“Left” Anarchism is Impossible Reply

By Christopher Cantwell

Make mention of anarcho-capitalism, and the lefties are never far behind to tell you you’re not a real anarchist. You know, because studying economics and improving one’s station in life, that’s for statists, maaaan.

I suppose “left anarchist” might be a broad brush, including all sorts of incoherent ideologies. The anarcho alphabet if you will,  anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-mutualist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-socialist, anarcho-tribalist, Zeitgeist whackos, left market anarchists, and a dozen or so other hipster anarcho-adjectives that have yet to fly through my twitter feed. They all fall under the same flag (yes, that’s an insult) of people who ultimately want freedom, not from the State, but from reality, they want equality, not of opportunity, but of outcome.

nacomNow, we can drop some of these from our discussion before going too far into this particular article. Socialism is defined as State ownership of the means of production, so An-Socs, please collect your participation trophy at the door, and exit the building. Having computers centrally plan the planetary economy is as statist as it is sci-fi, so Zeitgeisters sign off immediately and tell your mother that you’re off the modem, so she can make phone calls again (Yes, I’m that old). In fact, all you people who don’t believe in markets, get lost, it’s time for the adults to have a discussion.

Pull up a chair, left market anarchist. Can I get you a coffee or something? This is long overdue.

Yesterday, when I sat down to write “Sorry Fake Libertarians, Capitalism Requires Anarchy” the original title ended in “and Vice Versa”. When I realized I was already over 4,000 words into deconstructing Binswanger, I realized tackling State capitalism and left anarchism in the same article would lead only to the cutting of corners, and this is really too important for any of us to get lazy on.

So, as promised, here is my response to Anna Morganstern‘s piece at Center for a Stateless Society titled “Anarcho-”Capitalism” Is Impossible“.

READ MORE

Anarcho-“Capitalism” is Impossible Reply

By Anna Morgenstern

Center for a Stateless Society

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism. I happen to think this is actually backwards. If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such. But what then is a free market? If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public? Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham. It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State. Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property. So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means. Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals. And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.

Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority. There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy. But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.

READ MORE

Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism Reply

By Daibhidh

The Anarchist Library

“From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed.”

Capitalists are always eager to put glossy packaging on tired old products in order to put one over on the purchasing public. In this way, they hope to rekindle demand for what is actually the same product they have been providing people in the past.

This is the rationale behind what can only be called “anarcho” chic; that is, the usurpation and appropriation of anarchist forms without anarchist substance, in an effort to create the illusion that somehow, magically, capitalism is about freedom, liberty, and anarchy!

The following terms are generally used by these laissez-faire capitalists to describe themselves:

  • “anarcho” capitalist

  • libertarian

  • libertarian capitalist

  • anarch

  • “anarchist”

While we (actual anarchists, e.g., those who oppose rulers) can’t claim possession of any term, we have an obligation to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the laissez-faire capitalist use of anarchistic terminology. They use the term “anarchist”, but at the expense of their credibility — why? Because their self-definition doesn’t hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning.

“Anarcho” capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State. They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape — simply out of maliciousness alone.

“Anarcho” capitalists do not object to private property, to class distinctions, social stratification, concentrated wealth, and other bourgeois trappings in society. Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable.

READ MORE

Chinese military sets course to expand global reach as ‘national interests’ grow Reply

By Simon Denyer

Washington Post

China said Tuesday that it plans to extend its global military reach to safeguard its economic interests, while defending its territorial claims at sea against “provocative actions” by neighbors and “meddling” by the United States.

A policy document setting out China’s military strategy, issued by the State Council, or cabinet, underlined the dramatic growth of the country’s defense ambitions — especially its naval ambitions — in tandem with its rapid economic rise.

Beijing insisted in the document that its military is dedicated to “international security cooperation” and peaceful development. But it also said the navy will expand its focus from “offshore waters defense” to a greater emphasis on “open seas protection” as China aims to establish itself as a maritime power. The air force, meanwhile, will shift its focus from “territorial air defense to both defense and offense.”

Patrick Cronin, director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, called the white ­paper ­“a blueprint for achieving ­slow-motion regional hegemony.”

“It asserts a confidence backed by growing capability on land and increasingly at sea,” he said. “While it calls for balancing China’s territorial ‘rights’ with ‘stability,’ there should be little doubt on the part of its neighbors that China is building a maritime force to assert the former.”

China’s officially disclosed defense budget was expanded by just over 10 percent this year, to $141 billion, marking two decades of nearly unbroken double-digit growth. The navy is reportedly building a second aircraft carrier and has invested heavily in submarines and warships.

“China has made it a strategic goal to become a maritime power,” Senior Col. Wang Jin said at a news conference Tuesday. “Therefore, we need to build a strong navy.”

He added that the development of long-range precision weapons means that the battlefield at sea is widening. “Offshore-waters defense alone can no longer provide effective defense of the country’s maritime interests,” he said.

READ MORE

ISIS: An Inside Job? Reply

By Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.Com

When Ivy Ziedrich, a nineteen-year-old college student, approached Jeb Bush on the campaign trail and zinged him with “Your brother created ISIS!” the media ate it up and the video went viral. Ms. Ziedrich, a member of the College Democrats, talks very fast, and she managed to utter the following diatribe before Jeb could get in a word edgewise:

“You stated that ISIS was created because we don’t have enough presence and we’ve been pulling out of the Middle East. However, the threat of ISIS was created by the Iraqi coalition authority, which ousted the entire government of Iraq. It was when 30,000 individuals who are part of the Iraqi military were forced out. They had no employment, they had no income, yet they were left with access to all the same arms and weapons. Your brother created ISIS!”

Poor Jeb! Being even less informed than his ambusher, he could only “respectfully disagree” and reiterate the neocon party line: if only we’d kept more troops in longer ISIS wouldn’t have coalesced. “You can rewrite history all you want,” he said, with a sigh, “but the simple fact is we’re in a much more unstable place because America pulled back.”

The media homed in on this incident because they’re still blaming Bush and the Republicans for the Iraq war, while ignoring the key role played by DemocratsHillary Clinton and her husband come to mind – in ginning up that disaster. So in that sense Jeb is correct when he says they’re rewriting history, albeit not quite in the way he imagines.

Ms. Diedrich is wrong about ISIS: the idea that its foot soldiers are mostly former members of the Iraqi military is unlikely, although there are some former officers in the higher echelons. The vast majority of its fighters have been recruited from throughout the Middle East (and Europe) from the ranks of radical Islamists. More importantly, the Islamic State metastasized in Syria, not Iraq, and this is the key in assigning responsibility.

READ MORE

Clashes between Israel and Hezbollah and the “Iran-led Resistance Bloc” Reply

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroava

Global Research

The strategic equation in the Middle East is about to see major changes. It strongly appears that the Iranian-led Resistance Bloc or Axis of Resistance — comprised of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and a cross-section of Palestinian and Iraqi groups — is about to become more powerful than ever before.

After a cooling of ties, a new understanding is being hammered out between Hamas and Tehran. Meanwhile Yemen is under the control of the Houthis and both the US and the House of Saud have essentially lost the four to five years they had invested after the eruption of the Arab Spring of regime management in Sana. Not only is the Resistance Bloc emerging more powerful, but Iran is becoming indispensable to the regional security architecture of everything east of Egypt in the Mashreq. The security and defensive forces in Syria and Iraq have become integrated with Tehran’s security architecture. Hezbollah has emerged stronger than ever too with a genuine regional reach and presence that extends from Lebanon and Syria in the Levant to the territory of Iraq where it is fighting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Israel is beginning to feel the pressure and has begun to show some signs of panic. When talking about Iranian influence in the Middle East, Israeli politicians and media reports claim that a third Arab capital—Sana—is now under Tehran’s control. Moreover, Tel Aviv has begun to rattle the cage as nuclear negotiations—and the undisclosed talks about non-nuclear issues— between the US and Iranian governments have been underway.

The House of Saud is anxious too. For these reasons the relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel are closer and more strategic than ever. Both the Israelis and House of Saud have also started a propaganda campaign using the unconcealed presence of Iranian military personnel in Syria to try to scare the Arab public by ridiculously claim that the Iranians have been using the Syrian conflict to gain influence inside Syria. This rhetoric is fear mongering that ignores that fact that Tehran was already the strategic ally of Damascus before the Syrian crisis and that an Iranian presence existed in Syria long before 2011. What is true, however, is that ties have deepened between Tehran and Damascus.

READ MORE

Iraq Liars & Deniers: We Knew Then What We Know Now Reply

By Ilana Mercer

Libertarian Alliance

“If we knew what we know today, we would not have gone into Iraq”: This is as good an apology Republicans vying for the highest office are willing to offer, 12 years after launching a war that was immoral and unjust from the inception—as some of us pointed out from the inception—cost trillions in treasure, tens of thousands of lives (American and Iraqi), and flouted America’s national interests.

The big reveal began with Jeb Bush, who told anchor Megyn Kelly that knowing what we know now about Iraq, he would absolutely still have invaded Iraq. Broadcaster Laura Ingraham was having none of it. With the benefit of hindsight, she had arrived at the belated conclusion that the invasion was wrong. Ingraham suggested that Bush III was insane for sticking to his guns about Iraq.

Next to disgrace was Sen. Marco Rubio, also in the running. Six weeks back, Rubio had been unrepentant about the catastrophic invasion. After The Shaming of Jeb, Rubio changed his tune.

The title of Judith Chalabi Miller’s “rehab book tour” is, “If we knew what we now know … .” Over the pages of the New York Times, Miller, the Gray Lady’s prized reporter had shilled for the Iraq war like there was no tomorrow. In her reporting, she channeled Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi conman who fed the moronic Miller with misinformation and lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The other conman was Bush II, president at the time. His administration assisted Miller—a woman already prone to seeing faces in the clouds—to tune-out and become turned-on and hot for war (also the title of a January 2003, “Return To Reason” column). No tale was too tall for our Judith; no fabrication too fantastic.

Miller’s “mistakes,” and those of America’s news cartel, are no laughing matter. But it took a Comedy Central icon to deconstruct her national bid for redemption. The fact that others were on board, Republicans and Democrats, is not exculpatory. Idiocy is bipartisan. Not everybody got it wrong. Miller and her ilk chose not to consult those who got it right.

READ MORE

The Role of Anti-Establishment “Conspiracy Theories” Reply

By Colin Todhunter

Global Research

Films for Action

ment “Conspiracy Theories”

In recent years, populist explanations for world events have become common and often taken the form of anti-establishment conspiracy theories. The contradiction between how people believe the world should be, according to the mainstream propaganda pertaining to liberty and democracy, and how it is in this time of crisis leads people to search for easily digestible answers.

It’s easy for conspiracy theorists to play on people’s fears and prejudices and to point fingers at certain groups. In the past, it has been ‘the Jews’, ‘the Irish’, ‘the blacks’, ‘the Poles’ or some other easily identifiable target that was blamed for society’s ills. Resorting to selective interpretations of history or some simplistic Hollywood-esque inspired political or sci-fi narrative where giant reptiles are taking over the planet can be quite seductive, particularly for ‘right-leaning’ sections of the population who never had any truck with socialism and probably once believed in the ‘free market’ and capitalist liberal democracy but now have trouble in fathoming out why it has all gone wrong.

Conspiracy theories of different kinds have been found on both the left and the right of the political spectrum over the decades. While the right saw reds under the bed everywhere, the left regarded every negative event as a consequence of capitalism – what sociologists call ‘left functionalism’.

READ MORE

More…

Here are 7 things people who say they’re ‘fiscally conservative but socially liberal’ don’t understand Reply

By Greta Christina

Raw Story

“Well, I’m conservative, but I’m not one of those racist, homophobic, dripping-with-hate Tea Party bigots! I’m pro-choice! I’m pro-same-sex-marriage! I’m not a racist! I just want lower taxes, and smaller government, and less government regulation of business. I’m fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.”

How many liberals and progressives have heard this? It’s ridiculously common. Hell, even David Koch of the Koch brothers has said, “I’m a conservative on economic matters and I’m a social liberal.”

And it’s wrong. W-R-O-N-G Wrong.

You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don’t intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called “social policies” that are supposedly separate from economic ones. Here are seven reasons that “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is nonsense.

READ MORE

The Libertarian Moment is Everywhere Around Us (Increasing Social Tolerance Edition) Reply

Nick Gillespie

Reason

For the past 15 years or so, Gallup has charted how Americans describe themselves when it comes to social and economic issues.

For the first time ever, equal percentages of us define ourselves as liberal and conservative on social issues:

GallupGallup

Even among Republicans, social liberalism is ascendant, with self-described conservatives dipping from a low of 67 percent in 2009 to just 53 percent now. The key issues driving the growth of social liberal views and the decline of social conservative views, says Gallup, are gay marriage and pot legalization. Support for both of those things has skyrocketed in the 21st century, with a velocity that is nothing short of stunning.

READ MORE

Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states Reply

By Niraj Chokshi

Washington Post

People who identify as conservative outnumber those who call themselves liberal in 47 states, according to a new Gallup survey.

Nationally, conservatives had a 14.6 percentage point lead on liberals, though that was more than a full point smaller than last year’s lead. The gap in 2013 was largest in Wyoming, where 40.5 percentage points separated those who identified as conservatives from those who identified as liberals. Only Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont and D.C. had more liberals than conservatives. The top 10 liberal states voted for Obama during the last two elections, while the top 10 conservative states chose the Republican nominee.

Another Gallup poll this week found that the Democratic party’s advantage in the states had gone down dramatically, though the party can still lay claim to more states than Republicans can. Still, the new findings suggest that most Americans are ideologically at the center to center-right. And the implications for Democrats could be simple: focus on the middle.

“How do Democrats continue to win elections if so few Americans identify themselves as liberal? The answer may lie with moderates, which, as a voting bloc, are solidly Democratic,” the Gallup authors write. “If moderates begin voting with Republicans in the near or long-term future, there may indeed be a Republican revival on the national level.”

READ MORE

For the First Time Ever, Social Conservatives No Longer Outnumber Social Liberals in America Reply

By Kevin Drum

Mother Jones

Via Ed Kilgore, here’s an interesting chart from the good folks at Gallup:

What’s interesting about this is that the change is due almost entirely to Democrats and Democratic leaners. Since 1999, that group has gone from 35 percent socially liberal to 53 percent, and from 20 percent socially conservative to 14 percent conservative.

Republicans and Republican leaners, by contrast, have barely budged. In the 2015 polling there’s a slight dip in conservative ID and a slight spike in moderate ID, but it’s probably just noise. Generally speaking, the lines are pretty flat over the past couple of decades.

So why have Democrats changed so much? Perhaps it’s the impact of Millennials. Perhaps it’s the impact of gay marriage, which Democrats have been far more willing to accept than Republicans. Maybe MSNBC and liberal blogs have had a bigger impact than I would have guessed. I’m not sure. But the increase has been steady enough that it can’t be blamed on any specific event, like the Bush presidency or the financial crisis.

In any case, this really is a milestone. For a long time, one of the rocks of political analysis in America has been the simple fact that conservatives outnumber liberals. That’s been true since at least the 60s, and probably for the entire postwar period—and it’s been a perpetual millstone around Democratic necks. They couldn’t win national elections just by getting the liberal vote and a little bit of the center-right vote. They had to get a lot of the center-right vote.

READ MORE

U.S. military and civilians are increasingly divided Reply

By David Zucchino

Los Angeles Times

Members of the military hold a giant U.S. flag before an MLS soccer match between the Seattle Sounders and Sporting Kansas City, in Seattle, May 23, 2015. © AP Photo/Ted S. Warren Members of the military hold a giant U.S. flag before an MLS soccer match between the Seattle Sounders and Sporting Kansas City, in Seattle, May 23, 2015. REPORTING FROM FT. BRAGG, N.C. – Jovano Graves’ parents begged him not to join the Army right out of high school in 2003, when U.S. troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But their son refused his parents’ pleas to try college. He followed them both into the Army instead.

Last June, 11 years later, Staff Sgt. Jovano Graves returned home from Afghanistan, joining his mother, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Sonia Graves-Rivers, for duty here at Ft. Bragg.

“My family, going way, way back, has always felt so proud to be Americans,” said Graves-Rivers, who comes from a family in which military service spans six generations, starting with her great-great-grandfather, Pfc. Marion Peeples, who served in a segregated black unit during World War I.

Her father, Cpl. Harvey Lee Peeples, fought in the Vietnam War. Her uncle, Henry Jones, was career Air Force. Another uncle, Sgt. 1st Class Robert Graves, spent 22 years in the Army. Her sister, Janice, served 24 years.

“In our family, there’s a deep sense that being American means serving – showing gratitude by giving back to your country,” Graves-Rivers said.

Multi-generational military families like the Graveses form the heart of the all-volunteer Army, which increasingly is drawing its ranks from the relatively small pool of Americans with historic family, cultural or geographic connections to military service.

READ MORE

Another Surveillance Law: One More Step towards the Big Brother State Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

The Barrister, May 2012

At the beginning of April 2012, the BBC and a couple of newspapers reported that the British Government was considering a new surveillance law. This would allow it to monitor the telephone calls, text messages, e-mails and website visits of everyone in the United Kingdom. There was a flurry of debate about civil rights and the need to protect us all against terrorists. There was a side argument between those who said the law was required by the European Union, and those who said it would be in breach of European Union law. Since then, the various debates have gone quiet. Possibly, the Ministers have decided to drop the matter. More likely, the initial leak was to soften us up for something less ambitious to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. The Ministers will say they have “listened” to our concerns – and will use the lesser measure they had in mind all the time as a precedent for moving to the full measure in later stages. This being so, whether greater or lesser, another step will have been taken to a Big Brother police state.
More…

Rand Paul and the Tripartisan Case for Optimism Reply

By Lucy Steigerwald

Antiwar.Com

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) “filibustered” for more than ten hours against the PATRIOT Act, the USA Freedom Act, and myriad government violations of the Fourth Amendment. He also daringly added some blistering critiques of the US prison state and its racial disparities. He mentioned civil asset forfeiture and parallel construction. He read from articles by Judge Andrew Napolitano, journalist Radley Balko, and writers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He talked about Richard Jewell, Japanese internment, and other historical proof that innocent until proven guilty takes a lot of vacation days in America. In short, Rand said a lot of things that were true and necessary to say.

In his efforts to let section 215 of PATRIOT expire (as it is set to do on June 1), Paul was backed by a bipartisan team of Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), with a few other senatorial guest stars popping in as well – mostly Democrats, it turns out! (Sens. Cruz and Rubio took their time to show up, but appeared for a victory lap.)

You might note that the word filibuster is in quotes above. There was some debate over whether Paul’s chattiness actually construed an official filibuster, since the senator interrupted a trade debate, not the actual debate over the sunshining aspects of USA PATRIOT. And the fact that Paul stopped talking minutes before midnight seemed to puzzle even the knowledgeable folks of twitter, so it is not just me not getting the master plan at work here.

READ MORE

USA: the country who killed justice Reply

By Alexander Ionov

Stop-Imperialism.Com

“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word. “ Harry S Truman
That was the speech for 33rd president of the United States Harry Truman. Harry was the one who coined conceptions of “the cold war” in order to constrain socialist bloc countries and under the aegis of fighting communism, a new neocolonial era had begun. US government used many times “the red herrings” cliché while interfering into internal affairs of sovereign nations, in order to carry out their vicious plans against independent countries.
When World War II had ended, US and its satellites intervened into an affairs of 46 independent states, suppressing in these countries the truly democratic and patriotic movements, while CIA and the Department of State supported in various ways nationalistic, radical and openly fascist groups. The secret schematics for economical, political and military intervention were specially crafted, in order to take US to the leadership of the world, creating a unipolar dictate of a single superpower.

42 Ways to Build a Liberated Society Beyond Capitalism Reply

ty Beyond Capitalism
FilmsforAction.Org
It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. At its most basic, this strategy calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image, then, is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning from them until there is nothing left but shells.

This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system; it is an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want.

Thus, capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist ones, and then continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing everything we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, nonhierarchical, noncommodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence.

READ MORE

ATS Statement on the Motorcycle Club Incident in Waco Reply

By Vince Rinehart

“There’s a number of off base memes and ideas floating on the left regarding this incident.

– Claims have been made that this was a shootout between “Skin Head Gangs.” A look at the mug shots of those arrested show whites, Hispanics, blacks and perhaps an Asian or two. Claiming the groups involved are skin heads is a deliberate misrepresentation.
– Comparisons have been made between the way the cops handled the Twin Peaks shooting vs. protests in Ferguson and Baltimore; that the predominately white Motorcycle Clubs involved were treated fairly. This is often based off pictures of MC members sitting around *in detainment* alongside police who are apparently guarding them. Also, lets remember that cops SHOT AND KILLED MC members at the Twin Peaks shooting.

These misrepresentations are just another attempt on the left to divide and conquer the US by pushing us into the Blue Tribe on the left or the Red Tribe on the right. Both tribes support the system. Attack The System believes that the future struggle will not be Blue vs. Red; it will be those who are for the system vs. those who are against it. To do this we propose developing a third political tribe: the Grey Tribe, made up of dissidents, outcasts and left-behinds from both the left, the right and from communities that defy categorization or reject the system; perhaps including 1%er Motorcycle Clubs.”

More…

Why I Fight for $15 Reply

Carson challenges libertarian orthodoxy on the minimum wage.

Carson has tons of great articles on all kinds of stuff. Check out his archive at C4SS. (Caveat: I hear from a reliable source that my name is under a total ban from being mentioned whatsoever at C4SS, even in a hostile or critical way.I’m the guy your parents told you to stay away from, lol.)

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

The Fight for $15 movement is usually identified with the fight for a $15 minimum wage. A call for government legislation is not the sort of thing you’d normally expect an anarchist to endorse. But in fact the movement to pay workers $15 or more is quite compatible with anarchist principles.

Back in the late 19th century, the American movement for an eight-hour day included people from a wide range of political ideologies. Some favored federal legislation to achieve their goal. But the movement also included numerous anarchist tendencies, including individualist anarchists affiliated with the New England Labor Reform League. The nationwide general strike for an eight-hour day was seen by some as a call for a government-mandated limit to the working day, but it was also a pressure campaign on employers. That’s how I see the Fight for $15 campaign.

READ MORE

The Sowell of Man Under Capitalism Reply

An interesting and, I believe, accurate critique of Thomas Sowell by Carson.

By Kevin Carson

Center for a Stateless Society

Once again — this time using the Baltimore uprising as a pretext — Thomas Sowell has pulled out the template for his favorite column dismissing what he calls “the ‘legacy of slavery’ argument” and blaming black poverty on the Great Society (“The Inconvenient Truth About Ghetto Communities’ Social Breakdown,” National Review, May 5). As is the case with the previous versions of this column he’s written, everything in this by-the-numbers puff piece is a decades-old neoconservative talking point. If you put him up against an algorithmic Thomas Sowell Column Generator, I doubt he could pass a Turing test.

The “Great Society/culture of dependency” argument goes back to Marvin Olasky, and has since been repeatedly digested, excreted and re-ingested, human centipede fashion, by mediocrities like Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich. It was shown to be nonsense by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in Regulating the Poor, their radical history of the welfare state:  the actual cause of social disintegration was the earlier massive influx of unemployable black sharecroppers from the rural south when they were tractored off their land after WWII.

READ MORE

buzzword

The Self-Esteem Movement and College Leftism Reply

By Aleksey Bashatvenko

“The presidency is the incarnation of the American people, in a sacrament resembling that in which the water and the wine are seen to be the body of Christ.” -Herman Finer

In 1945, only 2 out of 10 people claimed that they were special or more talented than the average person. Today, 6 out of 10 people make a similar claim and the same holds true for 8 out of 10 college students. Over 50% of college students believe that they deserve a high-paying and a prestigious job immediately upon graduation. The overwhelming 70% of millennials think that they are of substantially above average intelligence and are capable of achieving great things in life. In nearly all surveys conducted on this matter, millennials were almost unanimous in their declaration that becoming famous is both possible and desirable for them

More…

rightofreturn

SAMs for Uncle Sam 1

Chapter 3 of the book

RADICAL PEACE: People Refusing War

By William T. Hathaway

Merna al-Marjan is a young Iraqi who is currently in Germany studying European history. We talked in her dormitory room, a spartan but functional cubicle in a building that embodies a hopeful change in European history: it was constructed in the nineteenth century as an army barracks but now houses university students. That’s progress.

On Merna’s small table sat a pot of peppermint tea and a plate of baklava. She’s short and plump with smooth skin the color of clover honey and deep anthracite eyes; she was wearing a long skirt of light cotton, a long-sleeved blouse, and a green paisley headscarf. More…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers