you'd have to say that this approach to education reflects the basic strictures or canons of squishy totalitarianism; it's squishy in that it doesn't torture or exile you: it works to transform consciousness from the ground up so that actual physical coercion is redundant. not only that, but the approach is completely central to the sort of internationalist merger of state and capital, a world regulatory regime of productive service workers and bureaucrats. i would say that people like tom friedman and al gore are the marxes or jeffersons of this movement. (well maybe it's habermas.) but what they always emphasize is that american education has to compete with chinese or danish education...as measured by performance on standardized tests. this is so far distant from the life of any actual child that it's just a vicious abstraction; who could raise their children according to this idea of global competitivenes etc? at any rate, the position is: a single global economy, international institutions, free trade and regulated markets, "development," and always: a single world model of education.

one thing that i think is obvious: it's going to be a lot harder to shape the human soul than one might think: we are recalcitrant. the local and strange is going to be in constant...juxtaposition.in a situation in which knowledge, expertise etc are the product of institutions, even mere ignorance or irrationality is a worthwhile form of resistance.

Comments

[adamcrazypants]

"in a situation in which knowledge, expertise etc are the product of institutions, even mere ignorance or irrationality is a worthwhile form of resistance."

that's more like it.

[CB]

Finally! You have a great gift for destabilizing the foundations of hierarchy! Please continue to apply it to Globalization, Capitalism, and Corporations as much as you do the State!

[octavian]

"in a situation in which knowledge, expertise etc are the product of institutions, even mere ignorance or irrationality is a worthwhile form of resistance."

sure, if you're the stick-it-to-the-man type, but not if you're pushing for paradigm shift.

[adamcrazypants]

oh dear, he said "paradigm shift."

try this:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/01/overton-window.html

shift the window baby yeah!

[marriotr]

I think you give most of the obama administration way too much credit, crispy. there are some Dewey fans in there to be sure- some of Cass Sunstein's quotes really bother me- but the administration as a whole seems more motivated by "keep people from getting screwed" school of thought than the "moulding the perfect citizen" school of thought. For one thing, I'm not seeing a big push for civics classes.

[Joe]

marriotr,

You might want to reconsider the bit about how the Obama admin is about "keeping people from getting screwed." Apparently Gulf fishermen who are getting paid to help with the cleanup are going to have their earnings subtracted from any claims they might win against BP for killing their livelihoods:

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2010/07/united-states-of-british-petroleum.html

CB,

Since globalization, capitalism, and corporations are all essentially creatures of the state, undermining the state is undermining these things.

[CB]

Joe,
I've heard that before and I seriously doubt it. There's far too many examples in history, including our own, where corporations have MORE power than the states they are operating around; and even dictate to the states, and operate against the will of the state. Just to offer a quick example, check out United Fruit in Latin America.

Even if the State disappears overnight, it's entirely probably that the same corporate institutions could continue to function just by intermingling and hiring corporate forms of policy. They are just as much a thriving institution of the 'social contract' as the State.

[adamcrazypants]

corporations are nothing, absolutely nothing without the state and the threat of force that backs the state, applied through the courts, militia, military, "peace" officers, legislators, administrators, congresscritters, voters, on down to taxpayers. loosely, the state grants a corporation its charter, and backs it up. corporations are nothing without the state.

[Joe]

CB,

What adamcrazypants said.

Check this out:

http://c4ss.org/content/3202?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+c4ss+%28Center+for+a+Stateless+Society%29

[CB]

Pants,
You're referring to a rather archaic structure of a corporation with corporate charters being mandatory. Multi-Nationals are defying those old-school standards. Moreover, corporations no longer require the force of the state. As I said before, they have the force of fellow corporations (among other things). There's no denying Blackwater for instance doesn't only work for the state. It also works for other companies. You remove a state, but the social contracts between corporations, that impact people in an external way, are still likely. This happens all the time with Multi-Nationals that operate across Nation-States that fail. If Afghanistan collapses as a state, Blackwater will be fine. If Britain disappears overnight, BP will still reign.

I would agree, on your old model of a corporation, killing the state would be ideal. However, if the state is owned, managed, protected, and governed by the corporation - as the US undoubtedly is - the alternative would be to kill the corporation to end the state. Again, if you really think removal of the state will lead to removal of GE, Time Warner, Blackwater, Boeing, Armor Corp, BoA, Honey Well, etc, you're thinking rather myopically. These often multi-national institutions will merely pool their resources together and keep on aggrandizing power and capital. The threat of force does not back only the state. The corporation now backs the state, and has its threats of force. Something anarchist learned long ago, in the Pinkerton era, and somehow have forgotten on this blog.

[CB]

Joe, I'm on board with most of that article, but the rise of Multi-Nationals and their resources of power change the scale greatly. A deathblow to Blackwater is far more beneficent for humans, and anarchic society, than a death blow to the state of Denmark. let's be practical here, the paradigm that author was focused on has greatly changed.

[CB]

my own link:
http://www.thenation.com/article/para-politics-goes-bananas

[adamcrazypants]

please explain how a corporation protects a state.

in your link, who did Chiquita pay a fine to? the United States Government. so, who owns who? who does the locking up?

a corporation is simply another available conduit for people to use in order to take advantage of the cover that the state provides. that a corporation is able to dance across national borders and failed states, only shows that those states specifically allow them to, or fail to prevent them from doing so. the state is the death machinery, and there are various forms of taking up and operating the machinery. a corporation is one vehicle. a political party is another. corporations want to do what they want to do, the state provides the necessary cover, and the state can also be persuaded to act on behalf of the corporations it allows to exist. that's not difficult to digest.

do you think the Afhganis, if they wished to, could remove Blackwater? they'd have to get approval from whom, Blackwater? they'd have to fight whom, Blackwater? no, the United States government would have to approve that, and force them out.

[CB]

Pants,
You missed the part about the corporation backing their operations through non state entities on a cross national level. Moreover, the company knew this was illegal but chose to defy the will of the state because it has the power and resources to do so. If the state of the united states disappeared over night, Chiquita would not suddenly leave Colombia. There is no doubt they would continue their operations in Colombia, and continue paying non-state militias to back them. Which is primarily my consistent point here, the eradication of a state does not lead to the eradication of a company.

If you want to know how a corporation protects a state, that's simple, look at the department of defenses budget, and where it goes. That's not an entirely socialist entity generating weapons for itself, by itself.

As a matter of fact you inadvertently agree with me: "that a corporation is able to dance across national borders and failed states, only shows that those states specifically allow them to, or fail to prevent them from doing so." If the state FAILS to eradicate a corporation, even though it attempts to (as is the case with Guatemala and United Fruit), than the stronger institution of more coercion and more force, within that state, is no longer the state!

The afghani people, as you point out, are not facing solely a state entity, they are also facing corporate enemies as well. There's been quite a bit of documentation of corporations going into countries, doing their own thing, and disregarding the wills of states. Other times the state will simply serve the will of the corporation.

The problem with your black and white philosophy is that it's simply not complex enough to envelope the complex world of the 21st century. You solely see the corporate model as a state sanction, and are failing to comprehend that at times the inverse is true; or at the very least, the corporation is so large it can survive several state deaths (like BP - literally in Iran in the 1950s and 60s)

p.s. The fine Chiquita took was pennies. They probably paid it for PR reasons, not out of serious force.

[CB]

Just because my parents gave birth to me, doesn't mean in my later years, I still depend on them for survival. If it came down to it, I could wrestle them both to death, and still acquire sustenance.

[CB]

Sorry to swamp the comments section, but I'll refer to Chomsky again. He addresses your exact claim pants, and does it far more eloquently than myself:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20100312.htm

It's an answer to a question in the middle of the article starting with:

NC: Well, there's a very simple answer to that: it's not a strategy, and since it's not a strategy at all, there can't be a better strategy. The strategy of "eliminating the state" is back on the level of "let's have peace and justice". How do you proceed to eliminate the state?

[adamcrazypants]

"As a matter of fact you inadvertently agree with me: "that a corporation is able to dance across national borders and failed states, only shows that those states specifically allow them to, or fail to prevent them from doing so." If the state FAILS to eradicate a corporation, even though it attempts to (as is the case with Guatemala and United Fruit), than the stronger institution of more coercion and more force, within that state, is no longer the state!"

no dude, it took an even larger force than what was available in Guatemala, or Columbia, wherever, to corral Chuiqita. it took the force behind the United States Government for Chuiqita to balk and pay the fine.

the social/paper contract is backed up and legitimized by the state, by the legitimized force of the state. corporations don't have militaries. they seek friendly militaries and governments that will back them and their contracts up. what entities people use to legitimize the use of force is arbitrary. corporations are nothing without a friendly and amenable state, backing their shit up.

[CB]

United Fruit and Guatemala, is a different story/history than Chiquita and Colombia. Please don't conflate the two, there are unique examples to learn from each.

Chequita paid a small fine to the US, however, their role in Colombia was one backed by a non-state entity. Two non-state entities actually! So within the confines of Colombia it did not need a state to function. Moreover, you didn't address my other point that if the US were to disappear it does not follow that Chiquita would close up shop in Colombia. I keep stressing this and you keep ignoring it. Multi-Nationals can operate regardless of a state falling apart. Because one state falls apart, the company still has enough power in another, and can maintain it's MULTI-NATIONAL existence. If the UK disappears, BP still reigns.

Corporations do have militaries - which was my point about the Pinkertons which you overlooked - and they are also the largest drivers behind the military-industrial complex. A now for profit industry. And their power to garner more military might is presently in the works. Glenn Greenwald documented that this week, as did the washingtonpost:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/20/mukasey/index.html

Your simple solution of "kill the state" is like Chomsky said, the same as just saying "let there be peace on earth." It's not a strategy, it's a wish, and it's not even a very thorough wish at that.

Just because a state falls apart, it does not follow that a company will vanish. The resources at a corporations disposal can still exist, and they will use them until the very end. I highly suggest you read that Chomsky link I provided.

[adamcrazypants]

2 non-state entities in Bolivia or Ecuador or wherever? oh noes! non-state entities, one of which is a multi-national corporation, subject to international law, etc. as enforced by a large group of states. the other, a local militia, acting as a sort of corporate legitimizer, pounding heads and enforcing the rule of the law, the law that that corporation prefers. whoda thunk it? what's your point? people and corporations want someone to back them up, and enforce the rules that they want. all it takes is a group of people with the guns and will to apply the muscle, to lay down the rules and make sure they're followed, and if not, supply the consequences. what could go wrong?

[Joe]

CB,

I don’t see how the article you linked to bolsters your position. Chiquita was backed in Columbia by non-state entities that essentially acted as states in the territories where the company wanted to do business. They still had to pay the paramilitaries to get rid of the leftist guerillas, the same way, as Adam points out, United Fruit relied on the force of the U.S. govt to reclaim their property in Guatemala. Without the state, or states, or state-like entities to do their bidding, companies like Chiquita are powerless—they can’t force people to do anything. That’s why they bribe governments and/or hire people with guns.

“Because one state falls apart, the company still has enough power in another”

Right but they’re still deriving their power from *a* state.

I’m not sure the Pinkerton example helps you much either. The Pinkertons failed to end the Homestead strike, for example; it took the PA *state* militia to break it up. Again, the company itself was powerless to do anything about the workers’ revolt, even with the private security agency.

“they are also the largest drivers behind the military-industrial complex”

The biggest driver behind the military-industrial complex is the U.S. military and its neverending supply of money which the government steals from us. The weapons-makers are just swine feeding at the nice fat taxpayer-funded trough.

I agree that “kill the state” is a bit simplistic. There are too many people with an interest in seeing it continue—especially the corporations, but also regular people who’ve been conned into thinking it somehow serves their interests—for it to go away overnight. But I don’t see how “let’s take the state back from the corporations” is any less of a wish. Chomsky himself has expressed plenty of skepticism about the viability of influencing the state through the rigged political game.

[Montag]

corporations, government, the guns. they are all balled up fingers in the same fist, punching a human face forever. or something. state granted corporate charters aren't the issue here. it's the power dynamics.

the role of the state is to legitimize the use of naked power.

it's not at simple as "if not for the corrupting influence of corporte donations, the state would behave" nor "if not for state power, the corporations would have to behave." as long as financial power, and our cultural fetish for currency as the sole arbiter of success, hold sway, the guys with the guns will serve whoever can show them the money.

[CB]

Pants,
I'm not sure you're reading these articles, since you're conflating many Latin American countries, and brushing them aside as if their unique history has no bearing on an important question.

Interestingly enough, you refute yourself yet again inadvertently. And please don't ask me what my point is, when I've explicitly stated it:

"cting as a sort of corporate legitimizer, pounding heads and enforcing the rule of the law, the law that that corporation prefers. whoda thunk it? what's your point? people and corporations want someone to back them up, and enforce the rules that they want. all it takes is a group of people with the guns and will to apply the muscle, to lay down the rules and make sure they're followed, and if not, supply the consequences. what could go wrong? "

As you point out, the corporation, and the non-state entity, can enforce laws THEY WANT, through force that is not STATE BACKED. So a corporation does have the means to control, and coerce, through force, without a state. And if a corporation is large enough to maintain survival even if several states collapse, than achieving some kind of non-hierarchical, decentralized life style, is not easily achieved with the curt recommendation of kill the state. Like I said before, the world would probably be better off if BP, or Boeing, was dismantled prior to the state of Denmark.

Joe,
Montag sums up a few of the errors in your post. In order to keep this short I'll point to that crucial difference we see.

"Right but they’re [corporations] still deriving their power from *a* state."

That's a very narrow, and false, estimate of power. Power is the ability to get something to do what you want. There's different kinds, soft and hard. And there's no doubt a corporation has the ability to exercise both, without a states consent. Money alone is often a tool of power, and a company can use that in many ways that defy the orders of a state.

As Montag, Chomsky, and myself, are saying. Power exercised in the world is complex. Death to states do not mean the end of hierarchical, centralized, power institutions. Nor is just saying death to the state the easiest and best solution to decentralization and non-hierarchy.

[adamcrazypants]

"As you point out, the corporation, and the non-state entity, can enforce laws THEY WANT, through force that is not STATE BACKED."

the corporation becomes its own mini-state when it hires the local militia. a rather weak one, at that, but a state none-the-less. I thought that was obvious. but guess who didn't like what Chiquita had done in Columbia? whoever is at the controls of the big bad US Government, that's who. I don't think we're disagreeing here. whether a population votes in a state, or a corporation buys its own state, hardly seems like much of a distinction to me. what makes a voter any more special than a board member, or a share holder? I don't vote, yet here I am, watching new absurd laws pop up and seeing people arrested for shit I don't think they should be arrested for, and there is nothing I can do about it. the boot that hits my face is the boot that hits my face. if you're going to go after corporations, then also go after political parties, VFW's, NGO's, not-for-profits, church's, and anyone and any group that attempts to pick up the dead machinery of state and wield it for their own purposes.

[CB]

Pants,
We both agree that "but guess who didn't like what Chiquita had done in Columbia? whoever is at the controls of the big bad US Government, that's who," however if the US collapsed, Chiquita would still reign. So, as I continue to stress the antithesis of your hypothesis, the death of the state (the US) will not destroy an equally rotten hierarchical system.

We fundamentally disagree here:
" I don't think we're disagreeing here. whether a population votes in a state, or a corporation buys its own state, hardly seems like much of a distinction to me. "

Voting in the State of switzerland is entirely different than voting in the United States, where the revolving door of government and company is creating a conflated entity.

"what makes a voter any more special than a board member, or a share holder?"

Well in Switzerland, a voters voice is 'heard' more than in the US. The value of the person to create change is not measured in assets and capital. The externalities of state policy are better kept in check by counting people as individuals. This is different than the externalities of a company which is only kept in check by capital, which is unevenly distributed. A humans ability to vote is not unevenly distributed in all state. Capital however always is. That's a stark difference in controlling the power of the state-corporation relationship.

[CB]

That's why Chomsky, and myself, emphasize using the state at times to reign in the unfettered power of a corporation. Single-Payer health care is one example, where the ethical choice requires a momentary expansion of one power over another (State over Pharmaceutical Industries, Medical Technology, and Insurance).

[Joe]

CB,

Since I agree with 99 percent of Montag’s comment, I’m not sure what errors he summed up. I think we’re talking past each other to a certain extent. The crux of the argument, as I see it, is this: You say, “there's no doubt a corporation has the ability to exercise both, without a states consent.” I say this overestimates the power of a corporation and underestimates the power of a state. Microsoft makes computers. The U.S. government writes the patent, copyright, and IP laws, and provides the court system and police and jails to enforce these laws, that allow Microsoft to dominate the market and become the behemoth that it is. And the costs for all of this, of course, are socialized. So the state is basically a ready-made weapon that Microsoft can use, a little cost to itself, to force the rest of us to buy its products. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. state claims the undisputed right to rule over an entire continent that includes 300,000,000 people. Absent the state (I know, but for the sake of argument…), Microsoft would have no real claim over any territory, other than its own property, would have to bear the full costs of the police, courts, etc., and wouldn’t have the phony aura of legitimacy of “the law” to hide behind. Absent the state, in other words, we’d have lots of competing interests and no one entity to force everyone in the same direction.

Hence my tendency to view the state as the primary problem. I’m not trying to suggest that it’s a simple state versus private sector thing. I grant that it’s more complicated than that (I never said it wasn’t). I also don’t deny that corporations might try to exert control over people even absent a state to do its bidding; I’m just saying it would be a lot harder and more expensive and probably ultimately unsustainable.

[adamcrazypants]

"however if the US collapsed, Chiquita would still reign."

yes, behold the power of the, um, uh. . .banana? what? hierarchies are fine and dandy so long as they don't take up arms and kill other people, and so long as the hierarchy is all volunteer.

the rest of what you wrote we can just ignore because you're just describing how people in polities organize themselves at the behest of power, versus how people in corporations organize themselves at the behest of power. bfd. you quibble with the ontology of the corporation, is all that I see here. good luck with your representative government project.

[PDA]

"hierarchies are fine and dandy so long as they don't take up arms and kill other people, and so long as the hierarchy is all volunteer."

if the choice is between working for Chiquita and starving, would you see that as a VOLUNTARY choice? is there an essential difference between coercion at the point of a gun and coercion with the threat of impoverishment?

I'm not saying the choice is of necessity that stark in every circumstance, but I'm drawing a parallel with the argument that every government action is always carried out with the threat of violence. every corporate move, then, can be said to be carried out with the threat of unemployment.

too often I see the argument made that corporations don't also have the power to coerce, that someone "can always go work somewhere else." cause no. they can't ALWAYS do so, especially in the developing world.

whether corps would have attained their current power without government support is an interesting but academic matter that's orthogonal to the question of **what we are supposed to do about it**. if what we have now is an unholy hybrid monster - a govCORPerATIONment - what does removing just one head of the monster do? it could render him docile... or it could send him on a fucking rampage.

[Montag]

...using the state at times to reign in the unfettered power of a corporation. Single-Payer health care is one example, where the ethical choice requires...

this isn't how states work. at least not ones dominated by financial power. state provided health care won't come about because it's the ethical thing to do, or because a majority of the people want it. if it comes about it will be because it benefits the powerful. corporations just want to keep health care costs external.

if more people can't afford treatment and get sick, miss work and such, if the costs to train up replacement workers are great enough, an employer may lobby the government to provide health care, as i believe General Motors has done at one time. if enough powerful forces start thinking like GM, and the balance tips away from the pharmaceutical, insurance, medical service and sundry other interests that oppose health care now...

[CF Oxtrot]

ACP:

please explain how a corporation protects a state.

Oh god. Adam, have you ever worked in a large corporate environment? Or in a state bureaucratic environment?

It's symbiotic, there is almost no distinction between the corporation and "the state."

EXAMPLE: Transportation "planning." The state retains its power over how people get around by "planning" a system of roadways and "improving" them with a very simple-minded outlook: always build more capacity. More lanes.

The businesses that work on road construction reinforce this. In most areas I've lived, the businesses that do such road construction are either stand-along corporations, or smaller corporate entities within larger holding company systems or other types of conglomerated corporate structures.

The corporate road-builder wants its income stream to continue, so it never questions the "build more capacity" outlook, even though time and time again we see "build more capacity" resulting in nothing more than more traffic -- 4 lanes of linear, barely moving vehicles instead of two. 8 lanes instead of 4. And so on.

Can't you see the mutual reinforcement of such practices?

[CF Oxtrot]

PS to ACP:

Structurally, you are correct that a corporation is a creation of "the state," approved by statutory and regulatory provisions, sanctified by a state administrator (Secretary of State, in most of the United States), and validated by the states' courts and the federal courts which hear disputes between and among states.

But tell me this, Adam:

If the government should collapse -- imagine, for example, North Korea nukes the entire state of Delaware, which is the home state for incorporation for many national and international businessees -- do you really think that such destruction automatically emasculates and renders impotent the corporations that have Delaware as their state of incorporation?

If so, that's a mighty naive thought.

Once a corporation is up and running, its power derives from its operation... the things it does, the people who work for it. Those everyday practices are what sustain the corporation. Not the state authority under which the corporation operates.

You seem to have forgot, or perhaps never learned, the lessons of the "company town."

The only corporation I see as living or dying solely at the mercy of the state is the fledgeling corporation created by an individual whose pipe dreams hinge upon feeling validated by the state.

Outside that example, I think your notion is simply impractical and naive.

[adamcrazypants]

I didn't state "tell me how a corporation can help grow a state." I stated "tell me how a corporation protects a state." which no one has answered.

"If the government should collapse -- imagine, for example, North Korea nukes the entire state of Delaware, which is the home state for incorporation for many national and international businessees -- do you really think that such destruction automatically emasculates and renders impotent the corporations that have Delaware as their state of incorporation?"

lol. you mean a state smashes another state that houses headquarters of said corporations? lol. no. hopefully North Korea got something sweet from the deal. probably just a wrist slap from the UN, or whatever.

yea look I don't think states or corporations are going anywhere anytime soon, so long as people keep, um, fucking. I'm simply pointing out that without a state, without the state (in any of its manifestations and iterations and sizes), corporations are pretty harmless. fuck yeah, if the US Government collapses, I bet benevolent Bill Gates hires an army and takes over the western US, "restoring peace and order." why not? but like I said, without his army, he's just some dude with a lot of money.

[CB]

Pants,
Anarchist tend to not trust hierarchies and prefer moral autonomy, or a form of direct democracy without coercion. A corporation is not volunteer, and the power it can wield as the hierarchy grows is extraordinary. The fact you don't realize this leads me to further concern that Sartwell's blog is less a blog of anarchism, and more of a blog for Ron Paul Libertarians.

[CB]

Montag,
the health example is poor for the US, but not for other countries. In the UK for instance, when the State tried to turn to private health insurance, the populace went ape shit and stopped it via protest. I think at times, and perhaps health-care isn't the right example, people can make the state do the moral thing. Regardless, the state is not a moral institution.

[CB]

" "tell me how a corporation protects a state."

Blackwater?
Time Warner?
Diebold?

[adamcrazypants]

I trust direct democracy about as much as I trust a hierarchy, maybe a little less, because people can be crazy sheep at times. herd animals.

I'm more of a political nihilist, though, when you come down to it.

do I fear Blackwater? you bet. not so much because of their corporate nature and/or hierarchal composure, but more because they behave like a rogue state. and probably even more because our government allows them to operate within our borders and within its purview. do I fear Bill Gates? not so much. maybe just his lawyers.

[CB]

For what it's worth Blackwater is moving its operation to the UAE, and out of the US. I don't 'trust' direct democracy, but I do prefer it.

[Montag]

smaller, less powerful nation states have different bar to clear in order to achieve the "legitimacy" mentioned up thread. they've got fewer tools in the box than does a global capitalist empire such as the US when it comes to manipulating pubic perception and manufacturing legitimacy.

huh. i've swerved hazardously close to 'on topic' wrt the op here, centrally established education curriculum being one of the tools in the box. :)

[adamcrazypants]

Montag wins!