Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 4:57am

Since I cannot stop the trolls from disrupting this discussion with their off-topic span, I cannot keep it orderly. They did not come here to participate, but to deliberately attack me and try to discredit the idea of an election boycott.

I will, however repeat the summary of this topic that I presented at the very beginning:

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.

It is obvious that the trolls support the status quo, fear change, and prefer representative government to direct democracy. 

Since an election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government, and they believe that the current governmnent is deserving of legitimacy, they wish to perpetuate it, perhaps with a few minor reforms, but certainly not to replace it with a different system.

People like this seem to be in the majority here at Occupy Cafe and at Occupy San Diego. I don't know how many other Occupy cities have already been co-opted into abandoning the principles of direct democracy upon which the Occupy Movement was founded, and are now intent upon preserving the status quo. Although most will engage in symbolic protests, they will continue to grant the current government their consent to continue to brutalize and arrest them. 

These are patriots, not revolutionaries. They salute the flag, respect the Constitution, and vote. They think that the Occupy Wall Street List of Grievances are not serious enough to warrant changing the system, and that everything could be fixed with a few new laws and regulations and perhaps a couple of Constitutional amendments. They do not believe that capitalism is fascism or that a government which commits crimes against humanity is a fascist government, and they fear direct democracy because they characterize their fellow citizens the same way that the slaveholding plutocrats who wrote the Constitution did, as a mob and rabble, incapable of self-governance.

I do not aggressively promote my ideas. When there was an obvious lack of interest at Occupy San Diego, I stepped back and stopped giving teach-ins. When there was an obvious lack of interest here, I stopped posting. But when BradBlog's top story was an article that singled me out by name and attacked me for my election boycott advocacy, I responded in self-defense, as is my right. I did not start that discussion, but I refused to be silenced by their continuing hostility. Similarly, when they came over here to attack me, I also responded. Although they claim that they consider me and my ideas inconsequential and not worth their time, they have singled me out for their coordinated attacks and as long as they continue to attack me, I will continue to respond in self-defense.

If an election boycott wasn't something that they feared, they would simply ignore me. And as I said, since I do not aggressively promote my ideas, but simply express my opinion when and where it is allowed and appropriate, it is their provocations that draw attention to something they claim is unworthy of attention.

While many claim that evil forces are trying to suppress the vote, the 1% are extremely aggressive in funding elections and getting out the vote, to the tune of billions of dollars spent saturating the mass media and paying people to register voters. Individual political parties also register voters because they are seeking power within the system, the purpose of all political parties, and do not support changing the system to a direct democracy in which the few could not have power over the many.

Those who support politics as usual have aggressively stepped forward and they will not step back. Without the consent of the governed, the 1% would no longer be able to claim to be a democratically elected government, and would have to continue their wars of aggression and crimes against humanity exposed for the unmitigated fascists they are. That could cost them allies among governments which wish to be seen as democratic, although there will always be brutal dictatorships grateful to the US for the funds, weapons, and training to suppress incipient democratic uprisings.

I am not alone. There are people everywhere who oppose corrupt government and prefer self-governance to tyranny. Even here at Occupy Cafe and at Occupy San Diego there are a few who, even if they don't agree with me, at least don't feel compelled to attack me for not supporting the current corrupt system. But I am in a minority and it is possible that things may have to get much worse before they can get better. I don't know how much worse things can get before people start to wake up, but I do know that those who mistake representative government for democracy are still fast asleep.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 13, 2011 at 11:36am

Occupy New York is based on anarchist principles and has run into problems with particpants complaining of an inner-group that is not accountable nor accessible. Sometimes claiming there are no leaders doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means they are invisble and can't be accessed. In New York, the Direct Action Committee made decisions independent of the GA. The GA ran the camp. In every area people became entrenched as leaders because they established a reputation. They were/are good dedicated people. Nevertheless there was no form of election wherein other people could challenge them and put forth other visions.

Representative democracy does not protect the vulnerable. If it did the Holocaust would never have happened. Constitutions and various forms of the Bill of Rights or Charter of Rights can exist under both direct and representative democracies.

Direct Democracy also has it's problems. In California mis-guided direct democracy led to passing a bill preventing the legistatures from increasing property taxes without a 2/3rds majority at two levels of government. Now schools are suffering terribly.

The ideal political system has yet to be found although some are better than others. People need to be educated in whatever political system they live under. They also need to be educated about the decisions they need to make. Direct democracy doesn't guarantee honest politicians.

I think a key issue may be how to prevent wealth from perverting whatever system exists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 12:49pm

While misguided direct democracy doesn't protect the vulnerable, true direct democracy does, Gisele.

Attempts by the 1% to identify and take out the leaders of the Occupy Movement have been frustrated by the fact that there are no leaders. While people have gained respect through their work, they are not leaders. Anyone who is misidentified as a leader, or as a key voice in advocating for direct democracy, will be attacked by the cops acting on behalf of the 1% and strenuous efforts will be made to silence or discredit them.

I am in no sense whatsoever a leader of any kind, but because I have spoken out in defense of direct democracy, I am under constant attack and constant coordinated efforts are made to discredit and silence me.

In addition to being apathetic about war crimes and crimes against humanity, voters are also apathetic about climate change and the survival of the planet. Most experts agree we have long passed the tipping point but voters continue to prefer to allow representative government to protect the 1% instead of the planet and to sabotage all international efforts to avert the inevitable catastrophes headed our way. 

It is the same with every item on the Occupy Wall Street List of Grievances, Gisele. Every one of them was caused by representative government acting on behalf of the 1%, and voters are totally apathetic and uncaring, and continue to defend representative government and oppose direct democracy.

Wealth cannot pervert true direct democracy because it is egalitarian and everyone has an equal voice, so wealth cannot dominate. Direct democracy is the solution to plutocracy, corporatocracy, oligarchy, and other forms of tyranny. But those who defend the right of the 1% continue to rule, fear direct democracy. 

You are correct that preventing wealth from perverting government is a key issue, and direct democracy, when done correctly, is the solution. That's why the 1% is doing everything in its power to co-opt the Occupy Movement and pervert all attempts at direct democracy. Even discussions of direct democracy are not allowed to take place freely and openly. Occupy San Diego has rejected direct democracy and is openly registering voters. Occupy Cafe allows voting advocates to dominate and monopolize the site and restricts me to this one topic, which defenders of representative government are determined to disrupt.

California does have the initiative process, but because it does not have direct democracy, wealth still dominates. In a true direct democracy, an egalitarian system where everyone has an equal voice and an equal vote, that couldn't happen.

I don't claim to understand anarchist principles, Gisele, but it is my understanding, and I could be wrong, that anarchists are opposed to both representative government and to direct democracy and prefer a stateless society. Falsely conflating direct democracy, government of by and for the people, with anarchy, the absence of government, is just another attempt by the 1% and their supporters to discredit direct democracy, in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Eggleton on December 13, 2011 at 1:39pm

"Occupy Cafe allows voting advocates to dominate and monopolize the site and restricts me to this one topic, which defenders of representative government are determined to disrupt."

In addition and, in my view, in alignment with that, OC allows one economy advocates to dominate and monopolize the site and developments.  The assumptions of a nation of continuing relevance and of a single economic system push hard against balancing, revitalizing potentials most, if not everyone, can help realize.

Trust in widespread passion- and attention-intensive production of what is needed is so scant that health of humans, all beings and communities (the potential of the 100%) in a variety of future scenarios is pushed to the site's blind spot/margins.  It is not surprising, and only possibly catastrophic.  What must come, will come.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 2:12pm

Well, if the monetary system that is now relevant, continues to be relevant, it is, I think, more than just possibly catastrophic, but quite likely that this nation and its entire imperialist system will become irrelevant.

It might not be intentional bias but the laws of physics, namely Newton's first law, that is shaping the OC forum. Defenders of the status quo might dominate out of sheer inertia.

The Occupy Movement threatens to set a static system in motion and it is only natural that most people would resist and attempt to remain inert.

Thank you for your observations, David. I'd myopically and probably erroneously thought that the idea of not voting alone was being marginalized here, whereas it is much more likely that you are correct and that any concepts which present a real threat to the status quo are similarly marginalized.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 13, 2011 at 2:08pm

I think sometimes it's important to step back and just contemplate. It took awhile of thinking by myself on different topics while your argument percolated in the back of my mind.I thought of you when the high voter turnout in Egypt was announced.

I was disappointed when the protesters withdrew from the square with the military still in charge last year.I knew it was too soon, the same people still had power. But, they were losing the support of the public. Since time immemorial people have banded together for security and stability.People were anxious to get back to survival issues of providing for their families.It's more difficult to be polically brave when you have a two-year old clutching at your skirts and a baby in your arms that need feeding. 

Revolt and upheaval are not popular with people trying to raise young children and provide for elders. They know the pain can last years, even decades, and not guarantee anything better at the other end. The ruling-class knows that established adults value security and stability above almost everything else. By using delaying tactics the military increased the desire of people for a return to stability so tourists will return.That was one of their recent direct criticisms of the protesters, that they were harming Egypt's reputation and driving tourists away. The desire for stability must be calculated into any argument that seeks to provoke a change in the behavior of the masses.

 The ruling-class, world-wide, must be deposed. There is no other solution. It's obvious, but I hadn't thought in those terms because it seems impossible. People would never go for it. What you are proposing is a non-violent form of revolt. We live in democractic countries where we still have the power to do this.

It astounds me how American people are so excitable over freedom when it pertains to protecting hate-speech, and yet are sleep-walking into an Orwellian state. Thirty years ago I would have laughed at anyone who claimed that in the future Americans would be okay with people being arrested and held indefinitely without charges unable to even phone a family member. The idea is perposterous, unbelievable, and it's happening. I sometimes feel like I am in an alternate reality. Alternate reality or not, it is one in which people are not prepared to revolt. I agree with your sense of urgency. The cost of revolt will only get higher as the state continues to gather power for unlimited powers of spying and disappearing people without a trace.

Not voting is a powerful a tactic, you are right about that. The problem is not in convincing people that it is a good tactic, but in convincing people revolt is their best option. People have to be convinced that giving up whatever level of security and stability they have is worth risking the mayhem and upheaval they would suffer through overthowing the government. Repression of the people like destruction of the Earth happens incrementally. Each individual act is never quite enough to drive people to revolt. If all of this had happened in one year, the damage to the ecosystem, the police state measures, the spying, people would have taken to the streets in larger numbers than for the civil rights movement.

The concept of "consent to govern" is a good one. The problem is that all the issues people are "not consenting to" are still not big enough to generate the willingness to endure the certainty of economic pain and the uncertainty that anything better would follow it.

We need to think outside the box about generating the willingness to revolt.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 2:33pm

For me, Gisele, this is one of those times you speak of when it is important to step back and contemplate.

Your comment is so wise and inclusive that I cannot possibly respond coherently without first giving it a great deal of thought.

I can say that I am in agreement with you, but to be more specific and to percolate possible constructive suggestions, if that is within my capability at all, is going to take a lot of thought.

Thank you, Gisele, and I hope you will continue to be patient with me. I try my best to be as honest as I can, and I certainly don't pretend to have "the" answer, or "all the answers." It is precisely by pointing out the gaps in my thinking that you prod me past my own inertia and encourage me to look for more possibilities. You're a treasure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 13, 2011 at 5:40pm

Thank-you, you make me blush! I will look forward to reading your thoughts evolve even if you don't come up with "solutions". Collective brainstorming, even when it seems that we are beating a topic to death, can help us progress.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 13, 2011 at 12:54pm

Gisele,

 

Wise and food for thought,  indeed.  Thank you.

 

Lindsay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 1:10pm

I would be remiss if I didn't add my personal gratitude to Gisele for that thoughtful, constructive, and on-topic comment, to your own, Lindsay.

It is a breath of fresh air to see people like you and Gisele who are competent and willing to engage in civil discussions even of controversial topics like this.

As for the initiative process in California, which is an attempt at direct democracy but is dominated by big money, I'd compare it to adding a patch of natural or synthetic vegan fabric to a leather jacket. It won't change the essence of the system to add a patch here and there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 13, 2011 at 2:42pm

Thank-you both :)

Mark, I see your point that the system in California is too corrupted to judge the power of direct democracy based on what happened there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 13, 2011 at 5:46pm

Mark, while you are spreading the idea of refusing consent to be governed, even if people vehemently disagree with you, the idea is firmly planted as a means of peaceful revolt. There was a time I didn't think radical change had to happen. Other people will also reconsider the need for radical change. This tactic is now part of their knowledge-base.

Some of us have argued that it won't work, but we are speaking of the immediate present. Maybe the thought will pop back-up every time the government does something against the will of the people. Building familiarity with the idea in and of itself is valuable.

Other people are working on a new more equitable economic model and even replacement currencies that can be used within a community to exchange goods and services. People are working on sustainable-living solutions. People are creating a FreeNet to offer an alternative to the corporate controlled internet.

Maybe we are moving towards a convergence where the parts will become a whole. The problems will become untenable. People will believe they can have a better more secure and more stable  way of life.They will also know that the government requires their consent, not the other way around.

The act of telling people that the government needs their consent is subversive. The current narrative is "people have the right to vote". "The government needs your consent" is a very different way to look at it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page