I'd rather boycott the 2012 election. It's going to be a real headache.
Boycott the 2011 Election?
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:07
#52
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:10
#53
ps I am the original poster of this thread and I'm hardly just visiting as much as some would wish - there's multiple threads with your ndp vote-cult nonsense and one continuing one on not voting. If you don't like it here then go to one of the others where the true believers worship.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:13
#54
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
So Tobold Rollo is your sock puppet then?
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:14
#55
Though it is clearly not true of all voters and non-voters, election time is certainly a time of habitual and apathetic actions. Most people I know are apathetic voters, that is, they vote out of habit. The same is true of many non-voters I know. I think it is a minority who vote or abstain on principle.
The problem that I have with voting is that it is counter-productive to democratic aims. The apathetic voters are therefore a source of frustration, though I am almost positive that none of the discussants on this board are apathetic voters.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:14
#56
Here's an interesting look at the supposed decline in voting. Never mind that the number of voters as a percentage of the population has been steadily RISING, and that part of the apparent drop is because we have more accurate and complete voters' lists
That's a very selective way of reading the numbers. But yes, you're right; in 1867 only 8.3% of the population voted, compared to 52.5% in 1988. Congratulations on scoring that irrelevant point. I don't suppose that extending the franchise to women and First Nations, the establishment of advance polling, the removal of restrictions based on income level and ownership of property, the lowering of the voting age to 18, and demographic shifts as baby boomers reached voting age had anything to do with that increase. Of course, voter participation has fallen 10.5% since the high-water mark in 1988. I guess that can be dismissed as simply the result of changes to how the voter's list is compiled?
Here are some interesting quotes from the link you provided:
It is certainly true that the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots has declined- - especially since 1993.
For example, the portion of Canadians under 15 years of age has dropped from 32.5% in 1941 to 17.6% in 2006; this figure is calculated from Census data available at Stats Canada. With this change in demographics in mind, one actually should have seen an increase in the percentage of Canada's total population who vote in an election as the Canadian population aged.
Unfortunately, there are some fundamental problems when one tries to compare voter turnout over long periods of time.
Nevertheless, there does indeed appear to have been a drop, over the last 15 years or so, in the number of eligible voters who actually end up casting ballots.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:15
#57
I was clear and stated I was fed up with threads devoted to claiming that voting is apathy. That is what drew me in to this crap in the first place -- the insults to people who vote.
Well, I haven't gone back to see where the insults originated from, but my guess would be that the ones who were stating opinions in support of not voting would have been set upon first. That's what I recall anyway. The point is that both sides have attempted to put forth the position that the others action or inaction supports the status quo. The non-voting side has said that the election process itself is the perpetual and unchangeable status quo, and that to partake in it legitimizes not only the process, but those who primarily benefit from it, which are the corporations and their supporters on the government and opposition benches. The 'come out and do your civic duty' side begs to differ with that argument of course, while countering that the act of not voting is tantamount to a betrayal of the premiere left wing movement in this country, as embodied in the NDP. The non-voters are arguing that point as well, and correctly so in my estimation, as part of their justification.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:16
#58
Lard: And just as many young people get led on by the idea that the NDP is going to bring them closer to ending capitalism. I wish they were all as level-headed as you here. Good point on the colonial interference - the NDP is a big supporter of that as well. Unfortunately I don't buy into the Canadian values myth, or the peacekeeping myth. All of these yarns have been spun for a long time to maintain bourgeois rule in Canada. Canada's not unique; it doesn't have special values; it doesn't play a special role in anything; it's a European settler country which is now imperialist and based on private property and exploitation. We've never kept any peace, and values exist in peoples' minds only.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:16
#59
It wasn't the poster of the thread-- it was Tobold and Anondrogys who have tag-teamed insults for people who vote directly calling people apathetic for voting. If you agree with them that much I can include you but I was referring to them.
"your ndp vote cult nonsense" what the fuck is that?
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:20
#60
Though it is clearly not true of all voters and non-voters, election time is certainly a time of habitual and apathetic actions. Most people I know are apathetic voters, that is, they vote out of habit. The same is true of many non-voters I know. I think it is a minority who vote or abstain on principle.
The problem that I have with voting is that it is counter-productive to democratic aims. The apathetic voters are therefore a source of frustration, though I am almost positive that none of the discussants on this board are apathetic voters.
Tobold look up the word apathetic-- you liked to proclaim that you were more educated than I.
It does not mean habit it means lack of interest or concern.
And it was that insult that got me started and the very one that had me questioning why you are allowed to come here and sling that.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:21
#61
Though it is clearly not true of all voters and non-voters, election time is certainly a time of habitual and apathetic actions. Most people I know are apathetic voters, that is, they vote out of habit. The same is true of many non-voters I know. I think it is a minority who vote or abstain on principle.
The problem that I have with voting is that it is counter-productive to democratic aims. The apathetic voters are therefore a source of frustration, though I am almost positive that none of the discussants on this board are apathetic voters.
To be clear, it is counter-productive to democratic aims so long as it does not produce the results you want.
Have I got it right?
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:22
#62
It wasn't the poster of the thread-- it was Tobold and Anondrogys who have tag-teamed insults for people who vote directly calling people apathetic for voting. If you agree with them that much I can include you but I was referring to them.
"your ndp vote cult nonsense" what the fuck is that?
I think there is a dangerous tendencey here to read apathetic as an insult when, like the word 'ignorant', it can also be used a purely descruptive sense (As when I admit that I am ignorant of certain practices). That's the sense I have been using the term apathetic with reference to voting out of habit. The emotional charge comes from conservatives who have used the term as a slander against the characters of those on the left who acknowledge that politics extends beyond voting mechanisms. We would be smart not to follow the conservative framework of conceiving non-voting as a failure of character, even if it is a habitual form of non-voting.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:23
#63
I was clear and stated I was fed up with threads devoted to claiming that voting is apathy. That is what drew me in to this crap in the first place -- the insults to people who vote.Well, I haven't gone back to see where the insults originated from, but my guess would be that the ones who were stating opinions in support of not voting would have been set upon first. That's what I recall anyway. The point is that both sides have attempted to put forth the position that the others action or inaction supports the status quo. The non-voting side has said that the election process itself is the perpetual and unchangeable status quo, and that to partake in it legitimizes not only the process, but those who primarily benefit from it, which are the corporations and their supporters on the government and opposition benches. The 'come out and do your civic duty' side begs to differ with that argument of course, while countering that the act of not voting is tantamount to a betrayal of the premiere left wing movement in this country, as embodied in the NDP. The non-voters are arguing that point as well, and correctly so in my estimation, as part of their justification.
The threads are there-- and there was a point made by the non-voting people that they were not apathetic but they did not stop there and in fact directed the insult at me personally saying I represented the definition of apathy. I've been pretty pissed since.
What happened after is anger and I have responded several times asking if they would be willing to grant that voting is not apathy and they refuse.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:25
#64
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Lard: And just as many young people get led on by the idea that the NDP is going to bring them closer to ending capitalism.
Have you ever actually spoken to any young people?
None that I know believe that - except for the occasional ideologically-twisted right-winger who describes us as commies, and would never vote for us anyway.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:25
#65
Though it is clearly not true of all voters and non-voters, election time is certainly a time of habitual and apathetic actions. Most people I know are apathetic voters, that is, they vote out of habit. The same is true of many non-voters I know. I think it is a minority who vote or abstain on principle.
The problem that I have with voting is that it is counter-productive to democratic aims. The apathetic voters are therefore a source of frustration, though I am almost positive that none of the discussants on this board are apathetic voters.
To be clear, it is counter-productive to democratic aims so long as it does not produce the results you want.
Have I got it right?
It is counterproductive to democratic aims insofar as democracy rests on notions of equality, inclusion, and solidarity and voting in the absence of social pressures on wealthy elites has only served to advance inequality, exclusion, and alientation. It just so happens that I also value democratic aims. Do you have another set of aims in mind?
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:26
#66
Wow, Sean. It sounds like you've been hit pretty hard. You should come unleash some of that anger on the ruling class instead of wasting your vote.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:29
#67
It wasn't the poster of the thread-- it was Tobold and Anondrogys who have tag-teamed insults for people who vote directly calling people apathetic for voting. If you agree with them that much I can include you but I was referring to them.
"your ndp vote cult nonsense" what the fuck is that?
I think there is a dangerous tendencey here to read apathetic as an insult when, like the word 'ignorant', it can also be used a purely descruptive sense (As when I admit that I am ignorant of certain practices). That's the sense I have been using the term apathetic with reference to voting out of habit. The emotional charge comes from conservatives who have used the term as a slander against the characters of those on the left who acknowledge that politics extends beyond voting mechanisms. We would be smart not to follow the conservative framework of conceiving non-voting as a failure of character, even if it is a habitual form of non-voting.
You are wrong.
Apathy does not have diverse multiple definitions-- it means uninterested unconcerned and uncaring.
This is a place for people, mostly activists to discuss politics. People who are here by definition are interested, concerned and caring about something. Calling any person who is present uncaring here -- either directly or indirectly is a personal attack.
The mods are out to lunch on this. It should have been nipped way back then. Yes those saying non-voting is apathy could also have been slapped donwn myself included but many of us accepted your point only to have you continue to make the same charge at us. Your redefinition of the word is unhelpful. It still has the same meaning it had before.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:31
#68
Lard: And just as many young people get led on by the idea that the NDP is going to bring them closer to ending capitalism.
Have you ever actually spoken to any young people?
None that I know believe that - except for the occasional ideologically-twisted right-winger who describes us as commies, and would never vote for us anyway.
Yes, I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism. People are unwitting idealists, and expect that real politics will progress along a spectrum rather than move based on the material and social dynamics of classes. I have seen many people express this view, the view that, by supporting something you don't actually agree with, it will get you closer to the ability to support something you do agree with. Unfortunately this is false and it has never worked this way in reality.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:32
#69
Wow, Sean. It sounds like you've been hit pretty hard. You should come unleash some of that anger on the ruling class instead of wasting your vote.
I vote on principle it is not a waste for me.
You want me to respect your decision to withhold your right to vote. Fine now stop insulting my decision to use my vote. It is my right. It is worth it for me and it is my expression. By definition it is not wasted.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:36
#70
for those just joining us here again is what has the ndp hornets hereabouts so abuzz
Boycott the Elections 2011: Vote With Your Feet
http://boycottelections2011.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-dont-endorse-voti...
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:38
#71
You are wrong.
Apathy does not have diverse multiple definitions-- it means uninterested unconcerned and uncaring.
Sounds like you're confusing dictionaries with people, and that you have more or less internalized the conservative use of 'apathy' along with its links to voting behaviour.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:39
#72
Lard: And just as many young people get led on by the idea that the NDP is going to bring them closer to ending capitalism.
Have you ever actually spoken to any young people?
None that I know believe that - except for the occasional ideologically-twisted right-winger who describes us as commies, and would never vote for us anyway.
Yes, I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism. People are unwitting idealists, and expect that real politics will progress along a spectrum rather than move based on the material and social dynamics of classes. I have seen many people express this view, the view that, by supporting something you don't actually agree with, it will get you closer to the ability to support something you do agree with. Unfortunately this is false and it has never worked this way in reality.
"unwitting" Look at that word.
You and Tobold are here insulting people who do care because we don't agree with you. This is the language that baits people to respond. A little is fine but this type of language has characterized your posts since the start-- you talk about democracy etc. but in fact your language is elitist, arrogant and classist (like when Tobold told me to go get an education).
I don't agree with you -- that is fine but I am not unwitting. I am merely a person who does not agree with you.
You want some respect here? -- earn some.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:42
#73
Lard: And just as many young people get led on by the idea that the NDP is going to bring them closer to ending capitalism.
Have you ever actually spoken to any young people?
None that I know believe that - except for the occasional ideologically-twisted right-winger who describes us as commies, and would never vote for us anyway.
Yes, I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism. People are unwitting idealists, and expect that real politics will progress along a spectrum rather than move based on the material and social dynamics of classes. I have seen many people express this view, the view that, by supporting something you don't actually agree with, it will get you closer to the ability to support something you do agree with. Unfortunately this is false and it has never worked this way in reality.
"unwitting" Look at that word.
You and Tobold are here insulting people who do care becuase we don't agree with you. This is the language that baits people to respond.A little is fien but this type of language has characterized your posts since the start-- you talk about democracy etc. but in fact your language is elitist, arrogant and classist (like when Tobold told me to go get an education).
I don't agree with you -- that is fine but I am not unwitting. I am merely a person who does not agree with you.
You want some respect here? -- earn some.
Buddy. Nobody wants your respect. You're so exasperated now that you're looking for contextual clues to throw baseless accusations around. Sorry I haven't clothed my language in something to make you less angry. I said that some people unwittingly use idealistic analysis instead of a material one. So what? I made a claim. I also sometimes unwittingly think idealistically. The people I am speaking about are my close friends and I am happy to tell them to their face they are being idealist. My friends aren't as sensitive as you though I guess. Lord knows it's "classist" to advance an argument in favour of proletarian revolution 
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:46
#74
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
... I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism.
So, to be clear, you claim that most young NDP voters actually desire full-blown communism, and have told you as much.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:46
#75
Now you want to invent your own definitions for words?
Now I am using a "conservative" defintion and confused-- over a widely understood word definition --
Words are symbols whose only value is shared meanign so when you change the meaning of symbols such that they only reflect your personal definitions it becomes impossible to engage with others in a worthwhile way.
And what on earth is "conservative" about the definition of apathy I gave-- let's face it this was a word slid in to insult and to provide an extra personal attack. The only purpose was to aggrivate, to bait, to provoke.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:51
#76
... I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism.
So, to be clear, you claim that most young NDP voters actually desire full-blown communism, and have told you as much.
Hmm, nope. I can't speak about most NDP voters. Most people that are willing to bust their ass to get the party elected without being paid have some understanding of the social ills that they dislike being a structural problem to do with capitalism and private property, not a problem of better or worse policies. I claimed that despite this, there is a very prevalent idea that the NDP will get society closer to being able to radically overthrow the existing structure of society/economy and cure those ills at their root.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:55
#77
... I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism.
So, to be clear, you claim that most young NDP voters actually desire full-blown communism, and have told you as much.
Hmm, nope. I can't speak about most NDP voters. Most people that are willing to bust their ass to get the party elected without being paid have some understanding of the social ills that they dislike being a structural problem to do with capitalism and private property, not a problem of better or worse policies. I claimed that despite this, there is a very prevalent idea that the NDP will get society closer to being able to radically overthrow the existing structure of society/economy and cure those ills at their root.
And I would add that one problem with this is it means people are forced to lie in order to stick more or less to the NDP line for election purposes.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:56
#78
Now you want to invent your own definitions for words?
Now I am using a "conservative" defintion and confused-- over a widely understood word definition --
Words are symbols whose only value is shared meanign so when you change the meaning of symbols such that they only reflect your personal definitions it becomes impossible to engage with others in a worthwhile way.
And what on earth is "conservative" about the definition of apathy I gave-- let's face it this was a word slid in to insult and to provide an extra personal attack. The only purpose was to aggrivate, to bait, to provoke.
Just because it is widely understood doesn't make it any less a conservative use of the term. The use is conservative insofar as it carries the sense that not-voting is not participating in a normal, stable, and civilized set of practices, usually because one lacks integrity or good character. The exact same argument gets attached by conservatives to unemployent, poverty, and even disease.
I didn't invent the non-pejorative meaning. It's used by social scientists all the time when they look at voter turnout without derision. It's a less common use, but it's still a valid use.
Wed, 2011-04-20 15:58
#79
The whole tone of the discussion from when both of you arrived a couple days ago was to demean people who vote and claim they don't care and that you know better. I have known people who suffered badly to fight for the right to vote. I have had people in my own family suffer for it.
I am sorry that my anger seems so directed at you.
It really is about the fact that this is being tolerated here.
You are doing your thing. My exasperation is that this place is one that normally did not allow new people to come and tell others that they don't care, are not educated enough, or are witless. That WAS the history of this place, a history you don't know or appreciate because you just got here. So no, my anger is directed at the moderation here-- not at people who I have no more respect for than the spammers who come here to sell their wares. I tried to engage with you and compromise. I offered what was essentially a peace when I said we could respect your non-voting position if you stop insulting us for voting. You did not take that offer of mutual respect and so I give you no respect so good to know you are not looking for it.
Anyway, I have other things to do so will leave your anti-voting campaign for a bit
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:01
#80
Now you want to invent your own definitions for words?
Now I am using a "conservative" defintion and confused-- over a widely understood word definition --
Words are symbols whose only value is shared meanign so when you change the meaning of symbols such that they only reflect your personal definitions it becomes impossible to engage with others in a worthwhile way.
And what on earth is "conservative" about the definition of apathy I gave-- let's face it this was a word slid in to insult and to provide an extra personal attack. The only purpose was to aggrivate, to bait, to provoke.
Just because it is widely understood doesn't make it any less a conservative use of the term. The use is conservative insofar as it carries the sense that not-voting is not participating in a normal, stable, and civilized set of practices, usually because one lacks integrity or good character. The exact same argument gets attached by conservatives to unemployent, poverty, and even disease.
I didn't invent the non-pejorative meaning. It's used by social scientists all the time when they look at voter turnout without derision. It's a less common use, but it's still a valid use.
Bullshit. Apathy has only one meaning. When social scientists write that non voters are apathetic that is what they mean. Sorry to break it to you.
And it may not be pejorative to everyone. Many who don't care don't mind being labeled as such. But the people who are here do care and take issue with that term being used for them.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:06
#81
Bullshit. Apathy has only one meaning. When social scientists write that non voters are apathetic that is what they mean. Sorry to break it to you.
And it may not be pejorative to everyone. Many who don't care don't mind being labeled as such. But the people who are here do care and take issue with that term being used for them.
Sorry to break it to you but I am a social scientist and many of my colleagues who measure this stuff use the term non-pejoratively. Case closed.
You're demand that language conform to the way you use it is, ironically, yet another very conservative move.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:08
#82
This is baloney Sean, I didn't attack any individual for the act of voting. Consistently people have clarified that we are speaking of voting as a tactic, or more broadly participation in the bourgeois state as a tactic on the left. This is an extremely valid discussion. It also speaks volumes that you have consistently equated a claim that certain tactics are wrong, and an argument around this, as an attack on your honour. There is more than a hint of panic when something upsets the social democracy stillwaters and that is actually a good thing for the left. These discussions will advance us closer to the truth.
I can only tell you that I'm sure you have more clout with the moderators here than you do with me, so best of luck on your efforts to have non-voting discussions banned. If this message board is geared towards fostering an environment where you don't feel uncomfortable politically then maybe that's how it goes. It's definitely not going to advance the movement though 
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:08
#83
This is baloney Sean, I didn't attack any individual for the act of voting. Consistently people have clarified that we are speaking of voting as a tactic, or more broadly participation in the bourgeois state as a tactic on the left. This is an extremely valid discussion. It also speaks volumes that you have consistently equated a claim that certain tactics are wrong, and an argument around this, as an attack on your honour. There is more than a hint of panic when something upsets the social democracy stillwaters and that is actually a good thing for the left. These discussions will advance us closer to the truth.
I can only tell you that I'm sure you have more clout with the moderators here than you do with me, so best of luck on your efforts to have non-voting discussions banned. If this message board is geared towards fostering an environment where you don't feel uncomfortable politically then maybe that's how it goes. It's definitely not going to advance the movement though
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:09
#84
Bullshit. Apathy has only one meaning. When social scientists write that non voters are apathetic that is what they mean. Sorry to break it to you.
And it may not be pejorative to everyone. Many who don't care don't mind being labeled as such. But the people who are here do care and take issue with that term being used for them.
Sorry to break it to you but I am a social scientist and many of my colleagues who measure this stuff use the term non-pejoratively. Case closed.
You're demand that language conform to the way you use it is, ironically, yet another very conservative move.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:14
#85
N.Beltov
Sean, check your PMs.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:15
#86
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Sorry to break it to you but I am a social scientist and many of my colleagues who measure this stuff use the term non-pejoratively. Case closed.
And I am the Queen of Siam, and I say off with your head. Case closed.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:21
#87
Sean, check your PMs.
I can't reply to you -- get fatal error each time I try.
Sean
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:22
#88
N.Beltov
I guess a fair question regarding any boycott is evaluating the seriousness of the effort. How well organized are they? What's the follow through AFTER the election? How does this approach move things forward? And so on. Apparently logical arguments by themselves aren't really changing anything much, are they?
Other than the link by anond..... to some RCP site about "proletarian organs of power" which don't seem to have sprouted up anywhere (I am resisting the urge to laugh) that I can tell ... there's nothing much at all.
Nada. Squat. bugger all. zilich. zero.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:30
#89
N.Beltov
You're not addressing my point, NDPP. How does a boycott improve things? Does it mobilize anyone? Multiple threads on an entertaining concept, by people with plenty of time on their hands is one thing. Actually changing things, and having realistic goals and means to do so, is something else entirely.
The best I've read here is that participating in this particular election won't change anything. It's a negative claim, ie, it's a claim about what other people are doing. There is no positive claim that I've seen.
And there are plenty of points to be made that preaching a boycott in the absence of any large extra-parliamentary actions is counter productive and actually harmful.
Zitch. nada. squat. goose-egg. Capisce?
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:31
#90
To be clear, it is counter-productive to democratic aims so long as it does not produce the results you want.
Have I got it right?
It is counterproductive to democratic aims insofar as democracy rests on notions of equality, inclusion, and solidarity and voting in the absence of social pressures on wealthy elites has only served to advance inequality, exclusion, and alientation. It just so happens that I also value democratic aims. Do you have another set of aims in mind?
I can understand the handicap of your academic training, but do you not know how to give a straight answer?
If I understand your position correctly, If elections produce results that are acceptable to you, they are okay.
If they don't, they aren't.
You must be a barrel of laughs placing orders at a restaurant. I can see the breadsticks flying right now.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:33
#91
Bullshit. Apathy has only one meaning. When social scientists write that non voters are apathetic that is what they mean. Sorry to break it to you.
And it may not be pejorative to everyone. Many who don't care don't mind being labeled as such. But the people who are here do care and take issue with that term being used for them.
Sorry to break it to you but I am a social scientist and many of my colleagues who measure this stuff use the term non-pejoratively. Case closed.
You're demand that language conform to the way you use it is, ironically, yet another very conservative move.
Pity that I would have to correct the reading comprehension of a great, wonderful, accomplished, lord of social science like you but I said that it is not pejorative everywhere but it is for those who are not apathetic like the people here. Check out the part you quoted. And wow you are one heck of an elitist for an anarchist.
And given your lording of your education and your contacts, I will break a rule here and engage in a spelling/grammar flame for the last line. But you and your colleaugues probably have your own unique definition for words like "your."
So if I call you an asshole that is ok so long as I decide it means great wonderful accomplished academic who knows more than anyone else? Good to know. We can evade any criticism for personal attacks by just changing the meaning. Cool. Fucking cool man. (And by that I mean wonderful and enlightening)
And mods-- sure ban me for calling him that but please remember that I, and probably a few others here, would rather be called an asshole than apathetic.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:39
#92
You're not addressing my point, NDPP. How does a boycott improve things? Does it mobilize anyone? Multiple threads on an entertaining concept, by people with plenty of time on their hands is one thing. Actually changing things, and having realistic goals and means to do so, is something else entirely.
The best I've read here is that participating in this particular election won't change anything. It's a negative claim, ie, it's a claim about what other people are doing. There is no positive claim that I've seen.
And there are plenty of points to be made that preaching a boycott in the absence of any large extra-parliamentary actions is counter productive and actually harmful.
Zitch. nada. squat. goose-egg. Capisce?
Don't use feigned ignorance as an argument. As several people said in several threads, one of the main aims of the boycott campaign is to reach out to disaffected non-voters and lefty types who are ready to make a break with bourgeois democracy with the aim of gathering forces to build a real people's movement to smash the state. The success of boycott as a way to rally advanced proletarians in English Canada remains to be seen. The boycott doesn't seek to change the outcome of the election or do anything grand, as you probably know. A familiarity with the material should give you enough information not to ask these types of questions unless you mean it. There are tons of positive claims associated with the campaign, too. You're just pretending not to know, or choosing not to find out in order to advance a dishonest argument.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:41
#93
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
... I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism.
So, to be clear, you claim that most young NDP voters actually desire full-blown communism, and have told you as much.
Hmm, nope. I can't speak about most NDP voters. Most people that are willing to bust their ass to get the party elected without being paid have some understanding of the social ills that they dislike being a structural problem to do with capitalism and private property, not a problem of better or worse policies. I claimed that despite this, there is a very prevalent idea that the NDP will get society closer to being able to radically overthrow the existing structure of society/economy and cure those ills at their root.
And I would add that one problem with this is it means people are forced to lie in order to stick more or less to the NDP line for election purposes.
So the problem is not that they're communists, but that they're liars?
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:44
#94
Bullshit. Apathy has only one meaning. When social scientists write that non voters are apathetic that is what they mean. Sorry to break it to you.
And it may not be pejorative to everyone. Many who don't care don't mind being labeled as such. But the people who are here do care and take issue with that term being used for them.
Sorry to break it to you but I am a social scientist and many of my colleagues who measure this stuff use the term non-pejoratively. Case closed.
You're demand that language conform to the way you use it is, ironically, yet another very conservative move.
Pity that I would have to correct the reading comprehension of a great, wonderful, accomplished, lord of social science like you but I said that it is not pejorative everywhere but it is for those who are not apathetic like the people here. Check out the part you quoted. And wow you are one heck of an elitist for an anarchist.
And given your lording of your education and your contacts, I will break a rule here and engage in a spelling/grammar flame for the last line. But you and your colleaugues probably have your own unique definition for words like "your."
So if I call you an asshole that is ok so long as I decide it means great wonderful accomplished academic who knows more than anyone else? Good to know. We can evade any criticism for personal attacks by just changing the meaning. Cool. Fucking cool man. (And by that I mean wonderful and enlightening)
And mods-- sure ban me for calling him that but please remember that I, and probably a few others here, would rather be called an asshole than apathetic.
If I was a bricklayer and informed you that bricklayers often use the term apathy non-pejoratively, would you have gone off on this rant? Accusing me of trying to undercut you with my appeal to bluecollar sensibilities and lord my workaday wisdom? I was mere poiting to a group of people who use the term a certain way. I think you are losig your grip on the conversation, as evidenced in mocking me as "great, wonderful, accomplished, lord of social science", swearing at me, and pointing out a typo.
Wed, 2011-04-20 16:46
#95
... I know many dozens of young people actively supporting the NDP right now. Most of them will say specifically that they think NDP power will get us quantitatively and qualitatively towards ending capitalism. This is because many people erroneously view politics as existing on a spectrum, rather than existing in terms of classes and class power. This spectrum stuff, which can be a useful abstraction, does not represent reality, and something that's more "left" than something else is not actually closer at all to what we think of as "further left", ie socialism and then communism.
So, to be clear, you claim that most young NDP voters actually desire full-blown communism, and have told you as much.
Hmm, nope. I can't speak about most NDP voters. Most people that are willing to bust their ass to get the party elected without being paid have some understanding of the social ills that they dislike being a structural problem to do with capitalism and private property, not a problem of better or worse policies. I claimed that despite this, there is a very prevalent idea that the NDP will get society closer to being able to radically overthrow the existing structure of society/economy and cure those ills at their root.
And I would add that one problem with this is it means people are forced to lie in order to stick more or less to the NDP line for election purposes.
So the problem is not that they're communists, but that they're liars?
Eh? I'm a communist. I think communism is good. I think communists should be totally open about their views.
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:00
#96
N.Beltov
As several people said in several threads, one of the main aims of the boycott campaign is to reach out to disaffected non-voters and lefty types who are ready to make a break with bourgeois democracy with the aim of gathering forces to build a real people's movement to smash the state. The success of boycott as a way to rally advanced proletarians in English Canada remains to be seen.
Individuals arguing on babble is one thing. OTOH, are you organized? That would show some seriousness and not just verbal blathering by a few people on an alternative discussion board.
There are plenty of smallish organizations over many years in this country with similar analysis and aims as you've outlined here. However, it's just dumb to suppose that a recruiting drive using rabble's discussion forum as a platform won't end badly for you. It's not much better than spam or a commercial effort to sell some product. And you're lecturing me on my sincerity and honesty? That's pretty funny.
The boycott doesn't seek to change the outcome of the election or do anything grand, as you probably know. A familiarity with the material should give you enough information not to ask these types of questions unless you mean it.
What material? Links?
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:06
#97
Tobold-- Actually, I wasn't swearing at you. Must you insist on such an establishment definition? My friend and I call each other that as a term of endearment. However, we would never call each other apathetic-- then it could come to blows.
Or are you the only one that can use your own definitions?
And yes I might have called you on any attempt at trying to establish superiority by association (a curious tactic for someone I had the impression was an anarchist)
You were trying to claim superiority were you not? I mean the bolding of the word "am" -- wasn't all that to say that your definition was better than mine becuase of the credentials you claim?
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:07
#98
Hahaha, I certainly didn't mean to imply that rabble was a target. 99% of people supporting the campaign haven't posted in any of these threads. I'm actually probably not using my time wisely focusing too much on rabble discussions related to the boycott because besides an old-folks home, this is probably the most hostile audience I could pick. I'm continuing being involved in these discussions on rabble because it's really entertaining and good to shake up shit in the left sometimes to snap people out of their NDP stupor.
The "offline" campaign mostly focuses on flyering and newspaper (Partisan, a bilingual biweekly Maoist paper in Quebec and Ontario) distribution where working class people are, holding public meetings, discussions, and things like that. There have been groups of people in several major cities doing semi-regular outreach work, as time allows. It's not a huge campaign at this point because as you know the resources of the far left are small :)
Boycott2011.ca has lots of articles and material as well as links to get an idea of the positive statements or ideas of the campaign.
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:12
#99
You said Group X uses a term in such and such a way. I told you that I am a member of Group X and we do not use it in such and such a way. No superiority, just facts: apathy is often used in a non-perjorative sense in the analysis of voter turnout. You can deny it all you want.
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:16
#100
#98
Have you actually talked to many seniors, anondrogys? Because I think that generalization is a bit out of line. As a matter of fact, the only person in my riding who I know who is voting green is 75.
"old folks home"..... sheesh!
Wed, 2011-04-20 17:16
#101
Have you actually talked to many seniors, anondrogys? Because I think that generalization is a bit out of line. As a matter of fact, the only person in my riding who I know who is voting green is 75.
No, that's probably an unfair generalization in fact. I was playing off the fact that demographically senior citizens have been known to vote in a higher proportion than some younger people. Perhaps this is not the case any more. I was obviously using it as a way to make the point that this is a very hostile crowd :)