Peter Anthony Tariche

My Life on the Campaign Trail P.II

2012-02-18T16:05:00.000-08:00

Here are a few photos I took over the past week on the Campaign Trail:

Northern Nevada

Eastern Oregon

Central Idaho

My Life on the Campaign Trail

2012-02-13T22:48:00.000-08:00

Here are a few photos I took over the past few months on the Campaign Trail:

Southern Nevada

Central Iowa

Southern New Hampshire

Visiting Southern California

Government in the 21st Century

2011-11-29T00:43:00.001-08:00

Imagine you live in a territory where the legal system competes for your residency. The basis of your relationship with the government is completely consensual and contractual.

Imagine this government enforced your natural rights, and provided a given amount of welfare rights for a price.

Imagine this territorial entity is bounded by independent global actors, following customary international law.

Image if there was a dispute between yourself and another in this territory, and the parties involved were able to choose judges they trusted to arbitrate disputes.

Imagine you were not bounded by territorial currency, but instead you had the ability to use monetary units that were beneficial for your own consumption, production and capital investment.

Imagine the year is 2060.

Patri Friedman, the grandson of Milton Friedman and son of David Friedman, wishes to make this dream a reality. Patri recently founded the Future Cities Development, Inc to push forward this objective.

The idea of "Chartered cities" is fairly new, and was first proposed by American Economist Paul Romer.

So, where would such a project occur?

Michael Strong writes:

We are now at the heart of the issue: “Countries” don’t have incentives. Individual human beings do, and public choice theory has clearly established the systemic areas of dysfunction that arise in governments. Even if individuals are all well-intentioned (not always the case), it is exceedingly difficult for the collective process of legislation to create good law. Indeed, it may be impossible to create an system of good law by means of piecemeal legislation.
Legislators in Honduras — from across the political spectrum — have acknowledged this in explaining why they voted for legislation authorizing Special Development Regions there. The main argument for creating regions with new legal systems (be they “Charter Cities,” “Free Cities,” or whatever) is that it is basically impossible to create good legislation that would apply to the whole country .

The Honduran govenrnment has recently amended their constitution to make such an objective a reality.

Will the 21st century be the era of consent?

College Graduate Unemployment and China

2011-11-28T00:11:00.001-08:00

With the ongoing "recession," U.S. college students owe more than a trillion dollars in student debt collectively. Recent college graduate unemployment is around 13%; the very nature of our public education system should be questioned.

Recently the Ministry of Education in China has advocated cancelling college majors that don't payout. Clearly, the Chinese understand the nature of supply and demand. So this now begs the question: should the United States public education system limit educational choices to cater for market demands?

The short answer is yes.

Other subjects that would otherwise cater to academia, for example, should be pushed forward by private colleges. Private colleges would be able to provide for majors if there was a clientele for a given area of study.

The U.S. Government and Cyber Security

2011-11-19T03:40:00.001-08:00

I will be soon writing a piece on SOPA and the PROTECT IP bills. For now, here is a commentary I wrote back in 2009 with regards to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which thankfully did not become law.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773) is a legislative embarrassment that voids property, privacy, and First Amendment rights.

These are strong words. Let me explain.

Introduced by Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and co-sponsored by Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Bill Nelson (D-FL), S.773 would grant the President new powers to declare a "Cybersecurity Emergency" and gain control over private and public networks, allowing the government to shut down or audit any server they wish. S.773 would also give new powers to the Department of Commerce to "access all relevant data concerning networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Sounds great... if we're trying to convert the Department of Commerce into the Stasi.

That's not all. Also in the bill: “Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program." Now, the notion of uniform licensing standards isn't completely ridiculous, if we're talking about a slow-moving and well-understood field. But network security is neither, and many of the best tools and advances to date have come from rather quirky personalities. Any Defcon regular can tell you stories of monocultures and centralized systems getting pwned by hackers. So this regulation doesn't just reduce the freedom of managers to hire whoever can do the best damn job, it probably hurts national security too.

The Tale of the Slave

2011-11-01T02:24:00.000-07:00

More food for thought:

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

Source: Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

Thoughts from the East

2011-11-01T01:28:00.000-07:00

Here's some knowledge to ponder over:

As far as the natural tendencies are concerned, it is possible for one to do good; this is what I mean by being good. If one does what is not good, that is not the fault of one’s capacities. The mind of pity and commiseration is possessed by all human beings; the mind of shame aversion is possessed by all human beings; and the mind of respectfulness and reverence is possessed by all human beings; and the mind that knows right and wrong is possessed by all human beings.

Source: Mencius, Theodore, WM. Sources of Chinese Tradition

When we’re in the frame of mind of not wanting anything, we look at even the smallest things as being significant.
When we’re in the frame of mind of wanting things, we observe boundaries and limits. Both of those attitudes can fit together with each other, even though they’re thought to be quite different.

Source: Laozi, Tao Te Ching

All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

Source: Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Night: Looking Out

2011-10-25T00:32:00.000-07:00

Reno, Nevada

A Look Back: Not Much has Changed

2011-10-21T01:21:00.000-07:00

There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace.

-Benjamin Franklin

If you ask a random stranger if there was a ever a good war, they would say World War II or the Revolutionary war. When you ask the men and women who endured and fought in the war, they will often tell you war is hell. I often see a division in the United States over war: those who state the tragedy that it really is and those who blindly ignore it. War can be just, but it can never be good.

If you ask a random stranger if there was ever a bad peace, they would laugh. When the nation is in peace, commerce and private charity prospers; we often call this progress. When there is peace, social mobility grows. Peace is good, and it is always just.

Why not choose peace?

Introducing Ron Paul at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas

2011-10-19T20:04:00.000-07:00

Update: Here's a copy of the video.

My speech introducing Ron Paul at the University of Nevada - Las Vegas:

Only a few generations have been granted the role of defending liberty in its hour of maximum danger; we are that generation. We have been called upon by destiny to restore America.

Our government has crossed the Rubicon. Historically, America has been a beacon for liberty throughout the world. We were once envied for our prosperity and our liberties throughout the world. We were once a shining city upon a hill. And, now, our government has accepted bits of ideology from our enemies of the past. We have accepted the notion that government should take care of us from cradle to grave. We have accepted welfarism and militarism. We have accepted preventative war; we have a Congress, who has ignored its responsibilities and no longer declares war. We have accepted corporatism: the syncretism between government and business. We have accepted the notion of a central planner that is bankrupting this nation, enslaving my generation and the next generation to debt. This is not liberty; this is not the free market. The free market economy and the Constitution, which was built upon the idea of natural rights, is what made this country great.

The responsibility to restore liberty now falls on our shoulders. Above and beyond all others in our government only one man has defended liberty and the Constitution. He has warned us of the dangers of government intervention into our lives, our liberty, and our property. He has warned us of the dangers of government intervention abroad, creating perpetual war, bankrupting this nation. He has warned us of the dangers of a central bank, which robs the middle-class and the poor, and favors the corporations. He stands on principle, beyond mere party affiliations. He fights, so We The People can live the American dream.

I am the grandson of immigrants to this great nation, who came to this country for liberty, and the defender of Liberty is my hero. His foreign policy is simple: treat others the way we wish to be treated; this is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. His principles are simple: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the core principles of the Founding Fathers. History will look back kindly on him, for our generation has the power, the will, and the courage to restore the notion of a free society.

We, the youth of this campaign, will fuel this movement. We will fix the problems that now face this great nation. I'm excited to lead this effort throughout Nevada and the area for the campaign. And here with us, the defender of liberty stands beside us, to kickoff this movement here at the University of Nevada – Las Vegas.

It is my honor to introduce to you the champion of the Constitution, the defender of liberty, and the next President of the United States: Ron Paul!

A Cup of Gunpowder Tea

2011-10-11T01:10:00.001-07:00

A cup of Gunpowder tea is delicious.

There is a saying in French:

Le premier verre est aussi amer que la vie,

le deuxième est aussi fort que l'amour,

le troisième est aussi doux que la mort.

Or in English:

The first glass is as bitter as life,
the second glass is as strong as love,
the third glass is as gentle as death.

More tea for me please

Human Action in the 21st Century

2011-09-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

Originally Published in the California Review at UC-San Diego in February 2011.

The prominence of technology around the world has yielded a new form of influence and authority; independent of state governments, the Internet has empowered the individual. The escalating popularity of the Internet as a media outlet for average citizens and its substantiated consumption as a product of the 21st century has transformed it into the most dominant form of media—especially bearing in mind its ability to circumvent government control. Thus, we are led to ask: how has the new media, specifically the Internet, affected cultural and political discourse? The Internet, by means of globalization, has become the most recent and popular form of new media, creating a revolutionary sphere that is characterized by the expansion of Internet activity, the proliferation of localized activism, and government backlashes through censorship. Humans have long interacted with others in order to improve the conditions they live in. With the rise of the Internet, cross-global human-interaction has now become part of the phenomenon that is globalization. Inherently, the Internet has given individuals the ability to project their voice beyond borders, oceans and other historical boundaries, making the individual supreme. New forms of media have now trumped older outlets of media that must succumb to government obedience or regulation. Under the study of human action, all humans have value in something or someone. Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action, “Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions, which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state.” The Internet and new forms of media have become an outlet for individuals to improve their state of affairs and conditions they now live in.

Individuals address others in order to inform and convince them of the logical structure of human reasoning. New forms of media have created this ideal by using the Internet to inform and convince others. The Blogosphere, websites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, MySpace and Email have become outposts for social-interaction in Today’s world. The Blogosphere in the Middle East has empowered the young Arab voice, creating a new discourse in the region . The Blogosphere has allowed individuals in the Middle East to challenge their government; allowing individuals to contrast what their government officials have said in the past, while calling out on institutionalized forms of media for bias and hypocrisies. The Blogosphere has allowed individuals to voice their opinions, some have faced prosecution by their governments. Karem Amer, Alaa Abdel Fatah, and Fouad al-Farhan are just the names of a few who have faced punishment for vocalizing themselves online in the Middle East.

In 2009 during Iran’s Green Revolution, the Internet had become the ultimate tool for Internet activism. Twitter and Facebook became central to coordinate protests for many. Many old media outlets like newspapers and television news reports begun to pick up the coverage of online protesters as their primary sources. The United Kingdom’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was so impressed by the influence and power of the Internet to broadcast the voice of the unheard, he remarked, “People have now got the ability to speak to each other across continents, to join with each other in communities that are not based simply on territory, streets, but networks; and you’ve got the possibility of people building alliances right across the world.” Gordon Brown went on to admit that due to the influence of new media, governments power and influence over foreign policy would never be the same again.

Many outside of Iran who witnessed the devastation and corruption via online interaction began to join the Green Revolution through Internet activism. For example, many British citizens attempted mass Denial of Service attacks against Ahmadinejad’s website. Other organizations like the online group “Anonymous” formed alliances with the website Pirate Bay to provide supporters with online tools to circumvent government censorship and take down government websites. The global interaction of web users and activists revealed the Iranian government as a corrupt and brutal regime. And central to the Green Revolution was the new media’s ability to communicate amongst local activists and grassroots organizations to create and demonstrate in Iran. Although the Internet has brought a new micro-level of interaction amongst cultures, nations and individuals new forms of media have run into three major issues: threat of cross-cultural ethnocentrism, the lack of ability to properly orchestrate who is the leader of a said organization, and the threat of foreign intervention by other countries through technology. With the expansion of the Internet, some have claimed there has been an expansion of cultural influence and ethnocentrism over Islam. New media was created and formed by the West, and with these outlets came the potential to influence the views and perspectives of others; the ethnocentric threat became central to anti-western rhetoric.

But instead of the Internet actually producing ethnocentricity, it does not form it nor helps to resolve it. Another challenge towards new media activism has been its failure for central leadership. Although this maybe true, the voice of a group has become anonymous and in actuality has empowered its ability to contest government and other organizations. Additionally, even though there is no leadership found amongst online media groups, they still have the ability to voice, assemble and to execute many of their goals.

Finally, we are now seeing cases where grassroots based organizations have had the ability to actually provoke major change into governmental bodies, as has been shown in Tunisia, and to a lesser degree, Egypt. Such transformative changes in government has.exposed the power of the Internet. The Internet’s ability to inform, misinform or even produce/create a movement has been seen as a new weapon amongst states. The ancient threat of insurgency from another country through a nation’s populace has always existed. For example, Iran’s regime during the Green Revolution accused the United States of meddling with its affairs. Although the accusation of the government may or may not be true, new media has allowed us to hear both sides of the argument rather than hearing a propagated, one-sided argument.

Despite the view that Internet activism has not had any substantial political, economic, or social gains, these characteristics can more often be attributed to new media. The power of the Internet’s effectiveness is still being tested, and with more time it will be able to maximize its potential and reach a broad spectrum of viewers.

While the world is geographically large, new media has shown us we are all interconnected in a smaller community than our eyes would have us believe. And with the growth of micro-interactions through technology humans have been able to share and inform others of what they value or how they perceive a particular incident. This new media has question old forms of media, eliminating the middleman. The future discourse of technology in our lives and its influence around the world is assured to last at least in our lifetime.

The Case Against Net Neutrality

2011-09-12T01:58:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on the California Review.

The debate over Net Neutrality has been a growing hot topic in recent the years. And to my belief most people who support Net Neutrality have good intentions, but they fail to understand the faults of government creating “protections” for the Internet. We need to protect the Internet, but government is a bad means to do so.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality basically ensures equal access to the Internet, and it gives Internet users the ability to control the information and the applications they use on the Internet.

Why have Net Neutrality?

There has been a growing fear amongst “consumers” that Internet Service Providers are failing to provide the proper bandwidth to users because of possible illegal activity, censorship or abuse of their Internet connection. Also, there has been a growing concern that Internet Service Providers will begin to charge more for users who visit certain websites. Many people have grown concerned over these potential abuses by service providers and in the result of these concerns’ politicians‘ have turned to government intervention in order to protect our digital rights.

Sounds good, right?

Not to me! Let me explain. For the most part the Internet is one of the last entities on this planet that is not under the control of government regulation or “protection”. Under the free market system and lack of government control, the Internet has been a great example of a global free society. When you enter the worldwide web you are entering a virtual voluntaryist society. The internet is a society built by voluntary relationships. We have grown to love or hate the Internet depending on our personal beliefs, but no one can deny the Internet has become a beacon for information and misinformation. Many people in Congress support Net Neutrality, and more than often they affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party. Even the “President of the Internet”, Leo Laporte supports Net Neutrality. Those who support Net Neutrality fail to understand that the Internet doesn’t need protections granted from government nor does the government need to grant us digital rights. We already have them! The Internet is a self regulating entity.

Every time Internet Service Providers abuse their power the Internet reacts in an uproar. Internet Users react in the masses and revolt against the Internet Service Providers, usually in a non-violent matter and demand the Internet Service Providers reverse their abuses. The free society that is the Internet has socially protected itself. Additionally, the Internet is very difficult to regulate, which has allowed it economically and socially to prosper. Due to loose regulations on digital markets, the lack of a government regulatory body has contributed to the lowering of costs and exponential growth (Moore’s Law). And yet, people who wish to implement Net Neutrality want to maintain and preserve the Internet we have today. This is a noble cause, but why entrust government with this burden when the free society already acts as the protectorate of the Internet? Why change when there is truly nothing to fix?

Government for the most part is the negation of liberty. Regulations come with many consequences. First, by creating Net Neutrality we are allowing a stepping-stone for the Government to regulate and control the Internet. For example, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created to ensure fair rates and eliminate rate discrimination over railroads, yet instead of protecting consumers the ICC ended up limiting competition. Not only does net neutrality open the door towards government abuse, but it also threatens our first amendment rights.

Nick Dranias, Director of The Goldwater Institute writes:

“In Comcast Cablevision v. Broward County, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks struck down a county ordinance that forced a cable company to give its competitors equal access to its communication infrastructure. Much like advocates of net neutrality argue today, the county government argued that its “open access” ordinance did not offend the First Amendment because it ensured the transmission of more, rather than less, information by more companies. Judge Middlebrooks rejected that argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing owners of communication infrastructure to transmit information against their will. He also held that government has no power to force the distribution—or “circulation”—of information because “liberty of circulating is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, but also to delivery of information by means of fiber optics, microprocessors and cable.”

So, now ask yourself: do we need Net Neutrality? The next time one of your liberal or conservative friends tell you that we need Net Neutrality explain to them that their good intentions will only lead to the government abusing our liberties and property, which always leads to the eventual loss of both.

Stalin and Socialism: A Critique

2011-09-12T00:43:00.000-07:00

The rise of Stalin brought about a totalitarian movement in Russia, developing upon the revolutions original motives. Stalin forcibly collectivized the peasants, rejected Bukharin's later theories and supported suppressing political opponents. Stalinization became significantly labeled as the overreaching form of socialism, rejecting many of the ideas of his rivals, creating a society polarized by coercion. But how did Stalinization come about, and what theoretical approaches to revolution caused such a movement to come into power? I believe Stalinization emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution as an aggravation of class struggle under socialism, as described by Stalin himself, building off of the words of Lenin through a fusion of other theories. I do not believe one theory alone can explain the rise of Stalin and state-socialism, but I've come to the conclusion Stalin built his case off of Lenin's ideas' of class struggle under socialism, adding a coercive element to “construct socialism.” I disagree with Trotsky, and agree that Stalinization came as a result of the Bolsheviks, invoking state-socialism, replacing the dictatorship of the proletariat with a dictatorship of the party. I believe Stalinization came about not as a counter-revolution to the revolution, but the empirical ends of Marxist-Leninist thought and Bolshevikism. I believe four items are central to my theory: Lenin's work on class aggregation, Marxism and the National Question, the New Economic Policy, and Socialism in One Country.

With the rise of the Bolsheviks, Lenin pushed forward a path towards communism. In 1905, Lenin expressed the importance of the “intelligentsia” in his article What is to be done. Lenin pressed for the Marxist intelligentsia to merge with the liberal intelligentsia for political struggle and the eventual revolution. He believed revolutionary change was only possible if the working class was able to breach their class-consciousness. Why is this important? This validated the importance of the Bolshevik idea of a Vanguard Party. Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed it was essential to help succumb the workers towards class-consciousness.

In 1913 Stalin wrote Marxism and the National Question. Stalin discusses the importance of workers removing their class-consciousness and the rights of self-determination, which was seen as an important contribution to Marxist-Leninist thought.

Stalin wrote:

“The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.”

Stalin argues, the right of self-determination is a macro-level approach, so nations are not free to use coercion, in order to interfere with other nations. And Stalin reinforces the Bolsheviks position of answering the national question, emphasizing the importance of the party.

Stalin wrote:

“A minority is discontented not because there is no national union but because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself. A minority is discontented not because there is no artificial union but because it does not possess its own schools. Give it its own schools and all grounds for discontent will disappear. A minority is discontented not because there is no national union, but because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience , liberty of movement...”

This not only reaffirms Lenin's importance of succumbing class-consciousness, but additionally the importance of the absence of a minority. Lenin praised Stalin's work, and pushed the literature as an important piece of work towards communism; additionally, Stalin built his work off of Lenin's work: The Right of Nations to Self-determination and The Question of Nationalities (Tucker 153, 719). In 1917, Lenin wrote The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution(“April Theses”). Lenin, in his essay, emphasized the February Revolution as the first stage of the Bolshevik revolution, and the next stage was to encompass the peasants into the revolution. This caused Lenin to push forward answering the problem of Russia not having a Bourgeoisie revolution in his work The War and Social Democracy, which foreshadowed the problems and conflicts that were to come ahead (Tucker 295).

With the lack of capitalism and industrialization in Russia, solutions for this were proposed by two Bolsheviks: Lenin and Bukharin. Lenin and Bukharin both emphasized the importance of a New Economic Policy, which was a call for state-capitalism, establishing a link with the peasant economy.

Lenin wrote:

“The idea of building communist society exclusively with the hands of the Communists is childish, absolutely childish. We Communists are but a drop in the ocean, a drop in the ocean of the people. We shall be able to lead the people along the road we have chosen only if we correctly determine it not only from the standpoint of its direction in world history... Other factors are whether we shall be able to supply the peasants with good exchanges for grain.” (Tucker 528).

Lenin and Bukharin argued the importance of using state-capitalism as a tool to build socialism. Now, many individuals have argued Stalin detracted himself from Marxist-Leninist ideas, creating coercive socialism. Here I would argue, Lenin and Bukharin themselves detracted from Marx himself on the nature of property or in this case state-property, noting that the Bolsheviks didn't encompass all of Marx's ideas, and transformed it to their use.

Bukharin wrote on the New Economic Policy:

The New Economic Policy “is not only a strategic retreat, but the solution to a large social, organizational problem, namely, the correlation between spheres of production which we must rationalize and those which we cannot rationalize. We will say frankly: we tried to take on ourselves the organization of everything--even the organization of the peasants and the millions of small producers...from the viewpoint of economic rationality this was was madness.” (Cohen 146).

Bukharin, who believed the New Economic Policy was necessary in order to achieve socialism, in the quote above, attempted to justify the policy as a means to rationalize the spheres of production. The New Economic Policy became the position of the Bolsheviks economically. Stalin believed the New Economic Policy was a patriotic means of reaching socialism, but the question of the New Economic Policy and its use of state-capitalism is essential proof that justifies the later use of Stalin's Five-year plans'. After Lenin's death, Stalin staunchly agreed with Bukharin's economic policies until 1924. He would disagree with Bukharin on the peasants being introduced to the socialist equation. But, one of the most important issues Stalin and Bukharin agreed upon was Socialism in One Country.

In 1924, Stalin wrote Socialism in One Country, and Bukharin built upon the idea. Socialism in One Country was the thought of growing Russia's internal power as western communist revolutions had failed, and the bourgeoisie of those in power maintained control. The idea of Socialism in One Country traced back to Lenin himself (Cohen 187). This notion of some form of nationalism made Bukharin uneasy, but he believed it was important to the internal revolution. The nature of Bolshevikism itself is what garnered the idea socialism could be reached in one country, and was reinforced by Lenin himself. Going back to roots of Marxism, Frederich Engels himself believed achieving socialism in one country was not possible (Tucker 469). But Stalin and Bukharin agreed building socialism in one country was vital to expand Russian Socialism.

Stalin, contradicting this belief, earlier wrote:

“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient - the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.....Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

This theory and much of the other theories proposed earlier by Stalin and his allies at the time, were built off of the works of other Bolsheviks. Stalinization and the forced collectivization of peasants, and the use of coercion for Stalin to remove his competitors became vital once he solidified power after Bukharin was removed.

The essential roots to forced collectivization is linked to Lenin and his work on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Lenin wrote on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is the continuation of the class struggle of the proletariat in new forms. That is the crux of the matter; that is what they do not understand. The proletariat is a special class, alone continues to wage its class struggle...The state is only a weapon of the proletariat in its class struggle. A special kind of cudgel, rien de plus!” (Tucker 490).

After the revolution, the peasant question was always apparent. But, essentially, the source of the problem for many of Russia's problem was grain and the belief of a missallocation of resources by the peasant community. The peasant community was not part of the proletariat, but anther class in Russia. Lenin makes it very clear that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the continuation of class struggle, and it is above all others. Many agreed that the peasants were exploiting resources, and not directing the goods through the proper mediums. Stalin followed Lenin in his beliefs, and brought about the ends to deal with the bourgeoisie: “Suppression of the resistance of the exploiters” (Tucker 490). Stalin, by the words of Marx and class aggregation, believed coercion was the only tool possible if Socialism were to be pushed forward, and if forced collectivization did not work, removing these peasants was the only alternative.

Because of the forces who didn't take into account the proletariat's special privileges, Stalin believed his opponents wished to exploit the proletariat, making them enemies of the revolution. And, the only weapon to deal with individuals who wished to oppose the proletariat dictatorship was death, imprisonment, or exile; a “classless” society could not be formed without the acknowledgement of class-consciousness. The peasants were clearly not in this mindset. By definition, in Russia, Bolshevikism became the Proletariat and pushed forward class aggregation theory. The opponents of Stalin claimed his actions were not “pure,” but Bolshevikism itself was never pure, but an evolving, expedited way to reach socialism.

Those who adhered to Leninism, in order to critique the actions of Stalin lack a general understanding of Lenin himself and the party. Lenin, in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat wrote the proletariat continues its class struggle even during its own dictatorship. The merits of this definition are questionable, but it is clear there is a subjective control by government, that is the proletariat, instituted to protect its own will. Clearly, even members of the proletariat, who descended against its general will did not acknowledged class-consciousness.

Stalin, in his work Marxism and the National Question takes note minorities cannot exist in a socialist society, and, naturally, was to be against the dictatorship of the proletariat as acknowledged by Lenin. Now, some have argued the use of coercion by Stalin used against the peasants was not Marxist-Leninist(Cohen 249). But, under war communism we saw the use of coercion.

Under Stalin's coercive collectivization, and the first five-year plan the Soviet Union's agricultural goods were removed, and industrialization doubled, ideally pushing state-capitalism forward in order to reach socialism. The purges empirically showed this helped “modernize” the Soviet Union. Now is this a justification for Stalinization? No, but the means of Stalinization was built upon Marxist-Leninist ideas.

The rise of Stalin lead to the death of millions, and moved the revolution towards a new stage. Stalin used coercion to enforce state-capitalism to create socialism, and eliminated his rivals who contested his positions. Stalinization was seen as a success, and was repeated by Mao in China in order to develop a “Great Leap Forward.” Stalinization resulted as the ends of the Bolshevik Revolution as an aggravation of class struggle under socialism, and the works of identity, and economic policy to expedite socialism.

Works Cited

Cohen, Stephen F. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: a Political Biography, 1888-1938. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980. Print.

Engels, Friedrich, Karl Marx, and Robert Cinnamond Tucker. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.

Lenin, Vladimir, and Robert C. Tucker. The Lenin Anthology. New York: Norton, 1975. Print.

Possony, Stefan T. Lenin Reader. Chicago, IL: H.Regnery, 1966. Print.

Remembering 9/11

2011-09-11T23:41:00.000-07:00

10 years ago more than 3,000 innocent people lost their lives on 9/11. This was a horrible tragedy for us all. Afterwards, more than 100,000 innocent people have been killed since the War on Terror began. Let those who died on 9/11 rest in peace. Let those who have been the victims of war rest in peace. Let those who died to defend this country rest in peace. I'll never forget 9/11, it changed our world.

Why I'm Voting for Ron Paul

2011-09-06T23:28:00.000-07:00

       Back in the 1990's, politics was never a major concern for me, I was a kid. The only things I remember before 2000 was my 3rd grade teacher telling us to tell our parents to vote for Ralph Nader, minor updates of our involvement in Kosovo on the local news, and the Elian Gonzalez incident under the Clinton Administration. My parents were never really political, nor did they ever talk about politics. Being the son of Cuban-Americans, I knew Fidel Castro was a bad man. I knew my family came to the United States because they wished to live in a prosperous country, where man was able to keep what he earned. In 6th grade, I had to write a biography on a family member, I chose my Grandfather. My Grandfather only had a 3rd grade education in Cuba; he was nine when he had his first job; his mother died before he turned 10; and he left Cuba in 1960, with my Grandmother fearing the despotism of a more tyrannical government than the prior. He came to this country with nothing more than the clothes on his back, working two jobs to feed his family, he endured. My world-view changed when I wrote on my Grandfather's biography. I then knew who and what a successful person was. I was so proud to be his grandson. After that day I began to pay attention to politics.
       Fast forwarding to 2000, I remember watching the George W. Bush and Al Gore presidential debate. At the age of 12, your typical 6th grader didn't watch presidential debates, but there was nothing else on television. Something inside of me clicked when George W. Bush began to talk of a humble foreign policy; what he was saying in regards to Kosovo and our intervention overseas sounded like commonsense to me. The next moment politics intervened in my life was the day it changed all our lives: September 11.
       I remember waking up that morning from a nightmare. I had dream of a firefighter dying in an elevator; to my surprise, when I turned on the television, there was CNN talking about how an airplane crashed into the World Trade Center, and to my shock another plane then crashed into the Trade Center. I then knew we were under attack, but by who? Why would they attack us? I ran to my parents room, and told them of the incident; they told me I was having a bad dream. I got really angry with them and turned on their television, to their surprise there were the Two-Towers on fire. I went to school that day, and each Professor began to talk about the incident, not saying much on the issue, but trying to calm everyones nerves. Until I entered my 8th grade U.S. History class that morning we were unaware of who attacked us. But, many speculated it was a terrorist organization and not a foreign nation. I then became obsessed with the media, watching every update, every channel, watching the replays of the towers crashing over and over again. The media kept talking about the attacks. Like everyone else, I raised my war-flag, those responsible needed to be punished.
       A few years had gone by, and the war drums inside of me kept beating. Then 2003 came, President Bush told us Iraq was a threat to the nation. At first I didn't understand why we were going to attack Iraq as they had not attacked us, but I reflected upon my emotions believing even if Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States, at least the people of Iraq would finally be free to enjoy the same liberties as the United States. March came by and we launched our attack. For the first month, I thought the war was humanitarian; I thought the people would rejoice towards their liberators, and that is what I saw on television. But, by the end of 2003, I saw something different; I saw resistance to our mission of liberation; I saw Al Qaeda gain a presence in Iraq, which didn't exist prior to our invasion. I then realized, Al Qaeda was winning, their network was expanding. They got exactly what they wanted: the media to project a Holy War between Islam and the United States. A small, fringe view of Islam, somehow became all of Islam according to both Republicans and Democrats. I became against the War in Iraq. I read about the Patriot Act, and learned of how our liberties as Americans were being curtailed because of the fear of a Nuclear bomb going off in the United States. I finally woke up to the propaganda, the fear mongering. I learned to my surprise Congress never declared war against Iraq; we weren't following the Constitution, that document every Congressmen and every other government official swore to protect. I was still in High School at the time, and I was much more fond of technology at the time, and learning about my Cuban roots.
       In 2005, I began to relearn Spanish; I became a fan of latin music, and started to read Cuban literature. Out of all those who I had read, Jose Marti, a revolutionary hero of the Cuban War for Independence stood out. He wrote about the importance of a civil-society, the nature of liberty, the building of a republic, and his views against imperialism. The man loved the United States, but even he was willing to fight against her if her claws were to entangle itself with Cuba. For Fidel Castro, one of his justifications for the Cuban Revolution was the historical foreign presence of the United States entangling itself in Cuban affairs, supporting multiple dictatorships in Cuba. The Cuban Revolution was a populist revolution, and many believed Fidel would restore the 1940 constitution into power, but Fidel took advantage of these populist views and molded them towards socialism. The response of U.S. interventionism in Latin America, for many, was socialism, because it appeared to them it was the only answer; Lenin believed the final evolution of capitalism was imperialism. But was the United States intervening abroad because of capitalism? The answer was no. The United States was intervening for crony-capitalism, political justifications, proxy-wars during the cold war, and reasons justified on “humanitarian” grounds. The rise of socialism in Latin America was blowback for our intervention.
      In late 2005, I began to vocalize my views online. To my surprise, there were no republicans who I could relate with. Back then, I would argue on socialist forums over their misunderstandings of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; I read Marx, Engels, and Lenin to ground my rebuttals. It was to my surprise one of them acknowledged that I had sounded like Ron Paul. I had no idea who he was at the time. But once I found some of his literature online, and videos of him on YouTube, I knew we shared many of the same views. I was only 17 at the time, but I began to promote him online, and I joined the movement that would draft him to the Republican primaries. He was a nobody until that first Republican primary debate, he spoke up against the War in Iraq, and said the truth: one of the reasons the 9/11 attacks occurred was because of our foreign intervention abroad. This was news to many, but the truth was there. Ron Paul believed in doing what every other American believed after 9/11, getting Osama bin Laden. At the time, he even pushed forward the only constitutional way of capturing bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda: Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
      Moving forward to 2011, we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. We finally killed Osama bin Laden. Our economy is heading towards a double-dip. We are in a major budget deficit, and the only person who talked about the coming recession, the problems with keynesianism, the necessity of reducing our spending, and the balancing of our budget was Ron Paul. He has been labeled as the Father of the Tea Party; he has been labeled as fringe; he has been labeled as the man who has changed many aspects of the Republican Party, yet they still claim he is unelectable. Well, I will come out and say it now: he is electable, and he can win. The major concerns many people have against Ron Paul are simply unfounded.
      First we must ask, what is the constitutional role of the President? He is the Commander-in-Chief, and he signs bills into law. The Democrats fear of his social views being enforced, yet he has said he would let the States solve these disputes, not to mention, he has no power over what Congress will push forward as law. Some Republicans fear his views on foreign policy, and they should. Ron Paul abides by the Just Christian War theory. This means he will not intervene abroad, unless we have been attacked; that means no more preventative wars. Another concern some Republicans have towards Paul is his views on Israel; he has been labeled as anti-semitic. Many of these concerns are unfounded, as Ron Paul wishes to cut-off all foreign-aid, most of which goes to Israel's enemies. And, they forget that Israel is capable of taking care of herself. Ron Paul was one of the few who did not criticize Israel for her bombings against Iraq in the 1980's. He understands the importance of sovereignty. Now, other Republicans have some concerns about immediately withdrawing the troops. As a student of political science with an emphasis in international relations, I understand these concerns more than others. The possibility of a power vacuum being created is there. But, have we not already been in these countries for 8 and 10 years? These two wars have become the longest in our nations history. How many more Americans and innocent civilians need to die before we gain stability in the region? We are just saving face. We need to come home.
      So who is Ron Paul to me? He's the underdog, that guy who has always endured in maintaining the republic and the Constitution. He reminds me of my Grandfather, because he's fighting an uphill battle, a battle that seems with no end, no clear victory. Even at an old-age, his disapproval with what conservatism has become, he still fights on. In 2007, Ron Paul entered the Republican primary race with only the clothes on his back, and left with an army of supporters. Ideas are powerful things. This is a revolution of ideas. This is a battle over the mind of man. And believe it or not, unfortunately, politics matter, voting matters. So, who will I be voting for in the Republican primary? The man who has stood on principle; the man who builds coalitions; the man who embodies the American dream: Ron Paul.

The Tainos and the Cuban Identity

2011-09-05T21:38:00.001-07:00

Note: I wrote this essay for my Making of the Modern World 4 class at the University of California-San Diego, in the Fall of 2009.

A PDF copy of the paper can be found here.

      During the late 15th century and the 16th Century, the indigenous people of Cuba, the Tainos, were indoctrinated by will and through force to join the Roman Catholic Church. The Spanish first discovered the Tainos on the island Guanahani. Christopher Columbus discovered Guanahani on October 12th, 1492, he called the island San Salvador (Columbus 23-25). When Columbus first encountered the Tainos, he wrote in his journal, “It appears to me, that the people are indigenous, and would be good servants; and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion” (Columbus 26). The colonization of the Spanish Caribbean and the indoctrination of Spanish rule and faith would lead the Tainos to violent resistance. Although, the majority of the Natives resisted Spanish rule and faith, their heirs would later submit to them.
      The Spanish committed genocide upon all those who opposed their rule, and religious faith. The Tainos faced the complexities of a new faith, and a people who would live amongst them and place their will upon them. With the arise and force of the Spanish inquisition upon Spanish America, the Tainos were given limited options for survival. But how successful were the Spanish efforts to assimilate the Tainos? After reviewing my research material, I have come to the conclusion the Spanish were successful in their assimilation of the Tainos, but undergoing many set backs over time. The Tainos eventually assimilated not under a Spanish identity, but rather uniforming to a common identity of a new born movement of Cuban nationalism and miscegenation as Bartolomé de Las Casas had predicted (Friede 372).
      Juan Friede, a historian, writing on Bartolome de Las Casas analyzed the first hand account of the Spanish. The Spanish had created a plan in 1516 to begin the assimilation of the Tainos. Forty Spanish peasants and their families would be sent to each town or village of the island and “to each will be given five Indians with their wives and their children as company, that they may be companions and work together and share equally” (Friede 372). This had been the earliest attempt of the Spanish to integrate the Tainos. The Spanish men from Galicia and the Canary Islands became fond of the Tainos women and married many of them (Barreiro 10-11). Examining Bartolome’s means of assimilating the Tainos, Friede remarks, “He (Bartolome) made it plan that, one year after their baptism, they should be associated with Spanish peasants” (Friede 375). But, the inhabitants of the island , due to economic reasons, played the most important role of creating a Cuban national identity.
      Although Spanish assimilation of the Tainos was successful, Friede accounts of Bartolome de Las Casas rejection to the Spanish assimilation of the Indians and accounts for the treatment of the Tainos by the Spaniards. Not all the Tainos accepted assimilation, one of these Tainos was Chief Hatuey, the first Cuban National Hero. Hatuey had warned the Cuban Tainos of the Spanish after encountering them in Hispaniola and declared the only god the Spanish had was gold. Hatuey fought and organized rebellions and raids against the Spanish in Cuba until the 1530’s, where he was captured and burned alive (Barreiro). The Spanish failed to place all the Natives under government control. Many islands off the coast of Cuba became places of refuge for the natives, and acted as locations to raid Spanish forces (Johnson 125). In 1532, the Spanish were successful in defeating rouge Indians on the island known as “Cimarrons”, their leader Gauma was defeated by the Spaniard Manuel de Rojas and his army (Johnson 127). The Spanish used Machiavellian tactics against the Indians and did not resist in the complete slaughter of the natives; Barreiro writes, “In a single act of revenge after an Indian attack, Spanish soldiers captured 700 villagers and stabbed them all to death” (Barreiro). The resistance against the Spanish lasted for fifty years (Barreiro). For many of the Tainos, the Spanish brought a state of depression because of the loss of many of their leaders and their cultural identity (Castro Ch.2). Bartolome de Las Casas, in his account, said many of the Tainos were peaceful people (Wagner 6). In their native tongue, Taino meant “Men of the good” (Barreiro).
      The Dominican priest, Bartolome de Las Casas. after witnessing the abuse and murder of many Tainos in Cuba, pushed forward the idea of establishing Indian republics in the New World, and re-establish Indian princes' and Caciques, Indian chiefs. Bartolome wrote: “because neither the Pope nor any prince on earth . . . can strip or deprive Christians or infidels of their lordship, royal pre-eminence, jurisdiction, and public or private properties without legitimate cause”. Bartolome even declared under the principles of a just Christian war, as outlined by Thomas Aquinas, the Spanish had waged an immoral war against the Indians and “because the Indians had just title and just in defending their land against all comers” (Friede 372). Las Casas even justified many of the actions of the Tainos resistance, “by natural law every commonwealth can defend its land from a foreign people from fear of the harm that may come from them” (Friede 323). Bartolome was not alone in his outcry for the Indians, Antonio Montesinos, another Dominican priest said, “tell me, by what right or justice do you keep these Indians in such cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged a detestable war against these people who dwelt quietly and peacefully in their own load (Castro Ch.2)?” On the 20th of January 1531, Bartolome sent one of his most famous letters to the Council of the Indies, he appealed to the council by arguing the well-being of the natives of the Old World and the abuses placed by Spanish’s role of misgovernment resulted in the injustices to the native population. Charles the Fifth was personally touched by Bartolome’s letter and legislated the New Laws of 1542 (Friede 339). The New Laws of 1542 prohibited the enslavement of native Indians and placed limitations on the encomiendas (Friede 340).
      Bartolome de Las Casas argued the Spanish war on the Tainos and other Indians was unjust and immoral, but was it? The Vatican and his holiness had provided a license to the Spanish for the management of the Indians with liberal bounds over their authority. Many argued Bartolome had exaggerated his account in the New World (Friede 488-489). And, others protested Bartolome’s views as hypocritical due to the fact Bartolome noted in 1516, “instead of the Indians that the said communities were to have, Your highness should maintain in each community twenty Negroes or other slaves in the mines” as a replacement to Indian labor (Friede 505). The Spanish justified their actions by citing Henry of Susa; the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, who declared heathen peoples had no political jurisdiction after the coming of Jesus Christ (Barreiro). Fray Jeronimo de San Miguel, on August 20th, 1550, stated in his address to the King, “One could not believe that such cruel and savage inhumanity could dwell in a Christian heart …. some Indians they burned alive; they cut off the hands, noses, tongues, and other members of some; they threw others to the dogs” stating Christians are merely defending themselves from the Indian “Savages” (Friede 494).
      The Spanish in some racial matters failed to assimilate the island. The elites of the island, and others whom belonged to organizations on the island were “chosen for their purity of blood” (Cruz 103). Yet, later on because of the assimilation of the Spanish, Tainos, and later the Africans who were brought to the island would grow a national identity and a sense of nationalism with the Veguero Revolts of the 1600's and the 1700’s, after the Marian apparition in Cuba.
      The Marian apparition was the first major event that created a Cuban collective identity, representing the “three races” (Diaz 19). The story of Our Lady of Charity was first recorded by one of the witnesses of the events, Moreno. Moreno recalls the Virgin appearing before him and two Indian brothers around 1604. Moreno, being the son of black slaves, and the other two being Indian half-brothers, whereby one was a full-blooded Taino, and the other being half Spanish, shared the first name Juan, according to story. The three boys had been making their way to the salt mines through the Bay of Nipe when the Marian apparition appeared before them. Diaz writes: “they realized that there was an image of the Virgin with an engraved sign that read ‘I am the Virgin of Charity'”. The engraved sign and image of the Virgin was brought to Don Francisco Sánchez de Moya, the administrator of the mines, whom ordered an alter to be built in honor of the Marian apparition (Diaz 99). The Virgin continued to perform miracles around the salt mines with the help of one of the Indian brothers. The Virgin is said to have defied Don Francisco when she entered the mines and challenged the authority of Don Francisco and in doing so challenged the Spanish crown (Diaz 102). The story of the Lady of Charity is a Marian effigy that symbolized a new found community for the people of the mines and the aspirations of the miners to work while owning parts of the mine, superseding the authority of the Spanish crown, and the old colonial structure. The tale of the Lady of Charity, being fact or fiction, created a religious calling for the Cuban laborers to unite against the Spanish crowns control over the salt mines, El Cobre (Diaz 102). The call for workers to unite against the Spanish crown’s monopoly control over resources without racial barriers on the island became a rhetorical occurring event throughout the islands history. The theme of economic resistance to the crown climaxed with the Veguero Revolts.
       The Veguero Revolts were a series of revolts by the Cuban tobacco growers between 1650 and 1750, against the Spanish crown (Cruz). Tobacco was a commodity first grown and smoked by the Tainos and the product that was tobacco spread throughout the Old World and created a global demand. A monopoly on the sale of Cuban tobacco was created on April 11, 1717, and the growers of tobacco were obligated to sell their tobacco to the Spanish crown (Cruz 46). The tobacco monopoly caused the farmers to unite against the Spanish crown with violence (Gott 37). In August 21, 1717, the Vegueros’s took control of Havana, Cuba’s most important port economically at the time; and began to preach, “Long Live the King! Death to Bad Government!”(Cruz 106). The Veguero Revolts crippled the Spanish into negotiating with the Cubans; the demands the Cubans presented to the Spanish were agreed upon, mainly due to the Cubans acting as the protectorate and army for Spain’s empire in the Caribbean (Cruz 294). The role the Cubans played in defending Spanish America and resolving disputes in the region also played a role in their collective identity (Cruz 298). Cruz writes: “A few decades after the last of the Vegueros’s uprisings, while witnessing as the British Union Jack was hauled down, the Spanish flag was raised at the top of Morro Castle in 1763, a melancholic Spaniard commented “a flag or another are irrelevant, because the Cubans are already sure they own their patria (Fatherland)” (Cruz 299).
      For many Cubans they gradually adopted a collective identity. The Tainos assimilated through means of marriage, religion and working amongst the two other major races over time. The gradual transition of workers and the mix of culture, and races would help appeal to the early Cuban identity. In response to the economic sanctions placed on Cuba by their colonial rulers, many Cubans began to relinquish their Spanish identity due to two reasons: many were born in the new world and identified themselves with the New World, meanwhile others were the children of multi-racial backgrounds and felt they had inherited the identity of their ancestors. The Spanish were directly and indirectly successful in assimilating the Tainos and most of Cuba’s population. The Spanish directly assimilated the Tainos by formulating the dynamics for marriage (Friede 372), and they indirectly assimilated the Tainos by means of bad government. The colonists, the Tainos, and later the Africans, who were brought to Cuba united against Spain’s economic sanctions on the island (Diaz 102). But, not only were they united through labor, they were united by their military might; they shared the losses of defending the Spanish Caribbean (Cruz 294). Many of the wounds were part of the past, and vendetta’s were washed away for many with the passing of time.
      Through the sorrows of the death of tens of thousands of Tainos through disease, murder, and rejection of assimilation there had been a growing Cuban identity established. The Cubans would later adopt Hatuey as their first national Cuban hero as the Spanish colonizers and Tainos alike adopted the identity of being Cuban on the island. The challenges of living in Cuba no longer arose from the native locals and the colonizers, but instead they would go on and see the Spanish crown as a threat with the imposition of taxation and monopoly control over economic sovereignty and political laws imposed upon them, which many speculate lead to a “Marian Apparition” claiming a divine power supporting their protest. The Marian apparition helped break racial barriers to inspire one of the first revolts against the Spanish, the Veguero Revolts (Cruz 4). The revolts would pave the fundamental groundwork for a Cuban collective identity and later to its eventual freedom from Spanish colonial rule almost a hundred years later.

Works Cited

Barreiro, José. "A Note on Tainos: Whither Progress?" Northeast Indian Quarterly (1990): 66- 77.

Castro, Daniel. Another Face of Empire: Bartolome de las Casas, Indigenous Rights, and Ecclesiastical Imperialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007.

Columbus, Christopher. Journal of First Voyage to America. Ed. Van W. Brooks. New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1924.

Cruz, Asiris M. Smoking Guns: Tobacco Farmer's Revolts and Colonial Society, Cuba, 1650- 1750. Diss. University of California Riverside, 2007. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC, 2008.

Diaz, Maria Elena. The Virgin, the King, and the Royal Slaves of El Cobre Negotiating Freedom in Colonial Cuba, 1670-1780 (Cultural Sitings). New York: Stanford UP, 2000.

Friede, Juan, and Benjamin Keen, eds. Bartolomé de Las Casas in History. DeKalb: Northern Illinois UP, 1971.

Gott, Richard. Cuba: A new history. Yale UP, 2004.

Johnson, Willis F. The History of Cuba. Vol. 1. New York: B. F. Buck & Company, Inc., 1920.

Wagner, Henry R. The Life and Writings of Bartolomé de Las Casas. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico, 1967.

War is Where the Individual Dies

2011-09-02T18:13:00.000-07:00

I wrote this poem back in 2007.

"How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

At the beginning,
life is revered;
at the end,
life is revered;
at a time of war,
lives are destroyed.

When peace comes,
the individual prospers;
when diplomacy fails,
the war drums beat;
when the old men shout,
the young men go.

When war comes,
many watch them,
they march;
they are soldiers.

The soldier endures,
his humanity, sanity, and emotions are gone;
the story goes on, but untold in history.

The soldier comes back in a coffin,
lined up, draped with a flag,
covered in flowers.

The relatives cry;
they weep,
only wishing they fought with flowers,
instead of guns.

They stay silent,
they hide the truth;
did he kill someone?
Did he die with sin?

The world goes on,
the news stays silent,
five more dead, nameless, without a face,
dead in a foreign land for the nation-state.

This is a tale of an individual;
this is the story of life;
and war is where the individual dies.

The Origins of Anti-Democratic Movements in the 20th Century

2011-09-01T21:41:00.000-07:00

Note: I wrote this essay for my European Political Development class at the University of California-San Diego, in the Winter of 2011. The professor for the class was Victor V. Magagna.

     The rise of anti-democratic movements came about beginning in the early 20th century with the call for strong nation-states. During the 19th century freedom was believed to be achieved with the absence of state influence, and even the rejection of the state itself (Mann 32). Prior to the 20th century social life was outside of the realm of the state's influence. So, what in the 20th century caused a call for the rise for a strong nation state, and how did these anti-democratic movements change the world we live in? We must first analyze the rise of political movements, economics, and sociology of the 19th century to understand the rise of despotic states. I believe the origins of anti-democratic movements lie with the rise of state capitalism, socialism, and nationalism. All three movements, I believe, contested against the rise of liberal democracy in the 19th century; these movements rose through fear and chaos by opportunistic individuals attempting social experiments.
     Beginning in the 19th century, states began to induce upon state-capitalism in order to create public infrastructure such as roads, railroads, and canals. France, unlike the United Kingdom or the United States, favored the state's influence over economic activity (Mann 32). Protectionist economic theories began to challenge free-market capitalism and states began to call for the coordination of banking and capital investment. The supporters of state-capitalism began to push for railroads, mass education, health programs, and other welfare programs. These populist movements, eventually, caused the rise of statism. The rise of these popular movements created the demands for more taxes, and some individuals contested these taxes, by demanding some form of consent through representative forms of government. The public goods created by these nation-states began to create entitlements for citizens, and citizens began to create demands for barriers of entry for others to receive citizenship (Mann 33). Ethnic groups in these nation-states began to contest the rights of one group over another, and resentment began to rise against these conflicting groups. These conflicts between ethnic groups, historically, created a demand for nationalism.
     The nationalists began to create similar demands across each state focusing on three core values: “(1) an enduring national character, soul, or spirit, distinguishable from that of other nations, (2) their right to a state that would ultimately express this, and (3) their right to exclude minorities with different characters, who would only weaken the nation” (Mann 34). Meanwhile, Socialists began to characterize class conflict and called for the transcendence of one's class consciousness.
     The socialists, amongst themselves disputed ways of surpassing class consciousness and the removal of capitalism. From Proudhon to Marx, these individuals supported what was known as the anti-authoritarian side of the movement, one believing state-capitalism caused problems while the other contested capitalism was a tool towards socialism. Marx, who had a major influence in the beliefs of German Socialists, believed in a dialectic whereby the state would wither away. But, many socialists wished to empower the working class and the interests against capitalism, in creating a form of government that would represent the proletariat, which they believed had no voice or form of power to contend the interests of the elite, which tended to be democratic at first (Mann 53).
     At first political movements tried to encompass these conflicting interests through one compromising group, by combining agendas of each group, for the “good of all”; one such group was the German People's party (Mann 34). This group tried to encompass the demands for German nationalism, and progressive changes, denouncing some items of each group. But, this group, because of its conflicting interests split apart into other political parties. The rise of these movements created a crisis for liberal democracy. The beginning of the 20th century saw a rise of authoritarian regimes, whom were anti-democratic in nature.
     Some believe the rise of statism, and the rejection of classical liberalism was due to demands for development in each nation-state, but this notion ignores the rise of nationalism (Mann 55-56). One such case of the rise of nationalism, which lead to fascism was Italy. For Italy, Fascism grew as an appeal towards nationalism, and the rejection of the Italian socialists to denounce involvement in the Great War, usurping the working-class. The support of the syndicalist movement supported a monopoly on skilled labor, creating a state of syndicalists (Mann 94). But, some argue Italian Fascism became petty-bourgeoisie, becoming a tool for the capitalist to suppress socialism (Mann 96). Mussolini wished to build an alliance between the syndicalists and bourgeoisie through fusionism: “Totalitarian ethical State” (Mann 98).
     Italian Fascism surged to power after the Great War. The movement by many was believed to be a young movement, as no Fascist leader in Italy was over the age of 50. According to Mann, Lyttleton wrote individuals who affiliated themselves with Fascism were “employees, small renters and lesser middling professional men . . . the new men. They formed the crowd which before the war watched political events with indifference and apathy and which has now entered the contest. Fascism has mobilized its forces from the twilight zones of political life, and from this derives the unruly violence and the juvenile exuberance of its conduct” (Mann 110). Although, the Fascists forcefully unionized workers into a Fascist union, many socialists respected this. The Italian Fascists gained power through class motivation. Both the state-capitalists and the socialists saw paramilitaries as a weapon. And, Italian Fascism was more successful through coercive means than through the ballot box (Mann 114). The Fascists solidified their rule through the use of coercion. Now, socialists did question the Fascists ability to transcend class-consciousness, but they agreed with the slogans of the Fascists (Mann 117).
     Fascism in Italy grew out of nationalism and from certain elements of socialism, and did build itself as a system of government encompassing many elements that challenged liberal democracy in the 20th century. The fascist state in Italy was willing to bargain with certain groups in order to reinforce its power, and internally used coercion to enforce its rule. Externally, Mussolini thought it was important for the state to use coercion as well; the building of the Italian state, Mussolini believed, the state needed to expand in order to obtain its interests. This is significant because Mussolini initially left the Socialist Party of Italy due to his disagreement with the Great War. But, Mussolini pushed forward imperialism as a way to exploit the resources of others in order to strengthen the well of being of the state.
     For Germany, Fascism rose up in a much more nationalist manner. Unlike Italy, Germany was a highly industrialized country. Mann writes: “Since Hitler seized power only in 1933, the Nazi rise was also slower, affected by unfolding interwar events: an inflation crisis, disputes with the Entente Powers over borders, reparations, and armaments, the Great Depression, and the general surge of interwar authoritarianism. Far more than the Italian fascists, the Nazis seriously contested elections; far less, however, did they challenge the military power of the state. Finally, German fascism was far more racist than Italian fascism. ” (Mann 139). Germany was unique because it faced many crises, they faced the burden of paying for the Great War. Germany was unique in its features; being a developed country it never faced a bourgeoisie revolution. They always held onto a strong semi-authoritarian form of government. Originally, Fascism in Germany was naturally more to the left, according to Mann on the Left-Right political spectrum. Mann states Fascism was originally a form of socialism in Germany, not rejecting private property, but choosing the workers over the exploiting class (Mann 142). Intellectually, German Fascists took into account a socialist equation, but pushed forward validities for nationalism. Naturally, because Fascists in Germany accounted for nationalism, socialists became their bitter rivals. What's interesting though is the connection the Nazis used to connect their nationalist agenda with the socialist ideologue. The Nazis were conspiratorial about the Jewish people, and believed they were agents of capitalism, as they believed these individuals were bourgeoisie.
     The Nazis denounced liberal democracy, as they had believed their problems before 1933 were caused by capitalism. On social issues, the Nazis denounced liberal democracies for its views on women, and claimed women were seen as sexual objects. Meanwhile, the German-Fascist state supported widows and mothers, providing welfare and assistance. Women played a leading role under Nazi rule; the Nazis provided assistance and education to women through state established charity groups. Substantially like Italy, the Nazis were an organization with younger individuals. And the Nazis insisted in reassuring there would be younger generations ready to serve the beck and call of the German fatherland. The Nazis created their youth program, which indoctrinated the youth to become the ideal man, subservient to the state which they believed empowered themselves. The Nazis emphasized on the importance of Nationalism in order to reach their socialist tendencies.
     Like Italy, Nazi-Germany used the power of paramilitaries, in order for the people to “access” Fascism (Mann 167). The Nazis had two primary paramilitary groups: the SA and SS. The SA was larger in size, but the SS was seen as the Nazi elite. The SA was seen as a proletariat group, meanwhile the SS was primarily filled with educated white-collar workers. Over three-hundred members of these paramilitary groups are recording as dying from street fights with other groups like the German Socialist party (Mann 167). The SS and SA were the primary use of coercion in the early regime to ensure nationalism was alive and well in Germany.
     The Nazis like Mussolini also believed in territorial expansion, but rather not for economic reasons, but instead for nationalist issues, like reunifying their claims of a Germany of old. There were several differences between Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany.
     Mann writes on the comparisons between the Nazis and the Italian Fascists:

“(1) There was no overall correlation between class and German fascism, unlike in Italy. Almost all classes were well represented in Nazism. (2) As in Italy, rural classes moved from under- to over representation, though few German agricultural workers became fascist members. (3) As in Italy, the educated “nation-statist” bourgeoisie was the most overrepresented, while the business bourgeoisie, large and small, was underrepresented. This also influenced the education of young people. State and Protestant (though not Catholic) education assisted the emergence of fascism as a generational movement.” (Mann 171).

All our evidence points to the fact, Fascism was the only ideology other than Bolshevism to gain significant power in the 20th century, both which had rejected classical liberalism. The state was seen as a tool for an ends, rather, before, the state under classical-liberalism was seen as a guardian of "negative" rights. The challengers to these negative liberties, began to argue for a need towards positive liberties; Nationalists and Socialists, both shared these goals in common to create their forms of a state. This is my primary understanding of why they tended to take elements from one another. Fascism was the ideal usurpation of interest groups with the state, reinforced through a nationalist element.
In conclusion, the rise of anti-democratic movements came about as a rejection of 19th century classical liberalism. The state became as a tool for an ends, and it was beginning to be seen by some as the empowerment of the individual rather than its rejection. The state in the 20th century, even in democratic countries, due to the influence of anti-democratic movements, became more socially involved in peoples lives. Democratic movements created small welfare-states to counter balance the influence of these authoritarian regimes. The origins of anti-democratic movements came about through the influence of state capitalism, socialism, and nationalism. All these movements rose through fear and chaos by opportunistic individuals attempting to change the status quo. This was significant because although liberal democracies triumphed, it changed how they would maintain order: providing a need for a small welfare state, in order to prevent the rise of anti-democratic movements.

**Terms: The word "democratic" is used in its modern definition of "liberal democracy"

Works Cited

Lectures given by Victor V. Magagna. The Political Development of Europe. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. Winter, 2011.

Mann, Michael. Fascists. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.

The Matador & The Toro

2011-08-31T18:14:00.001-07:00

Madrid, Spain - July 2007

The United States, Russia, & Liberal Democracy

2011-08-30T19:34:00.000-07:00

Note: I wrote this essay for my US-Russian relations class at the University of California-Irvine, in the summer of 2010. The professor for the class was Sergei Plekhanov.

A PDF copy of the essay can be found here.

Russia has long had a history of statist control over its populace. From Nicholas II to the one-party communist regime, and more recently Vladimir Putin, Russia has yet to see a free society. Russia historically has had a legacy of statistism; all Russian rulers have opposed the establishment of private property rights.[1] And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new opportunity arose for private property in the country. When Boris Yeltsin was elected on June 12, 1991, he made history by becoming the first popularly elected President of Russia. Yeltsin and his “radical reformers,” wished to prescribe to economic prescriptions from the United States Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund.[2] The Clinton Administration worked closely with Yeltsin believing its economic advice and help would benefit both Russia and the United States[3]. But, did the United States help or hurt the democratic development of Russia? Much evidence shows the United States did harm Russia’s democratic development, while advising a crony capitalist system created by Russia’s economists; additionally, they also harmed Russia’s evolution towards a democratic form of government. The United States, in pursuing market reforms in Russia, ignored Yeltsin’s abuses towards democracy.

This day in age, when political scientists talk about a democratic form of government, they’re in-fact talking about a liberal democracy. The definition of a liberal democracy is, a representative democracy with free and fair elections that are subject to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights’ – private property being one of these rights. After the Soviet Union fell, Boris Yeltsin was elected, and he wished to establish a liberal democracy in Russia. Primarily, Yeltsin wished to establish free market reforms and private property in Russia.

When Yeltsin was elected as the President of the Russian Federation, he inherited an economic mess; at first Russia’s attempt to liberalize its economy caused hyperinflation to insinuate.[4] Arising from Russia’s monetary crisis, the Russian government then attempted to adopt a tight monetary policy in order to limit its monetary supply and reduced government expenditures, while raising taxes.[5] The old Soviet ruling class took advantage of Russia’s economic reforms of privatization and seized billions of dollars worth of Russia’s natural resources[6]. Prime Minister Yegor Gaider and Anatoly Chubias were in charge of Russia’s market reforms and privatization[7]. The economic blueprint for the new Russian Federation was economic liberalization, stabilization, privatization and institutionalization.[8] Russia’s market planners established stakeholders in the new regime in order to prevent the looting of the regimes assets at first. But, rather these stakeholders instead would become the oligarchs of Russia. These “free market” reformers at first transferred 51% of stocks from each company to its directors and workers.[9] Using coercion, these oligarchs purchased stocks from many of the workers, or exchanged their stocks for vodka.[10] And the remaining 49% of the stocks were transferred to the public in a voucher system, which required price fixing and caused inflation due to the decrease of real prices.[11] Chubias and his elite group had the support from the top political officials in the United States, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.[12] The economic reforms transferred public property to oligarchs; Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs advised Russia’s privatization of state property overnight. Yuri Maltsev, who is now a senior fellow at the Mises Institute, believes that Russia did not perform “shock therapy”, but instead the reformers gave Russia a shock, with no therapy[13]. Yuri Maltsev goes on to write that in fact these market reformers did not establish a “free market” but instead built a neofascist economy.[14]

The Russian market reformers used five methods to privatize Russia: sell state companies to local buyers, sell to foreigners, allow managers of state companies to become owners, mass privatization through vouchers, and allow employees to become owners.[15] The effects of “shock therapy” resulted in loss of production; living conditions worsened for many Russians, and there was an expansion of the “underground” economy.[16] Many individuals from Western Europe and the United States aided the expansion of Russia’s crony capitalist system. Janine Wedel, an anthropologist, who after interviewing many recipients of western aid in Russia came to the conclusion, the west was guilty of helping create the tycoon capitalist system that plagued the Russian people.[17]

The transition of shock therapy was devastating to Russia’s global market share. In 1990, Russia held 2.6% share of world market exports, and 2.7% of all imports; by 1999 Russia had 1.3% share of world market exports, and 0.7% of imports. This economic recession caused the decline of incomes and savings for many Russians. By 1999, over 40% of Russia’s population lived below the official subsistence level.[18]

The profound amount of neoliberal reforms took Russia by storm[19] and the United States provided more than 28 billion dollars to the crony capitalist system adopted in Russia.[20] This U.S assistance was part of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, which wished to democratize Russia and provide economic growth. When the United States first started to provide economic assistance to Russia they pressured the International Monetary Fund to lend Russia and remove their “unreasonable conditions” to Russian loans.[21] Under the supervision of Harvard University’s Institute for International development –who acquired the government contracts without a competing bid--, most of the U.S. government grants went to Chubais and his oligarchs; Chubias later admitted “we conned them,” in reference to Harvard University’s Institute for International development.[22]

By 1995, the United States successfully pressured the IMF to give loans to Russia, whereas Russia’s borrowing had already exceeded over 350% from the previous year.[23] Bankers “to use government funds to speculate on currency markets or make other short-term investments, and to keep the profits for themselves” used the U.S.’s misguided “Loans-for-shares” program, as a crony capitalist scam.[24] The program helped give the oligarchs control of 50% of Russia’s economy. The United States government continued to ignore the ‘inconvenient’ facts. In an annual report, the Clinton Administration called the privatization of Russia ‘remarkable’. Yet, they clearly ignored the unchanging of management and the existence of monopolies, transferred from public to private domain.[25]

Chubais in 1998 worked out the details for Russia’s IMF loan that would burden the Russian government into debt, until its economic collapse that summer.[26] Underlying the corrupt economic system created by a few, burdening Russia’s populous, was the return to authoritarian rule after its governmental failure to democratize. Many of Yeltsin’s failures were not of his own, but propelled by the failure of economic reform in Russia and the oligarchs in charge.

Boris Yeltsin at his inauguration ceremony on June 12, 1991 stated:

"No words can describe what I am feeling now. For the first time in a thousand-years long history of Russia the President is taking his oath before the citizens of Russia. There is no honor higher than the one people render to his President; and there is no post more prestigious than the one the citizens elect. I am feeling optimistic about the future and I am eager to act. The Great Russia will get up from the knees! We surely will turn it into a prosperous, democratic, peaceful, law-based and independent state. Hard work has already begun; having passed through all these endeavors, and clearly seeing the aim, we are absolutely sure that Russia will revive!"[27]

Yeltsin truly believed he could bring a democratic society for Russia, but failed to foresee the future failure of his economic advisors and the adoption of policies that were undemocratic. After the fall of communism in Russia, democracy was seen as the dominant form of government that brought prosperity.[28] And with this in mind, Yeltsin turned to the United States for guidance. Starting in 1992, the United States embraced Yeltsin and wished to help advise its reform to a liberal democracy. Yeltsin’s democratic changes were challenged by parliament. The parliament was able to prevent Yeltsin’s nomination of Yegor Gaidar as Prime Minister.

The Clinton administration sided with the Yeltsin regime against Russia’s opposition and would support Yeltsin’s policies.[29] And, not only did the Clinton Administration support Yeltsin’s policies, but encouraged Yeltsin to be confrontational towards the Russian legislature; former President Nixon advised Yeltsin to seek accommodation in March of 1993, but the Clinton administration gave the opposite advise.[30] At the end of March 1993, Yeltsin assumed “special powers” to implement his reforms. The Clinton administration pursued to attack the Russian legislature, which they labeled as reactionaries. Growing fearful of the Russian Duma, Yeltsin on September 21, 1993, unconstitutionally ordered the dissolution of parliament and called for new elections.[31] The Clinton administration supported the dissolution of parliament.[32] The Duma disobeyed Yeltsin’s orders and held a standoff with the executive branch of government.

Yeltsin adopted an authoritarian status amongst many Russians, and pushed forward a new constitution for Russia. Yeltsin’s actions resulted in the election of nationalists and communists into the Russian Duma. [33] The Clinton Administration believed Yeltsin needed to circumvent the Duma in order to implement market reforms, and yet ignored the necessity of a democratic discourse amongst the Russian government and undermined democracy.

While Russia was democratically and economically struggling to implement a liberal democracy, some believe the U.S. undermined Russia in order to have a beneficial foreign policy. And, the United States extorted their friendship with Yeltsin in order to gain support from Russia, militarily and diplomatically in the U.N. Security Council. Yuri Maltsev wrote:

“Administration officials were forced to ask how the new Russian cabinet would respond if the United States were to take the lead in organizing a NATO air campaign against Serbia in response to Slobodan Milosevic's brutalities in Kosovo. Use of the Russian UN Security Council veto became a real possibility for the first time in years. It was by definition much easier and more predictable to make arrangements with only Yeltsin and his lieutenants.”[34]

If the United States did intentionally provide economic assistance and supplemented corruption in order to gain a foreign policy advantage, it was a poor calculation of cost-benefit analysis. And, the democratization of Russia in the long run would have benefited the United States under the democratic peace theory. The facts remain the Clinton Administration supported Yeltsin’s side-step towards authoritarianism which undermined Russia’s democratic evolution, in order to create a crony capitalist system in the country. The United States did not just harm Russia’s transition towards a liberal democracy; they aided its enemies, and helped create an economic disaster.

Oligarchs, foreigners, politicians, bankers and the old Soviet administration looted the Russian people. Yuri Maltsev writes in Privatization and Piratization in Post-Communist Russia, neofascists robbed the Russian people; this is true, Russia was robbed by new elites and the United States provided the environment for it to prosper. The United States harmed Russia’s democratic development by aiding a crony capitalist system created by Russia’s oligarchs. The failure to democratize Russia would later provide Vladimir Putin justifications to establish an illiberal democracy in Russia.

[1] Maltsev, Yuri. Privatization and Piratization in Post-Communist Russia. The Independent Review, Winter 2005. 427.

[2] Simes, Dimitri. Russia's crisis, America's complicity. (1998). Retrieved July 22, 2010 from Moneywatch.com: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_54/ai_53972625/.

[3] Ibid.

[4] US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS IN THE NEW CENTURY: American’s Triumph, Russia’s Crisis, a lecture given by Sergei Plekhanov on July 8, 2010 at the University of California, Irvine.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Maltsev 2005, pp.425-6.

[7] Ibid. 427.

[8] Plekhanov 2010.

[9] Maltsev 2005, pp.427

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid. 428.

[12] Krasnow , G. (2008). Did Shock Therapy Help Russia? . Retrieved July 25, 2010 from CDI.org: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-88-39.cfm.

[13] Maltsev 2005, p.428.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Plekhanov 2010.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Krasnow 2008.

[18] Plekhanov 2010.

[19] Krasnow 2008.

[20] Tarnoff, Curt. US Assistance to the Former Soviet Union. Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2007. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32866.pdf

[21] “Russia’s Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People.” By Members of the Speaker's Advisory Group on Russia, United States House of Representatives 106th Congress, Washington, 2000 -

http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/russia/part00-cover.htm

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] BORIS YELTSIN’S SPEECH DURING THE INAUGURATION CEREMON. (2010). Retrieved July 25, 2010 from constitution.mvk.ru: http://www.constitution.mvk.ru/content/view/992/502/lang,en/.

[28] Plekhanov 2010.

[29] “Russia’s Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People.” 2000.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Simes 1998.

Libyan Rebels Restore Internet Access In Tripoli

2011-08-23T17:07:00.000-07:00

After months of having no Internet access, on Monday, Libyan Rebels restored Tripoli’s access to the Internet. The Libyan Telecom and Technology company published on its website Monday afternoon, congratulating the Rebels for the taking of Tripoli as an “emancipation from the rule of the tyrant.” A Twitter user, @libya_win, writes he was finally able to communicate with cousins online.

Back in April, the Libyan Rebels setup their own cell towers called Libyana Al Hurra, and another network called Misrata. Now that a majority of Tripoli has been taken by Libyan rebel forces, Ousama Abushagur, a telecommunications engineer, who helped setup the Libyan rebels telecommunications, has announced they will be networking the Libyana Al Hurra to Tripoli’s telecommunications. Some have said telecommunications and Internet access is not available in particular neighborhoods, implying there are still internal conflicts between local telephone companies. Prior to the Rebels taking Tripoli, hackers found loop holes around the telecommunication companies protocols to communicate with others outside of the telecommunications blackout.

During the height of the conflict, hackers played a major role in supporting Libyan rebel forces, from taking down pro-Gadhafi media sites to hacking cell towers, reinforcing the power of cyber warfare in the 21st century. On Monday, two hackers defaced Libya’s top-level domain registry (nic.ly). The hackers left a note for the Gadhafi government: “bye bye Gadhafi.” With the taking of Tripoli, Libyan Rebel forces have begun drafting a constitution.

A draft constitution by the Rebels has been published online; far from being perfect, Article 13 of the draft constitution provides protections over free speech: “Freedom of opinion for individuals and groups, freedom of scientific research, freedom of communication, liberty of the press, printing, publication and mass media, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration and freedom of peaceful strike shall be guaranteed by the State.”

The conflict in Libya has yet to be concluded as Gadhafi strongholds are still intact in Sirte and the Fezzan Desert city of Sabha. According to Italy’s Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, Gadhafi’s forces still control 10-20 percent of Tripoli, so the war has yet to be concluded. Many are unsure what will come from the new Libyan government, but many international observers are optimistic.

Originally Posted on RevoluTimes.com

U.S. Invites War with World: Intellectual Privilege, Jurisdiction and Property Rights

2011-07-08T01:06:00.000-07:00

Recently the United States Customs and Enforcement(ICE) agency has shutdown more than a hundred .com and .net websites, under the grounds these websites are under U.S. jurisdiction. Erik Barnett, Assistant Deputy Director for ICE, claims the United States has jurisdiction over all .com and .net websites because all Domain Name Service(DNS) indexes are “routed” through Verisign, a United States based company. In this article, I will outline three protests against the over-expansion of ICE's power: jurisdiction, international law, and constitutional law. And, ultimately, I will question the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to these abuses. First, let us debunk the argument the United States has jurisdiction over all .net and .com websites.

Let me be clear: under the current rule of law, the U.S. government has power to seize domains that do not follow the law in their territorial rule. The ability of the United States to enforce these laws, is curtailed by the Bill of Rights and limited in ways which I will address later in this article. But, the United States does not have the power or authority to apply its jurisdiction over entities outside of its territorial rule, by mere definition; jurisdiction outside of territorial rule is enforced through agreements made by international actors. The question now is: does the United States have the power to enforce its jurisprudence over entities that are headquartered in their territorial rule but cross international borders, like multinational corporations? The short answer is no. Let me propose the question: does the United States require multinational corporations to pay its foreign employees, outside of its territorial rule, federal minimum wage? The United States Supreme Court has upheld that the federal government has no such power. Now, this is not to say the Supreme Court has not said the federal government does not have the power to regulate the conduct of these multinational corporations, but these decisions also take into account the jurisdiction of international actors. Under the current rule of law, the claim ICE is making would not even be upheld in court, and this is not even the very nature of domain name services. The truth is these domain name service providers that are being seized by ICE are completely outside of the United States. To understand this, let me briefly explain what a domain name service provider is, and what a domain name index is. A domain name service is a pointer that translates a name to a given address, in this case an Internet protocol address. A domain name index registrar like Verisign translates the top-tier domains such as .net and .com. and points to the given registrar of the domain name. No information outside of the header's pointers are ever directed through these registrars. For example, when you visit google.com, your browser is pointed by the top-tier domain(TLD) to its lower-tier(Google), which then points to an IP address, and your browser then pulls information directly off of the given address directly to the client's browser. In laymen terms, DNS acts as nothing more than a physical address, while the data between two individual entities are directly sent to one another. Currently the domains ICE is seizing are outside of the United States, and are under the jurisdiction of other states. This implores only one thing: the United States is contesting the jurisdiction and sovereignty of other nations; an act some would call war. To understand how jurisdiction and sovereignty work in the realm of what political scientists call international anarchy, we must understand how intellectual privilege is enforced through International Law.

The primary enforcement mechanism of intellectual privilege in international relations is treaties. The first major treaty signed over intellectual privilege between international actors was the Berne Convention of 1886. The United States did not ratify this treaty until 1988. Let me note: this is the only constitutional way to enforce intellectual privilege across borders. Other intellectual privilege treaties have been signed since the Internet's creation, one such treaty is the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty(WIPO); this treaty was ratified in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The WIPO treaty is enforced by many states around the world. And, of course, if there is a conflict over intellectual privilege between these states that have signed this treaty, they use the proper mechanisms described in the treaty to solve disputes. ICE is currently circumventing these mechanisms, which are the proper legal means to enforce the notion of intellectual privilege. To reject this notion is to reject the rule of law. A third concern I have with the over-extension of ICE's power is the realm of their constitutional limits, the natural rights of those around the world, and the rights protected by the United States government in their agreement with the people of the United States: the Bill of Rights.

To reject the fact the United States Bill of Rights enforces natural rights, is to reject the rich history given to us by the Founders of the United States. One of the most important natural rights that is to be protected by the U.S. government is the Freedom of Speech. An ally to liberty, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently wrote an amicus brief over these concerns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation takes note that many of the domains being seized by ICE never contained intellectual privilege violations, but instead contained links to sites that may be committing those violations. This of course was found unconstitutional in Ctr. for Democracy and Tech. v. Pappert. Not to mention, most of the websites that are found in violation of Intellectual Privilege, are sites directly suggested to them by the MPAA and the RIAA. In an open letter to ICE, Senator Ronald Wyden has addressed the fact these sites have not been able to defend themselves from domain name seizures in a court of law. In their amicus brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF) notes:

The First Amendment not only “embraces the right to distribute literature,” it also “necessarily protects the right to receive it.” Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943) (“the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom”) (emphasis in original). This Constitutional right to receive information applies specifically to information disseminated over the Internet.

Basically, the EFF proposes a fundamental problem with domain name seizures: it censors speech that is non-infringing to intellectual privilege. So, under what grounds does ICE have the power to seize domain names? Well of course they have the powers granted to them by Congress, but under constitutional limits. In my belief, in their constitutional boundaries, ICE only has the power to issue warrants against websites in the United States that have violated intellectual privilege. So far, I have addressed several concerns with the abuses ICE is committing internationally and domestically. So what has lead to these abuses? I argue it is the very nature of intellectual privilege that has lead to this abuse of power.

If you have not already noticed, I have supplemented the word property for privilege in “intellectual property.” Why you ask? The phrase “intellectual property” is a misnomer. Property is non-rivalrous in consumption, tangible. Stephan Kinesella, in his work Against Intellectual Property writes:

...property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must be allocated in accordance with the firstoccupier homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce; and, further, that such property rights are not, and cannot be, allocated in accordance with the firstoccupier homesteading rule

The truth is that, unlike other resources, ideas are not scarce. Or as a Bouckeratt puts it: “only naturally scarce entities over which physical control is possible are candidates” to be real property. Stephan Kinsella writes:

Only tangible, scarce resources are the possible object of interpersonal conflict, so it is only for them that property rules are applicable. Thus, patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by government legislation. It is not surprising that, as Palmer notes, “[m]onopoly privilege and censorship lie at the historical root of patent and copyright.”

This, I believe, justifies the phrase “intellectual privilege,” because it is nothing more than the state granting a monopoly. Of course, by its very nature, “intellectual property” is thus a creation of the state. This of course leads state actors and entities to compete over such a privilege. And, in many ways this power is controlled by large entities. In the United States, such a privilege (IP), to own ideas, was primarily at the mercy of the state until the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, but with contentions. It turns out that many of these “property rights” only exist because the government has deemed that they do, of course under the influence and lobbying of large corporations like Disney. The power of corporations, unions, and other institutions to influence the state, by very nature has created the “right” of “intellectual property.” So, we should not be surprised by the recent acts ICE has committed or by the grand amount of influence the MPAA and the RIAA have over our government; after all it is in their best interest. At the end of the day, I believe conservatives and liberals should demand our government to adhere to the Constitution, and libertarians should contest the control of ideas and call it for what it is: the greatest form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Note: I first heard the phrase "intellectual privilege" from Professor Tom W. Bell at Chapman University.

In the Works: Praxeology and the Internet

2011-04-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

I recently started working on an essay titled "Praxeology and the Internet." I'm currently looking for individuals to critique the opening before carrying on with the essay. Eventually, I wish to connect the theory of Social Capital and Human Action with the inevitability of social revolutions in Authoritarian governments with the expansion of voluntary associations via the Internet. The essay, thus far, can be found below.

Humans have long interacted with others in order to improve the conditions they live in. With the rise of the Internet, cross-global human-interaction has now become part of the phenomenon that is globalization. Inherently, the Internet has given individuals the ability to project their voice beyond borders, oceans and other historical boundaries, making the individual supreme. Older outlets of media that must succumb to government obedience or regulation have now been trumped by new forms of media. Under the study of human action, all humans have value in something or someone. Ludwig von Mises wrote in human action, “Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state.”^[1] The Internet and new forms of media have become an outlet for individuals to improve their state of affairs and conditions they now live in.

At the root of a peaceful society is voluntary action; societies are built for individuals to share goods and information. Individuals address others in order to inform and convince them of the logical structure of human reasoning.^[2] With the expansion of knowledge and goods, resources become more abundant to a community. Society is bounded by a set of values made up by the individuals who participate in it; thus, people join communities because they voluntarily wish to participate in them under the axiom of value. So, the ideal of society is built upon voluntary associations.

An example of a voluntary association is Global Area Networking – the Internet. The Internet is a network of servers, computers, and other electronic devices that grew from spontaneous order. The Internet, being a voluntary social network, empowered individuals to bring about order from chaos. Websites began to compete for the participation of users, and created arenas to allow individuals to compete over human action. The competition over value gave birth to websites where about tools were created by individuals to build rules for how information would be shared. These programmers eventually created online communities, where users are able to share information they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, due to a lack of knowledge. The nature of competition amongst programmers over users pushed forward a new model where users could share their knowledge online without needing to know how to program themselves. Thus, the Internet – a social network – became a community for other social networks to prosper. These networks were built through spontaneous order, thus disproving a need for coercion or regulation to create order.

The Internet has given birth to many social networks. Some of these social networks have become the dominant networks used by individuals online: Facebook and Twitter. These social networks were designed for users to express their thoughts, ideas, views, images, and organize events. Overtime social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and blogging websites have become easier to access in countries across the world.

Naturally, as time progressed, individuals in more authoritarian regimes who seeked to better the conditions they live in, began to utilize these social networks.

__________________________________________________________

[1] Von Mises, Ludwig. Human Action. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007. 13

[2] Ibid. 35.

Libya: A "Just" War?

2011-04-19T01:45:00.000-07:00

I recently participated in an open debate at the University of California, San Diego, over U.S. intervention in Libya. Below is my speech outlining why the war is not "just" and does not follow the modern guidelines for "just" international intervention.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has often been criticized as an unjustified war of aggression against a country that did not attack us. Is aggressive military action against the Libyan government justified by the Obama administration’s humanitarian goals, or is it unjustified aggression?

U.S. intervention into Libya is not just, and there are no grounds for Jus ad bellum (Just War).^[1] The first criteria of Jus ad bellum is the reason for going to war needs to be just, innocent life must be in imminent danger, and intervention must be to protect life. Let me remind you the rebels in Libya were not innocent, they actively engaged in a civil war.

The second criteria is a legitimate source of authority. According to Jus ad bellum a source of authority is a “constituted public authority.” One attempt of a justification for this involvement is the “constituted public authority" of the U.N. Yet, the United Nations is far from being a constituted public authority, members of the U.N. are appointees of world leaders and five nation-states hold a cartel on the initiation of force: The U.N. Security Council. In the United States, the "constituted public authority" is Congress. Now, under the War Powers Act of 1973, Barack Obama failed to notify Congress 48 hours before initiating force in Libya. Additionally, President Obama had no power to initiate force under the War Powers Act or the Constitution, because there was no eminent threat to the nation. In 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” I agree with then presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The third criteria for Jus ad bellum is right intention; material gain or maintaining economies is not a right intention. And, clearly France and England are interested in gaining energy from this conflict. The fifth criteria of Jus ad bellum is the probability of success. Barack Obama has assured us he will not send ground troops to Libya, although the CIA has been on the ground for over a month now, and several Generals have flirted over the idea. So, this leaves the U.S.'s involvement to an Air war; every modern military strategist knows a war cannot be won from the air. An air war gives no assurance of success, and now we are clearly seeing, after the fact, the rebels are losing this war currently.

The sixth criteria of Jus ad bellum is proportionality. Prior to international intervention, the highest causalities caused by Loyalists reported were at 8,000 total, meanwhile, it was reported the highest causalities committed by the Rebels were at 1,000. The U.N. has recently reported 500,000 of the 6.4 million people in Libya have left since the civil war began, yet there is no break down of the number of individuals who have fled since NATO began their interventionist war. Additionally, I would like to point out, the Obama administration has admitted they knew little of the rebels prior to involvement. And, now we know, there are in fact Al-Qaeda members amongst the rebels. In a 2009 U.S. Intelligence report, we knew a majority of the suicide bombers from outside of Iraq came from Benghazi, Libya; it seems like we are in fact aiding our enemies. Our interventionist war in Libya is not just. This war is not humanitarian. And, under the current conditions, we are undermining our own national interests by aiding a group of rebels who do not know their ends, who have members of Al-Qaeda amongst their ranks.

__________________________________________________________

[1] Just War Theory [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10. http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-19.