portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

actions & protests | alternative media | government

Why Elections donít matter

Compost the liberals and the intellectuals --Does democracy even matter - we need a revolution in order to take the wealth away from the upper class - it s never been done with voting alone. If the US imperialism is to be stopped it will take a civil war - or a major military defeat. If a majority of Americans vote for war and imperialism does that make it OK ???
Why Elections don't matter

Some of this came from a public meeting on Why Elections don't matter- some is from the speech I prepared to give there but didn't have to either because the points were addressed or the crowd just wasn't going to get it -which proves these points all the more.

- MOST AMERICANS ARE NAZIS - THE GREATEST ENEMY OF CHANGE Are the moderates, Liberals and all the do-gooder quasi-leftists who are holding back the change
- have for many decades -!!

The main reason we don't have a long term movement for change in this country is that we are taught to look at our country, its structures and its role in the world from a narrow perspective - that of a white, middle class - centrist. Then we are taught to instinctively break apart - to disassemble everything - or we chose to look at only the parts of this narrow worldview and not the whole - We take a misshapen view and then we break it into little pieces -history, politics, psychology - art -- and then we work on little issues - special interests of the pieces of the pieces. If you tried to put all the pieces back together they would not fit - because they have been manipulated and crudely divided to begin with.

We should start by asking : Do We Have A Democracy - {{ Why - or Why not- ? }}
Actually we don't claim to have one - only a democratic republic - and with all the lawyers and the lack of info among the duly elected representatives it would be hard to call it a democracy - even before Bush - Before Florida and the Patriot Act. It is hard to imagine calling a system democratic that is not at least based on proportional voting - People from Europe don't believe me when I tell them how the US system works - with its winner take all horserace. Besides no current system can meet the definition of democracy because the modern world with all of its intricate complexities violates the basic precept of Democracy - perfect information for everyone - even elected representatives are not well informed on most of the issues they vote on.!!! Usually when people don't have a democracy they fight.

-
- What would a better system look like? Not like Europe! - Maybe Somalia - or Nicaragua before the US terrorism stopped the Sandinistas.

Then assuming we want a better system we would set about looking at how to make it happen - Normally we would plan for the medium or long term - SORRY- If anyone believes we have another generation to waste in idle debate and movement building - I suggest they have been living in a cave for 20 years, 4 years - or maybe only 4 weeks.

HALF the people in the US are at least as bad as NAZIS!!! Or they would be if they knew just how desperate US foreign policies and the economy are. Many more than half the people will favor fascism if we don't move quickly to rally behind radical change - a new constitution, and an end to US foreign entanglements.

There are so many clear examples of US imperialism - more importantly we - or many of us - have come to see how you never have democracy when the upper class owns everything.

The outlook for waking the mass of people up is dismal - people who go to church voted 2 for 1 for Bush II - a large majority of Catholics voted for Bush I and Bush II. Gun owners voted 2 for 1 for Bush II - I heard this morning on NPR where they laughed that an unarmed atheist doesn't stand a chance.

Does democracy even matter - we need a revolution in order to take the wealth away from the upper class - it s never been done with voting alone. If the US imperialism is to be stopped it will take a civil war - or a major military defeat. If a majority of Americans vote for war and imperialism does that make it OK ???

Democracy and voting and politics don't matter anymore!

So - our strategy should be to convince half the do-gooders who will vote for Kerry, Nader, or Bush - to join the rest of us - youth and minorities who don't vote. Most of the people that I respect are voting for BUSH - because he is such a good global punching bag - Bush has helped elect more leftists than any time in history - anyway - well - voting does not matter

- I would say voting has never helped anything anywhere - but lets - just talk about what we should do- if we want change -a revolution!!!

We need to convince these 20-30 million do gooders that the power of the people and the power of truth lies in the streets- or in surrounding the state capitals with lotsof people - shutting down the economy and the government and demand a constitutional convention - Like in Bolivia and aergentina and like was done 10 years ago in Venezuela-!

Will we win with this technique? Is there an option? We have to win at whatever the cost - and I am afraid the lives lost - the costs - will be very high because not enough people will take the streets - and so change will be delayed, deformed or denied.
Sounds Like You've Got It All Figured Out 20.Apr.2004 06:53

Paul Severe

So, what are you waiting for?

My poor deluded firend 20.Apr.2004 07:37

Mike stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

Don't you understand what democracy is? A method of determining the outcome fo the figth without the violence. Remember the symbolism -- think of its origins. We still vote by show of hands, a quick count of how many sword arms each side has. Or a voice vote, because a smaller but more enthusiastic force could win a fight agaisntr the halfhearted.

LISTEN --- if any place where casting a ballot is safe, no payback no matter how you vote, doesn't take a lot of commitment, any place like that your side can't get many votes? IT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE MANY WARRIORS. Now you might have LESS warriors available than votes because it takes real commitment to fight and die, you don't have MORE than you have votes.

Rifleman democracy 20.Apr.2004 12:54

politics as possible

There is a theory of "rifleman democracy". Machiavelli first set out this theory, saying that (paraphrased) a man without a gun is in no way comparable to a man with a gun. Aside from Machiavelli's better known ideas, as expressed in THE PRINCE, he also proposed that a practical possibility could be seen in the democratic republic as a form of government (seen as exemplified by the small city-state) --- and this was a very possible development, Machiavelli believed, because of the development of more accurate fire-arms, namely, rifles. One rifle is carried by one man. So, basically, one rifle = one man = one vote. That was the format of "rifleman democracy" which enabled Napoleon to transform Europe out of feudalism. (Napoleon lost as an individual, but Europe was transformed forever.)

Now, however, we have a much more complicated situation when viewing democracy as an expression of, or as determined by, realities of warfare. The U.S. did not even get involved in trying to disarm Iraqis from their AK-47's. RPG's, however, that's another matter. Anti-aircraft weapons, etc., are far more important than rifles. What it comes down to is that even individual snipers require an enormous support system (extending to helicopters and control of the air-space) in order to function in their (what else can we call it?) terrorist role.

Traditional individual fire-arms have, for good reason, been known as "equalizers". The days when an armored knight was equal, say, to 30 yeoman --- that period of history ended with the development of the modern rifle. Of course, it has been more complicated than one man, one rifle, one vote, for some time now. Napoleon's successes depended upon his ability to recruit, inspire and utilize riflemen --- but he was also known for his unequaled use of cannon fire in connection with infantry battles. Everything changed with the development of the machine gun about a century ago. Machine guns were operated by teams, rather than individuals, and machine guns gobbled up ammo so fast that considerable supporting infrastructure is required. Thus, the theory of "superior fire power" that was developed out of World War I and the millions of men sacrificed in futile efforts to attack and take fortified machine gun positions on static front-lines. Then came World War II --- air power and control of the air space are everything.

Warfare and revolution have been transformed by high-tech, like everything else in the world. Outcomes can no longer be forecast by counting heads. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. So, to be successful, revolutionaries must think in terms of high-tech, outside-the-box, teamwork and specialties. It's a complex calculation anymore.

History shows that either democratic methods will prove capable of restraining the current trend toward increasing fascism and imperialism --- or the Empire will fall apart as a result of its own corruption and arrogance. The sign of impending demise of the Empire is that the people at the top tend to believe their own propaganda. Hitler, for example, was told as early as 1939 about the U.S. (Boeing Aircraft) tooling up to be capable of making more bombers in a month than existed in all countries combined in 1939. Basically, Hitler was told that attacking Poland and starting World War II was bound to fail in the long run. Hitler, however, fired the messenger and brought in someone who would tell him what he wanted to hear. That is the arrogance part of it. The other part of imperial break-down has to do with corruption. To see how corruption and arrogance can combine to collapse a military structure, check out the Falkland Islands War. Or, more recently, check out the fall of Saddam Hussein.

It is strange to read this author shouting that the "people" should take to the streets in mass numbers in a situation where, by the author's own account, the "people" are mostly fascists and the best-armed are those most disposed to support fascism and imperialism. This author really seems to be recommending mass suicide.

Local to Global 20.Apr.2004 18:25

Brian

Well I'm busted butt on a local level, why don't you help progressive candidates like me instead of complaining about something you will never do. We change cities, then states and the country follows. It can be done through popular peaceful social revolutions. But you need to do something rather than complaining about the problem. With the help of a handful of people, local progressive campaigns could actually win.

If your not doing anything to correct the problem then you are part of the problem.

Know there is a problem is half the battle.

These commenters prove the Articles Points on Poor thinking So Well 21.Apr.2004 12:46

Revolution

First commenter is just a jerk - says-Just do it - as if nothing should be debated, planned or timed...

second commenter has nice rap at first - then " strange to read this author shouting that the "people" should take to the streets in mass numbers in a situation where, by the author's own account, the "people" are mostly fascists and the best-armed are those most disposed to support fascism and imperialism. This author really seems to be recommending mass suicide.-

- Response: Doing nothing is mass suicide. Doing the same thing over and over (liberal democratic shnge the local - chjange the state!) and expecting a different outcome is a clinical sign of psychosis. - I said that most of the people are fascists - or will be if we don't recruit them to our cause. - It might be better to say that they are active fascists in that they support Bush's fascist expansion into Iraq-Afghanistan - Bolivia - but at home the governmnet has not fully developed their fascist counterattack apparatus and so the majority of people are passively fascists at home - or awaiting orders -

SO - SO if we are a mass - say 3 percent of the population - in a city of a million people that would be 30,000 who are determined to camp in the streets, block the roads and generally disrutp - essentially non-violently ( arms as a backup)a classic serious Ghandi action - not like most 3 hour - weekend fun-fest Us protests - then we would attract a lot of attention - people streaming in to join up, solidarity strikes and actions locally, nationally, internationally and inspire future actions as well as force the local/state/federal government to either martyr us (great media!) or negotiate and difuse the situation. And of course we would have reasonable demands - food, housing, public jobs, de-privatization and a new constitution - or (pleae add or subtract)

The Third commenter says:
why don't you help progressive candidates instead of complaining about something you will never do. We change cities, then states and the country follows- [[ When, where }} . It can be done through popular peaceful social revolutions [[ When, Where, How ??? ]] . With the help of a handful of people, local progressive campaigns could actually win. [[ When, where, How, AND WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE ]]

Then he says the KEY mind-trob : "If your not doing anything to correct the problem then you are part of the problem." This is exactly why no one helps progressive - "politicos" - because they could and have never accomplished anything meaningful - Ken Livingston the multi-time Mayor of London would agree - even he has accomplished little more than to make fun of the phony liberals and the whole system !!!

I have argued with people - from these commentators mentanlity for so long it not funny anymore - same old rhetoric - no examples - no logic - no history - oh well - see the intro to the article - on why there is no movement - and then see how these commneters break thought, reality and issues up into tiny peices and so of course they cannopt make sense

Revolution - no mastter how suicidal - makes way more sense than voting ever did - anywhere - anytime - any place -

Vote for Bush Night Priove You Wrong 21.Apr.2004 14:42

A Cokelburn

Bush, Kerry and Empire:
The Capitulation of the Left is Almost Unprecedented
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

With hardly a backward glance --or forward look --the bulk of the surviving American left has blithely joined the Democratic Party center, without the will to inflict debate, the influence to inform policy or the leverage to share power.

The capitulation of the left -- is almost without precedent. By accepting the premises and practices of party unity the left has negated the reasons for its own existence.

Behind the liberal hysteria over Bush, as a demon of monstrous, Hitlerian proportions, I get the sense of a certain embarrassment, that the man is bringing the imperial office into embarrassment and disrepute. Hence all the plaintive invocations of the distress of "America's allies", hopefully to be cured by a competent rationalizer of the empire's affairs, like John Kerry.

But should not all opponents of the American Empire's global reach rejoice that but would not the world be a safer and conceivably a better place if the allies saw separate paths as the sounder option?


Gabriel Kolko, that great historian of American empire, has been arguing powerfully (most recently in our Counter Punch newsletter) to this effect [ that we need Bush] and I agree with him.


[[This - like Loko's article on counterpunch.org support - infer - the election of Bush is super important - it is a bit fuzzy on language - but check THEM out! -- article goes on to condemn Kerry's econ policy of debt reduction and advocates a Tobin tax to capture 100 bil a year \\]]


Other wise I like the mass - take over the capitals idea - it often works - its what people have done many times before - a redress of grievances - and remember the only thing holding up this fake country, fake president and fake economy - is confidence - go after that and you can't lose.

!!