Showing posts with label Kevin_Carson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin_Carson. Show all posts

24 September 2016

Time to Deprogram From the Cult of National Unity (commentary)

Kevin Carson at C4SS


People don’t like seeing their gods blasphemed, and the backlash against Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem has revealed the completely religious nature of American patriotism.


Tomi Lahren, whose views on racial matters are about what you’d expect from a “conservative commentator” on Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze, has been on a nonstop outrage jag ever since Kaepernick’s stance made the news. As the protest movement of variously sitting, kneeling and raising fists during the national anthem has spread, Kate Upton has joined Lahren’s social media campaign to make football games a safe space for hyper-sensitive patriots. The complaints, predictably, reached fever pitch on 9/11. Upton responded to the decision of several Dolphins to kneel during the anthem by chiding: “You should be proud to be an American. Especially on 9/11 when we should support each other.” The most egregious comments though, which get right to the heart of the national unity cult, came from Lahren: “We aren’t white & black, we are red, white & blue.” “[W[e are Americans and we stand together.”

Howard Zinn ably deconstructed this idea that our common identity as Americans is somehow more important than race or class differences:

“[Our present leaders] bombard us with phrases like ‘national interest,’ ‘national security,’ and ‘national defense’ as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.

Link: Time to Deprogram From the Cult of National Unity

“Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that — not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor — is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.”

The cult of national unity is an old one, and it exists for a reason. It dovetails with, and reinforces, a number of other patriotic American myths. Among them is the myth of “American Exceptionalism” — i.e., that America is the uniquely “indispensible nation” in promoting “peace and freedom” around the world, and is entitled to maintain military forces larger than the rest of the world combined, and unilaterally define as a “threat” or “aggressor” any country that defies American dictates, because of this beneficent role.

Another myth associated with the cult of national unity is the American Dream. We see this in the belief by the majority of Americans that they are “middle class.” The myth encourages Americans to believe that wealth is just a matter of hard work and ingenuity, and to identify with the “53%” of “taxpayers” and “makers vs. takers” against class warriors like Occupy, in the belief that someday they too may hit it big.

Link: Support this author on Patreon

It also commonly appears in conjunction with the cult of The Troops as guarantors of “our freedoms,” as illustrated by Upton’s Instagram comments on 9/11. The anthem, she said, “represents honoring the many brave men and women who sacrifice and have sacrificed their lives each and every single day to protect our freedom.”

All this despite the hard realities that America’s wars have been overwhelmingly fought to secure capitalist access to the land, natural resources and markets of the world, and the rich get the great majority of their wealth by extracting rents from the rest of us with the help of the state.

America is “exceptional” among the developed Western nations in that it is the world’s biggest settler state, created by European colonists supplanting and exterminating the indigenous population on a continental scale, and in the role that slavery played in building our economy. It is exceptional, probably not unrelated to the previous fact, in the size of its prison system and the way its culture glorifies police and soldiers. It is “exceptional” only to the extent to which its people have been successfully inculcated with myths of a “Shining City on a Hill” and a “Classless Society.” These myths obscure the criminal reality of America’s role in the world; America’s reality is hidden behind the official idealistic facade.

Thanks to this whole complex of quasi-official ideologies, America has attained the unique status of global enforcer of class rule. It is equally unique in concealing the very existence of class conflict from a significant part of its domestic population.

Fortunately, as evidenced by the rise of Occupy and Black Lives Matter, and the protest movement inspired by Kaepernick himself, the spell of this patriotic cult is wearing off. Power, ultimately, depends on consent. And consent depends on deception and ignorance. Once people begin to see through its legitimizing ideologies, the system of power is doomed.


Kevin Carson

Read More »

20 September 2016

"Liberals" side with neocons against Russia?

The Blog


Writing at the C4SS website, Kevin Carson recently criticized pro-US imperialist sentiments of journalists alleging ties between presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin


After explaining that he is not backing Donald Trump (he actually encourages voters to pick Clinton) or Putin in any way, Carson makes an argument as follows.

Self-proclaimed liberals in the US suffer from unfounded "assumptions" shared with vicious conservative ideologues when it comes to the US's place in the world. Their belief seems to be that whenever the US uses violence, it is instantly justified, and whenever someone uses violence against US interests, they are committing some form of aggression.

Whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin may have done, Carson believes, the US regime was already committing unique acts of aggression against the world and deserves a greater portion of our criticism.

In fact, Putin's foreign policy actions (not to comment on his domestic politics, which are indeed right-wing and authoritarian as Carson describes) are simply adequate measures against US aggression:
As for Putin’s aggression, it takes a unique set of blinders to call his 2008 altercation with Georgia, or his recent intervention in eastern Ukraine and occupation of the Crimea as aggression, while portraying as purely “defensive” the eastward expansion of NATO and the installation of a right-populist (and arguably neo-Nazi) regime in the Ukraine that is every bit as authoritarian as Putin’s.
The aggressive behavior of Western journalists towards Russia and other apparent enemies of the West is especially criticized by Carson, who alludes to Noam Chomsky's analysis of media control.

Carson wrote, "cable news, the wire services and major newspapers of record are every bit as slavishly subservient to the foreign policies of the American state as are the official media organs of any totalitarian regime".

When reporting on international relations, most journalists work backwards from the assumption that their country's foreign policy is correct, no matter how conflicted or catastrophic it has been. This is especially evident in current Western coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Despite the West's lack of access to any effective contacts in Syria, it insists the government of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for all the violence and denies its own role in killing thousands of people.

Link: Putin-Trump Outrage Reveals Shared Imperialist Mindset

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

8 September 2016

Libertarian right almost criticizes crony capitalism

The Blog


To demonstrate the libertarian right's failure to ever acknowledge wrongdoing by big pharma and their cronies in the US state, Kevin Carson criticized a recent Reason article.


The libertarian right-wing Reason article, while focusing blame on government regulations rather than the greedy corporations lobbying for regulations, discussed the scandal of Mylan N. V.'s high pricing of EpiPens - a type of medical auto-injector.

The high pricing happened because, as Carson explains, "FDA regulations are specifically tailored to Mylan’s product specifications so as to give it a de facto monopoly on the EpiPen". No one can compete, allowing Mylan to change any price it wants.

Authored by Nick Gillespie, the Reason article had stated, "Mylan isn’t taking advantage of customers. It is simply working a political system to its own advantages."

Kevin Carson countered, ") Mylan is taking advantage of customers by charging an enormous monopoly markup on EpiPens; 2) Mylan lobbies the government to create a rigged monopoly market so it can take advantage of its customers in this way."

Carson sees a persistent denial on the part of libertarian right ideologues to acknowledge how most successes of corporate capitalism depend on the "rigged monopoly" described above. He also draws attention to the way many right libertarians often criticize the market as not being "free" enough, yet cite the same US corporations who stifle competition as examples of success in the free market.

Full analysis: Say the Words, Nick. SAY THE WORDS!!


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

23 August 2016

When will all copyright get terminated?

The Blog


Efforts to reform copyright in an age of easy and convenient digital sharing could well "kill" copyright altogether, writes Kevin Carson.


Responding to an Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) lawsuit in a post for the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) on 21 August, Carson offered the following commentary.

The EFF lawsuit states, "Section 1201 of the [US] Digital Millennial Copyright Act (DMCA)... is a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment" since it "criminalizes not only the circumvention of Digital Rights Management (DRM), but criminalizes the sharing of information about how to do it".

Quoting Zag Rogoff at Defective by Design, Carson states the success of the EFF lawsuit would "amount to obliterating the “DRM Curtain” model of capitalism in the information field".

"It would put an end to the centerpieces of copyright culture today — DMCA takedowns, “three strikes” laws cutting off ISP services to illegal downloaders, and domain seizures of file-sharing sites", the C4SS writer elaborates.
The model of proprietary digital capitalism we’re familiar with — the central model of global corporate rent extraction — is absolutely dependent on police state measures like criminalizing the circumvention of DRM, the takedown (without due process of any kind) of allegedly infringing content online, and government seizure of Internet domains and web hosting servers without due process. Without them, it would simply collapse. 
But fortunately, that model of capitalism is doomed regardless of the outcome of EFF’s lawsuit (and I wish it well!). Even as it is, circumvention technologies have advanced so rapidly that DRM-cracked versions of new movies and songs typically show up on torrent sites the same day they’re released, and Millennials accept it file-sharing as a simple fact of life. This culture of circumvention is now spreading into academic publishing with SciHub. How long before it spreads to proprietary spare parts and diagnostic software?
Full post: Why “Reforming” Copyright Will Kill It

The analysis offered by Carson agrees with his overall thesis that intellectual property of any kind is untenable in the long term, as information and other types of production are easier to circulate and harder to control. All this is thanks to a revolution in the way we all communicate, with the aid of the internet and the diffusion of skills and technologies.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

16 August 2016

Mont society includes Kevin Carson

The Blog


The Mont Order society includes Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) writer Kevin Carson on its lists as of 14 August. Writings by Carson are henceforth a key part of the feeds promoted by several Mont services and pages.


Kevin Carson's "free market anti-capitalism", the mission of the Center for a Stateless Society, combines hopes for popular social and technological liberation as captured in books such as The Homebrew Industrial Revolution.

Among the demands advised by the anti-statist commentator is the view that artificial scarcity, intellectual property and mandatory high overhead enforced by states to benefit monopoly capitalism must all be abolished. The state colludes with capitalists, liberals and the "vulgar libertarians" of the political right to create an environment in which a leaner, more efficient economy cannot develop.

Of course, such abolition need not be imposed from above. The people in general can circumvent corporate monopolies, in much the way pirated software is shared and movies uploaded to online services such as Putlocker.

It isn't hard. Thanks to the widespread adoption of personal technologies, apps, and internet sites, everyone's lives are connected. Creators are connected without the need for owners and masters.


Even better, the costs for success in media have declined so substantially that, starting in this "immaterial" realm people can already reject and build alternatives against large brands. Networked organizations can outmaneuver hierarchic ones, and even the costs of physical production are declining so rapidly that eventually a real-world economic revolution in manufacture and delivery of goods will take place.

With the lies and pillars of modern industrial civilization being gnawed at by the "smart rats" once described as such by Julian Assange, governments in the West will descend further into crisis. As they rot away, they will be replaced by a stateless, tolerant and anti-authoritarian culture.

While not all Mont Order friends are likely to endorse such ideas, they boost the existing counter-state dissident credentials of the Mont Order in a Western context.

Visit Kevin Carson's articles at the Center for a Stateless Society


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

9 August 2016

The Homebrew Industrial Revolution

The Blog


The following are selections from the foremost global transhumanist publication H+ Magazine's review of Kevin Carson's book, The Homebrew Industrial Revolution (2010).


If you don't have time to read books or even reviews, at least read these few observations.

With the technology of individual creativity expanding constantly, the analysis goes, “increasing competition, easy diffusion of new technology and technique, and increasing transparency of cost structure will – between them – arbitrage the rate of profit to virtually zero and squeeze artificial scarcity rents” (p. 346)...

“The worst nightmare of the corporate dinosaurs”, Carson writes of old-fashioned mass-production-based and propertied industries, is that “the imagination might take a walk” (p. 311). Skilled creators could find the courage to declare independence from big brands...

But “as the system approaches its limits of sustainability”, “libertarian and decentralist technologies and organizational forms” are destined to “break out of their state capitalist integument and become the building blocks of a fundamentally different society” (p. 111-112)...

The decentralization brought by computers has meant “the minimum capital outlay for entering most of the entertainment and information industry has fallen to a few thousand dollars at most, and the marginal cost of reproduction is zero” (p. 199).

If the “transferrability” of individual creativity and peer production “to the realm of physical production” from the “immaterial realm” is a valid observation (p. 204-227), then the economic singularity means one thing clear. “Knowledge is free” shall become “everything is free”.

Abolish artificial scarcity, intellectual property, mandatory high overhead and other measures used by states to enforce the privileges of monopoly capitalism, the author tells us (p. 168-170). This way, a more humane world-economy can be engineered, oriented to benefit people and local communities foremost. Everyone in the world may get to work fewer hours while enjoying an improved quality of life, and we can prevent a bleak future in which millions of people are sacrificed to technological unemployment on the altar of profit.

Inspired? Go and read the full review by Harry J. Bentham at H+ Magazine


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

3 June 2016

Soldiers don't fight for your freedoms

The Blog


We owe "our freedoms" to the government and the soldiers and thugs it commands around killing people (including its own people). So will say your government, various prostituted scribblers in the press, and self-justifying murderers who otherwise can't bear to look in their bloodied mirror.


Constantly repeated in the media, post-9/11 in particular, is this view that the threat to Americans' "freedom" always emanated from foreign rulers - Hitler, Saddam, etc. Even more absurd is the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists are a new threat to freedom in the US, although they have made no real or imagined moves to overturn the US Constitution or seize power in the US.

In the meantime, the US government robs people of their freedoms, spying on them all and treating them all as the enemy. Even the people working for the US government are not exempt, being kept on a controversial "insider threat" database for having the slightest dissenting views from the regime.

One think tank contributor argues that in fact the threat to one's Constitutional liberties (in the US in any case) has always been the government itself.

Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society pointed out in a recent short article that "Our civil liberties are fundamentally protections, not against foreign countries, but against the government that claims to represent us right here at home." He rejected Charles Province's 1970 poem "The Soldier", often used in Memorial Day ceremonies, as "cringingly stupid" for crediting members of the US Military rather than dissidents and campaigners for winning people's freedoms.

Carson corrects the record for Americans, writing, "it’s the dissidents, the hell-raisers, the dirty flag-burning hippies, the folks with bad attitudes towards authority in general, who have given us our rights throughout history, by fighting for them".

So no, soldiers don't fight for your freedoms - unless you are talking about some ex-soldiers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who know who the real enemy is.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

31 May 2016

US regime "corporate rule" to continue

The Blog


With the final contest for the seat of United States President likely to be fought out between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the outcome will only be more continuous "corporate rule" by a hideous regime driven by endless greed.


This is the picture drawn by Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) writer Kevin Carson. Immanuel Wallerstein holds a similar position on electoral politics, viewing it as unavailing as any means of transforming the world-system.

Other political writers similarly diagnose the US "democratic" political system to be fake, much as its press freedom is a fraud and any meaningful criticisms of the regime's barbarism and war crimes are continuously redacted from newspaper and television by government cronies. The revolving door between all US corporations, "NGOs" and government departments makes them essentially fronts for the regime in Washington.

As concluded by Carson at the end of a clever analysis authored on 28 May:
...on all the issues most fundamental to keeping us from having [human-friendly economy of small-scale]  — the transportation subsidies, intellectual property,” the global Empire and permanent warfare state — the two parties are almost indistinguishable. I don’t know — one party may give us a form of corporate rule that’s somewhat more bearable than the other. But either way it will be corporate rule, without a doubt.
Predicting none other than a continuation of endless war and the subsidizing of greedy corporations by the US regime no matter who wins the White House, Carson states of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, "American politics isn’t divided between a Party of Working People and a Party of Big Business. It’s always been divided between two Parties of Business that serve two somewhat different but overlapping segments of the capitalist class."


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

27 May 2016

Intellectual property, secrecy, and death

The Blog


Known for likening the use of patents to exploitation, murder and terrorism, C4SS writer Kevin Carson points out that Monsanto is hiding behind intellectual property to conceal its responsibility for deaths. Desperate to prevent consumers knowing about deadly ingredients in its herbicides, the company needs secrecy.


Most opponents of Monsanto's Roundup chemical product believe glyphosate is carcinogenic - a claim refuted in various scientific studies. The scientific community believes glyphosate is safe, although this says nothing for the safety of Roundup itself, which still accompanies a high rate of cancer among workers.

As reasoned by Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society website:
legally, Monsanto is required to make public only the active ingredient — glyphosate — itself. In fact the “inert ingredients” are all trade secrets, legally protected by so-called “intellectual property.”
Carson also writes, "the existence of legally protected trade secrets is a weapon against the health and welfare of the public, depriving them of any knowledge of the nature of toxic chemicals they may be exposed to". He compares this with the behavior of companies and governments surrounding shale gas production, writing that in this industry various proprietary ingredients are "also kept secret from the potentially affected public by “intellectual property.”"

In this analysis, libertarian "free market" advocates such as Ronald Bailey at Reason who defend Monsanto's freedom from the apparent cruelties of consumer rights, labeling and transparency are acting hypocritically. While supposedly triumphing individual rights, such libertarians are effectively cheer-leading the state while it crucifies individuals, blindfolding them and refusing them any right to know what is harming their health.

Carson writes such immoral rules do not constitute a "libertarian legal order", where, "given the prevalence of cancer like non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers exposed to Roundup, there would long ago have been lawsuits in which Monsanto was compelled to disclose the full list of ingredients in Roundup".

Whether or not glyphosate is the danger, Roundup and the quantities it is used in should be suspected for as long as the apparent connection to cancer still exists.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

20 May 2016

"Obama should celebrate" US atrocities

The Blog


While President Obama's planned Japan visit was reported, C4SS writer Kevin Carson wrote to remind us the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945 was nothing but a act of murder directed intentionally at civilians.


Carson's article counters an earlier article, relating to a prospective visit by President Obama to Japan. Writing on 14 May, the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby had suggested Obama should actually tell the Japanese people he is glad about the nuclear bombing of their people as it allowed Japan to be "free" and enjoy "friendship" with the United States.

While the 1945 nuclear terrorism against Japanese civilians is praised by Jacoby for transforming Japan into what the US sees as a puppet state at only the cost of immolated women and children, Carson provides a rather different picture for you to consider. Rejecting Jacoby's view that other intensive bombing attacks on civilians in different countries were also justified to end the war, Carson writes that all "Attempts to terrorize a country into surrender through wholesale murder of its civilian population [are] a crime against humanity — no exceptions."

Carson's article concludes that the US decision to destroy cities was an act of utter barbarity, and finds little parallel anywhere except in primitive genocides committed thousands of years ago:
In fact, there’s no moral difference between Truman’s order of the massacre of the civilian population of two cities amounting to hundreds of thousands of people, and the massacres of civilian populations with which the Assyrians similarly terrorized enemies into surrendering over two thousand years ago. 
Deliberately killing civilians is murder. It’s that simple.
As of this post's creation, Obama is not expected to either apologize for or seek to justify the US regime's extensive and horrific war crimes from 1945 to present when he visits the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

10 May 2016

Millennials hate capitalism and greed

The Blog


In a May 1st article appearing at the Center for a Stateless Society website, anti-statist writer Kevin Carson explains why Millennials tend to respond positively to the term "socialism" in poll results. Capitalism gets a much more negative reaction.


This is especially relevant now as people wonder why the "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders was able to go toe-to-toe with corporate backed Hillary Clinton for Democratic Party nomination as President of the United States. It happened despite many Americans (likely older generations) despising anything called "socialism" and assuming it to be solely the work of North Korea or Joseph Stalin.

Carson explained that the Millennial generation is distressed by the greed and oppression brought about by modern corporate capitalism. Many young people are familiar with the ideas of academics who try to explain just how disfiguring and tyrannical current capitalism is. Rampant capitalism is is actually coercing even the capitalists' favorite bogeyman - the regulatory state - just for its own profit.

Alluding to sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein's theory (read all our coverage of Wallerstein) of the expansion of capitalism across the world, Carson writes that Millennials have got it right if they associate capitalism with greed and power rather than freedom:
Historical capitalism began five or six centuries ago, not with free markets, but with the conquest of the free towns by the absolute states and the mass expropriation of peasants from their traditional rights to the land by the landed oligarchy, and continued with the colonial conquest of most of the world outside Europe. Since then capital has continued to rely heavily on the state to socialize its operating costs, erect barriers to competition, and enforce illegitimate title to all the land and natural resources engrossed in previous centuries. This history of conquest, robbery and enslavement is in the basic genetic code of contemporary corporate capitalism.
Some writers have tried to explain away Millennials' positive views of socialism with the condescending assertion they are "confused" about dictionary definitions. Carson dismissed this assertion as "dumb" and devoid of any comprehension of history.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

17 November 2015

Rockwell talk dismantled by antistatists

The Blog


C4SS analysts slammed a talk by Lew Rockwell at the Mises Institute, in which open borders were characterized as an attack on private property.


The argument by the anarcho-capitalist activist seemed to be based upon conflating the borders and roads of the states receiving immigrants with "private property", as follows:
...immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so... individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.
The Center for a Stateless Society's antistatist theorist Kevin Carson hit back at this analysis, refuting it by arguing:
...So the basic idea is that all roads are the “private property” of the majority, who can restrict comings and goings on them at will. This is nonsense on stilts... The streets of cities and towns were laid out as a public commons at the time of settlement, by and large, and were never privately owned.
Embracing his fellow C4SS writer's above response, KN@PPSTER wrote that Lew Rockwell will go as low as "he has to go to continue dragging in money from a market niche he considers under-served due to the fact that decent human beings find that niche too sickening to serve."


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

23 October 2015

TPP is big govt propping up big business

The Blog


Right-wing libertarians at the magazine Reason have a chauvinist, statist interpretation of what "free trade" means. They recognize it only in the expansion of US corporate hegemony and the enslavement of poor people.


Kevin Carson, writing at the antistatist think tank Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS), offered that characterization of so-called "free trade" as it was articulated in a recent op-ed found at Reason. The op-ed had praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as an accomplishment in free trade, and this was refuted in Carson's responding post at C4SS.

It is Orwellian to call the TPP "free trade", Carson argued. In actual fact, the TPP supports intellectual property (IP) which suppresses legitimate competition and innovation in order to privilege CEOs who ultimately needed no intellect in order to gain possession of such property:

"The draconian IP provisions of contemporary "free trade" treaties serve the interests of global corporations the same way high industrial tariffs served American corporations a century ago."


IP enables corporations to suppress commercial competition in poverty-stricken countries, where the poorest of the poor in the world are contracted to work as sweatshop laborers. Also in the retort to the Reason op-ed, Carson wrote that IP is:

"a form of protectionism that still gives them [corporate stakeholders] a monopoly over selling a particular product in a particular market - but operates at corporate boundaries rather than national ones"


The TPP, and the "free trade" it represents, are effectively then a shift from one (national corporate) protectionism to another (global corporate) protectionism.

Carson sums up his criticism of the TPP and other so-called free trade deals by pointing out the contradiction in the supposed anti-statism of right-wing libertarians. What they are arguing for is necessarily heavier state intervention in the economy. State subsidizing and protecting big business from competition is the object of all IP law, and such intervention has become the basis of most global corporate profit.

Corporations are leeching on the US state, only for right-wing libertarians at publications and bodies like Reason to portray their success as an example of free markets with zero state intervention. As such, Carson mocks, someone who thinks "free trade" agreements reduce the intervention of the state in the economy might as well believe in Santa Claus.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

20 October 2015

Antistatist think tank on Jeremy Corbyn

The Blog


How should left-wing antistatists and anarchists see Jeremy Corbyn, current Leader of the Opposition in the UK, who is considered "hard-left" in the media?


Looking at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) for commentary on Corbyn, you'll find only three articles mentioning his name right now. This is understandable, considering that Corbyn is a fairly new political animal for most people in the information media since his rise to leadership of the Labour Party.

Views at the the think tank, however, vary between quite enthusiastic support and expectations of severe disappointment to come if Corbyn doesn't turn out to be as radical as his supporters and detractors both claim him to be. The character of Jeremy Corbyn as someone who continually maintains his principles and fights for the public good against all the odds is not questioned, however, by either of these two competing viewpoints.

C4SS commentators Derek Wall and Kevin Carson both concurred that Jeremy Corbyn's success was a sign of progress. On 4 October, International Coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales Derek Wall, who knows Jeremy Corbyn, wrote at C4SS that he was "amazed" by Corbyn's success, pointing out that Corbyn was far from a mainstream figure and was "more popular with Greens than his own party".

Also mentioning Corbyn in his response to Wall - which was not directly concerned with Jeremy Corbyn but with points of political theory - Carson gave the following commentary:
I see a great deal of promise in Corbyn’s distinction between state and social ownership — perhaps even some hope of a partial move back towards Colin Ward’s vision of public services organized around mutuals and friendly societies instead of government and corporate bureaucracies.
An earlier article published at C4SS, however, quotes another anarchist blog at length, questioning whether Corbyn will really change anything in Britain's political landscape. Blogger Pete James from Whatever-ism had predicted that Jeremy Corbyn would disappoint his supporters in the way Syriza had disappointed the Greek people after promising to defeat austerity.

The above skepticism mirrors a similar view advanced by leading American social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein, stating that elections have little impact on the world-system. Wallerstein also weighed in on the inherent weakness of national governments in challenging a historical social system like capitalism, which is ultimately how Greece was defeated by the interests of European and international bankers.

However, with the UK being a major financial player in the world-economy and linked integrally to the US, the threat from a Corbyn-ruled Britain to the capitalist historical system would be much more severe than anything from a peripheral European country like Greece. Wallerstein himself also described Corbyn's success as part of a global revival of the political left.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

9 October 2015

Reason gets schooled by C4SS... again

The Blog


Anti-statist commentator and theorist Kevin Carson has once again gone after Reason for the magazine's dogmatic adherence to neoliberal ideology. This ideology plagues the publication's understandings of innovation and competition, conflating them with American chauvinism and the asinine claims to "intellectual property" advanced by corporations that lack any merit or intellect.


In an op-ed at Reason, writer Stephanie Slade appealed to the increasingly politicized 'people's Pope' Francis to "embrace capitalism" if he really wants to improve the lot of the world's poor. Commenting upon this in a response at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS), Carson ridicules Slade's assertion that “markets and globalization have lifted billions out of poverty and lessened global inequality”, correcting Slade that what exists is not a market but a system of global expropriation, conquest and chauvinism advanced by governments.

Carson contends that Slade is as ignorant of basic economic facts as she accuses the much-praised Pontifex. The global corporate economy is no free market, he points out. Rather, it is the end result of five hundred years of what Carson calls "colonialism, robbery and enslavement". This is perhaps a reference to the theory of the capitalist world-economy advanced by historical social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein, which sees the start of the conquest of the Americas by European armies as roughly the beginning of modern-day capitalism.

Far from being based upon freedom or real innovation, current "capitalism" is based instead on ruthless ownership and protection of property by gangs of thugs and brutal armed regimes masquerading as "democracies". No-one actually earned such property, and instead such ownership can solely be traced back to criminality, racism and class antagonism, Carson implies.

In Carson's own dramatic phrasing, we may understand the historic truth as follows:
Most of the minerals, farm land and petroleum reserves of the world continue to be held by the heirs and assigns of the original robbers — a giant, bleeding, arterial wound on the body of the global South that transnational corporations feast on like vampires. So global capitalism as we know it was founded on the violation of property rights. Talk of “inviolability” amounts to the robber saying “No more stealing, starting — NOW!”
Even supposing Pope Francis' ignorance of economics is fact, Carson concludes, an economics columnist like Stepahnie Slade at a publication as respected as Reason should know better than to recycle fallacies about intellectual property being somehow responsible for freedom. In reality, intellectual property is a form of protectionism, which does nothing more than slow down and prevent innovation.

If we assume that Slade is right about capitalism uplifting a billion from poverty, it remains a fact that it could be done faster if we had removed the suffocating and retarding enforcement of intellectual property laws by states.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

1 September 2015

Abundance's own rentier parasites?

The Blog


Antistatist technologies enthusiast and accomplished writer Kevin Carson exposed the real behavior of corporations that claim to triumph latent network-based management and production made possible with new technologies.


In a defiant post called "Uber: NOT the Networked Successor Economy You’re Looking For", Carson pointed out that in reality, corporations such as Apple, Uber and Lyft do not create anything. Rather, they stifle other people's creativity and undermine humanity's yearning for an alternative economy driven by networks and peer-to-peer production.

Instead of creating anything, such corporations make network technologies available that could have made corporate hierarchies and the state obsolete, yet then they extract rent from them by getting the state to protect them by enforcing the suffocating idea of intellectual property.

According to Carson, intellectual property is being used as a last-ditch defense by management hierarchies who feel that new network technologies will oust them. These organizations spend less time inventing new technologies that could empower networks and individuals and make them independent of hierarchy, than they spend trying to maintain dependency so that people will not be able to use such technologies without going first to such corporations.

This situation was not necessary, Carson argues, and it will become increasingly apparent that it is not necessary as a result of new network technologies that shall "render the corporate form entirely superfluous". Carson pointed to "the rise of the open-source hardware, micromanufacturing and peer production movements" as the best observation supporting this conclusion.

While today, one cannot obtain the needed technologies to network without first going to a corporation, this is the result of deliberate steps keep to corporations in power. The entire current global mode of production has been corrupted by corporate hierarchies desperate to entrench themselves, in order to extract rent from works that they do not rightfully own - the most apparent of which today is the Internet itself.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

28 August 2015

Destroy and remake education?

The Blog


A recent open response to an email posted by Center for a Stateless Society writer Kevin Carson advocates that rather than guaranteed access to education, there should be a more radical act of destroying present institutions to build an alternative model for education.


Carson argues that the values present in current educational institutions and state-supplied education are wrong, putting corporations and the state above individuals. Education should instead serve the interests of the individual, and new technology, new media and ultimately a radical departure from old values governing education and educational reform would enable this shift of values.

Describing corporations (rather than students) as the real customers of current educational institutions, Carson advocated:
Our anarchistic vision involves not simply abolishing the educational system as we know it, but also abolishing all the institutional customers for that system’s product. One thing I constantly emphasize is that, in an economy of self-managed cooperative production, self-employment, and direct production for use in the informal/household sector, the kind of education being demanded for employment wouldn’t be driven mainly by the needs of corporate Human Resources departments. They’d be set by the actual recipients of education, which in turn would be set on an ad hoc basis by individual workers negotiating as equals with small, self-organized production groups.
This type of advocacy fits with Carson's broader recommendation of shifting power away from institutions to individuals, as is increasingly current in some intense political battles such as that of information media and entertainment, as a result of the Internet. Carson sees the world's peoples, creativity and resources being eventually freed from the stifling "radical monopolies" of powerful corporations and the states they govern through lobbying and corruption.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

25 August 2015

US-corporate global dispossession

The Blog


Kevin Carson, antistatist writer at the Center for a Stateless Society, pointed out in a post that the US government has not only supported the dispossession of indigenous peoples in its history but continues to do so in current events.


The US, whose colonial state was founded on the dispossession of Native Americans whose land it stole, is still involved in dispossessing indigenous people to this day. Accusing western civil society entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of involvement in the same practice, Carson wrote:
some 130 million hectares of land (or 500,000 square miles) in the developing world has been bought by foreign investors over the past fifteen years, most of it to produce cash crops for export and a great deal of it involving the dispossession of people previously cultivating it to feed themselves. For example, the Prosavala land grab in Mozambique will evict 500,000 people.
The post concluded that these works, often labelled as a "model investment project", rely on a state enforcing the will of corporations, and that the best solution would be to "smash the state, and with it the parasitic capitalists it serves".


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

11 August 2015

The terrorism of intellectual property

The Blog


Antistatist writer Kevin Carson took aim at the weakest link in Ron Bailey's "free market" economics, in a post at the C4SS think tank.


After criticizing Bailey's (who is a transhumanist "liberation biologist" and a strong influence on The clubof.info Blog) attacks on Naomi Klein's theories of "disaster capitalism", Carson draws our attention to weakest and most paradoxical part of Bailey's economics: his paranoid defense of patent law while otherwise insisting that the state is not needed in economics. From Carson's writing:
Speaking of patents, “intellectual property” is the state-enforced monopoly which is most structurally central to global corporate capitalism. The dominant corporate players in the global economy are in industries whose business models center on “intellectual property”: entertainment, software, biotech, pharma, agribusiness, and electronics. And of course the ability of corporations like Nike and Apple to outsource all actual production to independently owned factories in the Third World, while retaining a legal monopoly on disposal of the product at whatever price they care to set, depends entirely on patents and trademarks. 
So Ron Bailey defends a system that depends, completely and utterly, on a boot stamping on a human face, and calls it the “free market.” I tell you this: If I thought the free market meant what Ronald Bailey calls “the free market,” I’d hate it more than a thousand Naomi Kleins and Michael Moores put together could hate it. The system of corporate power Bailey loves, the system he defends, was founded on robbery and enslavement, and couldn’t survive for a single day if it weren’t backed by armed thugs interfering with peaceful trade and cooperation between ordinary human beings.
"Intellectual property", a form of heavy state intervention in the economy, is legal terrorism by companies and individuals that are so lacking in creativity that they need "rights" to stifle the works of others by suing them for petty violations of supposed "ideas" they drew up. While rejecting other types of state intervention in the economy, Bailey sees this particular type of state intervention and attacks on creativity as a necessary part of his so-called "free market" despite it being blatantly prohibitive in nature.

Intellectual property is increasingly seen as a farce on the Internet because every other human economic contribution is based upon copying and all other remuneration is based upon labor rather than mere "ownership". Intellectual property, rather than offering monetary incentives to work and create, is instead a type of terrorism that allows companies and states to refuse to share information that could save lives and benefit mankind, and attack other people for their own works.

Along with "national security", "intellectual property" is the monarchy of creative works, an assault on freedom, a denial of humanity's right to prosper. It is worthless terrorism that shall enable the perpetuation of economic and power monopolies to be awarded based on nothing other than prior historic theft and possession of such monopolies.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

31 July 2015

"We need more traitors"

The Blog


The American Center-Left need not call the GOP's anti-Obama crusaders "traitors" and should instead call them by their correct name: warmongers.


This is what is advocated by antistatist theorist Kevin Carson at the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society) think tank in a recent post.

Carson argues that while it is tempting to turn Republican war hawks' own rhetoric about "traitors" and allegedly weak-kneed Democratic foreign policy back on them, the real crime of the war hawks is the mere fact that they support war. Any action in the interests of peace, whether disloyal to a regime or loyal to it, should be celebrated, and such is the triumph of the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran. On the other hand, any action in the interests of war, such as the campaigning by pro-Israel figures in US politics, should be considered a horrendous assault on the public interest.

In addition, Carson noted it is not very American to disapprove of "treason" in the first place, considering the United States was founded upon treason and committed the most famous act of treason in history, which it celebrates every year on July 4. This historic treason was also motivated largely by warrantless spying much like the NSA's, which Americans thought was outrageous enough to take up arms against the colonial administration. From his conclusion:
Indeed “traitors” like John Brown and Harriet Tubman, and New England juries who nullified the Fugitive Slave Law, found themselves at war with the federal government. We need more traitors like them, and like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.
Below is the trailer for the upcoming thriller movie Snowden, directed by Oliver Stone, which is likely to further build up the popular following behind Edward Snowden and challenge many who see the whistleblower as a traitor who put Americans at risk from terrorists.



American politicians continue to put US soldiers and civilians at risk throughout the world by perpetuating reckless policies of assassination, provocation, war, extortion, betrayal and torture behind a cloak of secrecy and hollow propaganda about democratic accountability. At the same time, the actions of Edward Snowden did not cause any loss of life while politicians accuse him of being irresponsible.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

How Likely Is It That Russia’s Next Special Operation Will Be Against Latvia?

How Likely Is It That Russia’s Next Special Operation Will Be Against Latvia? By Andrew Korybko What’s much more probable is kinetic retalia...

Follow Me on Twitter