The Anarchist

Last week I introduced the broad overview of the anarchist approach. In short, we should be skeptical of all hierarchical institutions and any information that they produce or disseminate.

This is because hierarchies are controlled by those at the top, those who make the decisions. Naturally, they will use the power of the whole institution to increase their own personal power, and this will lead to their relative power increasing and increasing. The natural trajectory of any hierarchical institution is toward completely centralized power, absolute despotism.

Now, we may have to have some hierarchical structure at some point; it may be inevitable. The anarchist is not committed to the possibility of absolute elimination of hierarchies. They’re agnostic on that and on the existence of governments. It is an open question whether we will ever reach a point where governments could be completely eliminated.

Merely, we are committed to reducing hierarchies as much as possible (because of their natural tendency to centralize power at the top), and we are committed to eliminating hierarchies whenever they do not uphold our core political values. Different anarchists take this differently. I, as well as a large section of modern anarchists, take fairness to be the central political value.

Feudal hierarchies evolved, over millennia, complex and far-reaching mechanisms for upholding the power of those at the top. Ideologies such as racism, xenophobia and religion, for example, evolved because they uphold power. The prime example of feudal times is the Christian ideology, which states and the Catholic church propagated so that they could convince peasants to support wars of acquisition, which it could use to justify killing dissenters against its power, etc.

After feudalism was finally overcome it was replaced by another hierarchical system, and this system evolved even more complex and far-reaching mechanisms for centralizing power at the top. Capitalist firms outmoded feudal firms.

They evolved faster. And this is just how we should think of institutions: in evolutionary terms. There are selective forces which cause institutions to succeed or fail, and over time certain features are selected for by these Darwinian institutional forces.

Capitalist firms, just like any hierarchical institution, impose the will and ideology of the elites at the top of the hierarchy. Only they are far more adaptive, so they do it much more effectively.

Capitalist firms have evolved a vast array of complex methods for imposing the ideology which is beneficial to those at the top. And, very importantly, it is not the work of anyone intentionally. It is what firms are selected for, if they are to dominate. A firm which destroys ideas hostile to its power will survive.

So capitalist firms have a supercharged version of the ideological coercion which existed in feudal societies. Since they control the means of distributing all information, this ideological control runs all the way deep in us.

So what are some of the obvious criticisms of capitalism which have been beaten out of us then? That is the glaring question at this point. I intend to spend a few articles addressing these in coming weeks. For now, I only have space to introduce the single, most viciously suppressed anti-capitalist idea.

The central argument from the work of Marx is just not allowed in the discourse, and it is because it opens up a whole line of thought, which, if people were to be exposed to, would cause them to act in very hostile ways towards capitalist hierarchies. Capitalist firms naturally, and very effectively, suppressed this idea.

Those of us with no capital are forced to work for someone who does have it. What is our alternative? Death. That is the only alternative. What does this do? It puts us in the worst bargaining position possible. We accept the conditions offered by the capitalist or we die.

The bargaining position is such that the capitalist can use his comparative advantage to increase his comparative advantage. The capitalist only becomes more powerful relative to us the more we work for him.

But you do not have to work for any particular capitalist. You can choose. So it’s not slavery right? I mean, you’re forced to do someone’s bidding or die, but you can choose between a few. That’s the great advantage of capitalism. We can choose our owner. Pick the best slave-master.

The fact that people can be born into a society in which their only alternatives are death or slavery to their favorite capitalist makes it clear that it is so unfair that no anarchist can accept it. Capitalist institutions are the most refined and effective power centralizing machines, and they are, therefore, the greatest enemy of anarchists. This is but one of a plethora of reasons that capitalism is anti-fairness and anti-human.

BRIAN MOEN thinks that capitalism is not in this season. He can be reached at bkmoen@ucdavis.edu.

Health Education and Promotion (HEP) would like to comment on the article titled “Healthy for the Holidays” by Naomi Nishihara. This article contains a wealth of information about how to stay healthy during — and after — the holiday season through a combination of healthy food choices and increased physical activity.

Last spring, HEP launched a Physical Activity Campaign promoting the recommendation that students participate in 30 minutes of activity on at least five days a week. This can be broken up into 10-minute bouts, which is a great way for students to fit the recommended amount of activity into a busy schedule.

Check out our website atshcs.ucdavis.edu/hep for some great physical activity, nutrition and other wellness resources. Also, make sure to click on the Physical Activity Map at maps.shcs.ucdavis.edu/ to find places to work out, get equipment and find other resources for all your physical activity needs.

Thank you for including an article about staying healthy throughout the holidays. This is an important topic, and getting this information out to the student population is a great way to encourage happy, healthy lifestyles at UC Davis.

Diana Grandi
Harvest Garden and Nutrition Student Assistant
Health Education and Promotion

Gov. Jerry Brown’s new spending plan directly concerns every UC student.

If passed, UC and CSU will receive a $250 million increase in state funding. The money comes with a catch, though — Brown is requiring a unit cap of 270 quarterly units, which will be lowered to 225 units two years after implementation. Students who exceed the cap will have to pay the “full cost of instruction,” meaning, out-of-state tuition.

That means students who make a last-minute decision to change their major and have to go over the unit cap would pay roughly $34,000 in tuition alone, as opposed to $12,000.

This is unfortunate.

UC educations are no longer about learning and growing. UC educations are about getting degrees and getting out into the workforce as soon as possible. Brown’s plan — meant to give students incentive to graduate faster — exemplifies what a UC education is all about.

We acknowledge that we’re not in Europe. Students aren’t attending university classes for free and they can’t afford to stay in school for years and years. We know that the European model of higher education doesn’t fit prevailing American capitalist ideologies, and we know that learning, just for the sake of learning, doesn’t happen as much as it should anymore.

So while we try to be realistic and work within the system, the unit cap idea doesn’t seem that bad. It’s a reasonable way to bring in more income for the University while also encouraging potentially lazy students to focus. Plus, it can free up resources and classroom space for more students.

If Brown’s plan is implemented, we hope that the University strengthens its advising services to ensure motivated students can, indeed, graduate on time and avoid enormous fees. At this point, many students say they can’t graduate in four years because they can’t get into their classes. It’s not their fault — it’s the University’s lack of resources. Brown’s plan does state that exceptions can be made, and we hope the University makes use of those exceptions.

Sandbox Politico

Think back to last quarter. The sun was still shining, birds were chirping and a man was exposing himself to students in the Arboretum. But amidst the normal quarterly fracas you may recall the ASUCD elections scandal; this publication covered it at length.

One minute Cerberus himself was threatening the maws of hell at the Senate, and the next moment everything was fine with ASUCD resuming business as usual. What happened?

I’ll spare you the procedural explanation; it would bore most of you (if you do care to know, feel free to ask and we can be fat friends frolicking through fields of policy together).

Here’s the fun part though. At the time, then-Senator Elect Alyson Sagala was sued via the Elections Committee for failing to report an expenditure. The item of interest: booze. The complaint alleged Sagala and her SMART cohorts had thrown a party linked to their campaign and had purchased alcohol for the event which subsequently did not appear as an expenditure.

Let’s dismiss the merits or lack thereof of the complaint. Never mind the plaintiff could have been sued for the exact same offense, never mind the plaintiff was himself underage and let’s not even consider how difficult it is to establish a clear purpose for a party … hmm how would that trial go? Judge: And why did you have this raucous social gathering? SMART: Uhh I dunno, me and my friends were bored and finals were coming up. Judge: Guilty! Alas the fun police strike again.

Back to our narrative, however.

With this complaint lodged, Sagala was pushed over three election violation points, formally disqualified by the Elections Committee, and the gates of Hades swung open. People were outraged, rightfully so. Sagala was the second-highest vote-getter in the election and now she and her entire electoral base were being silenced for something as petty as an expenditure form.

Let’s not stop there; remember she had three violation points. One of the other two was awarded because Sagala was seen campaigning within 100 feet of a polling station. In fact she was documented approximately 60 feet away, talking to a student and “gesturing at a polling station.” If you’re rolling your eyes at these charges, then we’re on the same page.

Internal Affairs Commission Chair Sergio Cano (great guy, if you meet him ask him to tell you his favorite bedtime story called the ASUCD Bylaws) and myself set about trying to fix this mess; here’s why.

Think about how this whole fiasco would look in a real court of law — you know, with a judge, and little jury people, and everything. Let’s return to our hypothetical courtroom. Judge: So this girl was ousted from an elected seat and an apparently fair and neutral democratic process was overturned, disenfranchising hundreds of undergraduate students. Attorney: That’s correct. Judge: And why was this done? Attorney: Well you see, she, like, stood within an imaginary circle, talked to someone, and pointed at a table. Judge: … Are you serious?

You see, these charges wouldn’t hold up, and historically they haven’t. In 2001 ASUCI, UC Irvine’s student government, was sued by a disqualified elections candidate. The school lost. The court ruled the election regulations constituted a restriction of the candidate’s freedom of speech and could not meet the legal threshold of strict scrutiny (Welker v. Cicerone).

True, a similar case went the other way in Montana in which the student government’s regulations were upheld, but it still resulted in a messy and expensive legal battle. Essentially, if you don’t want your student fees being used to defend your government in open court, don’t disqualify candidates flippantly.

So what do we take away from this experience? Is the ASUCD Elections Committee completely powerless and ineffective?

Not exactly, but they’re not as powerful as you’d expect. They need to be thought of less as police and more as arbitrators placed to try and keep things civil and wag a finger when a naughty candidate does something wrong. Does this then mean candidates can break rules with impunity? Not quite. Certain offenses are against University Codes which can pass muster in federal court.

Though it was not the case with Sagala, the student body should think twice about voting for a candidate who has knowingly broken the rules of a fair electoral process to gain a competitive advantage. Such unethical people should never have to be disqualified, they should never have been elected in the first place.

JUSTIN GOSS doesn’t always report his expenditures, but when he does they’re definitely not for Dos Equis. If you would like to discuss his preferences regarding alcoholic beverages you may do so at jjgoss@ucdavis.edu.

Sex & Society

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a lactation room at the ARC.

My first reaction was positive — giving women a place to pump on campus means more mothers will have the option to breastfeed, even if they are working or going to classes.

My mind went to the few new mothers I’ve known, and their struggles when it came to breastfeeding in public. Now they would have a place to go free of stares, rude comments and even requests to leave certain establishments.

But should they really have to hide?

According to a recent study, 40 percent of American mothers fear the stigma of breastfeeding in public over the possible pain or dysfunction (compared to 28 percent of German moms, or just 11 percent of Turkish moms). Despite the fact that U.S. law protects a woman’s right to breastfeed her child in public, many people still view the partially-exposed breast of a nursing mother as “indecent exposure.”

In the past couple of years, many women across the country have been unfairly singled out by their choices to breastfeed in public. In September, a woman was nursing her baby at Applebee’s when the manager told her she must move to the bathroom or leave the restaurant. When she refused, he called the police. Last November, a woman nursing in a Target store was surrounded by eight employees who gave her the same ultimatum.

Earlier this month, Jessica Martin-Weber wrote a blog entry about her experience trying to breastfeed in Las Vegas (ironically, she was there to speak at “MommyCon”). The manager of the hotel’s cafe approached her and requested that she stop, as it was making other customers uncomfortable.

She couldn’t help but notice that these people were bothered by a discreetly breastfeeding mother, but not by the giant near-nude burlesque advertisement plastered at the entry of the hotel, or the topless video promotions in the elevators, or the nudie cards handed out on every street corner.

Breasts have become so sexualized in the U.S. that their primary function — to nourish babies — has been almost completely overshadowed.

I’m not saying that breasts shouldn’t be involved in sex. I love being fondled as much as the next girl, and there’s good reason: Nipple stimulation releases oxytocin, which causes pleasurable feelings and promotes bonding between mother and child (or in this case, sexual partners).

My only gripe is that American culture has become so obsessed with boobs that we’re forgetting — or would prefer to forget — why they’re there in the first place.

Though breasts are inherently connected to sex, they are not inherently sexual. It may seem this way because of the wide spread of Western influence, but in many tribal communities breasts are not viewed as sexual objects. For example, the Himba people of northern Namibia do not cover their chests because their culture does not sexualize them in the way that our culture does. However, Himba women always cover their thighs — to them, such exposure would seem as indecent as a topless woman in America.

Or take Europe, where breasts are considered sexual, but are not on par with genitalia as they are here. On most European beaches, for example, it is not uncommon to see women sunbathing topless.

Even in America, this disgust with breastfeeding is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1970s and ’80s, Sesame Street featured segments of nursing mothers. In one episode, Buffy St. Marie guest starred and breastfed her son, explaining “I’m feeding the baby, see? He’s drinking milk from my breast.” However, these segments have switched exclusively to bottle-feeding mothers since the ’90s.

The media, then, is largely to blame. The over-sexualization of boobs (especially in advertisements) combined with the under-exposure of breastfeeding in the media has caused many mothers to believe that nursing in public is indecent and abnormal.

It’s not.

Breastfeeding is not sexual, nor is it producing waste. It is natural and healthy, and the presence of a lactation room does not mean that new mothers should be banished to it. They are a great resource for privacy, peace and quiet, but not a requirement. Women who feel comfortable nursing in public should have the right to do so without being asked to stop or hide.

If the sight makes you uncomfortable, you can leave.

Or better yet, take America one step closer to sanity and remind yourself that your aversion is not innate: It’s cultural, and completely optional.

MARISA MASSARA’s boobs can be reached at mvmassara@ucdavis.edu.

I recently took a trip to Bruges, Belgium — a slightly unconventional stop for the American abroad. It’s a name that usually precedes reaching for a map.

If the goal of a vacation is to become lost, I succeeded on accident. It turns out this was necessary to find out not just where, but also when, I was.

What little I knew about Bruges is that it is very beautiful and very old. That statement can be applied to most places in Europe.

Bruges is notable because what is old is never separate. The old is never established as The Other.
Stonehenge, for example, is a tourist attraction to gawk at before returning to modern life. Fanny-pack toting, camera-armed rubberneckers can exit the highway, take a few snaps and drive off again. I’ve never actually been to Stonehenge, though a Welsh guy I met told me as much.

Stephansplatz Cathedral, in Vienna, sits among modern clothing stores in the shopping district. Sightseers are shared between the old and new.

By comparison, Bruges is absolute in its ancientness. The large majority of buildings in the center of the city are hundreds of years old. The same goes for the canals and roads that transport the denizens of this fanciful town through space and time.

Bruges is a museum. Most everything has great significance and the past constantly intrudes on the present. Things are not to be moved around. Redevelopment is a curse word. There will be no skyscrapers.
Medieval landmarks still dominate the skyline, and most likely always will. Any effort to draw attention away from heritage, history and tradition is to be scrutinized.

In the town square there is a belfry tower completed in the 1400s, its bells ringing out on the hour. There are wooden windmills. There are so many swans it seems as if all swans must be from Bruges. It’s all nauseatingly pretty.

The tower of The Church of our Lady epitomizes solidity, one of the largest brick structures in the world. It stands firm in angry, red defiance of our modern steel buildings that sway in the wind.

The cobblestone streets attacked the arches of my feet with all the malevolence of a crotchety senior.
Beer, a drink that was initially brewed before the first crusades, is traditional. At the time it was preferred to drinking water, as it was more sanitary.

If Bruges was a country, its chief export would almost certainly be oldness.

What I found myself wondering is what it would be like to live in Bruges — to overtly live in history. When you live in a house that was built in the 15th century, you are reminded of how old the world is every day.

It requires an especially anachronistic frame of mind to accept that your home and office are medieval, that you may get around by horse and buggy if you wish, and that it’s all something worth tweeting about.
Human activity in the Bruges area predates the Romans, and it’s not hard to imagine by looking around.
This calls to mind all the people that lived before the present. All those that built the belfry and dug the canals that attracted me to Bruges have long since disappeared.

This is a context that is lacking in Davis. Our place in time is not so immediately apparent — it takes a little more meditation. That we live in history is a concept so hugely obvious that it doesn’t come up very often.

Another seemingly imperceptible truism is our mortality. Most college students do not think about this. Why should we?

If life is anything like a college course, then death is its defining topic. This will become more apparent by the midterm. Yes, you will be tested on this.

Kitschy tourist traps notwithstanding (there is a museum in Bruges that features a life-size chocolate model of President Barack Obama) wandering the streets has a tempering effect. Just as you appreciate how many came before, you see there will be many after.

To recite some platitudes: live like there’s no tomorrow, life is short, YOLO and all that.

Our lives are a blip on the spectrum of time. We shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. If that upsets you, remember that you don’t have to take me or this column seriously either.

You can email SEAN LENEHAN with existential crises at splenehan@ucdavis.edu, but what’s the point really?