It's Election Time Here In the States...
and I thought I would share with you a different perspective on this sham. McCain, Obama, all the same game, business as usual. This is text from a paper I distribute and is available for free from the collective that printed it (Unconventional Action) It is called False Hope vs. Real Change and is kind of lengthy and lacking the neat colors and pics that are in the actual paper (unfortunately, any link to a .pdf file of it were down)
It is a great read and makes a lot of extremely valid points that it seems most people overlook about our deMOCKracy and majoritarian voting and capitalism. A good read that goes pretty fast. For those interested in alternatives to majoritarian voting, I suggest looking in to consensus process which is employed by many collectives and groups of various sizes including the more well known Food Not Bombs. Peter Gelderloos wrote a really convenient handbook on the process, what it is, how it goes, the benefits, how to teach it and so on. I highly recommend that book to everybody. It is available pretty cheap from Microcosm Publishing.
Anyway, on with the article.
The bush era is coming to an end, and once again the spectacle of a presidential
election captivates the people of the United States.
Enticed by vague rhetoric of hope and change, against a backdrop of increasing
precarity and desperate global crises, millions will rally to elect a new
politician to solve the problems the last batch of politicians created, or at
least failed to alleviate. While we already don't have much of a choice in the
two-party framework, the politicians and the mass media controlled by their
major donors assure us that we don't have any other meaningful way to make a
change than to go along and vote for the lesser of two evils. Certainly, the
urgency of domestic and global crises demands that we all take responsibility
for radically changing the world.
But is voting the only, or even the most effective tool that we have?
***************************************************************************
===================================
Even if our candidate doesn't win, we can
impact government policy by showing
that we're concerned about the issues our
candidate stands for.
===================================
If all you can imagine to do about an issue that
concerns you is to vote for a candidate, and even
if your vote actually mattered statistically, the
best that an election "victory" would ensure
is their place in power, not what they will do
with it. Votes don't give politicians incen-
tive to take action; when people bypass the
established means of change and act directly
to transform society, politicians must then
scramble to catch up and prove their relevance
by confirming the changes that the people
have enacted. And the belief that we can hold
politicians accountable through the threat
of withholding our votes in the next election
rests on the fallacy that being voted out of
office actually poses a threat to a member
of the ruling class. Rather than investing
our energy into electing the least objec-
tionable candidate, we can organize social
movements that more effectively pressure any
ruler that comes along to make the changes we
prioritize--or, better yet, make those changes
ourselves.
-----------------------------------------------
FALSE CHOICE, FALSE HOPE
This election season, the politicians who piloted us into unwinnable wars,
ecological catastrophes, and grievous imbalances of wealth and power will
attempt to recast themselves as the only ones who can rescue us from them. If
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain portray their values and stances
regarding the war in Iraq, global warming, and the economy in opposition to each
other, it's only to mask their shared ruling-class interests: securing US global
military dominance, keeping political power for politicians over the rest of us,
and upholding the interests of the wealthy corporations that seek to control
economic and political power not just in the US, but around the world. In the
end, no matter who we vote for, we will be electing the same system of rulers
that facilitates war, ecological devastation, and the increasing disparity
between rich and poor.
From the fundamental similarity between the interests of the two ruling parties
emerges the central paradox of the election: when the compelling crises that
profoundly concern the electorate are so obviously facilitated by the last batch
of Democratic and Republican politicians, how can the current candidates pres-
ent themselves as likely hopes to solve them? With current popular opinion
solidly against the war and anxious about global warming, the candidates have
an interest in paying lip service towards finding solutions to these problems.
But they find themselves in a difficult position, since the economic and
government/military interests that fund, defend, and enforce Democratic and
Republican power are the same ones underlying imperialist occupations and
catastrophic climate change. So the importance of this election isn't how the
politicians will solve these problems: they won't. The significance of this
election lies in how the Democrats and Republicans will spin these urgent crises
to retain their seats of power, and how the rest of us will refuse their false
promises.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NO WARMING
Never before have we had a political cli-
mate in which the presidential candidates
unanimously acknowledged the signif-
icance of global warming. The state of our
environment could not have grown so dire
without government complicity in the
destruction of the earth so that big busi-
ness could make an easy buck. In Appa-
lachia the government sells out entire
mountains to literally be blown up for
easier mining, American car companies take
advantage of low emission standards to
manufacture some of the least fuel eff-
icient cars in the world, factory farms and
industrial logging receive federal subsi-
dies while they create an increasing amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere, & the list goes on.
For those who care about the earth and its
inhabitants, the shift in rhetoric towards
environmental concern may seem like a
step in the right direction. However, allow-
ing the same political system that has
facilitated the destruction of the earth for
corporate profit to co-opt the struggle ag-
ainst global climate change as a political
"issue" will only ensure that any official
solutions operate within the logic of capit-
alism & the government, keeping those gree-
dy interests intact and ensuring the further
commodification & destruction of the planet.
In order to continue getting richer and
secure their power, the rich who run this
country must ignore, subvert, or overcome
limits to growth. The secret of the ruling
class' ability to hold on to power is how
it uses limits and crises as new launch pads
to secure their position in power. So the
capitalist solution to climate change will
look like, well, capitalism: carbon credits,
Tradable Emissions Quotas, carbon fu-
tures, Al Gore's green investment banking
firm. Then there's green consumerism:
green cars, solar panels, green home make-
overs. They don't care about the earth; they
just need to make sure we keep buying, so
they keep getting richer. Like the politi-
cians they puppet, corporations aren't inve-
sted in honestly being responsible or accou-
ntable, only in convincing consumers to buy
the "socially responsible" image they market,
so that the consumer economy that threatens
our planet's survival can keep grinding on.
------------------------------------------
NO WAR
"No Blood for Oil" has long been the
slogan of the anti-war movement.
Securing oil resources through blood-
shed only makes sense to an economy in
which oil is more precious than human
life. The anti-war movement has thus
embarked on a strategy of disrupting
"business as usual." Demonstrations,
political dissent, sabotage: these express-
ions of protest and discontent with the
war cost the ruling class far more than
the money they have to spend to fix the
windows of their recruitment centers
or the salaries of the police they pay to
beat up anti-war demonstrators. More
importantly, these acts of resistance cost
the politicians an obedient electorate,
because when we find direct ways to affect
change, we no longer need politicians
and their empty promises.
If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
claim that they will eventually end the
war, it is only because the political cost
of human life in this war has become
too expensive for American imperial
interest to continue unchallenged. It
is now worthwhile for the Democrats
to appropriate the anti-war movement,
to pay lip service to its values, to sweep
people away from direct action in the
streets to predictable, contained boxes
on ballots this November.
The Democrats, who uniformly support
expanding the US military and its pres-
ence internationally, will not do anything
about America's addiction to war. To
them, the Iraq war is an aberration,
rather than a logical conclusion of the larg-
est military in the world coupled with an
economy based on insatiable greed. The
Pentagon itself is the single largest
consumer of oil in the world, ensuring a
never-ending cycle of war that will only
escalate as the supply of oil decreases.
---------------------------------------------------
THE PRECEDENT OF RACE & THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
While this summary suggests that this elec-
tion is just another page in the long book
of tyrannical government and a cutthroat
economy, at the same time it undeniably
touches on important issues, in particular
the racial implications of Obama's campaign.
For the first time, our next president might
not be another white man. But how can a
Black man emerge as a leading candidate
for the Democratic nomination & the presi-
dency, at the same time that the majority of
all Black men in the US, at some point,
serve time in prisons & jails? With a nation-
wide spread of nooses at high schools, col-
leges, and workplaces--the symbol of mass
white complicity in racist terror though
lynching--how is it possible that a Black can-
didate for president can garner compel-
ling majorities in predominantly white states?
These paradoxes reveal how Obama's
candidacy actually reinforces the found-
ation of white supremacy on which our
country is based. His success reinforces
the myth that poverty, particularly Black
poverty, is the fault of the poor. It is an
alluring possibility that our country's leg-
acy of racism might not prevent its targets
from attaining political power, supposedly
demonstrating the fulfillment of the demo-
cratic promise of America. But racism and
white supremacy are deeply ingrained
institutions, not offices to be held, & thus
cannot be voted out. Obama's chance at
the presidency says less about how far we
have come in overcoming the racist foun-
dations of our society, and more about the
flexibility of the system to allow a person
of color to lead its imperialist, ecocidal
agenda. So long as Black people are being
incarcerated at alarming rates, communi-
ties of color are held hostage by the threat
of state violence, and the US military conti-
nues to occupy nations & kill people of color
across the world (continuing the 500-year-
old system of European colonization) the
color of its President does not matter.
----------------------------------------------
COLLECTIVES vs.
POLITICAL PARTIES
How do we organize
ourselves as we work to-
wards the worlds we want?
Political parties stem from the premis
that power is a scarcity that must b
seized from those with conflicting inter
ests. They operate by reducing divers
desires to a lowest common denominato
to rally support for their candidate. Th
principle of maintaining power alway
takes precedence over any convictio
or ideology; thus the major US politica
parties survive year after year by shif
ting their platforms, chameleon-like, t
reflect whatever image they calculat
the most voters/consumers will buy. An
since the current political and economi
system protects the monopoly of powe
held by the major parties and thei
corporate funders, any solutions the
propose to social problems will have onl
one ultimate goal: to secure the status qu
that keeps them in power. For example
Democrats focus on state-based proposal
(legislation, international treaties, etc) t
global climate change, whereas Republican
focus on "market" (i.e. corporate capit
alist) solutions, and in this distinction the
create the illusion of choice for voters. Bu
the root cause of global climate chang
lies in the economic system driven by cons
tant expansion that requires environmen
tal devastation to function, along with
the state that protects the sanctity of
property so that it can continue. Thus
any solutions proposed by the political
parties will only cement the power of
this system over us, while inhibiting any
effective movement to address the root
causes. However, in the US party-based
framework of political power, they want
you to believe that if you want to make
a difference, your only option is to join
with one of them, in hopes that if your
party can wrestle enough power away
from the others, they can enforce their
will on everyone else.
An approach more empowering than
signing on to a political party is organ-
izing with people with whom you share
interests to collectively realize your desires
and your potential to make change. When
we organize as equals, we value diverse
perspectives, each individual's unique
contributions, and complex understan-
dings and realities, as opposed to the
simplified, divisive issues that drive party
politics. In this model, power is in abun-
dance, not scarcity; and the further we
build our capacity to work together and
value each other's unique contributions,
the more our individual and collective
power increases. While it would take the
bureaucracy of a political party months if
not years to evaluate the potential costs
and benefits to their power to address a
certain issue, collectives can be started
anywhere at any time, requiring no more
than a few people to achieve or combat
something. The power of political parties
comes from members' allegiance, where-
as the power of collectives comes from
participation.
In contrast to representative democracy,
collective decision-making takes place on
an ongoing basis, allowing participants to
exercise real control over the projects to
which they lend their time and effort.
Unlike majority-rule democracy, collectives
can use consensus decision making, which
values the needs and concerns of each
individual equally; if one person's needs
are unmet by a resolution, it is everyone's
responsibility to find a new solution accep-
table to all. Collective decision-making does
not demand that we accept any person's
power over another, though it does require
that everybody consider everyone else's
needs. What it loses in efficiency it makes
up tenfold in freedom and accountability.
Instead of asking that people choose
leaders or find common cause by
homogenizing themselves,
collectives form a more
powerful working
whole while allow-
ing each partici-
pant to retain
his or her own
autonomy.
---------------------------------------------------
ANARCHY vs.
GOVERNMENT
How is power distributed
in the worlds we want?
Government exists to protect property and
control people; it is the absolute opposite
of freedom. Whether the cops, judges, and
soldiers protect the property of Commu-
nist party bureaucrats, the king, or wealthy
capitalists in a Western democracy, the
function remains the same. Without ine-
qualities of wealth and power, government
would be useless for lack of anything to
defend; who needs to steal when we have
the fruits of our own labors? However, we're
told that only government can keep people
safe from the threat we pose to each other
if unchecked by a higher authority. But
does relinquishing our self-determination
to a central authority leave us safer?
Our leaders couldn't protect us from
terrorist attacks in 2001, but they did send
Americans around the globe to kill and die
in brutal occupations that entrenched anti-
US resolve throughout the world. Mean-
while the government's rhetoric of fear,
faithfully preached by the capitalist media,
left many of us even more convinced that
our safety relied on the state and military
apparatus--when in fact the actions of the
government have created unprecedented
hatred towards its citizens. The "home-
land" that the Department of Homeland
Security claims to protect through secret
prisons, torture, & surveillance can't refer
to our communities (who frequently bear
their attacks); the only thing kept secure
by the expanding police state is the
state apparatus itself. With 1 of every 100
American adults in prison, who is protected
by all the incarceration? There is only one
function for which government is nec-
essary--the maintenance of itself--& its
struggle for self-preservation enslaves us all.
Many understand anarchy as a general
state of chaos, senseless violence, and mat-
erial desperation. However, government
bureaucracies & greedy corporations have
ensured that this chaos has become the
permanent state of affairs. Anarchy is the
opposite of bureaucracy. There is nothing
more eff-
icient than
people acting
on their own
initiative as they
see fit, & nothing
more inefficient than
attempting to dictate
everyone's actions from
above. Top-down coordina-
tion is only necessary to make
people do something they would
never do of their own accord.
Anarchy is the idea that no one is more
qualified than you are to decide how you
live, that no one should be able to vote
on what you do with your time and your
potential. The kind of freedom that anar-
chists fight for is not to be confused with
so-called independence: no one is truly ind-
ependent, since our lives all depend on each
other. The glamorization of self-sufficiency
in competitive society serves to accuse
those who will not exploit others of being
responsible for their own poverty. In
contrast, anarchy offers a free inter-
dependence between people who share
consensus, highlighting the collectivity
& cooperation that make individual
freedom possible.
=======================================
THE SYSTEM is all social and political
possibility compressed into a single point;
the illusion of choice masking a profound
lack of agency over our own lives.
======================================
MUTUAL AID vs. CAPITALISM
How do we distribute resour-
ces in the worlds we want?
Today, capitalism supposedly reigns sup-
reme. United in their conviction that
unlimited economic growth is necessary,
the two parties differ only in how to most
effectively stimulate it. Some economists
have even declared the supposed victory
of capitalist democracy in the post-
Soviet world as "the end of history." But
on the underside of the triumphant
rhetoric lies the material misery of the
many poor and the profound alienation
of the few rich. If our economic
system "works" so well, why
are so few people actually
secure in their basic
needs or satisfied
with their lives?
This widespread dissatisfaction isn't an
accident--our economy relies on this
feeling of incompleteness to keep us obe-
diantly consuming the newest solution
being marketed to us. Capitalism demands
constant expansion to survive; the dark
side of this "growth" is the shrinking of
the earth's natural resources as they are
converted into dead units for economic
exchange, as well as the toil of workers
who are paid increasingly less for more labor.
The logic of capitalism operates direc-
tly at odds with human needs. When former
World Bank president Lawrence Summers
wrote, "the economic logic behind dumping
a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage
country is impeccable," certainly it must
have been obvious that the human logic
of such action is inexcusable and insane.
However, this kind of insanity prevails
under an economic system that materially
rewards those most ruthless in their pur-
suit of wealth. When competition provides
the basis of profit and one person's gain
equals many others' loss in the zero-sum
world of business, the human cost can
only be unspeakably brutal. So as the
world spirals into increasing poverty and
ecological collapse, the corporations on
top keep the wheels of misery in motion,
secure in their illusion that the pursuit
of profit is the only way forward. If the
"end of history" means the extinction of
the human race, then indeed capitalism
is perhaps the only economic system so
blinded to human and ecological realities
to push us over that cliff.
But what could exist beyond capitalism?
After all, the pundits and economics prof-
essors have many of us convinced that
capitalism is the basis of our daily
survival. However, beneath all the talk
of the stock market and interest rates
lies the reality that none of us could
survive against the capitalist economy
if it wasn't for mutual aid and the
gift economy. Child care, gift-giving,
mentoring, co-ops, libraries, theft, bartering;
these and a thousand other examples of
mutual aid form the foundation on which
the formal economy rests. And nearly all
of these things are self-organized; we don't
need a chair of the Federal Reserve to help
us carpool to work or share tools with
our neighbors. Our daily lives provide
countless examples of how we cooperate,
share, and resist the competitive greed
driving the economy of investment
bankers and multi-national corporations.
Capitalism, rather than inescapably
dominating our daily lives, simply gets
in the way of us doing what we do best:
supporting one another to meet our
basic needs and create fulfilling lives.
Practicing mutual aid recognizes our
shared interests, rather than assuming
that competing will lead to the best results
for everyone. Competition isn't human
nature, as scientists and economists want
us to believe; we can choose individually
and collectively which "nature" creates
the world we most want to live in, and
work towards it together. In doing so we
develop the trust in one another that we
need to create a whole economy and way
of living based on cooperation.
-----------------------------------------------
DIRECT ACTION vs. VOTING - What tools do we use to create the worlds we want?
Voting is the least effective strategy for
having a say in society. You can vote once
or twice a year, but it's what you do every
day that counts. The alternative to voting,
broadly speaking, is acting directly to
represent your interests yourself. Direct
action is occasionally misunderstood to
mean a specific kind of campaigning, lob-
bying for influence on elected officials by
means of political activist tactics; but it
properly refers to any action or strategy
that cuts out intermediaries and solves
problems directly, without appealing to
elected representatives, corporate inter-
ests, or other power holders.
Voting is a lottery--if a candidate doesn't
get elected, then all the energy his con-
stituency put into supporting him is
wasted, as the power they hoped he would
exercise for them goes to someone else.
With direct action you can be sure
that your work will offer some kind of
results, and the resources you develop
in the process--whether those be exper-
ience, contacts and recognition in your
community, or organizational infra-
structure--last far beyond the election.
Voting forces everyone in a movement
to try to agree on one platform, sup-
pressing differences and suppressing
everyones' individual desires. With direct
action, on the other hand, no vast con-
sensus is necessary: different groups
can apply different approaches according
to what they believe in and feel comfor-
table doing, which can still interact to
form a mutually beneficial whole.
Finally, voting is only possible when
election time comes around and can only
address the topics that are current in
the political agendas of the candidates.
During this election year, we hear
constantly about the options available
to us as voters, but almost nothing
about our other opportunities to play a
decisive role in our society during the
other 364 days of the year. Direct action
can be applied whenever you see fit, in
every aspect of your life, in every part
of the world you live in. While voting
and direct action are not mutually
exclusive, we hear so little about the
latter precisely because it puts power
back where it belongs: in the hands of
the people from whom it originates. Not
only can direct action more effectively
accomplish our goals than voting, the
experience of solving problems and
creating a better world directly rather
than through representatives opens up
a limitless horizon of possibilities for
managing our own lives, without relying
on any authority to do it for us.
========================================
REVOLUTION means exploding the cons-
traints that keep us locked into this one
compressed point of possibility of how we
can live together, and allowing all of
us to expand outwards into the limitless
possibilities that exist beyond hierarchy.
========================================
ANARCHY & ANARCHISTS WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE WANT
Anarchism is the word we
use to express our passionate desire for
a world on our own terms. Everyone from
capitalists to communists uses the word
"freedom" as some catch all term that
their way of running the world can bring
you. When we use it here, we don't intend
to use the same empty rhetoric. Democra-
cy, Justice, Liberty, Freedom, Revolution--
they've all been co-opted by everything
from tyrannical governments to cell phone
commercials, almost to the point they
don't mean anything anymore. We mean
for a world without rulers, a world with-
out borders, and a world where when
freedom is spoken of it's for all, not just
those within a particular nation, class,
race, gender, or religion. We want to
break down such divisions altogether.
Anarchism describes both the type of
society we envision as well as our process
for creating it, based on mutual aid,
voluntary association, autonomy, and coop-
eration. We didn't come up with this word
through testing it .. groups, and it
doesn't concern us whether or not you use
it, or any other label, for your own frus-
tration and alienation from the status
quo of voting for politicians, or your
desires for something different. We don't
want to take power to then impose what we
believe would be better rules and more
just restrictions. We don't want to run the
world; we want everyone to run their own
lives together. Whether as an anarchist, a
Democrat or Republican, or anything else,
what's important isn't what you call
yourself, but how you resist oppression
and create alternatives.
Direct Action is the
term we use for the path out of the world
we live in now into the ones we desire. In
taking direct action, we bypass the estab-
lished channels for political expression,
and address problems and accomplish
goals directly by undertaking them our-
selves. For us, it's not just about disagr-
eeing with the stances of one or all of
the candidates we're offered--it's about
questioning whether any politician can
represent us or create a world in which we
can live freely. While some might be wil-
ling to bite their tongues for a more prog-
ressive Democrat or cross their fingers on
a third party candidate, many of us have
dreams that will never fit into ballot boxes...
And we're writing to
invite you to partic-
ipate alongside of us.
Unlike presidential elections and the
shelves of chain stores, where your consu-
mer choices are neatly pre-selected and
laid out for you by people you'll never
meet, amongst anarchists you'll actually
have to think for yourself. No one will ask
you what your stances are on "the issues,"
as defined and framed by the politicians
and the experts. Instead, we want to know:
What are your desires?
What kind of world
do you want to live in?
No one can sell you any fashionably pack-
aged solutions to your alienation from the
political system--least of all anarchists!
Our goal isn't to become candidates and
convince you to vote for us or our posi-
tions--we want everyone to articulate
their own visions, and to have the tools
and the agency to enact those visions for
themselves. We want to completely leave
behind the world of partitioned "issues,"
the consumerist illusion of choice, and
the idea that anyone can represent us. In
their place, we're creating relationships
of affinity with those around us who share
common interests, similar alienation,
and compatible visions of a way to live
without ruling or being ruled.
Sure, there are glimpses into other
worlds of possibility that inspire us...but
ultimately, anyone who lays out a formula
for The Revolution with a capital R plays
the same game as the politicians who claim
to offer us salvation through their ex-
pertly designed plans to manage our
discontent. Anyway, the point isn't to
have it all figured out; the point is to act.
Freedom is not a commodity, it's a proc-
ess; we become free by acting freely, and
no one can do that for us.
When we step outside of the trap of
voting in elections into the vast universe
of possibility that exists through direct
action, we hold the keys to all of the worlds
we've only dreamed of, the worlds we never
saw in the carefully worded questions of
the pollsters or the polished rhetoric of
the lesser of two evils. We have worlds to
win beyond the electoral system, worlds
that are beginning to unfold around you
even now. Let's reclaim our lives from the
empty promises of the ballot boxes and
start realizing our dreams, right here
and right now.
--------------------------------------------
JOIN THE RESISTANCE TO POLITICS-AS-USUAL AT THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
August 2528, Denver, CO
www.dncdisruption08.org
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 14, St. Paul, MN
www.nornc.org
An excellent time to take direct action against war, warming, borders, police
repression, capitalism, and oppression.
A great time to meet thousands of others ready to go beyond voting to
create a freer, more just world.
---------------------------------------------------------
=================================================
Of course I want equality and self-determination,
but it's just unrealistic in the world today. We
should push for progress by electing the best
candidate available.
=================================================
Political parties do not offer any kind of
progress beyond their power. Sure, the
parties differ over exactly how much
to repress personal freedoms or spend
on bombs--but do we ever get to vote
on issues of how power is distributed? Do we
ever get to vote on who controls "public" spac-
es such as shopping malls, or whether workers
are entitled to the full product of their labor, or
any other question that could seriously change
the way we live?
In such a state of affairs, the essential func-
tion of the democratic process is to limit the
appearance of what is possible to the narrow
spectrum debated by candidates for office.
This demoralizes dissidents and contributes
to the general impression that they are impo-
tent utopians when nothing is more utopian
than trusting representatives from the owning
class to redress the grievances caused by their
own dominance, and nothing more impotent
than accepting their political system as the
only possible political system.
-----------------------------------------------------
VOTE or REVOLT????
=====================Hilary======Lies==================
My vote is my voice, so I should use it. We should
be grateful that we live in a society where we are
allowed a voice in our government.
==================================================
If democracy in America means we're
only permitted to speak once every
year or two, while the decisions made
by those politicians who claim to speak
for us impact us every single day, then
having a "voice" certainly doesn't
correspond to having any self-
determination in our day-to-day
lives. Voting in elections is an expression of
our voicelessness, an admission that we can't
find any way to speak other than mouthing the
words of our rulers at their appointed intervals.
Of course we can and must use our voices--
but why limit our vocabulary to such a flawed
and indirect language? When the only voice
they offer us is about which wealthy politician
can best further US capitalism's imperialist,
ecocidal agenda, it's no wonder that more votes
go to no one in every US election than to any
candidate. But the disillusionment that fuels
voter abstention offers just as little resistance
to the violence of the status quo as futile ballot-
casting, unless it's accompanied by the kind of
voice that speaks louder than words (or votes)
ever could: direct action.
Remember, if voting changed anything, it
would be illegal--but the same goes for not
voting, too. Whether we vote or not, the ruling
class wants us to remain docile. Let's bring
the struggle to their front steps, and build the
worlds we want to see ourselves, here and now.
-----------------------------------------------
===========McCain======Manipulations===========
The president represents our whole country,
whether you like it or not--if you don't vote,
you can't complain.
===============================================
The president can only claim to "represent"
us in the absence of passionate, visible resis-
tance outside of the electoral process. So long
as we confine our participation to voting
and accept a system that delegates our power
and agency to representatives, we are accou-
ntable for whatever crises our government
creates, because of our failure to resist them.
But when we directly challenge the authority
they claim to hold over us, we rupture the
illusion that politicians, or anyone else, can
speak on our behalf. If we've handed over
responsibility for our society and our own lives
to our rulers, then we can't be surprised when
they act in their own interests instead of ours,
as they always have. If all you do is vote, you
can't complain!
When were you ever offered a choice about
whether or not you wanted to be ruled at all,
rather than simply voicing an opinion about
which ruler is best suited to appropriate
your power? We didn't consent to this
system, and we refuse to validate our own
disempowerment--but instead of
just complaining, we can take
back responsibility for our own
liberation by acting directly to
interrupt injustice and creating
better ways to live.
----------------------------------------------------
==============Obama======Bullshit================
Whether or not I think it's a good system, we need
to vote because the reality is that politicians
make the decisions that impact our lives.
===================================================
The decisions made by politicians (or any
other gang of thugs seeking to control our
lives) only become reality because we
recognize and enact them. Republicans
and Democrats can vote for all the wars
they want, but not a single bullet can
be fired without someone mining the
ore, smelting the iron, manufacturing
the gun and the casing, transporting
it across the world, and donning
the soldier's uniform. At every step
in that process, people wake up,
go to work, and make daily choices to keep
the gears grinding. Of course, none of
those choices could be called "free"--from
the miner whose family could be evicted if
he doesn't bring home that paycheck, to the
truck driver who can't find a better paying job
without a college degree, to the soldier whose
family pressured her to go to college and had
no other means of getting the money. Each
and every one of us forms a strand in this web
of coercion keeping the machines of war and
death and industry running. And every day
provides us an opportunity to resist the dictates
of our rulers simply by refusing to follow the
orders of our bosses who answer to them, and
supporting each other in our refusal.
Beyond that, even those of us outside
of those spheres have the power to disrupt
every step in the process. From sabotaging
the munitions factory to blockading the
mines, from bringing food to the striking
dockworkers to housing GI resisters, we can
call upon an infinite array of tactics to resist
whatever tricks the politicians think up next.
Instead of hoping (painfully naïvely, if their
voting records indicate anything) that electing
a Democrat will stop the US occupation of
Iraq, we can devote the energy and resources
to directly ending it ourselves.
And who knows, in the process we
might forget why we thought we
needed politicians in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------
A Publication of Unconventional Action*
Additional copies of this paper and other materials are available from:
Unconventional Action Voter Deregistration | P.O. Box 494
Chapel Hill, NC | 27514 | falsehopeorrealchange08@riseup.net
Up-to-the-minute news, inside information, and
downloadable posters, pamphlets, and guides for
resistance beyond electoral politics:
www.unconventionalaction.org
www.infoshop.org | www.crimethinc.com | www.indymedia.org
It is a great read and makes a lot of extremely valid points that it seems most people overlook about our deMOCKracy and majoritarian voting and capitalism. A good read that goes pretty fast. For those interested in alternatives to majoritarian voting, I suggest looking in to consensus process which is employed by many collectives and groups of various sizes including the more well known Food Not Bombs. Peter Gelderloos wrote a really convenient handbook on the process, what it is, how it goes, the benefits, how to teach it and so on. I highly recommend that book to everybody. It is available pretty cheap from Microcosm Publishing.
Anyway, on with the article.
The bush era is coming to an end, and once again the spectacle of a presidential
election captivates the people of the United States.
Enticed by vague rhetoric of hope and change, against a backdrop of increasing
precarity and desperate global crises, millions will rally to elect a new
politician to solve the problems the last batch of politicians created, or at
least failed to alleviate. While we already don't have much of a choice in the
two-party framework, the politicians and the mass media controlled by their
major donors assure us that we don't have any other meaningful way to make a
change than to go along and vote for the lesser of two evils. Certainly, the
urgency of domestic and global crises demands that we all take responsibility
for radically changing the world.
But is voting the only, or even the most effective tool that we have?
***************************************************************************
===================================
Even if our candidate doesn't win, we can
impact government policy by showing
that we're concerned about the issues our
candidate stands for.
===================================
If all you can imagine to do about an issue that
concerns you is to vote for a candidate, and even
if your vote actually mattered statistically, the
best that an election "victory" would ensure
is their place in power, not what they will do
with it. Votes don't give politicians incen-
tive to take action; when people bypass the
established means of change and act directly
to transform society, politicians must then
scramble to catch up and prove their relevance
by confirming the changes that the people
have enacted. And the belief that we can hold
politicians accountable through the threat
of withholding our votes in the next election
rests on the fallacy that being voted out of
office actually poses a threat to a member
of the ruling class. Rather than investing
our energy into electing the least objec-
tionable candidate, we can organize social
movements that more effectively pressure any
ruler that comes along to make the changes we
prioritize--or, better yet, make those changes
ourselves.
-----------------------------------------------
FALSE CHOICE, FALSE HOPE
This election season, the politicians who piloted us into unwinnable wars,
ecological catastrophes, and grievous imbalances of wealth and power will
attempt to recast themselves as the only ones who can rescue us from them. If
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain portray their values and stances
regarding the war in Iraq, global warming, and the economy in opposition to each
other, it's only to mask their shared ruling-class interests: securing US global
military dominance, keeping political power for politicians over the rest of us,
and upholding the interests of the wealthy corporations that seek to control
economic and political power not just in the US, but around the world. In the
end, no matter who we vote for, we will be electing the same system of rulers
that facilitates war, ecological devastation, and the increasing disparity
between rich and poor.
From the fundamental similarity between the interests of the two ruling parties
emerges the central paradox of the election: when the compelling crises that
profoundly concern the electorate are so obviously facilitated by the last batch
of Democratic and Republican politicians, how can the current candidates pres-
ent themselves as likely hopes to solve them? With current popular opinion
solidly against the war and anxious about global warming, the candidates have
an interest in paying lip service towards finding solutions to these problems.
But they find themselves in a difficult position, since the economic and
government/military interests that fund, defend, and enforce Democratic and
Republican power are the same ones underlying imperialist occupations and
catastrophic climate change. So the importance of this election isn't how the
politicians will solve these problems: they won't. The significance of this
election lies in how the Democrats and Republicans will spin these urgent crises
to retain their seats of power, and how the rest of us will refuse their false
promises.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NO WARMING
Never before have we had a political cli-
mate in which the presidential candidates
unanimously acknowledged the signif-
icance of global warming. The state of our
environment could not have grown so dire
without government complicity in the
destruction of the earth so that big busi-
ness could make an easy buck. In Appa-
lachia the government sells out entire
mountains to literally be blown up for
easier mining, American car companies take
advantage of low emission standards to
manufacture some of the least fuel eff-
icient cars in the world, factory farms and
industrial logging receive federal subsi-
dies while they create an increasing amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere, & the list goes on.
For those who care about the earth and its
inhabitants, the shift in rhetoric towards
environmental concern may seem like a
step in the right direction. However, allow-
ing the same political system that has
facilitated the destruction of the earth for
corporate profit to co-opt the struggle ag-
ainst global climate change as a political
"issue" will only ensure that any official
solutions operate within the logic of capit-
alism & the government, keeping those gree-
dy interests intact and ensuring the further
commodification & destruction of the planet.
In order to continue getting richer and
secure their power, the rich who run this
country must ignore, subvert, or overcome
limits to growth. The secret of the ruling
class' ability to hold on to power is how
it uses limits and crises as new launch pads
to secure their position in power. So the
capitalist solution to climate change will
look like, well, capitalism: carbon credits,
Tradable Emissions Quotas, carbon fu-
tures, Al Gore's green investment banking
firm. Then there's green consumerism:
green cars, solar panels, green home make-
overs. They don't care about the earth; they
just need to make sure we keep buying, so
they keep getting richer. Like the politi-
cians they puppet, corporations aren't inve-
sted in honestly being responsible or accou-
ntable, only in convincing consumers to buy
the "socially responsible" image they market,
so that the consumer economy that threatens
our planet's survival can keep grinding on.
------------------------------------------
NO WAR
"No Blood for Oil" has long been the
slogan of the anti-war movement.
Securing oil resources through blood-
shed only makes sense to an economy in
which oil is more precious than human
life. The anti-war movement has thus
embarked on a strategy of disrupting
"business as usual." Demonstrations,
political dissent, sabotage: these express-
ions of protest and discontent with the
war cost the ruling class far more than
the money they have to spend to fix the
windows of their recruitment centers
or the salaries of the police they pay to
beat up anti-war demonstrators. More
importantly, these acts of resistance cost
the politicians an obedient electorate,
because when we find direct ways to affect
change, we no longer need politicians
and their empty promises.
If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
claim that they will eventually end the
war, it is only because the political cost
of human life in this war has become
too expensive for American imperial
interest to continue unchallenged. It
is now worthwhile for the Democrats
to appropriate the anti-war movement,
to pay lip service to its values, to sweep
people away from direct action in the
streets to predictable, contained boxes
on ballots this November.
The Democrats, who uniformly support
expanding the US military and its pres-
ence internationally, will not do anything
about America's addiction to war. To
them, the Iraq war is an aberration,
rather than a logical conclusion of the larg-
est military in the world coupled with an
economy based on insatiable greed. The
Pentagon itself is the single largest
consumer of oil in the world, ensuring a
never-ending cycle of war that will only
escalate as the supply of oil decreases.
---------------------------------------------------
THE PRECEDENT OF RACE & THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
While this summary suggests that this elec-
tion is just another page in the long book
of tyrannical government and a cutthroat
economy, at the same time it undeniably
touches on important issues, in particular
the racial implications of Obama's campaign.
For the first time, our next president might
not be another white man. But how can a
Black man emerge as a leading candidate
for the Democratic nomination & the presi-
dency, at the same time that the majority of
all Black men in the US, at some point,
serve time in prisons & jails? With a nation-
wide spread of nooses at high schools, col-
leges, and workplaces--the symbol of mass
white complicity in racist terror though
lynching--how is it possible that a Black can-
didate for president can garner compel-
ling majorities in predominantly white states?
These paradoxes reveal how Obama's
candidacy actually reinforces the found-
ation of white supremacy on which our
country is based. His success reinforces
the myth that poverty, particularly Black
poverty, is the fault of the poor. It is an
alluring possibility that our country's leg-
acy of racism might not prevent its targets
from attaining political power, supposedly
demonstrating the fulfillment of the demo-
cratic promise of America. But racism and
white supremacy are deeply ingrained
institutions, not offices to be held, & thus
cannot be voted out. Obama's chance at
the presidency says less about how far we
have come in overcoming the racist foun-
dations of our society, and more about the
flexibility of the system to allow a person
of color to lead its imperialist, ecocidal
agenda. So long as Black people are being
incarcerated at alarming rates, communi-
ties of color are held hostage by the threat
of state violence, and the US military conti-
nues to occupy nations & kill people of color
across the world (continuing the 500-year-
old system of European colonization) the
color of its President does not matter.
----------------------------------------------
COLLECTIVES vs.
POLITICAL PARTIES
How do we organize
ourselves as we work to-
wards the worlds we want?
Political parties stem from the premis
that power is a scarcity that must b
seized from those with conflicting inter
ests. They operate by reducing divers
desires to a lowest common denominato
to rally support for their candidate. Th
principle of maintaining power alway
takes precedence over any convictio
or ideology; thus the major US politica
parties survive year after year by shif
ting their platforms, chameleon-like, t
reflect whatever image they calculat
the most voters/consumers will buy. An
since the current political and economi
system protects the monopoly of powe
held by the major parties and thei
corporate funders, any solutions the
propose to social problems will have onl
one ultimate goal: to secure the status qu
that keeps them in power. For example
Democrats focus on state-based proposal
(legislation, international treaties, etc) t
global climate change, whereas Republican
focus on "market" (i.e. corporate capit
alist) solutions, and in this distinction the
create the illusion of choice for voters. Bu
the root cause of global climate chang
lies in the economic system driven by cons
tant expansion that requires environmen
tal devastation to function, along with
the state that protects the sanctity of
property so that it can continue. Thus
any solutions proposed by the political
parties will only cement the power of
this system over us, while inhibiting any
effective movement to address the root
causes. However, in the US party-based
framework of political power, they want
you to believe that if you want to make
a difference, your only option is to join
with one of them, in hopes that if your
party can wrestle enough power away
from the others, they can enforce their
will on everyone else.
An approach more empowering than
signing on to a political party is organ-
izing with people with whom you share
interests to collectively realize your desires
and your potential to make change. When
we organize as equals, we value diverse
perspectives, each individual's unique
contributions, and complex understan-
dings and realities, as opposed to the
simplified, divisive issues that drive party
politics. In this model, power is in abun-
dance, not scarcity; and the further we
build our capacity to work together and
value each other's unique contributions,
the more our individual and collective
power increases. While it would take the
bureaucracy of a political party months if
not years to evaluate the potential costs
and benefits to their power to address a
certain issue, collectives can be started
anywhere at any time, requiring no more
than a few people to achieve or combat
something. The power of political parties
comes from members' allegiance, where-
as the power of collectives comes from
participation.
In contrast to representative democracy,
collective decision-making takes place on
an ongoing basis, allowing participants to
exercise real control over the projects to
which they lend their time and effort.
Unlike majority-rule democracy, collectives
can use consensus decision making, which
values the needs and concerns of each
individual equally; if one person's needs
are unmet by a resolution, it is everyone's
responsibility to find a new solution accep-
table to all. Collective decision-making does
not demand that we accept any person's
power over another, though it does require
that everybody consider everyone else's
needs. What it loses in efficiency it makes
up tenfold in freedom and accountability.
Instead of asking that people choose
leaders or find common cause by
homogenizing themselves,
collectives form a more
powerful working
whole while allow-
ing each partici-
pant to retain
his or her own
autonomy.
---------------------------------------------------
ANARCHY vs.
GOVERNMENT
How is power distributed
in the worlds we want?
Government exists to protect property and
control people; it is the absolute opposite
of freedom. Whether the cops, judges, and
soldiers protect the property of Commu-
nist party bureaucrats, the king, or wealthy
capitalists in a Western democracy, the
function remains the same. Without ine-
qualities of wealth and power, government
would be useless for lack of anything to
defend; who needs to steal when we have
the fruits of our own labors? However, we're
told that only government can keep people
safe from the threat we pose to each other
if unchecked by a higher authority. But
does relinquishing our self-determination
to a central authority leave us safer?
Our leaders couldn't protect us from
terrorist attacks in 2001, but they did send
Americans around the globe to kill and die
in brutal occupations that entrenched anti-
US resolve throughout the world. Mean-
while the government's rhetoric of fear,
faithfully preached by the capitalist media,
left many of us even more convinced that
our safety relied on the state and military
apparatus--when in fact the actions of the
government have created unprecedented
hatred towards its citizens. The "home-
land" that the Department of Homeland
Security claims to protect through secret
prisons, torture, & surveillance can't refer
to our communities (who frequently bear
their attacks); the only thing kept secure
by the expanding police state is the
state apparatus itself. With 1 of every 100
American adults in prison, who is protected
by all the incarceration? There is only one
function for which government is nec-
essary--the maintenance of itself--& its
struggle for self-preservation enslaves us all.
Many understand anarchy as a general
state of chaos, senseless violence, and mat-
erial desperation. However, government
bureaucracies & greedy corporations have
ensured that this chaos has become the
permanent state of affairs. Anarchy is the
opposite of bureaucracy. There is nothing
more eff-
icient than
people acting
on their own
initiative as they
see fit, & nothing
more inefficient than
attempting to dictate
everyone's actions from
above. Top-down coordina-
tion is only necessary to make
people do something they would
never do of their own accord.
Anarchy is the idea that no one is more
qualified than you are to decide how you
live, that no one should be able to vote
on what you do with your time and your
potential. The kind of freedom that anar-
chists fight for is not to be confused with
so-called independence: no one is truly ind-
ependent, since our lives all depend on each
other. The glamorization of self-sufficiency
in competitive society serves to accuse
those who will not exploit others of being
responsible for their own poverty. In
contrast, anarchy offers a free inter-
dependence between people who share
consensus, highlighting the collectivity
& cooperation that make individual
freedom possible.
=======================================
THE SYSTEM is all social and political
possibility compressed into a single point;
the illusion of choice masking a profound
lack of agency over our own lives.
======================================
MUTUAL AID vs. CAPITALISM
How do we distribute resour-
ces in the worlds we want?
Today, capitalism supposedly reigns sup-
reme. United in their conviction that
unlimited economic growth is necessary,
the two parties differ only in how to most
effectively stimulate it. Some economists
have even declared the supposed victory
of capitalist democracy in the post-
Soviet world as "the end of history." But
on the underside of the triumphant
rhetoric lies the material misery of the
many poor and the profound alienation
of the few rich. If our economic
system "works" so well, why
are so few people actually
secure in their basic
needs or satisfied
with their lives?
This widespread dissatisfaction isn't an
accident--our economy relies on this
feeling of incompleteness to keep us obe-
diantly consuming the newest solution
being marketed to us. Capitalism demands
constant expansion to survive; the dark
side of this "growth" is the shrinking of
the earth's natural resources as they are
converted into dead units for economic
exchange, as well as the toil of workers
who are paid increasingly less for more labor.
The logic of capitalism operates direc-
tly at odds with human needs. When former
World Bank president Lawrence Summers
wrote, "the economic logic behind dumping
a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage
country is impeccable," certainly it must
have been obvious that the human logic
of such action is inexcusable and insane.
However, this kind of insanity prevails
under an economic system that materially
rewards those most ruthless in their pur-
suit of wealth. When competition provides
the basis of profit and one person's gain
equals many others' loss in the zero-sum
world of business, the human cost can
only be unspeakably brutal. So as the
world spirals into increasing poverty and
ecological collapse, the corporations on
top keep the wheels of misery in motion,
secure in their illusion that the pursuit
of profit is the only way forward. If the
"end of history" means the extinction of
the human race, then indeed capitalism
is perhaps the only economic system so
blinded to human and ecological realities
to push us over that cliff.
But what could exist beyond capitalism?
After all, the pundits and economics prof-
essors have many of us convinced that
capitalism is the basis of our daily
survival. However, beneath all the talk
of the stock market and interest rates
lies the reality that none of us could
survive against the capitalist economy
if it wasn't for mutual aid and the
gift economy. Child care, gift-giving,
mentoring, co-ops, libraries, theft, bartering;
these and a thousand other examples of
mutual aid form the foundation on which
the formal economy rests. And nearly all
of these things are self-organized; we don't
need a chair of the Federal Reserve to help
us carpool to work or share tools with
our neighbors. Our daily lives provide
countless examples of how we cooperate,
share, and resist the competitive greed
driving the economy of investment
bankers and multi-national corporations.
Capitalism, rather than inescapably
dominating our daily lives, simply gets
in the way of us doing what we do best:
supporting one another to meet our
basic needs and create fulfilling lives.
Practicing mutual aid recognizes our
shared interests, rather than assuming
that competing will lead to the best results
for everyone. Competition isn't human
nature, as scientists and economists want
us to believe; we can choose individually
and collectively which "nature" creates
the world we most want to live in, and
work towards it together. In doing so we
develop the trust in one another that we
need to create a whole economy and way
of living based on cooperation.
-----------------------------------------------
DIRECT ACTION vs. VOTING - What tools do we use to create the worlds we want?
Voting is the least effective strategy for
having a say in society. You can vote once
or twice a year, but it's what you do every
day that counts. The alternative to voting,
broadly speaking, is acting directly to
represent your interests yourself. Direct
action is occasionally misunderstood to
mean a specific kind of campaigning, lob-
bying for influence on elected officials by
means of political activist tactics; but it
properly refers to any action or strategy
that cuts out intermediaries and solves
problems directly, without appealing to
elected representatives, corporate inter-
ests, or other power holders.
Voting is a lottery--if a candidate doesn't
get elected, then all the energy his con-
stituency put into supporting him is
wasted, as the power they hoped he would
exercise for them goes to someone else.
With direct action you can be sure
that your work will offer some kind of
results, and the resources you develop
in the process--whether those be exper-
ience, contacts and recognition in your
community, or organizational infra-
structure--last far beyond the election.
Voting forces everyone in a movement
to try to agree on one platform, sup-
pressing differences and suppressing
everyones' individual desires. With direct
action, on the other hand, no vast con-
sensus is necessary: different groups
can apply different approaches according
to what they believe in and feel comfor-
table doing, which can still interact to
form a mutually beneficial whole.
Finally, voting is only possible when
election time comes around and can only
address the topics that are current in
the political agendas of the candidates.
During this election year, we hear
constantly about the options available
to us as voters, but almost nothing
about our other opportunities to play a
decisive role in our society during the
other 364 days of the year. Direct action
can be applied whenever you see fit, in
every aspect of your life, in every part
of the world you live in. While voting
and direct action are not mutually
exclusive, we hear so little about the
latter precisely because it puts power
back where it belongs: in the hands of
the people from whom it originates. Not
only can direct action more effectively
accomplish our goals than voting, the
experience of solving problems and
creating a better world directly rather
than through representatives opens up
a limitless horizon of possibilities for
managing our own lives, without relying
on any authority to do it for us.
========================================
REVOLUTION means exploding the cons-
traints that keep us locked into this one
compressed point of possibility of how we
can live together, and allowing all of
us to expand outwards into the limitless
possibilities that exist beyond hierarchy.
========================================
ANARCHY & ANARCHISTS WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE WANT
Anarchism is the word we
use to express our passionate desire for
a world on our own terms. Everyone from
capitalists to communists uses the word
"freedom" as some catch all term that
their way of running the world can bring
you. When we use it here, we don't intend
to use the same empty rhetoric. Democra-
cy, Justice, Liberty, Freedom, Revolution--
they've all been co-opted by everything
from tyrannical governments to cell phone
commercials, almost to the point they
don't mean anything anymore. We mean
for a world without rulers, a world with-
out borders, and a world where when
freedom is spoken of it's for all, not just
those within a particular nation, class,
race, gender, or religion. We want to
break down such divisions altogether.
Anarchism describes both the type of
society we envision as well as our process
for creating it, based on mutual aid,
voluntary association, autonomy, and coop-
eration. We didn't come up with this word
through testing it .. groups, and it
doesn't concern us whether or not you use
it, or any other label, for your own frus-
tration and alienation from the status
quo of voting for politicians, or your
desires for something different. We don't
want to take power to then impose what we
believe would be better rules and more
just restrictions. We don't want to run the
world; we want everyone to run their own
lives together. Whether as an anarchist, a
Democrat or Republican, or anything else,
what's important isn't what you call
yourself, but how you resist oppression
and create alternatives.
Direct Action is the
term we use for the path out of the world
we live in now into the ones we desire. In
taking direct action, we bypass the estab-
lished channels for political expression,
and address problems and accomplish
goals directly by undertaking them our-
selves. For us, it's not just about disagr-
eeing with the stances of one or all of
the candidates we're offered--it's about
questioning whether any politician can
represent us or create a world in which we
can live freely. While some might be wil-
ling to bite their tongues for a more prog-
ressive Democrat or cross their fingers on
a third party candidate, many of us have
dreams that will never fit into ballot boxes...
And we're writing to
invite you to partic-
ipate alongside of us.
Unlike presidential elections and the
shelves of chain stores, where your consu-
mer choices are neatly pre-selected and
laid out for you by people you'll never
meet, amongst anarchists you'll actually
have to think for yourself. No one will ask
you what your stances are on "the issues,"
as defined and framed by the politicians
and the experts. Instead, we want to know:
What are your desires?
What kind of world
do you want to live in?
No one can sell you any fashionably pack-
aged solutions to your alienation from the
political system--least of all anarchists!
Our goal isn't to become candidates and
convince you to vote for us or our posi-
tions--we want everyone to articulate
their own visions, and to have the tools
and the agency to enact those visions for
themselves. We want to completely leave
behind the world of partitioned "issues,"
the consumerist illusion of choice, and
the idea that anyone can represent us. In
their place, we're creating relationships
of affinity with those around us who share
common interests, similar alienation,
and compatible visions of a way to live
without ruling or being ruled.
Sure, there are glimpses into other
worlds of possibility that inspire us...but
ultimately, anyone who lays out a formula
for The Revolution with a capital R plays
the same game as the politicians who claim
to offer us salvation through their ex-
pertly designed plans to manage our
discontent. Anyway, the point isn't to
have it all figured out; the point is to act.
Freedom is not a commodity, it's a proc-
ess; we become free by acting freely, and
no one can do that for us.
When we step outside of the trap of
voting in elections into the vast universe
of possibility that exists through direct
action, we hold the keys to all of the worlds
we've only dreamed of, the worlds we never
saw in the carefully worded questions of
the pollsters or the polished rhetoric of
the lesser of two evils. We have worlds to
win beyond the electoral system, worlds
that are beginning to unfold around you
even now. Let's reclaim our lives from the
empty promises of the ballot boxes and
start realizing our dreams, right here
and right now.
--------------------------------------------
JOIN THE RESISTANCE TO POLITICS-AS-USUAL AT THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
August 2528, Denver, CO
www.dncdisruption08.org
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 14, St. Paul, MN
www.nornc.org
An excellent time to take direct action against war, warming, borders, police
repression, capitalism, and oppression.
A great time to meet thousands of others ready to go beyond voting to
create a freer, more just world.
---------------------------------------------------------
=================================================
Of course I want equality and self-determination,
but it's just unrealistic in the world today. We
should push for progress by electing the best
candidate available.
=================================================
Political parties do not offer any kind of
progress beyond their power. Sure, the
parties differ over exactly how much
to repress personal freedoms or spend
on bombs--but do we ever get to vote
on issues of how power is distributed? Do we
ever get to vote on who controls "public" spac-
es such as shopping malls, or whether workers
are entitled to the full product of their labor, or
any other question that could seriously change
the way we live?
In such a state of affairs, the essential func-
tion of the democratic process is to limit the
appearance of what is possible to the narrow
spectrum debated by candidates for office.
This demoralizes dissidents and contributes
to the general impression that they are impo-
tent utopians when nothing is more utopian
than trusting representatives from the owning
class to redress the grievances caused by their
own dominance, and nothing more impotent
than accepting their political system as the
only possible political system.
-----------------------------------------------------
VOTE or REVOLT????
=====================Hilary======Lies==================
My vote is my voice, so I should use it. We should
be grateful that we live in a society where we are
allowed a voice in our government.
==================================================
If democracy in America means we're
only permitted to speak once every
year or two, while the decisions made
by those politicians who claim to speak
for us impact us every single day, then
having a "voice" certainly doesn't
correspond to having any self-
determination in our day-to-day
lives. Voting in elections is an expression of
our voicelessness, an admission that we can't
find any way to speak other than mouthing the
words of our rulers at their appointed intervals.
Of course we can and must use our voices--
but why limit our vocabulary to such a flawed
and indirect language? When the only voice
they offer us is about which wealthy politician
can best further US capitalism's imperialist,
ecocidal agenda, it's no wonder that more votes
go to no one in every US election than to any
candidate. But the disillusionment that fuels
voter abstention offers just as little resistance
to the violence of the status quo as futile ballot-
casting, unless it's accompanied by the kind of
voice that speaks louder than words (or votes)
ever could: direct action.
Remember, if voting changed anything, it
would be illegal--but the same goes for not
voting, too. Whether we vote or not, the ruling
class wants us to remain docile. Let's bring
the struggle to their front steps, and build the
worlds we want to see ourselves, here and now.
-----------------------------------------------
===========McCain======Manipulations===========
The president represents our whole country,
whether you like it or not--if you don't vote,
you can't complain.
===============================================
The president can only claim to "represent"
us in the absence of passionate, visible resis-
tance outside of the electoral process. So long
as we confine our participation to voting
and accept a system that delegates our power
and agency to representatives, we are accou-
ntable for whatever crises our government
creates, because of our failure to resist them.
But when we directly challenge the authority
they claim to hold over us, we rupture the
illusion that politicians, or anyone else, can
speak on our behalf. If we've handed over
responsibility for our society and our own lives
to our rulers, then we can't be surprised when
they act in their own interests instead of ours,
as they always have. If all you do is vote, you
can't complain!
When were you ever offered a choice about
whether or not you wanted to be ruled at all,
rather than simply voicing an opinion about
which ruler is best suited to appropriate
your power? We didn't consent to this
system, and we refuse to validate our own
disempowerment--but instead of
just complaining, we can take
back responsibility for our own
liberation by acting directly to
interrupt injustice and creating
better ways to live.
----------------------------------------------------
==============Obama======Bullshit================
Whether or not I think it's a good system, we need
to vote because the reality is that politicians
make the decisions that impact our lives.
===================================================
The decisions made by politicians (or any
other gang of thugs seeking to control our
lives) only become reality because we
recognize and enact them. Republicans
and Democrats can vote for all the wars
they want, but not a single bullet can
be fired without someone mining the
ore, smelting the iron, manufacturing
the gun and the casing, transporting
it across the world, and donning
the soldier's uniform. At every step
in that process, people wake up,
go to work, and make daily choices to keep
the gears grinding. Of course, none of
those choices could be called "free"--from
the miner whose family could be evicted if
he doesn't bring home that paycheck, to the
truck driver who can't find a better paying job
without a college degree, to the soldier whose
family pressured her to go to college and had
no other means of getting the money. Each
and every one of us forms a strand in this web
of coercion keeping the machines of war and
death and industry running. And every day
provides us an opportunity to resist the dictates
of our rulers simply by refusing to follow the
orders of our bosses who answer to them, and
supporting each other in our refusal.
Beyond that, even those of us outside
of those spheres have the power to disrupt
every step in the process. From sabotaging
the munitions factory to blockading the
mines, from bringing food to the striking
dockworkers to housing GI resisters, we can
call upon an infinite array of tactics to resist
whatever tricks the politicians think up next.
Instead of hoping (painfully naïvely, if their
voting records indicate anything) that electing
a Democrat will stop the US occupation of
Iraq, we can devote the energy and resources
to directly ending it ourselves.
And who knows, in the process we
might forget why we thought we
needed politicians in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------
A Publication of Unconventional Action*
Additional copies of this paper and other materials are available from:
Unconventional Action Voter Deregistration | P.O. Box 494
Chapel Hill, NC | 27514 | falsehopeorrealchange08@riseup.net
Up-to-the-minute news, inside information, and
downloadable posters, pamphlets, and guides for
resistance beyond electoral politics:
www.unconventionalaction.org
www.infoshop.org | www.crimethinc.com | www.indymedia.org
Views: 31
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Giant Mohawk Man on
-
Here is an interesting little survey of quotes from both Obama and McCain. You click the quote you most agree with and in the end it gives you a breakdown of who said what.
I think they may be a bit intentionally hard to decipher, but its still good to be educated enough to make decisions on stuff like this. Of course being more of a hybrid libertarian I was about half and half.
-
Permalink Reply by Sonic Architect on
-
No link am I finding...
Politicians are a bit like lawyers in the sense that, everything is so articulated that it is very hard to decipher. Politicians especially always choose words extremely carefully so they can lead people on and test the waters and have the escape plan...it is also sad that every political person has a writer that writes their speeches and shit..I believe in being upfront and honest with our dealings and that is just one of about countless reasons why I despise politicians....we never get to know them, we know the words somebody else wrote...in that sense it is also like watching a hollywood drama movie (big shock?) This whole country (and slowly the world being influenced by us) is a TV special or broadcast like a sports game....do you remember watching the initial invasion of Iraq back in 2003? They had fucking stats and animated shit to make it seem like a football game!
A huge problem with our world today is mass naivety and ignorance. For instance, how many people know about that on Oct 1st this year, the US will have its first active duty unit no US soil for the first time ever. On that note, how many people new anything about the bailout proposal and new that there was wide skepticism to it not being the fix (or at least enough questions from people inside to say it may not be the solution) yet having a clause in it that said it was NON-REVIEWABLE? That means that 700 Billion dollars which would be taken from every working person in this country, given up to excuse a fraud committed by some greedy motherfuckers who will never answer for it, and when the economy does nto change, nothing can be said or done about because of that one clause.
People largely like to think they are informed by watching CNN or FOX and never see it as Partisan and completely skewed and manipulative. To find out about shit that is happening, one really has to commit themselves to digging it up.
Then there is the issue again, of people actually taking a stand against it and backing up their rhetoric. Say your against repression, racism, sexism etc? You may be, but always evaluate where your at in it, what you are doing...are you standing in solidarity with them? or in solitary with a white supremacist hierarchy? The answer may surprise you when you start connecting dots and thinking. Surely we all are responsible for deaths of people and repression, it is inescapable at this point but it can be limited and we can make efforts to counteract the harm we do everyday.
About
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Giant Mohawk Man.
Powered by
