NOTE: This discussion was originally classified as "hosted" but has now been moved to the "member initiated" category.  In the view of the OC Stewards, what is taking place here is a debate rather than dialogue.  In a "hosted" discussion here at OC.org, we request that balanced participation be encouraged and that regular summaries occur recognizing all the views being presented.  

While we have no objections to people using the OC forum to engage in debates, as long as they don't cross the line into personal attacks, such discussion is not what we are seeking in the "hosted" category.  

Ben Roberts
12/31/11

We are delighted to have Occupy Cafe member Mark E. Smith offer this hosted discussion on the provocative idea of an "election boycott."  

As "host," Mark will strive to keep the conversation orderly, offer regular summaries of the perspectives being presented and encourage balanced participation among all those who are engaged.  Here's Mark's initial summary:

An election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government. It doesn't overthrow the government, it simply denies it the consent of the governed so that the government can no longer claim to have the people's consent. Among the many forms of noncompliance, such as removing money from big banks, boycotting corporate brands, withdrawing from the system and creating alternative systems, learning to live on less so as not to have to pay taxes, etc., refusing to vote can be one of the most crucial and effective tactics.

Thank you, Mark, for volunteering your services as "host!"

Views: 4508

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was thinking about that just yesterday. The Prime Minister appoints the judges of the Supreme Court who interpret our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So far they have consistently favored the people, but we rarely had a Conservative government in the past. Now Harper has control over appointing judges. I can see the problem, but who else can uphold the Charter if not judges? If judges are elected couldn't that end up just as corrupt?

Voting drives people crazy. It really does. I'll let a passage from Mumia Abu Jamal's book, Jailhouse Lawyers, explain why. This is a conversation between Mumia, who was at that time a free young black man, a journalist, and Delbert Africa, a prisoner who Mumia was interviewing. Delbert said jailhouse lawyers were crazy and Mumia wanted to know why:

"What do you mean, crazy?" I asked.

"Well, they may not be crazy when they get here, but after a while, after a few months of reading that shit, they go down to City Hall, and when they see that them folks down there in City Hall, in the System, don't really go by that so-called law, well--it plumb drives them dudes crazy."

"Yeah, man, but why it drives 'em dudes crazy?"

"'Cuz they cain't believe that the System don't follow they own laws!"

"But why?" I continued.

"It drives they ass crazy 'cuz they cain't handle the fact that the System just make and break laws as it see fit! How many treaties they done signed with the Indians? Ain't a one of 'em they done kept! Some of 'em broke 'em befo' the ink was dry on 'em old treaties! Them the same folks who run this System today! If they couldn't keep a treaty with Indians when they first got here, what make you think they gonna keep they so-called law today, especially when it come to me and you, man?"

"Bro--I get that; I understand that. But what's up with them crazy jailhouse lawyers--I don't get that."

"They go crazy becuz, Mu, they really believe in the System, and this System always betray those that believe in it! That's what drive them out they minds, man. They cain't handle that. It literally drives them out they mind. I see 'em around here, walkin' 'round here dazed, crazy as a bedbug!"

Later on, when he was on death row, Mumia learned the truth of Delbert's words first hand when he saw jailhouse lawyers studying the law, finding legal ways to get their convictions overturned, getting all excited about it, filing appeals, and then, when the courts ignored the law and rejected their appeals, losing touch with reality because they couldn't handle it.

Voters are the same way. They study the law, find laws that do or could protect their rights, and then file petitions, get legislators to introduce or co-sponsor legislation, or organize to try to get Constitutional Amendments. They believe in the system, but the system will always betray them. 

I experienced it personally. I had a Civil Service job for a short time, but the government fired me illegally. Knowing that the law was totally on my side and that the government could show no cause for having fired me, I exhausted the administrative remedies and then went to federal court to get my job back. After three years in federal court, having won my points seventeen times, each time only to see the government remove the Assistant U.S. Attorney whose arguments had failed from the case, promote them, and replace them with another one, while the judge ignored what had just happened and continued to allow the government to defend the case they didn't have, I gave up. I snapped. I had been betrayed, just as Delbert Africa described, by the very laws I thought were there to protect me, because the courts just ignored the law. I became suicidal and went into a severe clinical depression that lasted for three years. I survived and recovered, but that's what happens to people who believe in the system.

So I watched John Kenney at Occupy San Diego, who had gone on a hunger strike to try to force the City Council to put Occupy on their agenda and negotiate with the Occupiers. Luckily, he didn't die. After a month of his hunger strike, he started eating again because the Council is on vacation. But his belief in the system remains intact and he will keep trying until it drives him crazy and he finally snaps.

I watch Ray Lutz at Occupy San Diego, who got arrested for setting up a table (illegal structure) that he was using to register voters. He has filed a lawsuit. He knows and researches the laws. He had distributed copies of the laws that the cops were using to deny "structures" and it has an exception for political activity. A lawyer had used that to file for a temporary restraining order, but it was denied. So Ray has filed his own lawsuit. He believes in the system and he will keep trying until it drives him crazy and he finally snaps.

I watch, and I warn. But you can't argue with beliefs. People who believe in the system can't just stop believing in the system. They go on believing until the system betrays them, and then their minds snap and they go crazy.

The US government is a thoroughly evil, totally corrupt system. The Constitution and the laws aren't there to protect the rights of the people, they're there to protect the 1% and will always be interpreted and enforced or ignored so as to protect the 1%. They were established by the 1% for their own protection, not for ours.

How can we change the system? I don't know how or even if we can change the system, but I do know that some people in other places, like Ecuador and Venezuela have had some success, although their conditions were quite different from ours. I know that the system can't be changed by working within the system. That's what Audre Lorde meant in saying that the Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house. It may seem counterintuitive, but it is truth.

There is a small possibility of bringing about change through nonconsent. I'd say a vanishingly small possibility. But that's better than no chance at all. Left unchanged, this system will destroy us and the planet we live on as callously as it has destroyed everything else in its path. It has killed millions of innocent people, and not content with merely killing them, tortured many and tortured their friends and families by not letting anyone know what had happened. It has polluted our air, our water and our food. The pharmaceuticals it provides to heal us, when properly prescribed by a competent and qualified doctor and taken exactly as prescribed, are one of the leading causes of death in this country due to their toxic side effects. The government is not here to help us or to protect us. It exists to enrich and protect the 1%.

Occupy started out with the right idea, but many Occupiers got sidetracked by the glitz and excitement of the political process. As a good friend of mine posted on my little website, quoting a good friend of his on another forum:

Oh dear...

...so many smart people here who think the "political process" is real???  Gawd... this IS serious.

Yes, it is.

Okay Mark - assume that there will be no voting in the next 'system'.  If we go local, i can see building a meritocracy, where people rise based on administrative capability.  If it acts like an inverted pyramid - many people at the top, sun shining, a few burdened by a heavy work load - but working because they can handle it.  But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.   I am with you - nothing that we can take from this system would do us any good - because advance was based on jobbing the system. 

So - every individual has responsibility to do whatever they deem proper, but with no ability to affect the behaviors of everybody else, except through persuasion and reason.  The issues that effect more people would be governed by ... by ... by what?  Rule of law doesn't work when the ruled do not follow the law.

If you look at page two of this discussion, you'll see a comment I posted that starts out, "I'm frequently accused of being opposed to voting. Here's something I wrote in response to one such accuser:"

I am not opposed to voting and neither I nor anyone else in this discussion have ever suggested that there be no voting in the next system. I have suggested that there be no hierarchy in the next system, inverted or otherwise. 

Please read the discussion before jumping in with straw men, i.e., arguing against something that wasn't on the table. Thank you.

However, to answer your comment, which appears to be arguing against a false definition of anarchy, in my comment above, the one to which you seem to be pretending to respond, I explained clearly, using an except from Mumia Abu Jamal's book, that the rule of law doesn't work even when the ruled do follow the law. Many areas in the US have laws against the use of excessive force by the police. So when the police use excessive force, people go to court to try to get compensation. Sometimes, if they were brutalized severely enough, it was caught on film, and there were many witnesses, they win. That's the rule of law. That the cops don't always follow the rule of law, and if the cops use excessive force, they're allowed to, and if you happen to survive, you can sue them.

You know the old smartass retort when somebody criticizes what you're doing and you say, "So sue me!" That's the rule of law. It's the law of the jungle camouflaged by a lot of lie-books, and made respectable a couple of hundred years ago by some men wearing wigs and dresses.


Mark Mark Mark, you have to stop doing that! Everyone in this thread is honestly seeking communication. If they miss your point or forget some aspect of your position on  issues it isn't deliberate. Play nice. It undermines your message if you don't. I know it can be tedious to repeat your position on things but if you want people to understand sometimes you have to. If you are rude you alienate the very people you are trying to influence.

Gisele Gisele Gisele, I know I know I know. In this discussion alone I've heard at least twenty different versions of, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Actually you catch more flies with bullshit or any other kind of poop than with honey, and why is everyone so focused on catching flies? When I lived in mud huts in fly-infested areas, I hung double curtains over the doors and windows so that it was more difficult for the flies to get in, and then I didn't have to bother catching them.

lol, but in this case the flies are good. They are potential allies not your enemies. They are not the ruling class.

My potential allies aren't flies, Gisele. And they deserve more respect than simply trying to "catch" or engage them in any way possible.

There is nothing under-handed about being respectful and polite.

And there's nothing respectful or polite about comparing people to flies.

If you can sugar-coat your bullshit you can run for office =)

Exactly why honest people aren't politicians, Victoria. Honest people aren't selling bullshit and have no need to sugar-coat anything, or to compromise their principles in order to get elected or stay in office.

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service