A conquista do Reino Unido pela Escócia

A escolha do “não” no referendo que perguntava aos escoceses se a Escócia deveria se tornar um país independente é uma vitória pírrica para o Reino Unido.

O fato que a campanha do “sim” foi capaz de angariar 44,7% dos votos abala um consenso de 300 anos e a devolução de poder político à Escócia já é dada como certa. Esse quase empate é bem mais problemático para o sistema político existente que pretende manter sua legitimidade do que para um novo que tenta se estabelecer. E as preocupações anteriores ao referendo permanecem.

Com o ônus da prova deslocado, as ideias do contrato social em favor da existência dos estados atuais foram desenterradas. Isso levou a um argumento inacreditável contra a independência da Catalunha exposto pelo Ministro do Extrior da Espanha José Manuel García-Margallo: “Cada espanhol é dono de todos os centímetros quadrados do país”. A formação da união entre Escócia e Inglaterra através de um acordo do parlamento escocês era frequentemente usada como fonte de legitimidade três séculos depois, sublinhando quão raramente os territórios políticos não são simplesmente resultados de conquistas militares.

Uma vez que um dos principais pontos da campanha do “sim” vinham do desejo de retirar as armas nucleares da Escócia, mesmo com as questões práticas de organização militar não resolvidas, foi evitada a objeção comum ao separatismo: “E quanto à defesa?”. Os contrários à independência até mesmo apresentaram a perspectiva de uma Escócia independente como se fosse uma coisa ruim.

Grande parte dos comentários enfatizava a incerteza econômica em caso de independência. Críticos como Paul Krugman levantaram o ponto válido de que a Escócia atualmente depende muito do sistema financeiro mundial e sua instabilidade faria com que a independência política reduzisse sua capacidade de absorver os danos advindos de crises econômicas.

A questão dividiu a elite econômica. A British Petroleum previsivelmente apoiou o “não” e os setores mais globais favoreceram o “sim”. Enquanto isso, a propriedade da maior parte das terras da Escócia permanece nas mãos da elite, metade sob controle de apenas 432 famílias. As propriedades individuais já estão se deslocando das famílias aristocráticas e passando para os especuladores globais.

A economia escocesa, com a diminuição de suas receitas advindas do gás e do petróleo, foi muito afetada pela desindustrialização. Mas com a disseminação da tecnologia pós-industrial, uma nova base econômica se torna cada vez mais viável. Serviços básicos podem ser descolados dos limites geográficos; o referendo recebeu muita atenção por conta dos simples efeitos da competição entre o Reino Unido e a zona do euro. A concorrência total de moedas iria muito além da escolha entre a libra e o euro. A descentralização até o ponto do sistema de clãs escocês passaria a ser uma realidade cotidiana em vez de uma memória romântica.

O sol está se pondo para o estado imperial.

Traduzido por Erick Vasconcelos.

flattr this!

The Antimilitarist Libertarian Heritage

With the United States on the verge of another war in the Middle East — or is it merely the continuation of a decades-long war? — we libertarians need to reacquaint ourselves with our intellectual heritage of peace, antimilitarism, and anti-imperialism. This rich heritage is too often overlooked and frequently not appreciated at all. That is tragic. Libertarianism, to say the least, is deeply skeptical of state power. Of course, then, it follows that libertarianism must be skeptical of the state’s power to make war — to kill and destroy in other lands. Along with its domestic police authority, this is the state’s most dangerous power. (In 1901 a libertarian, Frederic Passy, a friend of libertarian economist Gustave de Molinari, shared in the first Nobel Peace Prize.)

Herbert Spencer, the great English libertarian philosopher of the late 19th and early 20th century, eloquently expressed radical liberalism’s antipathy to war and militarism. His writings are full of warnings about the dangers of war and conquest. Young Spencer saw and cheered the rise of the industrial type of society, which was displacing what he called the militant type. The industrial type was founded on equal freedom, consent, and contract, the militant on hierarchy, command, and force. Yet he lived long enough to see a reversal, and his later writings lamented the ascendancy of the old militant traits. We have a good deal to learn from the much-maligned Spencer, who is inexplicably condemned as favoring the “law of the jungle.” This is so laughably opposite of the truth that one couldn’t be blamed for concluding that the calumny is the product of bad faith. As Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long writes,

The textbook summary is absurd, of course. Far from being a proponent of “might makes right,” Spencer wrote that the “desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire” because it “implies an appeal to force,” which is “inconsistent with the first law of morality” and “radically wrong.” While Spencer opposed tax-funded welfare programs, he strongly supported voluntary charity, and indeed devoted ten chapters of his Principles of Ethics to a discussion of the duty of “positive beneficence.”

Spencer jumped on the issues of war and peace right out of the gate. His first book, Social Statics (1851), contains a chapter, “Government Colonization,” that examines the effects of imperialism on both the home and subjugated populations. While formal colonization has gone out of style, many of its key characteristics have been preserved in a new form; thus Spencer’s observations are entirely pertinent.

He starts by pointing out that the “parent” country’s government must violate the rights of its own citizens when it engages in colonial conquest and rule. Spencer advocated just enough government to protect the freedom of the citizens who live under it (although the first edition of his book included the chapter “The Right to Ignore the State,” which he removed from later editions), and he claims that the money spent on colonies necessarily is money not needed to protect that freedom. He writes,

That a government cannot undertake to administer the affairs of a colony, and to support for it a judicial staff, a constabulary, a garrison, and so forth, without trespassing against the parent society, scarcely needs pointing out. Any expenditure for these purposes, be it like our own some three and a half millions sterling a year, or but a few thousands, involves a breach of state-duty. The taking from men property beyond what is needful for the better securing of their rights, we have seen to be an infringement of their rights. Colonial expenditure cannot be met without property being so taken. Colonial expenditure is therefore unjustifiable.

Spencer proceeds to demolish the argument that foreign acquisitions increase the wealth of the parent society, as though such acquisitions are analogous to voluntary trade relations. He writes,

Experience is fast teaching us that distant dependencies are burdens, and not acquisitions. And thus this earliest motive for state-colonization — the craving for wider possessions — will very soon be destroyed by the conviction that territorial aggression is as impolitic as it is unjust.

Any true economic benefits from dealing with foreign populations can be obtained through free trade, he says. He invokes the law of comparative advantage to argue that the parent society loses, not gains, when the government coercively creates artificial foreign markets for products the society can’t produce as efficiently as others can.

As for those on the receiving end of colonial policy, Spencer was blunt: “We … meet nothing but evil results. It is a prettily sounding expression that of mother-country protection, but a very delusive one. If we are to believe those who have known the thing rather than the name, there is but little of the maternal about it.” While the worst practices, he adds, were less common in his time, “kindred iniquities are continued.”

We have but to glance over the newspapers published in our foreign possessions, to see that the arbitrary rule of the Colonial Office is no blessing. Chronic irritation, varying in intensity from that of which petitions are symptomatic, to that exhibited in open rebellions, is habitually present in these forty-six scattered dependencies which statesmen have encumbered us with.

He condemns “the pitiless taxation, that wrings from the poor ryots nearly half the produce of the soil” and “the cunning despotism which uses native soldiers to maintain and extend native subjection — a despotism under which, not many years since, a regiment of sepoys was deliberately massacred, for refusing to march without proper clothing.”

Down to our own day the police authorities league with wealthy scamps, and allow the machinery of the law to be used for purposes of extortion. Down to our own day, so-called gentlemen will ride their elephants through the crops of impoverished peasants; and will supply themselves with provisions from the native villages without paying for them. And down to our own day, it is common with the people in the interior to run into the woods at sight of a European!

Spencer wonders,

Is it not, then, sufficiently clear that this state-colonization is as indefensible on the score of colonial welfare, as on that of home interests? May we not reasonably doubt the propriety of people on one side of the earth being governed by officials on the other? Would not these transplanted societies probably manage their affairs better than we can do it for them?

No one can fail to see that these cruelties, these treacheries, these deeds of blood and rapine, for which European nations in general have to blush, are mainly due to the carrying on of colonization under state-management, and with the help of state-funds and state-force.

Spencer was keenly aware that such criticism of the government was regarded as unpatriotic. In 1902, near the end of his life, he turned his attention to that charge.

In an essay titled “Patriotism,” included in his collection Facts and Comments, he begins, “Were anyone to call me dishonest or untruthful he would touch me to the quick. Were he to say that I am unpatriotic, he would leave me unmoved.”

England may have done things in the past to advance freedom, Spencer says, but “there are traits, unhappily of late more frequently displayed, which do the reverse.”

Contemplation of the acts by which England has acquired over eighty possessions — settlements, colonies, protectorates, &c. — does not arouse feelings of satisfaction. The transitions from missionaries to resident agents, then to officials having armed forces, then to punishments of those who resist their rule, ending in so-called “pacification” — these processes of annexation, now gradual and now sudden, as that of the new Indian province and that of Barotziland, which was declared a British colony with no more regard for the wills of the inhabiting people than for those of the inhabiting beasts – do not excite sympathy with their perpetrators.… If because my love of country does not survive these and many other adverse experiences I am called unpatriotic — well, I am content to be so called.

“To me the cry — ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ seems detestable,” he continues.

Spencer gave no ground on this matter, which he made obvious with a story he relates toward the end of his essay.

Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling — anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called — in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be “our interests,” we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athenæum Club a well-known military man — then a captain but now a general — drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I astounded him by replying — “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” [Emphasis added.]

Spencer was second to none in his antimilitarism and anti-imperialism, that is, his love of universal individual liberty and all forms of voluntary social cooperation. With heads held high, libertarians can claim him as one of their own.

flattr this!

The Conquest of the United Kingdom by Scotland

The “No” outcome of the referendum asking Scotland’s voters the question “should Scotland be an independent country?” is a Pyrrhic victory for the United Kingdom.

“Yes” netting 44.7% of the tally undermines a 300-year consensus and the devolution of substantial political power to Scotland is already conceded. Such a near-tie is far more problematic for an existing political system struggling to maintain its legitimacy than for a new one trying to find its feet. And the concerns raised in advance of the referendum persist.

With the burden of proof shifted onto them, the social-contract arguments for existing states were drawn out from the shadows of handwaving and dimly-remembered civics classes. This culminated in the astonishing rationale against Catalan independence expounded by Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo: “Each and every Spaniard is the owner of each and every square centimeter of the country.” The formation of the Scottish-English union via agreement of the Scottish parliament was frequently invoked as a source of its legitimacy three centuries later, underscoring how rarely modern political territories are not solely the result of conquest.

With much of the impetus of the “yes” side stemming from a desire to get nuclear weapons out of Scotland, even with the practicalities of operating a domestic conventional military unresolved, the textbook objection of “but what about defense?” was largely obviated. Naysayers even seriously presented the prospect of Scotland becoming the new Switzerland as if that were a bad thing.

Far more of the commentary was devoted to economic uncertainty in the case of independence. Critics such as Paul Krugman raised the valid point that since Scotland’s economy currently relies on the global financial system, with all its instability, political independence would have reduced its leeway to absorb the damage from wider economic crises to which it would have still been vulnerable.

The question split the economic elite, with British Petroleum predictably backing “no” and the more global sectors favoring “yes.” Meanwhile, ownership of the bulk of Scotland’s land itself remains with the elite, fully half in the hands of a mere 432 families. Ownership of individual estates has already been shifting away from old-money aristocratic families to a global pool of speculators.

The Scottish economy, with its diminishing oil and gas revenue, has been hit particularly hard by deindustrialization. But as post-industrial technology rapidly becomes the norm, an economic base is increasingly viable. Key services can be unbundled from geography; the referendum received much of its impetus from the effects of the most limited competition of Scotland being able to pick and choose between the UK and the EU. And full competition of currencies, for one, will go far beyond the choice between the pound and the euro. Decentralization to a point matching the level of the traditional Scottish clan system will no longer be a romanticized memory, but everyday reality.

The sun is setting on the imperial state.

flattr this!

Dave Douglass And The Miners Strike.


    I doubt if there is anyone, with even a passing interest in UK politics, who hasn't heard or read about the 1984/85 miner's strike. An event that lasted approximately a year, during which time the British state threw its full force of repression against the striking miners. It tried every tactic in its arsenal, short of tanks in the mining villages and towns, to crush the resistance of the miners. This epic working class struggle should not be forgotten, to this end several groups are organising and co-sponsoring a talk and discussion by Dave Douglass, a miner who was there.
     There will be an event to mark this struggle, organised by the Clydeside General Members Branch of the International Workers of the World and co-sponsored by Glasgow Anarchist Collective, Glasgow Anarchist Federation, Radical Independent Bookfair, and Spirit of Revolt. It will be held on Wednesday, September 24th. 7pm to 9pm, in the Fred Paton Centre, 19 Carrington Street Glasgow, and is a free event. Carrington Street is between Great Western Road and West Princes Street, not far from St George's Cross. There will also be stalls and displays, an event not to be missed
       Come along, hear about your history, and add your stories and opinions.


Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk

Nevada Police Have Received $11.8M Worth of Military Gear

FergusonPolice 210x300 Nevada Police Have Received $11.8M Worth of Military Gear

Nobody really saw much of a difference.

After the heavy-handed and overzealous response to protesters by Ferguson police put the militarization of police in a national spotlight, it is becoming increasingly apparent just how much of a dotted line the boundary between the police and military has become over the past few years.

As Las Vegas’ CBS affiliate reports, Nevada police departments have been doing their share of feeding at the trough of leftovers generated by Washington’s perpetual wars over the past 20+ years:

“RENO, Nev. (AP) – Law enforcement agencies in Nevada have accumulated $11.8 million worth of military gear from the Pentagon through a surplus program under increasing scrutiny since the police response to protests over the killing of an unarmed Missouri teenager.

Defense Department records show over the past 17 years Nevada officers have received about 300 semi-automatic rifles, a half dozen mine-resistant and armored vehicles, three helicopters and a pair of grenade launchers.

PoliceRocketLauncher 300x300 Nevada Police Have Received $11.8M Worth of Military Gear

Picture Taken BEFORE the National Guard Troops Arrived in Ferguson

Tod Story, head of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nevada , says the militarization of local police sends the wrong signal to communities where officers are supposed to protect residents, “not assault them.”

Washoe County sheriff’s spokesman Bob Harmon says the Huey helicopter worth nearly $1 million they obtained in 1997 has helped save many lives during rescue and firefighting missions.”

 

Thanks for reading. Nevada Police Have Received $11.8M Worth of Military Gear is a post from Nevada Cop Block

Quantos mortos pela PM são o bastante?

Nesta quinta-feira (18/09), o camelô Carlos Augusto Muniz Braga foi morto por um policial militar na Lapa, zona oeste de São Paulo. O vídeo da tragédia, viralizado, mostra o momento em que o policial atira à queima-roupa. Carlos se afastou, mas caiu logo a seguir, ensanguentado.

Qual foi o crime de Carlos? Testemunhas relatam que um ambulante teve toda sua mercadoria – DVDs – apreendida pela polícia e, ao reagir com indignação, terminou rendido no chão pelo policial depois de uma briga física. Uma pequena multidão revoltada se aglomerou e protestava. “Não bate nele!” “Tá cheio de ladrão por aí, para que bater assim num trabalhador?” Um dos policiais sacou uma pistola carregada e a colocou na mira de civis desarmados. Carlos estava entre os que protestavam. Quando o policial se preparava para usar novamente o spray de pimenta, Carlos tentou impedi-lo. O policial atirou em sua cabeça.

Carlos deixa uma esposa, Cláudia Silva Lopes, e 3 filhos – o mais novo com 4 anos e o mais velho, 12. Cláudia relata já ter sido agredida grávida em abordagem passada da polícia, denunciando o quão comum é o abuso da força policial no cotidiano dos trabalhadores ambulantes.

O caso de Carlos Augusto foi um crime e uma tragédia. Mas não se engane com quem afirma que isso é apenas um caso isolado. O abuso de poder policial e o tratamento do ambulante como caso de polícia é uma situação sistêmica no Brasil.

O trabalhador ambulante é perseguido e acossado por levar o livre comércio às ruas. Inúmeros consumidores encontram, todos os dias, no trabalho e investimento deles, uma alternativa para satisfazer sua demanda por determinados bens e serviços. Trata-se de uma economia entre pessoas físicas, que acompanha as variações da demanda com adaptabilidade e flexibilidade. A vida de todos melhora com essa rede de trocas que, anualmente, movimenta centenas de bilhões de reais.

Contudo, para que este resultado seja obtido, grande parte do cotidiano dos trabalhadores ambulantes é dispendido em maneiras de contornar o estado, de evitar a repressão por seus agentes ou, pelo menos, tentar evitar que os investimentos e o fruto de seu trabalho sejam tomados. A polícia geralmente reprime ambulantes e camelôs sob várias justificativas: ausência de autorização, revogações discricionárias, a defesa da propriedade intelectual, ou o não pagamento de impostos.

O que mostra como o estado brasileiro é uma instituição contrária ao trabalhador e ao pobre.

Em um país cujo governo orgulha-se de uma detalhada regulação trabalhista para proteger o trabalhador, o fato é que esses trabalhadores na informalidade são vulneráveis ao aparato de repressão governamental, que confisca o fruto de seu trabalho ou os agride fisicamente, podendo chegar, como no caso de Carlos Augusto, à morte violenta. As autorizações de trabalho ambulante são concedidas a título precário pelas prefeituras, de modo que eles são vulneráveis a serem, repentinamente, proibidos de exercer seu trabalho.

Em um país cujo governo afirma recolher muitos tributos para satisfazer as necessidades do povo em termos de educação, saúde e bem-estar para alcançar uma sociedade igualitária, já está demonstrado que a carga tributária não somente onera proporcionalmente mais os pobres do que os ricos, como também pune principalmente mulheres e negros em relação aos homens e brancos. Diante disso, o comércio informal ajuda a aliviar parte dessa carga suportada pelos mais pobres e por grupos minoritários, mas o governo não aceita isso.

Aqui, trabalhadores como Carlos são frequentemente perseguidos, enquanto megacorporações como a FIFA se locupletam com privilégios estatais, como escrevi durante a Copa do Mundo.

Não bastassem todas essas injustiças, é muito provável que a morte de Carlos tivesse sido registrada como “auto de resistência” e não fosse investigada caso ninguém tivesse filmado o ocorrido. O auto de resistência é pouco mais que uma licença para matar. O registro da “resistência seguida de morte” cria uma presunção em favor da versão dos fatos do policial e o arquivamento de processos desse tipo é frequente. Não fosse a gravação e a multidão, Carlos teria virado mais uma estatística de auto de resistência.

A morte de Carlos Augusto não pode ser esquecida. Nenhum dos abusos do estado pode. Devemos a ele, não somente o julgamento do policial que atirou nele, mas também o fim do sistema perverso que trata o livre comércio e os trabalhadores brasileiros como um caso de polícia.

flattr this!

TPL · Tax Resistance News from Italy, the U.S., and India

Some bits and pieces from here and there…


The Cambrian carried brief summaries of the meetings of the Breconshire Turnpike Trust and the upper and lower branches of the Cardiganshire Trust, at which the trustees seemed to be falling all over themselves to remove toll gates and reduce tolls to try to keep Rebecca at bay, for example:

A meeting of this trust, attended by an unusually large concourse of trustees… ordered that Bwlch Llangorse Gate, Senny Bridge Gate, the Side Gate in Llanvaes, the Groesfford Gate, the Side Gate at Tairderwen, Llyswen Side Gate, the Watten Side Gate, Pontcumbeth Side Gate, and the West Side Gate at Builth, be taken down and discontinued… that the Penygenfford Gate be abandoned, and that the Talgarth Gate and the Tretower Gate on that road, clear each other…

Missing Comma: The Aftermath of “Gamergate”

It’s been about two weeks since Gamergate came to a head and I’m still trying to sort out all that happened. Lots of what I saw and read (and a lot of what people told me in conversation) suggest situations worth exploring in greater detail, and when I am able, I’ll do that here. These will be issues that are applicable to the entire journalism profession, such as freelancers rights. But for right now, have two pieces of content that I think are important “Inside Baseball” critiques of both Gamergate and the games journalism industry.

First, Jim Sterling’s Jimquisition, 9/8/2014:

And finally, John Walker at Rock Paper Shotgun on Objectivity:

Here’s the main issue with the argument that objectivity should be a goal for games criticism: Objectivity isn’t possible. It is, at best, an ideal – an unreachable target, toward which some attempt to strive, believing the closer one is to it, the better a job one is doing. However, this is a position RPS rejects, as we believe such a goal is antithetical to useful, accurate reporting on games. It’s our belief that any who claim to be objective are actually failing to understand the implications of that claim, and ultimately undermining themselves when it’s shown that they are not, actually, objective at all.

Go read the piece. It’s long, but wonderful.

That’s it for me for this week. You can follow us on Twitter at @missingcomma where I promise to start tweeting at some point I SWEAR. You can also follow me at @illicitpopsicle and Juliana at @JulianaTweets0.

flattr this!

Thinking Our Anger on Feed 44

C4SS Feed 44 presents Roderick Long‘s “Thinking Our Anger” read and edited by Nick Ford.

“This disagreement between Lawrence and Seneca conceals an underlying agreement: both writers are assuming an opposition between reason and emotion. The idea of such a bifurcation is challenged by Aristotle. For Aristotle, emotions are part of reason; the rational part of the soul is further divided into the intellectual or commanding part, and the emotional or responsive part. Both parts are rational; and both parts are needed to give us a proper sensitivity to the moral nuances of the situations that confront us. Hence the wise person will be both intellectually rational and emotionally rational.

If Aristotle is right, then Seneca is wrong; emotional responses can facilitate our moral perceptions rather than either displacing or merely echoing them. But that does not mean that Lawrence is right; Aristotle is not advising us to place blind trust in our gut reactions. Emotions can be mistaken, just as intellect can; as Aristotle puts it, emotions are often like overeager servants, rushing off to carry out our orders without first making sure they’ve grasped them properly.

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

  • 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

flattr this!

Time to Jailbreak Online Education

Dan Friedman (“The MOOC Revolution That Wasn’t,” TechCrunch, September 11),  expresses no little disappointment over the way online college courses measure up to initial hopes over the past few years. In terms of course completion and even viewing entire lectures, he says, “that revolution fizzled.” But it fizzled for good reason. The predominant online course model has yet to address whose needs it is intended to serve.

There’s a strong parallel between online education and the controversy over Uber and Lyft versus medallion cabs. The controversial ride-sharing services offer some cost competition to the old licensed taxi services. But they’re only a modest step in the right direction; they still embody the same proprietary, monopolistic characteristics as the old model they’re competing against. They’re still controlled by corporate headquarters outside the cities they serve and, thanks to patented apps, skim tribute off the drivers and customer who operate within their walled gardens. The next step is to jailbreak Uber and Lyft themselves with cooperative and open-source ride-sharing services.

Online learning, whether for profit or not, is a marginal improvement over traditional universities. But like Uber and Lyft, it’s still stuck between two worlds, modeled on the legacy higher education system rather than emerging as the real networked, open-source thing we need to build.

Coursera coordinates its course materials with “partner institutions” (brick and mortar universities) as part of a more-or-less traditional curriculum. Udacity tailors its offerings to skills demanded by the “tech industry” (that is, corporate HR departments). The big online course providers are firmly rooted in the post-WWII corporatist partnership between big business employers, the higher education establishment and the state, with the central goal of processing human resources to fit the needs of corporate employers in terms of both work skills and work attitudes. By processing millions of people to supply the labor demands of Fortune 500 companies, the higher education system simultaneously inflates the credentialing levels (and debt peonage) required to get work, overproduces the forms of vocational-technical labor most in need and thereby drives down the price, leaving those who learn such skills with minimal bargaining power versus large corporate employers.

Genuine free education needs to stop pouring new wine into old bottles, whether it be designing free course materials to fit the conventional university degree model, or designing curricula to fit the needs of corporate employers. Corporate employers with Human Resources departments are part of a dying economy. Some of them may struggle on for decades, as an increasingly bankrupt and hollowed out state still manages to provide them with sufficient subsidies and regulatory protection to survive. But they are obsolete and waiting to die, and will encompass less and less of the total economy as time goes on.

The future of labor is self-employment, cooperative work arrangements in small shops (e.g., garage micro-factories, hackerspaces and makerspaces and Permaculture operations), peer-production of information, and project-based work. And in the kinds of project-based work where skills and other human capital are the main source of value addition and physical tools are affordable — a growing part of the economy — existing precarious workers are likely to create new cooperative versions of existing capitalist temp agencies, or freelance unions and guilds that provide insurance, certify skills and negotiate with employers.

We need a new model of education based on voluntary, ad hoc, stackable credentialing outside the state accreditation system, driven by the needs of the small cooperative shops and networked workers who will dominate the new economy.

And of course where  online course materials are proprietary, the open-source education folks need to start hacking the Digital Rights Management on their videos and textbooks.

What we have now is a dying university system, created by a dying state to serve the labor needs of a dying corporate economy. Let the dead bury their dead.

flattr this!