Ways that patriarchy hurts men

There is this thing on the internet called Men's Rights Activism, or MRA. Ostensibly, the purpose of this is to address gender based disparities that negatively impact men. The confusing part of this, for me, is that this already exists. It's called Feminism. But what of these man-hurting social problems? Well, they do exist, but they are certainly not caused by an excess of estrogen.

Women's preferential treatment in custody disputes
It is commonly alleged that in divorces the mother is much more likely to get custody of the children, all other factors being equal. From what I've read and seen, this seems to be true. Is this because courts are biased against men? No, not really. Traditional gender roles tell us that women are nurturing and caring and are the ones to actually raise a couple's children. The father's primary role is to "provide for his family".
These roles limit both genders, but historically are significantly more limiting to women. Whereas it is not a  contradiction for man to have a family and a career, the assumption is that his wife will stay home and raise their kids, a woman with a career was considered a contradiction until recently. These roles let men be the titans of industry, movers of the earth, statesmen and great leaders. Men are the ones who "do things, invent things and create things" while women do the neccesary but inglorious, unpaid and unheralded "domestic" work.

Admittedly, these are upper middle class assumptions, as being a stay at home parent is a luxury increasingly few people can afford, however the upper middle class run society and these gender roles seem to remain intact throughout the social strata. In poorer families, this most commonly takes the form of the woman doing the "housework" and working outside the home, something called "double burden" or "second shift." In wealthy homes, servants and nannies (traditionally female occupations) may do the domestic work to free up the wife's time.

By assigning child support payments to the father and primary custody to the mother, the law is actually preserving what it can of traditional gender roles. The man is still expected to provide, albiet from afar, while the woman actually cares for the children (in all likelihood working a "double burden"). The net effect seems to be that the man has his responsibility reduced to a bare minimum, providing financial resources only, while all the other burdens are stuck on the woman.

"But that's what young men are for."
One of the most disastrous and positively evil aspects of patriarchy arguably hurts men even more than it hurts women. That is war, and the draft specifically. In American history, in conflicts like Vietnam, World War 2, World War 1 and the Civil War men are conscripted and sent to die in enormous numbers. This is certainly not due to a misandrist plot by a secret matriarchal coven trying to weed out the males of the species.

Traditional ideas of gender portray men with any number of positive characteristics that can be applied to conflict: strength, boldness, rational thinking, courage and honor. Men can go off to war, fight and kill, receive accolades and become heroes. More likely, they will suffer injury and death for no real reason, but the idea of dutifully going off to war is a masculine ideal that persists to this day. Wars (with a tiny handful of exceptions) are commanded by men and fought by men. If women want to participate, until relatively recently they had to stick to standard feminine roles like nursing. Women are too weak, too emotional and too unreliable to be trusted in combat, or so goes the thinking, and have only been allowed in the armed services gradually and in certain areas at a time. Other countries are much more progressive on this issue than America, which only recently started allowing women into front line roles.

Both of these examples are ways patriarchy harms men. Feminism seeks to redress gender disparities and create more social equality, a goal everyone, man and woman, should support.

The Coming Spectre

The coming election offers two fairly conservative candidates with hawkish foreign policies, Romney and Obama, two democratic socialists with strong libertarian leanings, Stein and Anderson, a libertarian, Johnson, and a religious, extremely conservative, authoritarian Constitutionalist, Goode. Sadly, of these five only two have any chance of winning.

Obama's foreign policy seems to have largely been inherited from Bush, and then expanded into new, more odious directions. Obama's innovations on Bush's breathtaking imperalism include, but are not limited to, presidential kill lists, attacking funerals with drone strikes and escalating the US involvement in Yemen. Because Romeny and Obama agree so much, they have to find useless things to criticze each other about. Obama mocked Romeny about his complaints regarding the size of the Navy, recalling the universal derision Romeny received earlier in the year when he stated that Russia was America's number one geo-political foe.

Romney has meanwhile repeated the bizarre claim that Obama has "apoligized" for America abroad. A curious thing to clam about an imperalist president who has granted himself the ability to murder enemies of the state at will. Romeny also claims we need to increase defense spending. Given the comically over-sized defense budget, this is akin to a morbidly obese man with hypertension and type 2 diabetes proudly making a New Year's resolution to go to twice as many all-you-can eat buffets next year. Whichever President we have for next year, expect American imperalism abroad to continue without reservation or shame.

The policy differences on domestic matters are perhaps a little wider, but still pretty minor. Obama has been pretty conservative in continuing existing policies, except for the health insurance tax/mandate in the PPACA law, a federal version of Romney's plan as Massachusetts governor. Romney goes back and forth on whether he'll change the law, or which parts he would change.

At most we can expect some minor modifcations to either tax code or health care regulations, dependent entirely on who wins the Senate and House races. The most greivous domestic policy since Indian removal, the War on Drugs, will likely be unaffected by who wins the election, as well the Patriot Act and similar programs to spy on and imprison the population. Income inequality will continue to grow and corporations will still receive huge benefits from the government in a myriad of ways.

To me, the real choice is between Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson or Gary Johnson. If a person really wanted to vote for someone with terrible ideas, I would recommend Virgil Goode over either Obama or Romney.

How to defeat the Wall Street Pigmen

(I wrote this the other day while thinking about the Wall Street protests. It meanders a lot, but I decided to keep the emotional stream of thought thing. This was all typed off of the type of my head, mostly on my phone at work, without access to any references. It is what it is. But I like it.)

How to defeat the Wall Street pigmen

America is at the lowest level of unionization since unions became legal. We might as well start there. We need a union drive in America. These don't need to be the conservative ossified unions that have managed to survive. Like all institutions, there are good unions and bad unions. But the important part of the union is that it is a representative organization. A more informal structure is all that's necessary. This union drive could be focused in one city, at first. Let's just say New York for argument sake. All people would be needed to join. The IWW could fill this role, or a new union. Dues could be small, or non existent. People could join “One Big Union”, or separate unions that agree to cooperate with one another.

The important part is to get people signed up and agree with the program so the super weapon can be used. This super weapon is the general strike. The strikers could do a few things. One option would be to have a sit in strike at the workplace. A sit in could evolve into an occupation or even worker management, depending on the situation. Employees, again, depending on the business, could keep working and fulfill existing orders but distribute the payments more equitably. Or whatever they wanted. But the key is that "they" refers to the employees.

Now when we talk about sit ins and worker appropriation, it should be clear we're not talking about small businesses. The intent isn't for the three employees at a baseball card store to boot the old grampa who owns it into the street. The target of the strike is the state-corporate economy. But I fear we've gotten ahead of ourselves. If we want our general strike to be a revolution, a bloodless revolution, some ground work has to be laid.

There needs to be a recognition that the interests of the ruling class and the overwhelming majority of the country are not the same. If 99% of the country is sharing 65% of the wealth, then there is always going to be people without enough. The structural inequality, and the finite amount of wealth, means that as long there is a super rich class, there will be a super poor class. The one cannot exist without the other.

What we need is a country where 99% of the country owns 99% of the wealth. Or something close. To do this, we need to create a parallel economy. The way our economy works now, passive participation in it strengthens it. We need a parallel or counter economy. One that can outgrow the official economy. This doesn't mean we have to give up computers or high top sneakers, just that we can do better as human beings. There is more than enough wealth in the world for everyone, but that's not the world we live in. We need only organize ourselves differently.

Let's get back to that ground work. We need friendly banks. We need banks that can do something in the vein of the Grameen Bank, lending loans to people to get themselves in a better place. The innovation with Grameen Bank is that it lended to people without collateral, and found that people paid back anyway. Because the amounts we are dealing with in America are larger, and there isn't the same market for cottage industry, lending groups could be used. A group of people could take a loan out together, each responsible for paying off their part of it. If someone is delinquent the loss is much smaller, because everyone else is still paying. It's a risk pool for lending. People could set it up a few different ways. Someone behind on their payments could be covered by someone else, or bought out if they won't be able to make payments anymore. The goal is to let people get loans for economic projects (like starting businesses or installing solar panels on their house) easier.

Some could criticize this, saying excess lending caused the financial collapse. The lending I'm talking about isn't about lowering standards, only setting up a structure so that people can get a loan without explosive interest rates. These loans would be for improving people's lives, not just to snare them in mortgage schemes. Credit unions could be used for this, or new institutions. Proudhon used the term "People's Banks", which sounds right to me, but probably would make too many Americans uncomfortable. Americans are taught to fear anything with the words "People's" or "Liberation" in it's name.

It would be important to transfer money into the new “friendly” banks. If everyone withdraws their money at once, a run on the bank will happen. A “run” could be timed with the strike, the boycotts and everything else for maximum effectiveness.

To coincide with our People's Banks, we need to revive Mutual Aid societies. Mutual Aid societies were largely driven out of existence by the government around the first half of the 1900's. There are still things that can be done though. People with cash can pay a premium, and receive benefits back later. These benefits could be determined by a board, or a management team. They could be chosen, hired, elected or rotated in and out. People without money could access the society for barter service. An unemployed person could do work on someone’s house, and in exchange receive dental work or food. Hours and goods exchanged can be tracked, perhaps with a sharing ratio like Peer2Peer networks. A group of people can volunteer to run a daycare (an enormous expenditure for single moms) in exchange for work on their cars, groceries or what have you. The society could serve as a clearinghouse for simple user run insurance plans and for LETS style transactions. An existing fraternal society like the elks or moose could serve as a base, or a church group or school. Or an entirely new institution could be made. Whichever works best.

To go with our mutual aid societies and our People's Banks we will want a helping of self sufficiency. The more we disconnect from the state corporate economy the weaker we make it, and the stronger the parallel economy can become in comparison. If someone has solar panels on their house, they then don’t have to pay into the power companies. If you have an electric car, running from your solar panels, you can disconnect from the oil and energy industry in two ways.

Gardens and goods production can be quite prosperous on a small scale if well handled. Food produced this way can be used personally, traded at a community store or for labor. This unplugs you from the food and factory farm industry. To take this to an extreme, if someone were to have the necessary capital, a person could probably make all of their goods instead of working a job. If mutual aid societies could provide things like health insurance, communities structured around small self producing family units could be almost entirely self sufficient. Some people won’t want to take it that far. And that’s fine too.

Ok, so when our general strike hits, our parallel economy is already going. We’ve got self sufficient families with their own food and power. We’ve got mutual aid societies providing services, food, or helping people still get things done with out cash. A strike fund can feed and house those on strike who need to be fed or housed. Occupy Wall Street functions largely off of donations as far as I know, which people from the around the world can use to help. That could be a source of supplies.

There are three approaches the strikers can take, each with pros and cons. People can stay in their homes. Their physical presence is not felt on the streets but it is harder for the cops to attack them. A sit in can be used to occupy and appropriate a workplace. This makes it easier for the cops to know where to strike. Expect a SWAT team and flashbangs. There is the classic protest march, which gets the message out. Good for morale. Again though, you are an easy target for the cops. Obviously, different people and different situations can use different approaches.

While we are striking, it’s important to start a boycott. A boycott of all functions of the corporate-state economy. A list could be maintained of services and companies to boycott in turn. Each time a workplace is reclaimed that workplace is added to the list of places to favor over others. As the strike and boycott drives business under, those business can be replaced by comparable services, run in a more equitable fashion and join the parallel economy.

As the parallel economy grows, the issue of currency is raised. It could be beneficial to issue a counter currency. This is illegal under US law. The liberty dollars, based on gold, would have been great for this purpose. The government smashed that operation however. A way around the law is to have local towns issue their own currencies. Town councils are susceptible to local democracy and could be used to issue local counter currencies.

If we add all this up, the pig men won’t stand a chance. Each major city can be tackled with strikes and boycotts, one at time, as the movement slowly grows in the margins across the country.

The enemy is the “corporate-state” economy, though. How do you strike against the state? This one is much harder. The most obvious way is to refuse to pay taxes. A refusal to pay taxes will eventually put someone up against the IRS. A single person against the IRS will always end with the IRS winning. If, however, a huge number of people going up against the IRS together the government will find itself swamped in it’s own legal system. A loss of perceived legitimacy is more of a blow than the lost revenue. Will the government have the resources to send huge numbers of people to jail for non-violent tax protests? Any debate, delay or controversy will weaken the government position. Not everyone would be able to do this. If you have kids at home, you probably shouldn’t risk getting sent to jail. A covert tax protesters insurance society could be started via an Internet listserv. A large group of people pay a modest premium. They then refuse to pay their taxes. Anyone who gets roped in by the IRS would receive a benefit, either to pay off the audit or support their family if they get sent away. The larger the group grows the more powerful the tax protest becomes. This would also allow people who can not refuse to pay their own taxes to support those who do.

Other ways to resist state power are refusal to pay the standard fines, like drivers license tabs, or to serve on jury duty. But again, a single person will always get crushed. In large groups, the system will start to choke. A more direct approach would be to protest in front of government buildings to block the entrance, or use tow trucks to drop of scrapped cars in front of the entrances. Or denial of service attacks against government websites. Denial of service attacks against “bad” corporations could also be used.

All of these ideas are completely non violent. They are also non governmental. There are no candidates or platforms to vote for. It’s not a call for more or less regulation, more or less taxes. This is libertarian socialism. Some of it is illegal. This is true. Some of it might go too far for some people. But it is not dogma or an orthodoxy. Someone who agrees with one part but not others is not a heretic. It’s a living idea. If it is ever tried, and fails, then I will be the first to bury it. The important part is to imagine a better, more equitable, more just world. Then close your eyes. When you open them, you are living in that world. It need only be built.

Books:

Flight from the city by Ralph Borsodi

Community Technology by Karl Hess

sin patron by the Lavaca collective and Horizontalism

The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin

Post Scarcity anarchism by Murray Bookchin

Studies in Mutualist political economy by Keven Carson

Articles:

All power to the soviets by Murray Rothbard

Debt

I supposed the other day what would happen to the deficit if the government simply cut all the programs and subsides that contribute to the violent and inequitable world we live in.

**2012 defense spending: 1 trillion**

cut by 75%

-$750 billion

**2008 Farm Bill $288 billion**

cut by 50%

-$144 billion

**War on Drugs approx $50 billion**

cut by 100%

-$50 billion

**Foregin Military and Economic Aid approx $12 billion**

cut by 100%

-$12 billion

**Federal Burea of Prisons approx $500 million**

cut by 50% or more by releasing non violent drug offenders and other petty criminals with no felonies or violent offenses

-$250 million

**Medicare Part D approx $70 billion a year**

cut by 100%

-$70 billion

**CIA budget approx $30 billion a year**

cut by 90%

-$27 billion

There are numerous things that could be cut, but that I can't find easy figures for. I came up with this in a couple minutes of internet research. It's possible the savings from the above cuts could be higher, I tried to be conservative whenever possible.

If a tax has to be implemented, the so called "Nader" tax on financial transactions of about 1/2 of a percent would raise a significant amount of revenue while having a small impact on world markets.

Revenue

1/2 of 1% tax on financial market transactions

+approx 350 billion

Total Swing- $1,403,250,000 or approx $1.4 trillion per year

aprox defecit $15 trillion

pay off deficit in approx 11 years

Of course, a person could cut any number of other things. Again, this is all very hasty and preliminary. To get these net savings, automatics increases in spending would have to be frozen, or made even with inflation.

The point is not how to magically fix the deficit (11 years is probably too long to take, although better than forever) but how much the US spends on things that are not only uneconomical, but morally unjustified.

Goldstein is dead

On Sunday, U.S. special forces stormed a compound in Pakistan where bin Laden was staying. Bin Laden and several of his cohorts went down fighting, and the body was washed and buried at sea, apparently Muslim custom for a corpse that cannot be received by family.

Celebrations erupted around America, as people crowded the front of the White House and set off fireworks. Where does this leave us?

Osama was obviously a rat fucker of the highest order. The terrorist attack on 9/11 killed 2,750 people, including his various bombings and the thousands of civilians massacred by the bin Laden headed 055 Brigade after the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the total death toll for this one man's endeavours could approach 10,000.

The unfortunate part of his death is it won't change much. Al Queada was loosely organized, using a sort of franchise model. Bin Laden was largely a symbolic leader and his death is a symbolic victory only. His goal was to draw America into a larger world conflict, get new recruits and make us spend huge amounts of money to fight against hastily trained fanatics with old AK-47s.

Considering the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, spent in the war in Afghanistan, the 15-30,000 dead civilians and the ten years of growing terrorist activity it took to catch him, bin Laden may be having the last laugh in Hell. The US military complex and American Nationalists play right into the hands of bin Laden and the people like him.

Kryptonians steal our jobs

In a recent issue of Action Comics, Superman threatens to renounce his US citizen ship. I won't comment on the story in any way, I don't follow Superman very closely and don't plan to do so in the near future. The interesting part for me is the reaction by American nationalists. Apparently, people who otherwise have no interest in comic books or Superman in general find the idea absurd.

From the article: "Does he believe in British interventionism or Swiss neutrality?" Last wrote. "You see where I'm going with this: If Superman doesn't believe in America, then he doesn't believe in anything."

Nationalists seem to ascribe to a curious and unspoken notion that popular culture owes some kind of allegiance to the nation it originates from. That Superman, who is an alien, would not be a diligent representation of American values (whatever those are) seems to break some kind of unwritten agreement. Of course, Superman must be a icon of America's benevolence! He is after all, written by Americans and published in America. That someone could write a story of an alien super being with god like powers, created by two Jewish writers, one from Canada and one from America, without having him bow obediently to the flag is an apparent violation of cultural loyalty.

Nationalist writers can be pictured scouring fiction for any deviances from the party line, so as to publicize and denounce things they otherwise don't care about. Not entirely dissimilar, perhaps, in attitude from Soviet censors.

Another example would be blog posts and message board discussion of Wonder Woman's costume change. She has lost her star and stripes themed swimsuit for a pair of pants and a leather jacket. Again, that a character who is culturally Greek and from a fictional matriarchal utopia should stop dressing like a Miss America contestant is seen as a grave affront.

I can't think of any reasons for those who don't read comics to get outraged by such things other than a thin skinned cultural sensibility that all things must ultimately came second to America, the nation, the state, the culture or whatever institution the term "America" is considered synonymous with. This sensibility is based in deluded nationalism and is entirely without merit.

Feudalism Chic

The 2003 Tom Cruise film The Last Samurai shares a title with a Japanese film from 1977 directed by Kenji Misumi. The titular coincidence is due to the similar subject matter: both films deal with the end of the samurai era following the Meiji Restoration.

In the 2003 film, directed by Edward Zwick, the American protagonist (Nathan Algren) travels to Japan and is enlisted as an advisor to the Imperial government. They require his help to destroy the last hold outs of the old ways, who do not wish to surrender their traditional lifestyles. They "no longer dishonor themselves with the use of firearms," he is told.

The main character ends up joining the samurai and fighting alongside them. We are to believe their cause is noble and pure. In fact, the samurai were noblemen in a strict feudal system who lived off of a stipend from the rulers. The overwhelming majority of the population did the labor required for society to function and enjoyed little privileges in return. The samurai heroes apparently want to hold onto this system, to keep their government stipend and all expenses paid living arrangements. Given solely the context of the film, the samurai are unequivocally the bad guys.

The Japanese film of the same name, although dealing with the same time period, is much more nuanced. The films's title character, Sugi, starts out seemingly as the standard samurai hero, a stoic, lone wolf killing machine. Throughout the film he is humanized more and more, for example we learn of a childhood suicide attempt, his father/son like relationship with his sensei and so on. This happens with the Meiji Restoration as it's backdrop. When the Shogun's forces are defeated, Sugi's sensei, killed in the struggle, makes him promise to not avenge his death.

The film's other characters, all connected to Sugi with one night of drinking in which they bonded, remain attached to one faction or another and refuse to quit fighting.

Misumi's Last Samurai shows the samurai for what they were, a violent pre-modern culture. It also clearly illustrates that the conflicts of the time period, in contrast to the impression the 2003 films gives, owed just as much to the struggle between the Tokugawa Shogunate (as well as it's holdouts) and the Imperial Government, than modernism versus tradition.

So, why are modern people fascinated with pre-modern warrior cultures? From the Spartans in 300, the samurai in The Last Samurai to the Vikings of Scandinavia, warrior cultures make for great fiction. But there is more to it than that. Hitler claimed that Sparta was the ideal state. In Sparta, after all, a pampered warrior class went about conquering and warring on it's neighbors while the labor to make society function was done by a massive slave population. Sparta had a slave to free citizen ration of 10 to 1. Nazi Germany infamously used millions of slaves to support it's war machine, which they sent out in self defense of Western Civilization from Jewish Bolshevism.

Taking the movie 300 as an example, the Spartans ask their fellow Greeks what their professions are. They list mundane jobs in Ancient Greece. The Spartans reply that they are soldiers. The reason so many Spartans are free to devote themselves fully to studying war is because all the labor in their city-state is done by slaves. The Persian Empire is arguably more free than Sparta, so ultimately the war comes down to Western Civilization versus Eastern Civilization, not free versus oppressive societies. Seeing themselves as defenders of Western Civilization is common verbiage among far right groups and fascists in Europe and America.

It's not a coincidence that Norwegian fascists and the Imperial Japanese steeped themselves in Viking and Samurai verbiage. Nationalist groups, including the far right and fascists, subscribe to a pre-modern world view where doing good is helping the nation and doing bad is helping the nation's enemies. And of course adoration of soldiers and war is common among nationalist, far right and fascist groups as well. Taken together, these pre-modern warrior cultures are tailor made to provide these deplorable groups with inspiration.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with enjoying fiction from these time periods. In fact, many samurai movies are actually anti-samurai, where the characters are social outcasts challenging the strict hierarchy of the era. Compare the samurai, fighting for tradition over modernism, from Zwick's Last Samurai to Zatoichi, the star of the longest running film series of all time. Zatoichi, although a sword wielding warrior, is not even a samurai. As a blind peasant he falls near the bottom of the established order. His opponents are often corrupt samurai and yakuza preying on the lower classes. "There is nothing worse than a samurai," Zatoichi remarks in one of his many films.

What a person should ponder when seeing celebrations of these violent cultures is who is creating this? What are they trying to say? What is invested in seeing these people as heroes? Again I'm not subscribing ulterior motives to Zwick's Last Samurai or 300, only attempting to point out where the lines of thought they bring can lead people. The truth is, in history there are few heroes, and often those attempting to make heroes out of villains reveal themselves as modern day villains.

Autistic History

People on the autistic spectrum often have trouble distinguishing people's intentions. Apparently, John Stossel, Fox News' libertarian on retainer, has an autistic view of history. On Fox and Friends he made the rather dubious claim that no one has been helped more by the government than the American Indian. His point was that government aid damages people and communities and that Indian reservations today are not well off.

Stossel seems to believe that these programs and efforts aimed at Indian reservations are designed to help the Indians, a fundamental misunderstanding. Stossel also claims that this unprecedented help has been continuing for the last "200 years". 200 years ago from this year would be 1811, and a cursory understanding of American History would place the Plains Wars, at the very least, in the post-Civil War era. The infamous Wounded Knee massacre happened in 1890 and the government only legalized Indian religious practices in the 1960's. As recently as a few years ago an Indian reservation was taken by the government for unpaid taxes.

Stossel's misunderstanding is due to the Randian view of welfare programs as the actions of do gooder liberals who just don't know any better. In truth, welfare, in the case of the Indians, was created specifically to foster a dependent relationship with the federal government. Stossel's strange viewpoint actually excuses the federal government. It's not that the government was trying to impoverish and destroy Indian communities, he apparently believes the government honestly wanted to help but couldn't figure out how to do so.

Anarchists for Imperalism

I am a staunch anti-imperalist. And yet I find myself a little torn at the American/French/English intervention in Libya. Speaking from an American perspective, the intervention was a violation of the War Powers Act, which in and of itself is probably unconstitutional. So legally, it was wrong.

The US has a tremendous deficit, and it will probably end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars to fight a third war. Financially, it was wrong. Morally, the US has ignored human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and various other nations. Granted, the fighting in Libya right now is worse than those other countries, but to completely ignore the other situations shows a lack of concern for human rights (the supposed motive).

So what is the US's interest in Libya? After initially criticizing Kaddafi, the Libyan leader (who looks like an alien) vowed to never sell oil to the west again. Bad move on his part. The US must figure if the rebels win, their support will buy them access to the Libyan oil fields again.

Still, with all of that said, I find myself glad that the Libyan rebels weren't crushed and slaughtered by Kaddafi, who was even hiring mercenaries from other countries. And it would certainly be a good thing if Kaddafi was sent to the ash bin of history, or held trial for his crimes.

But will this turn out good? Will the intervention inflame the situation and lead to more loss of life? It's hard to say. I am cautiously optimistic.

The Great Regression

If there's one thing that all authoritarian movements seem to have in common, it could very well be a hostile stand against unions. The Soviet Union outlawed all independent labor unions and then created government managed unions to take their place. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany took similar tacts, mandating membership in government created unions headed by political appointees and banning all others. In fact, the brownshirts and blackshirts, before seizing power, had fought in the streets with striking workers.

Labor history in America is one of opposition and then co-opting. Until the New Deal, unions were illegal and presidents would send in the National Guard to shoot at striking workers. Following after the New Deal was the Taft-Hartely act, which outlawed sympathetic strikes, political strikes, general strikes and closed shops among other things. By this point the IWW, the most radical union arguably, had been decimated by the Palmer raids and Woodrow Wilson seizing control of the lumber industry when there was a labor dispute.

Most of the unions that remained were large conservative organizations, and combined with the anti union legislation (right to work laws for example) union membership dwindled steadily over time. Now, a new wave of Republican legislators is intent on attacking a weakened foe, perhaps hoping to finish unions once and for all. In Wisconsin, public employees would be forbidden to collectively bargain for anything other than wages, and in Michigan a proposed law that seems set to pass would allow a governor appointed "emergency manager" to void union contracts at will.

There seems to be a perception that unions are strangling the economy or exerting a corrupt influence on society. These are just the rantings of extremely authoritarian figures who are afraid of voluntary associations. When legislation was proposed to legalize card check commercials were aired comparing card check legalization (an increase in economic freedom) with mandatory unionization or outlawing secret elections. What we're talking about is voluntary groups, heavily restricted by the government already, getting targeted by legislators claiming an interest in freedom.

I can't imagine anything more beneficial for freedom in the United States than repealing the Taft-Hartely act, right to work laws and an increase in the membership in radical class oriented unions (like the IWW).

The Ghost of Thomas Paine

I like Thomas Paine. No, he's not an Anarchist. I consider him a proto-Anarchist, since he predates Proudhon. He embodies the unique echelon of people who all Americans love even though they know nothing about them. Martin Luther King Jr is another member of this club.

Thomas Paine's two most exemplary works are Rights of Man and Age of Reason. Most people in America can name Common Sense as one of his works, but nothing else. If asked what his political beliefs are, most people would draw a blank. Others seem to think he would align with themselves, which is a common position for ignorant people and historical figures they know nothing about.

Paine was a radical. He was an abolitionist and promoted universal human rights. Paine denounced Christianity and organized religion as tools of oppression. The essay Agrarian Justice advocated for what is essentially Social Security, as well as a one time grant for everyone who turned eighteen. Paine advocated a progressive income tax to break up the aristocracy. He theorized that international conflicts could be solved by an organization like the UN. These positions would make him a left-Democrat today, but it was profoundly out of the box thinking for his time period. I think radicals need to reclaim Paine from the Tea Bagger crowd.

Politics as Usual

I sometimes browse Alternet, Common Dreams, The Nation's website and ZNet for news articles of interest. I can't help but notice many of these sites compare the tea party movement with the rise of fascism. Does the movement contain a lot of nuts? Yeah. And I'm sure 80%+ of it is just angry republicans and all their talk of fiscal responsibility and limited government (pragmatically good things if actually practiced) will turn to smoke if they are elected. But brown shirts? Probably not.

I have seen parts of Glenn Beck's shows, for example, and he does a similar thing. Beck seems to have devised an entire mental complex about the evil "progressives", a nebulous and sinister group that seems to contain everyone to the left of himself, and supposes that if we don't rally behind the candidates he supports it's game over for freedom. Beck is hysterical.

America has a lot of problems. High obesity, child hunger, poverty, unemployment. Highest prison population, highest defense budget, fifth highest number of executions. None of these problems will be helped by voting. And an election probably won't make them much worse either, as they are endemic to our entire economic system, which remains unchanged from election cycle to election cycle. I am far more excited for Batman and Robin #16 coming out on 11/3 then any election prospects from 11/2.

Heartening news items!

$18.6 million of un-employment given to millionaires in 2008!

Chiquita banana sued under anti-terrorism laws for sponsoring Columbian death squads

6 men were executed aboard aid flotilla, 5 Turks and one American citizen

These are the symptoms of a corporatist empire. I hope the people bringing the lawsuit take Chiquita to the cleaners, but I'm not holding out too much hope.

Comics for Anarchists

If you're a politically radical young lad or lass who doesn't read comics, well, you're missing out something dreadful. And no, I'm not going to tell you to run out and buy the latest issue of Batman. As much as a I love Batman, I wouldn't expect the average lay person to appreciate it, what with all the back story and history. Most other mainstream comics have the same problem, decades of built up mythos that rewards the veteran but scares and confound the new reader. I am going to give you a trio of recommendation that are all fully self contained works.

All three are written by Alan Moore, an avowed anarchist who happens to be the best living comics writer. All three have also been adapted into movies, but don't let that discourage you. These are hardy intellectual works. Real meat and potatoes for the brain.

The first is Watchmen, and yes it has super heroes. But these are superheroes like they would be if they really existed; psychosis ridden and violent. Murderers and rapists even. The story touches on a great many themes, the meaning of life for example, gets a a very good treatment, but the central message is the danger of allowing anyone power to save or protect you. The title comes from the quote Who Watches the Watchmen? If there are a group of Watchmen who protect us, like the government, who will protect us from them? Another group? Who protects us from the other group? The question is a paradox, ultimately, any group with the power to protect you has the power to abuse you, be it government or superheroes.

Watchmen is also masterfully written, imagines a fully realized sci-fi world and has great characters. Read it now. You can safely skip the movie.

The second work is V for Vendetta, a far more explicit anarchist text. The main character, V, a faceless masked terrorist, is an anarchist fighting against a quasi-Nazi English government headed by the fascist sounding Norsefire party. The work's central political statement and message is un-abashedly anarchist, although it is honest enough to not sugar coat anything. The characters aren't perfect, and the "hero" is both murderer and a freedom fighter, a revolutionary and a terrorist. It's also much more sophisticated than the movie, so read it and skip the movie.

Lastly, is From Hell, a story about Jack the Ripper. Well, kind of about Jack the Ripper. It's really about all kinds of other things too. In fact it's kind of hard to even summarize it. It's about patriarchy, why the 20th century is so fucked up, who really killed those poor girls in White Chapel and the nature of Hell, among other things. Seen the movie? It's a pale shade in comparison, the book, for example, has much more time travel. Read it yesterday.

Most comical example of State propaganda

Behold; the splendor.

What happened is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said that the US has a contingency plan to invade Iran. In response, Iran announces it is building mass graves to put the bodies of US soldiers in if they should invade. According to Fox News, this is a "provocative action" on the part of Iran, and reminds of the "days of Saddam Hussein", presumably a reference to Saddam's regime digging mass graves and then filling them with the bodies of innocent people.

The guest, a former CIA director, says that Iran's actions are "offensive" and designed to "provoke us." Iran, we are told, is moving inexorably to having "nuclear capability", much like US, Russia, Israel etc. The two men then casually discuss the "window to hit Iran."

I can't help but wonder what the correct response of a foreign nation should be when they learn that the US has plans to attack them laid out? Gratitude? Love? Adoration? Obedience?

Words most abused

If we were to take a look at the words most abused in political discourse, three contenders for top honors might be: fascism, welfare and regulation.

Three great books give us the final word on all three.

Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guerin explains the policies of the two primary fascist parties (Italian Fascist Party and German Nazi Party) in the way that they differ from other totalitarian states, i.e. their economic policies. Reading it is a bit disconcerting to the American reader, who finds many things that mirror post WW2 economic policies that are accepted in the mainstream without question. These include, but are not limited to: bailing out big business, massive spending and inflation, anti-unionism and a defense budget that could build a bridge made out of gold to the moon and back. Guerin also traces the origins of the fascist parties in various violent militias that grew out of the world depression of the 20's and 30's.

Regulating the Poor, by Piven and Cloward, gives us the real word on welfare in America. Hint: it's not a plot by lazy do nothing liberals to destroy the Protestant work ethic nor is it a plan to alleviate the suffering of the poor. Rather, welfare, so the authors share with us, exists as a means of social control. The two main welfare explosions grew out of the Great Depression and the turbulence of the Vietnam era. In the Great Depression, the more welfare that was handed out the less cry there was for communism or socialism, the less masses of men migrated around the country, the less rioting and protesting there was. And, this is something a lot of people miss, FDR started to phase most of his programs out before he died, their purpose having been met.

For example, when people were calling for a massive old age pension to be supplied by the government FDR instead instituted Social Security, a skeletal system compared to what many were calling for. But it was enough to peter out most political fire and the strident calls for more exhaustive programs died out. If FDR's ghost were here, he might tell us that welfare saved capitalism.

The story in the Vietnam era is similar. LBJ's Great Society was concentrated almost entirely in urban areas, despite masses of poverty in comparable rural areas, and was concentrated doubly in areas of rioting and social unrest. The authors predict a cycle of welfare benefits rising and falling as the economy grows and shrinks. This was proved correct by Reagan slashing welfare dramatically in the 80's and Clinton following suit in the roaring 90's. With the recent economic downturn we've seen Obama expand some programs as well. And after everyone forgets about this current downturn, welfare will inevitably be slashed again.

Furthermore, the intentional effects of the programs are to never provide more income than someone could make by working at the lowest paying most degrading employment available. It may extend the time people spend looking for a job, but it is designed to never permanently keep people out of the labor force.

The third book is Triumph of Conservatism, which I posted about earlier: The ghetto in our hearts 1 and 2

What I'm saying isn't that these are the best books ever written, but I think they will give anyone a basic foundation of anarchist thought. In summation:

Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker

Post Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin

The Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin

Essential Anarchist Texts

Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin

Kropotkin, the Crown Prince of Anarchy, posits that mutual aid is just as an important part of the evolution of both species and human society as competition. Whether this makes any sense re: the animal kingdom I'll leave to the biologists. But where Kropotkin shines is tracing mutual aid from "primitive" man, through barbarians to the medieval city and modern times. Kropotkin shows us that mutual aid is a more important element for the growth of human society than competition, and I believe him.

Kropotkin again presents a deeply moving portrait of humanity as holding the genesis of their own liberation within themselves.

Essential Anarchist Texts

Post Scarcity Anarchism

by Murray Bookchin

Less of a cohesive work than a series of essays, the main thought is very compelling. We live in a world where there is no reason why everyone on the planet should not have everything they need, and a few things they want to boot. The only problem is organization. Bookchin focuses on the technological advancement, which steadily increases the amount of product that can be created with a decrease in labor. The real specific parts are a bit outdated, considering the year it was published, but the idea is even more sound now. He goes over some different green technologies as well, heat pumps, solar panels etc.

Essential Anarchist Texts

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice

by Rudolf Rocker

Not a very contemporary theory, the move from industrialism to customer service economy largely took the bite out of it, I think. Noam Chomsky claims to be an Anarcho-Syndicalist, although the anarchist writer he references most is Bakunin.

Anyway, AS is a fairly economically simplistic system, sort of a half brother of Anarcho-Communism, stating that the workers should seize control of the means of productions by expropriation. By controlling the means of production, profits would be proportional to the amount of wealth created by the firm, as opposed to the wage, the smallest amount anyone is willing to accept for the equivalent amount of work. Rocker specifically deals with Industrial and Agricultural work, and the IWW was probably the largest organization with explicitly syndicalist sympathies in the history of the USA.

Unlike a gift economy, currency would still be used. Rocker never seems to get into explicit detail how this would affect other non employment aspects of our lives. Still, to be a well rounded bomb-thrower I think everyone should give it a read.