Monthly Archives: January 2021

Editor's note: Dr. Payne has taught political science at Yale, Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins, and Texas A&M University, and is a research fellow at the Independent Institute. His book on libertarianism, The Big Government We Love to Hate, was released this month.

In the accounts about the Trump supporters who attacked the US Capitol, the media have sometimes alluded to supposed libertarian connections. The Wall St. Journal calls Parler, the social-media network which, it says, served as a hub for people who organized, participated in or celebrated the storming of the Capitol a libertarian-leaning social-media site.

In the same story it reported that one of the participants (Rosanne Boyland) joined at least two libertarian-leaning Facebook groups. A New York Times story reported that some people arrested in the riots have been linked to the Oath Keepers. This organization was founded by a man who, the Times noted, once worked as an aide to the former Representative Ron Paul, the Texas libertarianas if this fact helped explain his riot-inspiring role.

Of course, terms referring to political beliefs are rather broad, incorporating a range of views, but this connection is implausible. To call an ardent, violent Trump supporter a libertarian departs substantially from the traditional meaning of the term.

The confusion stems from two very different conceptions of what it means to be against government. In the typical partisan battle, the agitators are against the particular people in charge of the current government: they are challenging King George, Tsar Nicolas II, Nancy Pelosi. They do not question the idea of government itself. They believe that when controlled by people with good intentionsnamely themselvesthe government solves problems and improves the human condition. Once they displace the incumbents, the dissenters will set up their own government, giving it large, and growing, responsibilities.

The other conception of being against government is the position that government itself is not a moral, rational, and responsible problem-solving agency, no matter who tries to run it. Therefore, we shouldprudently and thoughtfullymove away from our dependence on it. This is the libertarian perspective.

Libertarian philosophers arrived at their skepticism from an examination of governments basis of power. This is its use of physical force, its use of policemen, jails and gallows to (try to) fix social problems. They asked, is force a healthy foundation for reform? Is the initiation of force a healthy way to deal with problems like economic inequality, substance abuse, or the lack of education?

Almost as soon as these early thinkers raised this point, they realized that a negative answer was indicated. As William Godwin, one of the first libertarians, put it in 1793, the calling in of force as the corrective of error is invidious. This led him to the observation that government, even in its best state, is an evil. This theme was echoed by a number of 19th-century libertarians including the English philosopher Auberon Herbert. Do you not see, said Herbert, that of all weapons that men can take into their hands force is the vainest, the weakest? In the long dark history of the world, what real, what permanent good has ever come from the force which men have never hesitated to use against each other?

Another 19th-century libertarian was Henry David Thoreau. The State, he said, is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced.

Over the past two centuries, the number of activists questioning government because of its basis in force has grown, leading, in recent times, to the formation of dozens of libertarian think tanks, and a Libertarian party in 1971. The partys Statement of Principles, adopted in 1974, incorporates this concern about force: We support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others.

In a two-century tradition, then, libertarians have established themselves as singularly opposed to the initiation of force as a method of achieving social or political aims. Of all people, they would be the last to participate in, or approve of, any kind of violent attack for political purposes.

At bottom, libertarians are a patient community, all too aware of the myths and excitements that swirl the masses into each new wave of big government involvement. And aware, too, of the vast complexity of human society, a complexity that tends to make centralized, coercive approaches to social problems dysfunctional.

Quietly, thoughtfullyand of course, peacefullylibertarians are trying to persuade their friends and neighbors that the path to healthy social relationships cannot lie in any kind of march on the US Congress.

More here:

Were the Capitol Rioters Really Libertarians? - Foundation for Economic Education

Just months ago, Florida residents overwhelmingly voted to approve Amendment 2, a ballot initiative that raised the states minimum wage to $15 an hour by September 2026. Today, St. Petersburg State Senator Jeffrey Brandesa well-connected veteran of the Florida GOPfiled SJR 854, a measure that will, if enacted, exempt some Floridians from the increased minimum-wage protection.

The Florida legislature has long treated grassroots ballot initiatives with open contempt. In 2017, after more than 70 percent of state voters elected to legalize medical marijuana, state lawmakers responded by temporarily making it illegal to smoke medicinal weed. In 2018, when a supermajority of Floridians voted to return voting rights to at least 1.4 million formerly incarcerated people, the GOP-dominated legislature passed a glorified poll-tax that made sure that 800,000 of those people remained ineligible to vote. This week, like clockwork, the state Republican Partydominated by pro-Trump apparatchiks and a smaller Libertarian-minded winghas launched its plan to kneecap the minimum wage increase, which passed with over 60 percent approval.

Brandes is now proposing amending the state constitution once more, to allow state lawmakers to reduce the Minimum Wage rate for prisoners in the state correctional system, reduce the Minimum Wage rate for employees convicted of a felony, reduce the Minimum Wage rate for employees younger than 21 years of age, [and] reduce the Minimum Wage rate for other hard-to-hire employees

Given Brandess connections within the party, as well as the state GOPs general antipathy toward raising the minimum wage, its quite likely the measure could reach voters by November 2021. (More than 60 percent of Florida voters must approve amendments to the state constitution for changes to take effect.) The state GOP has prioritized a number of other draconian bills, including a much-criticized proposal from Gov. Ron DeSantis that would crack down on peaceful protesters and make it legal, in some cases, to run demonstrators over.

That this proposal targets both currently and formerly imprisoned people is something of a shock for those following Brandess career: Over the last handful of years, there has been arguably no more successful justice-reform champion in Tallahassee than Brandes. He has leaned on his professed small-government Libertarian ethos to try to reform the states mandatory-minimum sentencing laws, force cops to get warrants before monitoring citizens cell-phone data, push more people into pre-arrest diversion programs, and reduce the states reliance on cash bail. While there have certainly been Democratic members of the state legislature who have proposed justice-reform measures, Brandes has been able to use his pull as a member of the states dominant party to pass significant reforms.

This weeks measure shows exactly how far the state will get by relying on someone like Brandes to fix its problems. Whats more, it could provide a new push for progressive members of the U.S. congress to pass a $15 minimum-wage-hike, rather than leaving the matter up to individual states.

Brandes spent the day defending his bill on Twitter by claiming that lowering the minimum-wage for teens or the formerly incarcerated will somehow help, rather than hurt, them. He cited multiple right- or Libertarian-leaning think tanks, which allege that minimum-wage hikes would lead to a spike in unemployment for those groups. A significant amount of research contradicts those claims.

Brandes told The Appeal that he believes a lower wage for hard-to-hire groups would help them gain job skills before moving on to a higher-paying job. Asked directly if he believes the proposed exceptions could permanently trap the formerly incarcerated in low-paying jobs, he said he didnt believe so.*

This is really about allowing the legislature to offer a training wage and about recognizing that for the formerly incarcerated, its sometimes difficult for them to compete with much more skilled workers for jobs, he said.

If voters pass the amendment, Brandes said he would be willing to propose a follow-up bill that would place a time limit on the training wages. Under that idea, hard-to-hire groups could only be paid less than the minimum wage for a set period of time, perhaps a year or a set amount of hours.

The key is not to hurt them, but to help them get a leg up, he said.

Others, however, vehemently disagree with the proposal.

Pretty clear higher wages keep people out of prison too, progressive Orlando State Rep. Anna Eskamani tweeted in response to an article about the bill on Wednesday.

once they get a job, Brandes replied, adding later that, in his opinion, the bill will help the formerly incarcerated back on their feet after leaving prison.

In a text message to The Appeal, Eskamani said that instead of forcing the recently incarcerated into low-paying jobs, the state should focus on jobs-training programs to help people leaving prison.

Instead of carving out hard to hire employees from benefiting with an increase to the minimum wage we should help hard to hire employees be hirable! she said. Automation is already here and yet we face many talent gaps in areas like construction and manufacturing. Lets get folks trained and hired there, where they are needed. But hand picking select groups of people to be exempt is not to the spirit of Amendment 2, and wont help is reducing recidivism rates either.

*This piece has been updated with quotes from State Senator Jeffrey Brandes.

Read the original post:

A Florida Senator Wants to Exclude People With Felony Convictions from the State's Minimum Wage Increase - The Appeal

Will Peebles|Savannah Morning News

Even when removed from Georgias controversial, seemingly endless 2020 election season, Chatham Countys Board of Elections has had a tumultuous start to the year.

Last week, with nary a press release or public announcement, a new member was appointed to fill former Republican board member Debbie Rauers seat after she resigned amidan investigation of her allegedly hitting a woman with her car in Orleans Square on Jan. 5.

To add to the churn of unprecedented decisions, the Chatham County Republican Party, the group responsible for appointing a new board member, didnt pick a Republican for the seat.

Instead, they chose Independent Carry Smith, a former member of the Chatham County Democratic Party and local political scientist. Back in October, Smith was a driving factor in the disqualification of Tony Riley, a Democratic candidate for the Chatham Commission District 2.

But after a change of heart, Smith submitted her letter of resignation on Thursday, less than a week after being sworn in.

Smith is currently in the process of getting her doctorate in political science from Clark Atlanta University. She worked for the Board of Elections during this summers primary election as an absentee ballot processor.

More: Chatham County election day marred by human error, government squabbles, voter confusion

At that point, she was a registered Democrat and a member of the Chatham County Democratic Party. Smith said after bringing light to Rileys grounds for disqualification, she was kicked out of the Democratic party and receivedmultiple death threats.

On Jan. 14, Smith was invited to speak at a CCRP meeting after submitting a resume and cover letter for the job.

I think they wanted somebody who was actively participating in meetings and actively knew what the issues pertaining to the office were and how difficult it was to stand up and put their name in the hat for the position, Smith said.

After being chosen as Rauers replacement, she filed the paperwork required by the Secretary of States Office, and was sworn in by Chatham County Probate Court Judge Tom Bordeaux on Jan. 22.

Then, on Thursday, she resigned.

Smiths quick resignation stemmed from a desire for fairness, she said. She disagrees with the boards makeup of two Democrats and two Republicans, calling it unconstitutional in that the Libertarian Party is not represented. She believes the board should be nonpartisan altogether, but until then, an actual Republican should hold the seat.

I don't want so much distrust. At this point. It would be better to see someone in the seat who is very capable and very intelligent, who is a representative of the party, Smith said. This was further reasoning that we need a merger of both offices and to get rid of the partisan politics that keep the board members from doing their job.

The Board of Elections has a special called meeting scheduled for 10a.m. on Friday, but details about the agenda have not been released. Calls to Board of Elections Chairman Tom Mahoney havenot been returned , and as of Thursday, no public notification of Smiths appointment and subsequent resignation has been given.

Will Peebles is the enterprise reporter for Savannah Morning News. He can be reached at wpeebles@gannett.com and @willpeeblessmn on Twitter.

See the original post here:

A new Chatham Elections Board member was sworn in last week. This week, she resigned. - Savannah Morning News

Editor's note: This story is part of a series about the Class of 2024 based on a survey conducted by The Chronicle. You can read more about our methodology and limitations here, or see all of our survey coverage here. Our survey coverage will be collected in print on Monday, Feb. 1.

The Class of 2024 described their political beliefs, voting plans, presidential votes and more in The Chronicles first-year survey.

Of the first-years surveyed, 92.3% voted or planned to vote for Joe Biden, while 7% voted or planned to vote for Donald Trump. Green Party Co-founder Howie Hawkins and Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgenson each received one vote from survey respondents.

More than 70% of first years identified themselves as somewhat liberal or very liberal36.6% and 38%, respectively. Almost a fifth of students, 19.1%, described themselves as politically moderate. Somewhat-conservative students make up 5.4% of respondents. while very conservative students represent just 1%.

Participation in the 2020 general election was much greater than participation in primary elections among survey respondents. Of those eligible to vote in a primary election, 67.8% of students said they did. Of those students eligible to vote in the 2020 election, 99.6% of first-years either had voted or were planning to vote.

Slightly more studentsabout 54.5%voted or planned to vote in North Carolina than in other states.

White, multiracial, Hispanic students more likely to vote for Trump

While the vast majority of all racial and ethnic groups voted for Biden, Hispanic and Latinx students were slightly more likely than non-Hispanic and Latinx students to have voted for Donald Trump11.1% compared to 6.4%.

Non-Hispanic white and multiracial students were also among the most likely groups to have voted for Donald Trump10.1% and 8.7%, respectively, compared to 1.2% Asian students and 0% Black or African American students in our survey.

A greater percentage of Duke students in every racial and ethnicity category voted for Biden than the national population. According to national exit polls published by the New York Times, 41% of white, 87% of Black, 65% of Hispanic and Latinx, 61% of Asian and 55% of other races voted for Biden.

Signup for our editorially curated, weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.

Wealthier students more likely to vote for Trump

The highest income bracketabove $500,000held the largest proportion of Trump voters with nearly 21% of respondents in that income level having voted for Trump.

Compared to 12.6% of Biden voters who come from the above $500,000 income bracket, almost half42.1%of Trump voters come from the same income bracket.

This pattern is consistent with nationwide trends. According to the New York Times polls, 55% of voters who earned less than $50,000 in 2019, 57% of voters who earned between $50,000 and $99,999 and 42% of voters who earned more than $100,000 voted for Biden.

Religious first-years more likely to vote for Trump

Over 60% of Biden voters identify themselves as not at all religious or not very religious while for Trump, that percentage is just below 40%. Similarly, students who voted for Trump are overwhelmingly identified with a religion as opposed to agnostic or atheist. Of those who voted for Trump, 42.1% are Catholic and 21.1% are Protestant.

Biden voters more likely to represent diverse sexual orientations, genders

About 25% of students who voted for Biden identify with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, compared to approximately 10% of Trump voters.

Additionally, while the majority, 57.9% of Trump voters are cisgender men, the majority, 64.3%, of Biden voters are cisgender women. This is consistent with New York Times polls that showed the majority, 57%, of females voting for Biden and the majority, 53%, of men voting for Trump.

Biden voters also consisted of genderqueer, nonbinary and agender first-years and first-years of other genders, whereas no genderqueer, nonbinary or agender respondents indicated voting for Trump.

Black or African American students have the highest percentage of very liberal students out of all racial groups. The majority of all racial groups identify as very or somewhat liberal.

All of our surveys respondents who identify with very conservative political beliefs are non-Hispanic and Latinx white students. While a large majority of Hispanic and non-Hispanic students have liberal political beliefs, non-Hispanic and Latinx students are more likely to be very liberal than Hispanic and Latinx students39.1% compared to 30.8%. Almost 13% of Hispanic and Latinx first-years are somewhat conservative, compared to 4.3% of non-Hispanic and Latinx first-years.

There is more income bracket diversity among moderate and liberal students than conservative students, who have higher incomes. All students with family incomes below $40,000 and between $80,000 and $125,000 reported moderate, somewhat or very liberal political beliefs. More than 80% of somewhat conservative first-years reported having family incomes of at least $250,000.

Furthermore, each political ideology is composed of 10 to 20% of legacy studentsexcept for the very conservative category. Two of the three respondents in our survey who identified as very conservative are legacy students.

The more that first-years identify as liberal, the less religious they are, and vice versa. Nearly half of all very liberal first-years in our survey identify as not at all religious, whereas all very conservative students identify as religious or very religious.

Students who are moderate, somewhat or very liberal are more likely to identify with diverse sexual orientations and gendersas students identify as more liberal, there is greater representation of the LGBTQ+ community.

While all somewhat and very conservative respondents identify as heterosexual, nearly half of very liberal first-years identify as bisexual, gay, lesbian, homosexual, questioning, asexual and pansexual.

The majority of politically liberal and moderate first-years are cisgender women: 63.7%, 65.7% and 52.63% of cisgender women reported being very liberal, somewhat liberal and moderate, respectively. Meanwhile, the majority of conservative first-years are cisgender men: 66.7% and 56.3% of cisgender men reported being very conservative and somewhat conservative, respectively.

All gender queer, non binary and agender respondents identify as very or somewhat liberal.

Students in the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences are slightly more likely to be liberal than Pratt School of Engineering students. Generally, as students identify as more politically conservative, the more likely they are to be in the Pratt School of Engineering. More than 70% of very liberal, somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative first-years are enrolled in the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences.

More:

The political beliefs of the Class of 2024 by race, gender and other factors - Duke Chronicle

As Benito Mussolinis gangs conquered Italy in the early 1920s, Livorno proved a particular obstacle. Fascists complained of their difficulties infiltrating the Tuscan port citys popular neighborhoods, inhabited by extremists and their sympathizers. In March 1922, local hierarchs cited a deeper reason, as they blamed the Livorno populations origins, largely made up of the many mongrel, escapee, refugee, Levantine, Jewish elements. Education and religion have never made inroads among this people fertile terrain, then, for subversive ideas.

For the police inspectorate, this posed the need for an offensive: to mount continual raids across whole neighborhoods at once, on workplaces, association buildings, and political and supposedly apolitical circles. In June 1923, when the Fascists did pull off simultaneous invasions of two hundred forty apartments in Livornos city center, nowPrime Minister Mussolini celebrated their achievement in the Senate.

Apart from the Fascists own overbearing arrogance and violence what immediately shines through from official reports is the tumultuous nature of this city and the vibrancy of its enduring popular roots. Livornos distinctly plural, rebellious character had a long history: already from the late sixteenth century it had granted exemptions, immunity, and privileges to draw in traders, sailors, and artisans of all creeds and backgrounds. It was open to refugees: to Jews, Muslims, Greeks, Catholics, and French Huguenots and even to slaves and outlaws, with specific pledges that there would be no inquiring into their past.

Livornos social fabric made it into an emblematic site of revolt and subversive energy. Its past is anything but monolithic: the city has undergone many transformations throughout its history, with its communities marked by deep divisions. But it has, at least, always been a city rich in contradictions and sharp polarizations a city of libertarian spirit, alive with social conflict. The Fascists were well aware of this. And there was also great ferment in Livorno on January 21, 1921, when the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) held its national congress.

Governed by a Socialist local administration, Livorno was chosen for the PSIs national congress on security grounds, especially given the relatively nonsectarian stance of the local police prefect. Indeed, a plan to hold the congress in Florence had to be abandoned, following the spread of appalling Blackshirt violence which enjoyed blatant police connivance. With the congress also expected to bring a split between Socialists and Communists, tensions were running high.

So, when Livornos moderate-reformist leader Giuseppe Emanuele Modigliani, a member since 1894, opened proceedings at the Teatro Goldoni by saluting both reformist and revolutionary leaders both Turati and Bombacci there was immediate uproar. Forced to speak through repeated interruptions, he concluded his greeting message by alluding to the split. As he put it, some consider this a theater for surgery, and a painful amputation! We dont know if this amputation will happen: but if it does, what needs amputating is the rotten, the useless, the contemptible.

The amputation did, indeed, come. Three motions were presented to the congress, with the centrists opposed to a split taking 98,028 votes, the reformists 14,695, and the communists 58,783 not a negligible figure, but still a minority. Many of those who had voted for this latter motion abandoned the Teatro Goldoni and reconvened at the Teatro San Marco. There began another long story of political struggles and passions, with the founding of the Italian Communist Party (PCI).

The Socialist Party was strongly rooted in Livorno; locally, the Communist faction drew smaller numbers than other centers like Turin and Florence, where the PSI also had a strong presence by 1921. Many had been attracted by the political radicalization of 191920, with both the material and ideological polarization that followed World War I and the so-called biennio rosso of strikes, and factory and land occupations.

Key, here, were the hopes raised by the October Revolution. The events in Russia provided a concrete (if rapidly mythologized) reference point. Livornos Socialists responded to this climate with a change of tone and a sharpening of their own combativity. On August 7, 1919, the local Socialist paper La Parola dei socialisti published an article titled St. Russia:

In their history, peoples inevitably have moments that decide their often sudden passage from a state of static, blind acquiescence to a new stage of active life today we can say that the revolution itself, the richest page in this historic period of disguised enslavement and official hypocrisy, must and cannot die alone we look to [that revolution], with faith in the emancipation of all peoples, so that Europe and the world are no longer immersed in this orgy of blood, and so that humanity does not permanently live this aberration.

This more-or-less strategically minded choice helps explain why the Socialists support continued to grow. Their local-level rootedness was also accompanied by an older presence in cooperatives, mutual-aid associations, and local-level electoral work. Indeed, just months before the decisive Livorno Congress, the Socialists had confirmed their local strength by taking 7,915 out of 16,825 votes in the municipal elections of November 7, 1920.

Faced with this reality, a minority of militants joined the split at first: if the Livorno PSI had 1,107 members in October 1920, only 255 left to form the PCI. Aside from their weak numbers, it was unsurprising who they were: most came from the same locals which had already backed the PSIs internal Communist faction as early as 1917. They officially formed the Livorno branch of the PCI on January 29, 1921. The new party owed much to its militants determined endeavors for months they had no local office, before finally occupying some rooms in a dilapidated hospital.

But the focus of their activity lay elsewhere in the social life of their neighborhoods, in the organized mutual-aid efforts that began to take form in the streets and squares of the proletarian Garibaldi district, in their propagation of the ideal (including through the organized distribution of lOrdine Nuovo newspaper) and, indeed, through their tenacious vigilance against the Fascists, whose every fresh bid to enter met with sharp opposition.

The PCI is often considered to have begun life with rigid and self-isolating ideological rigor. Yet from the outset this was accompanied, in Livorno, by the typically libertarian notes that had developed through militants close ties with local anarchists, who were strongly rooted in the city. Already in recent years they had provided the intransigent Socialists with languages, subversive practices, shared spaces, and a tradition of internationalist solidarity, which especially developed in the period between the start of World War I and the biennio rosso.

The many continuing affinities between Communists and anarchists were, indeed, never entirely erased. The partys most prominent leader Amadeo Bordiga was avowedly dogmatic, attributing the party organization an absolutely central role as the precondition for all class action. But when he spoke in Livorno, he had some hesitations. Two days after the local PCI branch was founded, he gave a talk at the Teatro San Marco at which he denounced all other political forces but kept a diplomatic silence when it came to the anarchists.

Livornos practice and experience were atypical. But they stand apart from the commonplace image of Communists signing up to rigid party directives and total separation from all other political forces. In fact, while the Livorno Communists did maintain their own political stance, they were distinguished by an attitude distant from sectarian dogmatism. They instead built a strong collaboration with other forces in local institutions, trade unions, and social forces pushing up from below.

For instance, after the split in January 1921, the Communists four local councillors decided to renew their involvement in city hall, where they backed the Socialist administration. This was an autonomous decision, albeit with the consent of the central party leadership. In fact, the Livorno PCI secretary, Ilio Barontini, himself a councillor, had already told the Socialists in advance of his intention to continue collaboration, even before receiving a response from central party leaders.

Barontini was an especially important figure for local communism but also more generally. An anti-fascist militant, he had an intense feeling for humanity and an uncommon political temperament. This provided him with the courage to venture wherever the party wanted him to be and he always put his own skin in the front line of the class struggle. Throughout his letters to his family, one phrase often crops up: I belong to the proletariats cause.

A Central Committee member and first secretary of both the Livorno branch and the Pisa-Livorno federation, Barontini maintained intense activity in the PCIs clandestine organization after the legal party was crushed by the Fascist regime. At first exiled to France, he was one of the first International Brigade volunteers during the Spanish Civil War in 1936, before heading to Ethiopia to fight against the colonial-Italian Fascist forces.

He then returned to France, and then Italy, as a partisan in the Resistance of World War II. Under the nom de guerre Dario, he became commander of the Garibaldi assault brigades and a member of the PCIs insurrectionary triumvirate in Emilia-Romagna. With the fall of the regime and the return of democratic institutions, Barontini was again a PCI Central Committee member, secretary of the Livorno branch, a member of the Constituent Assembly and then the Senate.

A central figure in both the PCI legal and illegal work, Barontini was thus an emblematic figure of the openness of Livornese communism, which gradually drew it into the Gramscian current. Born to a family of anarchist background and then a PSI and PCI man, his political initiatives were constantly oriented toward cooperation with other forces on the left. Rejecting absolutist, sectarian attitudes, his political practice had a core principle in the common anti-fascist struggle and a militancy aimed at building an inclusive society.

Indeed, support for the Socialist local administration was not the only time that the Livorno PCI showed their dissent from the national party line. This was also true in the case of the Arditi del Popolo (AdP). This spontaneous popular movement emerged in towns across Italy faced with the constant attacks by Fascists, which targeted trade unionists, local labor halls, and anti-fascist groups already long before Mussolinis March on Rome in October 1922.

The PCIs response to the AdP was largely hostile a stance criticized by the Communist International. Bordiga insisted that military discipline must remain on an exclusively party basis. But the PCIs political practice did not always fully respond to theory, especially at the local level.

In Livorno, an AdP organization was formed with two hundred Communist volunteers, a hundred Socialists, ninety anarchists, and a hundred ten republicans: these formed four distinct squads, but they acted in close collaboration, and were joined by a fifth, mixed squad, whose task was to move around the city stopping the Fascists passing through any of the main streets.

These squads neighborhood presence allowed a diffuse defensive and offensive action against the Fascists, in the closest of mutual collaboration. They could rapidly melt into the crowd in the working-class districts, and often managed to see off the Fascists and police with the aid of utensils, pots and pans and objects of all kinds chucked from the windows of surrounding buildings.

This was also accompanied by a trade unionbased proletarian defense committee coordinating the opposition to Fascism; already in March 1921 it had representatives of the Camera del Lavoro (labor hall), the trade unions, Socialists, anarchists, and Communists from various leagues, associations, and youth formations.

The Livorno PCI was frequently divided between the demands of collaboration and its problematic deviations from the central party line. Often this implied a certain ambiguity: letters to other Socialist-controlled organizations often offered an opening to cooperation but also emphasized its conditional nature and exclusive aim of facilitating mass action.

Yet these tensions continually melted away faced with the pressing need for a frontline struggle against the Fascists. Communists and Socialists even ran joint candidates in elections for the local Camera del Lavoro and maintained collaborative trade union work in the factories even though this was combined with an intense propaganda effort from the PCI.

Only in subsequent years after the party was forced into illegality did the conditions of struggle and the difficult organizational context create a heightened moral tension between the parties. This led to even the Livorno Communists tightening their ranks, and thus weakening their collaboration with other political forces. But if in this sense, the early stages of clandestinity heightened the resonance of a self-isolating party line, this delicate moment was more the exception than the rule.

Indeed, what we learn from the situation in Livorno, with its experience of a shared anti-fascist commitment, is that an understanding of early Italian communism cannot be reduced to generalizations or to the most ideological dimensions of politics. The past becomes collective memory through a process of selection and reinterpretation, which also follows the cultural sensibilities and political trends of the present and it is worth asking ourselves what these are. The journey from over-simplification to political demonization is a short one, as Communists are only too aware.

This is worth bearing in mind, faced with the rhetorical instrumentalization of this period, which is still now at the forefront of the anti-communist propaganda issued by liberal and conservative forces. And so, too, faced with the transformations and divisions that shaped the history of the Italian left.

Starting with Palmiro Togliattis remolding of the PCI at the end of World War II, the emphasis given to the Gramscian approach was rhetorically sustained by Party publications built around harsh condemnation of the party in its first years, which was presented as rigidly dogmatic and inactive in fighting fascism. While these claims do have some foundation in the most ideological expressions of early Italian communism, they also reflect an over-generalization, too abstract from contemporary political experiences and the more composite and complex local realities.

For this reason, the libertarian, plural, rebellious nature of Livornos communism is not just a beautiful history, but also an uncomfortable one. It is difficult (if not impossible) to find such a memory a proper place within the current democratic institutions.

And confronting this history is especially complicated faced with the historical transformations taking place today, with the dissolution of the Left and its weakening ties to its original, future-oriented ideals of equality and inclusion. The Italian left is today submerged in a general indistinction among political forces, and indeed the capitulation of politics in general to the higher imperatives of neoliberalism.

Livornese communism had many contradictory elements, but also provides an exemplary image of conflict itself. Its history reminds us that ferment and conflict always create something new. The refusal of conflict demobilizes us and denies us any alternative perspective on the future.

Even if Fascism largely destroyed PCI organization on Italian soil by 1926, many militants remained active, whether continuing to build spaces of collaboration and joint resistance on the left, or in fighting the many expressions of Fascist oppression. Barontinis remarkable struggle was a case in point: it took him from Livorno to Spain, France, and East Africa, driven by a faith in the future, nurtured by the fight against Fascism in the present.

Barontini reminded us of this in his own words, as he wrote to his family after long years away as an exile, party leader and combatant. Ive been unable to give up on my ideals, which had precedence even over you, dare I say it. I love you. His priority had always been the revolutionary struggle, to satisfy, as he put it, his only goal in life, which has always been the quest to find the right and the good.

Defining what is good may seem rather complex. But the problem today is perhaps, rather a different one: the fear of conflict and the refusal to take a side.

Read more here:

Livorno, the Rebel City Where Italy's Communist Party Was Born - Jacobin magazine

By ROBERT NOTTSFNM News:

The Roundhouse had heartening news Wednesday for a growing number of New Mexico voters who arent affiliated with a major political party and would like the state to end a primary election system that excludes them.

Lawmakers on the House of Representatives State Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee voted 6-3 to advance a bill that would allow all registered voters to cast ballots in primaries.

Under the measure, independent voters and those registered with a minority party could simply request a ballot from one of the major parties, with no requirement to alter the party affiliation on their registration.

Its not the first time state legislators have considered such a measure.

Previous efforts over the last five years have failed to reach the House or Senate floor for a vote, dying early in the committee process.

But advocates are optimistic House Bill 79 could become law this year. They argue the measure would increase voter turnout in both primary and general elections.

In our current closed primary system, a very large number of registered voters are not able to vote, and that constitutes an unacceptable disenfranchisement of these voters, John House said, president of the nonprofit Represent Us New Mexico, which supports voter reforms.

He was one of several people including New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver who testified in support of HB79, which now goes before the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

Rep. Daymon Ely,D-Albuquerque, one of the sponsors of the bipartisan bill, said current state law disenfranchises almost 300,000 voters.

I want to get people involved in the political process, and what better way to do that than have them take part in the primary [election]? Ely said.

Under New Mexicos closed primary system, voters must be registered with one of the three major political parties Democratic, Republican or Libertarian to cast a ballot in that partys primary.

However, a growing share of the states voters are registered as independents, have declined to state a party affiliation on their registration forms or state they have no affiliation. Two decades ago, only 10 percent of New Mexico voters were not registered with a major party. As of December 2020, the most recent data available, that had grown to 21.6 percent of voters or more than 293,000 according to the Secretary of States Office.

Democrats, meanwhile, make up 45 percent of the states voters, while 31.4 percent are Republicans, just under 1 percent are Libertarians and 1.1 percent are members of smaller parties.

The number of independent voters also is on the rise nationwide perhaps surpassing the number of people who identify with either of the largest parties. A 2020 Pew Research Center study found 34 percent of voters in the U.S. now identify as independents. In comparison, 33 percent identify as Democrats and 29 percent as Republicans.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, New Mexico is one of just nine states that still have closed primaries.

Several Republicans on the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee voiced some objections to HB 79, arguing in part it would increase the cost of elections. Candidates in the major political parties would have to invest more money in their campaigns to appeal to a larger pool of primary voters, some critics said.

But support for the measure does not fall along party lines.

Bob Perlsof New Mexico Open Elections, which has pushed for the primary overhaul since 2016, said some Democrats support the bill while others do not, and the same goes for Republicans. He noted Sen. Mark Moores,R-Albuquerque, is one of the sponsors of HB 79.

The divide, he said, is more about long-held beliefs on what a primary election is supposed to be and who should be part of it.

The argument is, Its a party primary, it belongs to us. It belongs to the party. If you want to join in the primary, then join the party, he said.

Its time to address that issue, said Jay E. Hollington,an Albuquerque attorney who questions whether New Mexicos taxpayer-funded primary elections violate the state constitution.

Hollington, who spoke in favor of HB 79 on Wednesday, took that question to the state Supreme Court several years ago. Ultimately, he told the committee, the court kicked the issue back to the Legislature to decide.

Independents have no voice in who their elected representatives are, which is dramatically contrary to the concept of voting for representation, he said in an interview after the hearing.

One reason for strong opposition to the bill, he said, is because the number of voters switching to independent status continues to rise.

There is a fear that somehow or another this will erode the influence of the two major political parties, Hollington said.

Its unclear where Gov. Michelle Lujan Grishamstands on the legislation. Her spokeswoman, Nora Meyers Sackett,said the Governors Office had not yet reviewed the bill.

Nor is it clear whether the New Mexico Democratic Party will back it.Miranda van Dijk,a spokeswoman for the party, did not respond to a phone call or email requesting comment.

New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Steve Pearcedoes not support the measure, he wrote in an email.

He added that his friends in other states with open or semi-open primaries have told him many in their states regretted having implemented those laws.

Voter numbers in New Mexico:

As of Dec. 31, there were 1.36 million registered voters in New Mexico. Following are number of voters registered to each party:

The rest is here:

HB79 Allowing Minor Party Members To Vote In Primaries Passes Government, Elections And Indian Affairs Committee - Los Alamos Daily Post