Achei a diferença!

A Helena Matos pede no Blasfémias para se "descubra as diferenças" entre a morte (ou as reações à morte) de Bin Laden e de Qasem Soleimani.

Efeitos de um imposto sobre a riqueza nos investimentos arriscados

Does a wealth tax discourage risky investments?, por Joshua Gans (Digitopoly):

The other day I wrote about the potential impact of a wealth tax. In so doing, I wrote: “we can all agree that the wealth tax likely deters risk-free saving.” This was a paraphrase of a claim made by Larry Summers who then went on to say that it was unknown whether a wealth tax would encourage or discourage risky investment. But I did wonder what the impact of a wealth tax would be on various types of investments and in examining this I realized that the claim was incorrect. In fact, a wealth tax is unlikely to have any change on the risk profile of investments in contrast to an income (or even consumption tax) that will. I discovered later that this was a known result being contained in a paper from Joe Stiglitz (QJE, 1969).

Centralização, descentralização e anarco-sindicalismo

In Defense of A/S: Centralism and Decentralism, por Piper Tompkins/Ivysyn (via Libcom):

This is the third in a series of posts here on the Antisystemic blog which defend Anarcho-syndicalism from various criticisms. This edition of "In Defense of A/S" will deal with the issue of "centralism". Anarcho-syndicalism and Anarchism more broadly are often criticized for supposedly fetishizing decentralization. The Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin, in his critique of Anarchism, states that Anarchists advocate small scale market economies rather than working class control of society at large.1 I have personally encountered criticisms of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism which contend that there can not be a rationally planned system of production without top down central planning which Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism are presumed to be allergic to.

Milícias anti-governo e milícias anti-imigração nos EUA

Militias, Patriots, and Border Vigilantes in the Age of Trump, por Jesse Walker (Reason):

If you remember the days when George W. Bush was president, that story may have given you a gust of déjà vu. Several civilian border patrols cropped up back then too, most famously the Minutemen. These weren't the first paramilitary groups to go hunting for unauthorized border crossers—that had been happening for decades—but the Bush years were a boom time for the practice.

That, in turn, was part of a larger pattern. When Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office, the social space that would later be filled by the immigrant-fearing Minuteman movement was filled instead by the government-fearing militia movement. When Barack Obama became president, the Minutemen fell into factionalism and '90s-style militias began to grow again. Donald Trump's reign has seen a new surge of border patrols by nativist vigilantes. What do these shifts mean?

 The easy reply is that this is just a matter of which party occupies the White House: Camo-clad right-wing populists are more likely to be afraid of a Democratic president than a Republican one, so they turn their guns outward rather than upward when the GOP is in power.

There is truth to that, but it doesn't explain everything.

Os seres humanos são naturalmente monogamicos?

Are We Monogamous? A Review of the Evolution of Pair-Bonding in Humans and Its Contemporary Variation Cross-Culturally, por Ryan Schacht e L. Kramer (Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution), via Razib Khan:

Despite a long history of study, consensus on a human-typical mating system remains elusive. While a simple classification would be useful for cross-species comparisons, monogamous, polyandrous, and polygynous marriage systems exist across contemporary human societies. Moreover, sexual relationships occur outside of or in tandem with marriage, resulting in most societies exhibiting multiple kinds of marriage and mating relationships. Further complicating a straightforward classification of mating system are the multiple possible interpretations of biological traits typical of humans used to indicate ancestral mating patterns. While challenging to characterize, our review of the literature offers several key insights. 1) Although polygyny is socially sanctioned in most societies, monogamy is the dominant marriage-type within any one group cross-culturally. 2) Sex outside of marriage occurs across societies, yet human extra pair paternity rates are relatively low when compared to those of socially monogamous birds and mammals. 3) Though the timing of the evolution of certain anatomical characteristics is open to debate, human levels of sexual dimorphism and relative testis size point to a diverging history of sexual selection from our great ape relatives. Thus, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of marriage patterns, extramarital affairs, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This may be expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry but is most commonly observed in the form of serial monogamy.

Como os indios Creek da América do Norte foram obrigados a ter um governo

 The Creek Nation and the Culture of Consent, por Amy Sturgis (Reason):

Under threat from the United States, Creek people replaced consent with coercion. Then they lost everything.

In the decades after the United States achieved independence, its representatives compelled the Creek people of present-day Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to reorder their social system into a coercive state. This, officials said, would make the Creeks "good neighbors" to U.S. citizens, and especially to the country's problem child, the unruly state of Georgia. The U.S. then proved to be a poor neighbor itself, systematically humiliating and undermining the very Creek government it had demanded, effectively pushing the Native Americans into civil war, and ultimately abandoning all pretense of respecting the sovereignty of—or its treaties with—the Creek Nation.

As alterações à "constituição" britânica

Boris Johnson is planning radical changes to the UK constitution – here are the ones you need to know about, por Stephen Clear (The Conversation):

With a very large majority in parliament, Boris Johnson is planning radical changes to the UK constitution. His party claims that far reaching reforms are needed because of a “destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and the people” under the last parliament. The issue at the centre of this “damaging rift”, however, is whether the proposals for constitutional change are a democratic necessity or a cynical attempt by the Conservative government to bolster its power.

These are the most important changes the Conservative government is proposing. (...)

The Conservatives have been clear about their opposition to holding a second independence referendum in Scotland. (...)

It is likely that Johnson will try to meet this challenge by devolving more powers to the regions and offering them more money. (...)

The Conservative government has detailed plans for changing the way the UK elects its members of parliament, starting with redrawing constituency boundaries to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. (...)

But it has been noted that moving boundaries could have a greater negative impact on Labour and the Scottish National Party than the Conservatives – which perhaps tells us why the plan features so highly on Johnson’s agenda. (...)

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act is on the chopping block, too. This act stipulates that general elections must be called every five years, with early elections held only in exceptional circumstances. (...)

But there is also concern that repealing the act hands the prime minister discretion to decide when to call an election – and, in the most extreme interpretation, could mean that this government’s term lasts a decade. (...)

The Conservatives have long talked of repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a “British” bill of rights. (...)

The UK is also about to see its justice system “[updated]” – including judicial review, the process through which people can challenge decisions made by public bodies. This process was famously used in two high-profile Brexit cases in which the Supreme Court ruled against the government.

Some therefore question whether the prime minister’s displeasure with these rulings is the real motivation for “updating” the justice system. The Conservative manifesto says the idea is to ensure the process is not being abused “to conduct politics by another means”. 

A "economia do lado da oferta" como "noble lie"

Ainda a respeito disto, duas (bem, uma e meia) teorias minhas sobre a "economia do lado da oferta": -

- suspeito que a economia do lado da oferta na prática não foi mais do que uma maneira de fazer keynesianismo disfarçado (como já escrevi aqui)

- também me ocorre que pode ter havido uma cadeia de "noble lies" (e recorde-se que a economia do lado da oferta foi inicialmente divulgada nas revistas dirigidas pelo neoconservador Irving Kristol, que era também um discipulo de Leo Strauss) nisso tudo, com políticos a apresentarem aos eleitores a economia do lado da oferta mas eles próprios a acreditarem no starve the beast, e por detrás deles intelectuais a apresentarem aos políticos a economia do lado da oferta ou a starve the beast mas eles próprios a acreditarem no keynesianismo (pensando algo como "o keynesianismo até pode estar largamente correto, mas isso deve ficar entre nós, os intelectuais que buscam o conhecimento pelo conhecimento; para os homens e mulheres comuns, que sucumbem facilmente aos baixos prazeres, a ideia que os orçamentos devem estar equilibrados - mesmo que não esteja totalmente certa - é útil como forma de lhes incutir auto-disciplina; sem isso, vão votar por cada vez mais despesas e mesmo na sua vida privada vão se comportar como se não fosse necessário sacrificar o curto-prazo ao longo-prazo e mergulhar numa vida de drogas, sexo casual e jogo. Assim, na nossa condição de sábios por detrás do trono, deveremos aconselhar os governantes a porem em prática políticas keynesianas quando tal for necessário, mas sem nunca deixarmos ninguém perceber que é isso que estamos a fazer").

Uma coisa parece ser verdade - Kristol não levava muito a sério a teoria de que os cortes de impostos se pagavam a si mesmos, ao contrário do que é normalmente associado à teoria do lado da oferta; a posição dele parecia mais de achar que, mesmo que desse origem a deficits, não haveria grande problema desde que criassem crescimento económico (claro que essa posição é tão compatível com o keynesianismo como com uma versão moderada da economia do lado da oferta)

Politicas orçamentais ao longo do espectro político

Este post no Facebook de Alexandre Mota lembra-me de algo que tenho pensado há algum tempo - é que há 3 tipos possíveis de políticas orçamentais que tendem a ser indistintamente chamadas "política de direita":

a) Qualquer política que reduza a despesa pública, mesmo que aumente os impostos

b) Qualquer política que reduza os impostos, mesmo que não reduza ou até aumente a despesa

c) Uma política de redução simultânea da despesa e dos impostos

Compare-se, p.ex, Reagan (com uma política largamente do tipo b) com Thatcher (com uma política largamente do tipo a), ou talvez nem isso), que muitas vezes até são apresentados como se fossem quase gémeos ideológicos.

Isto que vou escrever agora talvez já seja um bocado arrevejado, mas até me parece que poderemos associar essas diferentes politicas orçamentais com diferentes correntes especificas:

- A política a), cortar primordialmente na despesa, penso que é mais típica dos democratas-cristãos e conservadores europeus, frequentemente com grandes evocações de "contas em ordem", "não podemos gastar mais do que temos" ou até "temos que fazer como uma boa dona-de-casa.."

- A política b), cortar primordialmente nos impostos, sem grandes preocupações com a desesa, parece-me mais típica do conservadorismo norte-americano, por um lado, e da direita "populista", por outro, com argumentos diversos - umas vezes abertamente keynesianos, outras vezes recorrendo à supply side economics, outros com argumentos starve the beast;

 - A política c), cortar nas despesas e nos impostos, parece-me mais típica dos liberais.

Diga-se que as políticas a) e b) têm, perante a c), a vantagem de serem vendáveis a um eleitorado em que a maior parte das pessoas recebe mais em subsídios ou sob a forma de serviços públicos do que paga de impostos - e provavelmente muitas pessoas que sonham com c) acham que a melhor maneira de o atingir é mesmo alternar b) com a) em vez de dizer abertamente que se quer c) - a tal estratégia de starve the beast.


E à esquerda, não haverá também várias políticas orçamentais? Bem, à partida eu conseguiria imaginar quase o simétrico:

a1) Aumentar a despesa pública sem aumentar os impostos

b1) Aumentar os impostos sem aumentar a despesa

c1) Aumentar a despesa e os impostos

Mas o problema é que aqui a margem é mais estreita - por norma basta um governo baixar os impostos ou a despesa para ser considerado "política de direita" (a menos que se trate de baixar impostos específicos - como impostos regressivos sobre o consumo - ou despesas específicas - como as militares - que sejam particularmente impopulares à esquerda), logo seria necessário manter os impostos milimetricamente idênticos para fazer a política a1 (se os subisse um pouco estaria a fazer a política de esquerda c1), e se os descesse um pouco estar a fazer a política de direita b) ou a despesa milimetricamente idêntica para fazer a política b1 (mutatis mutandis).

Assim diria que a diferenças entre políticas orçamentais de esquerda acabam por se resumir a

d) aumentar mais os impostos que as despesas, reduzindo o deficit

e) aumentar mais as despesas que os impostos, aumentando o deficit

Mas aqui não sei se será fácil associar as duas políticas a correntes definidas - a esquerda mais radical (nomeadamente a mais entusiasmada pela "Teoria Monetária Moderna") tende a preferir a política e) e a moderada a d), mas não me parece que seja uma regra muito rígida; e, por outro lado, isto leva-me a duvidar da minha tentativa de associar os vários tipos de políticas orçamentais de direita a ideologias específicas - afinal, se na área que eu conheço melhor não consigo fazer essa associação, é duvidoso que a consiga fazer com precisão para a área que eu conheço pior.

Outros posts que acho que podem ter alguma relação com isto - Keynesianismo e Estatismo e o acabado de escrever A "economia do lado da oferta" como "noble lie"; e acho que o clássico  Political Aspects of Full Employment, de Michael Kalecki também interessa para aqui, ainda que de forma à primeira vista algo indireta.

O declinio dos blogues

Já há algum tempo que penso nisto que o Paul Krugman escreve aqui - os blogues largamente quase morreram porque a) grande parte da conversa passou para as redes sociais (penso que mais o twitter do que o facebook); e b) os bloggers mais destacados passaram para os jornais e afins


O segundo efeito suspeito que será cíclico; já o primeiro talvez seja mesmo uma mudança estrutural.

O "Trumpgate" como um filme cómico de espionagem

Laughing Through the Trump Era, por Ross Douthat, comparando toda a investigação à volta de Trump ao filme Destruir depois de Ler.

É raro eu concordar com alguma coisa que o Ross Douthat escreva, mas achei bastante interessantes algumas passagens, como:

Trump has indeed hurt vulnerable people, but between the leaven of incompetence in his cruelty, his rejection of some of the disastrous ambitions of his predecessors and a certain amount of fool’s luck, his administration is arguably responsible for fewer human tragedies so far than more high-minded, less personally degraded presidencies. (...)

The second answer, meanwhile, is a mild suggestion that a little more laughter might actually be good for the anti-Trump Resistance. In particular, anti-Trumpists might be a touch more effective if they could recognize how humorlessness and constant self-important dudgeon frequently helps the Trumpian cause, by setting up the dynamic I just sketched in my movie pitch — where the country is asked to choose between two kinds of folly, one squalid and corrupt but the other pompous, insufferable and paranoid in its own self-important way.

The latter sort folly is at its worst, not on the far left, but on the establishment center-left and the Never-Trumper center-right.

Como os sindicatos alemães combateram uma crise de habitação

When German Unions Built Housing for the People, por David O'Connell (Jacobin):

In postwar Germany, a cooperative run by trade unionists created Europe’s largest housing company. Building over 400,000 homes, “Neue Heimat” showed we don’t have to live on the terms dictated by landlords — we can take control for ourselves.

Os gangs têm benefícios para a sociedade?

Should We Legalize Street Gangs?, por Dan Bier (Freethink):

The theory behind suppression strategies is that the gang itself is the problem. If we get rid of the organization — capture its leaders, disrupt recruitment, seize assets, etc. — it will crumble and evaporate, because it won’t be able to sustain itself. Problem solved.

But that’s almost never what actually happens. In Chicago, police tried a similar zero-tolerance approach and “decapitated” the old gangs, and the result was the same as in Mexico: smaller, less organized, and more numerous gangs, fighting a dizzyingly complex war. Chicago’s violence has been difficult to quell precisely because there is nobody to call a ceasefire — or rather, there are now too many people who have to negotiate and agree on it.

Centralização versus descentralização da web

The Decentralized Web Is Coming, na Reason:

Google handles 88 percent of search traffic in the United States. Facebook has more than 2.4 billion active monthly users worldwide. Half of all U.S. online retail is projected to go through Amazon by 2021. (...)

Berners-Lee and other web pioneers intended for their creation to be decentralized and open-source. "The cyber-utopian view was not merely that seizing the means of information would make you free, but that failing to do so would put you in perpetual chains," says Doctorow.

There are many theories about why the web became centralized. Doctorow largely blames the abuse of intellectual property law to defeat the decentralized "free software" movement championed by the programmer and activist Richard Stallman. Stallman helped create the popular open-source operating system Linux after freely modifying Unix, Bell Labs' proprietary system.

Uma hipótese alternativa é que seja uma situação de grandes economias de escala - afinal, desenvolver um sistema informático para um conjunto de atividades tem quase o mesmo custo, independentemente de ir ser utilizado por 10 mil ou 10 milhões de pessoas (é verdade que esse problema fica um pouco anulado com o recurso a software livre desenvolvido por voluntários, em que várias organizações independentes podem usar o mesmo software - talvez algo como isto? -, havendo assim economias de escala no software sem ser preciso criar organizações à escala).

Os mitos da frente anti-pornografia

5 Myths That Anti-Porn Crusaders Keep Repeating, por Elizabeth Norman Brown (Reason):

1. Claim: The rise of online pornography and digital marketplaces for sex work has coincided with a rise in violence against women.

In fact, the last several decades have seen decreases in all sorts of violent crime rates, including rates of rape and sexual assault. (...)

People who commit rape appear to consume less porn than the general population. (...)

2. Claim: Teens who watch porn are more likely to engage in sexually risky behaviors.

In fact, the proliferation of online porn and minors' easy access to it has coincided with asignificant drops in just about every negative outcome connected to young people and sex. (...)

Falo em frente anti-pornografia, porque temos de novo do mesmo lado a direita religiosa e parte do feminismo.

Porque é que a Revolução Industrial ocorreu em Inglaterra?

The Crucial Century, por Anton Howes:

If a peaceful extraterrestrial visited the world in 1550, I often wonder where it would see as being the most likely site of the Industrial Revolution – an acceleration in the pace of innovation, resulting in sustained and continuous economic growth. So many theories about why it happened in Britain seem to have a sense of inevitability about them, but our extraterrestrial visitor would have found very few signs that it would soon occur there. There were many better candidates, on a multitude of metrics. (...)

So Britain’s precocity would have seemed unlikely in 1550. But the exercise potentially also gives us a few clues as to what was important for growth. Indeed, 1550-1650 increasingly appears, to me, to be the crucial century. It was by 1650, for example, that a critical mass of influential inventors and scientists in England were already plotting the creation of what would become the Royal Society – one of the most important institutions in Europe for the promotion of useful technical and scientific knowledge. And it was by 1650 that London had become one of Europe’s largest cities, a major trading centre, and a hub of innovation. More on that another time.

A perseguição aos norte-americanos naturalizados

The New War on Naturalized Citizens, por Amanda Frost (The American Prospect):

The Trump administration is seeking to denaturalize and deport longtime U.S. citizens, seizing on tiny mistakes in the process and putting the status of every naturalized citizen at potential risk.

Cogestão ou co-propriedade?

Why Labour should focus on putting workers on boards – not inclusive ownership funds, por Ciaran Driver, acerca das propostas dos Trabalhistas britânicos para transferir gradualmente 10% da propriedade das principais empresas britânicas para fundos controlados pelos trabalhadores.

O Estado nasceu dos cereais?

Book Review: Against the Grain, por Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex):

Someone on SSC Discord summarized James Scott’s Against The Grain as “basically 300 pages of calling wheat a fascist”. I have only two qualms with this description. First, the book is more like 250 pages; the rest is just endnotes. Second, “fascist” isn’t quite the right aspersion to use here. (...)

Scott argues that intensive grain cultivation was a natural choice not for cultivators, but for the states oppressing them. The shift from complicated and mobile food webs to a perfectly rectangular grid of wheat fields was the same sort of “progress” as scientific forestry and planned cities thousands of years later (...)

Scott’s great advantage over other writers is the care he takes in analyzing the concrete machinery of statehood. Instead of abstractly saying “the state levies a 10% tax”, he realizes that some guy in a palace has resolved to take “ten percent” of the “value” produced in some vast area, with no natural way of knowing who is in that area or how much value they produce. For most of the Stone Age, this problem was insurmountable. You can’t tax hunter-gatherers, because you don’t know how many they are or where they are, and even if you search for them you’ll spend months hunting them down through forests and canyons, and even if you finally find them they’ll just have, like, two elk carcasses and half a herring or something. But you also can’t tax potato farmers, because they can just leave when they hear you coming, and you will never be able to find all of the potatoes and dig them up and tax them. And you can’t even tax lentil farmers, because you’ll go to the lentil plantation and there will be a few lentils on the plants and the farmer will just say “Well, come back next week and there will be a few more”, and you can’t visit every citizen every week.

But you can tax grain farmers! You can assign them some land, and come back around harvest time, and there will be a bunch of grain just standing there for you to take ten percent of. If the grain farmer flees, you can take his grain without him. Then you can grind the grain up and have a nice homogenous, dense, easy-to-transport grain product that you can dole out in measured rations. Grain farming was a giant leap in oppressability.

14 anos do Vento Sueste

Comecei este blogue há 14 anos; como de costume, uma seleção de alguns posts publicados este ano:

•  Filmes de ficção cientifica sem acção/aventura

•  "Inteligência Emocional" - quase irrelevante?

• A "classe operária branca" é na verdade muita "pequena-burguesia branca", Ainda a "classe operária" e A "classe operária branca" é na verdade muita "pequena-burguesia branca" - de novo

• Re: Identidade: uma palavra incontornável e perigosa, no contexto de uma discussão com o José Carlos Alexandre do Destreza das Dúvidas.

•  O "conservadorismo nacional" e Sobre o nacional-conservadorismo, comércio livre, política industrial, etc.

•  Socialistas, liberais e fascistas - o que cada corrente acha das outras duas

•  "Sequelas", sobre  as diferentes tipos de sequelas que um filme pode ter

•  Um espectro assombra o mundo, o espectro das greves e Um espectro assombra o mundo, o espectro das greves (II), sobre o recente aumento das greves no mundo ocidental, nomeadamente de greves não-convencionais

• Redes sociais, esquerda e direita,- há alguma tendência politica dominante nas redes sociais (inclui um estudo estatístico)?

•  Definam melhor "assédio sexual", s.f.f. e Definam melhor "assédio sexual", s.f.f. (II)

Efeitos da cogestão

Labor in the Boardroom [pdf], por Simon Jäger, Benjamin Schoefer e Jörg Heining (IZA Institute for Labour Economics Discussion Paper nº 12799):

We estimate the effects of a mandate allocating a third of corporate board seats to workers (shared governance). We study a reform in Germany that abruptly abolished this mandate for certain firms incorporated after August 1994 but locked it in for the older cohorts. In sharp contrast to the canonical hold-up hypothesis – that increasing labor's power reduces owners' capital investment – we find that granting formal control rights to workers raises capital formation. The capital stock, the capital-labor ratio, and the capital share all increase. Shared governance does not raise wage premia or rent sharing. It lowers outsourcing, while moderately shifting employment to skilled labor. Shared governance has no clear effect on profitability, leverage, or costs of debt. Overall, the evidence is consistent with richer models of industrial relations whereby shared governance raises capital by permitting workers to bargain over investment or by institutionalizing communication and repeated interactions between labor and capital.

 Uma thread no Twitter sobre este estudo (que já havia sido falado aqui).

2020 - um ano ainda mais agitado na América Latina?

Prediction: 2020 will be worse for instability in Latin America, por James Bosworth.

As falsas alegações de anti-semitismo na esquerda britânica

Uma thread no twitter de Noah Smith sobre o assunto.

Alguns dos posts:

4/The survey contains two batteries of statements, which it asks people if they agree with.

The first set are negative stereotypes about Jewish people ("British Jewish people chase money more than other British people.", etc.).

The second set are anti-Israel statements.

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) 1 de dezembro de 2019

5/Pooling these sets of questions together as "antisemitic" statements, the survey finds that people on the Far Left agree tend to agree with a larger number of statements than others: pic.twitter.com/9Cbk6l9oPX

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) 1 de dezembro de 2019

7/In this earlier version of the survey, "antisemitic statements" refers only to the 7 questions about negative Jewish stereotypes. NOT to questions about Israel.

As a result, the amount of "antisemitism" found in the 2017 survey is much lower than in the 2019 one. pic.twitter.com/Qbe4XkPcGk

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) 1 de dezembro de 2019

8/Furthermore, the 2017 survey found that antisemitism was slightly more common on the British Right than on the British Left. pic.twitter.com/G0mAz9QuKR

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) 1 de dezembro de 2019

Invasão turca dá origem a limpeza étnica no Curdistão sírio

‘When they come, they will kill you’: Ethnic cleansing is already a reality in Turkey’s Syrian safe zone (Independent):

The brutal killings were not hidden, nor were they meant to be. From the very beginning of Turkey’s invasion of northern Syria, the fighters it sent across the border to carry out the mission have proudly documented their own war crimes.
 

Videos posted online by soldiers of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) – showing summary executions, mutilation of corpses, threats against Kurds and widespread looting – have struck terror into the tens of thousands who find themselves in the path of the offensive.

The ethnic dimension to many of the crimes has resulted in a mass exodus of Kurds and religious minorities from these once diverse borderlands.

Já agora, o que o PSD, CDS e CHEGA dizem disto?

Já agora, mais um foco de confusão na América do Sul

Atenção ao Suriname, onde o presidente (em visita à China) foi condenado por homicídio.

Contexto:

The December murders (Dutch: Decembermoorden) were the murders on 7, 8, and 9 December 1982, of fifteen prominent young Surinamese men who had criticized the military dictatorship then ruling Suriname. Thirteen of these men were arrested on December 7 between 2 AM and 5 AM while sleeping in their homes (according to reports by the families of the victims). The other two were Surendre Rambocus and Jiwansingh Sheombar who were already imprisoned for attempting a counter-coup in March 1982. Soldiers of Dési Bouterse, the then dictator of Suriname, took them to Fort Zeelandia (the then headquarters of Bouterse), where they were heard as 'suspects in a trial' by Bouterse and other sergeants in a self-appointed court. After these 'hearings' they were tortured and shot dead. The circumstances have not yet become completely clear; on December 10, 1982, Bouterse claimed on national television that all of the detainees had been shot dead 'in an attempt to flee'.(Wikipedia).

Governo alemão à beira de cair?

 SPD alemão elege dois novos líderes que parecem querer acabar com a coligação.

Germany's SPD elects Walter-Borjans and Esken as new leaders (DW):

Party members elected Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken to head Germany's center-left Social Democrats (SPD) on Saturday.

Some 425,630 members of the center-left party were eligible to take part in the vote. The election result still needs to be confirmed at a party conference slated to run from December 6 – 8.

Should the two be confirmed as party leaders, their first order of business will be deciding whether to stay in a coalition government with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats(...).

Opposition to remaining in the coalition came from the ultimately victorious opposition candidates Norbert Walter-Borjans, a former state finance minister, and SPD lawmaker Saskia Esken. The two said they would be willing to leave the coalition unless Merkel's conservatives renegotiated their coalition agreement — something the CDU has rejected.

Ontem morreram duas vítimas da repressão na Bolívia - por este governo e pelo anterior

Calixto Huanacu Aguilar, que havia sido ferido a 19 de novembro, quando o exército disparou sobre uma concentração contra o novo governo, e o sindicalista Julio Llanos, espancado a 29 de outubro por apoiantes do então presidente Evo Morales.

A influência dos boots russos afinal é pouco mais que fake news

Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017, por Christopher A. Bail, Brian Guay, Emily Maloney, Aidan Combs, D. Sunshine Hillygus, Friedolin Merhout, Deen Freelon, e Alexander Volfovsky:

While numerous studies analyze the strategy of online influence campaigns, their impact on the public remains an open question. We investigate this question combining longitudinal data on 1,239 Republicans and Democrats from late 2017 with data on Twitter accounts operated by the Russian Internet Research Agency. We find no evidence that interacting with these accounts substantially impacted 6 political attitudes and behaviors.

N-ésima prova de que a extrema-direita não se baseia nas redes sociais

Right-Wing Populism, Social Media and Echo Chambers in Western Democracies[pdf], por Shelley Boulianne, Karolina Koc-Michalska, and Bruce Bimber (via Tyler Cowen):

Many observers are concerned that echo chamber effects in digital media are contributing to the polarization of publics and in some places to the rise of right-wing populism. This study employs survey data collected in France, the United Kingdom, and United States (1500 respondents in each country) from April to May 2017. Overall, we do not find evidence that online/social media explain support for right-wing populist candidates and parties. Instead, in the USA, use of online media decreases support for right-wing populism. 

Isto é mais ou menos o que eu já tinha dito aqui;

Vamos puxar um bocadinho pela cabeça - é mais ou menos sabido que Trump, o Brexit, o FPOe austríaco, etc., têm tido as suas maiores votações nas pequenas localidades, entre as pessoas mais velhas e com menos instrução (a parte das localidades é sabido - basta ver os resultados; a parte do "pessoas mais velhas e com menos instrução" pode não ser assim tão linear, mas é o que as sondagens indicam); parecem-lhes mesmo o tipo de pessoa que passa o dia no Facebook, talvez com um intervalinho para jogar no Farmville ou para ver um filme no Netflix? Eu imagino-os mais facilmente no café do bairro a queixarem-se que "os miúdos de hoje estão sempre agarrados à máquina e já não fazem desporto nem convivem".

[Post publicado no Vias de Facto; podem comentar lá]

A policia lançando gás lacrimogénio sobre a marcha com os mortos nos protestos bolivianos

Os robots estão a substituir os trabalhadores humanos?

No, data doesn’t support theory that robots are replacing human workers, por Noah Smith:

If firms are adding robots to production, it should show up as accelerating productivity. But labour productivity growth has slowed to a crawl since 2010.

Os arquivos secretos da "guerra suja" na Argentina

Secret US Intelligence Files Provide History’s Verdict on Argentina’s Dirty War, por Peter Kornbluh (The Nation):

Recently declassified documents constitute a gruesome and sadistic catalog of state terrorism.

José Mário Branco - "Nada os Salvará"

As contradições nos movimentos sociais bolivianos

• Division in El Alto follows militant anti-coup protests, por Carwil Bjork-James

• El Alto overnight: “Bolivia seems to be an animal that chases its tail”, por Rodrigo Urquila Flores (publicado inicialmente em castelhano).

• Evo perdió a Evo, por Raúl Zibechi

Governo boliviano ameaça prender deputados "subversivos" ou "sediciosos"

El nuevo Gobierno boliviano detendrá a diputados del partido de Evo Morales responsables de "subversión y sedición" (Europapress).

A presidente "interina" da Bolívia comportando-se como se fosse definitiva

In Bolivia, Interim Leader Sets Conservative, Religious Tone, por Anatoly Kurmanaev (New York Times):

The leader, Jeanine Añez, promised to unify a nation in turmoil. But her initial steps, taking the country rightward and injecting religious themes, risk deepening the divide. (...)

“Without a popular mandate, they are pushing forward some of the most objectionable aspects of their agenda,” Javier Corrales, a Latin American politics professor at Amherst College in Massachusetts, said of the country’s new leaders. “They seem to be thinking that what Bolivia needs right now is a purge, and not conciliation.”

A maior vaga de movimentos de protesto na história da humanidade?

This may be the largest wave of nonviolent mass movements in world history. What comes next? (Monkey Cage - Washington Post)

O Gulag era diferente de Auschwitz

Anne Applebaun, em Gulag - Uma História dos Campos de Prisioneiros Soviéticos, (páginas 23-25):

Nada  disso  significa  que  os  campos  soviéticos  e  nazistas  fossem  idênticos. Conforme   qualquer   leitor   com   algum   conhecimento   geral   do   Holocausto  descobrirá  no  decorrer  deste  livro,  a  vida  no  sistema  de  campos  soviético  diferia  de  muitas  maneiras  (quer  sutis,  quer  óbvias) da  vida  no  sistema  de  campos  nazista.  Havia  diferenças  na  organização  do  cotidiano  e  do  trabalho,  diferentes  tipos  de  guardas  e  punições,  diferentes  tipos  de  propaganda.  O Gulag  durou  muitíssimo  mais  e  passou  por  ciclos  de  relativa  crueldade  e  relativa humanidade. A história dos campos nazistas é mais curta e apresenta  menos  variações:  eles  simplesmente  se  tornaram  cada vez  mais  cruéis,  até  serem  destruídos  pelos  alemães  em  retirada  ou  libertados  pelos  Aliados.  O Gulag  também  continha  variedade  maior  de  campos,  desde  as  letais  minas  auríferas  da  região  de  Kolyma  até  os "luxuosos"  institutos  secretos  nas  cercanias  de  Moscou,  onde  cientistas  aprisionados  projetavam  armas  para  o Exército  Vermelho.  Embora  existissem  diferentes  espécies  de  campo  no  sistema nazista, a gama era muitíssimo menor.

Sobretudo,  duas  diferenças  entre  os  sistemas  me  parecem  fundamentais.  Em  primeiro  lugar,  a  definição  de  "inimigo"  na  URSS  sempre  foi  muito  mais  vaga  que a de "judeu" na Alemanha nazista. Nesta, com número muito pequeno de  exceções  incomuns,  nenhum  judeu  podia  alterar  sua  condição,  nenhum  judeu  preso num campo podia ter esperança racional de escapar à morte, e todos os  judeus  estavam  cientes  disso  o  tempo  todo.  Embora  milhões  de  prisioneiros  soviéticos  temessem  pela  própria  vida  -  e  milhões  deles  tenham  realmente  morrido -,  não  havia  nenhuma  categoria  de  prisioneiro  cuja morte  estivesse  absolutamente  garantida.  Por  vezes,  certos  presos  podiam  melhorar  sua  situação   em postos de trabalho relativamente   confortáveis, como os de engenheiro ou geólogo. Em cada campo, havia uma hierarquia de prisioneiros, na  qual  alguns  eram  capazes  de  subir  à  custa (ou  com a ajuda) de  outros.

Outras vezes - quando o Gulag se via sobrecarregado de mulheres, crianças e  idosos,  ou  quando  se  necessitava  de  soldados  para  a frente  de  batalha  -,  os  presos  era  soltos  graças  a  anistias  maciças.  Em  certos  momentos,  acontecia  que  categorias  inteiras  de  "inimigo"  se  beneficiavam  subitamente  de  uma  mudança de condição. Em 1939, por exemplo, no começo da Segunda Guerra Mundial,  Stalin  prendeu  centenas  de  milhares  de  poloneses  -  e  depois,  em 1941,  ele  os  libertou  de  chofre,  quando  a  Polônia  e a  URSS  se  tornaram  temporariamente aliadas. O oposto também se aplicava: na URSS, os próprios  opressores  podiam  virar  vítimas.  Guardas  e  administradores  do  Gulag  e  até  altos  funcionários  da  polícia  secreta  também  podiam  ser  aprisionados  e  condenados   aos   campos.   Em   outras   palavras,   nem   todas as "víboras"  conseguiam  manter  as  presas  -  e  não  havia  nenhum  grupo  específico  de  prisioneiros soviéticos que vivesse na expectativa  constante da morte.

Em segundo lugar (conforme, mais uma vez, ficará claro no decorrer do livro), o  propósito  primordial  do  Gulag,  segundo  tanto  a  linguagem  privada  quanto  a  propaganda  pública  daqueles  que  o  fundaram,  era  econômico.  Isso  não  significa  que  o  sistema  fosse  humanitário.  Nele,  os prisioneiros  eram  tratados  como  gado,  ou  melhor,  como  pedaços  de  minério  de  ferro.  Os  guardas  os  faziam ir para lá e para cá a seu bel-prazer, embarcando-os e desembarcando- os  de  vagões  de  gado,  pesando-os  e  medindo-os,  alimentando-os  se  parecia  que poderiam vir a ser úteis, deixando-os à míngua  quando não o eram. Para  usarmos  a  linguagem  marxista,  os  prisioneiros  eram  explorados,  reificados  e  mercantilizados. A menos que fossem produtivos, suas vidas não valiam nada  para seus senhores.

Sua  vivência,  porém,  era  muito  diferente  daquela  dos  judeus  e  dos  outros  prisioneiros que os nazistas enviavam para um grupo especial de campos que  se  chamavam  não  Konzentrationslager,  mas  Vernichtungslager  -  campos  que  não  era  realmente  "campos  de  trabalhos  forçados",  e  sim  usinas  da  morte. Havia  quatro  deles:  Belzec,  Chelmno,  Sobibor  e  Treblinka.  Já  Majdanek  e Auschwitz  continham  tanto  campos  de  trabalhos  força dos  quanto  campos  de  extermínio.  Ao  entrarem  nesses  campos,  os  prisioneiros  passavam  por  uma "seleção".   Um   número   ínfimo   era   designado   para   algumas   semanas   de  trabalhos  forçados.  O  restante  era  mandado  direto  para  as  câmaras  de  gás,  onde os assassinavam e então cremavam de imediato.

Até  onde  pude  comprovar,  essa  forma  específica  de  homicídio,  praticada  no  auge do Holocausto, não teve equivalente na URSS. É bem verdade que esse último  país  encontrou  outras  maneiras  de  chacinar  centenas  de  milhares  de  cidadãos.  Geralmente,   eles   eram   conduzidos  à   noite  para   uma  floresta,  alinhados,  baleados  na  nuca  e  enterrados  em  sepulturas  coletivas  antes  mesmo  de  chegarem  perto  de  um  campo  de  concentração -  modalidade  de  homicídio  não menos  "industrializada"  e  anônima  que a usada  pelos  nazistas. Há   mesmo   histórias   de   que   a   polícia   secreta   soviética   usou   gás   de  escapamento  (uma  forma  primitiva  de  gás  venenoso)  para  matar  prisioneiros,  da   mesma   forma   que   os   nazistas   fizeram   no   começo. No   Gulag,   os  prisioneiros também morriam, em geral graças não à  eficiência dos captores, e  sim  à  incompetência  e  à  negligência  crassas. Em  certos  campos  soviéticos em   determinadas   épocas,   a   morte   era   praticamente   certa   no   caso   dos escolhidos  para  cortar  árvores  nas  florestas  hibernais  ou  trabalhar  nas  piores minas  auríferas  de  Kolyma.  Prisioneiros  também  eram trancados  em  celas punitivas  até  morrerem  de  frio  ou  inanição,  largados  sem  tratamento  em hospitais  subaquecidos  ou  simplesmente  baleados  por  "tentativa  de  fuga" quando dava na telha dos guardas. Entretanto, o sistema soviético de campos como um todo não era propositalmente organizado para produzir cadáveres em escala industrial - mesmo que às vezes o resultado fosse esse.

São distinções sutis, mas importantes. Embora o Gulag e Auschwitz realmente  pertençam  à  mesma  tradição  intelectual  e  histórica,  eles  ainda  assim  são  fenômenos separados e diferentes, tanto um do outro quanto dos sistemas de  campos  estabelecidos  por  outros  regimes.  A  idéia  de campo  de  concentração  talvez seja genérica o bastante para que a usem em  culturas e situações muito  diversas,  mas  até um estudo  superficial  da história transcultural  desse  tipo  de  campo revela que os detalhes específicos - como se  organizava a vida, como o  estabelecimento   se   desenvolvia   no   decorrer   do   tempo, quão rígido ou  desorganizado  se  tornava,  quão  cruel  ou  liberal  permanecia  -  dependiam  do  país, do regime político e da cultura. Para quem estava encurralado atrás do arame farpado, esses detalhes eram cruciais para a vida, a saúde e a sobrevivência.

[Post publicado no Vias de Facto, podem comentar lá]

A nova nova extrema-direita nos EUA (II)

Charlie Kirk's Culture War, Groypers, Nickers and Q&A-trolling (Diggit Magazine):

The Culture War college tour started on 7 October at the University Of Nevada in Reno, after which the show moved to Grand Canyon University in Phoenix on 21 October, the Colorado State University in Fort Collins and the University of Iowa on 23 and 24 October. The next day, the tour stopped at the University of New Hampshire. During these last stops of the tour a new phenomenon became visible. More and more new self-declared ‘dissident right’ activists used the opportunity of the Q&A sessions of the show to frame Kirk and what they see as 'The Conservative, Inc.’ as imposters and fake conservatives. (...)

In 2019, the Groypers can best be understood as a (new) network of young radical Christian conservative activists, shitposters and trolls circling around the Twitter account of @thatgroyper. Many of them use ‘Groyper’ in their profile name. They are white nationalist, deeply conservative, Christian new right revolutionaries opposing the US alliance with Israel, LGBTQs and the left in General. The Groyper network is know as to coordinate targeted harassment against 'cucks' and 'faggots'.

O terror policial nos bairros pobres da Venezuela

Elite police force spreads terror in the barrios of Venezuela por Sarah Kinosian e Angus Berwick (Reuters).

Ainda as recordações da queda do Muro de Berlim

Depois das minhas memórias e das do POUS, temos também as da Tendência Comunista Internacionalista (na altura "Instituto Internacional para o Partido Revolucionário"), um grupo derivado das facções que Lenin criticou em "O Esquerdismo, Doença Infantil do Comunismo":

9 November 2019

Crisis of Communism or Crisis of Capitalism?

(...) By the beginning of the Twenties then, the revolutionary state was almost completely devoid of the political content it had had in 1917. The state had now taken on the form of a bureaucratic administration that was now subsumed to a centralised, planned, capitalism where every single productive energy had to be channelled towards the accumulation of capital which, even though it was no longer private, was still capital. (...)

But if socialisation is to become more than a mere precondition and have a working 'juridical' structure, the latter has to be connected to a real social content, that is to a socialist development of the forces of production and distribution. In this case, and only in this case, "juridical form" and social content come together and influence each other to give life to a new social dimension. In this collective management from below leads to economic development while the productive apparatus in turn satisfies the needs of the collectivity. In every other case the only thing that can emerge is an insurmountable division between the first and the second (i.e. juridical and productive relations) which removes any meaningful content from either.

[Via Libcom]

Estar contra o novo regime boliviano não significa estar a favor de Morales

They are not Evo supporters! They are Alteños, dammit!, texto do Colectivo El Curva publicado no Libcom:

Statement from Colectivo Curva on the resistance of the people of El Alto in response to the ongoing coup attempt in Bolivia. Based in El Alto themselves, Colectivo Curva argue that the native peoples of El Alto remember their history of struggle against the Morales government: they do not fight for him and his party, but against an attack on their communities from the far-right coup plotters.

A nova "presidente" da Bolívia

Jeanine Añez Chavez tomou posse como presidente da Bolívia ("presidente constitucional", como ela se proclama no Twitter); diga-se que a constituição boliviana não é muito clara sobre o que acontece se o presidente, o vice-presidente, o presidente do senado e o presidente da câmara dos deputados se demitirem[pdf] (e de qualquer maneira a reunião do parlamento em que ela assumiu o cargo não tinha quorom porque os deputados do MAS não participaram):

En caso de impedimento o ausencia definitiva de la Presidenta o del Presidente del Estado, será reemplazada o reemplazado en el cargo por la Vicepresidenta o el Vicepresidente y, a falta de ésta o éste, por la Presidenta o el Presidente del Senado, y a falta de ésta o éste por la Presidente o el Presidente de la Cámara de Diputados. En este último caso, se convocarán nuevas elecciones en el plazo máximo de noventa días (artº 169º, ponto 1).

‏
Parece que o tribunal constitucional da Bolívia disse que a posse dela era legítima, mas a esse respeito já alguém escreveu "A constitutional court also said Morales could run again in spite of an obvious constitutional prohibition against it. I'm not sure Bolivia's constitutional court is doing the best job checking the power of the presidency."

Alguns comentários que li por aí à sua posse:

On one hand, I'm concerned about the process by which the interim president came to power in Bolivia. On the other hand, I'm worried about her extremist views on a number of issues.

It's nice to have my hands in agreement.

— boz (@bloggingsbyboz) 13 de novembro de 2019

You don't get to change the symbolic order of the nation because the 4 people ahead of you resigned under pressure, and you really don't want to assert the return of Christianity when that kind of thing has been put in direct opposition to indigenous culture

— Vincent Bevins (@Vinncent) 13 de novembro de 2019

Além disso, consta que ela terá publicado isto no Twitter (e posteriormente apagado):

É possível que isto seja fake, já que não se encontra o original em lado nenhum; num entanto, usando a Wayback Machine é possivel recuperar este tweet dela, também apagado, onde ela me parece associar o ano novo aymara ao satanismo:

[Post publicado no Vias de Facto; podem comentar lá]

Muros a proibir de sair são assim tão diferentes de muros a proibir de entrar?

The Berlin Wall: In or Out?, por Bryan Caplan:

Almost everyone sees the Berlin Wall as an unmistakable sign of evil.  So do I.  What puzzles me, though, is why so few people wonder, “Why aren’t other countries’ walls morally comparable?”  The standard answer, of course, is that decent countries build walls to keep people “out,” while East Germany built the Berlin Wall to keep people “in.”  But this is a lot of moral work to hang on two prepositions. (...)

To make the hypothetical even starker: Imagine the East Germany government legally granted independence to a one-mile strip of land along its entire border.  Call it Mauerland.  All of the citizens of Mauerland are former officers of the East German border guard; their country is just one big, deadly wall.  East Germany then abolishes all laws against emigration; everyone is free to leave.  Unfortunately, the sovereign state of Mauerland refuses to grant visas or overflight permission to anyone without the East Germans’ approval.  When challenged, they say, “Mauerland, like the United States, has every right to keep foreigners out.  You keep out Mexicans.  We keep out East Germans.”

Já agora, uma coisa que me ocorreu - se Trump realmente conseguir que o México pague o tal muro, nesse caso contará como um muro para não entrar ou para não sair?

A teoria litio → queda de Morales é duvidosa

Bolivia: lithium interests at play in Evo's ouster?, por Bill Weinberg (CounterVortex):

Bolivia's government issued a decree cancelling a massive joint lithium project with German multinational ACI Systems Alemania (ACISA)—just days before the ouster of President Evo Morales. The move came in response to protests by local residents in the southern department of Potosí, where the lithium-rich salt-flats are located. Potosí governor Juan Carlos Cejas reacted to the cancellation by blaming the protests on "agitators" seeking to undermine development in the region. (DW, Nov. 4)

(...)

Which is why the breathless headlines implying a cause-and-effect relationship between the deal's cancellation and Evo's ouster (e.g. CommonDreams' "Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational Firm's Lithium Deal") are missing some important context—and arguably reading things almost backwards. The anti-mining protests in Potosí were part of the general upsurge against Morales, and the deal's cancellation came two weeks into the national protest campaign demanding his ouster. (...)

So avoid the temptation of conspiracy theory. Lithium may be a piece of the overall scenario in Bolivia, but nothing suggests it was the central one. Evo's cancellation of the project was a capitulation to protests—so it isn't like the protests were being inflamed by the lithium interests or local brokers who stood to profit. On the contrary, the local brokers were MAS politicians and Evo's allies.

Golpes versus revoltas populares?

Bolivia Crisis Shows the Blurry Line Between Coup and Uprising, por Max Fischer (New York Times):

President Evo Morales’s resignation has provoked international debate about how to characterize the turmoil in Bolivia: Is it an uprising or a coup? (...)

But the coexistence of the two interpretations hints at an important truth, scholars say: The line between coups and revolts can be blurry, even nonexistent.

Often, they are one and the same: mass public uprisings alongside military defections that compel the resignation or removal of a country’s leader.

Thatcher, heroína eco-animalista?

Pelo menos muitos vegans hoje em dia deveriam adorar a sua política como ministra da Educação - isso para não falar no seu papel no combate aos CFCs e na defesa da camada do ozono (o ela ter sido uma espécie de química antes de se tornar política ajudou).

O "estado social" foi criado por reação ao comunismo? (III)

Talvez (ou muito provavelmente); mas não me parece que se possa concluir daqui uma relação inversa - de que foi o colapso dos regimes comunistas em 1989-91 que abriu caminho ao desmantelamento do "estado social"; Reagan, Thatcher e afins puseram as suas políticas em prática ainda a URSS estava aparentemente de pedra e cal.

Mais, arrisco-me a dizer que, a partir de certa altura, a existência da URSS (quando já toda a gente via a monstruosidade que esses regimes eram) começou a funcionar como um argumento a favor do liberalismo económico, apresentando tímidas medidas redistributivas como um prólogo do comunismo ("Querem leite à borla nas escolas? Vocês devem querer é um regime como a Rússia, em que quem não concorda ou é morto ou é mandado para a Sibéria! Se gostam tanto disso, porque é que não vão para lá?!"). Suspeito até que a pequena viragem ao centro-esquerda que as democracias ocidentais tiveram nos anos 90 (começada com a eleição de Clinton em 1992) foi potenciada por a direita já não ter o papão comunista para agitar.

O "estado social" foi criado por reação ao comunismo? (II)

Rorming to Survive:The Bolshevik Origins of Social Policies, por Magnus Bergli Rasmussen e Carl Henrik Knutsen:

The Bolshevik Revolution brought profound social changes to the modern world. This worker-led revolution, with aspirations far beyond the country of origin, became a threat and symbol of revolution to ruling elites around the world. We develop a theory of how elites provide policy concessions when they face credible threats of revolution, highlighting how motivation and capacity of opposition groups influence threats, but also how elites’ absorption and interpretation of information signals matters. The Bolshevik Revolution and the formation of Comintern effectively enhanced elites’ perceptions of a credible revolutionary threat, as it affected both the capacity and motivation of labor movements, but also the nature and interpretation of information signals, thus incentivizing policy concessions such as reduced working hours and expanded social transfer programs. We assess our argument by using original qualitative and quantitative data. First, using extensive archival resources, we document a change in perceptions of revolution, but also explicitly strategic policy concessions. Second, we use party- and union representatives at the 1919 Comintern meeting as an indicator of the credibility of the domestic revolutionary threat in cross-national analysis. We find that states facing higher revolutionary threats expanded various social policies to a much greater extent.

O "estado social" foi criado por reação ao comunismo? (I)

A spectre has haunted the west: did socialism discipline income inequality?, por André Albuquerque Sant'Anna:

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of the existence of a powerful socialist bloc as a disciplining device to inequality in western countries. The recent literature on top income inequality has emphasized explanations that go beyond the marginal productivity framework to explain top incomes. Usually the literature points to domestic factors such as top income tax rates and bargaining power. (...) In order to test our hypothesis, we run a panel of 18 OECD countries between 1960-2010. We find a robust and negative significant relation between Soviet Union’s relative military power and top income shares.

A nova nova extrema-direita nos EUA

Donald Trump Jr walks out of Triggered book launch after heckling – from supporters (The Guardian):

Donald Trump Jr ventured on to the University of California’s overwhelmingly liberal Los Angeles campus on Sunday, hoping to prove what he had just argued in his book – that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency.

But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours. (...)

At first, Trump and Guilfoyle tried to ignore the discontent, which originated with a fringe group of America Firsters who believe the Trump administration has been taken captive by a cabal of internationalists, free-traders, and apologists for mass immigration. (...)

The fiasco pointed to a factional rift on the Trump-supporting conservative right that has been growing rapidly in recent weeks, particularly among “zoomers” – student-age activists. On one side are one of the sponsors of Trump Jr’s book tour, Turning Point USA, a campus conservative group with a track record of bringing provocative rightwing speakers to liberal universities.

On the other side are far-right activists – often referred to as white supremacists and neo-Nazis, although many of them reject such labels – who believe in slamming the door on all immigrants, not just those who cross the border without documents, and who want an end to America’s military and diplomatic engagement with the wider world.

A number of the loudest voices at Sunday’s event were supporters of Nick Fuentes, a 21-year-old activist with a podcast called America First that has taken particular aim at Turning Point USA and its 25-year-old founder, Charlie Kirk. In a number of his own recent campus appearances, Kirk has faced questions accusing him of being more interested in supporting Israel than in putting America first.

A respeito disto, uma thread no Twitter por Matthew Sheffield, explicando em mais pormenor o conflito entre o mainstream trumpista e o grupo de Nick Fuentes (que têm como mascote um sapo ligeiramente diferente de Pepe the Frog). Também The American Conservative falou dele há uns tempos, no contexto de uma comparação com Marc Rubio - Rubio And The Rise Of The Neoreactionaries (por Michael Warren Davis):

There’s a certain Poundian mystique surrounding Nicholas J. Fuentes and the Groyper movement. The Groypers, apparently, are like the alt-right without the racism. They’re also much younger: they’re “Zoomers,” or Generation Z, not Millennials. According to the great Ben Sixsmith: “They focused on promoting themselves as ‘America First’ nationalists and valued ‘good optics,’ which entailed humor more than outrage, Old Glory and not Nazi flags, Christianity and not paganism, and clever trolling operations and not public rallies.”

Yet Mr. Fuentes’ humor hints strongly at Holocaust denial, and he’s expressed his wish that antifa was actually “fa” so he could join in. “If they were waving the banner of Falangism, if they were waving the banner of Franco, and they were saying ‘Catholic fascism now,’ I would join them,” he said. “I would become a part of antifa. I would welcome antifa. Yes: take over the country. Storm DC. Take over the Capitol.”>

This may hit a little too close to home for some of my fellow Millennials. Many reactionaries go through a phase where they feel the need to defend “good” fascists—Mussolini, Dollfuss, and Petain—as opposed to “bad” fascists like Hitler and Rockwell.

O que é um "golpe de estado"?

Golpes con adjetivos: no todo es lo que parece, por Andrés Malamud e  Leiv Marsteintredet.

Mais outro artigo sobre a Bolívia

Bolivia: The Extreme Right Takes Advantage of a Popular Uprising , por Raul Zibechi:

What caused the fall of the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia is an uprising by the people of Bolivia and their organizations. Their movements demanded his resignation before the army and police did. The Organization of American States sustained the government until the bitter end.(...)

The social mobilization and the refusal of movements to defend what in another moment they considered to be “their” government was what precipitated Morales’ resignation. That is made clear by the declarations by the Workers’ Central of Bolivia (COB), the teachers and authorities of the Public University of El Alto (UPEA), and dozens of other organizations, including Mujeres Creando, which has been perhaps the clearest of all. The Latin American left appears unable to accept that a considerable segment of popular movements demanded the resignation of the government, because they can’t see beyond the leaders (los caudillos).

(...)

We cannot forget that in this moment there is a serious danger that the racist, colonial and patriarchal right manages to take advantage of this situation to impose rule and provoke a bloodbath. The revanchist social and political desires of the dominant classes is as present as it has been over the last 500 years, and must be stopped without any hesitation.

E de novo a Bolívia (isto há de ser um tema muito badalado nos próximos dias)

Bolivia Government Change - November 2019, por James Bosworth;

The next week will shape the transition. If Bolivia fights over its interim president or if the military continues to involve itself in politics, a swift and smooth transition back to elected leadership becomes unlikely. If the new leadership targets Morales and his MAS supporters, it makes it more likely they will disavow the next election and question the legitimacy of the next government. Political retribution and violence also increases the potential the Morales and MAS work to toss out the next president and/or regain power in ways that go against democratic norms.

Ainda sobre a Bolívia e Evo Morales

Hay q recordar los muchos errores de Evo antes del fraude: reprimió a los indígenas del Tipnis q se negaban a una carretera cruzando su territorio y los acusó de estar financiados por los gringos. Lo mismo hizo con la sociedad civil organizada, q había sido su aliada. (Hilo)

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Dividió a los cocaleros apoyando a los suyos del Chapare y perjudicando a los de los Yungas. Luego de un enfrentamiento inicial, se alió con los sectores agropecuarios poderosos del este y les dio carta libre para deforestar, lo q está en la base de los incendios de agosto.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

También se granjeó enemigos con las concesiones a empresas extranjeras para explotar litio sin escuchar a los mineros y poblaciones locales q reclamaban una voz en las negociaciones.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Pero lo peor fue pisotear la constitución y el referendo de 2016 en que la ciudadanía le dijo que no quería otra reelección.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Luego manipuló un fallo de la Corte Constittucional (misma tesis usada por Orlando Hernández en Honduras) para candidatearse igual y con el fraude del 20 de octubre se termino de hundir.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Cuando la violencia ya se había desatado y tras informe de Oea tuvo el reflejo de anunciar su renuncia, para no terminar como un patético dictador al estilo Maduro.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Cuando la violencia ya se había desatado y tras informe de Oea tuvo el reflejo de anunciar su renuncia, para no terminar como un patético dictador al estilo Maduro.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

La intervención de los militares es inaceptable, y esto no ha terminado porque la sucesión no se ha formalizado y hay un tal Camacho campeando por ahí que es muy peligroso.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Todo esto no implica que Morales y su proceso no hayan traído progreso económico, cierto desarrollo, sobre todo en infraestructura, y mucha reducción de la pobreza, a la vez que dio participación a sectores históricamente excluidos. Por eso es también lamentable este final.

— Diana Cariboni (@diana_cariboni) 11 de novembro de 2019

Pelos vistos, as duas coisas

Golpe de Estado ou fraude eleitoral? Bolívia divide América latina

A política da Rua Sésamo

O programa "Rua Sésamo" começou a ser transmitido nos EUA a 10 de novembro de 1969, faz hoje  50 anos (começou a dar em Portugal em 1989 já eu teria uns 15 ou 16 anos, pelo acho que nunca o vi). Ao contrário do que se poderia pensar, em certos quadrantes chegou a geral algumas polémicas:

The Way to Sesame Street, por Jesse Walker, na Reason (novembro de 2009):

The show emerged from the same Great Society milieu that had produced the Head Start preschool program. That guaranteed it would be a magnet for controversy. In his 2006 book Sesame Street and the Reform of Children's Television, the historian Robert Morrow notes that preschool in the '60s was frequently framed as a project for the impoverished, who were presumed to suffer from "cultural deprivation." Not surprisingly, many poor people found this attitude haughty and high-handed. The middle class, meanwhile, often saw the home as "a haven to be protected from intrusions by educators as well as by television." (...)

Inevitably, there were culture war controversies. Feminists complained that one human character, Susan, was too much of a traditional homemaker; conservatives grumbled that another woman, Maria, was too feminist. Morrow quotes a leftist viewer's complaint that the "cat who lives in the garbage can should be out demonstrating and turning over every institution, even Sesame Street, to get out of it." More broadly, there were the anxieties that always attach themselves to a centralized medium beaming unvetted images and ideas into the home. Marie Winn, author of the TV-bashing book The Plug-In Drug, spoke for many Americans when she warned that the program was "promoting television viewing even among parents who might feel an instinctive resistance to plugging such young children in." Monica Sims, an official at the BBC, felt the show's attempts to mold children's behavior were a form of "indoctrination" with "authoritarian aims."

E, para um artigo ainda mais antigo e claramente crítico, Big Bird, Meet Dick and Jane, de John Holt (o inspirador da que podemos chamar a "ala esquerda" do ensino doméstico), publicado em The Atlantic em maio de 1971:

The operating assumption of the program is probably something like this: poor kids do badly in school because they have a “learning deficit." Schools, and school people, all assume that when kids come to the first grade they will know certain things, be used to thinking and talking in a certain way, and be able to respond to certain kinds ul questions and demands. Rich kids on the whole know all this; poor kids on the whole do not. Therefore, if we can just make sure that the poor kids know what the rich kids know by the time they get to school, they will do just as well there as the rich kids. So goes the argument. I don’t believe it. Poor kids and rich kids are more alike when they come to school than is commonly believed, and the difference is not the main reason poor kids do badly when they get there. In most ways, schools are rigged against the poor; curing “learning deficits,” by Head Start, Sesame Street , or any other means, is not going to change that.

E uma polémica mais recente - a semi-privatização da série, em que os episódios agora passam primeiro na HBO e só depois em canal aberto, na rede pública de televisão, o que tem sido criticado porque irá exatamente contra o espírito de uma série criada com a intenção de dar apoio educacional às crianças pobres.

As eleições que não dão em nada

The age of democratic deadlock, por Gideon Rachman (Financial Times):

Spain will hold an election — for the fourth time in less than four years — on November 10. But there is little prospect that any party will emerge with enough seats to break the country’s political deadlock. There is a similar situation in Israel, where political parties are still struggling to form a government, after elections in September failed to resolve the stalemate that followed the April elections. So Israel now seems likely to end up staging three polls within one calendar year.

Welcome to the age of democratic deadlock. Countries call an election, only to find that it settles nothing.

Ainda a queda do Muro de Berlim

Este artigo do Partido Operário de Unidade Socialista, «A queda do Muro de Berlim: “O povo somos nós!”», relembrando os comunicados dos seus camaradas alemães nos dias de antes da queda do muro; chamou-me a atenção exatamente porque sinto uma semelhança com as minhas próprias memórias de 89/90.

Polícia boliviana a abandonar o governo?

Bolivian police 'mutiny' in opposition to Evo Morales (The Guardian):

Police in at least three Bolivian cities have declared mutinies and joined anti-government protests – a possible indication that parts of the security forces may be withdrawing their backing for President Evo Morales after weeks of unrest over disputed election results.

Bolivia’s defence minister, Javier Zavaleta, said on Friday that no military action would be taken against the police involved for now and the government would not mobilise troops as tens of thousands of Bolivians took to the streets in cities across the country.