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: 4521

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You should start the Non-Consent Party.

Victory could be measured by how many people don't vote. If more people don't vote than do vote, the Non-Consent Party can be deemed the winner.

Wow, I am so brilliant when it's really late and I'm exhausted.

G'nite all. May your dreams be fascist-free =)

I don't think you get rid of political parties by creating another political party, or get rid of corporations by forming new corporations. And I don't believe that a win/lose system is healthy, I prefer win/win systems.

If you happen to have the time and energy, Victoria, perhaps you can explain to me the difference between fascists and capitalists, because I haven't been able to see any. Maybe it's like the difference between Republicans and Democrats? They're basically the same but they have different names?

For you and anyone else going to sleep now, g'nite and may your dreams be free of the 1%.

I see not-voting as a symbolic gesture at best. The ruling-class doesn't seem at all bothered by low voter turn-out. There are no public service announcements urging people to vote.Not even in 1996 when it dropped to 49%. The second the election was over it was back to business.

It's definitely not stopping them from increasing police and military power.Voting or not-voting does nothing to affect the construction of alternatives one way or another.If low-voter turnout appears to be an attempt to depose them they will break down doors to get to "terrorists" threatening The United States of America.

Occupy is clever not to have official leaders but leaders are being identified. As long as it's just hippies trying to get people to garden and form a new economy they don't care. If it appears that there will be an impact they will take out the leaders. They don't even need proof of a threat anymore. 

If the ruling class isn't bother by low voter turn-out, Gisele, why did the US government send the brutal Egyptian ruling military junta, which had 15,000 protesters in jail at the time, twenty-one tons of tear gas in the week before their election to suppress the election boycott advocates in Tahrir Square?

I've already explained several times that the US government can easily suppress protesters out in the streets, but most US police officers and military troops won't break down citizens' doors to force them to vote. They'll beat protestors, but they don't want other cops & military troops beating down their own families' doors just because some people in their family don't vote.

The reason boycotts are more effective than protests is because there's nobody out in the streets asking to be arrested. The grape boycott worked because the cops weren't going to stop every grocery shopper and demand to see if they'd purchased grapes and tear-gas them if they hadn't.

It isn't just the people cops identify as leaders who are targets, it is everyone out on the streets carrying a sign. And people who were just walking nearby an Occupy protest on their way home from work have been beaten and arrested because the cops saw anyone on the streets as fair game. Noncompliance through not voting doesn't give the government any easy targets.

Check this out, in relation to our topic here.

Check what out, Victoria? I don't see a link.

Excellent link, Victoria. I hope people here will also check it out. 

So, according to David Roberts well documented article, it isn't necessarily Margaret Mead's "small group of thoughtful, committed people" who can change the world, but more like a small group of thoughtful, intensely committed people. Even if their intensity may alienate many. Would you say that's a correct reading, or am I interpreting it in ways most favorable to my own personal style?  ;)

It's not your intensity that is the problem, it's your purism combined with your combativeness, your apparent continuing refusal to see that combativeness (attributing it to everyone else, or to you just "reacting"), and the particular style of your combativeness, which can be infuriating to people and bring out the worst in them. Sorry, amigo, but it's true. Your intensity, on the other hand, is what made me interested enough in you to come over to this thread and engage with you, even if I came with sabres rattling. 

I actually found myself writing to Lindsay earlier in a very similar style to yours! Lindsay's comment about my position on e-voting being "hardened" raised my hackles. At one point I wrote a list of questions to her that were rather aggressively phrased and essentially accused her via the question of positions she probably doesn't hold.

Like, I said -- "Why don't you believe people have the right to see their vote counted?"

I realized that was an instigating way to phrase it, and I rephrased it.

If you propose what people are likely to think is an extremely radical idea outside their worldview and then insist on portraying them as fools and accessories to evil if they don't agree with you, it leads them to become defensive and then they attack you. That happens to you over and over and over again, until the villagers drive you out with pitchforks, and you can blame them, but you can also make a choice to do it differently (though if you are more enlightened about it, they will just crucify you).

I can tell you to get off this computer right now because you are an accessory to evil just by using it, and you know what I mean when I say that. But what is the point? It's better that we all get to talk to each other right now, so we make the concession. We use the computer. I'm not taking a purist position on this and neither are you. Worse, I have a Mac!

Purist positions come across as obnoxious for many reasons if they are not really couched in a very enlightened presentation, and when they are, you get crucified -- but people remember you for a long time after and your message resonates for thousands of years. That's the trade off.

While I'm not looking to get crucified, Victoria, if the reason you engaged with me was due to my intensity, then why characterize that intensity negatively as "purism" and "combativeness?"

I'm sure you've been attacked many times for your HCPB advocacy by people saying that you shouldn't be such a purist and that you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I'm sure that you responded by saying that you didn't think insecure voting processes were good, and that sometimes, as in bank transactions or elections, things really do have to be perfect or dreadful things, like the widely-feared "chaos," might ensue. ;)

I'm not characterizing your intensity as purism or combativeness. I'm separating the three. Your intensity, I like. Your purism I like on paper but question in reality. I have no idea how much you live up to your own ideals. I DO like no-compromise positions on peace and anti-imperialism, the question simply becomes, HOW? Your combativeness only brings out my own combativeness. But look at how nicely we've learned to play in the sandbox. We should go the Middle East and broker peace. ;)

Intensity, purism, and combativeness, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder, Victoria. 

As for me living up to my own ideals, that's irrelevant. Does the fact that you intend to vote, even though your vote is unlikely to be HCPB (there are a few places, I think parts of New Hampshire and maybe some others that have HCPB, but most don't), mean that HCPB isn't a good idea? Of course not.

As for the Middle East, I've lived among Christians, I've lived among Jews, and I've lived among Muslims. They are all "People of the Book." The problem is that they've got three different books so they're never on the same page. They are all patriarchal religions and the moment they found out that you and I are not supporters of patriarchy, they'd want nothing to do with us or our version of peace. Their concept of peace involves one and only one of their systems of hierarchy and inequality prevailing and all others accepting it. Since hierarchy and inequality can lead only to friction, never to peace, it is impossible to broker peace among people who believe in hierarchy and inequality.

And if we tried to introduce them to our views, no matter how politely and nicely we did it, they'd still see us as trying to destroy their systems. Which, of course, even if we're not combative about it, we really are.

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