The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS. 

I was born defiant from the beginning, religion a brief reprieve and then to my surprise hell for eternity. I saw death, strife, war, disease and power as my enemies, no god ever answered. A Calamity. An early note of peace ran through me, anarchy.

Soon I learned I was hanging fruit, the lowest.

Born into gender roles that were not mine, with a skin color dark brown/black they called it I could not hide. From marches, protests, to petty crime, I was the best anarchist I could be and tried to put in over time.

From the woman of rojava ypj to elzn revolutionary I dreamed, but I struggled to live in society chasing my own survival, homeless, destitute and alone. (maybe i’ll start an ezine?)

But I try, I push, I cry, I resist, but it hard existing in a world where your low hanging fruit you see? But I’ll never give up on people, a destitute anarchist’s guarantee. Because even low hanging can be eaten, used to feed, so I guess I’ll try a ‘lil bit harder; no more being low hanging fruit for me.

Now I want to preface this essay by stating the fact that I am, by and large, against the usage of single-use plastic goods. We absolutely need to transition away from such things as fast as possible, and should look for functional alternatives to all such goods. But, that’s the key word: functional. Truth is, these bans are yet another attempt to divert our attention away from the biggest polluters, while instead focusing the conversation on distraction issues which negligently impact the most marginalized in our society in many unseen ways while only serving to make us feel good. Feeling good doesn’t actually translate into positive outcomes however.

Plastic products only make up about 10% of all discarded waste, with single-use plastics only making up a small fraction of that 10%. Most bans focus on what have become known as the big three of single-use plastic goods: straws, bags, and utensils. Of course plastic bottles or packaging are not on the ban list, and this speaks volumes about how this ban targets individual citizens over giant corporate polluters. Instead of focusing on the point of production thus nipping the problem in the bud, they are instead focusing on the points of distribution and consumption. Sure, some companies will be adversely affected by these bans, but the bulk of the stress will fall onto small businesses rather than larger corporations who have less resources to make the necessary transitions.

Most plastic straw bans do not ban the production or sale of plastic straws in general, as one can still go buy a pack at the grocery store, but rather focus on restaurants and similar establishments. Some laws merely require servers to ask or be asked before giving a customer a straw, thus reducing the use of single-use plastic straws. Such a rule generally can be seen as a good thing although it should be noted that many businesses are voluntarily adopting such practices as it both pleases customers while also reducing costs. Others however have proposed all-out bans on single-use plastic straws and a move towards other alternatives such as bamboo, glass, metal, and paper. These alternatives, however, have been criticized by many disability rights activists as being inadequate in meeting the needs of those with certain types of disabilities.

Plastic straws are the only straws that have the strength to not dissolve in liquid, are easily bendable, can easily handle extreme temperatures without becoming too hot or cold to handle, and are not too soft as to bite through but are not so hard that they’d hurt one’s teeth. All these things are important to consider when thinking of effective alternatives. So far the best compromises seem to be reusable plastic straws or compostable plastic straws, both of which have their pros and cons. Reusable ones can be easily forgotten at home, and while some restaurants can indeed still carry them for their diners, it is less cost-effective to give out reusable plastic straws to those customers on the go. Biodegradable or compostable plastic straws could be the answer for those scenarios but some of these products, despite the name, will not actually break down well in your home compost, but rather they need to go through an industrial process which involves incineration which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Composting these types of straws using traditional home composting methods, on the other hand, may actually lead to a slower breakdown process which releases even more pollutants than the incineration process.

Do the greenhouse gas emissions caused by processing these biodegradable straws cause more or less environmental damage than throwaway single-use straws? That’s hard to say. Both produce greenhouse gas pollution in the initial manufacturing process and both involve some level of emissions in the disposal process. Whereas throwaway single-use straws get disposed of as litter or in landfills, thus usually skipping the process of being incinerated, they still produce emissions as they slowly deteriorate. They may not break down completely (at least not anytime soon) but that doesn’t mean that they do not break down at all. Concentration of such waste into landfills concentrates those emissions as well.

Of course while this is generally true for petrochemical-based biodegradable plastics, there are various forms of bioplastics made from biomass products such as food waste, plant oils, fats, starches, sugars, wood, or cellulose. While bioplastics produce significantly less greenhouse gas emissions and use significantly less non-renewable energy in their production, they are not always biodegradable and the production process suffers from all of the same environmental issues as all modern forms of industrial farming, primarily the concern is soil and water pollution caused by herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides used. Partnering the production of bioplastics with methods such as permaculture and organic farming and focusing on biodegradability could go a long way towards rectifying these concerns but that push starts with confronting the agricultural industry and banning plastic straws outright does nothing to address this situation whatsoever, effectively throwing out bioplastics with the rest of them.

This is to say that we do not have the answer yet as to what the most effective alternative is when it comes to straws. The best thing we can do is to push businesses to stop compulsively giving customers straws unless they specifically ask and reduce our overall use of plastic straws by promoting abstinence among those who don’t need them and alternatives for those who can use them, while still encouraging businesses to carrying bendable plastic straws, preferably made from sustainably grown and harvested biodegradable bioplastics, for those who need them.

Single-use plastic bags are also a huge target of plastic bans. This however seems misguided as the main alternative stores have turned to is paper bags, which actually cause more environmental damage to produce than plastic bags. The logging process throughout the production process includes the use of heavy machinery, fossil fuels, and toxic chemicals, all of which total to higher greenhouse gas emissions than those from the production of plastic bags. Of course it can be argued that we should encourage the use of reusable bags and that’s fair and extremely reasonable. We should, in fact, promote the use of reusable bags, however we should also take into account that people forget said bags and some people never get around to buying them for one reason or another. What of those people? How is it beneficial for them to use a disposable alternative that actually causes more greenhouse gas pollution? Of course, paper bags can much more easily decompose and thus creates less waste but again we come to a question of which causes more long term environmental damage: air pollution or ground and water litter?

Bag bans haven’t even proven to significantly lower plastic bag use in any meaningful way since it does not ban plastic trash bags. While plastic bag use is still lowered somewhat without plastic grocery bags, it is not as effective as one might expect due to this. In fact, in areas where there are bans on plastic grocery bags, the sales of thicker plastic garbage bags have seen a marked increase to compensate. Of course this raises the costs for the consumer since they now have to pay for what they used to get for free and this obviously hits the poor the hardest. Those who are affected the worst however seem to be our houseless neighbors.

Aside from being useful for carrying one’s belongings, plastic bags are also utilized by many in the houseless community as makeshift toilets. One can line a bucket or similar item with a plastic grocery bag to have a place to sit down or one could squat over a bag in an emergency. After the deed is done, one can tie the bag up and dispose of it in a sanitary manner. This is such a common strategy for public waste disposal that many outreach services have even taken to distributing plastic bags alongside other common items such as food, clothing, and hygiene products. Some places that have instituted bag bans have seen the rise in fecal-related diseases among the houseless due to increased exposure caused by a lack of sanitary disposal methods. Unfortunately a paper bag doesn’t hold up quite the same.

Somewhat related, there has also been a rise in illnesses related to cross-contamination due to the use of unwashed reusable bags however that seems easily solved by educating people about the importance of washing their reusable bags. The production of reusable grocery bags has been called into question for its own pollution, with some studies claiming that one would have to use a reusable bag well over 100 or even several thousand times before it would make any difference in emissions than using single-use plastic bags. In fact, single-use plastic bags have the smallest carbon footprint overall compared to any other single-use bag. However seeing how often we use plastic bags and how easy they are to carry on your person, this does not seem like much of a deterrent. If you forget your reusable bag then go for plastic over paper but ideally try not to forget your reusable bags.

A plastic bag tax has seen more success in lowering the use of single-use plastic bags while having less adverse effects than an outright ban. Consumers are more likely to remember to bring their reusable bags if they are charged extra for forgetting while people can still access plastic grocery bags for uses such as personal garbage, pet cleanup, and the like. This still affects poor people the most but less harshly than an all-out ban which forces them to turn to much more expensive and thicker plastic trash bags. Merely taxing plastic grocery bags allows consumers to purchase cheaper alternatives to traditional garbage bags while also producing less waste since plastic grocery bags are smaller and thinner than most garbage bags. Such a tax would still make it more difficult for the houseless to obtain as freely but community aid groups can still make a concerted effort to distribute plastic bags to those who will utilize them for such purposes.

As for cutlery, I can’t seem to find any particular reason not to make the switch from single-use plastic utensils to other alternatives such as bamboo. While the other bans seem to have more immediate negative effects, this ban seems relatively harmless in comparison. If there are downsides, aside from the possible monetary costs of switching, then they would likely come from comparing the environmental costs of single-use plastic cutlery to that of other alternatives. Of course any monetary costs will hit smaller businesses the hardest but non-plastic forms of disposable cutlery are not all that expensive and should not entail a huge difference in cost.

So a flat out ban may not be the best solution and in many cases can have adverse effects but that still means we can significantly cut down on our usage of single-use plastic goods by utilizing more eco-friendly alternatives where available. But it doesn’t have to stop at education and individual consumer decisions. While a decrease in usage does translate into a decrease in demand and thus supply in a truly free market, we live under a rigged market system. The production of plastic, usually being a petrochemical byproduct, is propped up by oil subsidies. These subsidies help to keep the cost of plastic artificially low therefore abolishing these subsidies would lessen the incentive to produce plastic goods and the higher price would encourage consumers to seek cheaper alternatives. Partner this with a carbon tax which would further increase the price of these goods and businesses would seek more eco-conscious alternatives in order to meet customer demand, thus allowing the market to find solutions to the problem of single-use plastic.

The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS.  

locking talk on haute cuisine means of squeeze sequester session in lessons descended from heaven epiphany sitting in the plastic order territory through ‘tis trough business degree sipping tea content so forgetting hints at difference in clinch hitters mystic sits hocking sunflower language pangs in prison fitness we gain unless in depths be peace says she — clinical drop dripping storage for foraging needle lickers cynical voters blue collar self-stickers harboring amble hard ball column bars shined borrowed invest when in winter sit dying huddled behind hurried furrows waiting burrowed in collapse staring strained hands clasped masks over cash stacks

Hayek nell’era informatica

Di Jocheved Matt. Originale pubblicato il 26 giugno 2018 con il titolo The Last Person in the Room Must Close the Door. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Capita a volte che mentre si entra in classe per una lezione di informatica qualcuno dica: “L’ultimo chiuda la porta.” La frase, apparentemente sensata, è un esempio di funzione non calcolabile. Nessuno può sapere (calcolare) se è l’ultimo, se dopo non ci sarà qualcun altro. Molti pensano che i problemi di calcolo possano essere risolti semplicemente incrementando la potenza di calcolo. La persistenza di funzioni non calcolabili, però, dice che ci sono limiti nel calcolo. Anche se la questione della calcolabilità attraversa tutta l’opera di Hayek, credo che le sue conclusioni a favore del liberalismo e a proposito della conoscenza debbano essere riviste oggi alla luce della moderna prassi della calcolabilità e della complessità. Per quanto potente, il calcolo non potrà mai amministrare le risorse o pianificare l’economia.

Molti libri di fantascienza accarezzano l’idea di un’intelligenza artificiale quale soluzione di problemi relativi alla pianificazione economica (es. Asher 2013; Banks 1994; Heinlein 2014; Williamson 1990). Molti sono i testi che studiano i potenziali problemi che un tale sistema potrebbe creare, ma questo non ha impedito alla questione di percolare negli studi di esperti di calcolo digitale, filosofi e economisti (es. Cockshott 1988; Cottrell et al. 2007; Cottrell and Cockshott 1993; Mirowski 2002). Un esempio significativo è la società futuristica immaginata da Ursula K. Le Guin in I reietti dell’altro pianeta. Qui un’olistica intelligenza artificiale controlla la società, gestisce la ripartizione delle risorse, l’impiego, e addirittura le relazioni sociali. L’idea base è interessante: un domani un software saprà molto meglio di noi cosa è bene per noi e per l’economia. L’immagine futuristica di un’intelligenza artificiale onnisciente ha catturato la fantasia di scrittori e registi di fantascienza, nonché l’immaginazione politica del pubblico. Per rispondere a questa critica diffusa del problema hayekiano della conoscenza occorre servirsi del concetto di calcolabilità e tenere conto dei limiti delle macchine da calcolo, così da poter contestualizzare la teoria di Hayek a favore del liberalismo.

La tendenza a vedere nel calcolo computerizzato la soluzione dei problemi economici non appartiene solo agli appassionati della futuristica intelligenza artificiale. C’è da aggiungere anche l’eccessiva fiducia propria dell’attuale dibattito politico, che insiste a voler utilizzare l’approccio scientifico e informatico al posto della prassi politica fondata sull’evidenza (Brooker 2001; Nutley et al. 2000; Practice 2006; Sutherland et al. 2004). Una prassi politica fondata sull’evidenza vuole che politici e analisti quantifichino i risultati di una determinata azione politica di solito in termini di analisi costi-benefici (Head 2010). Analisi di costi e benefici, analisi del rischio e altre politiche di ottimizzazione richiedono ipotesi su obiettivi e costi potenziali delle decisioni e spesso sono soggette a probability neglect (Saltelli e Giampietro 2017; Sunstein 2003). Queste ipotesi spesso eliminano modelli alternativi dal processo decisionale (Biesta 2007). Quindi il metodo scientifico, applicato alla prassi politica, può limitare l’esame dell’intero insieme di opzioni (Pawson 2006). Le politiche in materia di tutela ambientale, ad esempio, spesso si basano su valutazioni soggettive dell’ecosistema o su valori di genere utilizzati in studi previsionali. Pur essendo talvolta degne di nota, le previsioni poggiano su presupposti incerti e non sempre dicono la verità. Per giunta, i modelli devono essere fortemente semplificati, soprattutto quando si prendono in considerazione le complesse interazioni all’interno di un ecosistema, tanto che a volte il risultato finale, data la complessità del sistema ambiente, è privo di significato. E però tali modelli forniscono un’analisi quantitativa che marginalizza ogni diversa interpretazione soggettiva della situazione politica e ambientale (Feinstein e Horwitz 1977). Modulare le politiche basate sull’evidenza con un onesto riconoscimento dei limiti del calcolo e con il concetto hayekiano di conoscenza limitata è importante al fine di prendere in esame il fine delle scelte politiche, soprattutto delle alternative politiche liberali.

A contraddistinguere Hayek rispetto agli altri principali economisti del suo tempo è il suo insistere su un’interpretazione dell’economia come di un processo che nasce dal basso grazie alle interazioni di agenti periferici possessori di conoscenze locali uniche (Hayek 1945, 1948, 1964). Una delle questioni principali di Hayek era: “Come fanno frammenti di conoscenza esistenti in menti diverse a generare risultati che, se generati deliberatamente, richiederebbero una conoscenza nella mente amministrante che nessuno può possedere singolarmente?” (Hayek 1948). Ne “L’uso della conoscenza nella società”, Hayek spiega come le difficoltà create da una conoscenza periferica rendano impossibile il compito di un pianificatore centrale che voglia sfidare l’efficienza del mercato (Hayek 1945). Il fatto che emerga dal basso, incapsulando la conoscenza posseduta da ogni membro della società, fa sì che il mercato faccia sempre meglio di ogni qualunque singolo agente in possesso di una frazione delle conoscenze rilevanti.

In origine, Hayek scrisse questo saggio per confutare le tesi di Oskar Lange (Lange 1936, 1937) riguardo la fattibilità di un socialismo di mercato. Secondo Lange, per una pianificazione economica nazionale occorrevano parametri di tre generi: preferenze individuali, conoscenza delle risorse disponibili e prezzi. Secondo Lange era possibile calcolare i prezzi a partire dagli altri due parametri. Usando un suo modello, e tramite un processo di tentativi ed errori, era possibile trovare un prezzo di equilibrio in maniera rapida ed efficiente. Il suo assunto base insiste nell’informare i precedenti in funzione della teoria economica: se sappiamo cosa vuole la gente e cosa possediamo noi, possiamo calcolare il prezzo migliore. Confutare la pianificazione economica per Hayek era molto importante ai fini del liberalismo, ma le sue tesi devono essere aggiornate al fine di contrastare un diffuso malinteso generato dalla crescente capacità di calcolo dei computer.

Oggi l’immaginario pianificatore centrale non è più un agente dello stato, ma una divinizzata intelligenza artificiale che, possedendo informazioni rilevanti, è in grado di calcolare i prezzi e ripartire gli investimenti secondo il modello di Lange. Per aggiornare la tesi hayekiana a favore del liberalismo occorre tenere bene in conto le capacità e i limiti delle macchine da calcolo. Un importante concetto in tal senso è la teoria della calcolabilità, una branca dell’informatica e della logica matematica conosciuta anche come teoria della ricorsione (Bălţătescu and Prisecaru 2009; Casti 1997). Funzioni computabili, secondo Church-Turing, sono quelle che si possono calcolare con una qualunque macchina (dispositivo di calcolo meccanico o fisico) avendo tempo e capacità di memoria illimitati (Copeland 2007). Tali funzioni sono quindi limitate a funzioni rappresentabili con un algoritmo (Casti 1997; Copeland 2007). Possiamo immaginare l’algoritmo in quesitone come un elenco di regole che una persona dotata di tempo, carta e penna illimitati segue al fine di trovare una soluzione. Secondo questa logica, se una funzione o un sistema non è rappresentabile con un algoritmo è incalcolabile. Altro aspetto del problema della calcolabilità è noto come argomento diagonale di Cantor (Ewald 2005; Lawvere 1969; Murphy 2006). Pubblicato nel 1891 da Georg Cantor, l’argomento diagonale è una dimostrazione matematica dell’esistenza di infiniti insiemi non numerabili che non hanno un rapporto uno a uno con i numeri naturali infiniti (Ewald 2005). Questi insiemi infiniti non possono essere utilizzati in un algoritmo perché l’algoritmo non può essere calcolato per un tempo infinito.

Calcolabilita in ambito economico significa soprattutto rispondere alla domanda: è possibile calcolare l’assegnazione delle risorse nel quadro della teoria della calcolabilità?  (Bălţătescu and Prisecaru 2009; Bartholo e altri 2009). L’allargamento della questione della conoscenza al dibattito sul calcolo si basa sull’argomento diagonale di Cantor (Murphy 2006). La tesi di Murphy è che un ipotetico pianificatore centrale (che potrebbe anche essere un supercomputer) che volesse raggiungere o superare l’efficienza del mercato, dovrebbe avere non solo un numero infinito di prezzi, ma anche un “numero infinito non numerabile di prezzi”. La tesi di Murphy porta a tre asserzioni: 1) il calcolo su un dominio infinito e non numerabile è, in termini di principio, impossibile; 2) l’unità pianificatrice centrale deve tener conto di un numero infinito di prezzi; il che significa che 3) una pianificazione centrale non è solo impossibile, ma anche incalcolabile anche solo teoricamente.

La tesi di Murphy, unita al problema hayekiano della conoscenza, nega non solo che una macchina da calcolo possa scoprire prezzi validi, ma anche che sia possibile pianificare la politica. Questo perché, come dice Hayek, la conoscenza in un sistema economico e sociale è per natura un fatto complesso (Hayek 1964). In “Teoria dei fenomeni complessi”, Hayek definisce la complessità come “il numero minimo di elementi che uno schema deve possedere al fine di esibire tutti gli attributi caratteristici della classe di schemi in questione” (Hayek 1964). In ambito biologico e sociale, complessità significa che esiste un numero infinito di condizioni iniziali necessarie a fare una stima dei possibili stati finali di un sistema complesso (Anderson e altri 1988; Bălţătescu and Prisecaru 2009). In questi ultimi anni sempre più studiosi hanno notato le similarità tra la scienza della complessità e le teorie della scuola austriaca (Barbieri 2013; Koppl 2000, 2009; Rosser 1999; Vaughn 1999; Vriend 2002). Gli studi di Hayek, in particolare, vengono spesso citati come essenziali alla comprensione delle attuali frontiere della complessità (Gaus 2006; Kilpatrick 2001). Una delle intuizioni chiave di Hayek a proposito di complessità e conoscenza è che il comportamento economico non è solo complesso ma incalcolabilmente complesso (Bălţătescu and Prisecaru 2009; Hayek 1953; Kilpatrick 2001).

Secondo questa intuizione, non solo un pianificatore centrale si troverebbe davanti il problema dell’incalcolabilità, ma anche l’intelligenza artificiale sarebbe nell’impossibilità di impostare correttamente i prezzi (Bartholo e altri 2009; Velupillai 2017). Questo vale anche per le politiche basate sull’evidenza. Poiché la conoscenza è distribuita e le iniziali condizioni rilevanti sono incalcolabilmente infinite, i sistemi matematici e computazionali alla base di un programma politico non riuscirebbero mai a prevedere pienamente il risultato finale (Feinstein e Horwitz 1997; Pawson 2006). Nell’era del computer è importante che chi propone un liberalismo di tipo hayekiano evidenzi i limiti della computabilità e capisca cosa accade quando si applica la complessità e la teoria della computabilità all’atto politico.

Aggiornando il discorso di Hayek a favore del liberalismo, vista l’enorme espansione delle capacità di calcolo e di simulazione, i liberali farebbero bene a indagare confini e limiti della computabilità. Capire le tesi hayekiane sulla conoscenza significa intendere gli agenti umani come se fossero algoritmi imperfetti con un numero incalcolabilmente infinito di informazioni. Questo significa che l’azione umana collettiva e la teoria economica sono non solo difficili da concettualizzare, ma anche fondamentalmente incomputabili. Il linguaggio della computazione dà ai liberali hayekiani la possibilità di imbrigliare il contesto unico, il linguaggio e i concetti dell’era del computer al fine di confutare le tesi dei pianificatori centrali. Che si tratti di uomini o di macchine (Hayek 2013).

E l’ultimo che legge questo articolo chiuda la porta.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K., & Pines, D. (1988). The economy as an evolving complex system.

Asher, N. (2013). Polity Agent. Simon and Schuster.

Bălţătescu, I., & Prisecaru, P. (2009). Computability and economic planning. Kybernetes, 38(7/8), 1399–1408. doi:10.1108/03684920910977041

Banks, I. M. (1994). A few notes on the culture. Retrieved from Vavatch. co. uk Web site: http://www. vavatch. co. uk/books/banks/cultnote. htm.

Barbieri, F. (2013). Complexity and the Austrians. Filosofía de la Economía, 1(1), 47–69.

Bartholo, R. S., Cosenza, C. A. N., Doria, F. A., & de Lessa, C. T. R. (2009). Can economic systems be seen as computing devices? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1–2), 72–80.

Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational theory, 57(1), 1–22.

Brooker, C. (2001). A decade of evidence-based training for work with people with serious mental health problems: progress in the development of psychosocial interventions. Journal of Mental Health, 10(1), 17–31.

Casti, J. L. (1997). Computing the uncomputable. Complexity, 2(3), 7–12.

Cockshott, P. (1988). Application of artificial intelligence techniques to economic planning. University of Strathclyde.

Copeland, J. (2007). The church-turing thesis. NeuroQuantology, 2(2).

Cottrell, A., Cockshott, P., & Michaelson, G. (2007). Cantor diagonalisation and planning. Computer Science, University of Glasgow, available at: www. dcs. gla. ac. uk/, wpc/reports/cantor. pdf (accessed December 10, 2008).

Cottrell, A., & Cockshott, W. P. (1993). Calculation, complexity and planning: the socialist calculation debate once again. Review of Political Economy, 5(1), 73–112. doi:10.1080/09538259300000005

Ewald, W. (2005). From Kant to Hilbert. OUP Oxford.

Feinstein, A. R., & Horwitz, R. I. (1997). Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine.” The American journal of medicine, 103(6), 529–535.

Gaus, G. F. (2006). Hayek on the evolution of society and mind. The Cambridge Companion to Hayek. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521849772.013

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American economic review, 35(4), 519–530.

Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and economic order. University of chicago Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1953). The counter-revolution of science.

Hayek, F. A. (1964). The theory of complex phenomena. The critical approach to science and philosophy, 332–349.

Hayek, F. A. (2013). The constitution of liberty: The definitive edition (Vol. 17). Routledge.

Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739.

Heinlein, R. A. (2014). Beyond This Horizon. Baen Publishing Enterprises.

Kilpatrick, H. E. (2001). Complexity, spontaneous order, and Friedrich Hayek: Are spontaneous order and complexity essentially the same thing? Complexity, 6(4), 16–20. doi:10.1002/cplx.1035

Koppl, R. (2000). Policy implications of complexity: An Austrian perspective. The complexity vision and the teaching of economics, 97–117.

Koppl, R. (2009). Complexity and Austrian economics. Chapters.

Lange, O. (1936). On the economic theory of socialism: part one. The review of economic studies, 4(1), 53–71.

Lange, O. (1937). On the economic theory of socialism: part two. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 123–142.

Lawvere, F. W. (1969). Diagonal arguments and cartesian closed categories. In Category theory, homology theory and their applications II (pp. 134–145). Springer.

Le Guin, U. K. (2015). The dispossessed. Hachette UK.

Mirowski, P. (2002). Machine dreams: Economics becomes a cyborg science. Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, R. (2006). Cantor’s diagonal argument: An extension to the socialist calculation debate. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 9(2), 3–11. doi:10.1007/s12113-006-1006-0

Nutley, S. M., Smith, P. C., & Davies, H. T. (2000). What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Policy Press.

Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Sage.

Practice, A. P. T. F. on E.-B. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. The American Psychologist, 61(4), 271.

Rosser, J. B. (1999). On the complexities of complex economic dynamics. Journal of economic Perspectives, 13(4), 169–192.

Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures, 91, 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012

Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and Probability Neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2–3), 121–136. doi:10.1023/A:1024111006336

Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., & Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in ecology & evolution, 19(6), 305–308.

Vaughn, K. I. (1999). Hayek’s theory of the market order as an instance of the theory of complex, adaptive systems. Journal des économistes et des études humaines, 9(2–3), 241–256.

Velupillai, K. V. (2017). Algorithmic Economics: Incomputability, Undecidability and Unsolvability in Economics. In The Incomputable (pp. 105–120). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43669-2_7

Vriend, N. J. (2002). Was Hayek an Ace? Southern Economic Journal, 68(4), 811–840. doi:10.2307/1061494

Williamson, J. (1990). With Folded Hands. Radio Yesteryear.

Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Missouri have all come under fire recently for their passing of various –extremely restrictive and possibly unconstitutional– anti-abortion laws. The goal of such laws –it is claimed– is to curb abortion rates, preferably to zero. The problem is, however, that prohibition has never worked to achieve such goals. Even if one is pro-life or wishes to curb abortion rates, it does not change the fundamental fact that criminalizing abortion only leads to a rise in unsafe abortions, rather than curbing overall rates.

As the era of alcohol prohibition, the ongoing war on drugs, the outlawing of sex work, or any number of similar measures have shown, prohibition is inadequate at best to solve such issues and at worst typically exacerbates them. Alcohol prohibition led to underground speakeasies and distribution via bootleggers where one had to take on extra risk and associate with “shady” characters in order to enjoy something that was once imbibed in comparatively harmless situations. Prohibition meant that educational efforts were not undertaken to teach people how to drink responsibly, and thus those illegally consuming were less educated on how to safely handle their alcohol. As you can imagine, this likely had an effect on everything from drunk driving to consent.

Drug prohibition has lead not only to mass incarceration, but has also deterred people from seeking treatment for fear of retribution. The war of drugs has torn apart families and led to countless deaths. The libertarian solution has always been to decriminalize all drugs and focus on education, treatment, and harm reduction. Just because libertarians realize the damage drug prohibition causes does not mean every libertarian is cool with drugs. In fact, libertarians can be personally straight edge, or even adverse to drugs and drug culture entirely, while recognizing that the drug war does little-to-nothing to curb drug rates and has various negative consequences which far outway any positive gains.

The prohibition of sex work has also not done anything to extinguish the market. All it has served to do is make the market much more dangerous for sex workers. Internet censorship has taken away some of the best advertising and screening resources of the previous decade, while criminal status keeps sex workers from reporting abuse from clients or pimps. Decriminalization would allow more grounds for self-defense, the right to unionize, employee healthcare, and so much more. It’s all about harm reduction.

The same approach of harm reduction can be applied to the issue of abortion. Even if one truly believes that life begins at conception, it is hard to consider prohibition an effective solution from a libertarian perspective. Certainly, such expansive laws as the ones recently passed in Alabama and Georgia cannot be considered libertarian as they use the mass incarceration system as a deterrent, even targeting and harassing those dealing with the tragedy of miscarriage, all while doing nothing to strike at the root causes of the issue.

Abortion prohibition has not proven effective at combating abortion rates but rather seems to lead to a rise in illegal and potentially unsafe abortion methods. Whether illegally ordering abortion pills through the mail, using herbal abortifacients, or much less safe and more violent means such as clothes hanger abortions, drugs, and self-harm. This not only puts the potential child at risk but also puts the parent at a vastly increased risk of harm or death. If the goal is truly pro-life then advocating for a situation that puts both the parent and child in more danger in order to combat a system which only puts the child in danger seems counterproductive.

If we are to focus on actually curbing abortion rates instead of merely virtue signaling via ineffective and counterproductive legislative measures, then we must shift focus to the root causes of many abortions. These include factors like poverty, domestic abuse, rape, a lack of resources, a lack of sexual education, a lack of functional alternatives, etc. With this in mind, the solutions start to look a whole lot different. All of the sudden, fighting for things like parental work leave, adequate social safety nets, a living wage, affordable housing, access to healthcare, a better educational system and accessible daycare, more functional and accessible adoption and foster care systems, honest and open sexual education, access to effective birth control methods, and the end of rape culture become much bigger concerns.

Of course, these solutions don’t have to come from the state. Libertarians and anarchists of all stripes have been working on solutions to this issue for decades from an anti-prohibitionist stance, some while being rather pro-life in their beliefs. Two such examples would be the evictionists and the founder of Planned Parenthood herself, Margaret Sanger.

Evictionism is a libertarian moral theory on abortion, based on Lockean property rights, created and advanced by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead. Evictionists take a very unique approach, in that they do believe that life begins at conception but they also believe in bodily autonomy, and thus divide abortion into two separate issues: 1) the eviction of the fetus from the womb, and 2) the death of the fetus. Following the traditional stances of libertarians as against trespassing and murder, it then stands to reason that one such libertarian would be both for the right of bodily autonomy of the pregnant person and against the death of a fetus.

Evictionists thus propose a system of “homesteading” where those who wish to evict their pregnancy can announce their custody of said fetus and allow for others to offer to care for the developing child instead. Failing to find someone willing to “homestead” the child, the person may turn to abortion as a backup option. The difference between this method and that of traditional adoption is that it promotes the use of advancing medical technology to increase the chances of viability outside of the womb at much earlier stages in development, meaning that one can potentially evict a fetus without killing it. This would be seen by evictionists as preferable to abortion where available and with the advances in neonatal care over the past several decades leading to a decrease in the lower limit of viability (which is already at approximately 5 months gestational age) this is becoming increasingly available as an option.

Another option comes from the infamous birth control activist Margaret Sanger. While some myths have floated around concerning her ties to the promotion of eugenics, she was an anti-fascist throughout her life and, though many may not know, was even an avid anarchist. While she could be seen hanging out with the likes of Emma Goldman or writing publications such as The Woman Rebel (whose slogan was, “No Gods, No Masters”) it may surprise some, even more, to know that her motivations for championing the causes of birth control and sexual education were very pro-life. Throughout her early activism, she made known her stance against abortion, even championing birth control as a way to curb abortion rates with such pro-life slogans as, “Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent,” and even warning patients: “that abortion was the wrong way – no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way – it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worthwhile in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”

Even while fighting for access to legal and safe abortion methods, Sanger continued her crusade to curb unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates by means of sexual education and access to birth control. Unfortunately, in today’s modern context it’s doubtful you will hear Planned Parenthood lean into that side of Sanger’s politics, despite it being a way to build potential bridges between themselves and pro-life feminists who maybe also skeptical of prohibition.

Groups such as New Wave Feminists and In Defense of Life already take a similar approach. Both mix a modern intersectional feminist perspective on social justice with the more traditional Consistent Life Ethic espoused by the likes of the Catholic Church and other social justice advocates while remaining solidly against prohibition. New Wave Feminists doesn’t, “work to make abortion illegal. [They] work to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. And [they] do that by getting to the root of the need for it.” Groups like Feminists for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and Feminists for Nonviolent Choices, on the other hand, tend to lean towards targeting the root causes of abortion while continuing to advocate for prohibition and would benefit from more open interaction from libertarian pro-lifers of an anti-prohibition persuasion to push them towards more holistic solutions.

Such solutions can be found in supporting a strong grassroots union movement which can fight for healthcare, parental leave, and a living wage, fighting bigotry in private adoption programs as to give children a better chance to find a loving family, abolishing Child Protective Services in favor of a system of grassroots Child Placement Agencies, building and participating in community mutual aid networks to help people with daycare, food, baby supplies, housing, and other daily and emergency expenses, providing access to effective methods of birth control, and empowering individuals by teaching consent and honest and inclusive sexual education.

We can debate over the religious morals of sexual activity and can even encourage our children and others to adopt our sexual morals but, from a purely harm reduction standpoint, honesty is still the best policy when it comes to sexual education. Teaching individuals how to be safe when engaging in sexual activity is not the same as encouraging sexual activity and one can provide honest and open sexual education while still warning children against engaging in such activities until older or in a healthy and/or committed relationship. And while birth control can be a touchy subject for some religious folks, we need to remember that is a private medical and religious decision and thus should not be regulated legislatively.

As far as responding to prohibition laws, our first goal should be providing safe access to abortion methods. Thankfully technology and scientific knowledge have greatly advanced over the years and thus it is much easier to obtain a safe abortion even while they remain illegal. While obtaining an abortion illegally can increase your risk of being subjected to the violence of the police and prison systems, it no longer has to come with an increased risk to one’s health.

As Beau of the Fifth Column points out, many abortions nowadays are induced via oral medication. Even when such pills are banned for abortion purposes, since they are multi-use medications, they will continue to be available for other needs. This opens up the door for the savvy agorist or counter-economist to access such pills, only to redistribute them to those in need. If one wishes to be even more professional with such a venture, sonogram machines are easily available for only a couple hundred bucks online. Whether it be via professional doctors and nurses providing such services in secret for needed clients, or concerned citizens researching and training to provide the best care they can, we need to push for this kind of safe access as a means to curb the death rates caused by unsafe abortions which tend to spike under prohibition.

While groups like New Wave Feminists and In Defense of Life are a start, we still need more radically libertarian voices interjecting themselves into the conversation in an attempt to sway pro-lifers away from prohibition as the solution. We need the efforts of agorist abortion providers to help curb the death rates caused by unsafe illegal abortions. We need the efforts of the scientists and medical professionals working to increase the viability rate of prematurely born fetuses. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, one should be able to find common ground in the fight against prohibition and the fight against rape culture, poverty, and inadequate sexual education. It’s just a matter of making people realize how these issues intersect.

The Brexit Party has just done extremely well for itself in the EU elections, though it should be noted that it and the Tories got less than half the total votes. If I had to describe the whole affair, it would be as such: the whole thing became, essentially, a second Brexit referendum. The “remainers” won, though they won as a fractured coalition. A new party captured the vast majority of the pro-brexit vote, as the Tory’s base had so utterly lost faith in it that they were eager to vote for someone to the right of them.

All that aside, there was an interesting political fad, something of an offline meme: people threw milkshakes at right-wing politicians, and centrists/conservatives/fash were all Very Mad about it.

The fad started on May 2nd of this year, when Tommy Robinson (a British candidate for EU parliament) approached a Pakistani-British man (Danyaal Mahmud) on the street, and started harassing him. Tommy followed after Danyaal as he tried to leave, with left-wingers escorting Danyaal and right-wingers trailing after Tommy. Things grew heated, and Danyaal found himself cornered. Scared and out of other options, Danyaal threw the remains (a milkshake) of his lunch in Tommy’s face. Tommy grabbed Danyaal’s head and savagely rained blows down upon him, until Tommy was pulled off by police and civilians. The video of this went viral, with 5.7 million views as of this writing.

This was actually the second-time someone had thrown a milkshake on Tommy, though I cannot find details on the first, nor can I find any evidence of a connection between Danyaal’s act of desperation and whatever happened the first time. As far as I can tell, Danyaal had no intention of becoming a political icon and really just wishes people would leave him alone.

Regardless, the video has inspired others. Carl Benjamin, another British candidate for EU parliament, has had milkshakes thrown on him many times.

First off, some historical context. Throwing food at politicians isn’t a new idea, nor is it something only done to the far-right. Here’s Schwarzenegger talking about getting hit with an egg in 2003. Here are two French presidential candidates getting pelted with flour in 2012 and 2017. The Australian prime minister just got hit with an egg, and the police arrested the egg-thrower for it.

So, the basic concept isn’t terribly new or exciting. What is exceptional about throwing milkshakes at far-right figures, though, is how goddamn mad it makes them. Schwarzenegger, when asked about his egging, joked that the guy owed him bacon, and said that the ability to protest him like that was part of what he loved about America. The French candidates mostly just hurried off. The Australian prime minister was a bit closer in his reaction (he called the woman a thug and had his goons arrest her) but even that managed to appear more dignified than the far-right’s reaction of bizarre fear.

Nigel Farage has been trying to tour Britain by bus, to promote his (far-right) Brexit Party. In the past, he’s said that he’ll:

“don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines” if Theresa May fails to deliver Brexit in the fashion he wants.

This now feels like a very unconvincing statement, given that he refused to get off his bus in Kent, because a couple of dudes were standing around it, holding milkshakes. Before that, in Newcastle, Nigel got pelted with a milkshake and responded by… fleeing the scene and losing his shit at his bodyguards. He later referred to the milkshake as “an affront to democracy”. The milkshaker was arrested. There are rumors of him being ‘menaced’ (to stretch the definition of that word to the breaking point) by larger groups with milkshakes, but I cannot confirm those at this time.

The far-right’s establishment allies have their backs on this, too. Both the “centrist” politicians:

Tim Farron, the leader of the pro-Europe Liberal Democrats, said, “I’m not laughing along with the attack on Farage. Violence and intimidation are wrong no matter who they’re aimed at. On top of that, it just makes the man a martyr, it’s playing into his hands.”

And the police, who made McDonald’s in Edinburgh stop selling milkshakes for several hours around a Farage rally.

Burger King, meanwhile, responded by tweeting out that they were still selling milkshakes. There are plenty of commentaries on this, but making them would be beside the point of this article.

There are some rumors of people doing this to fash in the US, though I can only find tweets about it. That doesn’t really matter, though. What matters is how much they over-react to this. They call it political violence. In addition to Tim Farron, we have Sam Harris, who once wrote an article advocating the use of torture, now whining about it. He even called them “mock assassinations”. More on that in a bit, because he’s actually correct, and it’s great.  

They’re calling it “political violence”, which suggests that political violence is now as meaningless of a term as terrorism. These people will call anything “political violence”. Meanwhile, actual political violence barely breaks the news cycle.  

Matt Ford, at The New Republic, put it best when he said:

…milkshaking is so potent against Farage and his brethren… [because] it humiliates them. Nothing animates the far right or shapes its worldview quite so much as the desire to humiliate others—and the fear of being humiliated themselves. It’s why alt-right trolls, projecting their own sexual insecurities, enjoy calling their opponents “cucks.” It’s why they rally around blustery authoritarian figures like Donald Trump who cast themselves as beyond embarrassment, shame, or ridicule. They brandish humiliation like a weapon while craving release from it.

Getting doused in a milkshake robs far-right figures of the air of chauvinistic invulnerability that they spend so much time cultivating. They hunger to be taken seriously despite their racist views. They want to be described as dapper, to be interviewed on evening news broadcasts and weekend talk-show panels, and to be seen as a legitimate participant in the democratic process. Most politicians to the left of Enoch Powell would brush off milkshaking as a harmless stunt. For those seeking mainstream legitimacy, it’s another searing reminder that they don’t belong.

…What the far right fears more than anything else isn’t a defeat at the ballot box or a temporary setback in policymaking. It’s the sting of shame that comes from being humiliated in public. I personally oppose violence in all forms, so I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to throw a milkshake at the nearest racist I encounter. But I don’t need to believe in it to recognize how effective it is at shaming the far right.

Even beyond this, though, we have to understand the profoundness of the dichotomy at play here.

These guys have consistently called for horrible violence, in numerous ways, against numerous targets. But the actual reality of milkshake “violence” is that it’s actually quite light and mocking. It’s milkshakes. It’s nothing. No one is going to die because they got hit with a milkshake. But they will run and hide from it.

More than that, though, liberals are extremely comfortable with these guys getting milkshaked — comfortable in a way that they aren’t with them getting punched. It’s just a bit of fun to them, and even they aren’t dumb enough to really believe the fash and “centrists” when they start whining about political violence. We can use that. As Huck Magazine put it:

Our screens and feeds are filled with coverage documenting, and sometimes assisting, the rise of the far-right, in a way that feels incredibly overwhelming and disempowering. Now, we see an islamophobic figurehead in the running to be an MEP for the seat previously held by Nick Griffin, and although a milkshake being thrown is a viral joke on the face of it, the comic relief is timely. While I don’t think anyone is seriously conceptualising isolated, one-on-one confrontations (which may result in the confronters being done for assault) as the most viable means of tackling the terrifying problem of fascism, these incidents of virality say something about how we’re all feeling.

It is, obviously, not a realistic course of action. I doubt anyone thinks it is. But there’s a tiny sliver of joy to be salvaged as we see our frustrations exemplified by someone who, when given the chance, won’t nod along to the sentiments of fascists. Someone who will throw an egg. Someone who will throw a milkshake.

This is an “anti-fascism” (to stretch that word to hell and back) that the liberals can actually see themselves doing. This can escalate further — though, of course, in practice this is actually a de-escalation. Milkshaking is something of a training game, in that it can get liberals comfortable with doing harder stuff in a fairly safe-feeling environment. It’s like Avery Alder’s Brave Sparrow in its effects — though a little bit harder core, and aimed at adults. It teacheshow to think in terms of strategy, tactics, and asymmetric warfare. This is all fantastic stuff.

When Sam Harris says:

All these assaults are mock assassinations (whether the perpetrators know it or not). Pies, milkshakes, glitter, etc. reveal unavoidable weaknesses in the security of their targets and advertise their vulnerability to the whole world. The result is worse than it appears.

He’s right. While throwing milkshakes is good optically and in terms of building political alliances, because it isn’t dangerous and shows restraint, it also serves as an effective threat to for fascists, just as Sam Harris describes.  

One might argue that this gives the fash and/or the state the opportunity to patch exposed security holes, but I disagree. I think that we have always had more power than we realized, and that proving this to everyone is fantastic.

These are mostly candidates or members of legislatures, not heads of state — who are already beyond the reach of the public. These sorts of lower-level guys can only really patch these security holes by either radically reducing their exposure to the public or radically increasing their hired security. Both options serve only to broadcast that they’re actually very unpopular — you can’t really credibly claim a mandate from “the people” while also hiding from “the people”.

Further, I don’t think that they can actually reduce their risk (by doing either, or both, of these options) enough to effectively eliminate it — you can only avoid the public so much, and hiring 24/7 armed guards for every candidate and representative is very expensive. Either they’re going to bear that expense privately or that’s going to be borne publicly. The first seems more likely, but the second one would be mean more expense for the taxpayers, and thus be even less popular.

This is all part of a global trend — the far-right is rising. Even though the Brexit Party lost, they still did very well for themselves. Le Pen’s National Rally, in France, also just did very well — and the Conservatives, in Australia, just had a shocking victory. We need more effort, and more tactics, against these people. We need to humiliate them, destroy their tough-guy images, and leave them afraid. We need to train, to get ready to defend ourselves and to strike back. These people are coming for us. The Trump administration is stripping trans protections in the US, as well as undermining judicial checks and balances. Sex worker protections have already been undermined. There are immigrants in cages. Abortion is being made illegal. I don’t care how white, how comfortable, how male, how straight, how cis, or how anything you are — fascism is coming, and it’s coming for you. There will be no hiding place, in the end, no systems to save you — as always, everything is heading towards a grand showdown, and everyone will have to pick a side.

The liberals are throwing milkshakes because, like Danyaal, they are afraid. They don’t know what to do. They’re lashing out with whatever they know. Our job isn’t to tell them that they’re bad for using milkshakes and not bricks. It’s to help them make the transition from milkshakes to bullets, to knives, to sabotage, to subversion. Milkshakes are but the first brick in the long road of radicalization. Every step needs to feel comfortable, accessible, and reasonable. In the end, they may never say that they’re one of us — and that is okay. They may serve anarchist causes in the name of democracy, of tradition, of civility, or even in the name of property. It doesn’t matter, as long as they are fighting back — all resistance, taken far enough, leads to the same place.

The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS.

I could make a color chart
For the melodies we sing
But I’m sure there’s no piece of art
For the comfort which you bring
Harmony and passion could kill a king
Tearing down these walls they built
And arriving as this being
Maybe we’re at flooded field
But the tides are rearranging

We will never fall apart
When we work against the liege
Spreading messages with our art
To make them feel our sting
Harmony and passion will kill the king
Then our freedom will be sealed
From our rooftops we will sing
No longer a flooded field
From gods and masters finally free

Bitcoin Pizza Day passed again recently and with it came the expected wave of posts reminiscing about how far the world of cryptocurrency has come since that fateful day when Florida Man sent 10,000 of his magical internet money overseas all for a couple of pizzas. Of course, cryptocurrency has always been touted as a way to navigate around the control of Wall Street, the banking industry, and governments. In fact, many libertarians advocate it specifically along with the agorist tactic of avoiding taxes. The idea is that by not paying taxes one will “starve the state.”

This idea expands upon the much more symbolic protest of not paying war taxes. Traditionally, war resisters would withhold a certain amount when paying their taxes. This is calculated to be equal to the amount of their tax dollars which would be spent on war. However, there is no guarantee that the rest of the tax money a war resister continues to give to the state each year doesn’t still go to fund the military-industrial-complex despite their symbolic protest. So in that spirit, agorists such as Samuel Konkin and Karl Hess encouraged people to stop paying taxes entirely.

With Memorial Day upon us, one can’t help but dwell a bit on the subject of war. Organizing in direct action against foreign wars is difficult because the targets we wish to stop are often not accessible. But campaigns like #DivestWallStreet, which launched on Bitcoin Pizza Day 2019, allow for us to take direct action against the war machine, by refusing to fund it. The campaign encourages people to move at least $1 of fiat per day into their choice of cryptocurrency. The goal is to aid individuals in a gradual transition away from fiat and into using crypto as their primary currency without asking people to dive in all at once. This allows individuals to become more educated as they make this transition. Crypto debit cards, such as the one offered by Bitpay, can make using cryptocurrency much more accessible for everyday life, while tools like CoinPayments can allow individuals and merchants to accept over 100 different cryptocurrencies all from one account.

There are many other tools which can ease this transition. One of the best communities for those new to the subject continues to be r/BitcoinBeginners. But using cryptocurrency to avoid feeding the war machine with your taxes isn’t the only form of direct action you can take. Protesting at recruitment centers or weapons manufacturing facilities, pushing for the removal of campus recruiters, locking down or sabotaging weapons plants or similar targets, hosting Memorial Day anti-war marches, joining or aiding groups such as Veterans for Peace and/or Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Against the War, supporting military whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, harassing your political leaders when they vote for pro-war policies, and generally doing anything possible to shift the Overton window of mainstream political discourse to an anti-war perspective by hosting events and protests. Food Not Bombs is always a good grassroots tool for doing outreach about anti-war issues. Serve food at your local park and pass out flyers and infosheets on anti-war issues, along with flyers for your next event or protest. Host a potluck movie night where everyone watches an anti-war documentary and has a discussion about actions we can take on an individual, local, state, national, or even international level.

So this Memorial Day, let’s honor those whose lives have been lost to the war machine by bringing back the anti-war movement in full force. Let’s host those potlucks, documentary showings, rallies, etc. Let’s confront our local military supplier or recruitment effort. Let’s do whatever we can to make it known that we do not support these wars and that we demand their immediate end.

This will not be an easy fight to dismantle the military-industrial-complex but it is a necessary and life-saving fight that must be undertaken. There are forms of direct action that can be undertaken at any level of comfort and risk one is willing to take. It can be as simple as raising awareness via rallies and events or engaging with politicians to taking on military recruiters and weapons manufacturers directly — but whatever you do, do something. No matter what form of direct action you take, it can always be partnered with the move to #DivestWallStreet and the war machine by switching to cryptocurrency and avoiding taxes. Together, let’s make this a Memorial Day to remember.

Nós, libertários, defendemos a liberdade econômica, não as grandes empresas. Defendemos mercados livres, não a economia corporativa. Como seria uma sociedade baseada em mercados liberados? Sem dúvida, totalmente diferente dos mercados controlados que temos hoje em dia. Mas com que frequência ouvimos que o desemprego em massa, as crises financeiras, as catástrofes ecológicas e o status quo econômico resultam da voracidade dos “mercados desregulados”? Como se estivessem por toda a parte!

As crises colocadas na conta do laissez faire são crises de mercados que não podem ser considerados nada além de regulados. Quando os críticos nos confrontam com as ilicitudes das corporações, com a pobreza estrutural existente ou com a marginalização socioeconômica, devemos enfatizar que os princípios do mercado livre não requerem que defendamos as grandes empresas — e que grande parte do que está sendo condenado resulta da regulação estatal e de privilégios legais. Como modelo de análise do poder das corporações e de defesa dos mercados de baixo para cima, nós, libertários do século 21, nos voltamos às nossas raízes do século 19 — aos insights dos individualistas americanos, especialmente seu expoente mais talentoso, Benjamin Ricketson Tucker (1854-1939), editor do jornal anarquista de livre mercado Liberty.

Os livros de história convencionalmente tratam a Era Dourada dos Estados Unidos (1870-1900) como uma época de incessante exploração e laissez faire econômico. Tucker, porém, alegava que as características mais evidentes do capitalismo de sua época resultavam não das forças de mercado, mas de sua deformação pelos privilégios políticos. Tucker não utilizava a terminologia que apresentamos aqui, mas podemos delinear quatro padrões de deformação que a ele eram especialmente preocupantes: mercados cativos, efeitos catraca, concentração de propriedades e proteção de incumbentes.

Tipos de distorção

Mercados cativos: Privilégios legais e monopólios instituídos pelo estado produzem mercados cativos nos quais os consumidores ficam artificialmente presos a serviços ou produtores específicos, que não seriam suportados pelo público se requerimentos políticos não inflassem sua demanda. Por exemplo, o mercado de seguros automotivos é moldado por legislações que estabelecem sua obrigatoriedade e regulam os serviços mínimos que devem ser adquiridos. Mercados cativos garantem às empresas privilegiadas o acesso a um número constante de clientes, encurralados pela ameaça de multas e prisão.

Efeitos catraca: Encargos legais, distorções de preço e mercados cativos se combinam para inflar os custos fixos de vida a um patamar muito mais alto do que o que prevaleceria num mercado livre. As pessoas vivem sujeitas pela necessidade de cobrir esses custos persistentes e inflexíveis — e fazem isso através da venda do seu trabalho, da compra de seguros, da contração de dívidas — sob circunstâncias artificialmente rígidas. Efeitos catraca mantêm pessoas constantemente em busca do próximo contracheque, criando estados permanentes de crise financeira para os pobres.

Concentração de propriedades: O confisco, a redistribuição regressiva e os monopólios legais privam os trabalhadores de recursos ao mesmo tempo em que concentram a riqueza e o controle econômico numa classe empresarial politicamente favorecida. Com dificuldades para cobrir seus custos fixos, os trabalhadores são despojados dos meios de sustento independente e entram em mercados onde a propriedade de terras, capital e recursos chave está legalmente concentrada nas mãos de poucos. Os trabalhadores, portanto, dependem muito mais de bons relacionamentos com chefes e corporações do que em mercados liberados, o que transforma a atividade econômica em relacionamentos hierárquicos e economias restritivas de aluguel.

Proteção dos incumbentes: Os mercados cativos e resgates financeiros protegem as grandes empresas, enquanto monopólios legais, barreiras regulatórias e subsídios anticompetitivos inibem a competição e a substituição de produtos por alternativas mais acessíveis. O suporte do estado garante a posição das grandes empresas, sufocando as pressões sociais e econômicas que poderiam surgir. Os negócios protegidos podem tratar seus empregados e consumidores com muito menos consideração e contenção; ao mesmo tempo, a intervenção no mercado destrói soluções alternativas, através do bloqueio de concorrentes menores, populares ou informais.

Os 4 grandes monopólios de Tucker

Podemos, agora, nos voltar à ideia central de Tucker. Em “Socialismo de estado e anarquismo” (1888), Tucker argumentava que “quatro monopólios” moldavam fundamentalmente a economia da Era Dourada americana — eram quatro áreas centrais de atividade econômica onde a intervenção estatal (efeitos catraca, concentração, proteção) se cristalizou para deformar os mercados, transformando-os em “monopólios de classe” e remoldando regressivamente o resto da economia, que era afetada por essas primeiras oscilações.

O monopólio imobiliário: A propriedade das terras no século 19 nos Estados Unidos não tinha nada a ver com o livre mercado. Todas as terras desocupadas foram apropriadas pelo governo, enquanto as terras de índios, mexicanos e ocupantes independentes foram tomadas pelas forças militares estatais. A propriedade estatal e as concessões preferenciais monopolizaram o acesso às terras e impossibilitaram a ocupação livre. (A “Lei de Propriedades Rurais”, que teoricamente abria as terras do oeste dos EUA para a ocupação, na realidade impunha limites legais rígidos aos ocupantes, e apenas fazendeiros comerciais de médio porte podiam cumpri-los. Fazendas pequenas e não-fazendeiros estavam excluídos.) Tucker identificava essa concentração de terrenos nas mãos da elite como um “monopólio das terras” que criava uma classe de senhorios privilegiados e privava os trabalhadores de oportunidades de mercado legítimas para estabelecer suas moradias e escapar dos aluguéis.

Desde 1888, o monopólio das terras já se expandiu dramaticamente. Os estados do mundo inteiro nacionalizaram suas reservas de petróleo, gás natural e água. Nos Estados Unidos, os direitos de mineração e exploração de combustíveis fósseis são acessíveis em sua maior parte por licenciamento governamental, graças à propriedade estatal de 50% das terras do oeste americano. O custo das terras é inflado e as propriedades são concentradas através de legislações de zoneamento, desapropriação, “desenvolvimento” municipal e outras políticas locais que mantêm os preços dos terrenos em permanente ascensão. Mercados liberados seriam caracterizados pela propriedade mais dispersa e individual; terrenos seriam menos caros e, com maior frequência, poderiam ser ocupados sem custos; terras devolutas seriam mais facilmente abertas à ocupação; e os títulos de propriedade imobiliária se baseariam tanto em trocas monetárias quanto em transações de trabalho. Muitos não precisariam mais pagar aluguéis; aquelas pessoas que ainda escolhessem alugar suas moradias encontrariam um cenário competitivo muito superior, com melhores preços e condições aos locatários.

O monopólio monetário: Para Tucker, a faceta mais nociva dos quatro grandes monopólios era o monopólio monetário — “o privilégio, cedido pelo governo a certos indivíduos […] que possuem certos tipos de propriedade, de emitir meios circulantes”, manipular a oferta de moeda, proibir moedas alternativas e cartelizar o sistema bancário e de crédito. Tucker enxergava que o monopólio monetário não apenas garantia os lucros monopolísticos para bancos protegidos, mas também concentrava as propriedades em toda a economia, favorecendo empresas grandes e já estabelecidas — aquelas com as quais os bancos preferiam negociar.

Tucker identificou o monopólio monetário como força econômica em 1888 — antes da existência do Fed, o banco central americano, da moeda fiduciária, do FDIC, Fannie, Freddie, do FMI ou dos resgates trilionários a bancos considerados “grandes demais para quebrar”. Hoje, os cartéis regulatórios e decretos políticos também capturaram o mercado de seguros, junto com o crédito, as poupanças e os investimentos, transformando tudo isso em áreas protegidas pelo monopólio monetário e forçando os trabalhadores a se sujeitarem a mercados viciados, sem alternativas de auxílio mútuo populares e não corporativas.

Ideias e extorsão

O monopólio das patentes: Tucker condenava os monopólios protegidos por patentes e direitos autorais — “a proteção dos inventores e autores da competição por longos períodos permite que eles extraiam […] um retorno excessivo […] por seus serviços.” Uma vez que a cópia de uma ideia não priva o inventor da propriedade que ele possuía anteriormente, a “propriedade intelectual” era apenas um monopólio legal contra os concorrentes que eram capazes de duplicar os produtos do monopolista a custos menores.

A “propriedade intelectual” (PI) cresceu vigorosamente desde 1888, uma vez que a mídia, a tecnologia e a inovação científica tornaram o controle sobre a economia da informação uma peça fundamental do poder das corporações. Os lucros monopolísticos sobre a PI são o modelo de negócios efetivo de empresas da Fortune 500 como a GE, Monsanto, Microsoft e Disney, que exigem poderes legais virtualmente ilimitados para se proteger da concorrência. Os períodos de validade dos direitos autorais quadruplicaram, enquanto expansões sincronizadas do protecionismo intelectual se tornaram características padrão de “acordos” de “livre comércio” como o NAFTA e o KORUS FTA (acordo entre os Estados Unidos e a Coreia do Sul). Em mercados liberados, esses modelos de negócio cairiam — como também cairiam os custos aos consumidores pelo acesso à cultura, medicina e tecnologia.

O monopólio protecionista: Tucker via nas tarifas protecionistas um monopólio porque elas isolavam os produtores domésticos politicamente favorecidos da competição estrangeira, aumentando os custos incorridos pelos consumidores.

Com a ascensão de corporações multinacionais e os acordos de comércio neoliberais, as tarifas entraram em declínio. Porém, o mecanismo legal específico era menos importante do que o objetivo de controlar o comércio para proteger as empresas domésticas estabelecidas. Em 1888, isso se traduzia em tarifas. Em 2011, é uma vasta rede de controles políticos utilizados para gerenciar a “balança comercial”: exportar subsídios, manipular as taxas de câmbio e agências multigovernamentais como o Banco Mundial e o FMI.

Monopolização Metaestática

Os quatro grandes monopólios de Tucker apenas cresceram desde os anos 1880. Contudo, o século passado também assistiu à proliferação metaestática de agências regulatórias estatais que têm como objetivo reestruturar novos tipos de transação e capturar novos mercados. Entre os Muitos Monopólios atuais, cinco são especialmente prevalentes:

O monopólio do agronegócio, que abrange o sistema estabelecido pelo New Deal formado por cartéis do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos, compras pelo governo de excessos de produção, irrigação subsidiada, subsídios à exportação e medidas similares que inflam os custos, distorcem a produção e concentram a atividade agrícola em monoculturas de grande escala, com aplicação intensiva de capital. Tais medidas, implementadas em grande parte em nome de “pequenos fazendeiros”, invariavelmente beneficiam grandes fazendas mecanizadas e conglomerados agrícolas como a ADM e a Tyson.

O monopólio da infraestrutura inclui a infraestrutura física e de comunicações. O estado constrói estradas, ferrovias e aeroportos através de desapropriações e isenções fiscais, além de impor regulações cartelizantes sobre a maior parte do transporte público. A restrição à entrada garante lucros monopolísticos para operadoras protegidas; o confisco de dinheiro e propriedade para subsidiar o transporte e o frete de longa distância cria oportunidades de negócio subsidiadas por impostos para o agronegócio, grandes varejistas e outros negócios que dependem do transporte rodoviário. Grandes empresas de telecomunicação e mídia, como AT&T, Comcast e Verizon acumulam impérios através do controle da largura da banda de internet; o controle das frequências de transmissão é concentrado politicamente pela FCC; e a propriedade de bandas de telefone, cabo e fibra óptica se concentra em monopólios locais.

O monopólio dos serviços públicos concede o controle sobre a eletricidade, água e gás natural para grandes produtores centralizados, com planejamento, subsídios e monopólios regionais abrangentes. A geração caseira de energia, sistemas policêntricos locais ou alternativas fora da rede são proibidas ou reguladas até o colapso.

O protecionismo regulatório

O protecionismo regulatório provavelmente é o mais disperso dos Muitos Monopólios. Como o monopólio protecionista de Tucker, ele concentra e protege os produtores estabelecidos através da criação de obstáculos para potenciais concorrentes. As empresas consolidadas suprimem a concorrência de produtores menores com o lobby por maiores exigências burocráticas, taxas extorsivas e licenças complexas para tudo, desde dirigir táxis até o trabalho de cabeleireiro. Padrões industriais, que em outro cenário seriam estabelecidos por convenções sociais e experimentações no mercado, são removidos da alçada da competição e determinados por pressões políticas. Os altos custos de observância das regulamentações protegem os incumbentes que podem pagá-los dos concorrentes que não podem, isolando os pobres de oportunidades empresariais e sustentos independentes.

O monopólio da saúde nasce de um efeito cascata causado por outros monopólios, mas é digno de nota por causa do crescimento explosivo do setor médico e porque planos de saúde moldam profundamente as decisões a respeito de emprego, dinheiro e planejamento financeiro. O fato econômico central do sistema de saúde é um efeito catraca devastador. As patentes inflam os custos dos remédios e protegem os lucros da Pfizer e da GlaxoSmithKline. A FDA e o licenciamento médico instituem uma forma de protecionismo regulatório, restringindo a oferta de profissionais, hospitais e empresas farmacêuticas, concentrando lucros e aumentando ainda mais os custos. Uma necessidade médica pode se tornar um custo catastrófico que requer planos de saúde abrangentes. Anteriormente, os trabalhadores tinham acesso a seguros saúde por meio de sociedades fraternais de ajuda mútua, mas os monopólios monetários transformaram inteiramente o mercado de planos de saúde através de subsídios, decretos e controles regulatórios. Os trabalhadores agora estão presos a seus empregadores por conta dos custos de seus “benefícios” de plano de saúde, embora ainda encarem o constante perigo da perda de cobertura, pedidos negados e dívidas crescentes.

A análise de Tucker sobre os Quatro Monopólios que controlavam a economia da Era Dourada, suplementada pelos Cinco Grandes que nossa época introduziu, tem grande capacidade de explicar por que os mercados existentes funcionam da forma que funcionam e falham para as pessoas para quem falham. Talvez, também, inspire algumas objeções dos libertários atuais.

Os Muitos Monopólios deformam os mercados e os transformam em negócios estereotipicamente “capitalistas”, mas os governos intervêm em mais de um sentido. E quanto a regulamentações ou programas de bem-estar que beneficiam os pobres, ou mesmo restrições a grandes firmas consolidadas? Estas existem, sem dúvida, mas não necessariamente atingem seus supostos objetivos. Como mostrado no livro de Gabriel Kolko, O triunfo do conservadorismo, a estrutura regulatória progressista e as leis antitruste, longe de limitarem as grandes empresas, formam a base do protecionismo regulatório, cartelizando e protegendo os negócios estabelecidos. Há, além disso, questões de prioridade e escala. Embora eu tenha objeções a empréstimos da SBA ou à TANF tanto quanto qualquer outro defensor do livre mercado, nesta era de resgates bancários trilionários, mesmo quando o governo coloca os dedos dos dois lados da balança, um dedo empurra mais forte que o outro.

E quanto às explicações de economistas tradicionais para a maior eficiência das grandes corporações, que se baseiam em maior divisão do trabalho, economias de escala e ganhos de transação? As maiores empresas não seriam capazes de superar suas rivais menores mesmo sem subsídios e monopólios?

Em resposta a isso, devemos apontar que Tucker não rejeitava a divisão do trabalho, os ganhos comerciais ou da produção em grande escala. Porém, ele sugeria que o trabalho, o comércio e a escala fossem organizados de maneira diferente: contratos independentes, cooperativas e oficinas gerenciadas pelos trabalhadores são formas de especialização e comércio tão válidas quanto as firmas centralizadas. Ganhos de escala podem ser internalizados com o gerenciamento central ou externalizados pelo comércio policêntrico. Uma economia corporativa é apenas uma alternativa entre as muitas que existem para a divisão do trabalho e a troca de valores. A questão que se coloca é se essa forma predomina por causa de forças econômicas que persistiriam em mercados livres de privilégios estruturais ou por conta de crises que se dissipariam quando os concorrentes estivessem livres para oferecer alternativas menos centralizadas e gerenciadas, com mais oportunidades de comércio e independência empresarial para os trabalhadores comuns.

Se a análise de Tucker está correta, ela prova que há muitos pontos de nossa vida econômica em que as pessoas comuns são estimuladas a gastar dinheiro que não gostariam de gastar com parceiros comerciais que prefeririam não ter. As intervenções estatais mais disseminadas e vastas incentivam a concentração, o comercialismo, a escala hipertrofiada e a consolidação da hierarquia necessária para seu gerenciamento — não porque esses sejam fenômenos naturais da economia de mercado, mas porque essas características crescem dentro da estufa dos custos socializados e da concorrência restrita.

O cinto e os ossos

Durante a maior parte do século 20, os libertários americanos foram vistos como defensores do “capitalismo” (em contraponto a isso, confira as dúvidas de Clarence Carson sobre essa palavra no artigo de 1985 da Freeman, “Capitalism: Yes and No“). A maioria dos libertários e quase todos os seus oponentes pareciam concordar que o libertarianismo significava uma defesa dos grandes negócios dos ataques do estado e que o propósito do laissez faire era o de libertar as formas existentes de comércio de suas amarras políticas.

Libertários tradicionais como Tucker tinham uma atitude praticamente oposta, algo que podemos chamar de “anticapitalismo de livre mercado”. Ele foi um dos mais conhecidos defensores dos mercados liberados nos Estados Unidos do século 19, quando resumia seus princípios econômicos como “livre comércio absoluto, […] sendo o laissez faire a regra universal”. Para Tucker, portanto, o libertarianismo era um ataque ao privilégio econômico através da remoção dos privilégios políticos que o sustentavam, destruindo os monopólios através de sua abertura à competição vinda de baixo.

Os Muitos Monopólios são prevalentes e moldam fundamentalmente a realidade da nossa economia. Porém, se esse é o caso, por que tanto oponentes quanto defensores do livre mercado ignoram a análise de Tucker? Como resultado, vemos progressistas constantemente culpando a desigualdade, a exploração e o poder corporativo nos “mercados desregulados”, enquanto libertários “pró-capitalistas” respondem com justificativas do status quo. Paradoxalmente, pode ser que a abordagem de Tucker seja esquecida parcialmente por causa de sua profundidade e graças à prevalência dos problemas que identifica.

As intervenções que os libertários do século 20 tinham maior probabilidade de identificar — impostos progressivos, assistencialismo, regulamentações ambientais — são intervenções superficiais, economicamente falando. Embora busquem reformar ou restringir a economia capitalista-estatal, elas tomam suas características básicas — concentração, proteção, custos inflados e poder corporativo — como premissas e tentam apenas conter seus efeitos mais desagradáveis. Regulamentações progressistas compensatórias são como um cinto colocado no capitalismo. Um homem pode precisar ou não usar um cinto, mas seu corpo permanece o mesmo com ou sem ele.

Os meios políticos que consolidam os Muitos Monopólios fazem muito mais além de interferir nos resultados das estruturas de mercado existentes. Os privilégios para os capitalistas moldam padrões básicos de propriedade, acesso e custos para bens e fatores de produção essenciais. São forças que reestruturam fundamentalmente os mercados, inventando as estruturas de classe de propriedade, custos e competição que produzem o trabalho assalariado, os aluguéis e a economia corporativa em que vivemos. Essas intervenções primárias não são um cinto para o capitalismo estatal usar ou remover; são seus ossos. Sem eles, o que sobra não é um visual diferente para o mesmo corpo — é um organismo inteiramente novo.

Quando usamos um cinto, é fácil visualizar como ficaríamos sem ele. Os libertários do século 20 corretamente denunciavam como o cinto era apertado pela coerção estatal — porém, raramente notavam que, não importando o quanto esse cinto antiempresarial restringia a forma natural da economia capitalista, o sistema sem essas amarras ainda era um produto político moldado pela intervenção pró-empresas, até os seus ossos. Os monopólios que criam capitalistas, os donos de terras, os financistas e sustentam o poder corporativo estão tão integrados à economia existente, tão acoplados ao consenso político, que é fácil confundi-los com o funcionamento normal de uma sociedade de mercado.

Podemos dizer — com a devida vênia a Shulamith Firestone — que a economia política do capitalismo de estado é tão profunda a ponto de ser invisível. Talvez ela pareça um conjunto superficial de intervenções, um problema que pode ser resolvido por algumas reformas legais, possivelmente a eliminação de um resgate ocasional ou subsídio à exportação, mantendo intactos os padrões reconhecíveis básicos da economia corporativa. Contudo, há algo mais profundo, mais generalizado, em questão. Um mercado inteiramente liberado significa a liberação dos postos de comando essenciais da economia do controle estatal, que devem ser retomados pelo empreendedorismo social e de mercado. O mercado que surgiria nesse novo cenário seria totalmente diferente do que temos agora. Que uma mudança tão profunda não possa facilmente ser embalada em categorias tradicionais de pensamento — como “libertário”, “esquerda”, “laissez faire“, “socialista”, “empreendedor” ou “anticapitalista” — não é porque essas categorias não se apliquem, mas porque não são amplas o bastante: mercados livres radicais transbordam por elas. Se houvesse uma palavra ainda mais abrangente que revolucionário, nós a usaríamos.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

Before I begin, I suppose I should mention that I am an American. I will be, for the most part, addressing issues within the American left. Within that perspective is a recognition of my home country’s disastrous role in interventions across the world, and the large footprint that American military activity has left on other countries. None of this is meant to excuse or justify the crimes of the American state, or other imperial and/or colonial powers, or invalidate wanting to oppose them. I think that seeing the American state as the biggest, most dangerous monster around is valid. This essay isn’t an attempt at criticizing the desire to slay the monster — it’s about our inability to do so, and about where well-intentioned attempts on it often lead.

All of that said, I do not stan dictators. I don’t care whether or not that they are pro- or anti-American. It makes no difference. This might not seem like a particularly notable statement to make. In a better world, it would hardly seem worth putting into words. Still, this is what we have come to.

Whenever I see the words “anti-imperialism”, I find myself cringing inwardly. After all, it usually means the person or group using the phrase is going to start stanning foreign dictators. I do not stan dictators, no matter where they are.

If “anti-imperialism” really did just confine itself to opposing military interventions by states against other states, then it would be very hard for me to argue against it. Every time a state goes to war against another state, civilians die. Sometimes, conscripts die — and, while I can hardly term killing conscripts to be a war crime in the same sense that killing unarmed civilians is, it also strikes me as tragic: they are slaves of the state too. Never has a state ever gone to war for selfless reasons, even though they often claim to do so. America did not bring freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, or anywhere else. It brought massive amounts of death and buoyed domestic business interests.

Perhaps there are some reasons to shrug at even this sort of steelmanned anti-imperialism. After all, who is there to root for when two states fight? And, if one state does conquer another, perhaps this also opens up possibilities. Larger states can sometimes be less efficient at quashing dissent due to their very largeness. As the Chinese saying goes “the mountains are high, and the empire is far away.” Perhaps not, though — it would be awfully easy for me, in the relative safety and comfort of America, to root for anarchist possibilities in post-war societies and ignore the civilian death toll that precedes them.

Still, opposing those horrors isn’t what “anti-imperialists” are really about. If it was, they’d just stick to talking about that. Instead, they do a certain strange song and dance; they publicly support foreign dictators. Maduro, Khameni, Assad. You know who I mean. Sometimes, even Putin, the Kims, and/or Jinping. Any state, really — as long as it isn’t America, or American-backed.

To be clear, I am not just talking about tankies. Plenty of anarchists do this. You can find plenty of examples of this on twitter and reddit.

It is always in the name of “anti-imperialism” that certain leftists call for the Kurds to give up their struggle against genocide, and demand that they give the “Syrians” back “their” land. It is always in the name of “anti-imperialism” that these leftists say that anything bad said about North Korea is really secret capitalist propaganda.

Actually-existing anti-imperialism really has very little to do with being against statist slaughter of innocents — or, at least, not within borders. After all, “anti-imperialists” never much seem to mind when geopolitical rivals of the US brutalize and slaughter “their own” civilians by the thousands or millions. When they deign to “allow” (not that they could stop anything!) any resistance to these foreign monsters, it is only from other leftists within said monsters’ claimed borders.

It’s this focus on borders that gives the whole game away: this is just nation-statism, wearing a leftist mask and expressed in an unusually even-handed way. Treating states as legitimate as long as they operate within their own borders, but rejecting the same violence under “anti-imperialism” when states attempt to wield it outside “their” borders, is to treat the legal construct of the border as legitimate. Treating leftist rebels as legitimate as long as they operate solely within the borders of the state they find themselves in, but illegitimate traitorous imperialist capitalists as soon as they have foreign volunteers among them or accept (unreliable) help from foreign states, is based in the same acceptance of borders themselves.

A lot of leftists, even a lot of anarchists, are crypto-nationalists in this vein. It leaks into domestic radical spaces as well. Too many are still quite infected with the ideology of nationalism, albeit a convoluted one that can seem radical on the surface. This is understandable, of course, but not excusable.

This goes even further. There are many leftists who have accused me of being a colonizer for considering moving beyond the borders of the American state, to majority non-white countries. Or, even, for considering moving to Detroit. This issue, and the others associated with this worldview, would take essays of their own to tease out. My point isn’t to directly address them — it is to show how actually existing anti-imperialist rhetoric feeds into nationalisms that can hardly be called anarchist.

When someone calls themselves an “anti-imperialist”, you should question what that really means.

There is, however, another side to this. “Anti-imperialism”, even in its most steelmanned form is completely and totally impotent. Anti-war protests don’t work, and the idea that they have any effect is statist propaganda designed to lure liberals into pacifism. Posting anti-war memes does nothing to stop war. Just look at the millions who protested the Iraq war, and all of the lives that that didn’t save.

Unless you are going to assassinate elected officials, or actually sabotage the operations of your local military base, you are not going to have any real life-saving effect. If you do these things, I will sing your praises. You will be a hero, on par with Leon Czolgosz. But, I don’t think that anyone reading my essay has the level of commitment necessary to get themselves killed and/or imprisoned for something like this. Most people don’t.

This is okay. I can barely effect things happening in my hometown. I certainly can’t efficiently effect things happening halfway across the world. So, if you call yourself an “anti-imperialist” and center your activism around that… don’t. You’re wasting a lot of effort. Find some local, small-scale cause to pursue. You’ll do everyone more good.

Alternativa pratica al veganismo globale

Di Logan Marie Glitterbomb. Originale pubblicato il 17 maggio 2019 con il titolo The War on Hamburgers: A Practical Alternative to World Veganism. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Da quando è stata presentata l’ultima versione del New Deal Verde, i conservatori si sono buttati nella lotta contro l’inesistente cattivo che starebbe cercando di vietare gli hamburger. Va da sé che si tratta di assurdità totali che non hanno alcun riscontro nella realtà della proposta, ma questo non ha impedito alla cosa di diffondersi sfruttando i canali informativi tradizionali. Un politico è arrivato a farsi riprendere mentre mangia un hamburger e dice che se i progressisti dovessero riuscire nell’impresa, un gesto del genere diverrebbe fuorilegge.

Da dove nasce questa ridicola campagna diffamatoria? Apparentemente, da un opuscolo esplicativo diffuso per illustrare i punti chiave della proposta. Opuscolo che però non fa alcun riferimento ad un possibile divieto degli hamburger o di un qualunque altro prodotto a base di carne. Semplicemente dice che gli allevamenti intensivi sono tra le cause principali dei cambiamenti climatici e invita ad agire in proposito. E agire non significa vietare la carne.

I vegani si arrabbino quanto vogliono, ma il loro sogno è un semplice sogno. Se vogliamo agire significativamente, quindi, dobbiamo andare alla ricerca di alternative che siano più fattibili. Certo, incoraggiare le persone a ridurre il consumo di carne è un buon avvio, ma un vero cambiamento si avrà solo quando il sacrificio non sarà più percepito come tale. E qui entra in scena Burger King.

Di recente, Burger King ha avviato una collaborazione con Impossible Foods (una società che produce un succedaneo della carne prodotta con alimenti vegetali, es) mirata alla vendita del prodotto Impossible Burgers come parte della nuova offerta Impossible Whopper. Al momento, l’offerta è disponibile sperimentalmente solo in alcuni punti vendita di Saint Louis, nel Missouri, ma come già avvenuto con Morningstar burger, venduto inizialmente come extra, anche in questo caso ci sarebbe l’intenzione di allargare la vendita pur in assenza di possibilità di guadagno strepitose. L’Impossible Burger si trova anche in altri fast-food, certo, ma ad un prezzo che va solitamente attorno ai dieci dollari a pezzo. E i clienti di Burger King non vanno a spendere dieci dollari per un hamburger, ed è per questo che è stata avviata la collaborazione con Impossible Foods, per ridurre i costi e di conseguenza anche i prezzi. Se Burger King dovesse riuscire nell’intento di abbassare il prezzo dell’offerta Impossible Whopper in tutti i suoi fast-food, offrirebbe un’alternativa valida a chi vuole mangiare sostenibile. Data la pressoché impercettibile differenza tra la carne vera e il suo succedaneo, il gusto non dovrebbe essere un fattore discriminante. Piuttosto lo è il prezzo. Ma con un prezzo più basso, molti sarebbero invogliati a cambiare senza avere la sensazione di aver sacrificato qualcosa. Dopotutto, prezzo e gusto sarebbero gli stessi di prima.

Certo non esistono valide alternative ad ogni genere di carne, ma già così è possibile ridurre l’impatto sull’ambiente. Esiste però un’alternativa che, come l’Impossible Whopper, soddisfa come la carne tradizionale senza sacrificare nulla. È la carne coltivata o sintetica. Grazie a questa invenzione si possono produrre cellule della carne senza dover ricorrere ai grossi allevamenti con tutto l’apparato dei mangimifici che si tira appresso. Passare alla carne coltivata significa tagliare la necessità di avere allevamenti industriali per soddisfare la domanda, riducendo allo stesso tempo la produzione di mangimi, il che permetterebbe di usare in maniera più efficiente le terre attualmente usate per la produzione di mangimi.

Combinando queste due alternative, si può ridurre il consumo di carni da allevamenti industriali, e quindi anche l’impatto ambientale, semplicemente soddisfacendo la domanda in maniera diversa. Il segreto sta nel presentare l’alternativa in termini di semplice offerta e non di grossi sacrifici da imporre. A volte basta un po’ di fantasia per risolvere i problemi.

The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS.  

pick ply plumb lungs from empty attic static attack addicts on half racked grief from thief in their solace state has haphazard lack luster map maker she hits finished slits across concrete constables and rips a thick lap victory vein in her golden hair stains with mattress intact with tacky lap happy places in motion with devotion vocation in empty train station green glass tile bathroom habits hits one more rabbit she holed in moles like darkness rolls off the tongue after her halfway house graves in perennial staves off death with missed kisses in calamity that six thousand dollar casket

The meme of “no ethical consumption” under capitalism is, on first impression, entirely correct. Anyone with a systemic analysis of capitalism knows that the big structural problems are the result of entrenched interests that maintain their status through the use of violence. Problems like climate change, planned obsolescence, poor working conditions, and factory farming are not going to magically go away because you individually buy better products.

However, just because the vast majority of ethical consumption cases make relatively little difference, not all do. Being more conscious about how we shop won’t be able to fix the big problems we face, but that does not mean that where we put our money under capitalism makes zero difference. To believe as such is a textbook example of the motte and bailey fallacy whereby the obviously indefensible position of trying to reform capitalism through purchasing correctly suddenly invalidates any discussion of how to achieve social change through market forces. This doesn’t mean retreating to consuming to feel-good “ethically produced” products but instead engaging with the system as it is, trying to find points of weakness, and attempting to exploit them. Correctly recognizing the absurdity of liberal calls to “shop ethically” does not then give you the go-ahead to throw out the need for strategic analysis. If, every time a liberal does something hypocritical and counterproductive, we stop thinking critically about that area, well, we might as well just ditch symbolic thought altogether since being hypocritical and counterproductive is what defines modern liberalism.

For one to actually believe that consumer choices bear no weight, they must admit that there is zero difference between going to a fascist bar or a leftist bar (in the obvious hypothetical where all else is equal). That even attempting to support people in trying to get stuff like open source hardware off the ground is a folly. That there is no difference between institutions that make changes like instituting gender-neutral bathrooms and those that don’t. That the burgeoning realm of novel ways of funding individuals or groups, that in a pre-digital era would have languished in obscurity, through sites like Patreon or Kickstarter should be written off. That there is no difference between supporting the burgeoning artificial meat industry and the utterly reprehensible animal agriculture industry. That boycotts like BDS which have seen significant pushback are ultimately fruitless.

But more importantly, they must discount the possibility of planning for long-term economic intervention. Even the most vulgar Marxist who believes in a total revolutionary break between our current system and the next must admit that the task of building a better world is a decades-long project at best. Sure, where we spend our dollars today might make little difference, but what needs to change for that to not to be the case? The world we live in is not that of simple linear processes operating on one another but rather one of a multitude of hypercomplex systems all intermeshed and feedbacking off each other. For instrumental reasons alone, economics are worth investigating simply to see how the machine works so you might figure out how to exploit it.

However, even such investigation is utterly at odds with the typical leftist response.  Phases like “economics is just astrology for white dudes” signal one’s position within a broader culture war in which the majority of parties have glommed onto the positions they hold because of the people around them. Whatever momentary value you might get from a cheap chuckle at economics is clearly outweighed by unconsciously placing it as an intellectual space compromised to the core by capitalism. The epistemic closure that comes with writing off a field of study as large and diverse as economics is incredibly dangerous.

The field is not some capitalist scheme to brainwash individuals (most American economists are in favor of redistribution, safety regulations, and public schools). Likewise, while complaints about it being a discipline of groundless theorizing — with no basis in reality — may have been true in the past, economics as a discipline is increasingly moving in the direction of being predictive of real-world behavior. Economics is compromised, but what isn’t in our fallen world?

But more importantly, in rejecting economics entirely, the left has let liberals, libertarians, and conservatives get lazy. The actual story of neoclassical economics is one of them trying to twist intellectual weapons towards their own ends. The ideological weaknesses that were brushed aside in building the justifications for the privilege they have today still remain, these structural flaws still remain in their arguments, just waiting to be rediscovered. What they currently perceive as the fortress they can retreat to when all else is lost, is in fact a discursive deathtrap riddled with countless defects that not only let us move through fluidly, but is also double as a well-stocked arsenal of insights to bolster our arguments on other fronts. Oh and that’s not even getting into the problem of talking about computational complexity in the age of ubiquitous computing without touching on the economic calculation problem.

Contrast all this with a leftism grounded in the reactionary notion of somehow being untouched and pure from contact with economics, something that can only put forward moralistic injunctions or emotional appeals to reach others and has to awkwardly exist with cognitive dissonance around the most important technology of our era. To give up any hope of strategic analysis of how the systems we seek to take to pieces work because doing so makes us uncomfortable.

I know which one I want to be a part of.

The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS. 

Something caught within your throat this morning,
As I listened in,
Some roughness at the ragged end,
Trying to begin.

And as we try another day,
I hear the wheeze increase,
I hear the fear and pain and grief,
Like instruments at play.

And it makes a kind of music,
This symphony of grit,
And it grounds me in my body,
Re-rooted where I sit.

In that breath, I hear the struggle,
I hear our longing to be free,
But it doesn’t make me worry,
And it doesn’t make me sad.

No, as closer in I snuggle,
I try to find that pain in me,
Because it’s this that drives me forward,
It helps me get to “mad.”

It’s the sound of our oppression,
But it also shows we’re here,
And when it catches — but continues!
I know we’ll get to there.

Jon Snow isn’t exactly a cop — the fantasy realm of Game of Thrones doesn’t map perfectly onto our own social and political institutions. He is, however, involved in a system that does some pretty terrible things — while claiming that “he’s not like the other ones” and that the machine can be driven to better ends. I’m not going to go too deeply into the series, but there are definitely spoilers for the most recent season below. Because it’s here that we get to see Good Apple Jon Snow actually get involved in some really icky shit.

Who is Jon and what do we know about him? Well he started his career in Customs and Border Patrol, er, I mean “the Night’s Watch,” which supposedly existed to keep out the “wildlings” — you know, dangerous people who lived north of an arbitrary division. We also are told he’s a literal bastard, raised by Ned Stark with his family. This is a big thing in Westeros, and Jon can’t take over titles because of it. He’s frustrated by this, but determined to do something good with his life anyway.

Anyway, why were so many wildlings coming south? Turns out they were fleeing a major catastrophe that threatened all human life. The Long Night and the white walkers could be symbolic of a lot of things, but one option is certainly climate change. As people flee more and more climate-affected areas, we’re only going to see more and more massive migrations, and the fight for open borders and free movement will continue to be crucial. But the white walkers could could also be a metaphor for war as well, or self-inflicted human suffering more generally.

Here’s where Jon first shows us he means well. He temporarily works with the wildlings to survive and get south again. He does betray them, but he starts to see them as people, and later brings them all south in order to fight with them against the army of the dead. So, we see, he’s a “different kind of crow.” He even dies for it — temporarily. All of this is to show us that Jon is good and dedicated and kind, and not at all like the war-mongering shitheels down in King’s Landing. But soon, we get to see what happens when you try to stay human inside a violent machine.

This season, he’s caught up in a machine of conquest. Daenerys is reconquering Westeros for the targaryens, and is hell bent on taking back the Iron Throne. Like any imperialist, she’s ruthless and starts to make really fucked up decisions, going so far as to firebomb King’s Landing. Or was it a nuclear bomb metaphor? There’s a lot to say about the geopolitical messages in that episode too, but I do want to focus on Jon Snow, the bastard. Whatever this fiery sequence was supposed to remind us of, it shows that going absolutely scorched earth on actual people is still evil, even if your enemy is super evil too. It doesn’t matter if the tyrant you’re trying to overthrow is Cersei fucking Lannister, bombing her out is a bad call.

So Jon sees all this bombing, sees that Dany keeps going with the sack even after the bells are rung, sees his men start killing women & children. And like, he does halfheartedly kind of try and stop them? But at that point you’re already part of the machine. And he is complicit. He might actually be the best cop in the barrel — but he’s now a part of this much bigger thing that sacks cities and kills children. He is materially complicit in enabling this to happen. He helped lead these armies south. And sure, there’s a whole romance subplot going on, but even without that, it’s a good look at how a “kind” and “dedicated” person in the wrong environment can end up doing and participating in some horrible things. There’s a reason we say “all cops are bastards” — because either they stop being cops, or the company they keep will turn them into bastards. If it can happen to Jon Snow, it can certainly happen to lesser men.

Di Kevin Carson. Originale pubblicato il 7 maggio 2019 con il titolo Review: Setting Sights. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Trovo spesso difficile commentare il movimento del diritto a possedere armi, ho opinioni piuttosto ambivalenti.

Sostenere il diritto di portare armi sulla base del principio per cui ci si deve opporre ad un’autorità corrotta è qualcosa che non mi lascia indifferente. So bene che le restrizioni sono legate al controllo sociale della classe lavoratrice fin dai tempi delle britanniche leggi sulla caccia, del sud degli Stati Uniti schiavisti e segregazionisti, fino alla situazione attuale; conosco l’importanza dell’autodifesa del lavoratore in tutta una serie di scontri con la polizia, l’esercito e la sicurezza privata. Riconosco il ruolo che ha avuto l’autodifesa armata in situazioni che spaziano dai miliziani che soffocarono il golpe di Franco il diciannove luglio, a Robert Williams che difese il NAACP a Monroe, nella Carolina del Nord, fino alle Pink Pistols di oggi.

Purtroppo, sono esempi che raramente compaiono tra quelli solitamente citati. Chi strilla più forte alla tirannia di stato è, oggettivamente, chi è più privilegiato e ha meno ragioni di lamentarsi. Quasi sempre sono persone dalla pelle chiara che si sentono “oppressi” perché i loro occhi sono costretti a vedere in pubblico donne con l’hijab, persone dello stesso sesso che si tengono per mano, persone che parlano spagnolo e così via, e non gli è permesso spararli. Da qui la proposta politica “Riprendiamoci l’America”.

Per giunta, questi autonominati denunciatori della tirannia di stato, nonché sostenitori del diritto di resistere, dimostrano un’ipocrisia incredibile quando veramente lo stato abusa del suo potere. Associazioni come NRA (dei portatori d’arma, es) e Oath Keepers sono le prime a schierarsi con i poliziotti quando questi uccidono un nero disarmato, figuriamoci quando uccidono persone di colore come Philando Castile che esercitava il suo diritto di portare un’arma in uno stato in cui tale diritto è riconosciuto. E poi lo sanno tutti che il motto “fatti valere” vale solo per chi ha la pelle chiara.

In America la cultura delle armi, prevedibilmente dato il pregiudizio bianco, è associata a una miriade di retaggi tossici. Alle origini non c’è la lotta armata contro il potere, ma il cosiddetto eccezionalismo americano, il passato colonizzatore, tutto quel pattume messianico scaturito dal Secondo grande risveglio che fa dell’America il saltimbanco della religiosità. Completano il quadro la monnezza dell’“onore” mutuata da scozzesi e irlandesi e l’incredibile violenza insita nella società americana.

E allora che vada pure a dare il culo da lunedì a sabato il movimento del diritto a portare armi. Doppia razione la domenica.

Dato questo sfondo, Setting Sights rappresenta un traguardo incredibile. Come dice l’editore Scott Crow, Setting Sights “parla di persone e comunità che hanno usato armi nella lotta per la liberazione, per la giustizia o per i più elementari diritti.” È un’antologia di commenti sulla questione da parte di gruppi emarginati la cui voce è solitamente ignorata dalla convenzionale cultura americana in fatto di armi. Persone di colore che si oppongono alla violenza poliziesca, donne, lavoratori, transessuali.

Come dice nella premessa Ward Churchill, attivista del Movimento degli Indiani d’America, i “padri fondatori” che scrissero il secondo emendamento, gli schiavisti bianchi, i coloni, tutte figure centrali della cultura delle armi, erano essi stessi il governo tirannico contro cui l’autodifesa armata era, ed è, necessaria. Tutti fino agli attuali talebani alla Cliven Bundy:

Possiamo dire ragionevolmente che essendo la società oggetto di questi principi composta esclusivamente da coloni, ovvero invasori, bianchi, erano loro a rappresentare ovunque e sempre gli aggressori, e dunque non avevano le basi su cui reclamare il diritto all’autodifesa, armata o meno.

Ad ogni modo, erano gli altri, gli indiani cacciati dalle loro terre, gli afroamericani braccati dalle squadracce degli schiavisti o terrorizzati dai paramilitari bianchi durante la segregazione, erano loro ad avere il diritto di difendersi, mentre erano quelli celebrati nella mitologia dei western che meritavano di essere sparati.

Churchill si interroga sul modo in cui la questione dell’autodifesa si ricollega alle varie tattiche usate dagli attuali movimenti giustizialisti. I due temi, l’eredità storica della resistenza armata da parte di gruppi marginali e il loro ruolo nella resistenza all’attuale oppressione strutturale, ricorrono spesso tra le testimonianze raccolte nel libro.

Ma la resistenza armata non è che una faccia della medaglia. L’altra faccia è l’edificazione, hic et nunc, di controistituzioni in grado di crescere e coagularsi in una nuova società proiettata in avanti. La resistenza armata è solo uno strumento che serve a proteggere il nostro diritto di edificare e proteggere le nostre controistituzioni dai tentativi di distruzione da parte dello stato capitalista. Il fine ultimo è questo processo edificatore.

Certo è pur sempre possibile contrastare le pessime condizioni imposte dall’ordine esistente tramite un processo di distacco conscio. (Ri)edificare le comunità asservite con iniziative di base che sfruttino la capacità di accostarsi o realizzare l’autosufficienza sulla base di risorse locali, umane o no. Produzioni alimentari (orti comunitari, anche in aree urbane “difficili” come si fa a Baltimora, per esempio) al fine di migliorare l’alimentazione e ridurre la spesa quotidiana in quei “deserti alimentari” che sono certe aree urbane, vengono portate avanti con successo, con un occhio all’organizzazione, in molte località. E poi il recupero di alloggi inagibili e di servizi pubblici abbandonati, la fornitura di servizi comunitari in ambito sanitario e scolastico con offerte che vanno dal supporto didattico alla scuola vera e propria, la costruzione o l’acquisizione di impianti di energia alternativa come il solare o l’eolico, la rinascita di giardini pubblici e l’apertura di centri ricreativi, la fornitura di servizi per bambini e vecchi, servizi di sicurezza e trasporti locali.

Molte di queste cose sono state realizzate, spesso diffuse, in forma cooperativa, in comunità e tra comunità che hanno programmi simili, favorendo il commercio di beni, alimentari e non, ma anche unendo e condividendo capacità tecniche, esperienza e lavoro. Il modello cooperativistico serve anche per (ri)aprire piccole officine, con ricadute occupazionali in aree in cui la disoccupazione è molto forte, limitando così l’onere del ricorso all’economia monetaria.

L’editore Scott Crow è anche autore di Black Flags and Windmills, che tra l’altro dedica ampio spazio a testimonianze di prima mano che raccontano le tattiche terroristiche usate dalle forze di polizia e dai mercenari aziendali contro la popolazione di New Orleans dopo l’uragano Katrina. In questa antologia, pertanto, l’interesse per tali questioni non è solo accademico.

Questo non è un libro didascalico, non dice come una comunità può difendersi con le armi. Come spiega Crow all’inizio, la difesa armata è forse solo una piccola parte delle tattiche, specie se paragonata alle istituzioni citate da Churchill più su. Quest’antologia non dà un’importanza particolare alla difesa armata, che è considerata al pari di tutte le altre tattiche, ma si limita a citarne qualche esempio preso dal passato.

Nel saggio iniziale, Crow pone l’accento sui due principi anarchici su cui dovrebbe basarsi la difesa armata di una comunità: “le armi non devono mai avere una posizione centrale” e non bisogna mai puntare alla conquista del potere statale.

La prima parte del libro comprende saggi che difendono genericamente il principio dell’autodifesa armata andando a riprendere tesi a favore del diritto di portare armi fatti propri dal bigottume bianco.

La seconda parte contiene una serie di studi che vanno dalle guerre civili russa e spagnola alle azioni sindacali delle aree minerarie fino alle Black Panthers e i movimenti attuali come gli zapatisti, le milizie dei barrios venezuelani e i combattenti curdi a Rojava. E, ovviamente, New Orleans nel 2005.

È un libro che porta avanti un’analisi ponderata e che raccomando. Anche se alcune parti relative alla prima metà del novecento, soprattutto i fatti di Spagna e Russia, appaiono usurate, ritornarci non è male. Altre cose, come la Rivolta dei Redneck, avrebbero meritato più attenzione. Argomenti come la varietà tattica, i pro e contro del pacifismo e la resistenza civile sono oggi un importante argomento di dibattito, e Setting Sights contribuisce egregiamente al discorso.

Since the introduction of the newest incarnation of the Green New Deal, conservatives have been hard at work battling the non-existent boogyman supposedly trying to ban hamburgers. Now, of course, such claims are completely absurd and have no basis in the actual reality of the Deal itself, but that hasn’t stopped the idea from spreading via mainstream news sources. One politician even made a public display of eating a hamburger while claiming that if progressives have their way, such a thing would be outlawed.

So where did this hilariously bad smear campaign originate? It turns out what they are referencing is, in fact, an FAQ that was released around the same time explaining the Deal. But even that FAQ made no such decree to ban hamburgers or any other meat, rather it merely points out the fact that factory farming is one of the main contributors to climate change and suggests that we do something to address that fact. And no, we don’t need to address it by banning meat.

Much to the disappointment of many vegans, world veganism is far from likely. So if we wish to make real impactful changes then we have to come up with a more realistic set of alternatives. Obviously encouraging people to cut back on their meat consumption is a good start but real change will happen when such sacrifices no longer feel like sacrifices. Enter Burger King.

Recently Burger Kings teamed up with Impossible Foods to start selling their Impossible Burgers as part of their new Impossible Whopper. Right now it is only available at a select few test locations in St. Louis, Missouri but their history of carrying Morningstar burgers as an off-menu item shows that they are willing to carry these items even when they aren’t a huge money maker. Of course, you can already find Impossible Burgers at other restaurants but usually for around $10 for a single burger. Burger King’s target customer base, however, will not be flocking to a $10 burger which is why they are working with Impossible Foods to reduce input costs thus lowering prices across the board. If Burger King is successful in helping to make the Impossible Whopper cheap, affordable, and easily available at any drive-thru then that will offer a viable alternative for folks wishing to eat more sustainably. Impossible Burgers are notorious for being difficult to distinguish from the real thing so taste isn’t the factor holding back its spread but rather price. Lower the price and many would happily make the switch without even feeling like they sacrificed a thing. After all, you still get your dollar burger and it tastes amazing.

Of course, we haven’t found convincing alternatives for every type of meat but nor do we really have to in order to lower our environmental impact. There’s another way that, like the Impossible Whopper, offers the same level of satisfaction as traditional meat without any significant feeling of sacrifice. This alternative can be found in cultured, or lab-grown meat. Such advancements allow us to grow meat cells without the need for large scale livestock farms or the massive feeding operations that come with them. Switching towards cultured meat would allow us to drastically cut back on the need for livestock farming to meet consumer demand and not having to feed as many farm animals allows us to utilize the land we are currently using to grow food for livestock in more efficient ways.

With these two alternatives, we can dramatically lower our consumption of factory farmed meat and thus our environmental impact by continuing to meet the same demands via new methods. Making these changes feel casual and rather unnoticed instead of like huge sacrifices can mean all the difference. Sometimes solving problems just takes a bit of creativity.

The following is part of the 2019 May Poetry Feature at C4SS. 

I feel the grasp of your hand as it releases me. I fall & fall for what feels like forever. Landing in my own reality.

We’ve got mind, body, and soul; seven billion people trapped in a claustrophobic foxhole. Spinning & spinning & spinning as if they’d simultaneously stepped on a landmine.

It’s so sad to see, every week the pain you inflict. Masses of people bleeding as one.

Superstition & religion, dropped on us like an H-bomb. Decadence is a social norm.

I can’t be responsible for what you believe; but take my hand & I’ll show you my reality.

Corrupted for the wrong reasons, your masters have abandoned you. Leaving an impression, marked by desire.

Freedom and security.

Sold your own soul for love

Life is no liberty.

You strut around, higher than life. Minding your own, blissfully controlled.

The media is mediocre.

The government, barely sober.

I plead with you, look down once in a while.

Look at the strings attached to your mind, body, and soul,

Who’s controlling you???

In the age of the alt-right, antifascist organizing is increasingly a topic of mainstream political dialogue. While most of what is focused on in the news consists of misinformation around subjects such as black bloc, Nazi punching, and deplatforming, there is another tactic that largely goes undiscussed: counter-recruitment.

First off, let’s get this out of the way: counter-recruitment is not necessarily about converting someone to your point of view, but rather refocusing their aim from those most marginalized in society towards those actually responsible for oppression. In other words, it’s not about turning people into socialists, anarchists, libertarians, or whatever, but rather it’s about making them realize that immigrants, anti-police brutality activists, people of color, etc. are not their enemy. This does not mean that counter-recruitment never succeeds in converting someone politically, just that even if it doesn’t that doesn’t mean it’s a failure.

One of the prime examples of this praxis comes from efforts involving the American Pit Vipers (APV). APV is a “patriot militia” with a traditionally conservative leaning. They are self-styled “Constitutional defenders” and consider themselves part of the larger patriot militia movement, a movement that unfortunately is rife with white supremacist and alt-right infiltration. Yet APV ranks itself among the few within said movement to openly denounce such bigoted fringes after their local Redneck Revolt chapter reached out to them to open up a dialogue.

Despite the original skepticism, APV began to open up after realizing that much of what they thought of RR was “fake news” and that they had more commonalities than differences. Over time, these meetings came to include both members of the local Black Lives Matter chapter and members of the local Heritage Not Hate movement. Throughout all of this, none of these groups changed their underlying politics, missions, etc. but instead came to a clearer understanding of each other and their true agendas, minus all of the propaganda. This has led to a rather strange alliance which has included several BLM members officially joining the APV, as well as the APV and the local HNH chapter officially endorsing and attending BLM protests. BLM’s facebook group photo even has members of all of these groups standing as a united front against racism, with one member still proudly waving a confederate battle flag. It is a strange sight indeed but at the end of the day folks saw the lies they were told about each other for what they truly were: they saw that anybody truly fighting for limited government and against tyranny should automatically support BLM.

It’s not just conservative movements like APV that are targeted by fascists as recruiting grounds, but thankfully there’s no shortage of groups springing up to combat them. Groups like the Traditionalist Workers Party and people like Richard Spencer have tried to make inroads within the socialist left by utilizing national bolshevik, strausserite, and third positionist rhetoric. At the same time, they have made much further inroads into the Libertarian Party and surrounding movements. Thankfully groups like Anti-Fascist Action (Antifa) and the Libertarian Anti-Fascist Committee have done their best to fight against fascist recruitment within their respective movements.

One of the most important aspects of counter-recruitment is to listen to people’s concerns and get to their root causes. A great example of this comes from Andrew Yangs’s 2020 presidential campaign, namely his handling of the issue of immigration. While far from a perfect platform on the issue, he does make it very clear that a wall will not solve the underlying issue. The main reasons cited for fearing such immigration tend to be crime and job loss. He brushes off the first concern as unsubstantiated while going full force into addressing the second. What he points out is that immigrants aren’t the reason for rampant job loss but rather automation is.

By listening to the concerns of Trump voters, pondering the roots of said concerns, and offering alternative solutions that directly address those concerns without throwing others under the bus, we can help shift societal views and combat fascist recruitment efforts. Fascists are great at taking people’s real concerns and misdirecting the blame towards marginalized groups. We need to reverse that trend. Ignoring the original problems that led them to seek solutions from such a vile crowd only serves to leave these people feeling alienated and unheard. When one feels like their needs are not being addressed, and then someone finally offers hope of a solution, no matter how asinine, then desperate and alienated people will latch onto those “solutions.” When confronted by antifascists who attack them for being wrong without ever offering a solid alternative solution to the underlying issue, these types tend to double down and defend the only “solution” they’ve been offered thus far.

It is precisely because Yang addresses the needs of truck drivers, factory workers, etc. that he is able to swing Trump voters away from more dangerous anti-immigrant “solutions.”

Because of his unwillingness to ignore the core concerns of the problems of people who are susceptible to bigoted solutions, Yang has been slandered as a crypto-fascist or at least someone who is pandering to the alt-right. While his immigration policy is still pretty right-of-center (as with most Democrats) and a cause for concern, upon further examination it seems that this is not the case that he is pandering but rather he is attempting to direct people away from bigotry and violence as solutions to their issue and clear up the propaganda which blames immigrants and other scapegoats for the problems caused by corporations and the state. Education and outreach are not the same as pandering, and they are important parts of counter-recruitment. Such outreach involves meeting people where they are at, even if you have to go on Ben Shapiro.

So in the end, anti-fascist counter-recruitment is less about conversion and purity politics and more about education, compassion, outreach, and open dialogue. This, combined with deplatforming, doxxing, and mass counter-protests can go a long way towards squashing the power of fascist organizing in our communities and putting an end to their campaigns of political and physical violence in our communities once and for all.

Come ridare vita alla fiera del libro anarchica

Di William Gillis. Originale pubblicato il 21 marzo 2019 con il titolo The Mall or the Agora? Revitalizing the Anarchist Bookfair. Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

La fiera del libro rappresenta uno dei momenti migliori per un anarchico.

Una fiera del libro ha una struttura gerarchica evidente. C’è chi vende i libri e chi li compra. A separarli non è solo la fisicità di un tavolo, ma anche l’investimento rappresentato dal tavolo. I distributori devono comprare uno spazio. Ma prima devono investire in ciò che cercano di vendere.

E questi investimenti spesso vanno oltre le possibilità degli anarchici a cui vorrebbero vendere. Un tavolo va da 50 a 200 dollari al giorno. Un tempo gli spazi esterni potevano essere occupati liberamente con un tavolino o una stuoina, ma questa usanza è purtroppo morta. Alla fiera del libro di San Francisco, ad esempio, c’erano sempre decine di persone che vendevano sulle stuoine, quando si faceva nel parco della penisola. Oggi se ne vedono due, quattro al massimo, infilati da qualche parte sul marciapiede a lato di qualche edificio. Comprare un tavolo un tempo era un lusso, un atto di generosità verso gli organizzatori. Oggi è un requisito.

Sono pochi gli squatter o i punk che hanno quel tanto di soldi da dare via, ed è per questo che i tavoli si somigliano tutti. Certo, età, ricchezza e capitale sociale sono fisicamente mischiati, ma la sensazione di distacco e inaccessibilità si fa sentire.

Un tempo c’erano ragazzini che portavano i loro giornaletti, qualche collezione, tanto per fare qualche soldo, ma oggi tutto è bloccato dal costo di uno spazio autorizzato. E allora gli unici anarchici che possono permettersi un tavolo sono gli editori, le associazioni ufficiali e pochi artisti ben piazzati.

E le case editrici anarchiche siedono su decine di migliaia, se non milioni, di dollari in investimenti accumulati. Ci trovi punk annoiati di mezza età che ripetono sempre lo stesso formulario, città dopo città, sempre le stesse persone. Presunti nemici politici si incontrano ad ogni città, con quella cordialità ben coltivata che scivola lentamente verso un cameratismo tra vecchi amici che serve a mantenere e racchiudere il milieu anarchico. Oggi il nichilista dà una mano all’anarco-sindacalista, domani il piattaformista avvisa l’insurrecto di qualche “pazza femminista” nei dintorni. Mentre i ragazzi fanno bisboccia o cazzeggiano, i vecchi libraroli si ritrovano in qualche ristorante elegante, e magari si tirano dietro qualche nuovo apprendista con la promessa di dargli la tessera gold. Spendono soldi liberamente tra il terrore muto e alienato degli amici poveri che si portano appresso, e fanno spudoratamente politica rarefatta.

Brontolii e sarcasmi su quello che viene chiamato “supermercato anarchico” sono comuni tra la base, ma questo non cambia la struttura della cosa.

Ahimè,” è l’immediato ritornello alla saccarina, “non c’è nessun consumo etico nel capitalismo.”

In qualunque momento, in ogni centimetro quadro di una fiera anarchica, c’è una tensione palpabile scaricabile con una risata. “Puoi fare qualcosa di etico sotto il capitalismo? Comprare o vendere è etico? Certo che no.” La fiera del libro diventa così una sorta di allungamento delle tensioni e delle ipocrisie attraverso cui forziamo la nostra esistenza quotidiana, uno spazio in cui noi generiamo e replichiamo direttamente queste tensioni perché “cosa vuoi, dobbiamo vivere.”

Qui il problema (una delle ragioni di base per cui la struttura di un capitale sociale può essere eretta nell’entroterra del milieu anarchico) è che ci si serve di un ideale confuso e inattuabile per accecare e far fallire qualunque ricerca di un modo migliore di interagire.

Gli anarchici sono stati spinti ad opporsi ai mercati in sé e per sé; a vedere lo scambio, il denaro e tutto il resto come mali primordiali o come la logica di base del capitalismo.

La conseguenza è che non pensiamo, riformisticamente, che un mercato potrebbe essere una cosa diversa. Pensiamo che un mercato “egalitario” sia un’impossibilità, e per questo ci arrendiamo alle norme più perverse quando mettiamo su un mercato.

Ma non è detto che debba essere così.

Io ho tre proposte, perlopiù incentrate sulla rimozione delle barriere all’ingresso, proposte frustrate dall’attuale ostilità per il mercato.

1) Ridurre o indebolire drammaticamente i costi e la necessità di acquistare uno spazio.

In fatto di spazi e relativi costi d’accesso il compromesso è d’obbligo, ma si possono sempre improvvisare spazi in giardini e parcheggi. Pensate se in una città la fiera del libro fosse un evento più frequente e più fluido di certi giganteschi eventi annuali. Vedremmo anarchici che improvvisano bancarelle con venditori che si confondono con cose come negozi liberi o un mercato radicalmente libero. Se una fiera del libro è così irreggimentata e rigida è anche perché pochi sono disposti a farsi carico di una sua organizzazione coerente, soprattutto quando c’è la dissonanza cognitiva generata dal fatto di essere contro il mercato. D’altro canto, però, ci sono giovani anarchici che spesso trovano il modo per organizzare piccoli mercati radicalmente liberi e cose simili per quanto riguarda i costi marginali, ma sono snobbati anche perché viene snobbato l’atto di comprare e vendere. Creare spazi in cui più persone possono mettersi assieme per esporre, vendere arte o idee su un proprio tavolo (o stuoina), creerebbe più dinamismo e coinvolgimento. E se i grandi editori non possono permettersi un tavolo in un parco questo mese in qualche città in cui non vivono, con tutti i rischi e le casualità del caso, allora tanto meglio. Che l’anarchismo sia dominato da tempo da grandi editori e organizzazioni riconosciute è sempre stato un’imbarazzante disgrazia.

2) Regala la tua roba.

Qui il problema è che molti anarchici sono purtroppo preda di idee marxiste sulla remunerazione del lavoro. In casi estremi arrivano a dire: “Pubblicare il torrent di un libro significa derubare l’autore.” In genere, però, si è più sottili: “Perché pubblicare il mio manoscritto online e colpire i miei guadagni?” Vediamo qual è l’aspetto più importante riguardo l’oggetto di una transazione. Se vendi una scatola di pelati, chi compra solitamente confida nella tua onestà e non mette in dubbio il contenuto della scatola. Chi acquista non acconsente alla transazione se non ne conosce ogni dettaglio. Lo squilibrio informativo è netto e può diventare molto insidioso. Pensiamo ad uno scrittore che scrive libri autorevoli che non ti piacciono. Per criticare la sua opera, devi dargli soldi. E ciò per converso crea barriere a quegli autori sconosciuti che affrontano nuovi temi in maniera provocativa: perché comprare un libro o una rivista se non sai se ti piacerà? E se è facile immaginare persone che scambiano pelati in una società libera, è però difficile immaginare la continuazione della proprietà intellettuale perché dipende dall’intervento censorio dello stato. L’informazione, a differenza dei pelati, non è un bene scarso, ma deve essere reso scarso con la forza. Gli anarchici di ogni colore dovrebbero dichiarare guerra alla proprietà intellettuale riconosciuta nella nostra società, dovrebbero attaccarle in tutti i modi. Un libro fisico è un bene scarso con costi di produzione tangibili, e c’è una ragione se la gente lo preferisce al puro testo. Gli autori possono sempre fare soldi con metodi espliciti e consensuali basati sul dono, metodi che non confidano su un’artificiale informazione asimmetrica. Ma è soprattutto l’esistenza di una classe elitaria di autori in ambito anarchico a creare problemi. Peggio è una classe di autori (e le case editrici a struttura gerarchica) tenuta in piedi dalle norme statali sulla proprietà intellettuale. Qualunque sia la propria opinione sulla proprietà, dire che l’informazione è proprietà fa molti più danni del concetto di proprietà applicato ad una scatola di pelati, e questa particolare ingiustizia non dovrebbe essere attenuata dicendo “tutta la proprietà è un male”.

3) Due pesi e due misure per ridurre il danno (e far pagare ai ricchi).

Mi diverte vedere come noi, noi cattivi anarchici di mercato, spesso siamo gli unici che alle fiere vendiamo libri con prezzi diversi secondo la disponibilità di chi acquista. Anche perché a molti anarchici la cosa ricorda la pratica di tirare sul prezzo; e poi meno si parla di transazioni e meglio è. Il denaro passa da una mano all’altra rapidamente, con un vago senso di disgusto e scuse reciproche, con l’editore che fa la faccia storta quando deve cedere sul prezzo. Io però credo che sia assurdo chiedere al ragazzino colle toppe al culo quello che chiedi al marxista di mezza età che vive in campagna. Due pesi e due misure è spesso un modo confuso di contrattare tenendo conto dell’etica personale e del privilegio (e in alcuni rari casi c’è chi ne approfitta), ma spesso dopo il solito “tu cosa suggerisci?” si passa ad una conversazione più aperta e diretta che aiuta a determinare la posizione delle due parti. Compassione e onestà sono trattate allo stesso modo, un attimo fuggente di comunismo in cui le due parti collaborano alla ricerca di un modo per ripartire i beni tra loro risolvendo questioni che hanno a che fare col desiderio e i costi. A differenza del prezzo dichiarato delle organizzazioni senza volto, questo approccio non nasconde la natura dello scambio economico, ma cerca di influenzarne il carattere. È noto da tempo che tra i vari modi in cui il mercato liberato può intaccare la concentrazione della ricchezza c’è anche l’incapacità di nascondersi dietro un anonimato impersonale. Sul mercato locale i ricchi pagano sempre di più. Così anche certi distaccati turisti delle fiere del libro che conosco io, che non leggono o non prendono sul serio quello che comprano. Ma c’è anche un altro beneficio quando si usano due pesi e due misure, ed è che mi permette di usare il mercato per far sì che certe cose finiscano in determinate mani. Arriva un tipo con un’aria da sfida, parliamo, dopo un po’ abbassa la cresta, sfoglia a caso qualcosa, compra un libretto… e io sono ben felice di regalargliene un altro. Scrivo e riproduco l’opera altrui così da poter intaccare sul mondo, interagire. Se qualcuno valuta il mio sforzo, io sono ben felice di ricevere in cambio dei soldi, sennò sono pur sempre felice di aver ottenuto qualcosa, in termini di valore di scambio, senza dover per questo spazzare per terra o gestire un sito web.

Queste tre soluzioni non risolvono tutto. Ci sono problemi più ampi e profondi nel milieu anarchico e nel contesto imborghesito, centralizzato e precario del capitalismo che ci circonda. Ma sarebbero di grande aiuto per ridare vita ad una decadente fiera del libro. Basta semplicemente conoscere bene i propri valori etici di fondo e togliere quell’infantile, soffocante paura del mercato.

L’agorà è sempre stata terreno fertile per gli anarchici. Il mercato è il luogo in cui si costruiscono alternative e si accende la lotta. Anche vendendo burritos e tamales accanto al tizio della IWW che in piedi sulla cassetta di verdure parla dell’ultimo sciopero. Abbiamo lasciato che le semplicistiche paure piccolo borghesi riguardo il “consumismo” spazzassero via lo spirito profondo, sottoproletario della vitalità.

Finché noi anarchici continuiamo a temere il mercato, resteremo sempre prigionieri delle nostre nevrotiche ipocrisie che nascondono dinamiche problematiche e rafforzano il potere delle istituzioni.