Freedom 55
Can you explain that last sentence? Sorry, I'm not getting your meaning.
And as for your first sentence, it's kind like asking if the fact that there is no evidence of God is proof that there is not one.
I'd be happy to see one speck of evidence that not voting does anything at all to change the electoral system - other than the very good reform of trying to make it more inclusive and allow more people to vote.
@ Tobold
Like 13 years before?
it's a rigged, dirty game Smith. They win we lose. Everytime. I think it's high time to declare it as such, shut it down, take it over and organize something better.
So what's the alternative?
Without supplying a viable alternative, people will stick with the only viable choice available and the movement against voting will remain pointless.
Until we bring back the good old days of sabotage and wildcat strikes when things really got accomplished, eh, Tobold?
it's a rigged, dirty game Smith. They win we lose. Everytime. I think it's high time to declare it as such, shut it down, take it over and organize something better.
So what's the alternative?
Without supplying a viable alternative, people will stick with the only viable choice available and the movement against voting will remain pointless.
If I may, the alternative is a democracy that is insulated against the undue influence of wealth. What does that look like? I'm afraid the details will have to be sorted out in the process of working through it, politics isn't a science. We didn't wait for blueprint when we started the whole democracy thing, or built a economy that wasn't based on slavery. Why would we choose to be paralized by the absence of an instruction manual when the opportunity to revitalize democracy comes along? There is no instruction manual.
The first step is recognizing that the continued edorsement of the legitimacy of the system works against the pursuit of democracy; that is, voting delays and displaces opportunities to transform institutions. Abstention isn't the end, it's the beginning.
Until we bring back the good old days of sabotage and wildcat strikes when things really got accomplished, eh, Tobold?
So say labour activists and historians. These may be future strategies of labour activists as well, but I don't pretend to know. Nor do I care. I have only been advancing practical and descriptive interpretations. I have nothing to say about what labour activists ought to do.
Until we bring back the good old days of sabotage and wildcat strikes when things really got accomplished, eh, Tobold?
LOL, is that derision I sense? We could use more wildcat strikes, that`s for sure, and why sabotage when we can take it over instead. The legal union framework and state ``recognition`` also hurts the labour movement. We are back in the freaking 1930`s for union membership so let`s start acting like it and fighting the way we did when unions were on the upswing. Alongside support for the elections I`m not surprised to find a cynical attitude towards militancy.
If I may, the alternative is a democracy that is insulated against the undue influence of wealth. What does that look like? I'm afraid the details will have to be sorted out in the process of working through it, poltiics; isn't a science. We didn't wait for blueprint when we started the whole democracy thing, or built a economy that wasn't based on slavery. Why would we choose to be paralized by the absence of an instruction manual when the opportunity to revitalize democracy comes along? There is no instruction manual.
Without a "blueprint" people will never support your cause.
The best way to get people to support a working class "blueprint" would be to:
- establish a popular working class blueprint,
- form a party or have a party integrate the working class blueprint into their program
and
- go to the people and convince them that the working class blueprint is in their interest.
But many on the far-left now seem to believe that the people will never support their ideas, so they want to attack people's ability to choose for themselves through their right to vote.
People on the far-left who are against voting should be honest and admit that they think voting is illegitimate because it exposes the fact that the vast majority of people disagree with them.
They are against letting people decide for themselves what they want via their votes because they think their long electoral losing streak will never end.
They're sick of the people telling them that they disagree with them so they want the people to STFU.
So say labour activists and historians. These may be future strategies of labour activists as well, but I don't pretend to know. Nor do I care. I have only been advancing practical and descriptive interpretations. I have nothing to say about what labour activists ought to do.
Well you do claim a direct relationship between wildcat strikes and sabotage with the reforms which were forged in the last century (to the exclusion of all else, I would have to guess, since you don't seem to think voting had anything to do with it).
And you also mention the decline of those tactics at the same time as you think our reforms started to decline. Not accusing you personally of promoting sabotage. It just seems odd that you link the rise and fall of our entire political system to those two things.
Aside from the fact I think your analysis is nonsense (as I said before) it begs the question what you think might actually bring about this mythical change you think might replace my right to vote.
(edit)
And sorry anondrogys, it's in the other thread where we are discussing exactly the same thing.
So say labour activists and historians. These may be future strategies of labour activists as well, but I don't pretend to know. Nor do I care. I have only been advancing practical and descriptive interpretations. I have nothing to say about what labour activists ought to do.
Well you do claim a direct relationship between wildcat strikes and sabotage with the reforms which were forged in the last century (to the exclusion of all else, I would have to guess, since you don't seem to think voting had anything to do with it).
And you also mention the decline of those tactics at the same time as you think our reforms started to decline. Not accusing you personally of promoting sabotage. It just seems odd that you link the rise and fall of our entire political system to those two things.
Aside from the fact I think your analysis is nonsense (as I said before) I have to say I think it begs the question what you think might actually bring about this mythical change you think might replace my right to vote.
(edit)
And sorry anondrogys, it's in the other thread where we are discussing exactly the same thing.
Organizing, strikes, and sabotage represent, among many other practices, the activities that scared the wealthy into instructing governments to grant the right to bargain collectively.
Who said anything about replacing your right to vote?
re: #102
The point for me is that it is not 'viable' to vote for 'representatives' that don't in fact represent one. Others who feel similarly may do the same. Further alternatives to be discussed by those of like minds. Read the website or #67 - not voting is eminently defensible, legitimate and rationally sound despite the defensive hysterics exhibited by some who evidently feel threatened by electoral 'non-believers'. Perhaps to many, elections are the last vesiges of belief that they live in a functioning 'democracy'. If enough people stop participating it obviously suggests more and more feel it isn't. Some feel frightened by this. As for some implication that I'm letting down the team by not participating in political messes they've heavily invested in - that's not my problem, it's their problem. The sky is falling but my not voting won't be responsible for that.
Who said anything about replacing your right to vote?
Perhaps I am under a false impression. Are you in favour of getting rid of our electoral system or not?
As for some implication that I'm letting down the team by not participating in political messes they've heavily invested in - that's not my problem, it's their problem.
Then why not help start up an other team that agrees with your viewpoints?
Who said anything about replacing your right to vote?
Perhaps I am under a false impression. Are you in favour of getting rid of our electoral system or not?
You really haven't been paying attention have you? Seriously? Once again, I have been arguing that voting serves the function of legitimizing policy. Sometimes that's a necessary and good thing from the perspective of democracy, as when we get progressive policy (which, I have argued, has been forced from outside electoral politics). Sometimes it's a bad thing from the perspective of democracy, as when we legitimize the neo-liberal program flowing out of Ottawa for the past 40 years.
Voting is not itself democracy. It is a mechanism for producing political legitimacy that can serve or impede democracy depending on a whole host of conditions. But you've heard me say this a million times.
As for some implication that I'm letting down the team by not participating in political messes they've heavily invested in - that's not my problem, it's their problem.
Then why not help start up an other team that agrees with your viewpoints?
Because the game is rigged, not the teams, and teams don't have a choice in the rules of the game.
As for some implication that I'm letting down the team by not participating in political messes they've heavily invested in - that's not my problem, it's their problem.
Then why not help start up an other team that agrees with your viewpoints?
It`s a nice idea, JKR, but there is no space in the electoral circus for the left today, even if we tried. There are some circumstances when the left should run in state elections as a tactic towards revolution but today it is truly counterproductive. It`s well known that whether or not you win the elections, you need to smash the state and build a new one soon or you will be crushed and people will be martyred. Look at the experience of the comrades in Chile and Indonesia. Today, we know we are not welcome in the electoral left (if we are anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist), not least of all because the majority of the working class is not engaged in the elections. We seek fellow workers, not Rex Murphy and Peter Mansbridge. If we don`t smash the bourgeois state it will bite back at us, like Allende`s fall and the ensuing terror, and the overthrow of Suharto and the deaths of half a million communists and the extermination of the radical left in Indonesia because of a strategy of peaceful parliamentarism.
Watch the film A Very British Coup as it perfectly outlines the necessity of taking state power to destroy it and remould it for workers` democracy. If you don`t, the tanks are gonna be rolling into the capital.
Not to mention, even if a totally `left` party won a majority in government, if would be able to do very little. The objective factors in the world have caused all the governments of all the imperialist countries, left and right, to all follow relatively the same policies of immiseration and unconditional support for private property.
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering. I don't expect it will make your position more clear.
There's another thread started as we usually close these off because the dial-up folks have to wait forever for the page to load after it goes much past 100 posts. Please feel free to adjourn to 2
Watch the film A Very British Coup as it perfectly outlines the necessity of taking state power to destroy it and remould it for workers` democracy. If you don`t, the tanks are gonna be rolling into the capital.
See now Tobold that's perfectly clear. A great load of nonsense, but clear.
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering.
Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
People have been voting to save programs for decades, unaware that their votes are the very force governance needs to get rid of them. You will be ensuring that future slashes to social programs by Conservative, Liberal, and perhaps NDp governments will have the force of legitimacy behind them attributable to your vote. You can't vote against neo-liberalism.
Bull! The only way to know this is to elect a federal NDP government and have them govern the country for at least one term. This has never happened in Canada.
You can certainly judge the Liberal Party of Canada by their record in federal government. Same goes for Iggy's best friends in the ReformaTory Party. But the NDP has voted against those two old line parties in Parliament more times than Libby's has beans. Therefore voting NDP is a vote against the neoliberal stoogeaucracy.
...
People have been voting to save programs for decades, unaware that their votes are the very force governance needs to get rid of them. You will be ensuring that future slashes to social programs by Conservative, Liberal, and perhaps NDp governments will have the force of legitimacy behind them attributable to your vote. You can't vote against neo-liberalism.Bull! The only way to know this is to elect a federal NDP government and have them govern the country for at least one term. This has never happened in Canada.
You can certainly judge the Liberal Party of Canada by their record in federal government. Same goes for Iggy's best friends in the ReformaTory Party. But the NDP has voted against those two old line parties in Parliament more times than Libby's has beans. Therefore voting NDP is a vote against the neoliberal stoogeaucracy.
You have a theory that an NDP government would behave differently than former Liberal and Conservative governments. I think the theory is poorly articulated and deeply flawed.
@ Tobold #120
In which case your position against voting because you think it legitimizes the electoral system - which would seem to be your main point - is nonsense.
Do you have a problem with voting or do you not? Or do you only have a problem with it when you seem to think things aren't going your way (which is a funny notion of democracy)?
ANyway, I am off to the other thread. THis is too long.
You have a theory that an NDP government would behave differently than former Liberal and Conservative governments. I think the theory is poorly articulated and deeply flawed.
Your posts are littered with the theme that the federal NDP is just another neoliberal party in sheep's clothing. Your proposition says something along the lines that because there have only ever been two established lying-liar parties running the country, then the NDP must be the same. And that's called a fallacious argument. Youre basically saying that because the two lyingest-liar parties have poisoned the well of democracy in this country, we therefore can not trust any other political party based on the crooked and corrupted records of the only two parties that have governed federally since 1867.
And this is falsifiable on a number of levels. The NDP's voting record against the neoliberal agenda in Ottawa is a good place to start. The two oldest political parties have long and established ties to Bay Street money and influence whereas the NDP has never. Your knee-jerk reaction to the one party that actually opposed the Harper stoogeaucracy more times than any other party in Ottawa over the last five years is more conspiracy theory than anything.
...
Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin, VI
In particular, the following chapter is of particular note ...
oh yes, Vladimir Lenin: by acclamation, Cretin-of-the-century award-winner
although give the embalmed-one credit, he could organize a secret police force in record time
There's another thread as this one is well over 100 posts. You might want to post your remarks there, DaveW. Maybe you could explain the relevance of your remarks about embalming there. Or was that just a freebie ad hominem attack?
In any case, Lenin argues that participation in Parliamentary elections - in particular the current one in Canada - is not universally worthless as babbler Tobold is claiming. I know it might stick in your craw, but perhaps you agree ... with Lenin? lol. Think of it as a broken clock being right twice a day ... if it will help you.
One huge glaring weakness in the argument not to vote:The greatest argument being made not to vote is that a lower voting rate suggests that the result of the election is not as legitimate. The problem of course with that is the people who get to hold power don't give a damn about legitimacy.
Indeed they do give a damn about legitimacy. So much so that in the absence of it, they'll fabricate it themselves. Does anyone doubt that if a paltry 20% of voters turned out, they'd declare that an election and use it to do what they've always done on behalf of corporatism? Harper packs a hall with conservative supporters and calls that the voice of the people. The international community is NATO. They'll put to use every shred of cover that people are willing to lend to their processes. And when false legitimacy is insufficient to the task at hand, they always have the police with their beatings and arrests at the ready, complete with 'no rights' zones anywhere they please.
I agree with Lenin. It's a very good chapter entitled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
oh yes, Vladimir Lenin: by acclamation, Cretin-of-the-century award-winner
although give the embalmed-one credit, he could organize a secret police force in record time
But not nearly as fast as the capitalist democracies embraced Himmler's intel agents in the SS years before the end of western aggression against the revolution part two was finished by 1945. Some of them are still slithering around North and South America, and some still there in Merkel's BND. The OSS-CIA and western militaries had some help from the best when writing manuals for secret police and stay behind tactics , torture and false flag terrorism apparently. And they were the scum of the earth.
