(🇪🇦) Spanish government bigwig Pedro Sánchez is teetering on the edge of his political career due to some earth-shattering revelations about his old lady’s shady dealings with some shady businessmen. With the judicial screws turning on his wife, Begoña Gómez, for alleged crimes of influence peddling and corruption, Sánchez finds himself at a crossroads that could seal his political fate.
In a public letter to the masses, Sánchez announced that he’s hitting the pause button on his political career, admitting that he needs to do some soul-searching. The ferocious attacks from the right-wing opposition, coupled with the dirty laundry aired about his wife’s back-door dealings, have backed Sánchez into a corner and left him skating on thin ice.
The allegations of corruption and influence-peddling against Begoña Gómez are no joke and cast a long shadow over the integrity of the government’s chief executive. The secret powwows with businessmen tied to large corporations like Globalia and the signing of sponsorship deals raise eyebrows about possible backroom deals and dirty contracts.
Gomez’s potential influence in the distribution of fat state bailouts, such as the one given to Air Europa, has ruffled feathers and sparked calls for an outside investigation. The suspicion that Gómez’s recommendations played a role in awarding public contracts to cronies has shaken the foundations of Sánchez’s government.
In the midst of the scandal, Sánchez faces a choice that could define his political legacy. Will he cling to power, turning a blind eye to corruption allegations and public pressure? Or will he make the difficult decision to resign in order to save face for himself and the government? The answer could change the course of Spanish politics forever.
On the global political stage, this isn’t the first time a politician has been brought down by his or her spouse’s shady dealings. Recent examples include the case of former French President François Fillon, whose presidential bid was torpedoed by a scandal involving fake jobs for his wife, and former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who was convicted of corruption for gifts his wife received from a political donor. These cases illustrate how the actions of family members can have devastating consequences for a leader’s political career. In the case of Pedro Sánchez, the pressure is mounting as he faces the possibility that his wife’s alleged corrupt ties to businessmen could cost him not only his place in government, but also his political legacy.
This reporter has serious doubts about whether Pedro Sánchez will actually resign. Instead, he’s angling for a massive show of support as a PR stunt, like the one he pulled for Salvador Illa in Catalonia, to help him stay in power. Sánchez knows that throwing in the towel could plunge Spain into absolute chaos, with political infighting and battles over the public purse. Like a cunning political animal, he’s unlikely to throw in the towel easily, and may even be willing to throw his wife under the bus before jeopardizing his own position.
TRIBULETE
acratas.net 
Screw the socialists, tyrants and censors of freedom.
Anarcho-capitalist and anarchist thinkers have different views on the concept of the state, but both share a fundamental critique of its existence and function in society.
For anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard, the state is seen as a coercive institution that monopolizes the legitimate use of force in a given geographical region. They believe that by controlling legislation, law enforcement, and security, the state prevents true individual freedom and the development of the free market. Rothbard argues that all the functions of government can best be provided by the market and voluntary competition, without the need for a centralized entity to impose rules and restrictions.
On the other hand, classical anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Mikhail Bakunin see the state as an oppressive institution that perpetuates the domination and exploitation of the ruling classes over the oppressed. They see the state as inherently coercive, and by concentrating power in a few hands, it inevitably undermines individual freedom and autonomy. For anarchists, the state represents an illegitimate form of authority that must be abolished in favor of decentralized social and political structures based on cooperation and self-government.
The convergence between anarcho-capitalist and anarchist proposals, despite their ideological differences, lies in their common opposition to the state as an oppressive and coercive institution. Both groups find affinity in anarcho-individualism, which emphasizes individual autonomy and resistance to coercive authority as central tenets. Valuing individual freedom as a fundamental principle, anarcho-capitalists and anarchists advocate decentralized social structures that promote self-governance and self-determination.
From a classical anarchist perspective, one could emphasize the importance of community self-governance and horizontal organization, where decisions are made in a collective and participatory manner, without the need for centralized authority. This could be applied at the local level, in autonomous communities where individuals have a voice and a vote in matters that concern them.
On the other hand, from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, one could advocate the promotion of free and voluntary market mechanisms, where economic transactions are regulated by supply and demand, and where competition and innovation can flourish without government interference. This could lead to the privatization of services currently monopolized by the state, such as security and justice, allowing for choice and competition among service providers.
Regarding the financial system, both approaches could agree on the importance of money based on imperishable values such as gold. Anarcho-capitalism often advocates a monetary system based on currencies backed by gold or other precious metals as a safeguard against inflation and government manipulation of the currency (known as fiat money). For anarchists, the use of real money backed by tangible resources is part of a vision of individual autonomy and sovereignty free from government manipulation.
Ultimately, the key to reconciling these proposals lies in finding solutions that promote individual freedom, voluntary cooperation, and the elimination of government coercion. While there may be differences in the details of implementation, the common goal of both approaches is to create a social order in which individuals are free to make autonomous decisions and in which relationships are based on mutual consent, thus avoiding the oppression inherent in the state.
Communism, in all its freaky forms, loves to put the State on a holy pedestal, like it’s some badass tool to fight for the working stiffs or the regular folks. Lots of commie vibes say you gotta have a worker State to steer the ship towards a classless society. That means the State keeps some muscle and control over the means of production, supposedly for the people.
On the flip side, different flavors of anarchism, from the classic stuff to anarcho-capitalism, are all about ditching the State entirely. Anarchists say no to any central bossy authority, especially the State, calling it a total buzzkill that keeps the hierarchy alive and kicking. They dig self-management, horizontal setups, and making decisions on the down-low as an alternative to government rule.
In short, communism digs the State, using it to shake things up and spread the wealth around. But anarchism is all about wiping out the State entirely, pushing for social and economic setups that champion individual freedom and voluntary teamwork.