In “Inside the Delirious Rise of ‘Superfake’ Handbags,” Amy X. Wang at the NYT reports on the fashion industry’s discomfiture over counterfeit luxury handbags that are indistinguishable from the real thing.
Not long ago, I found myself wandering through Paris with a fake Celine handbag slung over my shoulder. In France, a country that prides itself on originating so much of the world’s fashion, punishments for counterfeiting are severe, to the point that I technically risked three years in prison just by carrying my little knockoff around. But the bag’s fraudulence was undetectable to human eyes. I was toting around a delicious, maddening secret: Like a ship remade with identical wood, the bag on my arm had been built on the same plan, with seemingly the same gleaming materials, as the “original.” Yet it was considered inauthentic, a trick, a cheat….
This led me to a Reddit community of replica enthusiasts, who traded details about “trusted sellers” capable of delivering a Chanel 2.55 or Loewe Puzzle or Hermès Birkin that promised to be indistinguishable from the original, and priced at a mere 5 percent or so of the M.S.R.P….
…[I]n the past decade or so, a new breed of knockoff purses has come onto the scene from China — boasting shockingly good quality and slipping through customs gates like sand through a sieve. And, as many an angry resale buyer can attest, they’re able to fool even the most well-trained eye. “It’s a pervasive, tremendous problem,” Bob Barchiesi, president of the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, told me. Hunter Thompson, who oversees the authentication process at the luxury consignment site the RealReal, elaborated: “It’s gotten to the point that you can see something in season replicated within that season.”
That doesn’t sound like a “tremendous problem” to me, Bob. Sounds more like a you problem.
In Guangzhou, where a vast majority of the world’s superfakes are thought to originate, experts have identified two main reasons behind the illicit goods’ lightning-fast new speeds: sophistication in bag-making technology and in the bag-makers themselves….
As for how the superfakes are achieving their unprecedented verisimilitude, …it’s simply a combination of skillful artisanship and high-quality raw materials. Some superfake manufacturers travel to Italy to source from the same leather markets that the brands do; others buy the real bags to examine every stitch.
In other words, based solely on the state of production technology, the bags should cost $200. The rest of that $10,000 consists entirely of unearned income from a state-conferred monopoly.
This is further confirmed by the likelihood, as one handbag authenticator suspects, that the counterfeits come from “someone who maybe works at Chanel or Hermès.” Gosh, you’d think someone working in a sweatshop would have a stronger sense of loyalty and respect for property rights. But it’s certainly interesting that the labor force engaged in producing “authentic” bags can produce identical knockoffs, using the same materials, production techniques, and machinery, sell them for one-fiftieth of the price — and come out ahead in the deal.
It’s almost like… intellectual property and branding are just gimmicks for corporations to charge markups of thousands of percent over actual production costs. Textbook example of economic rent extraction and unearned income.
An older generation still attaches some snob value to owning “the real thing” — or rather, to being seen as rich enough to afford “the real thing.” But a younger generation is over it.
That the profits of one idea’s relentless duplications funnel only into one (fat, corporate) pocket is precisely why many younger consumers see fake bags as better than the real thing. To them, counterfeit luxury — in a world already awash in lower-priced “dupes” of every kind, from eye shadows to electronics — is not an unethical scandal but a big, joyful open secret. Replica communities laugh at big luxury firms, taking on a subversive, stick-it-to-the-man attitude.
Bear in mind that the role of intellectual property is the same with virtually all manufactured goods, to a lesser extent. As “revolutionary” management theory guru and all-around ninny Tom Peters gushed back in the 90s, the majority of consumer electronics prices reflected not labor and materials cost but “intellect” — or, to be more honest, embedded monopoly rents. And in addition to these rents, intellectual property raises prices even more by incentivizing designs that deliberately thwart repair and recycling. If modular design with interchangeable generic parts weren’t criminalized, you could buy a durable laptop or phone that would last damn near forever, and just periodically upgrade the chip or replace a broken screen or keyboard. The same holds for cars, washing machines, etc., etc., which are designed to maximize the amount of stuff that has to be replaced if anything goes wrong, and to price gouge on the repair through proprietary, seller-specific parts. That’s not even getting to how everything is now computerized and runs on proprietary software — which is how John Deere steals from farmers. Or how drug companies literally murder people with the patent markups on insulin and other life-saving medicine — a problem that will hopefully be solved by DIY pirate biotech.
So kudos to counterfeiters and pirates everywhere! So-called “intellectual property rights” — nothing but a kind of landlordism for ideas — are the real theft, and the corporations that use them to extract rent are the real thieves.
На протяжении многих лет я выступаю за права трансгендерных людей. В это входит право трансгендерной молодежи и их родителей, под руководством своих врачей, получать те медицинские услуги, которые они считают нужными. Я считаю эту свободу жизненно необходимой.
При этом я из довольно консервативной среды, в которой многие люди, которых я знаю, будут не согласны со мной. Любой, кто участвовал в либертарном движении в последнее десятилетие, непременно знает людей с глубоко трансфобными и реакционными взглядами. Поэтому меня часто спрашивают, зачастую с обвинениями, о том, как бы я отнесся к рождению ребенка с гендерной дисфорией. Это вопросы вроде: «Вы бы поощряли их идентифицировать себя так, как им нравится, и при первой же возможности записали бы их на блокаторы полового созревания?» Или: «Буду ли я полностью согласен, если их гениталии изменят хирургическим путем в невероятно раннем возрасте?» Я хотел бы воспользоваться возможностью ответить на эти вопросы, обсудив, что бы я сделал и чего бы я не сделал.
Если бы я был отцом ребенка, которого я с рождения признаю мальчиком, и этот ребенок в возрасте пяти лет заявил, что он девочка или хочет быть девочкой, что бы я сделал? Если бы это был единичный случай или короткая фаза, я бы предположил, что он проверяет мою реакцию, проводит мысленный эксперимент, ищет внимания или ревнует к сверстницам. Это может вызвать какой-то разговор, но я сомневаюсь, что отреагирую бурно, и, скорее всего, забуду про это через день или два.
Однако, если у ребенка есть стойкое, настойчивое и последовательное убеждение, что он должен быть девочкой, и он постоянно выражает это убеждение без побуждения в течение нескольких лет подряд, в возрасте от 5 до 10 лет, если это убеждение просто не ослабевает, и этот ребенок регулярно ищет возможность заниматься стереотипно женскими вещами и носить женскую одежду без каких-либо признаков того, что это побуждается извне, тогда да, я бы предпринял дальнейшие действия.
Я бы постарался не поощрять и не препятствовать этому убеждению. Но при этом я бы задавал много вопросов: «Что ты имеешь в виду? Откуда у тебя эта идея? Почему ты так думаешь и т.д.?». Я бы не просто задавал вопросы, а делал то, что должны делать все родители: узнавал своего ребенка и создавал обстановку, в которой ему было бы комфортно открыто говорить и быть самим собой. Я бы показал, что со мной безопасно разговаривать.
Слишком много молодых людей, которые являются геями или гендерно неконформными, особенно в консервативных семьях и сообществах, живут в страхе, что открытое признание своей сущности приведет к жестокому обращению, отчуждению, насмешкам или чему-то хуже. Вероятность того, что транс-люди окажутся бездомными, потеряют работу и будут отчуждены от бывших подрузей и семьи, несоизмеримо выше, чем вероятность того, что это произойдет с цисгендерными людьми, и предотвращение этих проблем начинается дома.
Я бы также тщательно изучил всю рецензируемую литературу о поведении ребенка и получил профессиональное мнение нескольких специалист_ок по психическому здоровью, прежде чем соглашаться на любую форму медицинского вмешательства. Если в тот момент будет доказано, что этот ребенок — тот, кто, независимо от того, что я скажу или сделаю, решит совершить переход в период взрослости и прожить остаток жизни как женщина, я одобрю применение блокаторов полового созревания, потому что отказ от этого будет вредить их благополучию.
Если будут доказательства, что в долгосрочной перспективе благополучие этого человека будет лучше от приема пубертатных блокаторов, только тогда я одобрю это. Важно понимать, что, отказывая человеку с гендерной дисфорией в приеме блокаторов, вы вынуждаете его пройти через половое созревание, которое сделает его тело менее похожим на то, которое, по мнению его внутренней психологии, должно быть у него, и, вероятно, ухудшит его психическое здоровье и увеличит риск суицида. Нетрудно понять, почему человек, чье самочувствие связано с представлением себя как феминной, будет подорван прохождением через мужское половое созревание, и наоборот, того, кто хочет представлять себя как маскулинного, заставят пройти через женское половое созревание. Более того, если бы это делало государство, это было бы нанесенным государством вредом, который противоречит личной свободе и результатам соответствующих медицинских исследований.
Пользуясь случаем, хочу отметить, что обзор 2020 года, опубликованный в журнале Child and Adolescent Mental Health, показал, что блокаторы полового созревания были связаны с такими «положительными результатами, как снижение суицидальности во взрослой жизни, улучшение аффекта и психологического функционирования, а также улучшение социальной жизни».
Также обзор 2020 года, опубликованный в Pediatrics, обнаружил, что «существует значительная обратная связь между лечением по подавлению пубертата в подростковом возрасте и суицидальными мыслями в течение жизни среди трансгендерных взрослых, которые когда-либо хотели получить такое лечение».
Исследование 2022 года, опубликованное в журнале Journal of the American Medical Association, показало: «Получение гормональной терапии, включая блокаторы полового созревания и гормональные препараты, было связано с 60% более низкой вероятностью умеренной или тяжелой депрессии и 73% более низкой вероятностью самоубийства в течение 12-месячного периода наблюдения».
Аналогичным образом, в отношении использования назначенных врачом межполовых гормонов, как отмечается в исследовании 2022 года, опубликованном в журнале Journal of Adolescent Health, которое показало, что «применение заместительной гормональной терапии (ЗГТ) было связано с более низкой вероятностью возникновения недавней депрессии и серьезных мыслей о самоубийстве по сравнению с теми, кто хотел получить ЗГТ, но не получил ее. Для молодых людей в возрасте до 18 лет применение ЗГТ было связано с более низкой вероятностью недавней депрессии и попыток самоубийства в прошлом году».
На этой стадии разговора меня спросят об операции. Буду ли я «совершенно не против», если гениталии моего ребенка будут изменены хирургическим путем? Так часто звучат фразы «отрезать» или «изуродовать», и часто предполагается, что это произойдет во время созревания.
Генитальная хирургия, как метод лечения гендерной дисфории, обычно проводится людям 18 лет и старше, что делает этот аргумент соломенного чучела нереальным. Тем не менее, чем экстремальнее предлагаемое медицинское вмешательство и чем моложе человек, которому оно предлагается, тем большее бремя доказывания должно быть предоставлено человеком, предлагающим такое вмешательство, чтобы я его одобрил.
Однажды меня спросили в следующем контексте: «У тебя нет ни одной проблемы с этим, и ты бы на 1000% поощрял ВСЕ это?». Я ответил: «Нет, я не на 1000% и даже не на 100% согласен со всем этим. На самом деле, все это вызывает у меня дискомфорт. Тем не менее, я буду предпринимать любые действия, подкрепленные эмпирическими фактами, а не просто следовать своим эмоциям».
Я думаю, что есть место для честных дебатов о том, насколько уместен медицинский гейткипинг при оказании помощи трансгендерным людям, особенно молодым. Но абсолютистская оппозиция, которую я вижу со стороны социальных консерваторов — это не то, на что похожи эти дебаты.
Честная дискуссия предполагает знание того, о чем вы говорите, признание того, что вам не хватает опыта, признание того, что вы можете ошибаться в том или ином вопросе, а также признание моментов и опасений, высказанных другой стороной. Она также предполагает понимание того, что говорят рецензируемые исследования, и знакомство с такими темами, как стандарты диагностики и право на лечение. Этим должны заниматься в первую очередь люди с соответствующим медицинским образованием, а не политики, профессиональные разжигатели ненависти, борцы за культуру и продавцы жалоб.
Вопреки картине, которую рисуют правые СМИ, исследования на эту тему на самом деле показывают положительные результаты операций по смене пола. Например, исследование, проведенное в 2021 году гарвардскими учеными, показало, что такая операция уменьшает стресс и суицидальные мысли, а также способствует отказу от курения.
При этом я бы не стал просто поддерживать любое предложение, которое отвергается: я бы сомневался, спорил, играл в адвоката дьявола, изучал другие варианты и получал второе, третье, четвертое и пятое мнение на каждом этапе. Скорее всего, я бы метался и ворочался всю ночь, размышляя, правильно ли я поступаю в данной ситуации. Все это было бы для меня большим стрессом. Но я бы не стал просто отмахнуться от того, что испытывает мой ребенок, и не стал бы навязывать ему гендерную конформность, как, по моим наблюдениям, поступают многие социальные консерваторы, и как поступали многие люди, что, вероятно, привело к трагическим результатам.
Консервативные борцы за культуру намерены демонизировать транс-людей, как средство вовлечения своей базы. В итоге политики-республиканцы агрессивно продвигают и принимают сотни антитранс-законов по всей территории США. Эти законопроекты приведут к увеличению человеческих страданий, депрессии и самоубийствам. Кроме того, риторика, которая сопровождает их, скорее всего, будет способствовать актам насилия в отношении гендерно-неконформных людей. Все аргументы в их поддержку включают в себя неверное описание доказательств, отступления к конспирологии и ошибочные апелляции к эмоциям и возмущению. Но, полагаю, этого следует ожидать от реакционных этатистов, каковыми всегда были социальные консерваторы.
A tendência anarquista individualista está firme e forte. Markets Not Capitalism oferece uma janela para a história dessa tendência e destaca sua possível contribuição para o movimento anticapitalista global. Buscamos neste livro estimular uma conversa próspera entre libertários de todas as variedades, bem como aqueles com outros compromissos políticos, sobre o caminho mais frutífero para a libertação humana. Estamos confiantes de que as percepções anarquistas individualistas sobre o potencial libertário dos mercados sem capitalismo podem enriquecer essa conversa e o incentivamos a participar dela.
Introdução
Os anarquistas de mercado acreditam nas trocas de mercado, não em privilégios econômicos. Eles acreditam em mercados livres, não no capitalismo. O que os torna anarquistas é a crença em uma sociedade totalmente livre e consensual—uma sociedade na qual a ordem é alcançada não por meio de força legal ou governo político, mas por meio de acordos livres e cooperação voluntária em uma base de igualdade. O que os torna anarquistas de mercado é o reconhecimento das livres trocas de mercado como um meio vital para uma ordem social anárquica pacífica. Mas os mercados que eles imaginam não são como os “mercados” repletos de privilégios que vemos hoje em dia. Os mercados que trabalham sob o governo e o capitalismo são permeados por pobreza persistente, destruição ecológica, desigualdades radicais de riqueza e poder concentrado nas mãos de corporações, patrões e proprietários de terras. A visão consensual é a de que a exploração—seja de seres humanos ou da natureza—é simplesmente o resultado natural de mercados deixados soltos. A visão consensual sustenta que a propriedade privada, a pressão competitiva e a motivação do lucro devem—seja para o bem ou para o mal—levar inevitavelmente ao trabalho assalariado capitalista, à concentração da riqueza e do poder social nas mãos de uma classe seleta ou a práticas comerciais baseadas no crescimento a todo custo; que seja cada um por si.
Os anarquistas de mercado discordam. Eles argumentam que o privilégio econômico é um problema social real e generalizado, mas que o problema não é um problema de propriedade privada, concorrência ou lucros em si. Não é um problema da forma do mercado, mas dos mercados deformados—deformados pela longa sombra de injustiças históricas e pelo exercício contínuo e permanente do privilégio legal em nome do capital. A tradição anarquista de mercado é radicalmente pró-mercado e anticapitalista, refletindo sua preocupação consistente com o caráter profundamente político do poder corporativo, a dependência das elites econômicas da tolerância ou do apoio ativo do estado, as barreiras permeáveis entre as elites políticas e econômicas e a incorporação cultural das hierarquias estabelecidas e mantidas pela violência perpetrada e sancionada pelo estado.
A Forma de Mercado
Este livro pretende ser uma introdução abrangente à teoria econômica e social do anarquismo de mercado de esquerda. O anarquismo de mercado é um movimento social radicalmente individualista e anticapitalista. Como outros anarquistas, os anarquistas de mercado são defensores radicais da liberdade individual e do consentimento mútuo em todos os aspectos da vida social—rejeitando, portanto, todas as formas de dominação e governo como invasões contra a liberdade e violações da dignidade humana. A contribuição distinta dos anarquistas de mercado para o pensamento anarquista é sua análise da forma de mercado como um componente central de uma sociedade completamente livre e igualitária—sua compreensão das possibilidades revolucionárias inerentes às relações de livre mercado, livre do governo e do privilégio capitalista, e suas percepções sobre as estruturas de privilégio e controle político que deformam os mercados existentes e sustentam a exploração, apesar das tendências naturalmente equilibradoras dos processos mercadológicos. Como eles insistem em uma distinção tão nítida entre a forma de mercado como tal e as características econômicas do capitalismo realmente existente, é importante distinguir cuidadosamente as principais características dos mercados como os anarquistas os entendem. As relações sociais que os anarquistas de mercado defendem explicitamente e esperam libertar de todas as formas de controle governamental são relações baseadas na:
1. propriedade de bens, especialmente a propriedade individual descentralizada, não apenas de bens pessoais, mas também de terras, residências, recursos naturais, ferramentas e bens de capital;
2. realização decontratos e trocas voluntárias de bens e serviços, por indivíduos ou grupos, com a expectativa de benefício mútuo;
3. livre concorrência entre todos os compradores e vendedores—em termos de preço, qualidade e todos os outros aspectos da troca—sem restrições ex ante ou barreiras onerosas à entrada;
4. descoberta empresarial, realizada não apenas para competir nos mercados existentes, mas também para descobrir e desenvolver novas oportunidades de benefício econômico ou social; e
5. ordem espontânea, reconhecida como uma força de coordenação significativa e positiva—na qual negociações descentralizadas, trocas e empreendedorismo convergem para produzir coordenação em larga escala sem, ou além da capacidade de, quaisquer planos deliberados ou projetos comuns explícitos para o desenvolvimento social ou econômico.
Os anarquistas de mercado não limitam a propriedade à posse, à propriedade comum ou coletiva, embora também não excluam esses tipos de propriedade; eles insistem na importância do contrato e da troca de mercado, na livre concorrência e no empreendedorismo motivados pelo lucro; e eles não apenas toleram, mas celebram a coordenação espontânea e não planejada que os marxistas ridicularizam como a “anarquia social da produção”. No entanto, os anarquistas de mercado de esquerda também são radicalmente anticapitalistas e rejeitam totalmente a crença—comum tanto à esquerda antimercado quanto à direita pró-capitalista—de que essas cinco características da forma de mercado devem implicar uma ordem social de patrões, senhorios, corporações centralizadas, exploração de classe, negociações comerciais impiedosas, trabalhadores miseráveis, pobreza estrutural ou desigualdade econômica em larga escala. Em vez disso, eles insistem em cinco afirmações distintas sobre mercados, liberdade e privilégio:
• A tendência centralizadora dos mercados: os anarquistas de mercado veem os mercados livres, sob condições de livre concorrência, como uma tendência a difundir a riqueza e dissolver fortunas—com um efeito centrífugo sobre a renda, os títulos de propriedade, a terra e o acesso ao capital—em vez de concentrá-la nas mãos de uma elite socioeconômica. Os anarquistas de mercado não reconhecem limites de jure sobre a extensão ou o tipo de riqueza que uma pessoa pode acumular; mas acreditam que as realidades sociais e de mercado imporão pressões de fato muito mais rigorosas contra desigualdades maciças de riqueza do que qualquer restrição de jure poderia alcançar.
• As possibilidades radicais do ativismo social do mercado: os anarquistas do mercado também veem os mercados livres como um espaço não apenas para o comércio orientado para o lucro, mas também como espaços para a experimentação social e o ativismo de base. Eles imaginam que as “forças do mercado” incluem não apenas a busca de ganhos financeiros restritos ou a maximização dos retornos para os investidores, mas também o apelo da solidariedade, da mutualidade e da sustentabilidade. Os “processos de mercado” podem—e devem—incluir esforços conscientes e coordenados para aumentar a conscientização, mudar o comportamento econômico e abordar questões de igualdade econômica e justiça social por meio de ação direta não violenta.
• A rejeição das relações econômicas do tipo “estado-quo”: os anarquistas de mercado fazem uma distinção clara entre a defesa da forma de mercado e a apologética das distribuições de riqueza e das divisões de classe realmente existentes, uma vez que essas distribuições e divisões dificilmente surgiram como resultado de mercados sem restrições, mas sim dos mercados governados, regulamentados e repletos de privilégios que existem hoje; eles veem as distribuições de riqueza e as divisões de classe realmente existentes como problemas sociais sérios e genuínos, mas não como problemas com a forma de mercado em si; esses não são problemas de mercado, mas sim problemas de propriedade e problemas de coordenação.
• A regressividade da regulamentação: os anarquistas de mercado veem os problemas de coordenação—problemas com uma interrupção antinatural, destrutiva e politicamente imposta da livre operação de troca e concorrência—como o resultado de privilégios legais contínuos e permanentes para os capitalistas estabelecidos e outros interesses econômicos bem arraigados, impostos às custas dos concorrentes de pequena escala e da classe trabalhadora.
• Despossessão e retificação: os anarquistas de mercado veem o privilégio econômico como resultado parcial de sérios problemas de propriedade—problemas com uma má distribuição não natural, destrutiva e politicamente imposta de títulos de propriedade—produzidos pela história de despossessão política e expropriação infligida em todo o mundo por meio de guerra, colonialismo, segregação, nacionalização e cleptocracia. Os mercados não são vistos como maximamente livres enquanto estiverem obscurecidos pela sombra do roubo em massa ou da negação da propriedade; e enfatizam a importância da retificação razoável de injustiças passadas—incluindo abordagens de base, anticorporativas e antineoliberais para a “privatização” de recursos controlados pelo estado; processos de restituição a vítimas identificáveis de injustiça; e expropriação revolucionária de propriedades fraudulentamente reivindicadas pelo estado e pelos monopolistas por eles criados.
A Tradição Anarquista de Mercado
Os primeiros pensadores anarquistas, como Josiah Warren e Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, enfatizaram as características positivas e socialmente harmonizadoras das relações de mercado quando conduzidas em um contexto de igualdade—com Proudhon, por exemplo, escrevendo que a revolução social aboliria o “sistema de leis” e o “princípio da autoridade” para substituí-los pelo “sistema de contratos” [1].
Baseando-se no uso que Warren e Proudhon fizeram do contrato e da troca para modelos de mutualidade social, vertentes distintas do anarquismo de mercado surgiram repetidamente dentro da ampla tradição anarquista, pontuadas por crises, colapsos, interregnos e ressurgimentos. A história é complexa, mas pode ser dividida em três períodos principais representados neste texto—(i) uma “primeira onda”, representada principalmente por “anarquistas individualistas” e “mutualistas”, como Benjamin Tucker, Voltairine de Cleyre e Dyer Lum, e ocupando aproximadamente o período da Guerra Civil Americana até 1917; (2) (ii) uma “segunda onda”, coincidindo com a radicalização dos libertários Americanos anteriormente pró-capitalistas e o ressurgimento do anarquismo como uma família de movimentos sociais durante o radicalismo das décadas de 1960 e 1970; e (iii) uma “terceira onda”, desenvolvendo-se como uma vertente dissidente no meio anarquista da década de 1990 e no movimento pós-Seattle do novo milênio.
Apesar das descontinuidades e diferenças, cada onda normalmente reviveu a literatura das ondas anteriores e se baseou explicitamente em seus temas; o que as uniu, em geral, foi a defesa das relações de mercado e a ênfase particular nas possibilidades revolucionárias inerentes à forma de mercado, quando ela é—na medida em que é—libertada das instituições legais e sociais de privilégio.
O anticapitalismo dos individualistas da “primeira onda” era óbvio para eles e para muitos de seus contemporâneos. Benjamin Tucker argumentou de forma célebre que quatro monopólios, ou grupos de privilégios garantidos pelo estado, eram responsáveis pelo poder da elite corporativa: o monopólio de patentes, o monopólio efetivo criado pela distribuição pelo estado de terras arbitrariamente absorvidas para os politicamente favorecidos e sua proteção de títulos de terra injustos, o monopólio do dinheiro e do crédito e os privilégios monopolísticos conferidos pelos impostos. Os economicamente poderosos depende desses monopólios; eliminando-os, o poder da elite se dissolve.
Tucker estava comprometido com a causa da justiça para os trabalhadores em conflito com os capitalistas contemporâneos e se identificava claramente com o crescente movimento socialista. Mas ele argumentou contra Marx e outros socialistas que as relações de mercado poderiam ser frutíferas e não exploradoras, desde que os privilégios que distorcem o mercado, conferidos pelos quatro monopólios, fossem eliminados.
O radicalismo de Tucker e de seus compatriotas, bem como o da vertente do anarquismo que eles criaram, foi indiscutivelmente menos aparente após o rompimento da primeira onda do que para seus contemporâneos. Talvez, em parte, isso se deva às suas disputas com representantes de outras tendências anarquistas, cujas críticas a seus pontos de vista influenciaram as percepções de anarquistas posteriores. É também, inevitavelmente, uma consequência da identificação de muitos de seus descendentes do século XX com a ala direita do movimento libertário e, portanto, como apologistas da elite corporativa e de seu domínio social.
Embora houvesse honrosas exceções, os libertários orientados para o mercado do século XX frequentemente elogiavam os titãs corporativos, ignoravam ou racionalizavam o abuso dos trabalhadores e banalizavam ou abraçavam a hierarquia econômica e social. Embora muitos tenham endossado a crítica ao estado e aos privilégios garantidos por ele, oferecida por Tucker e seus colegas individualistas, eles frequentemente negligenciaram ou rejeitaram as implicações radicais da análise da injustiça estrutural baseada em classes dos individualistas anteriores. Em resumo, havia poucos entusiastas vocais do tipo de anticapitalismo dos individualistas do início e da metade do século XX.
A margem mais radical da vertente orientada para o mercado do movimento libertário—representada por pensadores como Murray Rothbard e Roy Childs—geralmente adota, não a economia anticapitalista do individualismo e do mutualismo, mas uma posição que seus defensores descrevem como “anarcocapitalismo”. A futura sociedade livre que eles imaginam é uma sociedade de mercado—mas uma sociedade em que as relações de mercado são pouco alteradas em relação aos negócios costumeiros, e o fim do controle estatal é imaginado como uma forma de liberar as empresas para que fizessem muito do que faziam antes, em vez de liberar formas concorrentes de organização econômica, que poderiam transformar radicalmente as formas de mercado de baixo para cima.
Mas na “segunda onda” da década de 1960, a família de movimentos sociais anarquistas—revivida por vertentes antiautoritárias e contraculturais da Nova Esquerda—e os radicais antiguerra entre os libertários começaram a redescobrir e republicar as obras dos mutualistas e de outros individualistas. Os “anarcocapitalistas”, como Rothbard e Childs, começaram a questionar a aliança histórica do libertarianismo com a Direita e a abandonar as defesas das grandes empresas e do capitalismo realmente existente em favor de um anarquismo de mercado de esquerda mais consistente. Talvez o exemplo mais visível e dramático tenha sido a adesão de Karl Hess ao radicalismo da Nova Esquerda e seu abandono da economia “capitalista” em favor de mercados de pequena escala, baseados na comunidade. Em 1975, o ex-redator de discursos de Goldwater declarou: “Perdi minha fé no capitalismo” e “resisto a esse estado-nação capitalista”, observando que ele havia “abandonado a religião do capitalismo”. [3]
A “segunda onda” foi seguida por uma segunda baixa, para o anarquismo em geral e para o anarquismo de mercado em particular. No final das décadas de 1970 e 1980, a tendência anticapitalista entre os libertários orientados para o mercado havia se dissipado em grande parte ou sido reprimida pela política pró-capitalista dominante de instituições “libertárias” bem financiadas, como o InstitutoCato e a liderança do PartidoLibertário. Porém, com o fim da Guerra Fria, o realinhamento de coalizões políticas de longa data e o surgimento público de um movimento anarquista de terceira onda na década de 1990, os estágios intelectuais e sociais foram estabelecidos para o ressurgimento atual do anarquismo anticapitalista de mercado.
No início do século XXI, os descendentes anticapitalistas dos individualistas haviam crescido em número, influência e visibilidade. Eles compartilhavam a convicção dos primeiros individualistas de que os mercados não precisavam, em princípio, ser exploradores. Ao mesmo tempo, elaboraram e defenderam uma versão distintamente libertária da análise de classe que ampliou a lista de monopólios de Tucker e destacou a interseção do privilégio garantido pelo estado com a desapropriação sistemática, passada e atual, e com uma série de questões de ecologia, cultura e relações de poder interpessoais. Eles enfatizaram o fato de que, embora os mercados genuinamente liberados—livres—pudessem ser fortalecedores, as transações de mercado que ocorriam em contextos deformados por injustiças passadas e contínuas eram, não surpreendentemente, debilitantes e opressivas. Mas o problema, insistiam os novos individualistas (como seus antecessores), não estava nos mercados, mas sim no capitalismo, no domínio social das elites econômicas garantido pelo estado. A solução, portanto, era a abolição do capitalismo por meio da eliminação de privilégios legais, incluindo os privilégios necessários para a proteção de títulos de propriedade de bens roubados.
Os novos individualistas têm sido igualmente críticos dos conservadores e progressistas explicitamente estatistas e dos libertários orientados para o mercado que usam a retórica para legitimar o privilégio corporativo. Sua crítica agressiva a esse tipo de “libertarianismo vulgar” enfatizou que as relações econômicas existentes estão repletas de injustiças de cima a baixo e que os apelos à liberdade podem ser prontamente usados para mascarar as tentativas de preservar a liberdade das elites de reter a riqueza adquirida por meio da violência tolerada ou perpetrada pelo estado e do privilégio por ele garantido.
O Habitat Natural do Anarquista de Mercado
Este livro não teria sido possível sem a Internet. O leitor de Markets Not Capitalism perceberá rapidamente que muitos dos artigos não são exatamente como capítulos de um livro comum. Muitos deles são curtos. Muitos deles começam no meio de um diálogo—uma das frases de abertura mais frequentes é: “Em uma edição recente de tal e tal, fulano de tal disse que…” Os artigos contemporâneos geralmente apareceram originalmente online, como postagens em um weblog; eles se referem com frequência a postagens anteriores ou discussões preexistentes e geralmente criticam ou elaboram comentários feitos por outros autores em outros locais. Embora os artigos tenham sido reformatados para impressão, muitos ainda se parecem muito com as postagens de blog que eram antes.
Mas isso não é apenas um artefato das redes sociais baseadas na Internet. A história da tradição individualista e mutualista é, em grande parte, uma história de publicações efêmeras, editoras de curta duração, panfletos autopublicados e pequenos jornais radicais. O mais famoso é certamente o Liberty (1881-1908) de Benjamin Tucker, mas também inclui publicações como Twentieth Century (1888-1898) de Hugh Pentecost, bem como periódicos anarquistas de mercado da “segunda onda”, como Left and Right (1965-1968) e Libertarian Forum (1969-1984). Todas essas publicações eram curtas e publicadas com frequência; seus artigos eram tipicamente mais críticos do que abrangentes, mais idiossincráticos do que técnicos em termos de abordagem e tom. Debates de longa data e de longo alcance entre jornais, correspondentes e o movimento circundante eram fontes constantes de material; quando um interlocutor específico não estava disponível para alguns desses artigos, o autor poderia, como em “The Individualist and the Communist: A Dialogue”, chegar ao ponto de inventar um. O livro mais famoso da “primeira onda”—Instead of a Book, by a Man Too Busy to Write One (1893), de Tucker— é simplesmente uma coletânea de artigos curtos do Liberty, a maioria dos quais são claramente respostas a perguntas e argumentos apresentados pelos leitores do Liberty ou por editores do periódico. Os intercâmbios críticos são muito parecidos com os que podemos encontrar hoje no Blogger ou WordPress—porque, é claro, o blog de hoje é apenas uma nova forma tecnológica adotada pela imprensa pequena e independente.
A pequena imprensa independente e baseada no diálogo proporcionou um habitat natural para o florescimento da escrita anarquista de mercado, enquanto a escrita liberal e Marxista encontrou seus habitats mais distintos em declarações, manifestos e tratados complexos e abrangentes. As razões para isso integram um campo vasto de questões, o que vale a pena explorar muito além do que os limites deste prefácio podem permitir. No entanto, talvez valha a pena observar que o anarquismo de mercado surgiu mais ou menos sempre como um projeto crítico e experimental—nas margens radicais dos movimentos sociais (seja o movimento Owenita, o movimento do pensamento livre, o movimento trabalhista, o movimento libertário Americano orientado para o mercado, ou o movimento contra a globalização e o meio social anarquista associado).
O anarquismo de mercado almeja extrair verdades sociais não por meio de dogmatização ou estabelecimento de leis, mas sim permitindo, na medida do possível, a livre interação de ideias e forças sociais, procurando as consequências não intencionais das ideias aceitas, engajando-se em um processo aberto de experimentação e descoberta que permita o teste constante de ideias e instituições em relação aos concorrentes e à realidade dos resultados.
O anarquista revolucionário e mutualista Dyer D. Lum (1839-1893) escreveu em “The Economics of Anarchy” que uma característica definidora da anarquia de mercado era a “plasticidade” dos arranjos sociais e econômicos, em oposição à “rigidez” da dominação estatista ou dos esquemas econômicos comunistas. A essência das ideias anarquistas de mercado provavelmente moldou a forma em que os escritores se sentem mais à vontade para expressá-las. Ou talvez, ao contrário, a forma da escrita pode até ser o que muitas vezes tornou a substância possível: pode ser que as ideias anarquistas de mercado tomem forma mais naturalmente no curso de um diálogo em vez de uma disquisição, no ato de dar e receber críticas em vez de um monólogo unilateral. O valor da espontaneidade, o engajamento exploratório e os rigores do teste competitivo podem ser tão essenciais para a formação de ideias anarquistas de mercado por escrito quanto o são para a implementação dessas ideias no mundo em geral.
Se assim for, esses artigos devem ser lidos com a consciência de que, até certo ponto, foram retirados de seu ambiente natural. Há tratamentos mais longos e sustentados dos tópicos abordados, mas a maioria dos artigos foram originalmente contribuições para projetos contínuos e de longa data, e ocorreram no decorrer de debates abrangentes. Nós os reunimos em uma antologia impressa para prestar um serviço ao estudante, ao pesquisador e a qualquer pessoa que tenha curiosidade sobre abordagens alternativas na economia de livre mercado e no pensamento social anarquista. Mas a melhor maneira de entendê-los não é identificar o fim do assunto, ou mesmo seu início, mas sim oferecer um convite para mergulhar in medias res, para ver as ideias anarquistas de esquerda emergindo do próprio processo dialógico—e para participar da conversa em andamento. …
Notas:
1. Ver “Organization of Economic Forces”, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, cap. 3 (37-58), neste volume.
2. As diferenças exatas entre “individualistas” e “mutualistas” durante a primeira onda quase nunca foram claras; muitos escritores (como Tucker) usaram cada palavra em momentos diferentes para se referir à sua própria posição. No entanto, algumas diferenças podem ser esboçadas entre os que eram mais frequentemente chamados de “individualistas”, como Tucker ou Yarros, e os que eram mais frequentemente chamados de “mutualistas”, como Dyer Lum, Clarence Swartz ou os seguidores Europeus de Proudhon—em especial, que embora ambos apoiassem a emancipação dos trabalhadores e a garantia de que todos os trabalhadores tivessem acesso ao capital, os “mutualistas” tendiam a enfatizar a importância específica das cooperativas de propriedade dos trabalhadores e de sua propriedade direta dos meios de produção, enquanto os “individualistas” tendiam a enfatizar que, em condições de liberdade igual, os trabalhadores se contentariam com os arranjos de propriedade que fizessem mais sentido nas circunstâncias.
Para complicar as coisas, o “mutualismo” agora é usado retrospectivamente, no século XXI, para se referir à maioria dos anarquistas anticapitalistas de mercado, ou especificamente àqueles (como Kevin Carson) que diferem da chamada posição “lockeana” sobre a propriedade da terra—que acreditam que a propriedade da terra pode se basear apenas na ocupação e no uso pessoal, descartando a propriedade ausente como indesejável e indigna de proteção legal. “Mutualistas”, nesse sentido do termo, inclui tanto aqueles que eram mais frequentemente chamados de “individualistas” durante a primeira onda (como Tucker) quanto aqueles que eram mais frequentemente chamados de “mutualistas” (como Lum).
3. Sem dúvida, embora as atitudes sociais de Hess não pareçam ter mudado substancialmente depois de ter feito essas declarações, ele se tornou menos ligado à linguagem do anticapitalismo; ele publicou Capitalism for Kids: Growing Up to Be Your Own Boss em 1986. Mas não há razão para duvidar que o que Hess quis dizer com “capitalismo” aqui foi o que os anarquistas de mercado de esquerda contemporâneos querem dizer quando falam sobre trocas pacíficas e voluntárias em um mercado genuinamente livre, e não o que ele rejeitou em 1975. Certamente, como sugere o subtítulo do livro, ele não tinha a intenção de direcionar os jovens leitores a seguir carreiras como parasitas corporativos.
Capisco. Quando a sinistra si lamenta il prezzo di una qualunque cosa, esempio primo i bassi salari di McDonald’s o di Amazon, i saputelli di destra fanno la solita paternale: “La sinistra non capisce un’acca di economia, è solo una questione di equilibrio tra domanda e offerta!”
Il problema è che, per come è impostato, l’articolo di Shi Sanyazi è come se partisse da una premessa: che tra l’affitto (o un qualunque altro prezzo) determinato “dall’equilibrio tra domanda e offerta” e quello determinato “dall’equilibrio tra poteri di classe” esiste una sorta di contraddizione.
In realtà non c’è nessuna contraddizione. I prezzi sono determinati dall’equilibrio tra domanda e offerta, questo è talmente evidente che ribadirlo è inutile. In un qualunque mercato in cui il prezzo si forma senza interferenze come un prezzo imposto o un prezzo massimo, il risultato dipende dall’equilibrio tra domanda e offerta. Questo vale anche in quei casi in cui domanda o offerta sono determinate dal potere di classe.
La possibilità di tenere sotto controllo la domanda o l’offerta è un aspetto del potere di classe. Prendiamo il caso tipico dei prezzi monopolistici: un poveraccio morto di sete, vestito di stracci, vaga per il deserto finché non giunge ad un chiosco dove un bicchiere d’acqua costa mille dollari. Il prezzo è, sì, determinato dalla domanda e dall’offerta, ma il problema è che, se per l’assetato l’utilità marginale del primo bicchiere è teoricamente infinita, l’offerta dell’acqua ricade interamente sotto il controllo di chi possiede il chiosco.
Nel suo Positive Theorie des Kapitales, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk spiega la formazione del prezzo con l’incontro tra venditore e compratore. Quando compratore e venditore si incontrano, stanti le condizioni di domanda e offerta di un determinato bene in un determinato momento, danno origine ad una coppia marginale composta da un compratore e un venditore. Le cose si complicano quando c’è uno sbilanciamento numerico tra compratori e venditori. Se il prezzo di un bene è eccessivo, abbiamo più venditori che compratori, il contrario se il prezzo è troppo basso. Se alcuni compratori insoddisfatti non riescono a trovare un venditore, è probabile che il venditore in futuro alzerà il prezzo in modo che quantità richiesta e quantità offerta si equivalgano. Il contrario avviene se alcuni venditori non sono riusciti a liquidare tutta la merce: la prossima volta probabilmente chiederanno un prezzo più basso.
La funzione dei monopoli (diritto di proprietà artificiale e scarsità artificiale con la forza dello stato) serve, tra le altre cose, a far sì che i compratori di lavoro o i proprietari di locali da affittare evitino la competizione. Lo stato capitalista limita l’offerta di lavoro di quelle persone che competono tra loro per un posto. Quanto alla terra e agli alloggi, è la natura stessa a limitare l’offerta di chi è in competizione per l’affitto o per l’acquisto, così come spiegano David Ricardo, Henry George e tutti gli economisti classici. Ma le leggi dello stato esasperano questa penuria naturale, trasformandola in penuria artificiale tramite la proprietà assenteista e la privatizzazione dei beni comuni.
Quello che dice Shi Sanyazi, o che perlomeno avrebbe dovuto dire, è che, sì, i prezzi degli alloggi sono determinati dall’equilibrio tra domanda e offerta, ma questo a sua volta dipende dai proprietari con l’aiuto delle leggi statali sulla proprietà.
La reazione davanti all’argomento “domanda e offerta” è però perfettamente comprensibile. I libertari di destra tirano fuori l’argomento “domanda e offerta” perché sono convinti di giustificare così i salari bassi, il caro affitti e così via attribuendo il tutto alle imparziali leggi dell’economia e escludendo le relazioni di potere. In realtà, ridurre il tutto a una semplice questione di “domanda e offerta” non spiega nulla.
Perché si parte dal principio che domanda e offerta sono fattori spontanei, e che i valori corrispondenti sono avulsi alle relazioni di potere. Sì, ripeto, tutti i prezzi di mercato sono, per definizione, il prodotto dell’interazione tra una domanda e un’offerta. Ma chiedetevi un po’: quali sono i fattori istituzionali che determinano la domanda e l’offerta?
I possibili arrangiamenti istituzionali della proprietà e della distribuzione della ricchezza sono pressoché infiniti, e in ognuno di questi casi, quando domanda e offerta operano liberamente, il prezzo è diverso. Ma contrariamente a quello che dicono i soliti noti sui siti della destra libertaria, nessuno di questi arrangiamenti è il prodotto dell’agire autonomo e dell’appropriazione pacifica. Che nessuno dei titoli di proprietà fondiaria sia il risultato di un’appropriazione pacifica è incontestabile; la “proprietà privata”, quest’idea che tanto piace ai libertari di destra, è quasi interamente il prodotto di un’imposizione violenta dello stato.
Pertanto parlare di “domanda e offerta” all’atto pratico non ha sostanza.
Il prezzo di un farmaco prescrivibile brevettato è determinato dalla domanda e l’offerta. Anche il prezzo di un farmaco generico di cui è scaduto il brevetto è determinato dalla domanda e l’offerta. I prezzi però sono diversi. Capite il meccanismo? Lo stesso principio vale con le norme istituzionali che regolano la proprietà e la distribuzione del capitale, della terra e così via.
Quando ci si lamenta per i salari bassi, o perché le paghe degli alti dirigenti sono molto più alte di quelle dei lavoratori, ci si lamenta dei fattori istituzionali che determinano quel particolare equilibrio tra domanda e offerta che porta a quella determinata situazione.
Quando conservatori, neoliberali e libertari di destra dicono “è tutta una questione di domanda e offerta”, come se stessero facendo un’affermazione di sostanza, in realtà non stanno dicendo nulla.
Lasciamo da parte queste distrazioni, e chiediamoci: quali regole dovrebbero governare la proprietà o il passaggio di proprietà della terra, le idee, le aziende e altre forme di proprietà? Facciamo regole giuste, e lasciamo che l’incontro tra domanda e offerta facciano il resto.
Le nostre traduzioni sono finanziate interamente da donazioni. Se vi piacciono i nostri testi, siete invitati a contribuire. Trovate le istruzioni su come fare nella pagina Sostieni C4SS: https://c4ss.org/sostieni-c4ss.
Escrito por Joel Williamson. Artigo original: Constructing an Unfixed Freedom de 21 de novembro de 2022. Traduzido por Gabriel Camargo
Interesse Próprio
Em toda interação e em toda estrutura social, os seres humanos exercem um instinto psicológico inevitável conhecido como interesse próprio. Trata-se de um fator motivacional profundo que é inseparável de nossa subjetividade. Quer sejamos gentis ou cruéis, ele opera no pano de fundo de nossas decisões e persiste apesar de estarmos cientes de sua presença. É uma característica fundamental e definitiva do animal humano.
Embora essa observação amoral não fale sobre como alguém deve buscar seus interesses, ela pode criar uma base sobre a qual podemos explorar essas questões e construir uma política que valha a pena possuir.
Mutualismo Ético
O interesse próprio está entrelaçado com o desejo de se autodeterminar. Quando um indivíduo se autodetermina, ele exerce sua vontade de liberdade. A expressão dessa liberdade, no entanto, nunca ocorre em um vácuo e não é moldada em uma bolha. Ela é entendida e atualizada por meio das muitas esferas de interações sociais que encontramos ao longo de nossas vidas. As teias interligadas de relacionamentos, formais e informais, moldam o conteúdo de nosso interesse próprio de uma forma que revela a importância da liberdade recíproca. Um ambiente socialmente recíproco significa que cada indivíduo é livre para fazer o que quiser, desde que não impeça ninguém de exercer a mesma liberdade. Essa condição expressaria a perfeita mutualidade. Seria adequado, então, chamar essa atmosfera de mutualismo ético.
Condições Atuais
Infelizmente, estamos vivendo em um mundo muito aquém dos padrões do mutualismo ético. Nossas condições atuais são definidas por grandes concentrações hierárquicas de poder, dinheiro e influência. Nossas instituições políticas são coercitivas e nossas economias crescem a partir da pilhagem histórica. Por que existe um abismo tão grande entre o mutualismo ético e a disseminação da dominação como a conhecemos? Até este ponto, um egoísmo grosseiro tem assombrado a história. A guerra, o cercamento e o fanatismo conquistaram o mundo e nos convenceram, em grande parte, a nos afastarmos das tentativas significativas de mutualidade. Dominar os outros se tornou a norma graças a uma hegemonia cultural tóxica que recompensa esse comportamento. A raiz dessa hegemonia vem da tentativa equivocada de encontrar liberdade por meio da dominação. Se essa raiz não for cortada pela base, ela pode se transformar em um fetiche maciço de hierarquia que persiste por meio da eliminação retributiva da espontaneidade. Essa tentativa vulgar de ordem nos nega a verdadeira expressão de nosso interesse próprio ao confundir nossa liberdade com nacionalismo, tribalismo e estatismo. Sob essas condições, somos ensinados e esperados a reduzir nossa empatia e a encontrar nosso lugar em proscritas e categorizáveis caixas. Essas expectativas são mantidas por meio de leis coercitivas e perpetuadas voluntariamente por aqueles que optam por aplicá-las. Dominar os outros, portanto, é um exercício de uma vontade confusa de liberdade. O poder nos motiva na medida em que nos oferece autonomia. Mas uma autonomia que impede o outro é um esforço em vão para a autorrealização. A vontade de poder é incapaz de chegar à raiz de nossas motivações. Ela nos incentiva a participar da opressão, e levá-la adiante seria, em última análise, uma negação de si mesmo. Não precisamos nos rebaixar ao nível dos tiranos só porque o deus de Nietzsche está morto.
Considerando a Anarquia
Tendo abandonado amplamente a cooperação, nossa situação atual é marcada por estratificações de classe que nos envolvem em uma rede de interesses conflitantes que beneficiam alguns em detrimento de outros. Em algum momento, torna-se inconcebível para os detentores do poder considerar a possibilidade de avançar em direção a condições sociais que se aproximem do mutualismo ético, uma vez que seu conforto material e psicológico depende da manutenção do status quo. Quanto aos muitos que estão sujeitos a esse poder, a vontade de liberdade contém uma promessa radiante e emancipatória de mutualidade. O desafio crucial de nosso tempo é descobrir maneiras criativas de sair desse labirinto político de controle.
A única filosofia política adequada para a realização do mutualismo ético é aquela que coloca a liberdade como seu mais alto valor. Não há melhor proposta ou expressão conhecida dessa tendência do que o Anarquismo. Apesar dos esforços de propaganda que promovem concepções errôneas comuns da Anarquia como caos vicioso e violência, ela é, na verdade, uma contemplação intrincada da condição humana que promove a liberdade com mais paixão do que qualquer outra filosofia política. É pouco conhecido ou apreciado o fato de que o Anarquismo tem sido, na verdade, abordado ao longo da história em várias capacidades, e qualquer filosofia política contemporânea honesta também deve lidar com os problemas éticos do poder e da violência institucional que a Anarquia desafia. Para aqueles de nós que rejeitam essa violência normalizada, a Anarquia é nossa amiga. Ela é a verdadeira expressão da a vontade pessoal de liberdade e a maneira de realizar a promessa do mutualismo ético.
A anarquia postula que a autodeterminação é tão fundamentalmente importante para a experiência humana que qualquer força em contradição deve justificativa para negar essa liberdade. A vastidão de maneiras pelas quais a liberdade nos pode ser negada pode ser expressa por meio de uma variedade de instituições culturalmente legitimadas, tanto religiosas quanto seculares. Certa vez, em uma entrevista gravada em vídeo, a conhecida anarquista e agitadora Emma Goldman definiu o Anarquismo como “uma filosofia social que visa à emancipação econômica, social, política e espiritual da raça humana”. Isso significa que, segundo o Anarquismo, todas as formas de autoridade são indesejáveis e que devemos ter como objetivo a construção de uma sociedade baseada na cooperação voluntária e na livre associação para todos.
A primeira pessoa a se autodenominar anarquista e mutualista foi o filósofo francês Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. O Anarquismo Mutualista de Proudhon é uma filosofia abrangente que inclui implicações éticas, políticas e econômicas que não serão totalmente exploradas neste artigo. No entanto, gostaria de destacar algumas de suas percepções que são relevantes para a trajetória dos argumentos deste texto. Ao considerar como progredir em direção à liberdade social, Proudhon assumiu uma posição explícita contra o que ele chamou de absolutismo. Para Proudhon, isso significava rejeitar metas finais utópicas perfeitas marcadas por estágios categorizáveis e determinados na história. Em vez disso, Proudhon favoreceu um processo aberto que equilibrou a meta ambiciosa da liberdade com a nossa realidade concreta não livre de fato existente. Ele adotou uma abordagem de “progresso por aproximações”, em que mais e mais liberdade seria conquistada por meio de etapas pragmáticas graduais rumo à libertação. A perspectiva de Proudhon sobre o avanço da liberdade é crucial para o sucesso a longo prazo do Anarquismo e nós nos beneficiamos dessa visão.
Além da orientação de Proudhon para evitar o absolutismo e o utopismo, há outras armadilhas que podemos evitar quando estivermos pensando em como expandir a liberdade. Uma delas é reduzir o objetivo do Anarquismo à abolição das formas imediatamente identificáveis e óbvias de dinâmicas de poder desiguais. Todos os sistemas identificáveis de opressão devem ser superados, mas também os exemplos menos óbvios de falta de liberdade. É nosso trabalho identificar esses sistemas, ir além deles e construir a liberdade em seu lugar.
Anarquia Como Flecha
É por isso que é melhor imaginar o projeto anarquista como uma flecha gradualista, não limitada a um foco singular em um determinado objetivo, como a ausência de estado. Evoluir para além do estado é um objetivo fundamental da Anarquia, mas não é o fim, porque a libertação, entendida adequadamente, não tem limites. Alcançamos determinados objetivos no caminho para a ausência de estado, mas a liberdade em si é inabalável e está sempre se expandindo.
Há também problemas táticos a serem considerados quando minimizamos o Anarquismo à abolição do estado. Um deles é que, se você levar o assunto a sério, pode acabar se aliando a forças hostis. O niilismo político de um antiestatismo tênue é facilmente cooptado pelos fascistas, por exemplo, que às vezes também podem estar interessados em derrubar o status quo. Infelizmente, os fascistas só estão interessados na subversão política para implementar um autoritarismo ainda maior. Uma grande variedade de reacionários defende uma agitação acelerada em direção à guerra civil. Jogos populistas de números como esses são bem adequados para recrutas ingênuos que podem ser capazes de fornecer munição para um meio e um fim insensatamente sangrentos. Uma pessoa pode, sem querer, tornar-se um peão nas tentativas assassinas dos nazistas sem uma análise mais ampla e profunda da liberdade.
Além do problema dos fascistas, um compromisso tênue com o antiestatismo também pode levar a um tipo de brutalidade organizada encontrada na revolução formal apoiada por pessoas como os Tankies. Apesar de falar da boca para fora sobre o anti-imperialismo ou fazer gestos retóricos para libertar o trabalho, os comunistas de estado não gostam de projetos interessados na liberdade real. Não é preciso olhar além da Rebelião de Kronstadt para entender como o autoritarismo vermelho pode ser mortal para os anarquistas e sua paixão por um mundo além da hierarquia. É por isso que qualquer apelo não equilibrado à unidade da esquerda deve ser tratado com profunda desconfiança.
Sem o imediatismo da revolução formal vermelha ou marrom e com o reconhecimento de que as aproximações graduais da liberdade devem ser consideradas, pode-se também cair na armadilha do reformismo liberal. Apesar de esse provavelmente ser o menor dos três males, ele é, por definição, o tipo de entrincheiramento político que a Anarquia busca superar. Ser pego em sua teia garante nossa derrota precisamente porque o processo eleitoral-reformista em si é uma contradição prática de meios e fins para os anarquistas. Isso não significa que não devamos celebrar ou incentivar a liberalização da política de drogas ou de fronteiras, mas, à luz da derrubada de Roe vs Wade nos Estados Unidos, deveria ser óbvio que devemos imaginar e aprender maneiras de agir diretamente em direção à liberdade. A reforma, assim como o gradualismo, avança lentamente, mas o possível fracasso de qualquer insurreição criativa e experimental custa muito menos do que o desperdício de energia do eleitoralismo.
Particularismo Tático
A dinâmica de poder desigual se manifesta em uma variedade de formas complexas e particulares que podem ser difíceis de superar usando soluções de tamanho único. A maneira pela qual agimos diretamente para libertar a nós mesmos e aos outros será diferente conforme a situação e o contexto. Por exemplo, contornar as limitações de um sistema de saúde falido é incrivelmente difícil para muitas pessoas, e pode haver uma série de razões pelas quais alguém pode considerar criar ou adquirir ilegalmente seus próprios medicamentos salva-vidas. Isso é a Anarquia em ação. Da mesma forma, pode ser o caso de um indivíduo que esteja lidando com um parceiro abusivo ou pais que apresentam comportamento nocivo. Essa pessoa precisa desesperadamente de uma maneira de sair de sua situação vulnerável, e o método utilizado para abrir caminho para a liberdade pode ser muito diferente da luta pela assistência médica. Cada uma dessas circunstâncias infelizes é um exemplo de falta de liberdade e é importante destacar como elas exigem ferramentas diferentes para lidar com seus respectivos problemas.
Além disso, vale a pena ter em mente que, mesmo quando experimentamos a liberdade, as muitas maneiras pelas quais o autoritarismo pode se infiltrar em nossas vidas, institucional ou interpessoalmente, são muito complexas. Tão complexas que, às vezes, exigem soluções hiperindividualizadas que nenhum terceiro ou projeto poderia esperar resolver. É uma complexidade sem fim. Uma tarefa exclusivamente adequada para a flecha gradualista da Anarquia.
Emancipação Prática
Quando canalizamos nossa vontade própria de liberdade por meio do mutualismo ético, criamos uma base sobre a qual podemos considerar a única filosofia política que coloca a liberdade como seu valor mais alto–o Anarquismo. Reorientar-nos para ver a Anarquia como uma flecha gradualista nos permite abordar a vida e nossa paixão pela liberdade de forma mais holística. Essa proposta, embora mais abstrata em certos aspectos, oferece uma política sustentável e realista.
Todas as metas libertárias são importantes, sejam elas de curto ou longo prazo, micro ou macro. Se plantarmos as sementes da liberação agora por meio da criação de formas alternativas de ser, poderemos expandir gradualmente e descobrir o que é possível. Nenhum momento revolucionário singular é adequado para atingir os padrões de uma filosofia viva e respirante que busca realizar o que tantas mentes conservadoras veem como impossível. O estado pode se extinguir com o patriarca, mas novas liberdades estão sempre à espreita, esperando para serem descobertas e gradualmente realizadas.
At Pluralistic, Cory Doctorow comments on libertarian elitists like Bryan Caplan and Jason Brennan, who argue for restricting the franchise because most people “Just Don’t Understand Economics”:
When you compare the views of the average person to the views of the average PhD economist, you find that the public sharply disagrees with such obvious truths as “we should only worry about how big the pie is, not how big my slice is!” These fools just can’t understand that an economy where their boss gets richer and they get poorer is a good economy, so long as it’s growing overall!
That’s why noted “realist” Peter Thiel thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Thiel says that mothers are apt to sideline the “science” of economics for the soppy, sentimental idea that children shouldn’t starve to death and thus vote for politicians who are willing to tax rich people.
That “Just Don’t Understand Economics” thing probably sounds familiar, if you’re someone on the Left who’s engaged at all with smug right-libertarians on social media.
And if you’re on social media, you’ve also no doubt seen that “Galaxy Brain” meme, where ascending levels of understanding are represented by images starting with a tiny-brained schmuck and progressing through an average-size brain and then to increasingly large and psychedelically luminescent brains. In this meme, the first level is a widely believed misconception. The second level — the one with the average brain — is the conventional “real fact,” as presented in mainstream high school textbooks or as understood by a reasonably intelligent undergrad major in the subject.
The third and subsequent levels add progressively increasing nuance and meta-analysis to the mainstream textbook understanding. While in a sense the second level understanding is factually correct, in another sense it’s arguably as much of a misunderstanding in its own way as the first level. The second-level average brain lacks any critical awareness of their own “facts,” or of the assumptions behind them. So the first two levels require a meta-analysis that either treats them as alternative paradigms for describing the same reality, or synthesizes them into a higher-level understanding.
Here’s the connection between the two: The folks who say “You just don’t understand economics” are virtually always on the second level. They’ve absorbed the existing paradigm of their discipline, and are quite proficient at regurgitating it, but are completely oblivious to the assumptions behind it and how historically conditioned they are.
The “size of the pie” cliche Doctorow references is a perfect example. For starters, the size of the pie is measured largely in terms of GDP, which really amounts to the total price of all goods and services — including waste production, Bastiat’s “Broken Windows,” and the portion of prices consisting of embedded monopoly rents. By that standard, the Rube Goldberg economy of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil would have the largest pie of any society in human history. Second, the size of the slice obviously matters; you’re not better off if the pie is bigger, if your slice is smaller than what it would be if billionaires didn’t own most of the pie. Third, capitalists prefer a smaller pie if they can have a bigger slice. They prefer inefficient forms of coordination like absentee ownership and hierarchy, despite all their perverse incentives and information distortions, because even though productivity is extremely suboptimal they’re much more conducive to extracting surpluses.
Another example is the generalization, stated flat-out as a dogma, that minimum wage increases cause unemployment. Well, it does in the axiomatic sense that, ceteris paribus, the demand curve for anything is negative as the price goes up. But as an unqualified assertion, it doesn’t take into account all that ceteris paribus stuff — a concept online economics bros seem never to have heard of. It doesn’t take into account, among other things, the degree of demand inelasticity, or how much labor contributes to total unit costs compared to other factors, or whether the increase might just correct for structural inequalities in bargaining power and hence be paid for by reducing the portion of profit that results from economic rents, rather than by reducing employment.
The second-tier understanding that people like Caplan and Brennan mean by “economics” includes a lot of stuff like that — along with confusion between map and territory, the social and political functions of their supposedly neutral and objective theories, and the coercive history behind “spontaneous” and “voluntary” institutions like “private property” and “freedom of contract.” In his Pluralistic piece linked above, Doctorow does an excellent job eviscerating a bunch of other just-so stories about “economics” from those circles.
I almost always abandon political quizzes in disgust because I refuse to accept the obvious implicit assumptions behind the framing of the questions, and the misleading inferences that will result if I answer them literally. I suspect anyone with any perspective at all on the history of capitalism and of economic thought would have a similar reaction to the kinds of questions someone like Caplan or Brennan would put on an economic knowledge test, because of the understanding of “economics” embodied in those questions.
As David Roth said, the job of people like Tyler Cowen is “to find new ways to say ‘actually, your boss is right.’” The people who fail the philosopher-kings’ test of economic knowledge may not be able to recite the talking points from Economics in One Lesson or a Thomas Sowell column. But they know they’re getting royally screwed by all the neoliberal wonks and court intellectuals operating on that level of economic understanding. And — because they know their relations with their boss, landlord, etc., are not “voluntary,” and that the bigger pie isn’t doing them a god damned bit of good when Gates, Bezos et al stole the pie and left them the crumbs — they probably know a lot better than Caplan or Brennan how the economic system actually works.
C4SS Editing Coordinator Eric Fleischmann was recently featured on the Non-Serviam podcast. The discussion covers a broad range of topics from to Marxism and historical materialism to Laurance Labadie and the history of free-market-anti-capitalism to agorism and its left-wing fundamentals.
From the Non-Serviam Episode Description:
Eric Fleischmann (he/they) is an anarchist indebted to communistic and continental thought but engaged primarily in the traditions of mutualism, North American individualist anarchism, and modern left-libertarianism while applying a background in anthropology and philosophy to helping build the solidarity economy in unceded Wabanaki territory on Turtle Island. He has been involved in various capacities with numerous leftist, left-leaning, and labor-oriented organizations—generally ones which promote forms of politico-economic decentralization and democratization and/or degrees of left unity.
For the 24th installment of The Enragés, host Eric Fleischmann was joined by H.B. Dillon Williams IV (@MorpheusRage) to discuss their article Molotov Pill Bottle: Radical Answers to Failed Capitalist Healthcare (https://c4ss.org/content/56444).
H.B. Dillon Williams IV (they/he) is a mexican-indigenous irish genderqueer anti-fascist anarchist rapper, father of three, activist, Magic player, and avid fan of dofflin music. Dillon entered the activist world with Abolish ICE Denver in 2018. In 2019 they worked with the Caravan Support Network that came out of the national organizing Abolish ICE groups, traveling to Tijuana, Mexico to help, gaining organizing experience as well as first-hand knowledge of the border crisis which has recently reached another high point under the Biden administration. They continued migration activism in Phoenix after that and began working for Medicare which ultimately prompted this article. Through this time he has developed his philosophy incorporating insights from organizing. Still a student of Modern Monetary Theory and agorism with a lot of different sympathies. Find their IG @ Rage.Incarnate
Most communist-anarchists are followers of Kropotkine, who showed that mutual aid was a factor in evolution and who tried, like Marx, to conceive a society in which mutual aid was the sole factor in its maintenance, but whereas Marx saw that authority was necessary Kropotkine thought that men could iron out their differences by voluntarily agreeing to maintain a standard of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
For some time I was unsure where he got this spelling from; but after digging further and looking back at some other writings, I believe he picked it up from his own father Joseph Labadie, whose description of Kropotkin goes like this: “Kropotkine was a small man, with a large head, bushy hair and whiskers, talked English very well, and his movements were quick, as tho surprised.”
Suppose I had said to Kropotkine that the real question is whether Communism will permit individuals to exchange their labor or products on their own terms. Would Herr Most have been so shocked? Would he have printed that in black type?
Recently on Facebook, left-libertarian activist Brianna Coyle posted:
Radical idea: The amount of freedom someone has in their life shouldn’t be dependent on how much money they have, or whether or not they own property.
“Freedom of association” in the context of property rights is a privilege afforded only to those who own property. Freedom should never be based on “property rights” instead of natural rights. We should aspire to build a world where anyone can live the lifestyle of their choosing, and a world where people’s basic needs can be met without financial or mental health struggles being an inherent aspect of that.
In response, a number of people in the comments brought up some variation on the distinction between “negative freedom” and “positive freedom.” A positive freedom — the bad, commie kind — is an entitlement to something that’s provided by other people. But a negative freedom — the good, right-libertarian kind — is supposedly just the right to do what you want with what you own, without interference. As we’ll see below, that handwavy “what you own” and “without interference” are doing one hell of a lot of work.
One commenter managed to hit all the talking points. What Brianna calls freedom, he says,
is literally the exact opposite of the definition of freedom. The foundational principle of freedom is that you own yourself. From that is derived the idea of owning the product of your labors (owning property or anything derived from that property by your labor). It’s also the premise of freedom of association. If I don’t want to be around something or someone, I have the right to keep that influence off my property, and it’s the ONLY place I have the right to make that demand on a permanent basis. Without those, you have compelled labor and compelled association.
I am 100% for people choosing to live a communal lifestyle and being allowed to do so. I am also 100% for people not being forced to do so, and to live in a capitalist economy if they choose. The two can live cooperatively, but neither can be compelled.
The difference — You can choose your lifestyle in a capitalist world. Raise the funds, buy your commune, and live communally, potentially never having to buy another thing. . . .ever. In a communist world, I can’t do the same. I can’t choose to isolate and choose my associations. This is why communism is inherently anti-liberty, and capitalism is inherently pro-liberty.
The distinction between “negative” and “positive” freedom is circular. Let’s get back to those key phrases — “what you own” and “without interference” — in the definition of negative freedom. In much the same way as distinguishing “aggression” or “coercion” from “self-defense,” whether a given freedom is positive or negative — what constitutes ownership and interference — depends on the prior definition of property rights. What you’re entitled to as a negative freedom without interference from anybody else can only be defined in reference to what’s considered your property under the given ruleset.
Now, even under the best of circumstances, with no violence or coercion involved, there’s an enormous amount of convention and arbitrariness involved in a society’s choice of a particular set of property rules from the many alternative rulesets available. No particular set of rules can be logically or self-evidently deduced from the axiom of self-ownership. Even Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, noted that there’s no obvious reason to believe that mixing one’s labor with a parcel of land separates it from the common, rather than (as when one dumps a can of tomato juice into the ocean) constituting abandonment of the mixed-in labor. See also Shawn Wilbur’s excellent essay “The Gift Economy of Property” (in Markets Not Capitalism p. 175), which argues that any set of property rules in a peaceful and voluntary society reflects a majority consensus on the provisional and tentative relinquishment of individual possessory rights from the commons.
Worse yet, contrary to right-libertarian polemics, there was precious little of the “peaceful” or “voluntary” actually involved in the history of either our property rules or our current distribution of individual property holdings. The way our property rules are defined, and our property holdings are distributed, are both the result of power — some of it quite naked. The central function of capitalist, right-libertarian, and neoliberal ideology is to obscure power relations behind the myth of voluntary exchange and freedom of contract.
While right-libertarians frame “property” as a negative freedom, the modern capitalist model of “private property” was largely an imposition by the state in alliance with the landed classes, and involved robbing the vast majority of their access rights to the land. If access rights to land is commons-based, as it originally was, then the right not to be obstructed from livelihood on the common lands is a negative right. So, a lot of framing of subsistence rights as “positive freedom” today involves taking for granted a distribution of property, and level of social atomization, that were actually created by violent social engineering. The right-libertarian paradigm takes as natural a social order of atomized individuals and nuclear family households, in which all economic functions are organized either by money exchange or contract.
But let’s look at the converse. Imagine a society in which everyone is born with a socially guaranteed right not to be obstructed from their individual right of access to living space and subsistence production on the commons. Imagine, rather than the society of nuclear family households created by the atomizing effects of the modern state and capitalism, most people are born into micro-villages or other co-living units, with a birthright including adequate food and clothing, medical care, etc., in return for performing some minimum of contribution to the extended household’s needs (e.g. doing one’s 15 hours in the co-living project’s gardens and workshops) when capable of doing so. In that case, what right-libertarians dismiss as “positive freedom” would be every bit as much an actual “negative freedom” as the right of a corporate shareholder to receive dividends or participate in corporate governance without interference.
Then, Target got caught in the crossfire of another controversy when it removed some “Pride” merchandise from some of its stores to avoidbacklash. (And what is it with this “Pride” stuff anyway!? You don’t see Straight Pride Parades! Gimme a break!)
And mind you, this whole woke nightmare is nothing new. Companies of every brand have been “taking lefty positions on political issues” for years now. Social media platforms and search engines like Google are hammering us with “left-wing algorithms”. In 2019, Nike recalled its Betsy Ross Flag Sneakers after Colin Kaepernick, who had the insolence to take a knee during the national anthem, criticized the design. Even AirBNB, Lyft, and Uber had the gall to protest former President Donald Trump’s America Firstimmigration ban!
Is it any wonder that our courageous state legislators have risen to combat this tide of immorality?! Over 650 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced across 46 states to protect our families, our children, our very social fabric.
Does all this sound a little unhinged? A little hysterical maybe? OVER THE TOP?
Welcome to the Culture Wars: Pride Month Edition!
WTF is Happening?
It was in 2018 that Ross Douthcat introduced the phrase “Woke Capital” in the New York Times. But it was already part of the zeitgeist. Derek Thompson in The Atlantic noted the “politicization of the public sphere” that was leading “nonpartisan companies to take one partisan stand after another.” Thompson wrote:
In many cases, America’s corporate community has become a quiet defender of socially liberal causes. Nearly 400 companies filed an amicus brief in 2015 urging the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage, including Amazon, Aetna, Apple, American Airlines, American Express, and AT&T (and those are just the ones starting with the first letter of the alphabet). Hundreds of executives, many from tech companies, signed a 2017 letter urging the president to protect immigrants brought to the U.S. as children by saving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. When North Carolina passed a law against transgender-friendly bathrooms, the NCAA announced in 2016 that it would pull its college-basketball tournament from the state (and other companies withdrew their business, too).
Make no mistake about it, however. Though some corporate types are no longer quiet in what may in fact be a genuine endorsement of progressive social justice causes, many put their fingers in the air just to see which way the wind blows. As my friend Ryan Neugebauer observes:
Liberal Corporate Capitalism in its welfare-statist form seeks a stable society for profit generation. It doesn’t care what kind of families you have, who you have sex with, or what gender you identify with. All it cares about is profit generation. So, in the 1990s, a corporation could throw gays by the wayside when it was much more acceptable to be anti-gay and then do a 180-degree spin in today’s climate, with very pro-gay policies because the national opinion has changed. Profit determines values and actions.
Despite its general endorsement of conservative economic policies of lower taxes and fewer regulations, companies cannot bolster their bottom line by alienating more and more consumers through exclusion. Nor can they broaden the pool of cheap labor by opposing immigration. Still, even in today’s climate, by seeming to endorse a gospel of inclusion, many businesses are now alienating traditionalists. Just for noticing or marketing to marginalized groups, companies are being eviscerated by traditionalists as exemplars of “woke capitalism” and “woke corporatism”. This is not unusual. As I stated in a recent essay, “as privileged groups of people sense that they are beginning to lose a grip on their ‘traditions’, they fight like hell — [even] passing laws and regulations — to keep them in place. But the very dynamics of the market society they claim to value are such that traditions are among the practices that are often brought into question. That’s one of the reasons that Friedrich Hayek himself proclaimed he wasn’t a conservative.”
A Digression: The Problematics of “Woke” and “Capitalism”
It should be noted that, throughout all these discussions, I am bothered by the problematic usage of such terms as “woke” and “capitalism”.
As I’ve argued before, the very word “woke” verges on becoming what Ayn Rand once called an “anti-concept” insofar as it entails some kind of “’package-deal’ of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context”. Indeed, at this stage, it has become a mere pejorative, which in the hands of its ‘opponents’ is used as a bludgeon against any legitimate social justice cause. So, the moment I hear that word coming out of the mouths of its ‘critics’, I know exactly what they’re talking about. It’s an all-inclusive four-letter word to denigrate anyone who is interested in addressing the historic marginalization of people because of their race, religion, belief, sex, sexuality, or gender.
But problematic terminology is not restricted to the word “woke”.
For nearly twenty years now, I’ve avoided using the word “capitalism” to describe the socio-economic system that I value. That word was coined by left-wing critics who understood the system’s history in stark contrast to the “unknown ideal” projected by its ideological defenders. As I reiterated in a recent essay, “just as the state was not born of a bloodless ‘immaculate conception’, so too, capitalism, ‘the known reality’, like every other social system, arose from a bloody history. It emerged through the state’s violent appropriation of the commons, enclosure, and mercantilist and colonialist expropriation.”
Libertarian defenders of capitalism have typically used various modifiers to distinguish their model from the historical realities: whether they call it “free-market capitalism” or “laissez-faire capitalism” or even “anarcho-capitalism” in contradistinction to state capitalism or crony capitalism, they project an ideal that has never existed. That’s problematic not only for its defenders but also for its critics. Its defenders can’t easily bracket out state intervention when the state has been so integral to the historic formation of the system. And its critics can’t easily bracket out state intervention when many of the ills of the system are generated by it.
Laissez-faire capitalism has never been, is not, and never will be. Granted, by any measure, state interventionism has increased exponentially in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. But not even the “Gilded Age” of nineteenth-century capitalism was absent such intervention. In virtually every industry — from transportation, energy, and manufacturing to the crucially important banking sector, it is big business that has led the march toward full-throttle corporate state capitalism, thru government subsidies, grants of monopoly, regulatory formation or capture, and a foreign policy of intervention abroad.
The economic instrumentalities of the system have always been organically intertwined with the politics of the state. It’s no wonder that theorists who focus on this area of study call it “Political Economy”. It has always been political. And it always will be.
The Importance of Markets
While capitalism has never provided us with free markets, or even freed markets, the importance of markets cannot be underemphasized. Markets long pre-date capitalism. But even within capitalism, at their best, they are conduits of human sociality. And for those who respect the value of “markets, not capitalism”, they can be useful, even virtuous, tools for the dissemination of social knowledge and the peaceful proliferation of exchange along a wide continuum of human interactions — whether through interpersonal, cooperative, or communal arrangements.
But if history has shown us anything, it’s that markets are not neutral. There can be markets in the slave trade, markets in human trafficking — all sorts of markets serving ends that no humanist can support. Markets are always embedded in historically specific cultural and structural contexts. This means that markets are shaped not only by the structures of politics and economics, but also by the cultures within which they function. Markets will tend to reflect the cultural attitudes of those communities they serve. If the dominant culture of a community places a high value on cosmopolitanism, markets will tend to reflect the tolerance and diversity that cosmopolitanism enriches. And if the dominant culture of a community places a high value on illiberalism, markets will tend to reflect the intolerance that such illiberalism breeds.
Because markets are not neutral, it should also be understood that market actors are not neutral. The idea that prior to “woke capitalism” companies were sashaying down the runway of nonpartisanship is laughable at best. Not saying a word is a political stance. Acting in ways that fortify “traditional” values is a political stance. Just because companies didn’t explicitly ‘market’ their products by slapping the colors of the ‘rainbow flag’ on them does notmean that they were being apolitical. If not rocking the boat helped corporations to sell products in states that had a history of segregation and Jim Crow or a history of criminalizing same-sex relationships and alternative lifestyles, their silence was a political stance. And sometimes, as in the case of Cracker Barrel and many other companies, corporate America regularly adopted policies of exclusion directed against marginalized groups.
The Proliferation of Identity Politics
Given that we have always lived in a political economy, and that markets are never neutral, why does it seem that we have reached a point in history where there is this vast proliferation of groups at war with one another? And why has this manifested with such virulence in identity politics?
On these questions, we can draw lessons from two of capitalism’s most vocal defenders: Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand. It was Hayek who argued in The Road to Serfdom that as the state comes to dominate more and more of social life, state power becomes the only power worth having. This sets off a war of all against all, in which groups vie for political power at the expense of one another.
Rand saw further that this power struggle was endemic not only to political economy, but to the very genesis of the state, which was born from “prehistorical tribal warfare.” Political elites have historically perpetuated racial hatred, scapegoating and subjugating racial and ethnic groups to secure power. But “the relationship is reciprocal,” said Rand: Just as tribalism is a precondition of statism, so too is statism a reciprocally related cause of tribalism. “The political cause of tribalism’s rebirth is the mixed economy,” marked by “permanent tribal warfare.” In Rand’s view, statism and tribalism advance together, leading to a condition of “global balkanization.”
Since statism and tribalism are fraternal twins, as it were, and the “mixed economy” has always existed in some form, Rand argued that intensifying state domination of social life has an impact on every discernable group, not just every economic interest. Every differentiating characteristic among human beings becomes a tool for pressure-group jockeying: age, sex, sexual orientation, social status, religion, nationality, and race. Statism splinters society “into warring tribes.” The statist legal machinery pits “ethnic minorities against the majority, the young against the old, the old against the middle, women against men, welfare-recipient against the self-supporting.” Her point here is a keen insight into the inexorable nature of social conflict. Given that these are the conditions that exist, given that “this is a society’s system, no power on earth can prevent men from ganging up on one another in self-defense — i.e., from forming pressure groups.” Got that? In self-defense.
Identity politics, which has proliferated since the 1960s and 1970s, has been characterized as “a political approach wherein people of a particular race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class, or other identifying factors develop political agendas that are based upon these identities.” Typically, “identity politics is deeply connected with the idea that some groups in society are oppressed and begins with analysis of that oppression.” But here’s the thing. An insidious form of “identity politics” has always been at work in this country. It began in this country as a tool of the oppressors, not the oppressed. It began with the “Western” conquest of indigenous peoples, the building of a slave economy, and, later, the tyranny of Jim Crow segregation. “Identity politics” was ensconced in this country’s constitution the moment it allowed states to count three-fifths of enslaved people toward their congressional representation. It was furthered even after slavery met its bloody end in the Civil War, when Southern states relied on Jim Crow laws and the KKK to subjugate, oppress, brutalize, and murder ‘uppity’ blacks who wanted to pursue their own rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
So, let’s not kid ourselves when we look at marginalized groups today as caught up in some kind of grand woke conspiracy to destabilize white, male, heteronormative elites. White, male, heteronormative elites were using their identity as the basis for political policies for more than 200 years before marginalized groups began to use political and economic means to redress power imbalances. In self-defense. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does put things in perspective. It also helps us to understand why right-wing traditionalists are now using their power to reassert their historically privileged status.
Concluding Thoughts
That said — let there be no mistake about where I stand on the frontlines of the culture war.
I am on the side of those who have been marginalized and who are fighting against the encroachments of right-wing reactionaries who seek not merely to take away the hard-won freedoms of the oppressed but who are engaged in a cultural campaign against any semblance of “virtue signaling” on behalf of the oppressed.
Even if that “virtue signaling” takes place in the simple act of selling a rainbow-colored rocking chair during Pride Month.
Given my long-time association with libertarianism, I’d like to address, in this concluding section, the campaign against “wokeness” that has manifested in libertarian circles.
I have long identified as a dialectical libertarian. Indeed, given my own values as expressed here and elsewhere, I am a dialectical left-libertarian. For years, I criticized those right-libertarians who had fallen into the trap of reductionism: reducing all issues to the cash nexus or to questions concerning The State and The Market. Rand rightfully criticized libertarians for being oblivious to the role of culture in the struggle for human freedom and personal flourishing — for it is culture that typically engenders bottom-up social change.
Given my dialectical predilections, I appreciated the fact that by 1990, libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, who had long believed in the sole necessity of a “nonaggression axiom” as the basis for a libertarian society, finally recognized that libertarianism could not succeed without a “certain cultural matrix”, which he called “Liberty Plus”. Those in right-libertarian circles who followed him have indeed placed greater emphasis on the importance of culture. But in doing so, they’ve embraced reactionary cultural norms.
The libertarianism that nourished me in the late 1970s and early 1980s welcomed cosmopolitan values. Today, right-libertarians have championed a stultifying cultural conservatism in their attempts at “Getting Libertarianism Right”. Mind you, it’s not just “right”, but “alt-right”: it is a vision that aims to build a stateless society based on such “Western” “family” values as hierarchy, white-male dominance, the segregation of the races, and the expulsion of “degenerates” (that is, those who identify as LGBTQ+).
As I argued in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism, this vision of “Liberty Plus” will result in minus liberty. Hayek long noted that marketsevolve in ways that will challenge traditions. That is part of their dynamism. In an increasingly interconnected, global community, right-libertarians seek a society that will use private property as a tool to hermetically seal off their own chosen set of deplorables. They oppose state-enforced segregation and state-enforced integration, but their anarcho-capitalist vision of private property fiefdoms is based on the centrality of exclusion: the power to segregate, to separate, or to annihilate those whose values they deem as destructive to their bizarre vision of social order.
There is no foreseeable future in which such an anarcho-capitalist social order might be possible, let alone feasible. Hence, we are left with an obscenity far greater than the rainbow-colored rocking chair sold by Cracker Barrel or any of the Pride merchandise offered by Target.
When those who are supposed to be on the frontlines of the battle for a free and open society end up embracing illiberalism of the worst sort — and its war on difference, diversity, and tolerance — I can think of no more insidious way of undermining the struggle for human freedom and individual authenticity.
Umumnya, libertarian mencapai tujuannya melalui kerja-kerja kampanye untuk politisi dan pemungutan suara. Sedangkan agorisme mencapai tujuannya dengan melalui kerja-kerja untuk mencapai tujuan itu sendiri.
Agorisme adalah politik libertarian yang melampaui kebijakan.
Ini merupakan fokus umum pada pembebasan individu, penghormatan terhadap orang lain dan hak kepemilikan mereka, proses pasar, kekuatan mengorganisir diri melalui asosiasi bebas – yang diambil diluar batas sempit politik yang ditunjukan untuk mengadakan perubahan kebijakan. Ini merupakan bentuk libertarianisme yang berinteraksi secara langsung dengan masyarakat, bukan melalui pihak ketiga seperti proses politik standar dan kerangka kebijakannya.
Banyak dari hal-hal yang diketahui oleh masyarakat sebenarnya sangat dekat dengan agorisme, kontra-ekonomi, aksi langsung, dan konsep-konsep terkait lainnya. Tapi disini saya akan mencoba dan menguraikan betapa radikal agorisme memecah cara pandang mengenai politik bahkan oleh sebagian besar libertarian itu sendiri.
I. Kerangka Kebijakan
Mari sedikit mundur terlebih dahulu, apa itu “kerangka kebijakan” yang ditolak oleh agorisme? Kerangka kebijakan adalah “alur pemikiran yang mengasumsikan bahwa tujuan utama kita adalah agar negara melakukan suatu perubahan kebijakan – misalnya, tidak lagi menganggap narkotika ilegal, dan tidak lagi memerintahkan polisi untuk memenjarakan pengguna narkotika.” Namun pada dasarnya, kerangka kebijakan hanyalah penggabungan antara negara dan masyarakat. Sesuatu yang pastinya telah diketahui para libertarian yang telah membaca tulisan Bastiat. Ini hanya merupakan upaya pengaburan antara apa yang dikatakan hukum negara penguasa suatu masyarakat tentang masyarakat tersebut, dan fakta sebenarnya di lapangan tentang masyarakat tersebut. Ini adalah asumsi bahwa tujuan dari politik secara otomatis harus mengambil bentuk perubahan kebijakan, atau bahkan tujuan dari politik hanyalah perubahan kebijakan.
Untuk menjelaskan apa itu kerangka kebijakan secara lebih lengkap, dan apa yang salah dengannya, ada baiknya kita melihat bagaimana hal itu diwujudkan (yang biasanya dalam bentuk yang jauh lebih lengkap) di kalangan non-libertarian.
Masyarakat khawatir mengenai kekerasan senjata api, maka mereka melembagakan kontrol senjata. Masyarakat resah dengan kondisi pekerja yang terjebak dalam kondisi kerja yang buruk dan upah yang rendah, maka mereka pun menaikan upah minimum. Masyarakat ketakutan dengan efek kencanduan narkotika, jadi mereka melakukan perang terhadap narkotika secara brutal.
Terus ada tuntutan dan seruan agar negara “melakukan sesuatu”. dan agar “sesuatu” itu menjadi perubahan dalam kebijakan negara yang cukup untuk mewakili ekspresi kemarahan mereka. Masyarakat berbicara melalui hukum-hukumnya, bagi mereka yang sangat percaya dengan kerangka kebijakan. Sebagai contoh, para radikal yang menentang perluasan undang-undang kejahatan rasial seringkali terdengar menurut mereka yang hidup dalam kerangka kebijakan, sebagai para bigot yang tidak peduli pada mereka yang menjadi korban dari kejahatan rasial. Efek sesungguhnya dari undang-undang kejahatan rasial dilihat tidak relevan dibanding makna ekspresif yang dimaksudkan.
Efek aktual di lapangan kurang relevan dengan yang ada dalam kerangka kebijakan karena kerangka kebijakan melibatkan jenis pemikiran yang agak ajaib. Sebuah undang-undang yang dibuat dengan baik, dibawah kerangka ini, bergerak menuju penerapannya setelah disahkan seperti yang telah ditulis, dan efek yang dihasilkan oleh undang-undang tersebut akan kurang lebih sama dengan apa yang tertulis. Legislator adalah para penyihir yang penuh ketelitian, menemukan semua kata-kata yang tepat dan mereka butuhkan untuk menciptakan mantra yang sempurna. Ketika mereka menciptakan aturan kontrol senjata api yang yang tepat, itu akan membuat senjata api tiba-tiba hilang. Mereka akan tiba-tiba menghilangkan senjata dari tangan para pelaku, dan tidak akan ada efek lain dari kebijakan tersebut selain dari yang dimaksudkan. Ini bukan untuk mengatakan bahwa dua orang yang percaya sepenuhnya pada kerangka kebijakan tidak dapat tidak setuju mengenai pengendalian senjata. Tentu saja mereka dapat – beberapa dari mereka mungkin menolak proposal dengan alasan berbasis hak. Namun keduanya, jika mereka benar-benar berada dalam keyakinan mengenai kerangka kebijakan, akan berasumsi bahwa hukum akan ditegakan sama persis seperti yang dituliskan. Tidak ada yang mengusulkan bahwa kebijakan semacam itu sebenarnya justru dapat meningkatkan insiden kekerasan. Kedua pihak bahkan juga mungkin tidak akan secara serius mempertimbangkan kemungkinan – bahkan jika mereka mengetahuinya dalam abstrak – bahwa kebijakan ini berarti akan ada penahanan massal yang lebih brutal, dan secara tidak proporsional terhadap orang-orang dengan kulit berwarna.
Jelas sebenarnya sangat sedikit orang yang begitu mempercaya kerangka kebijakan secara penuh, tapi ada banyak orang yang menjadi cukup dekat. Beberapa pendukung kebijakan upah minimum misalnya, sama sekali tidak menyadari konsekuensi yang tidak diharapkan dan tidak diinginkan yang dapat membebani orang-orang yang mereka coba bantu. Sebaliknya, mereka sebenarnya meremehkan dampak dari kebijakan upah minimum, dibutakan oleh keajaiban-keajaiban yang dijanjikan.
Banyak dari apa yang saya tuliskan disini seharusnya menjadi sesuatu yang telah dipahami oleh para libertarian, dan bahkan lebih terlihat seperti memberikan selamat pada diri sendiri. Saya mengetakan semua itu, untuk menunjukan bagaimana sebenarnya libertarian juga dapat terperangkap dalam jebakan ini. “Perjanjian Perdagangan Bebas,” misalnya, seperti sesuatu yang tidak mungkin ditolak oleh para libertarian – perdagangan terbuka akan selalu menjadi hal bagus! Iblis, bagaimanapun, selalu menunggu pada perincian di dalamnya, dengan Perjanjian Perdagangan Bebas sangat sering meningkatkan monopoli intelektual pada skala internasional. Dengan kata lain, para libertarian yang terjebak oleh klaim perdagangan bebas dari perjanjian ini dan menemukan bahwa diri mereka membantu untuk memperkuat proteksionisme tanpa batas negara.
II. Rengekan Pembebasan dalam Kerangka Kebijakan
Ada juga tingkat yang lebih fundamental dimana hampir semua orang – termasuk anarkis dan libertarian – cenderung terjebak dalam logika kerangka kebijakan. Ini tentu menyalahi tujuan politik dan sosial mereka dengan perubahan kebijakan yang mendekati tujuan mereka. Sebagai contoh, para libertarian setuju bahwa salah satu tujuan mereka adalah membela hak pengguna narkotika. Banyak yang menganggap ini berarti bahwa tujuan dari libertarian adalah untuk reformasi kebijakan narkotika. Sering dikatakan dalam argumen tentang strategi politik, bahkan dalam kasus pembangkangan sipil, tujuan akhir Anda adalah unyuk perubahan kebijakan tertentu — misalnya Anda harus melawan penegakan undang-undang mengenai narkotika untuk dapat mengubah undang-undang narkotika. Sedangkan gagasan bahwa pembangakan (sipil maupun non-sipil) dapat menjadi bagian dari tujuan itu sendiri kerap dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang konyol dan kekanak-kanakan.
Lalu kita harus menyadari bahwa tujuan dari melindungi hak-hak pengguna narkotika dan tujuan dari merubah undang-undang narkotika jelas sangat berbeda pada level analitis. Meskipun nampak tidak masuk akal, secara logis sangat lah mungkin untuk melindungi hak-hak pengguna narkotika tanpa harus mengubah undang-undang narkotika, dan hal yang sama berlaku dalam merubah undang-undang narkotika namun gagal melindungi hak-hak pengguna narkotika. Umumnya, alasan utama mengapa orang-orang ingin mengubah undang-undang narkotika adalah karena mereka menganggap bahwa itu merupakan cara untuk membuat pengguna narkotika dipenuhi hak-haknya yang saat ini diabaikan.
Disini lah penolakan konsisten agorisme terhadap kerangka kebijakan akan sangat membantu. Mungkin dalam kasus-kasus tertentu, hal terbaik yang harus dilakukan adalah mencoba untuk membuat negara mundur dan menghentikan kekerasannya. Misalnya, jika ternyata sebuah negara menerbitkan undang-undang untuk penghapusan pajak, oposisi seorang agoris terhdap kebijakan tersebut akan menjadi sangat aneh. Namun, berfikir bahwa dunia kita akan dihadapkan pada kemungkinan-kemungkinan tersebut tentu jauh lebih tidak masuk akal. Sebaliknya, kita terus-menerus dihadapkan pada kemungkinan reformasi kebijakan yang kebanyakan dari kita secara realistis tidak memiliki kekuatan untuk mempengaruhinya, dan secara terus-menerus membawa resiko perubahan berupa satu langkah maju, lalu dua langkah mundur.
Sebagai contoh, pertimbangkan perjuangan tanpa akhir nan membosankan mengenai “reformasi” beracun dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Seperti yang ditulis Nathan Goodman:
“Reformasi [penjara] mungkin akan memperburuk masalah yang ada. Adalah sangat penting untuk mengingat bahwa penjara pertama kali diciptakan oleh para reformis sosial yang mengekehendaki alternatif terhadap hukuman fisik dan hukuman mati. Hukuman isolasi, yang kini dikategorikan sebagai bentuk penyiksaan psikologis yang traumatis, pertama kali diusulkan oleh para Quaker sebagai bentuk hukuman yang lebih manusiawi dibandingkan hukum cambuk. Sejak saat ini, kami melihat bahwa niat baik untuk reformasi justru membantu perluasaan sistem penjara. Penjara wanita diciptakan sebagai respon terhadap kampanye untuk mengakhiri kekerasan seksual terhadap wanita di penjara pria. Pembangunan penjara ini justru membuka jalan untuk peningkatan pemenjaraan terhadap wanita. Hukum Victoria mencatat bahwa hanya dalam satu dekade setelah pembukaan penjara wanita di Illinois pada tahun 1859, ‘jumlah wanita di penjara meningkat tiga kali lipat.’ Yang terbaru, kita dapat melihat proses serupa dalam pembangunan bagian transgender di penjara sebagai tanggapan atas berbagai serangan kekerasan terhadap narapidana transgender di penjara umum.
The Smarter Sentencing Act… mencontohkan pendekatan ‘satu langkah maju, dua langkah mundur’ untuk reformasi penjara. Rancangan Undang-undang ini akan menghapus beberapa hukuman minimum wajib yang keras terhadap pelanggaran terkait narkotika yang bersifat non-kekerasan. Bagaimanapun, berkat balas jasa dan penggabungan yang diperlukan untuk meloloskan RUU tersebut, ia juga mengancam akan menambah hukuman minimum wajib baru terhadap kejahatan yang mengandung kekerasan.”
Mengingat teori pilihan publik dan kelas, yang menjadi pertimbangan yang mendasari libertarianisme radikal pada awal pembentukannya, hal ini seharusnya tidak lah mengejutkan. Selanjutnua, pesimisme-kebijakan harus menjadi praduga kita terhadap dugaan reformasi. Lebih penting lagi, penolakan terhadap posisi ini (bahkan dari paraa anarkis dan libertariaan yang berkomitmen) itu sendiri jatuh kedalam alasan buruk yang sama dengan yang telah kita pertimbangkan mengenai kerangka kebijakan.
Untuk libertarian dengan strategi policy-sentris, seringkali dengan secara sadar, bahwa mereka harus memiliki ekspetasi pesimisme terhadap kebijakan yang sangat kuat. Kapanpun sesuatu (mau tidak mau) tidak berjalan seperti yang diharapkan, mereka sendiri akan mencatat pertimbangan pilihan publik dalam kefrustrasian. Namun, sama seperti para advokat upah minimum, yang mungkin tahu efek dari kebijakan upah minimum terhadap peningkatan jumlah pengangguran. Mereka dibutakan oleh keajaiban-keajaiban yang dijanjikan oleh reformasi kebijakan. Daya pikat dari pendekatan reformasi kebijakan yang berjalan secara hampir ajaib terhadap perubahan sosial – bahwa seseorang dapat mengubah hukum sebuah negara, dengan perubahan yang terjadi seperti yang dimaksudkan oleh para reformis. Bahwa kita dapat melewati semua kerja keras dengan cara meyakinkan negara untuk secara perlahan-lahan menghapuskan diri sendiri. Itu merupakan mimpi indah yang nampaknya terlalu indah untuk menjadi salah. Oleh karena itu, bahkan mengakui secara abstrak bahwa pesimisme terhadap kebijakan kita harus menjadi yang paling buruk dari yang buruk, mudah untuk meremehkan betapa benarnya hal itu, terutama dengan betapa tidak rasionalnya menarik setiap peluang yang muncul pada reformasi kebijakan.
III. Alternatif Agoris
Saya mengatakan ini bukan untuk membawa kita dalam posisi terombang-ambing. Saya tidak percaya, seperti yang kadang dinyatakan oleh para anarkis, bahwa tidak ada harapan. Pesimisme terhadap kebijakan yang paling buruk pada akhirnya bukan lah pandangan pesimistik, melainkan ajakan untuk mencari perubahan sosial dan politik melalui jalur lainnya.
Itu ada di tempat lain tepat di hadapan kita semua. Itu merupakan pengalaman harian kita semua, dimana masing-masing dari kita ditempatkan secara unik dengan berbagai bakat tertentu, berbagai posisi sosial, dan berbagai pengetahuan rahasia, yang menyesuaikan kita dengan berbagai macam bentuk perlawanan. Bukan berarti bahwa hanya ada satu jalan saja untuk menghapuskan negara dalam waktu satu malam. Ada banyak cara untuk berinteraksi secara langsung dengan orang-orang di sekitar kita dan membebaskan kita semua dari waktu ke waktu. Ketika bencana alam melanda, dan negara gagal hadir, kita yang berada dalam kondisi lebih baik dapat bekerja untuk saling membantu dan bergotong-royong satu sama lain. Para pekerja yang mengkehendaki untuk memeprbaiki kondisi mereka dari kejahatan dan pemaksaan kapitalisme manajerial oleh negara dapat melakukannya melalui serikat pekerja liar. Kelompok yang termarjinalkan dan tertindas secara sosial dapat membangun gerakan sosial di akar rumput untuk memperbaiki kondisi mereka, daripada mengandalkan negara yang dijalankan oleh para penindas mereka untuk memperbaiki hidup mereka.
Namun, berbicara secara luas seperti ini, dengan satu atau dua contoh mungkin dapat mengaburkan apa yang sejatinya hendak saya sampaikan disini. Yaitu dengan memperluas definisi dari tindakan politik secara radikal dari hanya sekedar perubahan kebijakan, membuka berbagai kemungkinan dengan cara yang bahkan tidak dapat kita bayangkan sampai hal-hal tersebut terjadi di hadapan kita. Kami berada dalam posisi ketidaktahuan radikal tentang apa langkah terbaik menuju pembebasan, dan ketidaktahuan itu tidak akan teratasi sampai mereka yang berada pada posisi terbaik dapat menyelesaikannya. Mereka yang memiliki posisi terbaik untuk menyelesaikannya hanya akan dapat melakukannya jika mereka tidak dibutakan oleh kerangka kebijakan yang membuat mereka berfikir bahwa jika kemampuan mereka tidak mampuk untuk secara langsung memengaruhi legislator, menyusun undang-undang, atau mencalonkan diri, mereka hanya dapat berperan dalam peran instrumental. Agar mereka dapat sadar-sesadarnya, mereka harus tidak dibatasi secara ideologis oleh keyakinan bahwa perubahan politik hanya bisa dilakukan oleh mereka yang memiliki kemampuan untuk merubah kebijakan.
Sebagai salah satu contoh dari kemungkinan kuat untuk perubahan politik yang mungkin saat ini kita tidak tahu secara radikal, mari kita kembali ke sesuatu yang saya katakan sebelumnya. Tujuan sejati kita dari “melindungi hak-hak pengguna narkotika” secara analitik jelas berbeda dari apa yang tampaknya dianggap identik oleh banyak orang sebagai tujuannya, “reformasi undang-undang narkotika.” Mereka yang ingin untuk melindungi hak-hak pengguna narkoba, harus, dalam pandangan agoris yang saya promosikan disini, hendaknya berupaya secaralangsung melindungi hak-hak para pengguna narkotika, bukan secara tidak langsung dengan melalui kerja-kerja menuntut reformasi kebijakan mengenai narkotika.
Perbedaan yang disebutkan sebelumnya bukan hanya sekedar hipotesis. Karena kami memiliki contoh yang sangat mirip dengan apa yang telah saya fikirkan sebelumnya. Dalam membangun Silk Road, Ross Ulbrict melakukan tindakan langsung dalam melindungi pengguna narkotika – baik dari negara maupun dari bandar narkoba yang kejam. Dan itu merupakan kesuksesan besar. Itu membuat perdagangan narkotika menjadi lebih mendekati sistem pasar bebas, bahkan termasuk dalam sistem pemeringkatan eksplisit. Penggunaan Bitcoin dan anonimitas darknet melindungi para pembeli dari para polisi yang ingin memperbudak mereka. Berdasarkan salah satu penelitian kriminologi, keberadaan Silk Road berhasil mengurangi tingkat kekerasan dalam perdagangan narkotika.
Semuanya dilakukan tanpa satupun petisi atau menulis surat kepada para pejabat terkait.
Tentu saja, pada akhirnya Ross juga tertangkap, disidangkan, dan dipenjara karena keterlibatannya dalam pengembangan Silk Road. Namun karena keberaniannya, ia menjadi martir yang menginspirasi lahirnya banyak situs sejenis usai tumbangnya Silk Road, yang membantu melindungi hak banyak pengguna narkotika.
Apa yang kita perlukan adalah kerangka politik dimana setiap dari kita yang memiliki kemampuan untuk menjadi Ross Ulbricht dapat menyadari kemungkinan tersebut dan dapat mempersiapkan diri untuk beraksi saat melihat adanya peluang. Kerangka politik yang menempatkan segala tujuannya pada kerangka reformasi kebijakan yang tak berguna, yang salah melihat hukum negara sebagai sifat dari sebuah masyarakat, jangan membuat kerangka politik yang seperti itu. Kerangka politik berbasis reformasi kebijakan hanya akan memberikan kebutaan ideologis dan menghalangi gelombang pembebasan.
Maka, apa yang kita butuhkan adalah politik yang dapat menjelaskan dunia nyata layaknya apa yang kita alami setiap harinya, bukan ilusi perubahan melalui pemilihan umum dan perubahan kebijakan. Apa yang kita butuhkan adalah AGORISME.
Seluruh hasil publikasi didanai sepenuhnya oleh donasi. Jika kalian menyukai karya-karya kami, kalian dapat berkontribusi dengan berdonasi. Temukan petunjuk tentang cara melakukannya di halaman Dukung C4SS: https://c4ss.org/dukung-c4ss.
Tune in this Friday at 7:00 PM as the crew plays Ratchelor and Brianna Coyle joins us to discuss How Furry Fandom is Used as a Proxy War on Queer Folks.
We’ll be raising funds for the ACLU and celebrating pride month while discussing how things took such a sharp turn towards bigotry in recent years, the deterioration of the Libertarian Party, and Brianna’s work with the Democratic Freedom Caucus.
As an anarchist, I am naturally inclined to research not only anarchist movements from America, but from all around the world. I am very fond of Lao Tzu, for instance, and the Tao Te Ching author was a major influence on prominent anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Rudolf Rocker. Therefore, I have learned some things about anarchist movements in China and other parts of Asia. However, as an admirer of African culture as well, I recently developed a desire to look into anarchist movements in Africa as well. Luckily, one essential volume documenting this history–and sometimes the lack thereof–is the 1997 book African Anarchism: The History of a Movement by Nigerian anarchist activist Sam Mbah and co-author I.E. Igariwey.
Summary:
Chapter 1
The book begins with the authors explaining that while several aspects of African culture and tradition align with anarchist values, no serious successful movements toward anarchism have ever really been achieved in Africa because the people of the continent simply don’t know that the anarchist school of thought even exists. Mbah and Igariwey go on to clarify that anarchism is not an ideology of “chaos” and “disorder,” as it is so often presented in mainstream culture. Rather, anarchism is about the rejection of force and resisting the imposition of a person or group’s will upon another. The authors give several examples of notable anarchist thinkers, such as Peter Kropotkin, Mihail Bakunin,and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and also discuss schools of thought within anarchism such as anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism.
Chapter 2
This chapter provides a decent summation of the general history of the modern anarchist movement, beginning in the mid-19th century.
Chapter 3
In this chapter, the longest in African Anarchism, Mbah and Igariweh make the case that elements of African society have always contained aspects that are consistent with anarchist values without Africans necessarily being aware of it. They explain that many communities throughout African history have functioned as independent, self-governing, “communalist” entities in which everyone in the community essentially had a say in their own affairs and those of the community as a whole. Religion played an important role in many African tribes but was very decentralized. This resulted in the community coming together as equals rather than being ruled over by religious or political officials. Every adult (especially males) in the community was relied upon to perform basic societal functions and resolve their own disputes.
These societies lasted for centuries in Africa, but, at the dawn of the 15th century, classism and the division of labor slowly began to find their way into the continent. While certain elements of the village-style communal system remained, Africa eventually became awash with feudalism and proto-capitalism. As an interesting point, Mbah and Igariwey add that even the old communalist village societies in Africa were far from perfect. While they were certainly more egalitarian than future societal structures on the continent would be, the villages and tribes still treated women unequally and practiced slavery to some extent.
Nevertheless, the authors go on to list several “stateless societies” that existed in Africa centuries ago. They detail three specific ethnic groups that organized horizontal, non-hierarchical societies in the past: the Igbo of Nigeria, the Niger Delta people (also from Nigeria), and the Tallensi people of Ghana. The authors cite an old Igbo slogan to demonstrate the group’s commitment to decentralization: “Igbo have no kings.” Igbo societies were organized and managed by a general assembly, a council of village elders, and even a women-only council called the Umu-ada. According to Mbah and Igariwey, the general assembly still exists in Igbo societies to this day. The Igbo practiced communal farming and were able to grow enough food at a steady enough pace to feed everyone due to their proximity to plentiful forests.
The authors continue by briefly discussing the Niger Delta people, who were mainly traders and farmers. Some factions of the Niger Delta people organized themselves in a more secretive way than their Igbo counterparts. While the Igbo also had secret societies, certain Niger Delta people had to be more discreet in order to avoid the tumult of the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries. By contrast, other factions actively participated in the slave trade. Eventually, the slave trade virtually destroyed the Niger Delta people and their “house” system–made up of a farmer or slave trader, his slaves and the descendents of both the slaves and the farmer or trader which would in turn be organized into city-states–and capitalist corporations started to form, ending communalism in the Niger Delta indefinitely.
Mbah and Igariwey then discuss the Tallensi people of northern Ghana, whose system survives to this day. Theirs is a clan-based society consisting mostly of peasant farmers. Although corporations technically exist in Tallensi society, the authors claim that wealthy clans have no authority over poorer ones and have no access to any special political privileges or favors. The Tallensi have done a fair job, according to themselves, of maintaining a society based on social and political egalitarianism without interference from a state or some other centralized institution.
Additionally, Mbah and Igariwey talk about the impact of colonialism on Africa’s traditionally stateless societies and how outside pressure imposed on them from great world powers forced them to adopt capitalist economies and a more rigid social hierarchy. The authors also mention that very few Africans have ever benefited from colonial capitalism. The Africans sowed, but most of the reaping was done by the colonial powers themselves. Even today, African economies have become so dependent on foreign investment that very little surplus value is even produced, and the little that is produced is mostly extracted and plundered by Western governments and corporate interests.
Finally, the authors discuss nominally “socialist” movements that resulted in various leaders taking power, such as Patrice Lumumba, Muammar Gaddafi, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Kwame Nkrumah. Mbah and Igariwey acknowledge that these leaders, among several others, practiced the state-based Soviet model of “socialism,” sometimes referred to as “African socialism,” and that these leaders and their ideology has been criticized by many people over the years. They definitively argue that these men failed to achieve anything close to socialism and were merely authoritarian monsters who were only interested in power and bloodlust. Mbah and Igariwey conclude the hefty chapter by pointing out more recent theoretical and practical examples of anarchism in Africa, including a movement in the 1960s after Nigeria won its independence in which left-leaning factions of the new Nigerian government decided to help set up a certain number of kibbutz-style communities like those in Israel. This project also failed, unfortunately, partially due to the chaos caused by the Nigerian Civil War in 1967.
Muammar Gaddafi’s Third Universal Theory, Julius Nyerere’s philosophy of Ujamaa (“familyhood” or “villagization,”) and Franz Fanon’s strong anti-colonialist stance and support for all workers, including the peasant class as well as his opposition to any help from the state are yet another few examples of African stateless advocacy. are additional examples given.
Practical, real-world examples of anarchist organizations given by the authors include the Anarchist Revolutionary Movement and the Angry Brigade, both based in South Africa, and The Awareness League, a Nigerian group founded after the effective dissolution of The Axe. There are also movements that are starting to come to fruition in Egypt, Ghana and Zimbabwe. Mbah and Igariwey also say that one of the earliest examples of an anarchist labor organization in Africa was the South African group Industrial Workers of Africa which lasted from 1915 to 1922 and consisted largely of black workers.
Chapter 4
This chapter details socialism’s development in Africa. The authors explain that in the early 19th century, early colonial capitalists “co-opted” chiefs and nobles “into acting as administrators for the colonists” (p. 55). Mining and manufacturing were soon introduced to the continent, creating a new, urbanized working class. However, many peasant farmers still existed in rural agrarian communities. Unfortunately, not all African urbanites were lucky enough to find jobs and were forced to be either beggars or prostitutes in order to make a living.
The class structure that was developing in Africa started to turn sour in the 20th century, when class antagonism began dominating the life of African workers. As a result, they turned a blind eye to their own exploitation and to the fact that most of the fruits of their labor weren’t even being distributed to their own countrymen, but to their colonial rulers. One consequence of this “colonial situation” was the growth of the trade union movement in countries such as Nigeria and South Africa, in addition to Algeria, Kenya, and Ghana. The authors then go on to highlight the key moments in the history of the Nigerian trade union movement, from its inception around 1897 through the Great Depression and into more modern times such as the 1980s. Unfortunately, according to the authors, while the Nigerian trade union movement has done some good things in its more than a century of existence, the union leadership has almost always had conflicts of interest by maintaining close ties with elites in Nigerian society.
As for South Africa, some of its trade unions have been relatively more robust and successful than those of Nigeria. The South African Miners’ Union, for instance, set up a Miners Council of Action in 1921 that led to an attempt by syndicalists (who were also members of the IWW) to set up what they called the Red Workers Republic. South African workers who participated in strikes and other forms of action in an attempt to set up the RWR were largely from the mining, energy, and engineering sectors.
Unfortunately, the South African labor movement was significantly impeded by racial conflicts as the 20th century wore on and apartheid became a part of everyday life in the country. Black labor activists continued to fight for their rights well into the 1970s and 1980s and made some gains, but received little help from the African National Congress (ANC), which the authors criticize as lacking “clear revolutionary political goals” (p. 65). They also criticize the South African Communist party for abandoning their commitment to more revolutionary forms of politics and becoming too complacent with South Africa’s current capitalist status quo.
The authors go on to briefly criticize the supposed “revolutionary” labor movement in Guinea that lasted from the late 19th century to around 1958 when Guinea became independent from France and the “revolutionary” government ended up taking power and crushing any and all dissent.
Chapter 5
In this chapter, the importance of economic development is discussed. According to Mbah and Igariwey, the need for economic development is widely believed to be one of the reasons why socialism has not seen much actual success in Africa. Governments have exploited this for their own gain and have come up with their own phrases like “African socialism” to describe their ideologies, which are really just a mixture of authoritarianism and corruption and nothing to do with socialism. Sekou Toure (Guinea), Samuel Nkrumah (Ghana), Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), Thomas Sankara (Burkina Faso), Menghistu Haile Mariam (Ethiopia), and others are all examples of heads of state who have used this kind of rhetoric to justify authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
The authors say that the root of Africa’s economic and developmental woes, of course, lie in its problems trying to recover from its colonialist past. They state that noted academic and author Frantz Fanon accurately predicted that many Africans in poor areas would eventually turn on their own people once their conditions improved and the gap between the rich and the poor widened in African society.
According to Mbah and Igariwey, contrary to what many people may believe, military dictatorships, specifically in Africa, are often much more unstable than the ones who have taken power via citizen-led coups. They cite Ghana and Nigeria as specific cases of countries that have experienced cycles of political corruption and instability. This instability is only exacerbated by intervention from neo-colonialist, neoliberal organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Structural Adjustment Program. Desperate to avoid bankruptcy, African countries will often bend the knee of austerity toward these institutions and cut public services, making people even more unhappy, which, naturally, leads to more instability. The authors argue that chaotic environments such as these are ripe ones in which anarchist movements can grow, but there are still massive barriers that need to be overcome before that happens. That said, there is still some hope.
Chapter 6
Anarchism is an extremely niche subject in Africa. Much like in America and many other places around the world, in Africa, the few people who know about anarchism are likely to view it as some sort of crazy, fringe, ultra-lefty ideology that shouldn’t be taken very seriously. According to the authors, this is the result of several factors, including the African education system, which, to this day, is heavily influenced by its former colonial rulers. Of course, this is only taking into account those students who actually can be educated in the modern sense. Relatively speaking, it is still only a privileged few in Africa that even have a chance of going to a proper school. In short, many Africans have been denied a comprehensive education in the first place, and those who do have one have been misled or not taught at all about topics such as anarchism and socialism.
Another problem the authors discuss in the chapter is the legal system set up in many African nations. Many countries on the continent have laws on the books that classify any actions advocating for overthrowing the government or changing the statist status quo as an act of treason against the nation, which is often punishable by death, so even Africans who may otherwise agree with more radical sentiments are intimidated into silence for fear of retribution or execution at the hands of the state. Many African nations, particularly those under military dictatorships, are especially harsh toward trade unions, greatly limiting their power and influence at best and crushing them altogether at worst.
Another problem that anarchism has faced in Africa is clashes between various ethnic groups. Even though workers throughout the continent are in the same position and have the same class interests, ethnic and cultural differences have been a huge impediment to solidarity among them. This fact has been exploited and exacerbated by both corporations and military dictatorships in various countries to crack down even harder on labor movements and institute even more draconian policies.
Furthermore, religious opposition to the questioning of authority figures and the belief in a paradise in the afterlife are other reasons given in this chapter for anarchism’s lack of success in Africa. According to the authors, the cultures of many African nations tend to be quite conservative or reactionary, teaching most citizens to accept the status quo and obey authorities without question. The authors advocate for what they deem “international solidarity” with other parts of the world in order to assist African anarchist movements.
Chapter 7
The final chapter in the book re-emphasizes the authors’ belief that anarchism is the solution to many of the problems Africa continues to experience including violence, inequality, and corruption. While sympathetic to the many nationalist and patriotic movements that exist in the many nations across the continent, Mbah and Igariwey argue that these movements are only amplifying tensions between communities and are not helpful in the long run for African liberation or prosperity. They state again that both capitalism and state “socialism” have failed Africa as they have failed everywhere else, so the continent has no other alternative but anarchism as a viable model of organization.
My Take:
This book manages to say a whole lot in a relatively small amount of time and space. The book is only 108 pages long, but it is packed with information that is well-sourced and well-written. Originally, I was going to divide my commentary into a positive section and a negative one, but I don’t have a lot of negative things to say. One of my only criticisms is that it comes across as a little too academic and dry at times. I think the authors could have done a bit more to make the book slightly more accessible in order to broaden its appeal. In a way, it’s written more like a college essay or dissertation, rather than a public-facing book. Apart from that, there’s not a lot of downsides to this book. It is still a remarkably enjoyable book to read and it is extremely informative. There is very little information about anarchism in Africa, but African Anarchism: The History of a Movement is an excellent place to start
Although the book was written in 1997, many of the problems discussed in the book by Mbah and Igariwey are still relevant today, so African Anarchism holds up really well despite being published over 25 years ago. This tiny book can give even the most knowledgeable anarchist a tremendous insight into Africa and its relationship with anarchism and the labor movement. I learned a lot from it and I hope many more readers will learn a lot as well.
As a brief update on some of the countries discussed in this article, today, one of the most prominent anarchist groups in South Africa is the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF), founded in 2003. In Egypt, inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings, two anarchist groups emerged in 2011: Black Flag and the Egyptian Libertarian Socialist Movement. Similarly, there has been a growth in the awareness and popularity of anarchism in Tunisia since the Arab Spring. Finally, since the coup that ousted Robert Mugabe from power in 2017, efforts have been made by anarchists in Zimbabwe to establish a more organized and definitive anarchist movement in the country.
I have for years been an advocate of trans rights. This includes the rights of trans youth and their parents, with the guidance of their doctors, to pursue whatever health care they see fit. I see this freedom as life-saving.
That said, I am from a rather conservative background, in which many people I know disagree with this stance. Anyone who has been involved in the libertarian movement over the last decade inevitably knows people with deeply transphobic and reactionary beliefs. As such, I inevitably get questions, often accusatory, about how I would deal with having a child with gender dysphoria. These are questions like “Would you encourage them to identify however they like and sign them up for puberty blockers at the first opportunity?” Or “Would I be completely fine with them having their genitals surgically altered at some unbelievably young age?” I’d like to take the opportunity to answer these questions by discussing what I would do and what I would not do.
If I was the father of a child, whom I recognized as a boy since birth, and that child, at the age of five, claimed to be a girl or said he wanted to be a girl, what would I do? If this was just a one-off event or short-lived phase, I would probably presume he was testing my reaction, entertaining a thought experiment, looking for attention, or motivated by jealousy towards his female peers. It might spark some conversation, but I doubt I’d react strongly, and it would likely be forgotten in a day or two.
If, however, the child in question has a persistent, insistent, and consistent belief that ought to be a girl and continuously expresses this belief unprompted for years on end, between the ages of 5 and 10, if this belief simply would not let up, and this child routinely sought out opportunities to engage in stereotypically feminine activities and wear feminine clothes without any sign of this being externally encouraged, then yes I would take further action.
I would try to avoid actively encouraging or discouraging this belief. However, I would ask many questions: “What do you mean? Where did you get this idea? What makes you think this, etc.?” I would not just ask questions, but do what all parents should do: get to know my child, and provide a setting where they are comfortable talking openly and being themselves. I would show that I am safe to talk to.
Too many young people who are gay or gender non-conforming, especially those in conservative families and communities, live in fear that being open about who they are will bring about abuse, alienation, ridicule, or worse. Trans people are disproportionately more likely to end up homeless, out of a job, and alienated from former friends and family than cis people, and the prevention of those consequences starts at home.
I would also extensively review all the peer-reviewed literature on the type of behavior the child is exhibiting and get the professional opinions of multiple mental health professionals before agreeing to any form of treatment. If, at that point, it can be demonstrated that this child is someone who, irrespective of anything I say or do, would choose to transition as an adult and live the rest of their life as a woman, I would approve of puberty blockers because to not do so would be a detriment to their wellbeing.
If the evidence shows this person’s long-term prospects for wellbeing are better taking puberty blockers, only then would I sign off on them. It is essential to understand that by denying a gender dysphoric person puberty blockers, you are forcing them to go through a puberty that will make their body less like the one their internal psychology tells them they should have and likely worsen their mental health and increase their suicidality. It should not be hard to understand why someone whose well being is tied to presenting as feminine would be undermined by going through a male puberty, and vice versa for someone wanting to present as masculine, being forced to go through a female puberty. Furthermore, for the state to do so would be government-imposed harm on the individual that goes against personal freedom and the findings of the relevant medical research.
I’ll take this opportunity to point out that A 2020 review in Child and Adolescent Mental Health found puberty blockers were associated with such “positive outcomes as decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life.”
Also, a 2020 survey published in Pediatrics found that “There is a significant inverse association between treatment with pubertal suppression during adolescence and lifetime suicidal ideation among transgender adults who ever wanted this treatment.”
2022 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found “a recipient of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality over a 12-month follow-up.”
Likewise, for the use of doctor-prescribed cross-sex hormones, as noted in a 2022 study from the Journal of Adolescent Health, which found “use of (gender-affirming hormone therapy) GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression and seriously considering suicide compared to those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it. For youth under age 18, GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression and of a past-year suicide attempt.”
At this point in the conversation, I’ll then get asked about the surgery. Would I be “totally fine” with my child’s genitals being surgically modified? So often, the phrases “cut off” or “mutilated” get thrown around,” and often, it is suggested that this would happen at some prosperously young age.
Genital surgery, as a treatment for gender dysphoria, usually is done on people 18 or older, making this a mostly unrealistic strawman. That said, the more extreme the medical intervention proposed, and the younger the person receiving it, the greater the burden of proof that would need to be met by the person proposing it for me to approve it.
I was once asked in this context: “You don’t have one single issue with it, and you would 1000% encourage ALL of it?” I answered: “No, I’m not 1000% or even one 100% ok with ALL of it. In fact, it all makes me rather uncomfortable. Still, I would pursue whatever action is supported by the empirical evidence rather than simply follow my emotions.”
I think there is room for honest debate on how much medical gatekeeping is appropriate for trans care, especially at younger ages. But the absolutist opposition I see from social conservatives is not what that debate looks like.
Honest debate involves knowing what you are talking about, acknowledging where you lack expertise, acknowledging you may be wrong about a given point, and acknowledging points and concerns made by the other side. It involves knowing what the peer reviewed research says, and being familiar with such topics as standards of diagnosis, and eligibility for treatment. It should primarily be done by people with the appropriate medical backgrounds, and not by politicians, professional outrage peddlers, culture warriors and grievance merchants.
Despite the picture rightwing media outlets paint, studies on the topic actually tend to find positive results from gender-affirming surgery. For example, this 2021 study from Havard researchers that found gender-affirming surgery reduces psychological distress and suicidal ideation and even decreases smoking.
That said, I would not simply encourage any suggestion that gets thrown out either: I would question, gainsay, play devil’s advocate, explore other options, and get second, third, fourth, and fifth opinions at every step of the process. I’d likely toss and turn all night, wondering if I was handling the situation appropriately. The whole thing would be immensely stressful to me. What I would not do, though, is simply dismiss out of hand what my child is experiencing, nor would I try to force gender conformity on my child, as I’ve seen many social conservatives say they would do and as numerous people have done, likely with tragic results.
Conservative culture warriors are determined to demonize trans people, as a means of driving engagement from their base. In response Republican politicians have been aggressively putting forward and passing hundreds of anti-trans bills throughout the United States. These bills will increase human misery, depression, and suicidality. Also, the rhetoric that goes with them will likely encourage acts of violence against gender non-conforming people. All their supporting arguments involve mischaracterizing the evidence, retreats to conspiracism, and fallacious appeals to emotion and outrage. But, I guess that is to be expected of reactionary, authoritarian statists, which social conservatives have always been.
Molto accomuna la novecentesca grandeur statunitense e l’Unione Sovietica, ognuna con le rispettive culture istituzionali. Soprattutto se parliamo di industria agricola. In entrambi i casi abbiamo enormi aziende altamente meccanizzate che fanno ampio uso di fertilizzanti chimici.
In agricoltura, Cuba ha seguito l’esempio sovietico dai tempi della rivoluzione fino al collasso dell’Unione Sovietica. “Principale esportatore di zucchero, Cuba faceva largo uso di pesticidi, fertilizzanti e meccanizzazione diffusa per produrre 8,4 milioni di tonnellate di zucchero (produzione massima toccata nel 1990), quasi tutto esportato nel blocco sovietico.”[1] Spiega Federica Bono, docente di geografia umana presso la Christopher Newport University della Virginia: “Cuba aveva un settore agricolo fortemente meccanizzato, paragonabile a quello californiano, stesso livello di meccanizzazione e stesso uso di prodotti chimici.”[2]
Parliamo di un sistema finalizzato all’esportazione di tipo neocoloniale elevato al quadrato. Al posto della sostituzione delle importazioni, l’esportazione di prodotti agricoli finalizzata a pagare prodotti importati:
durante la guerra fredda [Cuba] smise di produrre alimenti per uso interno e utilizzò gran parte delle terre coltivabili per produrre canna da zucchero da esportare in Unione Sovietica. In cambio, Mosca esportava a Cuba generi alimentari, fertilizzanti di sintesi e combustibile per le auto e i trattori.[3]
Tutto finì con il crollo del blocco sovietico e la fine dell’Unione Sovietica. Cuba perse l’ottanta per cento del commercio con l’estero e andò in deficit alimentare; Castro lo definì il “periodo speciale”.[4]
Per Cuba fu la crisi alimentare. I cubani persero in media l’equivalente di un terzo delle calorie giornaliere necessarie. Il governo varò un piano di razionamento degli alimenti, per tanti la conseguenza inevitabile fu la fame.
Senza esportazioni di alimenti, Cuba non poté più accedere a mangimi, fertilizzanti e carburante, indispensabili per la produzione agricola. Il carburante diventò così raro che intaccò la produzione di pesticidi e fertilizzanti e limitò l’utilizzo di trattori e altre attrezzature meccaniche agricole, fino a bloccare l’intero sistema di trasporti e refrigerazione indispensabile a far giungere ortaggi, carni e frutta sulle tavole dei cubani. Privata dei mangimi, dei fertilizzanti e dei carburanti che un tempo tenevano in piedi la nazione, Cuba diede vita a una vera rivoluzione verde.[5]
La reazione della popolazione fu in fondo eroica. La terapia d’urto cominciò nei primi anni Novanta. La produzione alimentare fu riportata a livello locale e ampliata, al posto delle vecchie aziende meccanizzate avide di risorse sorsero produzioni biologiche intensive.
All’inizio, date le scarse conoscenze in materia e l’assenza di fertilizzanti, i raccolti erano scarsi. I primi miglioramenti arrivarono con l’irrigazione a goccia, i concimi biologici e le tecniche colturali naturali…
La resa della terra fu migliorata con concimi e emendanti ricavati da scarti del raccolto, rifiuti umidi e letame animale. L’aumento della produzione di ortaggi e frutta fresca contribuì a migliorare l’apporto calorico degli abitanti delle città, molti dei quali scamparono alla denutrizione.
Nel 2008, l’entità degli orti urbani era ancora minima: appena l’otto percento del territorio dell’Avana e il 3,4 percento di tutto il territorio urbano cubano, che però produceva il 90 percento di tutti gli ortaggi e la frutta consumata.[6]
Il risultato è un sorprendente esempio di capacità di ripresa alimentare:
L’agricoltura urbana nella citta dell’Avana si dispiega è composta di vari livelli: si va dall’orticello ricavato in un balcone ai campi di diversi ettari che formano la cintura verde della città. Gli orti urbani solitamente producono alimenti per uso umano e mangimi, ma senza cambiare la struttura orticola contribuiscono anche alla produzione di terriccio e biocarburanti, e mangimi per gli allevamenti. Molti di questi orti sorgono, molto opportunamente, in aree abbandonate e degradate della città, di cui ci si è appropriati sfruttando i diritti di usufrutto, il che significa che le terre sono cedute gratuitamente dallo stato.
Sul tetto di una casa nel quartiere di El Cerro un allevatore da solo alleva quaranta porcellini d’india, sei galline, due tacchini e oltre un centinaio di conigli. 68 metri quadri racchiudono un condensato a ciclo chiuso dei principi della permacoltura: si coltivano ortaggi, si riciclano gli scarti animali, si conserva l’acqua e si sfrutta tutta una serie di sinergie tra specie diverse. Ci sono impianti autocostruiti per l’essiccamento e la conservazione del foraggio, grazie ai quali i rifiuti provenienti dai vicini mercati e negozi diventano concime da stoccare per i periodi di magra. Il proprietario di questa fattoria aerea riesce così a rifornire di carne ristoranti e mercati della zona. Aziende di questo genere all’Avana ce ne sono più di mille.[7]
Questo efficientismo accomuna tutti gli orti urbani. Secondo Colin Ward, nei giardini dei quartieri nuovi in Gran Bretagna si produce più di quanto non si producesse quando sulle stesse terre esistevano aziende agricole.
Come avviene in genere nel mondo capitalista, anche negli Stati Uniti l’agricoltura meccanizzata convenzionale si è sviluppata seguendo uno schema basato sull’aumento di input artificialmente a buon prezzo.
Le aziende americane sono così estese che una parte, col contributo economico dello stato, viene solitamente tenuta incolta. Una “azienda agricola” è tanto un produttore di alimenti quanto un investimento immobiliare garantito.
In California, il principale stato agricolo, alle grandi aziende i bacini gestiti dallo stato forniscono quantità enormi di acqua a prezzo politico, anche quando invece le amministrazioni cittadine razionano l’acqua potabile.
La necessità di trasportare gli alimenti per centinaia o migliaia di chilometri, dalle grandi aziende produttrici ai consumatori, fa sì che gli Stati Uniti dipendano fortemente dai trasporti a lunga distanza.
Quanto alle sementi ad “alta resa”, proprie della rivoluzione verde, sono più produttive solo a patto che si disponga di enormi quantità di input come i fertilizzanti sintetici e l’acqua a prezzo politico. Non a caso Frances Lappe parla di “varietà a forte contributo”.
Il capitalismo americano, e quindi anche il settore agricolo, è un sistema di potere statale tanto quanto il vecchio “socialismo” sovietico.
L’inefficienza di questo sistema è un male di per sé, anche a prescindere dalla sua vulnerabilità. Ma soprattutto, dovesse crollare tutto il castello di input da cui dipende l’agricoltura americana, il paese si ritroverebbe probabilmente a vivere un suo “periodo speciale”. Un crollo tutt’altro che improbabile.
Gli stati occidentali vanno verso il razionamento dell’acqua, una siccità record sta prosciugando i fiumi da cui dipende l’irrigazione. Alla minaccia a medio-lungo termine rappresentata dal picco della produzione petrolifera si aggiungono la pandemia e il blocco dell’importazione di petrolio russo, a dimostrazione di quanto la situazione nel breve termine sia sensibile alle interruzioni delle forniture. Aggiungiamo a ciò gli effetti terribili dei fertilizzanti sintetici e dei pesticidi. L’uso massiccio di fertilizzanti chimici non solo trasforma la terra in una crosta senza vita, ma genera anche un proliferare di alghe tossiche nei corsi d’acqua e nei mari. I pesticidi eliminano i nemici naturali dei parassiti e rafforzano la resistenza ai pesticidi stessi, così che con dosi dieci o più volte maggiori si ottengono effetti minori. Le monocolture estensive, l’aratura e i diserbanti impoveriscono fortemente il suolo.
Il risultato è un sistema agricolo fragilissimo. Se non siamo ai livelli di Cuba nel 1990, ci stiamo arrivando.
Per affrontare le crisi di sostenibilità del tardo capitalismo si dovrà ripensare il sistema di produzione degli alimenti riportandolo a livello locale, ricorrendo al compostaggio per riciclare le sostanze nutritive, ridisegnando il territorio secondo i principi della permacoltura al fine di raccogliere e conservare l’acqua, e tant’altro. Si potrebbe, ad esempio, guardare quello che fanno i cubani.
Le nostre traduzioni sono finanziate interamente da donazioni. Se vi piacciono i nostri testi, siete invitati a contribuire. Trovate le istruzioni su come fare nella pagina Sostieni C4SS: https://c4ss.org/sostieni-c4ss.
California, Minnesota, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, and at least 13 other states all recently declared themselves sanctuary states for trans youth, thus further building upon the pre-existing sanctuary movement which Trump attacked years ago for harboring undocumented immigrants. Despite the conservative backlash against the movement, many have pointed out that it is an exercise in state’s rights, something conservatives often champion. Conservatives have even recognized this fact and rolled with it, declaring Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming as “second amendment santuaries” where state authorities will refuse to help federal authorities carry out gun control measures, with at least 26 other states also all taking various steps towards building sanctuaries. But let’s rewind.
While as anarchists, we may laugh at the absurdity of such a phrase as “state’s rights” and point out that we should be focusing on individual rights instead, no matter what level of government is involved, we still, have to work within the political system we are faced with currently. We are currently living under the 2nd occupying colonialist government of this section of Turtle Island, under the Constitution of the United States, which succeeded the previous colonialist government established under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Under the Articles, the federal government was weak and ineffective, while the state governments ran most things. Those who wished to further centralize power called for a new Consitutional Convention and threw out the Articles. In a last ditch effort to protect individual rights in the face of centralization, the Anti-Federalists fought for the establishment of a Bill of Rights, the last of which, the 10th Amendement, dictates that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
While the 10th amendment designates any powers not expressly given to the federal government to the state governments, it does not include any right for the states to challenge federal law despite what many states’ rights advocates may claim. This obviously does not mean that federal law should or would go unchallenged by the states. Many states have attempted to nullify federal laws they disagree with and prevent those laws from being enforced within their state borders, including everything from fugitive slave laws to desegregation. Despite this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that states have no such right to nullify federal law, instead only having the rights to challenge federal laws as unconstitutional in the court system and/or refuse to aid federal agents in enforcing federal laws while not interfering with or preventing federal agents from enforcing the laws themselves. This is exactly where the santuary movement comes in.
Sanctuary states refuse to aid the federal government in enforcing certain laws. Some sanctuary states also refuse to aid other states in the enforcement of their state laws as they apply to those who have migrated states. Sanctuary cities and counties, likewise, can refuse to enforce certain state laws. Originally, the sanctuary movement formed to protect undocumented immigrants, but the model has since used to protect medical and recreational cannabis use, psychedelic medicines, gun rights, gay marriage, safe-injection sites, abortion access, and, most recently, things like gender-affirming healthcare and trans rights.
While “state’s rights” has absolutely become a post-Civil War dog-whistle for racism, its most enduring legacy and useage, the santuary movement, lives on. But despite the commonalities, the sanctuary movement did not form out of the state’s rights movement. Its roots are even further decentralized with the original sanctuary movement consisting of various churches which act as safe havens, or sanctuaries, for undocumented immigrants, with church members protecting them from ICE and other law enforcement agencies via acts of civil disobedience. So it is not about state’s rights, it is about individual rights and is a tactic that any group with enough support could potentially utilize against a larger authority. It is a tactic that encourages decentralization by it’s very nature. We must support these sanctuaries at all costs and fight to create more of them. We must protect individual rights, whether of immigrants, drug users, gun owners, or queer folks, especially trans youth. Let’s create a network of sanctuaries that eventually engulfs the entire world.
Ekonom libertarian, Bryan Caplan dan konten kreator Zach Weinersmith telah berkolaborasi untuk menciptakan komik bergambar non-fiksi berjudul “Open Border: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.” Seperti yang sudah disebutkan, karya ini merupakan komik bergambar yang menjelaskan masalah mengenai perbatasan terbuka. Kerjasama Caplan dan Weinersmith sebenarnya sangat tidak terduga. Semangat dan kemampuan Caplan dalam media komik, yang dipadukan dengan kemampuan dan pengalaman Weinersmith, membuat Open Borders menyenangkan, mudah dibaca, dan menarik; kalian dapat dengan mudah menyelesaikannya dalam satu kali baca. Namun, format dan perspektif Caplan menghadirkan beberapa batasan dalam kemampuan komik untuk mengubah posisi para oposan imigrasi.
Jika kalian pernah membaca tulisan Caplan sebelumnya, beberapa argumen yang muncul mungkin akan terlihat tidak asing bagi kalian. Membaca Open Borders akan seperti membaca kumpulan koleksi tulisan mengenai perbatasan terbuka di website Caplan namun dengan sedikit pembaruan. Saya sebenarnya sangat berharap komik ini akan berisi kombinasi antara perspektif libertarian dari Caplan dan perspektif liberal dari Weinersmith, namun komik ini lebih terasa seperti gagasan Caplan dan visual Weinersmith. Sudut pandang Caplan dan kepribadiannya muncul, baik dan buruk.
Memperjuangkan masalah yang sangat penting namun tidak populer adalah sebuah pekerjaan besar dan satu buku jelas tidak bisa menyelesaikannya. Namun ketika Open Borders mencoba menjelaskan semua keberatan umum mengenai perbatasan terbuka, bagian-bagian yang terlewat terlihat sangat kentara. Caplan menyempitkan dunia yang luas ini dengan hanya berfokus pada Amerika Serikat sebagai data. Dan dia memberikan pembenaran yang cukup baik pada bagian akhir — AS adalah “tujuan favorit para imigran.” Memang harus diakui, banyak argumennya akan tetap relevan di luar AS; tidak semuanya, namun ini dapat menghambat penjelasannya. Meskipun ia berhasil mengatasi kekurangannya, beberapa poin utama yang perlu ia bicarakan dengan masyarakat Amerika mengenai pandangan anti-imigrasi nampak terlewat.
Salah satu argumen yang kerap dibawa oleh kelompok oposisi perbatasan terbuka adalah imigran akan menghadirkan kekerasan. Open Borders berhasil menjawab argumen tersebut dengan baik. Menjadi kurang keras dibanding penduduk Amerika nampak menjadi batas minimum untuk menjadi bersih dan baik, dan imigran di AS berhasil melakukannya. Hal yang sama tidak berlaku di Eropa. Meskipun berlebihan dan banyak mitos yang melingkupinya, para migran di Jerman, sebagai contoh, memang melakukan lebih banyak kejahatan dibanding penduduk asli Jerman.
Sejak 2014, proporsi pelaku kejahatan non-Jerman dalam statistik telah meningkat dari 24% menjadi lebih dari 30% (Jika kita tidak menyertakan kejahatan terkait dengan pelanggaran imigrasi dan suaka).
Lebih jauh lagi, pada tahun 2017 mereka yang diklasifikasikan sebagai “pemohon suaka atau pengungsi perang sipil atau imigran ilegal” mewakili total 8,5% dari semua tersangka.
Meskipun mereka hanya sebanyak 2% dari populasi Jerman keseluruhan.
Namun, beberapa faktor demografis lainnya dapat menjelaskan masalah ini:
Pada 2014, laki-laki Jerman usia 14 sampai 30 tahun merupakan 9% dari populasi Jerman dan bertanggungjawab atas lebih dari 50% kejahatan dan kekerasan di negara tersebut.
Sedangkan pada migran, laki-laki berusia 16 sampai 30 tahun merupakan 27% dari seluruh pencari suaka yang datang pada 2015.
“Itu lebih karena demografi,” klaim Dr. Dominic Kudlacek, dari Pusat Riset Kriminologi Lower Saxony. “Terlepas apakah mereka pencari suaka atau migran Uni Eropa, mereka lebih muda dari populasi rata-rata dan kebanyakan adalah laki-laki. Laki-laki muda/remaja melakukan lebih banyak kejahatan di setiap masyarakat dimanapun.
Argumen utama dalam buku ini tidak bertumpu pada fakta bahwa tingkat kejahatan imigran yang lebih rendah dari populasi secara keseluruhan. Itu berarti fakta di Open Borders tentang imigran yang kurang kejam daripada orang Amerika, merupakan simplifikasi ala Amerika.
Argumen mengenai budaya juga cukup tepat di AS, namun mungkin tidak beebrapa negara lain. Amerika adalah pengekspor utama budaya di dunia dan English merupakan bahasa paling banyak dituturkan di dunia. Namun negara-negara kecil dimana penduduk aslinya dan imigran tidak mengetahui lingua franca yang umum mungkin menganggap para imigran “menolak untuk mempelajari bahasa tersebut.” Saya sendiri tidak melihat ini sebagai masalah jangka panjang.
Sementara komik ini menggunakan Amerika sebagai contoh utama, seseorang yang membaca komik ini dengan tujuan untuk mendapatkan amunisi dalam melawan sesama Amerika yang menentang perbatasan terbuka mungkin akan menemukan kekecewaan ketika mereka mulai melangkahkan kaki keluar dari ruangan berisi orang-orang yang baik dan bersedia menerima informasi secara terbuka. Caplan menjelaskan bahwa kebanyakan kasus anti-imigran di AS bukanlah posisi yang politik yang kaku, melainkan sekumpulan mitos dan kesalahpahaman yang buruk mengenai cara kerja hukum keimigrasian. Kebanyakan orang Amerika, yang tidak mengalami menjadi imigran, memang bodoh secara rasional (istilah yang sering Caplan tulis disini) mengenai proses imigrasi. Lebih mudah bagi mereka untuk membingungkan status atau menyepelekan kesulitan “untuk melakukannya secara legal.” Mereka tidak mengetahui bahwa imigrasi secara umum tidak lah legal. Saya dapat menebak akan banyak orang menggelengkan kepalanya dan berfikir “Bagaimana ini bisa terjadi? Karena yang kudengar bla bla..” saat membaca komik ini.
Komik yang saya butuhkan untuk meyakinkan banyak orang adalah sesuatu yang lebih lengkap daripada hanya membahas dasar-dasar cara kerja hukum imigrasi, yang kemudian mematahkan mitos-mitos umum mengenai imigrasi dan migran. Ada banyak kepercayaan terkait imigrasi di tengah masyarakat dan kebanyakan dari mereka akan terus mempercayainya kecuali mereka melihat sesuatu yang berbeda secara langsung. Mendengar sesuatu yang berbeda dari apa yang pernah kalian dengar sebelumnya adalah satu hal. Tapi adalah hal lain pula untuk mempelajari dari mana kepercayaan itu berasal dan mengapa itu salah.
Mungkin pembaca yang lebih tepat untuk komik ini beserta argumen-argumen yang ada di dalamnya adalah orang-orang yang telah memiliki pandangan lebih simpatik terhadap imigran terlebih dahulu. Ini selanjutnya mengarah pada masalah lain yang dialami Amerika. Seperti yang dicatat oleh Caplan dalam komik, dukungan untuk perbatasan terbuka meningkat dikalangan orang-orang “kiri”, yang meningkatkan kemungkinannya menjadi isu yang bersifat partisan. Akan menjadi baik jika dalam komik ini juga dapat menjawab berbagai argumen penentangan yang kebanyakan datang dari kelompok “kanan.” Jika kalian menemukan sesuatu dari komik ini, itu adalah kenyataan bahwa saat kalian menerima imigran, itu bukan lah sebuah tindakan amal (charity), melainkan sebuah hubungan yang saling menguntungkan satu sama lain. Itu mencakup pula kekhawatiran mengenai tingkat kejahatan, terorisme, budaya, pola pemungutan suara untuk imigran naturalisasi, kesehatan fiskal, dan masalah ekonomi. Tapi jangan lupakan pula argumen-argumen penolakan dari orang-orang kiri.
Janji mengenai setengah dari hasil perekonomian dunia mungkin tidak cukup untuk menenangkan ketakutan kelompok konservatif mengenai perubahan budaya yang terlalu cepat. Dan beberapa orang dari sisi kiri memiliki kekhawatirqan mengenai kenaikan harga perumahan dan jejak ekologi yang diakibatkan perbatasan terbuka. Caplan mungkin terlalu polos dengan sekedar menyebut bahwa keberatan-keberatan tersebut hanya mitos yang didasarkan pada kebigotan, tetapi menjelaskan masalah tersebut sangat diperlukan. Pada akhirnya, argumen ekonomi tidak akan cukup bagi kebanyakan orang karena gagasan pertumbuhan ekonomi dunia agak abstrak.
Saya yakin bahwa perbatasan terbuka merupakan jalan menuju kebaikan bersama. Meskipun saya tidak yakin bahwa menampung para pengungsi krisis iklim di halaman belakang rumah saya akan mendatangkan keuntung bagi saya, namun saya masih akan terus mendukung perbatasan terbuka. Aspek kemanusiaan sangat penting bagiku dan mungkin bagi banyak oraang lain juga. Seperti yang Ilya Somin jelaskan dalam panel diskusi mengenai Open Borders, yang mengakhiri Hukum Jim Crow bukanlah motif ekonomi, melainkan mengenai kesetaraan dan sesuatu yang “benar” untuk dilakukan.
Komik ini sangat worth it untuk dibaca berulang-ulang. Ini menunjukan apa yang bisa dilakukan dengan sebuah media saat kalian memahami dan mempercayainya. Dan saya hanya bisa berharap akan lebih banyak orang dengan gagasan-gagasan indah dapat memperhatikan dan memperluas wawasan mereka mengenai cara-cara inovatif dan kreatif untuk menyebarkan idenya. Komik ini memiliki banyak keterbatasan, tetapi ini menunjukan bahwa mengadvokasikan perbatasan terbuka bukanlah pekerjaan yang dapat diselesaikan dengan hanya satu buku. Caplan bahkan menyatakan dalam bagian akhirnya, melalui avatarnya yang lebih terlihat seperti Uncle Sam, “pemasaran bukan lah keahlianku. Sejujurnya, saya berharap kalian dapat mengetahui bagaimana menjadikan perbatasan terbuka menjadi sebuah realita.”
Seluruh hasil publikasi didanai sepenuhnya oleh donasi. Jika kalian menyukai karya-karya kami, kalian dapat berkontribusi dengan berdonasi. Temukan petunjuk tentang cara melakukannya di halaman Dukung C4SS: https://c4ss.org/dukung-c4ss.
