leftlibertarian.org

There’s been plenty of hype — some of it justified, some a little over the top — about the prospects of Libertarian congressional candidates this years. The lion’s share of that hype has gone to Texas and the campaigns of Michael Badnarik and Bob Smither. The attention is justified, based on Badnarik’s warchest and Smither’s status as the only non-Democrat on the ballot in a heavily Republican district.

Of course, I’m skeptical. The latest polls I’ve seen show both candidates in single digits (granted, the last Badnarik poll was awhile back). I think they’ll do better than their polling numbers would predict, but I’m not convinced that a victory is in the offing. I hope they both prove me wrong. Either way, I believe we’ll see a number of “balance of power” showings in which the LP’s candidate has a significant impact on outcome. Those may include US Senate candidates Frank Gilmour in Missouri and Bruce Guthrie in Washington.

The more likely prospect for outright victory is that Libertarians will be elected to state legislatures in two or three states: New Hampshire, Vermont and, just possibly, Indiana.

In Vermont, five “fusion” candidates (Benjamin Todd, Jeff Manney, Bob Wolffe, David Atkinson and Hardy Machia) won their districts’ Republican primaries to run on both the GOP and LP tickets. There’s a good chance that some or all of them will be elected to office.

New Hampshire has been the site of “fusion” victories in the past, and a number of LP candidates are seeking legislative seats there this year as well. Notably, state LP chair John Babiarz is running as a Democrat. The trend there seems to be away from fusion per se and toward seeking major party nominations. That hasn’t been a reliable way of winning office in the past, but it sometimes works and in particular areas it may be key (not just for state races — Frank Gonzalez ran as a Libertarian for Congress from Florida in 2004, and is the Democratic nominee in that same district this time around).

And in Indiana, Rex Bell is apparently polling in the 30%+ range, slightly behind the Republican incumbent and slightly ahead of the Democratic candidate for a legislative seat. I haven’t seen any hard information on the poll’s methodology and such, but if it’s accurate the Indiana LP may finally see its years of hard work pay off.

Best of luck to these candidates, some of whom are personal friends. I’ll be thrilled and surprised if we elect a congresscritter this year, but I’m actually confident that we’ll see some Libertarians in the statehouse.

Update/Correx — Thanks to Seth Cohn for two factual corrections: 1) The trend in New Hampshire isn’t just “away” from fusion, it’s off it altogether as the New Hampshire LP isn’t on the ballot. 2) John Babiarz lost his Democratic primary, but a number of other Granite State Libertarians made the election cut, including Don Gorman (see here for a list of 132 candidates endorsed by the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance). Also thanks to Seth for this analysis contesting the notion that Bob Smither is really polling in single digits. FWIW, I predict that both Smither and Badnarik will do better than 10%, polling or not (partly because I think they’ll get out a higher percentage of their voters).

By Marguerita Choy
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iranian artist Shirin Neshat plans to shoot a film about the United States overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Iran to gain control of the nation's vast oil supplies.

Ripped from today's headlines? Not quite.

The project is not based on the West's ongoing standoff over Tehran's nuclear program but rather on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's first overthrow of a foreign government, 53 years ago.

But while the movie is set in the past, Neshat hopes it will reverberate in the present, showing Westerners how their role in history is partly responsible for the current state of affairs.
"I am drawn to this project because I feel so strongly about the need for Westerners to look back in history," she said in an interview with Reuters.

...

Neshat said the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, and what she called extreme animosity of the United States toward Muslims was to blame for the rise Islamic fundamentalism and the corresponding decline in the rights of women and secular Muslims.

"All reform efforts are out of the window," she said. "The effect of the war is the exact reverse of what the U.S. intended to do and it's so obvious who is paying for it. It's all those men and women who are secular Muslims."

full story here

Somewhere in a rough Baghdad neighborhood today, as every day, a small group of American troops are patrolling the streets in a lightly-armored vehicle--like thousands of other troops patrolling throughout the city and in different places throughout Iraq. They keep an aware, slightly nervous eye on their surroundings, not letting too many moments pass without scanning everything in their field of vision. They’ve been in Iraq long enough to know that they have to: on an apparently quiet street, things can get ugly quick, and almost from out of nowhere. They keep an eye on the ground, looking for spots that may look dug-up, potentially planted with an improvised explosive device. They keep an eye upward, to the roofs of buildings and in windows, apprehensive of deadly sniper attacks that seem to come and go before their sources are spotted. They keep their eyes on cars, buses, houses, and around corners--for an attack can come from any one of these places. Most importantly, they are wary because, as long as they have been there, they are still not entirely certain how to determine just who the enemy is. Is it Shiite? Is it Sunni? American troops are attacked from both groups of people--100 killed this month--and members of the sects attack each other.

If one thing is certain about Iraq, it’s that it’s confusing in Iraq. It’s confusing to a person of Iraq who is uncertain about the Americans are doing, what the Iraqi government is doing, or whom, even if it is a militant group, it is really the best to side with for his or her well-being. It’s confusing for an American soldier, who may wonder what his or her objective is and how to carry it out. A teenager might just be a teenager, or he may be carrying a weapon and intending to use it--or worse, strapped with explosives. A family may be helping people who are in need and to whom they have family ties, or they may be harboring militants. Or both. It’s hard to find the enemy in Iraq. It’s hard to define the enemy in Iraq.

Back home, we’re not quite sure about who the enemy is either. I’ve tried to find out, over the course of a few years. I thought I knew, of course, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, and I, like many Americans, thought it was clear who the enemy was. It was Saddam Hussein and his regime; they were a danger, they needed to be removed and replaced with a U.S.-friendly democracy, one which the people of the United States and the people of Iraq would all welcome. But, bewildered as I and many other war-supporting Americans were, that’s not what happened. I thought at first, maybe, that the enemy had just been a little stronger than had been anticipated. And I thought that for a while. It’s what I thought, in fact, even up to and past the 2004 elections. These were insurgents--Saddam loyalists, militant Islamists, and terrorists who wanted a safe haven from which to plot more attacks on America--whom we had to fight long enough to fully liberate the people of Iraq and ensure American security. Even after it was realized that there had been none of the alleged WMD’s or ties to Al Qaeda, I felt that, since there was now an enemy in Iraq, that enemy needed to be overcome.

But I began to be less and less certain about who that enemy is, and since that time, I have taken a much closer look into the war in Iraq, to understand it--to understand who the enemy is and why it is, to get an idea of the role American involvement plays in the situation--from the accounts and videos of soldiers and journalists, from scholars on the region, from expert analysts, from any possible source of information. Not only that, but I began to understand more of the larger issue of conflict in the Middle East and the United States’ role in that conflict, and the United States’ role in any conflict, for such, I have discovered, is essential to understanding the situation in Iraq and U.S. involvement in it. To put it plainly: as I’ve learned, my views have changed considerably--extremely even, for that is what truth tends to do for one who has been previously unaware of it.

Now, while American troops are struggling to define, detect, and root out the enemy, I have finally been able to figure out what they are so often unable.

I have found the enemy.

It may be startling; how is it possible that I have found the enemy when U.S. troops, whose daily job it is to do so, have not? Because, it turns out, they are looking in the wrong place. The enemy is not in Iraq, but here, in the United States. It was as shocking to me as I’m sure it is, properly realized, to anyone. The enemy is here, disguised as the “interests of the American people,” but the truth is that, like most foreign policies of the leaders of the United States, and most of its domestic policies, having a “stable, U.S.-friendly democracy in the Middle East” has little to do with the interests of most Americans, but much to do with capitalist imperialism. The interests of the Iraq War are those of American oil companies, defense contractors and other war profiteers, and potential benefactors in other industries that could profit from U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern markets--while the burden of the war has been on U.S. troops and the American people.

There are profound historical precedents for the exercise of back-door imperialism that is U.S. involvement in the Middle East. We are trying to “liberate” Iraq under the Bush administration in much the way that, say, Cuba and the Philippines were “liberated” by the U.S. from Spain a century ago--for, after the smoke cleared and the dust settled and the thousands of American soldiers buried, and, importantly, the native freedom movements quelled, it became apparent that the entire conflict had more to do with American sugar interests and expanded markets for American capitalists than freeing the Cuban or Filipino people--at the tremendous cost of the blood and money American soldiers and working people.

The plain fact is that the intervention of Western powers in the Middle East is the underlying cause of most Middle Eastern “extremism.” The United States became particularly involved in Middle Eastern affairs after the Second World War, and, with Britain, had a primary hand in drawing the boundaries and supporting the often-oppressive rulers of several Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf Emirates, Iraq, Iran, and Jordan--most importantly for the interests of key players in oil and related industries. In fact, it was the revolt of Iran against one such U.S.-supported dictator, the Shah of Iran, that was an important backdrop for the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980’s--now often cited for war atrocities as a legitimization for the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime--in which Iraq under Saddam Hussein was supplied by the United States with the weaponry that made it a military power (which empowered it to later invade Kuwait).

Volatility in the Middle East escalated after the Persian Gulf War in response to continued U.S. military/political presence and intervention, as well as its one-sided and unconditional support for Israel despite numerous atrocities against Palestinians. These imperialistic practices have served as the primary motivators for the uprising of militant groups, who see themselves as freedom-fighters for the self-determination of their own countries and people. While they have been conveniently caricatured as merely violent theocracy-promoters by those who have a stake in controlling the Middle East and its vital resources, this is a serious misrepresentation of who these people are and why they are fighting. For many Muslim people, to be certain, Islam is considered the central unifying concept of life and pertinent and applicable to all areas of their lives--much as the worldviews of other religions and ideologies are to their subscribers. People who are disaffected by the imposition of Western powers on the governance and affairs of their own people in a patronizing relationship see this as an affront to Arab independence, and often turn to fundamentalist messages as a vehicle in which to channel their desires for resistance and retaliation. They don’t really care about the liberal social values and customs of other countries, they’re not blowing themselves up for Shari’a law in the U.S. or Europe--what they are motivated by is the oppressive way in which they have encountered Western powers. As Middle East scholar Tariq Ali wrote shortly after 9/11, "the reasons [for terrorism] are really political. They see the double standards applied by the West: a ten-year bombing campaign against Iraq, sanctions against Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, while doing nothing to restrain Ariel Sharon and the war criminals running Israel from running riot against the Palestinians. Unless the questions of Iraq and Palestine are sorted out, these kids will be attracted to violence regardless of whether Osama bin Laden is gotten dead or alive."

Ali, knowing the U.S.’s foreign policy motivations, feared an invasion of Iraq would take place even before talk was certain of invading Afghanistan. As people in the region had become increasingly resistant in the 90’s to the effects of outside influences on Middle East nations, a top foreign policy objective became to set up a “stable, U.S.-friendly democracy” in the region to mitigate and counter-balance that opposition and promote U.S. and Western influence. Iraq, with it’s important location in the direct center of all the oil-rich countries of the Middle East and its unpopular, dictatorial leader, was by far the most strategic target, and 9/11 made fabrication of a case for war all the more plausible. Even the media joined in with the Administration in heralding “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

This measure was not a new idea. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) had been calling for U.S. invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and set up a friendly government as early as 1998. What is truly revealing, however, is that several members of the group--Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz--became important members of the Bush Administration. All had interests in the invasion of Iraq. The New Citizenship Project, in fact, from which PNAC is an outgrowth, is made up of many people who are key influences in policy.

An organization of people with a certain agenda might claim to have it for any number of reasons. They might say they are pro-freedom. They might say they are fighting for the interests of the American people. They might say anything that will sound virtuous and persuade others to put stock in their message, but if you really want to know what they’re about, you have to find out what brings them together and from where they draw their support. The New Citizenship Project is funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, with ties to oil and global warming skepticism. It is funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, with chemical and munitions manufacturing ties. It is funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which happens to be possibly the biggest funding source for the pure, unadulterated interests of the greatest holders of capital wealth in the United States--interests, in effect, to undo even the reforms of the Progressive Era and re-institute full-swing robber-baronism in the U.S. and imperialistic market expansion abroad. The truth, formerly obscured by the call to patriotism, by the often twin-failings of complacency and credulity, is now laid bare for all to see.

I hope that the U.S. troops who are now fighting, who are killing and dying without knowing why, in Iraq, know these things. I know that they are courageous, and having a love for true freedom, and for America, as I do, I hope they are coming to get a true sense of the injustice of this war. I hope they know that the enemy has been found, and it’s here, that they have been put in danger by dominioneers and warmongers. We need to let Iraqis determine the nature of their governance for themselves. We need to allow the sovereignty, not of a U.S.-imposed government that the people can’t agree on and accept together, but of the people of Iraq--whether they be one nation, or two nations or three. And let us decide, from this point forward, that economic interests for some are not worth the blood of Americans or people anywhere.

I hope that our troops soon come home and work with all Americans on addressing and getting rid of the real enemy. I hope they come home and stand up with us, and with the rest of their fellow soldiers who are now scarred, physically or mentally, and with the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children, and friends of those of their fellow soldiers whom they’ve lost because of this war. I hope they stand with us in the town halls. I hope they stand with us in the streets. I hope they stand with us and speak; I hope they stand with us and sing. I hope they stand with us against capitalist imperialism in the world, and against corporate dominance over our own country; I hope they stand with us so we can all stand together and say that we won’t be part of it anymore, that we won’t be complicit, that we won’t be participants. Let us stand together and declare war on the real enemy of the profit machines that are operating at high human and societal cost. Let us take from it our communities, our cities, our streets, our schools and churches, our homes, and our lives. For that is the only way to win the War on Terror, and it is the only way to address many of the problems that we are all now facing together.

Over at a wonderful magazine called The Republic, Kevin Potvin argues that conspiracy theorists are nothing more than present day historians recreating the probable power structures from available evidence. No, they can’t prove everything, and they can’t always reconcile all the facts and make them fit hand in glove. But a historian doesn’t dismiss facts simply because they don’t fit into the history he wants to tell.

A good historian looking at a distant time and place knows that everything he has as evidence before him has meaning and everything is somehow connected—or will be once he has finished writing his history. A 12th century scrap of paper with a partial list of sexually degrading acts found in the manuals of priests learning how to take confessions is at first so discordant, we can’t begin to fathom how it came to be. Do we therefore throw it away, assume it has no meaning for us? Of course not. The piece of paper means something very important and it completely alters how we understand late-pagan culture in Europe and the frame of mind of the vanguard of the Church confronting it.

So when we get hold of executive compensation contracts from the heyday of the Enron era, and find CEOs holding out for things like a new dishwasher on a contract already worth several hundreds of millions of dollars, and find that also to be confusingly discordant, do we throw that information away because it doesn’t make sense? No, we use that evidence to totally recreate what we think about corporate executive officers operating at the vanguard of our advanced capitalist economy, and to understand the demeaning service-sector society surrounding them, the very one we ourselves populate.

No doubt the Church would be terribly unhappy with what we would have had to say about their priests if we found those confessional manuals back when they were in circulation, and they would have argued articulately and vehemently against any less-than-flattering conclusions we might have drawn up because of them. So too do sycophants in the media today argue strongly against any unflattering conclusions we might draw about the executives in charge of our largest enterprises, based on what we learn about a few of them and their odd, even twisted, personal proclivities. But those denials, then as well as now, mean little against the hard evidence. Who owns the media in which those denials are made after all? Just as in the days of the Church, it is the same people being unflatteringly portrayed who have control over where and when, if ever, such portrayals will see the light of day. Of course their media will tell us to look away and ignore the evidence. That’s what they bought the media to do.

Almost all that is dismissed as conspiracy theory today is really only good or poor attempts at writing history in our own time. But why is it that when we are talking of the histories of whole different places in whole different times, we easily accept that this or that group of powerful people made this or that important event happen, yet when it comes to histories of our own time and place, we automatically reject any suggestion of any group of people making any important event happen? Throughout history, every important event always has some group of people behind it, and these events always offer revealing meanings about the kind of societies in which they occur. It is the same today.

Don’t make me cut and paste the entire article, read it yourself. It is spot on about the importance not just of an ongoing revisionist history, but applying those insights to a revisionist understanding of power structures in general.

The notorious George Reisman fires another salvo for Randroid ethics. This time, the scourge is not lying, theiving mutualists, but another form of cost-internalizing market usurpers: environmentally conscious businesses. Run away!!!

…“Green Hotels” have been busy attempting to persuade their customers to forego the customary daily provision of fresh sheets and towels in guest rooms. And more recently, they have begun to replace the provision of fresh bars of soap each day with the installation of fixed liquid-soap dispensers, similar to those in public lavatories, even in showers and bathtubs, where they can actually be dangerous.

It’s one thing to argue that the so-called “green hotels” Reisman attacks are exploiting environmental consciousness to cut their own costs. I, too, find their breezy statements of faux Gaia worship tacky and self-serving. However, Reisman attacks them for even implying that any interest trumps “luxury”:

Irrespective of the effect on their profits in the long run, what the Green Hotels are doing is disgusting. It is part of a cultural assault on luxury and pleasure. One that works to make every day of everyone’s life one of unrelieved drudgery and sacrifice, to the point of there being no escape. Even vacations and holidays are now to be stamped with the mark of sacrifice. Sacrifice not even for other people, but for the “planet.”

It’s true that the environmental credo has problems of consistency. You shouldn’t have to pay the same price for getting less soap, less frequent towel changes, or even organic food. All of these features should result in more efficient and sustainable business and therefore should lower costs to customers. Pollution, waste, and recklessness should be expensive in a market economy.

The reason they’re not, of course, is because of State intervention on behalf of capitalists. Water is made artificially cheap to waste by subsidized government utilities devoid of sufficient concern for sustainability. A subsidized transportation network makes soap artificially cheap to distribute, and limited liability laws make it artificially cheap to incorporate, aggregate capital, and centralize production. At practically every step in the process involved with running a hotel, the state is intervening to offset their costs and make them run cheaper. So naturally, hotels can be extremely wasteful, and whether or not it is luxurious, waste bothers people.

Indeed, consumers buy this environmental pitch and decide of their own accord to help the planet, however nebulous and naive that argument may be. That’s their call, though. No regulators are barging in and imposing austere conditions on deprived, overcharged customers - there’s an authentic demand here being filled. It appears there is a demand for a clean conscience, and people are willing to pay effectively higher prices for it. Sounds like a market at work to me - a market that incorporates competing values and concepts of what is “the good”. Such is the promise of a true free market, as I argued earlier.

If Reisman would apply his objectivist ethic equally to all the interests involved in the industry he critiques, he would see that it is actually cheaper to be environmentally conscious. And after all, consumers flock to lower prices - those who want a new towel every day can pay for it. I’ve never been to any of these hotels and had a problem getting new towels when I want them - though I usually don’t, since using a clean towel every time is, well, wasteful. If it’s wasteful when I do it at home, why wouldn’t it be wasteful at a hotel?

I don’t have a problem with luxury. I like nice things. But getting a towel every day without asking hardly qualifies. A bar of soap hardly qualifies. That’s my opinion, Reisman has his - so can we stop preaching to each other and spend our money how we see fit?
If you don’t like the way one hotel does it, go to another one. If you don’t like organic milk, don’t buy it. Don’t force your morals down other people’s throat - that kind of obnoxiousness and homogeonization of culture is precisely what pisses me off about monopoly capitalism. Here hotels are giving consumers more choice and Reisman throws a fit about it. And this guy wrote a book entitled “Capitalism”.

Which brings us to what I suspect is the real reason for this vulgar libertarian tirade: Reisman wants his “free stuff” without asking.

The Green Hotels are becoming increasingly brazen in their racket. Until recently, it was enough to leave a card on a pillow if one wanted the sheets changed. Now it’s becoming necessary to call the hotel’s front desk. In addition, notification that sheets and towels will not automatically be changed is becoming much less prominent. Just last week, I personally experienced these things at what I would have expected to be a really first-class hotel, namely, the Hyatt Regency in Newport, Rhode Island. (This hotel also had a liquid-soap dispenser installed at the bathroom sink, though it continued to provide fresh bar soap each day. It was at the [Dis]Comfort Inn near Boston’s Logan Airport, that bar soap was entirely replaced with liquid soap dispensers.)

I wonder: does he write a psuedo-economic rant everytime he dines at a restaurant and doesn’t get his after-dinner mint?

Tags: capitalism, sacrifice

Greenspan says it’s beginning:

“We’re beginning to see some move from the dollar to the euro, both from the private sector … but also from monetary authorities and central banks,” Greenspan told a conference sponsored by the Commercial Finance Association.

I’m continuing to read Secrets of the Temple, and a lot of the books deals with the Fed’s problems stablizing the money supply and interest rates.  One of the huge factors was the foreign supply of dollars, referred to as the “eurodollar” market.

Now, it’s one thing when European private banks and investors start selling or loaning dollars, but when central banks start moving out of the currency wholesale, at whatever speed… watch out.  The slightest panic could end up in a world dumping of dollars.

That would not be good for those of us who use dollars, as I understand it.

Hat tip to Lew Rockwell.

Tags: fed, federal reserve system, central banking, dollar, alan greenspan

(Story thanks to Rachel S. @ Alas, a blog (2006-10-26).)

Say, did you ever wonder where all these white college kids come from who are so wilfully stupid, or so openly malicious, that they think that minstrel-show blackface is a great party gag?

The answer is they come from white suburban families who are so wilfully stupid, or so openly malicious, that they think that minstrel-show blackface is an appropriate way to root for their kids’ pee-wee football team and rib the (mostly black) opposing team.

Here’s the story from WKYC Cleveland:

HUDSON — A pee-wee football game between Hudson and Shaker Heights turned into a lesson on racism.

Shaker parents say that Hudson fans, took their team spirit too far. They say those fans became offensive, even racist, because they wore black face and afro wigs.

The parents also claim the Hudson fans beat on frying pans on the sidelines.

Some of the kids on the Shaker team even say they used racial slurs.

It was supposed to be about fun building skills and teamwork. To the seven eight and nine year olds on the Shaker team, the game ended up being about our country’s racist past.

They were calling us ns — the n word, is what one nine year old said.

They shouldn’t say that to other people because they don’t know what it means to us, another player said.

The racial slur was enough to bother these kids but it wasn’t all they faced on the field. There were Hudson fans dressed in black face.

—WKYC (2006-10-25): Pee Wee football game marred by alleged racism

Alleged racism? Whoa, look out there, some fire-eating demagogue has gone so far as to allege that ordinary white people with Midwestern accents and middle-class incomes might be doing something racist when they put on blackface and shout nigger at grade-school black children. Quick, activate the White Denial!

But many parents of the Hudson players told Channel 3’s Mike O’Mara that there was absolutely no intent for any of their fans to be offensive.

Kelly Dine is a parent of a Hudson player.

It was two little boys, not the entire fans, that happened to wear part of the Halloween costume, Dine said. They thought they were supporting their brother on the team.

—WKYC (2006-10-26): More controversy over alleged racism at pee-wee football game; Hudson mayor apologizes

Oh, O.K. I mean, this doesn’t explain away everything. But hey, you’ve got to admit that if it was part of a Halloween costume, then minstrel-show blackface is totally appropriate. Right?

And besides which, we can hardly expect children to have parents, who might have explained to them that racist caricature might not go over so well with a mostly-black football team or their families.

Clearly there is no racism involved here. Didn’t they get rid of that in the sixties, anyway?

O.K., so this isn’t working so well. Better try the Insincere White Apology instead:

Meanwhile, in downtown Hudson, residents are deeply upset about the perception of insensitivity. The banners in the business district proclaim a history of excellence.

… Dine said that she feels very badly if the Shaker parents felt like they were offended.

If two little boys had these wigs on and they perceived that somehow it was an insult against them, it wasn’t. It was truly to support our 8, 9 and 10 year old boys.

—WKYC (2006-10-26): More controversy over alleged racism at pee-wee football game; Hudson mayor apologizes

Oh, man, that I’m sorry you’re offended apology just never gets old. Here’s more from the Cleveland Plain Dealer (via Alas, a blog (2006-10-26)):

[Coach Jeffrey Saffold] said after Sunday’s game, he complained to John Elffers, president of the Hudson Hawks Youth Football Association, who sent him a letter apologizing for the fans’ actions.

Elffers, however, said the first complaint he heard came Monday when Saffold called him and said parents of Shaker players were offended. Elffers said he doubted supporters meant to be offensive.

Their actions, albeit unwise, foolish and insensitive, were meant to be totally supportive and not intended to insult or offend anyone in any way, Elffers wrote in his letter to Saffold. We regret what occurred and apologize for any righteous indignation these actions may have caused to the coaches, players, parents and family members of the Shaker football organization.

Just out of curiosity, if the blackface and afro wigs weren’t intended to insult or offend anyone in any way, what exactly were they intended to do?

O.K., so maybe that one didn’t work out so well either. Better fire up the White Dissociation, quick:

Liz Murphy has owned the bookstore in downtown Hudson for 23 years.

I want to tell them that we’re not like that, Murphy said. I was horrified.

—WKYC (2006-10-26): More controversy over alleged racism at pee-wee football game; Hudson mayor apologizes

I’m sure that Liz Murphy doesn’t personally feel like that. You might wonder, in light of what just happened, what could entitle her to invoke the royal we, here. But I’ll bet the people who are like that don’t have anything to do with all the good white folk of Hudson. They probably don’t even come from Hudson. I hear they fell into the football game through a wormhole that leads back to their Evil Racist Dimension, where everyone wears a mullet, where everyone speaks in funny accents, and where this sort of things is enjoyed or at least quietly tolerated. Certainly this has nothing to do with the sort of community that the white majority in Hudson, Ohio has built, or the assumptions they share, or the customs they indulge in, or the habits of thought they have fallen into. Nothing to see here, citizen; move along.

The mayor of Hudson, William Currin, said personally I am appalled and saddened by the reported acts. I don’t condone nor will I tolerate such actions. I will be investigating this incident and working with all interested parties to try to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. Please know that this is an isolated incident and in NO WAY represents the vast majority of the upstanding citizens of Hudson.

—WKYC (2006-10-26): More controversy over alleged racism at pee-wee football game; Hudson mayor apologizes

Sure it’s an isolated incident. Just like all the others.

Further reading:

• GT 2005-11-29: Yet another isolated incident: blackface at Stetson University
• Tolerance.org (2002-09-25): Jim Crow Bizarre at OK State
• GT 2002-05-13: Here we go again—frat racism ad Syracuse
• GT 2001-11-14: And the other shoe drops—Delta Sigma Phi dissolved in frat racism scandal
• GT 2001-11-14: One down, one to go… — Beta Theta Pi dissolved in frat racism scandal
• GT 2001-11-09: The Context of racism at Auburn fraternities
• Tolerance.org (2001-11-08): University of Mississippi Fraternity Suspended Until 2002
• GT 2001-11-06: Virulent racism at Auburn fraternities
• Tolerance.org (2001-11-19): Hate in the News List of Campus Incidents

In the course of doing research for a forthcoming post on the libertarian case against corporations, I happened to be reviewing the discussion at Catallarchy on libertarian critiques of progressive regulatory corporatism. One comment in response to what I considered a well-reasoned deconstruction of the typical libertarian argument stood out to me:

That is a key insight of libertarian democrats–markets are arbitrary human creations, and whenever we as a society deem it appropriate for the common good we should create new ones, as with the patent system or with tradeable carbon credits.

There’s a lot to be said against that, but I’ll limit myself to making the point that there is no “we as a society”.

Now, I understand why libertarians say this: they want to prevent the sacrifice of the individual to the mob, realized either by “anarchy” or in the form of the “people’s” state, be it socialist or democratic. Certainly I’ve invoked this kind of language in the past, as least in the first months following my reading of Atlas Shrugged.

But this oversimplification promotes the appearance of sheer boneheadedness: quite obviously (as the original Catallarchy commeter retorts) “we” exist, and “we” are commonly referred to as a “society”. In fact, the whole body of libertarian thought is concerned with empowering voluntary associations - i.e., “society ” - at the expense of the coercive state. Engaging in these cool one-liner mind trips is fine, as long as you’re clear about what you mean.

What the Randroid obviously means, of course, is that the use of the term “we as a society” is not useful in a certain context. It’s not that society is not some illusion devoid of physical being, but rather that it has no power to express any sort of will or preference. Therefore, it’s useless to talk about what society chooses or prefers. Society doesn’t have the capacity for agency that an individual does; therefore, society can’t express preferences in any absolute sense like an individual can.

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement, so clarified: society is composed of individuals, and it is the individuals that act, make decisions, hold beliefs, assume responsibility, etc. It is a ridiculous and dangerous notion to locate the source of any responsibility or activity in some nebulous entity called “society”. Societies, properly understood, don’t act - they are abstractions, containers for aggregating individual decisions, actions, and responsibilities into useful generalizations. But just because they can be so aggregated doesn’t mean that container has the same qualities as the constituent parts.

Indeed, there is something irreducable about the individual. To me it is a mystery that there exists within man a locus of sentience that we have not been able to reproduce through decomposition or aggregation. That, however, doesn’t mean that there is nothing to be said of society as an entity, a process, or a dynamic which individuals can identify and with which they can engage. As we find novel ways of expressing the intangible nature of society, such as the internet, it makes sense to make use of the abstractions inherent in such study.

However, we must be careful to address society’s actual qualities, characteristics, and features - rather than superimposing upon the aggregate qualities of the constituent. The left libertarian and anarchist depend upon this organizing mechanism to inform the scope of possible human liberty independent of the coercive state or the cruel mob. We should better understand society and its possibilities rather than dismissing its existence or usefulness out of hand.

I believe this can be accomplished as part of the study of the individual. After all, it is most often within the context of society that the individual has a meaningful, empirically understandable existence. Understanding people is the core study of anarchism in the end, and it is only from a unique articulation of human nature and dignity that any argument can be made against moral domination.

UPDATE: Constant responds to my critique, and I to his retort. A sample:

Any well-reasoned deconstruction of libertarian arguments must display awareness of what I have just pointed out, since it is so very basic.

Good reasoning doesn’t imply a person will not make mistakes - it simply means that when a person DOES make mistakes, they will be clear, and a person will be honest enough to admit them. Introducing arrogance into the equation works against honest debate. THAT’s what I have a problem with.

Tags: collectivism

This is my translation of "Le reveil des chats noirs" which appeared in the French journal, Politis, 7 avril 2005 http://www.politis.fr/

THE BLACK CAT IS AWAKE

The Confédération nationale du Travail(CNT- F) (1) is undergoing a revival, due in particular to disaffection with the larger union federations. Meet the members of this trade union which stands for self-management and direct action.

A black cat with hair standing on end, back arched as a sign of anger... In the March demonstrations, one saw the famous black and red CNT flag waving. One could also notice the significant number demonstrators in its ranks, in particular young people. A significant revival, which delights the old militants and gives weight to their arguments.

"If nobody works in your place, nobody decides in your place" This slogan summarizes the operation of the CNT-F for Étienne Dechamps, militant since 1968 of the revolutionary trade union. No hierarchy, "each member has the same authority". Self-management and direct democracy are the precepts. The general assembly is sovereign. "It is a form of control of each one for each one, we won't work for the bosses as individuals", stated Fabrice Christmas, regional secretary of d’Île-de-France. "All is open to debate, including subjects which, perhaps, do not deserve it", analyzes Étienne. Each decision is made by consensus, "And that makes for real militancy! But what can kill the CNT-F, would be to become monolithic "

To adhere to the CNT-F is not to sit around relaxing. Meetings, brain storming sessions, actions, many activities go on outside the work hours. The CNT-F rejects permanent officials, refuses to professionnalize trade unionism and to allow itself to be cut off from the base. Each member adds his contribution. The union helps create militants out of those who are not accustomed to be militant. The CNT-F also helped "to make each individual more autonomous", adds Paco Munoz, pensioner and member for four decades, after a childhood raised in Spanish anarcho-syndicalism: his parents were opponents of Franco. "In the end, it is the improvement of material conditions and ethics, but also to create areas of emancipation"

Paradoxically, a danger for the future of the CNT-F would be to develop too fast. That would complicate its democratic operation. With 4 000 militants, the confederation remains a number of small groups. (2) But it is it less and less so. "The more one is numerous, the more consensus is difficult to reach, the more it is difficult to be democratic, because the number of intermediaries increases", deplores Étienne. However, the CNT-F could attract more and more militants, divorced from the traditional trade-union centrals. "In the ten years to come, there will be a rebirth of class struggle unionism of which the CNT-F could play a part", predicted Emmanuel Coral, 46, ex- CFDT.(3) There are many, like Emmanuel, who criticize "these conglomerates of corrupted notables". The apparatchiks have professionnalised the trade unions and care more about their own situation than their members. When Emmanuel was laid off, he felt abandoned by his union. "I did not interest them anymore because I was no longer working, I was unemployed. The CFDT has little involvement in in the struggles of the unemployed "

The confederal secretary of the CNT-F, Jean-François Grez, felt the same thing in 1988 at the time of the strikes of the postal and telecommunications authorities. Edmond Mayor, secretary-general of CFDT, had treated the members of the CNT-F as a bunch of "black sheep".

Éric Derennes has been with the CNT-F since January 2002. Political militant for a long time, he was close for a while to the CFTC. (4) But, when it came time to join, he felt a hostile environment, little open to new comers: "I had the impression I was disturbing them." All have found with the CNT-F a space of freedom, openness, where militants often meet (because of absence of hierarchy), an antiautoritian sense especially independent of the political parties. The Anarchist Federation tries hard to gather up members from time to time, but the CNT-F is not defined as anarchist. Only revolutionary, but welcome to the libertarians. "They do not constitute a majority", specifies Jean-François Grez, to counter this stereotype of anarchistic trade union which has stuck to the CNT-F for years.

There is much confusion about the history of the CNT-F. Heir of the revolutionary French CGT and the anarcho- syndicalism of the Spanish CNT-FAI at the beginning of the XXe century, the confederation shelters the two tendencies since its creation in 1946. The CNT-F "was used as legal cover for the Spanish organization", explains Étienne Dechamps. (5) However, on the Spanish side, the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) exerted political control of the trade-union organization, and "the Spanish trade unionism thus maintained itself by developing the project of a libertarian communist society", explains the Internet site of the CNT-F. By its radical positions (refusal to be involved in the work's councils, union delegates and coadministration) at the end of the war, the CNT-F fed this anarchistic image.

Late in the 1960s, in spite of some small growth in 1968, the CNT-F came very close to disappearing in 1974. Its existence of little more than groupusculaire also nourishes the stereotype. Its reappearance at the end of 1970 will not put an end to it. More especially another stereotype is associated with anarchistic trade unionism: the CNT-F is seen as violent. The militants, like Étienne Dechamps, are revolted by this generally accepted idea "Where is the violence when 2 000 to 3 000 people die each year at work? "For Éric Derennes," the CNT-F is not violent, it is accused of generating violence because it has other ideas than the large trade-union centrals. The distribution of leaflets, postering can be perceived as violent activities by the other trade unions because it disturbs their inactivity. But that is not a physical violence "It recognizes however, that, during demonstrations, the forces of law and order are fearful. Certain militants play at it in their relationship with the bosses. "In six years with the CNT-F, I never fought anyone, states Fabrice Christmas. But certain employers think that it is necessary to be on guard against us because we are the violent ones. We let them keep this idea ", he continues mischievously. The principle of direct action (occupation of buildings, mass leafletting etc.) asserted by the CNT-F does not embellish this portrait. Work place action is decided by the employees themselves, in a general assembly. The trade union does not impose a policy on them. It ensures only coherence between the actions, without prejudging the form of action "We assert the use of sabotage", Étienne Dechamps, tosses off... (6)

The revival of the confederation has much to do with youth. Since the first university battles in 1986, but especially in 1995 and in the year 2000, many students joined the CNT-F. This encouraged the creation of university sections, the high schools less so. "The existence of a free space, radicalism, its formative role": are possible explanations to these adhesions, according to Étienne Dechamps.

Perhaps also the search for a revolutionary ideal. If the union refuses the adjectives "anarchist" and "violent", the CNT-F asserts that of "revolutionary". Without awaiting the Great Event, the militants speak rather of "transforming the workplace so that everyone can take part, that everyone one is an actor in his-her own life", specifies Fabrice Christmas "the revolution, is not to impose another system, it is to work with all the elements of the group and to make decisions together", theorizes Éric Derennes.

The idea is to make decisions together, but without collaborating with the employers. The CNT-F rejects coadministration and refused for a long time to take part in the union delegate elections. The work's councils are too compromised an institution. Except in exceptional cases, it prefer to remain outside this institution. The debate over works council elections created a scission with the CNT-AIT , an organization much smaller than the CNTF (known as CNT F Vignolles after # 33 rue Vignolles in Paris). (7)

Compromising with employers is the reproach the CNT-F has for the other trade unions, which reject this criticism. No relation is possible with the hierarchies of the large union centers. If there is inter-union activity sometimes, it is with the rank and file. "That happens often with some people", explains Éric Derennes. "But that occurs in the field of action." Except when it is the action of union functionaries. Because the CNT is not recognized by the State in negotiations, like "the great" CFDT, CGT, FO and others. Thus the disputes are permanent. The CNT-F "is very often excluded from the organizing of trade union processions", indicates Étienne Dechamps. In 2001, it had even been prohibited to march on May 1.

1. I write the name as "CNT-F" to distinguish it from the Spanish CNT.

2. There is some question of the actual number. Wikipedia says 1200. I find it very unlikely that this union would lose three quarters of its membership in a year. Revolutionary unions tend to be much looser than regular ones, and there is no automatic dues check-off, so this figure could refer to paid up dues, but not the actual people who are involved in CNT-F activities

3. CFTD is the Socialist Party trade union central

4. CFTC is the Catholic trade union central

5. The Spanish CNT was in exile after Franco's counter-revolution. Several hundred thousand CNT members were murdered by the Francoist fascists.

6. "Sabotage" has an ominous tone in English, being linked to arson, bombing and machine-wrecking. All it means it reality is working slowly or doing poor work, stopping a machine etc, a way of hitting the boss in the pocket book while still on the job. It does not mean violence or destruction.

7. Actually, what happened is a tiny group split off from the CNT-F and also called itself the CNT, but this group probably has no more than 100 members and is just a propaganda group.

Another piece for the Center for a Stateless Society. This time, it's about the Hungarian Revolt of 1956. Comments are once again appreciated. Is it too populist this time?

Tags: anarchism, libertarianism, Center for a Stateless Society, Hungarian Revolt