Voting is Still Wrong

I say to me, perhaps he (you) is just a kid who needs to be taken by the hand or else possessed by some bizarre phantasms that need to be cured.

Cueball wrote:

In fact no. Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.

Russian economist Stanislav Menshikov agrees in general with Canadian Fred Weir and American David Kotz that dissolution of the USSR was carried out illegally in 1991.  Dismantling of the Soviets, the very institutions which could have made democratizing the FSU possible, was carried out in part of a larger"revolution from above" by Yeltsin and his Euro-American backers. Russians and very many citizens of the USSR never asked for western style "neoliberal" capitalism, only that Soviet socialism be reformed and democratized. And just for comparison today, even Russia's PR system with stiff 7% minimum threshold for political party recognition would be considered more democratic than Canada's dated first past the post Westminster system as far as Canada's Green Party is concerned.

Cueball wrote:

Quote:

KenS wrote:

.... I would still like to see a 'higher' / more general level explication from Cueball about the connection between the 'raw' [unformed] phenomena of non-voting and some kind of movement or whatever you want to call more intentional activism.

Cueball made some comments along those lines upthread. I asked some questions about those. If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate or pick up from what you have said already.

 

Well from what I know of you. You could take a few simple steps. The first step is to annouce to the NDP that you refuse to vote in any upcoming elections, until the NDP make electoral reform plank in its official platform, including economic disinsentives that make it difficult for individuals and other organizations to develop electoral profilce. That said, the organization itself might be useful, so there is no need to turn in your party card. In fact, you should promote the idea that the NDP should take a direct roll in organizing and supporting extra-party activties, and start working on committees directly involved with community activism that interest you, and seeing what you can do to get the party to give concrete support to non-party progressive organizations, while observing and promoting the position of a principled non-voter.

Thanks for the suggestion of what I as an NDP member could do. But I've been asking about what guides your politics, strategy, whatever.

 Like I said, the formulation "voting is wrong, parties suck," while abbreviated does seem to be in line with what you have said.

The longer form being about the various institutional reasons that a commitment to party politics, while you might allow is a legitimate progressive activity, as far as you are concerned such commitments are part of the obstacles to change. We are best off cutting loose from political parties.

Even if I haven't given it full justice just now, you've made the negative critique clear in this thread.

My questions have been about what kind of movement that is where you locate yourself- outside of political parties- YOU see making a start at overcoming all this. So I'll repeat my questions from the earlier thread.

Cueball wrote:

"So start a movement Cueball. Nothing is stopping you. It would be a good way to put your words, thoughts into concrete action. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would be interested in joining."

They already have. More every election.

Ignoring the baiting challenge, the relevance is in your reply.

 Are the increasing numbers of non-voters the conditions for a movement, or are they the movement itself? [in process maybe?]

Because you did also say "building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight." And clearly we have seen no formalization yet.

Because you did also say:

Cueball wrote:

Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.

This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.

Obviously it doesn't have to be revolutionary to be a movement. And it may not even have to be explicit to be a movement. But what is lacking in your explanation- both reference to electoral politics in Canada and the complete collapse of governing legitimacy in the Soviet Union- is how there is anything more than a shunning.

And as said before: If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate, or do your own follow-up on your original comments.

In other words...

I like criticising the politics of others.

Critiquing the severe limitations of others' politics is how I define my own politics. Can't get enough of that.

I wouldn't want to identify to the folks I endlessly criticise what my own politics are.

[Or you only have a vague idea of your own politics beyond critique. Juest guessing which of those it is.]

KenS wrote:

In other words...

 

I like criticising the politics of others.

Critiquing the severe limitations of others' politics is how I define my own politics. Can't get enough of that.

I wouldn't want to identify to the folks I endlessly criticise what my own politics are.

[Or you only have a vague idea of your own politics beyond critique. Juest guessing which of those it is.]

Bingo.

Cueball wrote:

 

Hanah Arendt, whom you have referred to before but clearly don't understand, made a point of looking deeply into the results of the toxic blend of banality, ego, and the will to impose "the stupid" (reified as an ideological totalitarian absolute) upon others using the force of the state, interogating the idea that it is the imposition of the ideological absolute that is the penulitmate mediocrity that encompasses the sum total of the banality of the whole, regardless of the banner under which it operates.

Hannah Arendt was rescued from Nazism by the United States. She would never have spitted on their democratic process like you do.

Arendt and I are thinking exactly the same: that is, if a political system is not able to attract forcefully all people to participate in those Councils, then Council democracy will end up being controlled, like what is the situation today in our representative democracy, only by those who have a lot of leisure time, which are the elites.

http://www.athene.antenna.nl/ARCHIEF/NR05-Arendt/SITTON-Hannah%20Arendts%20Argument.html

Cueball wrote:

Don't expect me to do your thinking for you.

Thats rich. Diversion layered on diversion. First you try to give me advice on what I could do when I ask you to explain your politics. Then when I thank you for said advice and ask you again to explain your politics, I'm asking you to do my thinking.

Cueball wrote:

  I am more than happy to chat this up some more later, but within this thread, and the last I have either directly or indirectly answered your questions.

No you did not. But in what follows there is at least some sort of indirect referenece to your earlier comments I asked you to elaborate on.

Cueball wrote:

In short form, I have stated that I think political activity in the realm of electoral politics, how it is practiced in Canada is a waste of time. The reasons I have outlined variously before. I have proposed that progressive organizations, and persons would be better able to confront the issues at hand by engaging in community based organizing, in spite of the corrupted electoral system, and in favour building up local democratic organizations, toward the purpose of shifting the political agenda to what is quixotically called "the left." This includes demanding a democratization of the electoral system, as part and parcel of the demand.

The shape of the actual movement, in its precise form would be determined by agenda's set by the communities themselves, and that is a "first principle". The specific details are not for me to determine, though I have laid out some of them previously in these thread, especially those that demand the full enfranchisment of all citizens in the country, so that the electoral system might actually be used as a tool for progressive change, as opposed to entrenching the power of the state sponsored political organs, and the interests they serve.

That at least counts as an answer idenifying your politics. Its kind of thin gruel compared to asking for elaboration on those earlier comments of yours.

But you did say it was a short form. Apparently a consequence of that time consuming construction management heavy lifting.

Cueball wrote:

Now, I have to go purchase:

 

Rebar:

 

10 -- 10mm rebar at 8’

12 -- 10mm rebar at 6’

3 – 15mm rebar at 6’

6 – 10mm rebar at 3’

Wire

 

Insulation

3 -- 2 x 8

3 – 2 x 8

5 – 2 x 8

And a quantity of plywood, which has yet to be determined.

 

You could add this to the list of things it would be neat to see some elaboration on.

Cueball wrote:

In fact, from the outset the system was designed to protect that control, and from the inception of the British parlimentary systems non-voters have asserted thier right to be included in the process, by exerting preassure from outside of the electoral process. Do you actually believe that the Queen just decided one day to expand those elligible for particiapting in the house of commons, because it was just and right?

My questions again are on the nature of movements [or conditions for, whatever]. There is lots of elaboration on the negative critique. Obviously it would be inconsistent at the least to lay out what such movements would be like. Like you said- "to be determined" is one of the organizing principles.

But you have made a number of comments about the role of 'non-voters', which is what I've been asking you to elaborate on. The earlier ones I asked you to elaborate on were about de-legitimizing a system that then collapses [happened in collapse of Soviet Union, looking to it here?].

The agitation from the inception of the British parliamentary process by non-voters was to be included in the parliamentary process.

You call them all 'non-voters'. But they seem like pretty different types of agents. So far it reads like some aphorisms.

Some connecting of dots maybe?

My previous post crossed with yours- it isn't explicitly a reply to your post above it.

So here for the third time I post the questions.

KenS wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Quote:

KenS wrote:

.... I would still like to see a 'higher' / more general level explication from Cueball about the connection between the 'raw' [unformed] phenomena of non-voting and some kind of movement or whatever you want to call more intentional activism.

Cueball made some comments along those lines upthread. I asked some questions about those. If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate or pick up from what you have said already.

 

Well from what I know of you. You could take a few simple steps. The first step is to annouce to the NDP that you refuse to vote in any upcoming elections, until the NDP make electoral reform plank in its official platform, including economic disinsentives that make it difficult for individuals and other organizations to develop electoral profilce. That said, the organization itself might be useful, so there is no need to turn in your party card. In fact, you should promote the idea that the NDP should take a direct roll in organizing and supporting extra-party activties, and start working on committees directly involved with community activism that interest you, and seeing what you can do to get the party to give concrete support to non-party progressive organizations, while observing and promoting the position of a principled non-voter.

 

Thanks for the suggestion of what I as an NDP member could do. But I've been asking about what guides your politics, strategy, whatever.

 Like I said, the formulation "voting is wrong, parties suck," while abbreviated does seem to be in line with what you have said.

The longer form being about the various institutional reasons that a commitment to party politics, while you might allow is a legitimate progressive activity, as far as you are concerned such commitments are part of the obstacles to change. We are best off cutting loose from political parties.

Even if I haven't given it full justice just now, you've made the negative critique clear in this thread.

My questions have been about what kind of movement that is where you locate yourself- outside of political parties- YOU see making a start at overcoming all this. So I'll repeat my questions from the earlier thread.

 

Cueball wrote:

"So start a movement Cueball. Nothing is stopping you. It would be a good way to put your words, thoughts into concrete action. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would be interested in joining."

They already have. More every election.

 

Ignoring the baiting challenge, the relevance is in your reply.

 Are the increasing numbers of non-voters the conditions for a movement, or are they the movement itself? [in process maybe?]

Because you did also say "building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight." And clearly we have seen no formalization yet.

Because you did also say:

Cueball wrote:

Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.

This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.

 

Obviously it doesn't have to be revolutionary to be a movement. And it may not even have to be explicit to be a movement. But what is lacking in your explanation- both reference to electoral politics in Canada and the complete collapse of governing legitimacy in the Soviet Union- is how there is anything more than a shunning.

And as said before: If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate, or do your own follow-up on your original comments.

Sheesh.

Where did I say I thought you were suggesting I shun the NDP? I said that your advice as to what I should do is irrelevant- I'm asking you about your politics.

And if you think I've 'extrapolated your ideas' or am coughing up an 'editorialized version' then like I have said every time: "If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate, or do your own follow-up on your original comments."

The text of your comments are there every time I've asked you to comment on them.

 Translation: "The comments look interesting. But I don't understand where they fit. If my questions about them are not helpful, then just follow up on your comments however you want."

The only thing I would add is that I keep seeing reference to non-voters as agents obviously of some kind of importance. But if following up on that isn't going to get you anywhere, forget it.

Cueball wrote:

In fact, from the outset the system was designed to protect that control, and from the inception of the British parlimentary systems non-voters have asserted thier right to be included in the process, by exerting preassure from outside of the electoral process. Do you actually believe that the Queen just decided one day to expand those elligible for particiapting in the house of commons, because it was just and right? Far from it. In fact the gradual reform of the democratic process has been engineered almost entirely by non-voters through exerting preassure from outside the existing democratic process, from which they were excluded, largely because of their lesser financial standing. The same situation persists today, if not explicitly, but implicitly through the mechanisms in the election act.

To me a legislation mandating people to go to the poll would be the best way to acknowledge, pay respect and build on the past combat of these frustrated and unwilling non-voters.

A minimum wage updating and indexed to inflation is precisely the kind of candy the elites give to the mass to keep them happy with the status quo.

Cueball wrote:

Re: I demonstrated several instances of "non-voters as agents obviously of some kind of importance":

You've recounted a few descriptions of instances of the relevance of non-voters as agents.

You know my questions are about the potential for a movement- following your two comments which I have numerous times quouted and asked if you wanted to follow up on:

..the first being the increasing numbers of non voters here. The second being the reference to the collapse of legitimacy in the Soviet Union.

Cueball wrote:

The point is that the legitimacy of a state is fundamental to its ability to maintain power, regardless of how authoritarian the regiemes fundamental ideology is, and there is a point where societies reach a point of "critical mass" where they simply are unable to govern. We in the "Western Democracies", are fast approaching this point, as can be devined by very low voter turn out's in elections, and that the most important thing for progressive social organizers to do at this point is to properly prepare grass roots social organizations and networks that are properly going to be able fill the power vacuum, and do so with enough legitimacy that even the tools of state repression, such as the army and the police forces, stand aside or support the new power structure.  

I don't at all see assuming its going to be a power vacuum. Yes, quite possibly it will get worse- and that may lead to many more people 'voting' to give up on it all- including many of us now committed to the NDP. And the people will have to organize 'alternatively'.

But it strikes me as being fundamental whether or not you think you are organizing to fill a vacuum.

though it might also make no definitive difference in how you get started.

Cueball wrote:

Now, none of what I am saying is explicitly a rejection of "democracy" per se. But on the other hand, I think it is very important to be clear about what we mean when we say the word democracy, and what that entails and how it operates. In the above analysis in this thread, and the last, I have gone into details of how the system of elections in this country is designed to bias the system against disturbing the fundamentals of how the system is managed for the benefit of those who already have economic and political power, against those who do not.

 

There is much more clarity about this. And in general, theres not a great deal problematic for me in the elaboration that follows.

But I have these little alarms that go off when negative critique is so much better developed than the analysis of what to do. Yes, one cannot and should not if you could, design the future.

But those warning bells again- why is it so undeveloped even at high levels of generality?

For example [but not necessarily the best example]: what about things like expecting a power vacuum? Or even not having a language /discourse for gauging such?

You know what I love about you 'voting is wrong' people?

You have [i]no fucking clue[/i] what an advancement even this flawed system of ours represents over the old Divine Right of Kings, or rule by generals and admirals who could command the greatest military force to take hold of the government.

Try chafing under the rule of a despot and then tell me you still think the ability to elect our own leaders is "wrong".

Cueball wrote:

The Devine Right of Kings is the ghost in the machine.

Are you saying Jack is another Hitler, campaigning on the left and all the while owned by Emil Kirdorf types, big biz and banking interests? What Canadian political party today would stoop so low as to campaign on the left and then stooge it up on the right once they seize phony majority dictatorial rule? It's stupefying to say the least

Compulsory voting means that if you are caught skipping an election, you will have to go defend yourself before a court of justice. I imagine the judge saying to Cueball: so you feel you are a prisoner in our state, would you like to be put in a real jail to become a martyr, after all, Nelson Mandela has achieved a revolution from inside his cell?

Compulsory voting is mainly to make sure nobody is voting at your place. This type of crime doesn’t just affect you, it affects all citizens.