, car ils ont tendance à penser que toute ressource rare comme l’or ou les cryptomonnaies devient naturellement une devise.

Or tout ceci est théoriquement et empiriquement faux ! Comme Graeber l’a décrit en détail, le crédit produit de la monnaie est entièrement fondé sur la confiance, et ainsi intensément subjectif. En ce qui concerne les métaux précieux Chris Shaw a montré que ces prétendues devises universelles comme l’or ne sont pas le fruit d’une convergence d’individus vers une solution unique, mais au contraire le résultat de son imposition par l’État grâce au contrôle des stocks d’or et de la manipulation de sa valeur pécuniaire par des taxes contraignantes. Imposer une devise à une population par des taxes contraignantes détruit ce qui aurait pu devenir un écosystème organique de confiance, pour avoir à la place un système rigide et statique dont le but est de consolider le pouvoir mis en place, et échoue de manière catastrophique.

L’analyse du croisement de la confiance avec le contrôle et son influence sur le fonctionnement des devises manque cruellement à l’analyse marxiste moderne du capitalisme. Les marxistes supposent que la concentration des marchés est a priori due à la simplification des dynamiques de concurrence jusqu’au point où on ignore non seulement les problèmes liés à la devise, mais le rapport entre des forces entropiques qui, en temps normal, devraient compenser en partie les concentrations, notamment sur les problèmes plus larges du manque de confiance, de la circulation des informations, des barrières à l’entrée, de coordination, du manque de moyens ne relevant pas du marché pour répondre aux besoins, etc. Le plus ironique est que la simplification marxiste du marché aux dynamiques décrites dans Le Capital limite radicalement l’analyse, de la même manière que l’économie néoclassique repose sur des acteurs hautement rationnels et néglige les conséquences environnementales. Échouer à prendre en compte les dynamiques économiques qui pourraient nuire à la tendance des concentrations par la création d’institutions de grande taille devient de plus en plus coûteux. Les Marxistes deviennent épistémologiquement aveugles face à une série entière de dynamiques essentielles à la théorisation d’une économie non capitaliste.

Nous devrions tous absolument débattre de ces dynamiques ! En 2019, nous pourrons heureusement lire Fully Automated Luxury Communism d’Aaron Bastani (Un communisme de luxe entièrement automatisé) et The People’s Republic of Wal-Mart (La République Populaire de Wal-Mart) de Michal Rozworki, qui tous deux affirment qu’une économie socialiste non marchande est possible, la définissent, et expliquent son fonctionnement théorique. Phillips et Rozworki vont examiner spécifiquement le problème du calcul économique à l’aide d’un logiciel de management interne d’Amazon et Wal-Mart (qui ont toutes deux une économie interne plus importante que celle de l’URSS à son apogée). Il y a de bonnes raisons de penser que ces réflexions autour des mécanismes de distribution ne seront pas seulement des sujets d’étude pour club socialiste universitaire ou des documents de réflexion jacobinistes, mais pourraient aussi en réalité influencer la politique des partis de gauche en occident. Par exemple, John McDonnell, chancelier du Cabinet fantôme, a animé, en partenariat avec le parti travailliste britannique, une série de conférences traitant des nouvelles visions économiques pour le 21e siècle. Même si des conférenciers supposés être des sociaux-démocrates comme Joseph Stiglitz, Yanis Varoufakis, et Mariana Mazzucato étaient présents, il était aussi possible d’y écouter des radicaux comme Paul Mason et Nick Srnicek qui se sont longtemps battus pour mettre fin au capitalisme. Par ailleurs, il y a de nombreuses raisons de penser que nous allons voir ces idées devenir de plus en plus populaires chez les intellectuels de gauche qui alimentent la pensée des autres partis politiques ou mouvements, tout comme la nouvelle droite réactionnaire a créé la figure du « mondialiste antimondialiste » qui s’est exporté sous plusieurs visages et idées à travers le monde. Nous pouvons observer la même situation chez la gauche, que ce soit chez l’élite avec les intellectuels ou les hommes politiques, que chez le peuple à travers les débats sur les réseaux sociaux et les forums (et bien sûr, les mèmes).

Comme il y a de très bonnes raisons de croire que théoriser de la sorte pourrait à un moment donné former la base d’une politique de gauche avenante, le Centre pour une société sans État (Center for a Stateless Society) et les critiques radicales qu’il a formulées sur les problèmes liés aux actions collectives doivent absolument devenir des sujets de discussion. Je suis totalement pour la comparaison du capitalisme moderne avec l’URSS (voir Capitalist Realism de Mark Fisher et Bullshit Jobs:A Theory de David Graeber), mais si le seul sujet de débat est de savoir si nous voulons que Jeff Bezos (un Jeff Bezos élu démocratiquement) ou qu’un vote de masse décide des orientations économiques, je serai extrêmement déçu. Les problèmes liés aux actions collectives sont intrinsèques à chaque société complexe et se reposer sur les techniques de management de technocrates/d’algorithmes ou sur l’engagement continu des assemblées locales n’aide nullement à rendre le monde attrayant.

Bien sûr, j’accepte toutes les analyses. Bien que je peux être en désaccord avec les idées de ces auteurs, je ne peux nier la richesse d’une étude sur le logiciel de management interne d’Amazon ou de Wal-Mart et avoir ensuite des discussions sur la façon dont elle pourrait être utile à répondre à certains problèmes liés aux actions collectives. La gauche de demain, à la fois optimiste et high-tech, est depuis plusieurs décennies malheureusement encore trop peu développée ; c’est pourquoi j’accueille chaleureusement son retour dans les débats

dans l’espoir que cette direction avant-gardiste ramène le marxisme au 21e siècle   tant en termes de compréhension des possibilités technologique que de lignes de fractures idéologiques qui en émergent. L’amalgame marxiste du capitalisme et des marchés est la cause de siècles de confusion dont l’influence se fait encore ressentir aujourd’hui. Ce prétendu proudhonisme numérique est le début d’un mouvement allant au-devant de ces incompréhensions, ou qui les a peut-être déjà même résolues. Il reste à voir si le marxisme académique sera capable d’entreprendre la même démarche.

1. Homebrew Industrial Revolution de Kevin Carson décrit comment la prétendue « économie d’échelle » a été encouragée grâce à l’intervention massive de l’État.
2. Lisez le chapitre 3 de The Desktop Regulatory State, Networks vs. Hierarchies: The End Game, de même que Bring on the Drones!
3. Le poste de dépense le plus important pour la production d’effets spéciaux à Hollywood est ou bien la main d’œuvre, ou bien le traitement informatique. Pour donner un exemple, le film Monsters University de Pixar, sorti en 2013, a nécessité la puissance de 2000 ordinateurs d’un centre de données, y compris 1 des 25 superordinateurs les plus puissants de l’époque pour sa réalisation. Chaque image a demandé 29 heures de calcul ! De Special Effects Aren’t Cheap: The Cost of CGI, Misk, Dan Martens.
4. Kevin Carson, The Desktop Regulatory State, pg. 194

With all the current hype surrounding the Green New Deal and the urgency to combat climate change, one must wonder where libertarians fit into the debate. Many more broadly on the left have embraced the Green New Deal, seeing it as proof that the Green Party and Progressive movements have successfully influenced the conversation. Even on the anarchist and libertarian left, some have chosen to embrace the Green New Deal as an incremental transitionary measure which, while far from perfect, could be utilized to fight off some of the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late. However, one thing many aren’t taking into account in this debate is that the Green New Deal isn’t one specific set of proposals, but is rather the title given to multiple different proposals put forth by Jill Stein, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others which are very different in many respects.

While Jill Stein’s version is far from perfect, it can be argued that many of its proposals would lead to a net gain in many areas, namely the proposal to fund green infrastructure by cutting the military by at least 50%. However, the current Democratic Party version of the bill drops this proposal entirely and instead suggests funding the Deal via the creation of public banks. That being said, while we absolutely need to do as much as we can to combat the military industrial complex in order to save the lives of those directly affected, the creation of public banks is nothing to scoff at and could have major environmental and economic benefits which will be covered later in this essay.

The other major gripe with the current version of the Green New Deal is the group backing it, known as the Sunrise Movement, has vowed to stand steadfastly against most forms of carbon pricing and other similar market solutions to carbon reduction. While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has advocated for a measure which would account for the social cost of carbon, many of the supporters of the current Green New Deal have opposed free market measures such as a carbon tax, seemingly in the name of misguided pseudo-anti-capitalism. The main argument against such taxes seems to be the idea that we shouldn’t be “commodifying” the environment. Such sentiments can make sense on a very surface level, but the reality of the matter is that under actually existing capitalism, the environment is already commodified. Factoring in the social cost of carbon doesn’t commodify it further, instead it adds externalities back into the analysis which many corporations have been shielded from considering in the current rigged market due to favorable economic intervention and regulatory environments. Dismissing market solutions in a market society doesn’t make much sense. Even if your ideal is a non-market society, you have to tailor your solutions towards what currently exists, not what exists in your ideal vision. Adding these externalities back into the equation forces corporate actors to take into consideration the environmental impact of their business, and it encourages more environmentally friendly business decisions by exploiting the profit motive of affected corporations. That does not mean we must give up our ideals or compromise our visions, it just means we must be practical in the strategies we favor while we currently inhabit this society.

Finally, to touch upon a point which Kevin Carson has touched upon many times: that of the universal job guarantee. While I think he and I would both agree (and I do not wish to speak for him), that if the state is to already enter the conversation, then it’s better to have them promoting green alternatives instead of the opposite, and while one can recognize that poverty contributes to pollution since poor folks are less able to utilize their more limited access to resources in an environmentally efficient manner due to a lack of access to more efficient alternatives, it fails to follow that a universal job guarantee helps the problem in any way whatsoever. Such a model is based on the outdated capitalist assumption that your value is based on the labor you produce. In an era of increasing fear of job automation, it seems strange and counter-productive to see folks attempt to artificially create more jobs instead of figuring out a way to divorce wealth and self-worth from labor.

It has been over a century since the fight for the 8-hour workday and yet, despite the obvious technological advancements since that time, we are still expected to work the same amount of hours if not more despite the obvious fact that it takes less labor to produce the same quality of life that we previously had. Now that isn’t to deny the idea that we should continue to improve our quality of life but, as we can see from both David Graeber’s analysis of “bullshit jobs” and the tremendous amount of product waste and artificial scarcity caused by state-capitalist intervention and the drive for continuous production, we come to understand that a lot less labor goes into maintaining the quality of life we’ve grown to expect than we care to admit as a society. However, since we’re still tied to old notions of labor value, we are inevitably tied to outdated models of mass production.

While I am not opposed to retrofitting outdated factories to produce bullet trains and other forms of green public transportation and energy production as a transitional measure to combat the negative environmental effects of centuries of crony capitalism, I see no need to partner such growth with a universal jobs guarantee. The only way to artificially create more jobs to fulfill such needs is to either utilize labor in such an inefficient way as to need more labor power for jobs which actually require less labor power due to modern technology or to utilize labor efficiently and instead produce more than is needed thus contribute to overall waste production which causes more environmental pollution. Not to mention, pushing for green subsidies while doing nothing to combat the subsidies already received by the energy and agricultural industries does little to level the playing field in favor of green alternatives. We need to push to end such subsidies while also fighting to truly decouple labor from wealth in a way that allows for an efficient use of labor without the creation of “bullshit jobs” or needless overproduction. The only true way to promote green energy is to level the playing field by ending current subsidies to big energy companies and the the best option we have for decoupling labor from wealth within our current economic framework is to enact a universal basic income.

Such UBI could even be implemented via this plan without the need to raise taxes at all. In fact, one of the most radical elements of this version of the Green New Deal is its implementation of a public banking system. For all the complaints about the Federal Reserve, Wall Street cronies, and taxation being theft, it’s rather odd to hear silence on this issue. Public banks, while they may be launched by the state, are publicly owned by the citizens of a given area. Such banks are not used for personal individual finance, for that we still must turn to local banks, credit unions, cryptocurrency, and other alternative forms of currency and exchange if we wish to divest from such things. Public banks instead are mostly focused on funding infrastructure and other government projects. They grant loans for state projects which would far exceed the limits of local banks or credit unions and use the interest earned on these loans to fund further projects. This allows for the state to generate income that does not rely on methods of taxation while simultaneously taking power away from Wall Street bankers and into the hands of local communities who act as shareholders and are able to vote on how funds are managed and spent which also means more transparency in government spending. Why would any libertarian be against a public banking system that leads to more government transparency, less taxation, less control from the Federal Reserve and Wall Street, and more local control?

Well they haven’t always been so silent on the issue. For a brief period, some right libertarians were in favor of public banks as a form of “state’s rights.” In the fight for cannabis legalization, the federal government has maintained the illegality of the substance despite various states deciding otherwise. This led to a dilemma as legal cannabis businesses are legally banned from using federal banks. When this issue first came to light, many in the industry were championing public banks as a viable option for legal states to cater to the needs of local cannabis businesses. Of course this issue faded fast into the shadows and public banking didn’t become a hot topic again until Standing Rock, which is where this ties back into the Green New Deal.

In the aftermath of the battle at Standing Rock, the anti-pipeline movement has shifted its focus towards divestment. The goal is to push local governments, universities, and other entities to divest from the fossil fuel industry and any company which invests in oil pipelines. In the context of local governments, this primarily means moving the government’s funds from one of the bigger banks who invested in these projects and towards healthier alternatives. The issue is that there aren’t many alternatives that meet the needs of a local government.

Smaller local banks don’t have the capacity to fund larger projects and credit unions aren’t set up for such things either. Public banks allow for an alternative that is community-owned and much more transparent. So not only would the local government be divesting from these major banks which fund environmentally disastrous projects, but when they do switch to a public bank, the way that money is spent gets decided by the citizens who own the public bank, thus allowing more democratic control over how our government spends its money and on what projects.

And the divestment campaign doesn’t stop at pipelines and Big Oil. In fact, since Standing Rock, the call for divestment from these projects has joined forces with the call to divest from private prisons. As the Campaign to Fight Toxic Prisons has exposed, many prisons are on superfund sites and contribute to some of the worst environmental damage in the country. If the Green New Deal is successful in creating a public banking system it could go a long way towards helping these divestment movements which would in turn leave those industries with much less money to wreak havoc with.

So libertarians shouldn’t be faulted for supporting the Green New Deal in its current form as an incremental measure, no matter how small, towards shifting from our current centralized system of environmental destruction towards a system that is slightly more green in nature, but we should see the chance for libertarians to enter the conversation and offer better more holistic solutions. As the next presidential election approaches, libertarians have the chance to influence the conversation in various ways. I believe a libertarian Green New Deal should consist of measures to end subsidies for the fossil fuel and agricultural industries while also fighting to break up government-owned utility monopolies thus allowing people to go off-grid.

Fighting against copyright, patent laws, eminent domain, and zoning laws can also go a long way towards helping solve the problem. Copyright and patent laws allow companies like Monsanto to copyright genetic materials and use it to shut down small farmers while also promoting unsafe practices such as monocropping and the usage of unsafe herbicides and pesticides while eminent domain laws allow pipeline companies and similar groups to seize personal property in order to complete their projects. Zoning laws also contribute artificially to urban sprawl which contributes to more of a need for various means of transportation whereas more efficient planning could lead to less of a need for long distance travel.

Lastly, as long as government is set to build infrastructure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pushing for those projects to be more environmentally efficient. As such, placing restrictions on government infrastructure is not a bad thing. Requiring governments to choose private contracts based on green standards is not a bad thing. Requiring governments to prioritize government contract with green builders and manufacturers or even voting to force public utilities towards renewable sources can make a difference while we’re still forced to live under a statist system. And if they can fund it via public banks instead of stolen taxes, all the better.

Just remember that this is a completely non-binding resolution so they are not held to enact any of these things. That means that we must hold their feet to the fire and push for the aspects of this Deal that we agree with while also continuing to push for other solutions as well. I fault no one for backing the current model for the Green New Deal while recognizing that it is inefficient as a long term solution in many ways. But libertarians should enter the conversation and propose alternative versions of the Green New Deal in the same way that the Greens and Democrats have their unique versions. Maybe we could combine the best of both while adding our own flair by proposing a universal basic income funded by military cuts and a system of local public banks partnered with environmental standards for all government buildings and public infrastructure (as long as they’re in charge of building the roads, I at least want a damn bike lane!), carbon pricing, and other truly green free market solutions – solutions which could have a effect in the long term, rather than just providing short-term transitionary measures.

Original : Jules Elysard. “Liberty, for you, is the Devil”: Divinity and Subordination in Anarchist Thought. Traduit par Pierre Dufour.

« Viens ! Satan, viens, le calomnié des prêtres et des rois, que je t’embrasse, que je te serre sur ma poitrine ! » Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1858).

Dieu, dans presque toutes ses incarnations dans les religions monothéistes, représente la forme d’autorité ultime. La création doit respecter les règles de son créateur ou craindre le jugement éternel. C’est un thème richement débattu dans les cercles anarchistes, si bien que certains peuvent se demander d’où vient leur opposition. Au cours de l’histoire, de nombreuses raisons ont mené les anarchistes à faire de l’État et de l’Église leurs ennemis. Au-delà des agissements de l’Église ou de tout autre groupement religieux par le passé, le concept même de Dieu tel qu’admis communément les oppose à la religion.

Pour commencer, le jugement de Dieu est binaire : bien ou mal, enfer ou paradis, noir ou blanc. Le gris n’a pas sa place dans cette configuration, alors que c’est la couleur qui symbolise le mieux l’humanité. Dieu est la forme d’autorité suprême. Mikhaïl Bakounine écrivait en 1882 : « Si Dieu est le maître, l’homme est esclave. Alors qu’il n’est capable ni d’invoquer la justice et la vérité ni de jouir de la vie éternelle par lui-même, il ne peut atteindre ces idées que par la révélation divine. »

Dès lors, Dieu devient le panoptique ultime. Il observe les moindres faits et gestes de ceux qu’il a créé, sans que ceux-ci ne puissent l’observer en retour Non seulement il est omniscient, mais il (car oui, Dieu a un genre) peut émettre un jugement. La description que fait Foucault du panoptique fait écho à cette oppression perpétuelle : « L’inspection fonctionne sans cesse. Le regard partout est en éveil. » Dieu voit et juge sans limite

Mais sur quels critères juge-t-il ses créations ? Obéissance, vénération, et sacrifice, la trinité de la dévotion. Les autoritaristes désirent la même chose du peuple. Est-ce vraiment si surprenant ? Dieu est le roi des rois. Il prêche la foi, et non l’incrédulité. L’autorité répondant au modèle panoptique nous propose un ordre ne laissant aucune place au refus.

« [Pour Dieu,] l’homme n’est qu’une créature, un jouet, profondément religieux dans sa conscience, mais athéiste dans ses croyances. La suprématie de Dieu est une mutilation pour l’humanité : c’est l’athéisme. » Proudhon (1847).

La conception de Dieu prend racine très profondément dans le cœur de l’humanité. Non seulement sa conceptualisation divise les hommes en deux catégories, c’est-à-dire ceux qui vivent en harmonie avec leur divinité, et ceux qui sont rejetés, mais elle renforce en plus le mythe selon lequel l’autorité donne naissance à l’ordre. Un mythe qui nous laisse penser qu’un ordre divin et sacré existe dans notre monde matériel. L’égoïste Max Stirner (1844) résume l’idée :

Celui qui croit aux spectres n’admet pas plus la venue d’un monde supérieur que celui qui croit à l’esprit, et tous deux cherchent derrière le monde sensible, un monde suprasensible. En somme, ils créent un autre monde auquel ils ont foi, et cet autre monde né de leur esprit est un monde spirituel : leurs sens ne saisissent et ne savent absolument rien d’un monde autre, hors des sens, leur esprit seul y vit.

Il est donné la priorité à la construction sociale du monde spirituel plutôt qu’à celle du monde matériel véritable.

Les doctrines théistes sont en opposition avec la réalité : l’ordre social donne naissance à l’autorité, et non l’inverse. L’autorité, le droit d’acquérir le pouvoir, est le fruit de la construction sociale. Ce n’est pas Dieu, mais l’homme, qui a initié l’autorité dans la société.

« Une fois la divinité installée, elle fut naturellement proclamée la cause, la raison, l’arbitre et le dispensateur absolu de toutes choses : le monde ne fut plus rien, il fut tout ; et l’homme, son vrai créateur, après l’avoir tirée du néant à son insu, s’agenouilla devant lui, l’adora et se proclama sa créature et son esclave. » Bakounine (1882).

Dans Ecology of Freedom (œuvre non traduite, 1982), Murray Bookchin défend l’idée que l’émergence d’une forme d’autorité et d’une religion organisée sont concomitantes. Ceux qui ont été les premiers à prétendre pouvoir combler le fossé entre le monde matériel et le monde divin ont été ceux qui ont pu exercer leur autorité sur d’autres individus. Bookchin déclare que le « shaman est la personnification de l’État naissant. » En 1882, Bakounine tenait déjà le même propos : « Qui dit révélation, dit révélateurs […] et ceux-là une fois reconnus comme les représentants de la Divinité sur Terre, comme les saints instituteurs de l’humanité, élus par Dieu même pour la diriger dans la voie du salut, doivent nécessairement exercer un pouvoir absolu. » Le prétendu pouvoir de communication avec le monde divin du shaman le place au sommet de la société.

De l’apparition d’individu « à l’inspiration divine » émerge inévitablement une structure autoritaire légitimée par sa nature sacrée. Le rôle de cette structure se nourrissant de la foi du peuple est de le gouverner. Benjamin Tucker disait :

« Dieu, pour être Dieu, se doit d’être une force directrice. » Son gouvernement ne peut être dirigé directement par des individus, pour des individus, et au travers d’individus : si cela venait à se produire, l’individualité serait immédiatement anéantie. Par conséquent, le gouvernement de Dieu, s’il est réellement dirigé, doit l’être par ses vicaires sur Terre, c’est-à-dire les dignitaires de l’État et de l’Église.

Tandis que le droit divin des rois a été consciencieusement décapité, le droit divin du gouvernement persiste. Tout comme le gouvernement, la religion repose sur la foi et l’autorité. Son existence est imposée sur tous les individus vivant au sein d’une nation, sans aucune approbation au préalable de leur part. L’héritage de Dieu perdure à travers l’État. L’État arbore toujours la trinité de la dévotion : obéissance, vénération, et sacrifice.

Et selon les mots du célèbre Renzo Novatore (1924) :

Nous sommes les grands iconoclastes du mensonge.

Et tout ce qui est déclaré « sacré » est un mensonge.

Nous sommes l’ennemi de tout ce qui est « sacré ».

Selon toi, une loi est « sacrée », une société est « sacrée », la morale est « sacrée », une idée est « sacrée » !

Par le déni de toutes les divinités et du « sacré », les anarchistes refusent de se soumettre à la construction sociale. Ils mettent en lumière le besoin de l’appui individuel pour rendre légitimes les structures sociales. Sans le soutien de chacun, la foi et la force deviennent les seuls moteurs de l’État, tout comme ils l’étaient pour la religion il y a des milliers d’années. C’est pour toutes ces raisons que j’embrasse la pensée de Proudhon quand il dit en 1851 « Aidez-moi, Lucifer, Satan, qui que vous soyez, démons opposés au Dieu de mes ancêtres ! Je serai votre porte-parole, et je ne vous demanderai rien en retour. »

Di Nick Ford. Originale pubblicato il 5 maggio 2016 con il titolo Airbnb isn’t Housin’ in Berlin. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Un recente articolo del Guardian cita un regolamento dell’amministrazione di Berlino che, dopo vent’anni di sonno, da alcuni anni viene applicata. La legge, chiamata “Zweckentfremdungsverbot” (!), limita le modalità di affitto di una proprietà immobiliare. In particolare, la legge stabilisce che siti di condivisione, come Airbnb, possono dare in affitto “solo stanze singole e non interi appartamenti o case”. Le “multe per i trasgressori possono arrivare a 100.000 euro.”

Sarebbero 114.904 dollari americani.

L’amministrazione, appellandosi al “senso civico”, si è poi rivolta alla popolazione invitandola a denunciare anonimamente chi trasgredisce alla disposizione. Una donna intervistata dal Guardian ha commentato: “Proprio in Germania sarebbe meglio evitare questo genere di cose.”

Da parte sua, l’amministrazione cittadina sostiene che Airbnb ha contribuito molto all’aumento dei prezzi immobiliari. A darle ragione il fatto che, secondo quello che riferisce il Guardian, gli affitti sono cresciuti di oltre il 50% tra il 2009 e il 2014. E non c’è dubbio che tenere bassi gli affitti per turisti e residenti a basso reddito è un’intenzione nobile.

Ma è una “intenzione nobile” sostenuta da sentimenti paternalistici nei confronti dei cittadini e dei turisti di Berlino. L’amministrazione pensa di dover proteggere le persone da se stesse e dalle loro scelte. Sottovaluta le loro capacità e usa la cosa come scusa per rendere Airbnb più “accettabile” ai loro standard, facendo pressione affinché rispetti certe procedure e licenze arbitrarie.

Ma è molto più probabile che le licenze finiscano per spingere la domanda verso il sommerso. E come accade con il commercio di droga, la prostituzione e qualunque altro “vizio” che lo stato pensa di dover regolare per legge, il risultato è che queste pratiche, nonostante le intenzioni contrarie, diventano meno accessibili e sicure.

E come nota Daniel Hoffmann, perito indipendente della GEWOS, “le case in elenco su Airbnb sono relativamente troppo poche per avere una qualche ripercussione sul mercato immobiliare di Berlino. Le tensioni del mercato immobiliare sono un problema complesso alimentato dalle migrazioni e dal fatto che vengono costruite poche case, non da chi condivide la propria casa tramite Airbnb.”

È accaduto più volte nel corso della storia che autorità statali abbiano interpretato a modo loro un dato di fatto al fine di poter intervenire con controlli stringenti sul mercato. Sembra quasi una fiaba edificante, con lo stato che accorre per salvarci da qualche grave pericolo, ma la realtà è che molto più probabilmente lo stato stia cercando di soddisfare la propria sete di potere e disciplina.

E poi siamo sicuri che dietro questi regolamenti non ci siano cose come la ricerca di una rendita e la cattura del regolatore? Cui prodest? Se andiamo a vedere bene, forse scopriamo che l’industria alberghiera è coinvolta.

Ma poniamo che nel caso di Airbnb l’amministrazione berlinese agisca a ragione. Poniamo che le persone di Airbnb, agendo illegalmente e alla ricerca di un profitto, stiano facendo lievitare i prezzi immobiliari rendendo così difficile la vita di chi cerca un alloggio.

Siamo sicuri che minacciare di usare la forza e costringere il mercato degli affitti ad andare nel sommerso sia la soluzione migliore? E anche se fosse, dobbiamo fidarci di un’organizzazione che diffonde tra i cittadini un dovere civico che ricorda i metodi della Germania Est?

Certo però questo non significa che Airbnb sia esente da critiche.

La cosiddetta “economia della condivisione” così com’è è tutt’altro che il paradiso dell’economia paritaria, come spiega l’amico Kevin Carson di C4SS a proposito di Uber: “[L]’economia dei lavoretti così com’è è inaccettabile. È un accomodamento interamente parassitico in cui un’azienda usa una sua piattaforma proprietaria per inserirsi tra tassisti e clienti e farsi pagare per aver permesso loro di interagire.”

Ma sia io che Carson pensiamo che la risposta non stia nelle normative.

Piuttosto la risposta passa per la lotta ad Airbnb con alternative reali al capitalismo e allo stato.

Occorre, insomma, mettere entrambi fuori dal mercato e porre fine a questa economia statale-capitalista che tiranneggia i cittadini di tutto il mondo.

Articolo citato in:

Nick Ford, Airbnb isn’t housin’ in Berlin, Augusta Free Press, 13 maggio 2016

You can donate to Chelsea Manning’s legal fund here. 

“[I] will accept whatever you bring upon me,” Chelsea Manning told a judge before being jailed for refusing to testify to a grand jury, mostly likely concerning her heroic efforts at leaking American war crimes almost a decade ago. Grand juries are secret hearings designed to rig the game in favor of the prosecutor and against the accused. As recently as 2012, the state tried to use grand juries to crack down on people with ties to the anarchist community. Despite the impossibly terrible situations that are forced upon people, cooperating with these secret hearings violates the basic trust of people in radical communities.

Manning took a brave moral stand today because she understands that.

She also understands the risks. When Manning was originally imprisoned, she was locked away for 23 hours a day in tortuous conditions and had tried to commit suicide twice. The military kept her in a male prison, though eventually permitted her access to some gender-reaffirming treatments thanks to pressure from the ACLU’s Chase Strangio. Later, despite an outside psychologist’s recommendation, they denied her the freedom to feminize her appearance by growing her hair long. Trump’s transphobic military policies are not likely to improve her treatment upon return.

Imprisonment is torture. Prisons hide humans away from society in warehouses of violence and sadism. No one deserves to be imprisoned. Least of all Chelsea Manning.

Manning’s lawyers asked the judge to confine her to her home because of medical complications, but he said U.S. Marshall’s could handle her care.

What an evil piece of shit.

Here’s what’s happening, plain and simple: The state is imprisoning Manning because she is a hero and the state doesn’t like heroes. The state is imprisoning Manning because she is a truth-teller and the state doesn’t like truth-tellers. The state is imprisoning Manning because she is a symbol for direct action and the state doesn’t like direct action. The state is imprisoning Manning because she is a symbol for transgender people and the state doesn’t like transgender people. The state is imprisoning Manning for knowing that we don’t need more leaders, we just need each other.

She stood up for us. Now we need to stand up for her.

Chelsea Manning needs our support.

If you want to help fund her legal fees, donate here. The Center will match $250 in funds.

If you want to write her letters, here’s how:

If you would like to write letters to more prisoners, you can find out how here.

Before being confined, the unfailingly charismatic Manning told her lawyer, “This ain’t my first rodeo.” While we provide support and hope for a swift end to her second rodeo, we should all remember some of her important wisdom.

March 25th Update:

The state is officially torturing Chelsea Manning under UN standards.

The following is statement from Chelsea Manning’s Support Committee: Chelsea Resists!

“We condemn the solitary confinement that Chelsea Manning has been subjected to during her incarceration at William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center.

“Since her arrival at Truesdale on March 8th, Chelsea has been placed in administrative segregation, or ‘adseg,’ a term designed to sound less cruel than ‘solitary confinement.’ However, Chelsea has been kept in her cell for 22 hours a day. This treatment qualifies as Solitary Confinement.

Chelsea can’t be out of her cell while any other prisoners are out, so she cannot talk to other people, or visit the law library, and has no access to books or reading material. She has not been outside for 16 days. She is permitted to make phone calls and move about outside her cell between 1 and 3 a.m..

As today is Day 16, Chelsea is now in “Prolonged Solitary,” as defined by Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture:

“I have defined prolonged solitary confinement as any period in excess of 15 days. This definition reflects the fact that most of the scientific literature shows that, after 15 days, certain changes in brain functions occur and the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible. Prolonged solitary confinement must be absolutely prohibited, because it always amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and may even constitute torture…”

The jail says keeping ‘high-profile’ prisoners in adseg is policy for the protection of all prisoners, but there is no reason to believe jail officials view Chelsea as either a target or a risk. If Truesdale wants to prioritize Chelsea’s health and welfare, as they consistently claim, then they should make sure she is able to have contact with other people in the jail.

We have worked to monitor Chelsea’s well-being since her arrival at Truesdale. In her first week she contracted a bacterial infection which has since been resolved by antibiotics. More recently, she experienced the shift between the prolonged under stimulation of 22-hour lock-down and a 45-minute social visit as so jarring that she threw up.

Although the facility has accommodated Chelsea’s medical needs, including hormone medications and daily post-surgery treatment, keeping her under these conditions for over 15 days amounts to torture, possibly in an attempt to coerce her into compliance with the Grand Jury. The Mendez Report notes this tactic: ‘I have observed that solitary confinement … is often used as a deliberate method to obtain information or confessions. In such conditions, confinement amounts to a coercive tool and constitutes a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and possibly torture.’

Chelsea is a principled person, and she has made clear that while this kind of treatment will harm her, and will almost certainly leave lasting scars, it will never make her change her mind about cooperating with the grand jury.

It bears repeating that while solitary confinement should not be used for anyone, it is especially immoral to place Chelsea in solitary, when she has not been accused of, charged with, nor convicted of any new crime.

We call upon the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center to remove Chelsea from ‘Administrative Segregation’ and these conditions which effectively constitute solitary confinement immediately.” – Chelsea Resists!

When it comes to economics, market anarchism has done a pretty good job at punching above its weight. While Austrians and Marxists tend to ignore us, when they do respond it’s with strawmen or lazy assertions of dogma that are easily dispatched. In serious debates in these realms, we hold our own, only falling short in areas well outside our domain.
However market anarchism has a massive blindspot when it comes to neoclassical economics. Given our radical aims, we tend to traffic in radical ideas and neoclassical economics just doesn’t cover that. Plus, there’s the fact that neoclassical economics appears from a distance to be the ideology that has justified modern capitalism in all its horror — who wants to try and unearth gems under all crap?

Thankfully Johanna Bockman Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism has unintentionally written the market anarchism history of neoclassical economics. As with Austrian economics, there’s a lot of good stuff in the neoclassical tradition once you get past first impressions and undergraduate textbooks. But even more delicious is Bockman showing how economics as a whole was violently distorted by elites in both Eastern Europe and the West.

One obvious example of this mass epistemic violence is that in the early decades of the 20th century, socialism was considered to be a normal part of neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economics at the time was seen to be indifferent to how economies worked and instead looked to describe how value might be arrived at by those partaking in the economy. This conceptual promiscuity was due to economists central to neoclassical economics being either self-described socialists or influenced by socialism. The most obvious being Leon Walras, one of the key figures of the marginalist revolution, who was both “a great supporter of both socialism and free competition” [21] and obviously saw no contradiction between neoclassical economics and socialism. But even the anti-socialist economists still found value in socialism as a theoretical tool. They made great use of a theoretical centrally planned socialist state as a way to articulate how prices are arrived at in all economies. Bockman cites Wiesman, Pareto, Barone, Böhm-Bawerk, and Hayek as all articulating the theoretical process of price formation using a central state or institution despite all being opposed to socialism.

As such neoclassical economics had a significant degree of freedom when it came to what it could articulate. Capitalism and socialism became indistinguishable in the theoretical mathematical neoclassical models used by economists.

Cassel, like other neoclassical economists, found the socialist model “useful  and profitable” for economics more generally because the model was so simple and provided insight into the universal, essential elements of all exchange economies (ibid.: 129–130). Cassel’s work contributed to the new innovations in neoclassical price theory and many other areas. Market socialists found that neoclassical economics helped socialism and socialism helped neoclassical economics. [28]

Neoclassical economists understood markets and planning as formally identical. [46]

Such convergences arguably reached their peak in the 30s when market socialism was seen by many economists as a means of reaching neoclassical equilibrium. Bockman writes:

During the 1930s, many neoclassical economists came to the conclusion that socialism in fact provided the necessary institutions for the realization of perfect market competition as envisioned by neoclassical Economists. British socialist and economist H. D. Dickinson wrote, “The beautiful systems of economic equilibrium described by Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, Marshall, and Cassel are not descriptions of society as it is, but prophetic visions of a socialist economy of the future.”

[Likewise] in his “A Cautious Case for Socialism,” Kenneth Arrow, future Nobel Laureate and American neoclassical economist, remembered his time at Columbia University in the early 1940s, “Socialism was the way in which the ideal market was to be achieved. This doctrine was held by many.” Socialist economists in Austria, England, Germany, and the United States at this time agreed that socialist institutions could make economic reality approximate neoclassical models. [33]

However economic planning still held significant sway over many socialists at this time. Marxists were the most stringent about policing these divisions as they saw neoclassical economics and socialism as incompatible. But these distinctions were also made by those who were anti-socialist. Ludwig von Mises’ opinion of socialism mirrored that of the Marxists, to the point where he saw market socialists as allies against Marxism.

Indeed it was this distinction between capitalism and socialism and not his argument for the impossibility of central planning that was his most controversial claim in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. The notion that neoclassical economics did not apply to socialism was what went against orthodoxy, not his arguments against planning.

Hayek’s had similar assumptions in his attacks on socialism. His publication of Collectivist Economic Planning in 1935 was in response to arriving at the London School of Economics and being “blindsided” by the Fabian socialist students there who favored both free markets and socialism. Much like Mises, Hayek focused largely on attacking Marxist solutions to economic problems, completely ignoring the diversity of socialist thought around him at the time. Similar to Mises his writings assumed a binary between planning and market that simply did not exist.

Unfortunately this view of what constituted socialism became dominant as the USSR rose to prominence. Stalinist dogma and isolationism destroyed the diversity of socialist thought for several decades. Likewise in the West, the Red Scare and McCarthyism forced many economists to disassociate their field from the any relation to socialism, despite the proximity that mainstream economics had with it. The economist H. Smith describes the damage done:

Some twenty-five years ago I suspect that nearly every young economist had a pricing system for factors and products in a socialist state tucked away in his desk. Analytical fragments were torn bleeding from the carcase [sic] of the economic systems they were contrived to explain, and sewn together with great skill. [58]

An entire field of inquiry was essentially overturned not by any new insights, but instead through state law. To give one example of how quickly things changed, Paul Samuelson, one of the key economists of the 20th century had socialism as a central chapter in his Foundations of Economic Analysis reflecting the assumptions of the 30s when it was written. However, when  it was published in the 40s, he was attacked as a subversive for spreading “collectivist” ideas. Such backlash was enough for him to place socialism as merely an “alternative system,” outside of neoclassical economics in his bestselling Economics: An Introductory Analysis published a few years later.

The increasing complexity of society demanded neoclassical economics become a technocratic engineering discipline which further distorted inquiry. Both industrial capitalism and industrial warfare necessitated close management, large-scale information gathering and processing, and also the direction of complex supply chains. These demands resulted in a stripped down version of neoclassical economics was pushed by the business elite and state not just to train a managerial elite, but also to justify the existence of large hierarchical organizations. In such a paradigm, questions concerning institutional design and power relations in society were pushed to the side. Bockman cites the Arrow-Debreu model which “presented markets free of political intervention and other institutions but could by default assume the existing hierarchical institutions of American society” [47] as being the exemplar of the ideas pushed at the time.

Nevertheless radical analysis on questions of political economy continued on both sides of the Iron Curtain, but largely in the form of highly abstract mathematics to escape censor. Again, some choice quotes:

The influence of state interests, the demands of the military, and the fear of making political mistakes encouraged a narrow neoclassical economics that focused on just one part of the core of neoclassical economics—the centrally planned socialist state—and did not mention any institutions that might improve planning. According to one of his pupils, [Leonid] Kantorovich “thought much and intensively” about these institutions, though he did not publish his ideas. As a result of fear and many different pressures, only a small number of economists practiced neoclassical economics and did so in a narrow sense. [40]

At the same time as the development of the Arrow-Debreu model, Arrow published his equally famous Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), in which in very abstract and obscure language he rejected authoritarian planning and argued for institutions that might allow voting and markets to function optimally and democratically. This was not the time to discuss institutions, such as worker control or economic democracy, potentially necessary for competitive markets and central planning. In both the West and the East, more authoritarian political and military elites supported a narrow form of neoclassical economics that assumed existing hierarchical institutions and bolstered their own power. [57]

[Hungarian economists after 1956 decided] to go into mathematical economics rather than political economy because “you had more room” in mathematical economics since censors and politicians did not understand it. Economists could hide their ideas within the formulas and difficult language of mathematics. [120]

Radical intellectuals were also able to operate on the margins of society in what Bockman describes as “liminal spaces” outside of East and West. One example Bockman gives is that of The Center for the Study of Economics and Social Problems (CESES). CESES was a right-wing think tank funded by the Italian business class that was called by Milton Friedman “the Mont Pelerin Society of the East” [134] and was supposed to spread free-market ideas and show the problems of socialism in Europe. However CESES was filled with political outsiders who transcended the dichotomy of Cold War capitalist and state socialist:

CESES brought together people with politics outside the usual Cold War dichotomies—including former Communists, anti-Soviet socialists, libertarians, anarchists, Eastern European reformers, and Eastern European émigrés—to discuss the nature of socialism, both actually existing and possible future socialisms. [137]

Left wing individuals throughout the organization ended up occupying important roles — Bockman claims socialists were in charge of the culture, history, and sociology sections of CESES. Part of why socialists reached such positions was that they could grasp what socialist countries put out because they were well read in this theory and understood the state socialist “code.” Furthermore, many were fluent in the local languages of eastern bloc states, which allowed them to communicate with a variety of people, not just intellectuals. Finally, these individuals were intrinsically motivated as they wanted to bring about a more libertarian version of socialism and thus leapt at the chance to professionally critique authoritarian Eastern European states. Likewise left-wingers inside CESES saw it as an opportunity to further their own project of antistate, pro-market socialism.

The contradiction between its stated purpose and the day to day experience within CESES was most comically demonstrated in their youth training seminars, which aimed to educate the young about the dangers of socialism and train the next generation of managerial elite. Those of the anti-Soviet left were more than happy to teach the Italian youth about how bad Marxist-Leninism was, while also explaining to them a variety of ideas including anti-Soviet socialism, Sovietology, and even the philosophy of science. Indeed the left-wing influence was so deep that, in the 1970s, right-wing groups gave up funding it decrying it as a lost cause.

There were also socialist states during the Cold War that were somewhat more intellectually open then the USSR. Yugoslavia, which was outside the Warsaw pact and declared itself non-aligned after 1956, attempted to pursue a form of neoclassical market socialism that was designed to get to worker ownership of enterprises. Of course, given that Yugoslavia at the time was a one-party state and such reforms were imposed from above, the results were not nearly as liberatory as envisioned. Nevertheless Bockman calls it “the first nationwide experiment in worker self-management and market socialism.” [80]

Both Yugoslav party elites and economists saw the potential for neoclassical economics to help them bring about their vision of market socialism — a decentralist, pro-market, pro-worker autonomy vision. Likewise, Hungary also saw liberalization. Imre Nagy, an economist who became prime minister in 1953, sought to update economic understanding from Marxist-Leninist assumptions. Hungary saw both the implementation of market socialist reforms, as well as the establishment of institutions for research into “reform economics” that would help Hungary move towards a form of market socialism.

But the Hungarian experiment ended in 1956 when the Soviets invaded, deposing Nagy.

The liberalization Hungary saw under Nagy was brought to a halt. The new ruling class emphasized a technocratic approach to economics instead of systemic analysis. Nevertheless, Hungarian economists still had some freedom to do actual research in the highly abstract realm of mathematics.

The discourse focused largely on what institutions would be required for market socialism to achieve the desired ends. They began to focus on what institutions would deliver the desired ends. To give two examples which appear to be precursors to market anarchist thought:

Neoclassical economists in the West and in the East realized that competitive markets required institutions, in particular to deal with the problems of incentives and asymmetric information. The literature on principal–agent relations blossomed during this time. In this literature, principals, such as owners or social planners, seek to delegate tasks to agents, such as managers, which require effective incentives and adequate information.

These economists questioned the very dichotomy between socialism and capitalism, as well as that between centralization and decentralization. They even questioned the distinction between the national economy and the firm because both national economies and firms could have central planning. By the early 1960s, neoclassical economists had begun to ask whether economic systems were in fact converging. They saw every organization (whether a firm or a national economy, whether socialist or capitalist) as potentially optimally organized and thus as structurally similar. Marschak and others no longer focused on the ownership of the means of production or on the ideology of a system but rather on information flows and decision making in organizations. [124]

Likewise during this period there was a convergence of economists in both ostensibly socialist and capitalist countries when it came to promoting centralized hierarchical organizations as the optimal approach to economics. Bockman cites Milton Friedman and Oskar Lange who both argued for state planning/giant corporations respectively as the optimal approach to economics, completely ignoring questions of political economy and institutional makeup. Many political elites on both sides of the Iron Curtain utilized a simplistic version of neoclassical economics to argue for hierarchy: Bockman cites the campaigns of Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater as both articulating an economic vision based on a contradictory mix of Austrian and Chicago school economics, despite the fact both had diametrically opposed views on the validity of neoclassical economics.

Over the coming decades, Hungary and Yugoslavia both saw cycles of reform in which attempts to move towards market socialism were stymied by corrupt elites and inevitably reinforced state power over enterprise.

This dynamic of frustrated reforms, and the emergence of a vulgar neoclassical economics, helped set the stage for the transition into capitalism in 1989. The feeling among market socialist economists in Hungary and Yugoslavia at this time was not one of defeat, but one of possibility in which market socialism could finally be realized. However, at the same time, technocratic economists and political elites aligned to help make the transition occur and international finance happily gave support to anyone with power who would support the reductionist view of neoclassical economics that undergirds neoliberalism. Workers and more radical economists who championed decentralization and self-management opposed this move.

The failure to make the transition to market socialism was due to a variety of reasons. First of all, there was nothing for the working class in those countries to defend. There was little history of worker self-management, no commons, no cooperative banks, or similar institution that would have given workers both something material to fight for, and also resources to call on to win a conflict with political elites and managers. Furthermore the failures of previous reforms had led economists favoring autonomy and decentralization to call for sweeping reforms to happen all at once so as to avoid elite corruption and inevitable worker backlash. Such calls however where decontextualized and pointed to as evidence that the imposition of authoritarian top-down capitalism was necessary to avoid backlash. The writings promoting liberty were instead taken up by those looking to justify an authoritarianism order backed by imperial

Finally, it should be no surprise that the economists who found the transition easiest where those involved in state planning.

The result has been that neoliberalism, a jumbled doctrine, caught between the radicalism of key insights about complexity and decentralization and a desire for control and management became hegemonic to the point where they can declare that “there is no alternative” and the left can painfully agree because they can’t propose a coherent answer of how a complex, dynamic society would operate.

Because when it takes a global nuclear standoff, massive investments by the powerful, and deliberate suppression of individuals pursuing alternative ideas on both sides of the Iron Curtain to convince us of a falsehood and then paper over the contradictions involved, such a line of thought is worth pursuing if only to see what those with power are so terrified of. This knot at the heart of economics is certainly not the cause of the political upheaval we’ve experienced since the end of the Cold War, but it’s a massive contributing factor that’s gone ignored by basically everyone. And the so-called radical left’s complete failure to pick up on it, despite the massive vulnerabilities it would reveal in our current social order, shows the damage done by an uncritical acceptance of Marxist critiques of economics.

Thankfully the momentum of the information age is making such blindness difficult to maintain because the contradictions are so obvious. And it’s not just the left scrambling to adjust itself. Everyone it seems is trying to find their way in this chaotic new world. Early attempts like  the rise of an awkward tech-positive Marxism, the emergence and then splintering of neoreaction into pro and anti tech tendencies, libertarians who flipped to fascism out of fear of the egalitarian and leveling effects of even something so compromised as corporatist neoliberalism are all the result of ideologies trying to find their feet. Even mainstream politics is affected: see the convergence of a populist right and left on a return to New Deal style economic arrangement with the only difference being the particulars of how society should be ordered (which, to be fair those do matter quite a bit) or bromides from left/right-liberal technocrats about education and basic income in response to the “problem” of automation. Such confusion is the result of self-induced ideological debt building up around just how the economy functions (and the broader implications of calculation/knowledge/principal agent problems) and what it’s good for (and the broader implications of investigation into values and desires).

In such a vortex market anarchism is has proven to be remarkably stable. While obviously not perfect, it has grasped the roots better then everyone else and as such contains unparalleled insight when it comes to acting in this strange new world. The chaos of the information age is due to a massive explosion of complexity within the last few decades on nearly every fronts (social, economic, ecological, intellectual, technological, etc) that will only compound as they feedback off each other. In such an environment, the question of overcoming collective action problems is paramount, a meta-concern that every other concern we face as a species touches on. If such organizational efficiency were to be unleashed it could prove more powerful than all the guns, dollars and bodies that have maintained our current hegemony.

Many would-be radicals mistake throwing the baby out with the bath water for radical inquiry. “Abolish X thing” has been a useful frame for the moral immediatism we espouse. If it is cruel and unjust, our goal must be its abolition. However, after identifying X thing as Bad, we may, in our haste, obscure the complexities behind, within, or surrounding the thing. The instinct makes sense. I hate X thing a lot, so why not just get rid of it? Aside from this approach minimizing the complexity necessary to actually abolish the thing sustainably, we end up seeking to rid ourselves of things that were historically bad in form but could have, and still could be done ethically for the future. Further, we often fail to recognize the degree to which a Bad Thing is bad at least in part due to issues in the problem space rather than just by way of the terrible solution proposed.

The Fallacies of Simple Rejection and False Universality

Many in the left or other radical communities are deeply and viscerally impacted by harms and crimes in the world. So much of what the world tries to ignore pains us to the very core. We take it into our minds and hearts. On a shallow level, many see the extreme positions they take as a reflection of how bad they think things are. For example, if the liberal-centrist says, “X is bad so I think we should make moderate reforms!” the radical says, “I think X is so bad that we should destroy it entirely!”. We replace our analysis with urgency. This is why you get phenomena like transwomen, deeply harmed by experienced injustice, embracing authoritarian leftist ideologies as their first foray into radicalism as if to scream, “I REALLY CARE A LOT ABOUT INJUSTICE SO I’VE CHOSEN THIS VERY STRONG POSITION!”.

This is not a critique of immediatism nor a defense of universal centrism though. I wholeheartedly support the immediatist view of radicalism, but done without skill it can hide difficult realities behind self-righteous proclamations. Further, the great insight of anarchism is that immediatism isn’t just naively righteous, it’s a practical longview that exposes the short-sighted tradeoffs and complete lack of foresight of liberal reformism (or conservative status-quo maintenance). There is a kind of accelerationism within the radical claim that for every second a crime continues in the world its harm solidifies, both now and in the future. We will not wait for a better world.

Universal centrism suffers from its short-sightedness and lack of urgency. Too many times have I seen the false conflations of things like fascists and anti-fascists or feminism and MRAs hiding behind the guise of nuance. Even if you have critiques of anti-fascist action, this does not place it on the same game board as fascism. Even if the MRAs are right about a range of problems facing men, the shallowness of their analysis and their tacit complicity with ultra-violent misogyny should not be justified by weird or even toxic elements within modern feminism. More often than not, liberal smugness is often just a form of apologism for historical or present harms disguised as Woke Hot-Takes.

All things are not equal. This isn’t nuance, it’s smug scale insensitivity.

Problem Space Versus the Bad Solution

In our rejection of these failures, we can ourselves enact different versions of them into political discourse and organizing. This is in large part because we often mistake things in the problem space as the Bad Thing itself. This conflation is never more evident than the claim of “abolish X” without even some hint at a recognition of the problem X was attempting to solve (however horrifically misguidedly!). There is a kind of magical thinking to this approach. It suggests that simply by getting rid of a thing, we have solved the problem. This fails to recognize the degree to which many bad solutions are the result of structural phenomena in the real world outside of just the systems we oppose.

This isn’t helped by our language. While the phrase, “structural X” does get at incredibly important aspects of how a given -ism or -phobia transcends simple “bad people” into the realm of systems, it can obscure the structures that exist beyond those systems. As a result, it functions as a cognitive stop. “Ye have reached the point of structures. Ye shall pass no further!” Beyond the ends of our discourse lies the complexity that many, many people are hesitantly plotting—often much to the terror of doctrinaires who had just finally become fluent in the dogma of the time. “Sub-atomic what???!!! No, it’s just atoms! You are clearly ignorant of the current research proving that atoms are at the bottom of everything! To the ideological dungeon with you, blasphemer!”

Issues of problem-space have to do not just with the structures that we create, but what lies behind them in reality. Complexity classes are an obvious example of this. Try as we may to build better algorithms, some problems are just inherently harder than others. Not just because of our failures in design and creativity, but because of qualities inherent to their very substrate.

By Way of Examples

I am not free from the fickle traps of analysis I have begun to outline here. To some degree it has to do with the structural limits on how much complexity a single brain can hold. Many will immediately see gaps in my knowledge and analysis, but this does not disprove my central point: we need to, together and individually, keep digging and be very honest about what we find. What’s more, in any of these examples of large-scale failures to grapple with the complexities of a problem, I am not implying that no one is grappling with them. For each of these examples, and the countless others we could lay out, there are brilliant people, often those directly impacted, taking the issues farther than I will ever be able to as a result of my gaps in experience and knowledge. But nonetheless, by acknowledging the complexities I haven’t betrayed my commitment to the radical agenda, rather deepened it as I hope others will continue to do as well. These are just two examples picked somewhat randomly among many possible ones to illustrate the heart of the point I’m trying to make.

Prisons and Prison Abolition

Prisons are evil tools of authoritarianism rooted in structural racism and slavery. This is in question by virtually no one of discursive worth. I have been a prison abolitionist for over a decade (thanks System of a Down). Being a prison abolitionist is a Good Anarchist position. Trying to interject any kind of nuance into the discussion can get one branded as an apologist because of course, there is no shortage of apologists. But there are different kinds of nuance that get treated the same way.

Prison reformism plots that are rooted in the maintenance of structural racism and the state are obviously suspicious no matter how nuanced they claim to be. Their bottom line is still a support for slavery. However, there are real problems in the problem space too, even if liberals and fascists sometimes use them to make their points. It is definitely Team Liberal to say, “But what about the serial rapists??!!!” so any argument that bears even a surface level resemblance to this will get branded as Team Reformist and get mocked into oblivion. However, anyone who has been in radical spaces and is honest about their experience knows that we have a huge problem with serial rapists.

Maybe that’s part of why we’re so quick to deride that defense. It’s a bit close to home. There’s decades of nuanced people trying to get at the root of things and telling truths and trying to remain true to their radicalism. Restorative and transformative justice attempts to translate our politics into our problems—sometimes with great success and sometimes with horrible failure. So, some people ask, “Okay, but what do we do with the unrepentant serial rapists that abuse our restorative processes, and who, if we kick them out, will just repeat their harm over there?” There are many answers to this question, but even this can be a taboo subject in part because what our strident “Abolish the prisons!” war cry hides is that we don’t have it all figured out either.

Much of this is related to the societal structures that traumatize and force people into behavior that harms other people; some of it is just neuro-chemistry or people’s predilections. There will always be people who desire to harm other people, people who try to dominate others or undermine novel forms of cooperation because of the ground-truth reality of perverse incentives. No matter how terrible of a “solution” mass-incarceration or gulags are, that problem does still exist in the problem space and we have to be able to talk about it without getting hung up on campism. We should abolish prisons but we also need to have a sense of these problems that isn’t just magical thinking. If we want to engineer positive incentives then we have to understand why the perverse incentives to harm each other exist in the problem space.

Capitalism and Exchange

Capitalism is the harbinger of genocide and suffering across the world. Its centralization and exploitation turn the world into a battleground between the poor and a playground for the ultra-rich to exploit. It turns us all against each other in the most intimate of ways, creating systems that depend on the pillage of those unable to defend themselves against its brutality. But just possessing the knowledge that modern capitalism has, for all its destruction, also increased human well-being on a number of fronts (infant mortality and extreme global poverty rates) is social suicide in leftist communities. This is similar to the knowledge that authoritarian-communism has had many positive effects as well (healthcare and literacy) despite its rampant atrocities. It’s not very “Our Team” to acknowledge actually-existing phenomena that lie outside of our accepted window of virtue signalling. But acknowledging realities and their complexity helps to analyze and attack them more deeply. Failing to acknowledge the successes of capitalism obscures the problem-space problem that it is attempting to coordinate: namely, scarcity.

Without launching into a diatribe that C4SS’s audience would be all too familiar with , there is not an infinite amount of resources on a planet, nor can any human do infinite amounts of labor. Therefore, both are scarce even if a more optimal system could create some form of relative or functional abundance. Obviously, capitalism is not particularly efficient nor ethical in its attempts to solve massively complex coordination problems. But at least some part of that lies not in the failures of capitalism as a response, but in the complexity class of coordination itself. So yeah totally, abolish capitalism! But if you think that our problems will all magically disappear and perfectly equitable systems will fill its wake and we will all live in abundance, then you live in a very dangerous fantasy. You have to have something that gets at the roots of the problems in the problem-space, not just attacks the failed solution.

The knee-jerk radical posturing against unjust systems such as capitalism and its by-product colonialism can result in tragic non-sequiturs. “Abolish capitalism and colonialism!” leads to “Abolish all exchange.” I’m sure a compelling case could be made for this, but is the problem really people using a symbolic medium to exchange unrelated goods? Or even more generally, is the problem people exchanging ideas and culture through interacting with each other? These are misdiagnoses. Communication is exchange. The problem wasn’t that colonizers exchanged goods and culture with indigenous peoples— it was that they used their power and blood-thirsty ideology to slaughter and demean everyone they encountered and then entrenched those systems of domination so deeply that they continue to wreak ongoing havoc. Knowledge of this ongoing tragedy can lead people to counter-adjust too far to the extent of actually advocating a form of the racial nationalism and extreme isolationism espoused by white nationalists. People interacting with each other on a voluntary level is pure and good, the problem is coercion and exploitation.

So obviously, this crops up in capitalism because there are inherent problems with people of different power levels engaging consensually with each other and money is a form of power and a potential axis for accumulated centralization. But abolishing money does nothing to rid ourselves of the problem of power in consent, it just eliminates one of the axes we have for trying to navigate it. You can get rid of money and still have social capital. The charismatic person has more power than the one lacking charisma. The physically stronger person has more power than the one who’s less swole. Dense fascists stop analysis here with— *grunting* “natural elites…”— rather than realizing how it actually just underlines our need to mutually contribute to each other’s maximized agency and interdependent freedom. But nonetheless, the problem of difference exists in physical space, even if it’s exacerbated by the problems of modern capitalism. Failing to recognize this leads to whoopsies like the almost Evangelical refrain of “Late Capitalism” from lefties of a certain stripe. People seem so certain that capitalism is over because they’ve failed to recognize the problems it’s solving (Tens of billions of transactions a day just in e-commerce…) and its true agility (“That’s a nice revolution you’ve got there. Shame if someone… commodified it”). Sure, capitalism is creating tons of problems, but it will continue to haphazardly pseudo-solve them and adapt until we all die or we create something that can truly account for the problem-space issues at hand.

Don’t Abolish “Abolish X” Refrains

In case it’s still unclear: we should seek to abolish every injustice with the fury and vision of moral immediatism even while we recognize that there are complex externalities to attend to. Please do keep writing about why we should “Abolish X”. Our nuance should be guided by our radicalism while bravely facing the structures we encounter. It’s beyond unreasonable that everyone have a completely fleshed out plan for how to attack every problem and exactly what to build in its wake. The spirit of anarchism will always embody experimentation. However, to the extent that our problem analyses are stunted, our visioning will be so as well.

The left has better optics than the right because the heart of valuing progress is a more sellable case than “Nah things are chill. If you mess with things, everything will break” conservatism. And for this reason, however impractical, toxic, and starry-eyed the left can be at times it will always have my heart. But my brain and my analyses will always follow anyone who is empathetic and nuanced no matter the team. This is because I’d rather hear something painful that increases my agency than something soothing that increases my wishful thinking. Because reality is complex, building better models makes us more agile in both our world-building and our offensive-defense against injustice. However much you trust your team, you should trust the truth more or reality will catch you slippin’.