Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky

[neil <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thaigo states--
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

Neil replies;

 I'ts been a long time since such  thoroughly muddled
and dangerous bourgeois democratic illusion fostering
paragraphs have have appeared on
a 'libertarian' communist/anarchist list such as this.

1) Thiago , any kind of support for 'compulsory voting' is license
to the bosses state  to step up their reactionary policies
since they will be the 'enforcers' of the compulsion.
Not only would this mean monetary fines, but also stepped
up  additions of political files on the voter abstentionists,
and then (in later crises) 'weeding out the troublemaking
communists/anarchists', using this info/license you support
 to  help do so.
This methodologically  goes in tandem with FBI/State police
calls on neighbors and problably the voter
abstentionists bosses as well.

Your illusions in capitalist democracy in the State is
also rather shocking ,to put it mildly.

2)But you misunderstand the methods of rule for the US 'democratic'
state machinery in our epoch. Democrats and Republicans
vie for election seats, the bribes, the Corp.contracts, the
payoffs for their allies , and lucrative careers
the think tank positions, 'service' to nation, etc.
But in the USA the Democrats and Republicans also rule
in more or less a 'bi-partisan' way, they act as a
tag-team that uses a lot of good-cop/ bad cop tactics
in practice to keep their own class/social  consituencies
 in line and tied to political passivity and confusion
in maintenance of the waged slave order.
They both serve as heavy legions of ideological
artillery that takes its toll on workers to be sure.

Look at the track record, not you own mindset.
No accident the liberal Democrats have held the
Federal Executive during most of all the USA's
greatest militarist offensives of the 20th Cent. WW1,
 WW2 , Korea, Vietnam , Dominican Republic, Yugoslavia, etc.
The US liberals have as much blood on their hands
ans the open right wing Republican conservatives.
Your comparisons of Kerry and Bush are so much
gobbledegook. Have you not even noticed that today
when Kerry attacks Bush (on needed pentagonian fervor,
military bearing, loyalty to bear arms for capital,
he attacks Bush  more from the right????

This is not just candidate point-scoring , its the wings
of the US ruling class talking- and the shady liberals are
letting the rest of the ruling class know they can
be relied on to 'do the job' of building &
expanding empire and with a strong 'democratic'
state on the Homeland Front too to deal with
the class strife problems that will crop up.

Clintons years also prove a bi-product of this--
that the liberal/centrist wing of capital have the
smarts to keep forces inside any motions that come up
from below and try to keep them impotent and passive.
Clinton and the Democrats in congratulating tehmselves
for that job (for the rulers, one well done) would say maybe
"We're slicker than deerguts hangin' on a door knob"
and all of us had better understand these
 political ABCs for sure.

Neil





       ---


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