Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The Refusal to Vote

There are few things more sickening than the condescending demand to “get out and vote.” To expect any sort of real representation in the current political system is purely delusional. Raising or lowering the income tax by five percent, passing an “overhaul” of the healthcare system, or investing in alternative energy all change nothing in reality. There will still exist the most humiliating poverty -- now, more social than economic. There will still remain the most brutal racism. There will still linger the most vicious wars. For everyone, there will still remain the crushing monotony of work.


Nothing remains in the realm of classical politics besides a desire to sustain the status quo, an inclination to reinforce the current mode of production. Once conservatives are pressed, they eventually admit that all the life-support machines deployed by the welfare state are the only things keeping riots from breaking out at each and every moment. Once progressives are scrutinized, they all eventually begin telling about the wonders of the free market and of capitalism -- albeit a “regulated” capitalism. We cannot help but suspect that the supposed conflict between Left and Right is a false dichotomy: even the state-controlled economies of Leninist states, once analyzed from the correct perspective, begin to look eerily similar to the most unregulated markets of the West. For this reason, everything that has been presented to us thus far -- within the realm of classical politics -- must be considered capitalism. The Right and the Left represent different approaches, each with its own benefits, but no real difference in principle. It is surprising that two sides of the same coin have created enemies out of each other for so long.


The shift to the Left that occurred in the 20th century after the world witnessed the horrors of completely unregulated capitalism does not represent a victory for the working class in any sort of way. Leninist states in the East and the more moderate welfare states of the West always served as mere methods of keeping capitalism alive. If these welfare-based reforms had not taken place, society would not have been able to function at all. People would not have been able to live in such severe poverty and inequality without erupting into violence. And here we find the only question with which we are faced in classical politics today, the question that sparks so many banal debates between conservatives and progressives: “To what degree should we regulate capitalism?”


Of course this question comes along with the assumption that capitalism must survive at all costs. This is why we reject classical politics. This is why we find ourselves unable to be represented. We are not concerned with the degree at which the government should regulate this mode of production. We are instead concerned with destroying this mode of production. We are solely interested in abolishing capitalism.


Radicalism aside, we must all agree, at the very least, that it is simply impossible for an individual to represent hundreds of thousands of people, or that a legislative body made up of a few hundred could represent hundreds of millions. From the perspective of pure liberty, we ask that people refuse to vote in order to delegitimize the elections, in order to demonstrate that there is no longer any faith in this ridiculous idea of “representation.”


Finally, we come to Ferguson, where a “democratically elected” apparatus decides to violently suppress peaceful protesters -- the same protesters who supposedly voted for this government in the first place. As usual, the election itself gave the government the legitimacy to use violence. Democracy, everywhere, looks like Ferguson. It is not enough to retroactively analyze the polls for racial turnouts or for a specific political climate: we must denounce the polls themselves.

From this angle, it becomes clear why so many citizens in the West describe their vote as “a choice between two evils.” When presented with such a predicament, we understand that the only real choice that remains is the refusal to vote. This is why we say do not vote. We have too much dignity to willingly vote for a lesser of two evils, to willingly sign over our personal liberty to someone else. From now on, our ballot will be our absence. Our representatives will come from the streets.

6 comments:

  1. Finally getting back to this one...

    I agree with the general flavor you have going on here: our political system isn't working, and voting will not (and can not) change the system, at least in any significant or impactful way. Not only are we forced into this dichotomy, but Congress and the Supreme Court are so partisan that the last word of many decisions are left up to a small group of moderates. And even so, many of the decisions being made don't attack what you see as the heart of the problem.

    But I wonder about a couple things: Is it really a smart move to call for the refusal to vote? And is Capitalism really the problem that we need to resolve or move away from?

    As for the first question, I think that refusing to vote makes sense in principle, but will not be an effective means of enacting change. Is refusing to vote not what the people pulling he strings want you to do? Fewer radicals like you voting means they have an easier time bending the masses to their will. Of course, that doesn't mean that voting will do any good, but not voting is too passive to enact any significant change, and would need to be supplemented by other acts that you should be more focused on. Of course, I could see a sort of national boycott on voting as throwing a wrench in our system, but I wonder if that would lead to anything but campaigns to get more people to vote unless the refusal to vote was in the same of some unifying cause, which brings me to my next question...

    Is capitalism really the right cause to unify against? I think not. Capitalism, in its bare principles, seems fine to me. We're currently running a perverted capitalist system that could be cleaned up to better suit our needs, rather than eradicated for a system of (I assume what you were going for) anarchist socialism/communism. I think I'd like to invite Josh to better explain this point, though, so I'll leave it here for now...

    ReplyDelete
  2. There will still exist the most humiliating poverty -- now, more social than economic.
    —well lets say all social…because you and i both now that this is nowhere near the most humiliating poverty economically…not by a long shot.

    There will still remain the most brutal racism
    —not entirely perpetuated by a capitalist or free-market system..a capitalist system simply services the government quite nicely in perpetuating racism and societal tension

    There will still linger the most vicious wars.
    —?!?!??!?!!?!??!?!

    For everyone, there will still remain the crushing monotony of work
    —christ max, work isn’t that horrible. i for one am excited to work. i understand your point about mindless jobs but give em to the robots i say! humans shouldn’t be doing that anyway. granted, you’re gonna have to get an education now…oh no!

    Nothing remains in the realm of classical politics besides a desire to sustain the status quo, an inclination to reinforce the current mode of production
    — where’s your evidence?

    . Once conservatives are pressed, they eventually admit that all the life-support machines deployed by the welfare state are the only things keeping riots from breaking out at each and every moment
    —please elaborate

    Once progressives are scrutinized, they all eventually begin telling about the wonders of the free market and of capitalism -- albeit a “regulated” capitalism.
    —fuck em, right?


    We cannot help but suspect that the supposed conflict between Left and Right is a false dichotomy: even the state-controlled economies of Leninist states, once analyzed from the correct perspective, begin to look eerily similar to the most unregulated markets of the West.
    —true that…mothafuckaaaaa


    For this reason, everything that has been presented to us thus far -- within the realm of classical politics -- must be considered capitalism.
    —whoa whoa…what? how’d we get here?

    It is surprising that two sides of the same coin have created enemies out of each other for so long.
    —not really…remember, the Right and Left use the same system…which is why they seem so eerily similar to people that don’t like the system.. but they still have general differences that are stark enough to manifest into conflict. and less enemies, more frenemies, i’d say. (friends and enemies). they both want to remain in power and happily capitalize (no pun intended) on the current system in order to do so



    The shift to the Left that occurred in the 20th century after the world witnessed the horrors of completely unregulated capitalism does not represent a victory for the working class in any sort of way.
    —there were multiple shifts my dude.. they call em “realignment elections”.. i assume you speak of the 1932 election, however, when that hack of a president FDR was elected into office. and first of all, the “horrors of completely unregulated capitalism”is not entirely the most accurate way of describing the situation, lets not get into yellow journalism here

    ReplyDelete
  3. Leninist states in the East and the more moderate welfare states of the West always served as mere methods of keeping capitalism alive
    church

    If these welfare-based reforms had not taken place, society would not have been able to function at all. People would not have been able to live in such severe poverty and inequality without erupting into violence
    —PREACH


    And here we find the only question with which we are faced in classical politics today, the question that sparks so many banal debates between conservatives and progressives: “To what degree should we regulate capitalism?”
    —none


    Of course this question comes along with the assumption that capitalism must survive at all costs.
    —until something better and FEASIBLE and just as free comes along, hell yeah….mothafuckaaaaaaaa


    This is why we reject classical politics. This is why we find ourselves unable to be represented. We are not concerned with the degree at which the government should regulate this mode of production. We are instead concerned with destroying this mode of production. We are solely interested in abolishing capitalism.
    — silly child. play the game and dismantle it from within. create your representation, don’t regulate this mode of production…if you destroy it, have something better in its place. i still want my popcorn shrimp whenever i want it, weed whenever i want it, different types of shoes and cars and clothes when i want it, i want a ps4 and a tv and movies and music and comfort. so if you can get me those things, then gucci. you know id even be happy working for those things, trading my services for those things.


    Radicalism aside, we must all agree, at the very least, that it is simply impossible for an individual to represent hundreds of thousands of people, or that a legislative body made up of a few hundred could represent hundreds of millions
    —thank you

    ReplyDelete
  4. From the perspective of pure liberty, we ask that people refuse to vote in order to delegitimize the elections, in order to demonstrate that there is no longer any faith in this ridiculous idea of “representation.”
    —no homie, that will just give them power. everyone knows there isn’t faith in this ridiculous idea.. but we’re not in a tyranny. and if we keep voting, then we can maintain the rights that we have and exercise those rights to make change happen. the answer really is to vote and vote for the RIGHT PEOPLE, i.e. liberty loving folks, both economically and socially.

    Finally, we come to Ferguson, where a “democratically elected” apparatus decides to violently suppress peaceful protesters
    —police aren’t voted in, the weapons and munitions and gear they get, hardly gets voted in. people can push an initiative against it—but shit is pretty much cut and dry without input of the citizens. so why don’t we fix that bit up instead of telling everyone not to vote period?

    Democracy, everywhere, looks like Ferguson.
    nice

    we must denounce the polls themselves.
    not nice

    From this angle, it becomes clear why so many citizens in the West describe their vote as “a choice between two evils.”
    —“lesser of two evils”

    When presented with such a predicament, we understand that the only real choice that remains is the refusal to vote.
    — “we understand that the only real choice is to get a libertarian in there!!!!! (or someone that represents us). Cmon Max, dont be so tethered to a two party system

    This is why we say do not vote.
    — who’s “we” ?

    We have too much dignity to willingly vote for a lesser of two evils, to willingly sign over our personal liberty to someone else.
    —but yet you capitalize off the system…what dignity is that? ….Mothafuckaaaaaaa

    ReplyDelete
  5. On to the neanderthal:

    Finally getting back to this one...

    I agree with the general flavor you have going on here: our political system isn't working, and voting will not (and can not) change the system, at least in any significant or impactful way. Not only are we forced into this dichotomy, but Congress and the Supreme Court are so partisan that the last word of many decisions are left up to a small group of moderates.
    — nice, sums it up well

    As for the first question, I think that refusing to vote makes sense in principle, but will not be an effective means of enacting change.
    — which principle?


    Of course, that doesn't mean that voting will do any good, but not voting is too passive to enact any significant change, and would need to be supplemented by other acts that you should be more focused on.
    —well said….mothafuckaaaaaaa


    Of course, I could see a sort of national boycott on voting as throwing a wrench in our system, but I wonder if that would lead to anything but campaigns to get more people to vote unless the refusal to vote was in the same of some unifying cause, which brings me to my next question…
    —GET MORE PARTIES


    We're currently running a perverted capitalist system that could be cleaned up to better suit our needs, rather than eradicated for a system of (I assume what you were going for) anarchist socialism/communism.
    —amen sister


    I think I'd like to invite Josh to better explain this point, though, so I'll leave it here for now…
    — again, its the politics abusing capitalism and manipulating it to perpetuate their (politics) own power… all while giving capitalism a bad rap.

    ReplyDelete