Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky

["Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>]

I must say I'm rather shocked at this position.
Tahir

>>> thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx 03/30/04 11:19AM >>>
On 30/3/2004 11:15 AM, "neil" <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The mass refusals to vote (or even register)  in  the USA
> does not mean a mass revolt against capitals rule now . OK true.
> But the variegated mass trends of US  workers not wasting time
> dropping little ballot papers for the bosses bribed puppets is much
> more than just apathy and lazyness.

This is an empirical question. You shouldn't read your hopes onto the fact
people failed to vote. It could mean any number of things.

If there were a massive movement to oppose capital, if there were an
articulation of an anti-voting ideology, I would be entirely comfortable
with the idea that abstention is a signal of revolt. But there is no such
movement.

Of course, someone might argue, with a great deal of plausibility in my
view, that abstention is one amongst many symptoms of a general and
distributed resistance that does not rely, as was just mentioned in this
list, on communication. You could say that in the refusal to vote -
assuming, of course, that it is a refusal, and not that thugs have stopped
you from voting as allegedly happened in Florida and elsewhere - is a moment
of visibility of a vast and mostly invisible rejection, that might express
itself elsewhere but never in such a manner that it could be ordered from
above. Then what in my argument appears as the hollowness of the notion of
an abstentionist constituency would be, in fact, a manifestation of the fact
that my perspective is seeking to  impose a certain order. From on high, I
am deaf to the diffuse multitude of mobile forces. That is true. There is no
apology for this from my quarter. Knowing fully well how nasty this is
likely to be, and knowing that it is indeed a statist and authoritarian
practice, I still support compulsory voting. If you want to abstain, vote
irregular. But I don't buy the rest of your argument. Some people are
actually fucking lazy, and some could not give a toss - not because of
solidarity, but because of its opposite. We should drag them to the booths
kicking and screaming, and torture them into being good citizens.
Muahahahaha!

Less psychotically, I don't understand these arguments for abstention. It's
a crazy gamble, considering that the Bush mob consists of, as a matter of
indisputable fact, a pack of mad bastards who are far worse than the Kerry
clique. If Bush wins, you'll be roasted alive for your decision, rightfully
so. I'll be lighting the bbq. If Kerry wins, then you can complain about how
crap he is - but you can do this anyway. The fewer people who vote, the more
likely Bush is to win. So the more people adhere to your policy, the more
likely it is that you will be roasted alive. Not very clever. You just don't
have anything to gain from this, and a lot to lose.

Besides, as I recall it, the Clinton days were not exactly unknown for their
stimulation of activism... A phoney liberal president is a great example for
activists to point to, whereas these vile and incompetent scum shine with
the promise that someone better might replace them.

Thiago





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



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