Posts com Tag ‘freedom’

Dehydroepiandrosterone

Publicado: julho 2, 2009 por Yogi em Capital, Nature, Science, Tech, Tudo
Tags:, , , ,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed(January 2009)
Dehydroepiandrosterone
Systematic (IUPAC) name
(3S,8R,9S,10R,13S,14S)-3-hydroxy-10,13-dimethyl-1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16-dodecahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren-17-one
Identifiers
CAS number 53-43-0
ATC code A14AA07
PubChem 76
ChemSpider 5670
Chemical data
Formula C19H28O2 
Mol. mass 288.424 g/mol
Synonyms (3β)-3-Hydroxyandrost-5-en-17-one
Physical data
Melt. point 148.5 °C (299 °F)
Pharmacokinetic data
Bioavailability  ?
Metabolism Hepatic
Half life 12 hours
Excretion Urinary:?%
Therapeutic considerations
Pregnancy cat.

?

Legal status

Commercially available
(US), Rx Only (CA)

Routes Oral

Dehydroepiandrosterone 

Contents

 [hide]

[edit]Synonyms and brand names

Synonyms for dehydroepiandrosterone are:

3-beta-Hydroxy-5-androsten-17-one, 3.beta.-Hydroxyandrost-5-en-17-one, 3beta-hydroxy-5-androsten-17-one, 3beta-hydroxy-androst-5-en-17-one, 3beta-Hydroxy-D5-androsten-17-one, 3beta-Hydroxyandrost-5-en-17-one, 3beta-Hydroxyandrost-5-ene-17-one, 3-beta-hydroxy-etioallocholan-5-ene-17-one , 5-Androsten-3beta-ol-17-one,

Brand names for DHEA include Prastera, Prasterone, Fidelin and Fluasterone. Supplement versions are manufactured from wild Mexican yam.[citation needed]

[edit]Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate

Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) is the sulfated version of DHEA. This conversion is reversibly catalyzed bysulfotransferase (SULT2A1) primarily in the adrenals, the liver, and small intestine. In the blood, most DHEA is found as DHEAS with levels that are about 300 times higher than those of free DHEA. Orally ingested DHEA is converted to its sulfate when passing through intestines and liver. Whereas DHEA levels naturally reach their peak in the early morning hours, DHEAS levels show no diurnal variation. From a practical point of view, measurement of DHEAS is preferable to DHEA, as levels are more stable.[citation needed]

[edit]Production

Production of DHEA from Cholesterol

Comprehensive overview ofSteroidogenesis, showing dehydroepiandrosterone at left among the androgens.

DHEA is produced from cholesterol through two cytochrome P450enzymes. Cholesterol is converted to pregnenolone by the enzyme P450 scc (side chain cleavage); then another enzyme, CYP17A1, convertspregnenolone to 17α-Hydroxypregnenolone and then to DHEA.[3]

[edit]Role

DHEA can be understood as a prohormone for the sex steroids. DHEAS may be viewed as buffer and reservoir. As most DHEA is produced by thezona reticularis of the adrenal, it is argued that there is a role in the immune and stress response.[who?]

As almost all DHEA is derived from the adrenal glands, blood measurements of DHEAS/DHEA are useful to detect excess adrenal activity as seen in adrenal cancer or hyperplasia, including certain forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome tend to have elevated levels of DHEAS.[4]

[edit]Effects and uses

This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia’s style guidelines.

Studies have shown that DHEA is useful in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. An application of the evidence was discussed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2001 and is available online.[5] This review also shows that cholesterol and other serum lipids decrease with the use of DHEA (mainly a decrease in HDL-C and triglycerides can be expected in women, p110).

DHEA supplementation has been studied as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, but was found to be ineffective.[6] Some small placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial studies have found long-term supplementation to improve mood and relieve depression[7][8] or to decrease insulin resistance.[9] However, a larger placebo-controlledrandomized clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 found that DHEA supplementation in elderly men and women had no beneficial effects on body composition, physical performance, insulin sensitivity, or quality of life.[10]

In contrast to the non-beneficial effects of DHEA on memory in the elderly, a randomised UK study[11] found that a 7-day course of DHEA (150 mg twice daily) improved episodic memory in healthy young men. In this study, DHEA was also shown to improve subjective mood and decrease evening cortisol concentration, which is known to be elevated in depression[12]. The effect of DHEA on memory appeared to be related to an early activation of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and it was suggested this was due to neuronal recruitment of the steroid sensitive ACC that may be involved in pre-hippocampal memory processing.

DHEA supplements are sometimes used as muscle-building or performance-enhancing drugs by athletes. However, a randomized placebo-controlled trial found that DHEA supplementation had no effect on lean body mass, strength, or testosterone levels.[13]

A 1986 study found that a higher level of endogenous DHEA, as determined by a single measurement, correlated with a lower risk of death or cardiovascular disease.[14] However, a more recent 2006 study found no correlation between DHEA levels and risk of cardiovascular disease or death in men.[15] A 2007 study found the DHEA restored oxidative balance in diabetic patients, reducing tissue levels of pentosidine—a biomarker for advanced glycation endproducts.[16]

Some in vitro studies have found DHEA to have an anti-proliferative or apoptotic effect on cancer cell lines.[17][18][19] The clinical significance of these findings, if any, is unknown. Higher levels of DHEA, in fact, have been correlated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer in both pre- and postmenopausal women.[20][21]

An anonymous 2002 review, in the French journal Prescrire, concluded: DHEA plasma levels are so low in most animals that they are difficult to measure, hindering studies on DHEA and aging. DHEA had not yet, at the time of writing, been linked to any specific health disorder. Side effects are linked to its androgenic effects, unfavorable lipid metabolism effects, and “possible growth-stimulating effect” on hormone dependent malignancies. “In practice, there is currently no scientific reason to prescribe DHEA for any purpose whatsoever.”[22]

A 2005 study, measured serum DHEA in 206 men with type-2 diabetes, and found an inverse relationship between serum DHEA and carotid atherosclerosis in men. The authors say the study “supports the notion that DHEA, which is sold in increasing amount as a food supplement, is atheroprotective in humans, and that androgen replacement therapy should be considered for men with hypogonadism.”[23]

A 2006 study supplemented DHEA to men of average 65 years of age, and found that the men experienced significant increases in testosterone and cGMP (Cyclic guanosine monophosphate), and significant decreases in low-density liprotein (LDL). The authors say that the “findings…suggest that chronic DHEA supplementation would exert antiatherogenic effects, particularly in elderly subjects who display low circulating levels of this hormone.”[24]

A 2008 study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, June 2008, measured serum DHEA in 940 men and women ranging from age 21 to 88, following them from 1978 until 2005. The researches found that low levels of DHEA-s showed a significant association with shorter lifespan and that higher DHEA-s levels are a “strong predictor” of longevity in men, even after adjusting for age, blood pressure, and plasma glucose. No relationship was found between serum DHEA and longevity for women during the study period. The study did not find a significant difference in longevity until the 15-year follow-up point, which the researchers note may explain why some past research that followed men for less duration found no relationship.[25]

[edit]Disputed effects

In the United States, DHEA or DHEAS have been advertised with claims that they may be beneficial for a wide variety of ailments. DHEA and DHEAS are readily available in the United States, where they are marketed as over-the-counter dietary supplements.[26] A 2004 review in the American Journal of Sports Medicineconcluded that “The marketing of this supplement’s effectiveness far exceeds its science.”[27] Because DHEA is converted to androstenedione and then testosterone, it has two chances to aromatize into estrogen- estrone from androstenedione, and estradiol from testosterone. As such, it is possible for increases in estrogen levels more than testosterone in men.

[edit]Increasing endogenous production

Regular exercise is known to increase DHEA production in the body.[28][29][30] Caloric restriction has also been shown to increase DHEA in primates.[31] Some theorize that the increase in endogenous DHEA brought about by caloric restriction is partially responsible for the longer life expectancy known to be associated with caloric restriction.[32]

[edit]Isomers

DHEA (Dehydroepiandrosterone) is really a meaningless term scientifically, since it isn’t descriptive of the actual molecule structure and could include a family of structures that are missing hydrogen atoms at one or more points in the molecule. DHEA can have many naturally occurring isomers that may have similar pharmacological effects. Some proven natural isomers of DHEA are 1-dehydroepiandrosterone (shown to be synthesized in pigs), 4-dehydroepiandrosterone (shown to occur in rats), 19NorDHEA (shown to occur in pigs and humans). These isomers are also technically DHEA, since they are dehydro epiandrosterones (removing hydrogens from the epiandrosterone skeleton).

(DHEA) is a multi-functional steroid that has been implicated in a broad range of biological effects in humans and other mammals. Together with its sulfate ester (DHEA-S), it is the most abundant steroid in humans. DHEA is produced by adrenal glands, but also sythesized de novo in the brain. It acts on theandrogen receptor both directly and through its metabolites, which include androstenediol and androstendione, which can undergo further conversion to produce the androgen testosterone and the estrogens estrone and estradiol.[1]DHEA is also a potent sigma-1 agonist.[2] It is considered a neurosteroid.[1]

Tunamar foi um navio japonês fabricado em 1973 e que ficou mais conhecido no Brasil pelo seu nome anterior, “Solana Star” (seu nome original foi “Foo Lang III”).

Em 1987 o então Solana Star, vindo da Austrália em direção aos EUA traficando 22 toneladas de maconha enlatada, teve que ir à costa brasileira para fazer reparos. Temendo serem abordados pela Marinha Brasileira, 13 de setembro de 1987 os tripulantes jogaram ao mar a carga de maconha. Das 22 toneladas a polícia só conseguiu apreender 3,5, fazendo com que o resto das latas ficassem à deriva no mar.

Muitas dessas latas acabaram sendo levadas pela correnteza às praias de São Paulo e principalmente do Rio de Janeiro, fazendo com que o período em que isso aconteceu ficasse conhecido como “o verão da lata” (1987/1988). O episódio ficou conhecido em todo o Brasil, e a banda do baixista ex-parceiro da Legião Urbana Renato Rocha chegou a ser batizada como “Solana Star”.

O navio foi depois disso apreendido e depois leiloado, convertendo-se em navio pesqueiro de Atum com um novo nome, “Tunamar”. Mas assim como o Titanic, ele acabou afundando em sua viagem inaugural (de Niterói com destino ao litoral de Santa Catarina) em 11 de outubro de 1994, devido à más condições do tempo. Vinte e dois tripulantes sobreviveram, outros dois morreram e nove ficaram desaparecidos no interior do navio.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of thesemeans of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unionsworkers’ councilsmunicipalities, citizens’ assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.[9]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communismanarchist collectivismanarcho-syndicalism,[10]mutualism,[11] social ecology,[12] autonomism and council communism).[13] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[14] and in particular socialist anarchism.[15][16]

Contents

[edit]Overview

Noam Chomsky, a noted libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism is an ideology with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents advocate a worker-oriented system of distribution that radically departs from capitalist economics (socialism).[17] They proposed that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.[18] Adherents attempt to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, because they view capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.[19]

The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French wordlibertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[20] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[21] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.”[22]

In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, radical economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century.

“Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International – founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 – competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937.”[23]

[edit]Anti-capitalism

Red rose Red flag
v d e

See also: Anti-capitalism

Libertarian socialists assert that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom.[24] Typical examples of legitimate exercise of power would include the use of physical force to rescue someone from being injured by an oncoming vehicle, or self-defense. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they politicaleconomic, or social.[25]

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society.[26] To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and free-market libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one’s degree of freedom is affected by one’s economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize “free creativity” in a society in preference to “free enterprise.”[27]

Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life,[28] including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Many libertarian socialists argue that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial manufacture, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor.[29] As such, they see a distinction between the concepts of “private property” and “personal possession”. Whereas “private property” grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, “possession” grants no rights to things that are not in use.[30]

[edit]Opposition to the state

Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
Anarchism Portal
Politics portal
v d e

See also: Anti-statism

Libertarian socialists regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression, leading many to oppose the state.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually collectivescommunescooperativescommons, or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations.[31] Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include a number of anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements[32] including: Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents). There are also many examples of indigenous societies around the world whose political and economic systems can be accurately described as anarchist or libertarian socialist, each of which is unique and uniquely suited to the culture that birthed it.[33] For libertarians, that diversity of practice within a framework of common principles is proof of the vitality of those principles and of their flexibility and strength.

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example. Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of the scientific method comes from its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions, rather than dogma and predetermined predictions.

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are doomed to failure; and thus reject Marxist notions oflinear and inevitable historical progression. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, “I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal” (The London Years, 1956).

Because libertarian socialism encourages exploration and embraces a diversity of ideas rather than forming a compact movement, there have arisen inevitable controversies over individuals who describe themselves as libertarian socialists but disagree with some of the core principles of libertarian socialism. For example, Peter Hain interprets libertarian socialism as favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state[34] and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence.

Proponents are known for opposing the existence of states or government and refusing to participate in coercive state institutions. Indeed, in the past many refused to swear oaths in court or to participate in trials, even when they faced imprisonment[35] or deportation.[36]

[edit]Violent and non-violent means

Some libertarian socialists see violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary; as he put it in Umanità Nova (no. 125, September 6, 1921):

It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers.[37]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued in favor of a non-violent revolution. The progression towards violence in anarchism stemmed, in part, from the massacres of some of the communes inspired by the ideas of Proudhon and others. Many anarcho-communists began to see a need for revolutionary violence to counteract the violence inherent in both capitalism and government.[38]

[edit]Political roots

As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has:

…its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)

That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, what would today be called libertarian, attitude of classical liberalismPierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase “Property is theft” to describe part of his view on the complex nature of ownership in relation to freedom. When he said property is theft, he was referring to the capitalist who he believed stole profit from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist’s employee was “subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience.”[39]

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[40] Outside the United States, “libertarian” generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies.[41] For these reasons the term “libertarian socialism” is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term “libertarian socialism” would be considered redundant.

Back in the United States, Henry George spearheaded the Single Tax Movement, which sought socialism via progressive taxation, with tax only on natural resources. This might be seen as a predecessor to libertarian socialism trends there.

Libertarian socialism has its roots in both classical liberalism and socialism, though it is often in conflict with liberalism (especially neoliberalism and right-libertarianism) and authoritarianState socialism simultaneously. While libertarian socialism has roots in both socialism and liberalism, different forms have different levels of influence from the two traditions. For instancemutualist anarchism is more influenced by liberalism while communist and syndicalist anarchism are more influenced by socialism. It is interesting to note, however, that mutualist anarchism has its origins in 18th and 19th century European socialism (such as Fourierian socialism)[42][43] while communist and syndicalist anarchism has its earliest origins in early 18th century liberalism (such as the French Revolution).[44]

[edit]Conflict with Marxism

Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876.

In rejecting both capitalism and the state, some libertarian socialists align themselves with anarchists in opposition to both capitalist representative democracy and to authoritarian forms of Marxism. Although anarchists and Marxists share an ultimate goal of a stateless society, anarchists criticise most Marxists for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Nonetheless, libertarian Marxist tendencies such asautonomist Marxism and council communism have historically been intertwined with the anarchist movement. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War, though as in that war Marxists themselves are often divided in support or opposition to anarchism. Other political persecutions under bureaucratic parties have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and libertarian Marxists on the one hand and Leninist Marxists and their derivatives such as Maoists on the other. In recent history, however, libertarian socialists have repeatedly formed temporary alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups for the purposes of protest against institutions they both reject.

Part of this antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen’s Association, the First International, a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of anarchist views, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an “authoritarian”, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin’s viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the state as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx’s views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin’s disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud and schism between libertarian socialists and what they call “authoritarian communists”, or alternatively just “authoritarians”.

Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky’s Notes on Anarchism,[45] he suggests the possibility “that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a ‘vanguard’ party, or a State bureaucracy.”

Autonomist MarxismNeo-Marxism and Situationist theory are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition. Similarly,William Morris is regarded as both a libertarian socialist and a Marxist.[citation needed]

[edit]Notable libertarian socialist tendencies

[edit]Mutualism

Proudhon and his children, by Gustave Courbet (1865).

Mutualism is a political and economic theory largely associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of the means of production for small enterprises, but in large scale enterprises supported replacing wage labour by workers’ co-operatives, arguing “it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.”[46] Mutualists believe that a free labor market would allow for conditions of equal income in proportion to exerted labor.[47] As Jonathan Beecher puts it, Proudhon’s aim was to, “emancipate labor from the constraints imposed by capital”.[48]

Proudhon supported individual possession of land rather than community ownership. However, Proudhon believed that an individual only had a right to land while he was using or occupying it. If the individual ceases doing so, it reverts to unowned land.[49]Mutualists hold a labor theory of value, arguing that in exchange labor should always be worth “the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility,”[47] and considering anything less to be exploitation, theft of labor, or usury.

Mutualists oppose the institutions by which individuals gain income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe the income received through these activities is not in direct accord with labor spent.[47] In place of these capitalist institutions they advocatelabor-owned cooperative firms and associations.[50] Mutualists advocate mutual banks, owned by the workers, that do not charge interest on secured loans. Most mutualists believe that anarchy should be achieved gradually rather than through revolution.[51]

Worker cooperatives such as the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation follow an economic model similar to that of mutualism. The model followed by the corporation WL Gore and Associates, inventor of Gore-Tex fabrics, is also similar to mutualism as there is no chain of command and salaries are determined collectively by the workers.

G.D.H. Cole‘s guild socialism was similar to mutualism.[52] Today, mutualism’s stress on worker association is similar to the more developed modern theory of Participatory Economics, although Participatory Economists do not believe in markets.

Mutualist anarchist ideas continue to have influence today, even if indirectly. Many modern day cooperatives are influenced directly or indirectly by economic mutualism that became popular in the late 19th century.[53]

Some individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, were influenced by Proudhon’s Mutualism, but unlike Proudhon, they did not call for “association” in large enterprises.[54]

[edit]Anarchist communism

Main article: Anarchist communism

Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo CafieroErrico MalatestaAndrea Costa, and other ex-Mazzinian republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from standard anarchism explicit until after the latter’s death.[55] In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International (which was actually held in a forest outside Florence, due to police activity), they declared the principles of anarcho-communism, beginning with:

“The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point…”

This report was made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura federation‘s bulletin later that year. Cafiero notes, in Anarchie et Communisme, that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions.

Anarcho-communists hold that the liberation of the individual, as well as the abolition of wage slavery and the State, requires the introduction of a free distribution economy, and therefore the abolition of the market.[56] In this belief they are contrasted with some anarchists and libertarian socialists who advocate collective ownership with market elements and sometimes barter. Anarcho-communists assert that a gift economy can be operated by collectives through direct democracy.

As Peter Kropotkin put it, “We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence at its disposal.” (Conquest of Bread ch. 3)

[edit]Anarcho-syndicalism

Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement.[57] Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

  1. Workers’ solidarity
  2. Direct action
  3. Workers’ self-management

Flag used by Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists.

Workers’ solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their racegender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.[58]

Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.

Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.

The International Workers Association is an international anarcho-syndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajoplayed and still plays a major role in the Spanish labor movement. It was also an important force in the Spanish Civil War.

[edit]Council communism

Main article: Council Communism

Council communism was a radical Left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within Marxism, and also within libertarian socialism. The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of Social democracy and Leninist communism, is that workers’ councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural and legitimate form of working class organisation and government power. This view is opposed to the reformist and Bolshevik stress on vanguard partiesparliaments, or the State.

The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers’ councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run “bureaucratic socialism”. They also oppose the idea of a “revolutionary party”, since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers’ democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers’ councils.

The Russian word for council is “soviet,” and during the early years of the revolution worker’s councils were politically significant in Russia. It was to take advantage of the aura of workplace power that the word became used by Lenin for various political organs. Indeed, the name “Supreme Soviet,” by which the parliament was called; and that of the Soviet Union itself make use of this terminology, but they do not imply any decentralization.

Furthermore, council communists held a critique of the Soviet Union as a capitalist state, believing that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia became a “bourgeois revolution” when a party bureaucracy replaced the old feudal aristocracy. Although most felt the Russian Revolution was working class in character, they believed that, since capitalist relations still existed (because the workers had no say in running the economy), the Soviet Union ended up as a state capitalist country, with the state replacing the individual capitalist. Thus, council communists support workers’ revolutions, but oppose one-party dictatorships.

Council communists also believed in diminishing the role of the party to one of agitation and propaganda, rejected all participation in elections or parliament, and argued that workers should leave the reactionary trade unions and form one big revolutionary union.

[edit]Within the political mainstream

There was a strong libertarian current in the British labour movement and the term “libertarian socialist” has been applied to a number of democratic socialists, including some prominent members of the British Labour Party. The Socialist League was formed in 1885 by William Morris and others critical of the authoritarian socialism of the Social Democratic Federation. It was involved in the New Unionism, the rank and file union militancy of the 1880s-90s which anticipated syndicalism in some key ways (Tom Mann, a New Unionist leader, was one of the first British syndicalists). The Socialist League was dominated by anarchists by the 1890s.[59]

The Independent Labour Party, formed at that time, drew more on the Non-Conformist religious traditions in the British working class than on Marxist theory, and had a libertarian strain. Others in the tradition of the ILP, and described as libertarian socialists, have been Nye BevanMichael FootRobin Cook, and most importantly, G. D. H. Cole. Labour minister Peter Hainhas written in support of libertarian socialism, identifying an axis involving a “bottom-up vision of socialism, with anarchists at the revolutionary end and democratic socialists [such as himself] at its reformist end”, as opposed to the axis of state socialism with Marxist-Leninists at the revolutionary end and social democrats at the reformist end.[60] Defined in this way, libertarian socialism in the contemporary political mainstream is distinguished from modern social democracy principally by its political decentralism rather than by its economics. Katja Kipping of DresdenGermany is an example of a contemporary libertarian socialist politician operating within a mainstream government.

[edit]Within the New Left

Main article: New Left

The emergence of the New Left in the 1950s and 1960s led to a revival of interest in libertarian socialism.[61] The New Left’s critique of the Old Left‘s authoritarianism was associated with a strong interest in personal liberty, autonomy (see the thinking of Cornelius Castoriadis) and led to a rediscovery of older socialist traditions, such as left communismcouncil communism, and the Industrial Workers of the World. The New Left also led to a revival of anarchism. Journals like Radical America and Black Mask in America, SolidarityBig Flame and Democracy & Nature, succeeded by The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,[62] in the UK, introduced a range of left libertarian ideas to a new generation. Social ecologyautonomism and, more recently, participatory economics (parecon), and Inclusive Democracy emerged from this.

[edit]Social ecology

Main article: Social ecology

Social ecology is closely related to the work and ideas of Murray Bookchin and influenced by anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Social ecologists assert that the present ecological crisis has its roots in human social problems, and that the domination of human-over-nature stems from the domination of human-over-human.[63]

Politically, social ecologists advocate a network of directly democratic citizens’ assemblies organized in a confederal fashion. This approach is called Libertarian Municipalism. Economically, social ecologists favour libertarian communism and the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”[citation needed]

[edit]Libertarian socialism in modern times

Libertarian socialists in the early 21st century have been involved in the squatter movement; social centersinfoshops; anti-poverty groups such as OCAP and Food Not Bombstenants’unions; housing cooperativesintentional communities generally and egalitarian communities; anti-sexist organizing; grassroots media initiatives; digital media and computer activism; experiments in participatory economicsanti-racist and anti-fascist groups like Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action; activist groups protecting the rights of immigrants and promoting the free movement of people, such as the No Border network and No One is Illegalworker co-operativescountercultural and artist groups; and the peace movement etc.

Libertarian Socialists have, also, an MP in Turkish Parliament; Ufuk Uras, selected in 2007 General Elections in Turkey.[64]

[edit]Criticism of libertarian socialism

Some capitalist libertarians argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. The Kurt Vonnegut story “Harrison Bergeron“, in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through hyperbole (though Vonnegut’s own belief in socialism is a point of interest).[65]

Libertarian socialists typically dismiss the perceived contradiction between freedom and equality as a red herringNoam Chomsky states that, “human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred.”[66]

Other libertarian philosophers (often referred to as liberals, in the classical sense) such as Frederic BastiatLudwig von MisesMurray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, stress that liberty is a state of affairs in which one is free from the unjustified aggression of others, and that any understanding of liberty must be grounded in natural rights – and especially property rights. Thus, they argue that absolute freedom for all is not a contradiction, and that the abolition of natural rights (including property rights) would, by definition, also be the abolition of liberty.[67][68][69] As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, “The continued existence of society depends upon private property.”[70]

Libertarian socialists believe that this criticism stems from a misconception that conflates simple possession with private property as a legal and social institution. For libertarian socialists, the latter produces exploitation and oppression (Proudhon’s “theft” and “despotism”) and so reduces individual freedom for the working class to the ability to change masters.[71] As such, they argue, liberalism fails to understand how private property undermines liberty.[72] For libertarian socialists, “[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.”[73]

[edit]Libertarian socialist periodicals

[edit]See also

(sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest. Mahatma Gandhi led a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947. About 10 years later, Martin Luther King adopted Gandhi’s nonviolent methods in his struggle to win civil rights for African Americans. Then in the 1960s César Chávez organized a campaign of nonviolence to protest the treatment of farm workers in California. As Chavez once explained, “Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or the weak. It is hard work, it is the patience to win.”[1] Another recent nonviolent movement was the “Velvet Revolution“, a nonviolent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government in 1989.[2] It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989.

The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. Dalai Lama said nonviolence is the only way progress can be made with China.[3][4]

The term “nonviolence” is often linked with or even used as a synonym for pacifism; however, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Pacifism denotes the rejection of the use of violence as a personal decision on moral or spiritual grounds, but does not inherently imply any inclination toward change on a sociopolitical level. Nonviolence on the other hand, presupposes the intent of (but does not limit it to) social or political change as a reason for the rejection of violence. Also, a person may advocate nonviolence in a specific context while advocating violence in other contexts.

Forms

Advocates of nonviolence believe cooperation and consent are the roots of political power: all regimes, including bureaucratic institutions, financial institutions, and the armed segments of society (such as the military and police); depend on compliance from citizens.[5] On a national level, the strategy of nonviolence seeks to undermine the power of rulers by encouraging people to withdraw their consent and cooperation. The forms of nonviolence draw inspiration from both religious or ethical beliefs and political analysis. Religious or ethically based nonviolence is sometimes referred to as principled, philosophical, or ethical nonviolence, while nonviolence based on political analysis is often referred to as tactical, strategic, or pragmatic nonviolence. Commonly, both of these dimensions may be present within the thinking of particular movements or individuals.[6]

Philosophical

Buddha, known for his theory of nonviolence

Mahavira,To liberate one’s self, Mahavira taught the necessity of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. Right conduct includes five great vows out of which first is Nonviolence (Ahimsa) – to cause no harm to any living being in any manner

Love of the enemy, or the realization of the humanity of all people, is a fundamental concept of philosophical nonviolence. The goal of this type of nonviolence is not to defeat the enemy, but to win them over and create love and understanding between all.[7] It is this principle which is most closely associated with spiritual or religious justifications of nonviolence, the central tenets of which can be found in each of the major Abrahamic religious traditions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) as well as in the major Dharmic religious traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism). It is also found in many pagan religious traditions. Nonviolent movements, leaders, and advocates have at times referred to, drawn from and utilised many diverse religious basis for nonviolence within their respective struggles. Examples of nonviolence found in religion and spirituality include the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus urges his followers to “love thine enemy,” in the Taoist concept of wu-wei, or effortless action, in the philosophy of the martial art Aikido, in the Buddhist principle of metta, or loving-kindness towards all beings; and in the principle of ahimsa, or nonviolence toward any being, shared by Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Additionally, focus on both nonviolence and forgiveness of sin can be found in the story of Abel in the Qur’an; Liberal movements within Islam have consequently used this story to promote Jewish ideals of nonviolence.

Respect or love for opponents also has a pragmatic justification, in that the technique of separating the deeds from the doers allows for the possibility of the doers changing their behaviour, and perhaps their beliefs. Martin Luther King said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”

Pragmatic

The fundamental concept of pragmatic nonviolence is to create a social dynamic or political movement that can effect social change without necessarily winning over those who wish to maintain the status quo.[7] In modern industrial democracies, nonviolence has been used extensively by political sectors without mainstream political power such as labor, peace, environment and women’s movements. Lesser known is the role that nonviolence has played and continues to play in undermining the power of repressive political regimes in the developing world and the former eastern bloc. Susan Ives emphasized this point with a quote from Walter Wink, “In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations… If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa… the independence movement in India…) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of humanity! All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn’t work in the ‘real’ world.”[8]

As a technique for social struggle, nonviolence has been described as “the politics of ordinary people”, reflecting its historically mass-based use by populations throughout the world and history. Struggles most often associated with nonviolence are the non co-operation campaign for Indian independence led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the struggle to attain civil rights for African Americans, led by Martin Luther King, and People Power in the Philippines.

Also of primary significance is the notion that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. When Gandhi said that “the means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree,” he expressed the philosophical kernel of what some refer to as prefigurative politics. Martin Luther King, a student of Gandhian non-violent resistance, concurred with this tenet of the method, concluding that “…nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.” Proponents of nonviolence reason that the actions taken in the present inevitably re-shape the social order in like form. They would argue, for instance, that it is fundamentally irrational to use violence to achieve a peaceful society. People have come to use nonviolent methods of struggle from a wide range of perspectives and traditions. A landless peasant in Brazil may nonviolently occupy a parcel of land for purely practical motivations. If they don’t, the family will starve. A Buddhist monk in Thailand may “ordain” trees in a threatened forest, drawing on the teachings of Buddha to resist its destruction. A waterside worker in England may go on strike in socialist and union political traditions. All the above are using nonviolent methods but from different standpoints. Likewise, secular political movements have utilised nonviolence, either as a tactical tool or as a strategic program on purely pragmatic and strategic levels, relying on its political effectiveness rather than a claim to any religious, moral, or ethical worthiness.

Gandhi used the weapon of non-violence against British Raj

Finally, the notion of Satya, or truth, is central to the Gandhian conception of nonviolence. Gandhi saw truth as something that is multifaceted and unable to be grasped in its entirety by any one individual. All carry pieces of the truth, he believed, but all need the pieces of others’ truths in order to pursue the greater truth. This led him to believe in the inherent worth of dialogue with opponents, in order to understand motivations. On a practical level, the willingness to listen to another’s point of view is largely dependent on reciprocity. In order to be heard by one’s opponents, one must also be prepared to listen.[citation needed]

Nonviolence has even obtained a level of institutional recognition and endorsement at the global level. On November 10, 1998, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the first decade of the 21st century and the third millennium, the years 2001 to 2010, as the International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World.

Living

The violence embedded in most of the world’s societies causes many to consider it an inherent part of human nature, but others (Riane Eisler, Walter Wink, Daniel Quinn) have suggested that violence – or at least the arsenal of violent strategies we take for granted – is a phenomenon of the last five to ten thousand years, and was not present in pre-domestication and early post-domestication human societies. This view shares several characteristics with the Victorian ideal of the Noble savage.

For many, practicing nonviolence goes deeper than withholding from violent behavior or words. It means caring in one’s heart for everyone, even those one strongly disagrees with, that is who are antithetical or opposed. For some, this principle entails a commitment to restorative or transformative justice and prison abolition. By extrapolation comes the necessity of caring for those who are not practicing nonviolence, who are violent. Of course no one can simply will themselves to have such care, and this is one of the great personal challenges posed by nonviolence – once one believes in nonviolence in theory, how can the person live it?

Animal rights

Nonviolence, for some, involves extending it to animals, usually through vegetarianism or veganism.

Methods

Martin Luther King

Nonviolent action generally comprises three categories: Acts of Protest and Persuasion, Noncooperation, and Nonviolent Intervention. [9]

Acts of protest

Nonviolent acts of protest and persuasion are symbolic actions performed by a group of people to show their support or disapproval of something. The goal of this kind of action is to bring public awareness to an issue, persuade or influence a particular group of people, or to facilitate future nonviolent action. The message can be directed toward the public, opponents, or people affected by the issue. Methods of protest and persuasion include speeches, public communications, petitions, symbolic acts, art, processions (marches), and other public assemblies.[10]

Noncooperation

Noncooperation involves the purposeful withholding of cooperation or the unwillingness to initiate in cooperation with an opponent. The goal of noncooperation is to halt or hinder an industry, political system, or economic process. Methods of noncooperation include labor strikes, economic boycotts, civil disobedience, tax refusal, and general disobedience.[10]

Nonviolent intervention

Nonviolent intervention, compared to protest and noncooperation, is a more direct method of nonviolent action. Nonviolent intervention can be used defensively—for example to maintain an institution or independent initiative—or offensively- for example to drastically forward a nonviolent struggle into the opponent’s territory. Intervention is often more immediate and effective than the other two methods, but is also harder to maintain and more taxing to the participants involved. Methods of intervention includes occupations (sit-ins), blockades, fasting (hunger strikes), truck cavalcades, and dual sovereignty/parallel government. [10]

Tactics must be carefully chosen, taking into account political and cultural circumstances, and form part of a larger plan or strategy. Gene Sharp, a political scientist and nonviolence activist, has written extensively about methods of nonviolence including a list of 198 methods of nonviolent action.[11] In early Greece, AristophanesLysistrata gives the fictional example of women withholding sexual favors from their husbands until war was abandoned. The deterrence of violent attack and promotion peaceful resolution of conflicts, as a method of intervention across borders, has occurred throughout history with some failures (at least on the level of deterring attack) such as the Human Shields in Iraq because it failed to ascertain the value of the goal compared with the value of human life in its context of war; but also many successes, such as the work of the Guatemala Accompaniment Project[12]. Several non-governmental organizations, including Peace Brigades International and Christian Peacemaker Teams, are working in this area . Their primary tactics are unarmed accompaniment, human rights observation, and reporting.[13][14]

Einstein was a strong supporter of nonviolence

Another powerful tactic of nonviolent intervention invokes public scrutiny of the oppressors as a result of the resisters remaining nonviolent in the face of violent repression. If the military or police attempt to violently repress nonviolent resisters, the power to act shifts from the hands of the oppressors to those of the resisters. If the resisters are persistent, the military or police will be forced to accept the fact that they no longer have any power over the resisters. Often, the willingness of the resisters to suffer has a profound effect on the mind and emotions of the oppressor, leaving them unable to commit such a violent act again. [15][16].

There are also many other leaders and theorists of nonviolence who have thought deeply about the spiritual and practical aspects of nonviolence, including: Leo Tolstoy, Lech Wałęsa, Petra Kelly, Nhat Hanh, Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, Albert Einstein, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, David McReynolds, Johan Galtung, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Daniel Berrigan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Mario Rodríguez Cobos (pen name Silo) and César Chávez.

We will wear you down by our capacity to suffer.
— Martin Luther King, 1963[17]

Green politics

Part of the Politics series on
Green politics
Sunflower
Environment Portal
Politics portal
v d e

Nonviolence has been a central concept in green political philosophy. It is included in the Global Greens Charter. Greens believe that society should reject the current patterns of violence and embrace nonviolence. Green Philosophy draws heavily on both Gandhi and the Quaker traditions, which advocate measures by which the escalation of violence can be avoided, while not cooperating with those who commit violence. These greens believe that the current patterns of violence are incompatible with a sustainable society because it uses up limited resources and many forms of violence, especially nuclear weapons, are damaging for the environment. Violence also diminishes one and the group.

Some green political parties, like the Dutch GroenLinks, evolved out of the cooperation of the peace movement with the environmental movement in their resistance to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

As Green Parties have moved from the fringes of society towards becoming more and more influential in government circles, this commitment to nonviolence has had to be more clearly defined. In many cases, this has meant that the party has had to articulate a position on non-violence that differentiates itself from classic pacifism. The leader of the German Greens, for example, was instrumental in the NATO intervention in Serbia, arguing that being in favor of nonviolence should never lead to passive acceptance of genocide. Similarly, Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada has stated that the Canadian intervention in Afghanistan is justified as a means of supporting women’s rights.

This movement by Green leadership has caused some internal dissension, as the traditional pacifist position is that there is no justification ever for committing violence.

Revolution

Certain individuals (Barbara Deming, Danilo Dolci, Devere Allen etc.) and party groups (eg. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Resistance or War Resisters League) have advocated nonviolent revolution as an alternative to violence as well as elitist reformism. This perspective is usually connected to militant anti-capitalism.

Many leftist and socialist movements have hoped to mount a “peaceful revolution” by organizing enough strikers to completely paralyze it. With the state and corporate apparatus thus crippled, the workers would be able to re-organize society along radically different lines.[citation needed] Some have argued that a relatively nonviolent revolution would require fraternisation with military forces.[18]

Criticism

Leon Trotsky, Frantz Fanon, Reinhold Niebuhr, Subhash Chandra Bose, George Orwell, Ward Churchill[19] and Malcolm X were fervent critics of nonviolence, arguing variously that nonviolence and pacifism are an attempt to impose the morals of the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat, that violence is a necessary accompaniment to revolutionary change, or that the right to self-defense is fundamental.

Malcolm X criticised nonviolence

In the midst of violent repression of radical African Americans in the United States during the 1960s, Black Panther member George Jackson said of the nonviolent tactics of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.”[20][21]

Malcolm X also clashed with civil rights leaders over the issue of nonviolence, arguing that violence should not be ruled out where no option remained:

“I believe it’s a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.”[22]

Lance Hill criticizes nonviolence as a failed strategy and argues that black armed self-defense and civil violence motivated civil rights reforms more than peaceful appeals to morality and reason (see Lance Hill’s “Deacons for Defense”)[23].

In his book How Nonviolence Protects the State, anarchist Peter Gelderloos criticizes nonviolence as being ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, tactically and strategical inferior to militant activism, and deluded.[24] Gelderloos claims that traditional histories whitewash the impact of nonviolence, ignoring the involvement of militants in such movements as the Indian independence movement and the Civil Rights movement and falsely showing Gandhi and King as being their respective movements’ most successful activists.[25] He further argues that nonviolence is generally advocated by privileged white people who expect “oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement’s demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary ‘critical mass.'”[26]

The efficacy of nonviolence was also challenged by some anti-capitalist protesters advocating a “diversity of tactics” during street demonstrations across Europe and the US following the anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington in 1999. American feminist writer D. A. Clarke, in her essay “A Woman With A Sword,” suggests that for nonviolence to be effective, it must be “practiced by those who could easily resort to force if they chose.” This argument reasons that nonviolent tactics will be of little or no use to groups that are traditionally considered incapable of violence, since nonviolence will be in keeping with people’s expectations for them and thus go unnoticed. Such is the principle of dunamis (from the Greek: δύνάμις or, restrained power).

Niebuhr’s criticism of nonviolence, expressed most clearly in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) is based on his view of human nature as innately selfish, an updated version of the Christian doctrine of original sin. Advocates of nonviolence generally do not accept the doctrine of original sin (though Martin Luther King, Jr., did accept a modified version of Niebuhr’s teachings on the subject).[citation needed]

Property damage

One minor, but commonly debated issue is whether the destruction of or damage to non-living objects, as opposed to people is actual “violence”. In much nonviolence literature, including Sharp, various forms of sabotage and damage to property are included within the scope of nonviolent action, while other authors consider destruction or destructive acts of any kind as potentially or actually a form of violence in that it might generate fear or hardship upon the owner or person dependent on that object.

Other authors or activists argue that property destruction can be strategically ineffective if the act provides a pretext for further repression or reinforces state power. Lakey, for instance, argues that the burning of cars during the Paris uprising of 1968 only served to undermine the growing working and middle-class support for the uprising and undermined its political potential.[citation needed]

Sabotage of machinery used in war, either during its production or after, complicates the issue further. Is saving a life by destroying property that will later be used for violence a violent act, or is passively allowing weapons to be used later the violent act (i.e. non-violence that leads to violence)? At a less abstract level, if someone is being beaten with a stick, it is usually not considered an act of violence to take the stick away, but if the stick falls to the ground and you break it, is that still considered a violent action?

In all of these debates it is relevant to consider the question of whether the perpetrator or victim of violence determines what is “violent”. Also, relative power of parties and the type of “weapon” being applied is relevant to the issue. Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks as an example cited. Force itself here becomes a relative measure of power and petty violence by the disenfranchised may be violence, but ultimately is not the same as overarching “power” to destroy.

Differing views

The term nonviolence is sometimes used to define different sets of limitations or features, as different actions are considered violent or not violent. In a Wikipedia article on the 2008 Tibetan unrest, a quotation from Dawa Tsering, an Additional Secretary in the Department of Information and International Relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile claims that actions of beating people and setting fire to a building with people holed up inside who end up being burnt to death are both scenarios of nonviolence; though, some Western definitions would clearly clash with their definition of nonviolence which appears to include everything but intentional causing of fatal harm. In an interview with Radio France International Tsering said[27]:

First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). …the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. …the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder.

Organizations

See also

A “Marcha do Sal” que 

Satyagraha é um têrmo sânscrito(सत्याग्रह) composto por duas palavras nesta línguaSatya, que pode ser traduzida como verdade; e agraha que significa firmeza, constância, [1] é uma filosofia desenvolvida por Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (também conhecido como “Mahatma” Gandhi) para o movimento de Resistência não-violenta na Índia

Gandhi empregou o satyagraha na campanha de independência da Índia e também durante sua permanência na Africa do Sul. A teoria do Satyagraha influenciou Martin Luther King, Jr. durante a campanha que ele liderou pelos direitos civis nos Estados Unidos da América.

Índice

 

Significado do termo

Este termo, um dos principais ensinamentos do indiano Mahatma Ghandi, designa o princípio da não-agressão, uma forma não-violenta deprotesto. Esta não deve ser confundida com uma adesão à passividade, é uma forma de ativismo que muitas vezes implica a desobediência civil.

Gandhi descreveu o termo como:

Tenho também a chamado de força do amor ou força da alma. Eu descobri o satyagraha pela primeira vez no inicio da minha busca pela verdade que não admitia o uso da violência contra um adversário, pois o mesmo deve ser desarmado dos seus erros com paciência e compaixão. Sendo o que parece ser verdade para um e um erro para o outro. E paciência significa auto-sofrimento. Assim, a doutrina passou a significar reivindicação de verdade, e não pela inflição de sofrimento sobre o adversário, mas sobre si mesmo. [2]

A resistência passiva

Quando Gandhi desenvolveu sua filosofia de não-violência, ele não encontrava uma palavra adequada para defini-la em inglês, então decidiu usar esta palavra sânscrita, satyagraha.

No contexto do movimento da Índia em busca da independência, o “satyagrahi” (“aquele que pratica a “satyagraha”) é a pessoa que, após ter procurado a verdade em espírito de paz e benevolência, e tendo compreendido tal verdade em termos de um mal ou um erro a ser corrigido, afirma a sua verdade em confronto aberto com o mal através da prática da não violência , já que a utilização da violência resultaria precisamente de uma percepção distorcida da verdade. Em seu ato de resistência bem intencionado, o “satyagrahi” sempre informa seu adversário sobre suas intenções e evita sistematicamente a prática de ocultar estratégias de combate que lhe possam ser vantajosas. Pensada nesses termos, a “satyagraha” é menos um ato de desafio com vistas à conquista do que uma tentativa de conversão que deveria, idealmente, ter como resultado nem a vitória e nem a derrota de cada uma das partes conflitantes, mas antes uma nova ordem harmônica.

Gandhi escreveu:

“A distinção entre a resistência passiva como é entendida e praticada no ocidente do satyagraha que eu desenvolvi como uma doutrina lógica e espiritual. É uma metáfora para a não-violência. Eu frequentemente usava “resistência passiva” e “satyagraha” como termos sinônimos: mas com o desenvolvimento da doutrina do satyagraha, a expressão “resistência passiva” deixa de ser sinônimo, pois a resistência passiva pode fazer uso da violência, como no caso da sufragistas e tem sido universalmente reconhecida como uma arma dos fracos. Além disso, resistência passiva não envolve necessariamente a adesão a verdade completa em todas as circunstâncias. Portanto, ela é diferente do satyagraha em três aspectos essenciais: Satyagraha é uma arma dos fortes, e não admite o uso da violência sob qualquer circunstância, e ela sempre insiste em defender a verdade. Acho que isto já fez a distinção perfeitamente clara. “[3]

Gandhi liderando a caminhada do sal , um notável examplo de Satyagraha

Princípios para Satyagrahis

Gandhi imaginou satyagraha como não apenas uma tática para ser usado em luta política, mas como um solvente universal de injustiça. Ele considera que é igualmente aplicável em grande escala da luta política e de conflitos interpessoais e que deve ser ensinado a todos. [4]

Ele fundou a Sabarmati Ashram para ensinar satyagraha. Ele pediu aos satyagrahis seguissem os seguintes princípios: [5]

  1. Não violência (Ahimsa)
  2. Verdade – isso inclui honestidade, mas ultrapassa ao dizer que vivem plenamente de acordo com a verdade e com na devoção a ela.
  3. Não-roubar
  4. Castidade (brahmacharya) – isto inclui castidade sexual, mas também ao desapego de outros desejos sensuais por devoção à verdade
  5. Não-posse (não é a mesma coisa que pobreza)
  6. Trabalho Corporal ou trabalhar pelo pão de cada dia
  7. Dieta
  8. Destemor
  9. Igualdade de respeitar todas as religiões
  10. Estratégia Econômica como o boicote (boicote aos produtos ingleses)
  11. Libertar-se do conceito de intocabilidade

Em outra ocasião, ele citou outras sete regras como “essencial para todos os Satyagrahi na Índia”: [6]

  1. Ter uma fé viva em Deus
  2. Acreditar na verdade e na não-violência e que ter fé na bondade intrínseca da natureza humana esperando que ela seja evocada pelo sofrimento de se manter no satyagraha
  3. Deve levar uma vida casta, e estar disposto a morrer ou perder todas as suas posses
  4. Deve vestir um khadi
  5. Deve abster-se do álcool e outros intoxicantes
  6. Deve proceder de acordo com todas as regras de disciplina conhecidas
  7. Deve obedecer a regras da prisão ao menos que sejam especialmente concebidas para quebrar o seu auto-respeito`

Regras para Campanhas usando o Satyagraha

Gandhi propôs uma série de regras para satyagrahis em uma campanha de resistência:

  1. Trabalhar sem ira
  2. Sofrer pela ira do adversário
  3. Nunca retaliar a agressões ou punições, mas não mostrar, ter medo de punição ou assalto, ou a uma ordem dada com fúria
  4. Apresentar voluntariamente à prisão ou ao confisco de seus próprios bens
  5. Se você é um administrador de imóveis, defender que a propriedade de forma (não-violenta) com a sua vida
  6. Não maldiçoar ou praguejar
  7. Não insultar o adversário
  8. Nem saudar, nem insultar a bandeira do seu oponente ou dos líderes do seu adversário.
  9. Se alguém tenta insultar ou agredir o seu adversário, defender o seu adversário (não-violência), com a sua vida
  10. Enquanto prisioneiro, se comportar com cortesia e obedecer os regulamentos da prisão(exceto aqueles que são contrários à auto-respeito)
  11. Como um prisioneiro, não peça tratamento especial ou mais favorável
  12. Como um prisioneiro, não seja rápido na tentativa de ganhar conveniências cuja privação não implicam em qualquer prejuízo para a sua auto-estima
  13. Alegremente obedeça as ordens dos líderes da ação de desobediência civil
  14. Não selecionar ou escolher quais as ordens que deve obedecer, se você achar a ação tenha algo de impróprio ou imoral, corte sua ligação com a ação totalmente.
  15. Não fazer a sua participação condicionada à companheiros que cuidem dos seus dependentes enquanto você estiver participando da campanha ou na prisão, não esperava que eles forneçam esse apoio
  16. Não se tornar sua causa um querelas de coisas banais
  17. Não tomar partido em disputas, mas só auxilie aquele partido que está comprovadamente certo; em caso de conflito inter-religioso, de sua vida para proteger (de forma não-violenta) às pessoas em perigo de ambos os lados
  18. Evitar ações que podem dar origem a conflitos banais
  19. Não tomar parte nas procissões que a firam a sensibilidades religiosas de qualquer comunidade

[editar]Satyagraha, em grande escala conflito

((main | Bardoli Satyagraha | Champaran e Kheda Satyagraha | Dharasana Satyagraha | Bandeira Satyagraha | Guruvayur Satyagraha | Não cooperação circulação | Sair Índia Movimento | Salt Satyagraha | Vaikom Satyagraha))

Ao utilizar satyagraha em conflito políticos em grande escala envolvendo a desobediência civil, Gandhi acreditava que a satyagrahis deve receber formação para assegurar a disciplina. Ele escreveu que “só quando uma pessoas tenham demonstrado a sua lealdade ativa obedecendo a legislação do Estado que eles adquirem o direito de desobediência civil”.

Por isso, faz parte da disciplina dos satyagrahis:

  1. Apreciar as demais leis do Estado, e cumpri-las voluntariamente.
  2. Tolerar essas leis, mesmo quando são incômodas.
  3. Estar dispostos a sofrer a dor da, perda de propriedade, e suportar o sofrimento que pode ser infligido à família e amigos. [7]

Essa obediência tem não pode ser apenas crítica, mas extraordinária:

… um homem honesto e respeitável não começará de repente roubar, haja ou não uma lei à favor ou contra o roubo, mas este mesmo homem não sentirá remorso em não observar a lei sobre acender os faróis da sua bicicletas após escurecer. … Mas ele observará qualquer lei obrigatória, ainda que apenas para escapar do transtorno de enfrentar um processo por violação da lei. Tal submissão não é, contudo, o desejo espontâneo de obediência que se requer de um Satyagrahi. [8]

Gandhi conduziu em 1930 foi uma manifestação dedesobediência civil conduzida de acordo com os princípios da Satyagraha.

Vídeos do VodPod não estão mais disponíveis.

more about ““, posted with vodpod

Vídeos do VodPod não estão mais disponíveis.

more about “Biometrics“, posted with vodpod

 

No momento em que escrevo há bastante nervosismo na Esplanada, coração da República e da cidade onde moro, com a prisão do banqueiro Daniel Dantas. Motivos de sobra para tanto nervosismo o jornalista Bob Fernandes aponta em artigo publicado na revista eletrônica Terra Magazine [1]. Numa dessas irônicas coincidências, no aniversário da Revolução Constitucionalista de 1932, logo após o presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal, responsável por guardar e interpretar a Constituição, ter exibido algum do seu, perante câmeras de telejornais.

 

Mas é uma outra exibição, passada sem interesse da mídia no dia seguinte, que será mote destas reflexões: a de um senador que vem cumprindo um papel tipo “venha-a-nós”, para acalmar os que se indignaram e se alarmaram com dispositivos abusivos na proposta de lei contra “crimes informáticos” que estava a ponto de ser votada pelo plenário do Senado. Ou para acalmar os que desconfiaram do modo peculiar de debate e tramitação dessa proposta, das quais ele se fez coadjuvante [2]. O senador perdeu a calma ao responder a uma silenciosa manifestação desta indignação e alarme, enrolando-se na bandeira do combate à pedofilia, durante a abertura do Fórum de Inclusão Digital que ocorria Brasília [3]. Uma exibição dificilmente compatível com este papel.

No que se refere ao produto em questão, encomendado para ser entregue ao ordenamento jurídico pátrio num prazo ou que relaxa ou se esgota com todo esse nervosismo, alguns sinais teriam aberto espaço para este seu papel e para alguma acomodação. Pero no mucho. O relator firmou-se em manter um certo dispositivo, um que pode induzir provedores de internet a se tornarem ciberagentes policiais (proposta de inciso III ao art. 22). Enquanto escrevo este artigo a matéria atropelou a pauta, foi aprovada no plenário do Senado e volta à Câmara, para uma tramitação que promete, digamos, continuar curiosa. A começar por se saber quem, afinal, no Senado conhecia a versão na qual votou. Sobre isto não podemos saber muito. Mas podemos, pelo menos, perquirir o por quê desse dispositivo imexível, nessa tramitação trepidante.

Um provedor, conforme insiste o relator, terá que saber quais crimes são passíveis de acionamento penal público incondicionado, e quais não o são, para saber quando repassar, ou não, denúncia da qual tomar conhecimento, se não quiser se tornar ele mesmo enquadradável como criminoso. Sabe alguém dizer quais tipos de crime são assim passíveis, e quais não o são? (eu ainda não encontrei quem pudesse me responder). Ou seja, na prática, acabará valendo o efeito: denuncia-se qualquer suspeita. O que transformará provedores em capatazes do escravagismo digital proprietário prenunciado por um outro dispositivo, proposto para o art. 285 do Código Penal [4]. Provedores de Internet terão que agir como cibercapatazes, e, a partir da suas automatizadas denúncias, o Estado poderá, legalmente, perseguir o que lhe convier. Inclusive crimes tipificados, na proposta, por norma penal em branco a ser preenchida por interesses privados atuando na esfera virtual.

No episódio XII dos “Sapos Piramidais“, apresentado no 9º FISL, o destaque foi para o “forum shifting“: quando interesses monopolistas e/ou totalitaristas promovem uma iniciativa de radicalização normativa em um fórum internacional (OMC, OMPI, UE, ALCA, etc.), e tal iniciativa se vê neutralizada, atrasada ou atolada por mobilização no terceiro setor, na periferia do capitalismo ou por alianças entre tais (ex.: TRIPS+ na OMC, SCCR na OMPI, patentes de software na UE, subsídios na ALCA), os interessados na radicalização abandonam o Fórum e se reagrupam, fundando ou “sequestrando” outro fórum. A novidade passa a ser, como no fórum demandado pela RIAA — o ACTA [11] –, que as negociações podem recomeçar secretamente, e serem assim levadas até onde possível [5]. 

Autoridades do comércio de alguns países centrais que participam do ACTA querem, pelo pouco que se sabe do que já vazou, reforçar uma das metas buscadas pelos negociadores da convenção de Budapeste, qual seja, a de transformar provedores em cibercapatazes [6]. Trata-se de uma medida capaz de diluir o custo da eficácia normativa na esfera virtual, e que desconsidera efeitos colaterais. Tal como no anterior ciclo escravagista, na esfera laboral. Um capataz é um ente privado capaz de fazer, contra quem dele depende, justiça com suas próprias mãos salvo quando esta desfavoreça um interesse maior, que para isso o coage e/ou o protege. Pela proposta, provedor que não repassar denúncia de crime passível de acionamento penal público incondicionado — o que quer que venha a ser isso — seria (ou será) também criminoso.

Na conveção de Budapeste, os interesses radicalizantes ali representados foram de entidades policiais dos países centrais do capitalismo, para os quais a grande ameaça é à riqueza representada por bens intangíveis. O controle sobre a apropriação destes bens vem se erodindo, com a crescente perda de eficácia dos mecanismos de manutenção de escassez artificial na esfera virtual necessários a tal apropriação. A erosão desta escassez artifical e virtual os assusta, enquanto o aumento de uma escassez real, ocorrendo na esfera material com energia e com alimentos, não lhes interessa. Pelo menos não diretamente.

A escassez virtual segue erodindo, e a escassez material segue crescendo, sem que os interesses representados por essas entidades policiais tenham poder de persuasão normativa suficiente para alterar o quadro geral em ritmo hábil. Eles têm menos poder do que os grandes interesses comerciais pós-industriais, que por sua vez deles precisam para dar eficácia a suas normas de “livre-comércio”. Os dois tipos de interesse, então, logicamente confluem. Defende-se lá, no ACTA, o que se pede aqui, à guisa da convenção de Budapeste. Dentre as confluências importantes, a “capatazização” dos provedores. Buscada agora com maior poder de persuasão, passível de sanções comerciais (bancadas por projeção militar) contra recalcitrantes. Via novas normas a serem ditadas, e logo [9], pelo ACTA. Há nisso duas lições, e uma dúvida.

A primeira lição dá sentido a um comentário que o senador relator da matéria proferiu no seminário da Câmara onde se discutiu sua proposta de substitutivo em 2006 [10]: que não adianta resistir à sua proposta, pois as mudanças normativas que ela propõe uma hora virão, de uma forma ou de outra. A segunda lição é sobre como podem convergir os interesses que movem sua proposta e aqueles comuns entre os bilderbergers, para os quais um governo global e totalitário, consentido ou oculto, será útil e/ou inevitável. São lições que também deixam muitas pessoas nervosas, algumas por razões opostas ao da visão de um banqueiro em algemas. Razões que podem levá-los a desqualificar o contéudo dessas lições como bravata, paranóia, conspiracionismo; e o conteúdo da proposta, como inevitável, inapelável, infugível.

Se, contudo, tais lições forem significativas, então bandeiras de camuflagem serão úteis e importantes nesse estágio do processo de radicalização normativa globalizada. Bandeiras tais como “guerra ao terrorismo” ou “combate à pedofilia”, esta a preferida pelo marketing que promove o dito substitutivo. Como indica a disputa política em torno dela, na CPI hora em curso sobre o tema e em projetos de lei concorrentes, à luz do conteúdo de seus dispositivos a respeito [8]. Resta a dúvida: sobre onde se inovaria mais, em se tratando de legislar à sorrelfa. Sobre onde tudo isso vai dar, não deve restar dúvida: está às claras no final do mais antigo e circulado dos livros. 

Prof. Pedro Antônio Dourado de Rezende *
Departamento de Ciência da Computação 
Universidade de Brasília
9 a 10 de julho de 2008