Re: AUT: AN OPEN LETTER TO RALPH NADER

[Richard Singer <ricinger@xxxxxxxx>]

I greatly appreciate Josh's observations.  As someone who has organized
with anarchists for several years (although my disillusionment with the
"anarchist movement" and my dissatisfaction with much brand-name anarchist
theory have led me to be a little less enthusaistic about wearing that
label personally), I have grown increasingly weary of the idea promoted by
a number of anarchists (many of whom I agree with on many other issues)
that it is an important act of some sort to stay home from the polls and
that it is worthwhile to expend a lot of energy boasting about not voting
and trying to discourage other people not to vote (or even making efforts
to admonish other people for thinking of voting).  It seems clear to me
that this approach, as Josh points out, merely fetishizes voting in a way
that makes the act of voting much more important than it really is.  I also
agree with Josh that the people who vote with a grain of salt -- whether
they're voting for lesser of two evils, or they're voting to register a
protest or they're voting for a specific referendum (which sometimes is
more significant than voting for a politician) -- actually give the act of
voting less significance than those who make a big deal about not voting.
 However, I have always said to the anarchists that if they really thought
they could make an important statement by not voting, they should organize
a visible boycott of the polls, making it clear to a wider public why,
exactly, they are consciously staying home from the polls.  While the
anarchists don't ever seem to want to make that attempt in earnest, at
least Dave Stratman and New Democracy are willing to begin such an effort.
 However, the question is, how "mass" will their movement of mass refusal
be right now, and how much could it register in the public consciousness?

In 2000, I didn't think it was very important to vote, especially if I had
something else to do, so I skipped the polls the evening after work (I
worked a regular day job back then) in order to attend a DAN Labor meeting.
 (As I have often said afterwards, maybe I was deluded to think that this
act would have any significance either.  But I was still on that
Post-Seattle N30/Post-DC A16 High...)  In 2004, however, I think it is more
important -- as important as any act related to the polls will be -- to
vote for Ralph Nader.  I say this because this would be the most visible
act of defiance against the Democrats and their attempts to stifle all
radical or progressive voices under the false pretext that it is vitally
important to support the Democrats as the alternative (huh?) to Bush.  The
Nader-smearing campaign is particularly despicable and probably sets a new
precedent in terms of the major parties' eagerness to stifle any attempts
to build an alternative electoral-political party.  And while we all might
have reasonable doubts about the effectiveness of even building a third
party at the polls, I do think that allowing the major parties to get away
with this kind of tactic will provide another nail for the coffin of
democracy (or whatever semblance of democracy existed to begin with).
 Meanwhile, a vote for Ralph Nader would be a much more visible protest,
and one more likely to be perceived correctly as a protest, than simple
abstention from the polls, unless a mass refusal movement could really gain
adequate visibility or momentum -- which I don't think could conceivably
happen until sometime further in the future.  Of course, voting for Nader
would basically be a symbolic act, with the public, press, and media
perceptions in mind, but so would a public statement of refusal to vote.
 Meanwhile, third parties do sometimes politicize and radicalize people who
would not normally be encouraged to think along these lines through
extra-electoral efforts (precisely because so many people are conditioned
to look for all their politics in election campaigns), so discouraging
these efforts might actually be counter-productive for anyone who wants to
build a stronger movement of resistance against the political status quo.


Richard

Common Wheel Collective
http://www.geocities.com/thecommonwheel/journal.html
http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook


-----Original Message-----
From:	Newdem@xxxxxxx [SMTP:Newdem@xxxxxxx]
Sent:	Sunday, March 28, 2004 11:09 AM
To:	aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: AUT: AN OPEN LETTER TO RALPH NADER

In a message dated 3/27/2004 11:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lautrenom@xxxxxxxxx writes:
So I am confused here.  You say electoral democracy is a sham and no change
can come through the electoral system.  But isn't non-voting as much a part
of
the electoral system as voting?  Certainly it might leave less of a sour
taste
in your mouth if you care about such things.  But if not voting could
really
change anything, wouldn't they make it illegal?Voting to abstain seems to
me
to legitimise the electoral system even more than voting to not abstain
does.
It seems to offer the promise that if enough people refuse, then the
majority
will can prevail or at least be represented.  But the real problem with
electoral democracy is that the "people's will" is really a will-a-wisp and
representing it only cements the fetishism on which it rests.  The cynics
who vote for
their local lesser evil at least make no such grandiose claim, only that
genocide will occur more slowly, fewer avenues for workers to organise will
be
forclosed, etc.  Maybe if someone could say what practical
benefits I might receive through non-voting, other that the sweet taste of
self-indulgence, I would be inclined to take this movement more seriously.

josh
Josh--

We are not calling on people simply not to vote, but to announce to their
friends and family and the world why they are not voting: that we live in a
fake
democracy, in which they refuse to participate. We intend MassRefusal/2004
(massrefusal.org) to be one of many steps in building the movement for real
democracy.

The idea that we live in a democracy and that the policies of the
government
reflect the will of the people is one of the great illusions in our
society;
to the extent that the illusion persists, it profoundly demoralizes and
demobilizes people. Exposing the fraudulence of the supposed democracy is
an
important step in helping people realize that the government's vicious
policies do not
reflect the will of the people, that those who oppose the governement are
not
alone, and that it is possible to build a succesful movement to challenge
capitalist power.

Dave Stratman
Editor, New Democracy
newdemocracyworld.org
5 Burr Street
Boston, MA 02130
617-524-4073


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---