b9AcE 🐊

I got the voting card (val.se/servicelankar/other-lan) for this round of elections in the system neither I nor my parents elected to or wanted to be a part of.
I chose to divide my voting card in one for the imposed self-determination usurping violence monopoly (State) and one for the cooperation inhibiting injustice fueled economic violence (Capitalism), then put both of those on…
the fire.

"Don't vote, it only encourages them"
is not only a sticker on the front door of my favorite café, but also a classic slogan for those striving for equal direct self-determination for all.

Or as Frankie Boyle phrases it:
"It's best not to vote, so you can watch the whole thing for the fucking circus it is.

I know it's a taboo thing to say 'don't vote' but all we're doing is rubber-stamping a rat fight, a system that doesn't give us a choice."

[post 1 of 6]

"Politics is a sort of class warfare;
the political class engaged in arms deals, profiteering and corruption ranged against the public,
who have been educated out of any understanding of the situation…
and trained to despise each other."

-Frankie Doyle, being conservative-reactionary BBC's entire in-house counterweight-

[post 2 of 6]

Anarchism and revolution getting acclamation applause at the conservative-reactionary BBC,
on "Frankie Boyle's New World Order" when described by Benjamin Zephaniah.

[post 3 of 6]

…later, on the same show:
Articulate man makes great point!

[post 4 of 6]

The ruling class' propaganda by its news-media component during elections,
as described by Frankie Boyle.

[post 5 of 6]

The only way to briefly summarize "world politics" today is to masquerade it as comedy.
Here is that, by Frankie Boyle.

[post 6 of 6]

Here's a reminder that sadly apparently is needed:
Pro-parliamentarianism propaganda is NOT a neutral stance.
It is for example a position opposite those that desire and work for more democracy than inherently any parliament is capable of, such as anarchists do.
Democracy isn't complete until it is constant, local and full, actual people power (democracy = demos, "people" + kratos, "power").

So, please Google, don't shove anti-democratic elections-propaganda like this at everyone that happens to arrive from an IP-address registered in Sweden.

@b9AcE A part of me agrees with you... but not voting is the same as voting on your worst adversary.

I think the only way to have a lasting revolution is a gradual cultural change that happens naturally and not via violence. Number of people who oppose oppressors reduce or increase depending on culture adoption. Like in Germany around the 1920's. So more influence of fascism leads to more fascism.

@shellkr My vote is against the violence-based system which has removed all capabilities of leaving it for a system based on voluntary cooperation instead of as now imposed though violence or fear of violence.
My vote of active boycotting is a rejection not of simply the parties in that system but the entire system itself, while every vote within that system very frequently is explicitly used as some sort of false "proof" of popular endorsement,
endorsements of my "worst adversary" and I refuse to in such a way voting for it.

@b9AcE Those votes affect life...

If someone started beating you up. Would you change your values? Or would it be a more likely scenario if they became your friend and talked?

This pretty much scales to all humanity.

If the fascists wins the election.. the group that opposes them would shrink. It is just how group psychology work.

@shellkr Every act, including non-actions, affect lives.
At least my choice isn't to cement the system that has obviously failed humankind and beyond for centuries or more.

I'm not sure if you're arguing for my point of view of elections boycotts with your comment about beating people up rather than talking. The current system is based at its core on claiming a monopoly on violence but due to mechanisms such as the injustice-fueled Capitalism it can't ever achieve it... whereas talking to consensus is what anarchists strive for and achieve in practice.
So yes, I agree. The State doesn't.

That quickly increased obstacles to survival such as oppression is what creates spikes of the resistance that is inherent to all life from microbes to millions in a society is as far as I know not even debated against within neither anthropology nor wider biology.

@b9AcE It was more a direct question about what would be more effective to change your values. By force or befriending.

Even in anarchy you need some sort of justice system.

It takes generations of a species to generate a natural defense and many goes extinct because they wasn't able to adapt. There is nothing quick about it. Your argument also incline that fascism can never go extinct.

Elections are about values... who's values are going reign. Values are the color that paints our culture.

@shellkr No, elections are about giving away our power over our lives to unaccountable people we can't recall even if their "values" change.

@b9AcE @shellkr in principle people _could_ run for dismantling the government, afaik, no-one is doing it. It is not like non-voting is like voting for this hypothetical party.

And as far as i can tell, the little box i color doesn't take any power from me.

Sure they can say "look, people voted", but people can also say, "yeah they'd be silly to not vote even if the system sucks". If the latter is not said, that's resultant from the media landscape sooner than government..

@jasper No, they can't. Not in reality. I have been in that reality and actively rejected it after being elected.

The power over yourself is yours to give away really, but you are also giving away everyone else's power over themselves, which isn't yous to give away.

OK, but in actual reality the discussions have taken place when people were outspokenly boycotting.
I care more about what I have seen happened than what someone "can say".

@b9AcE to be honest they thought "Oh no Corbyn is about to fill a third of boardrooms with worker-elected people" "Lets put an anti-voting guy on TV!"

And you can vote and not really believe in the system... (Not)voting simply has consequences even if it cannot ultimately fix things..

@jasper That is your speculation followed by a vague opinion presented as indisputable fact.

I know that my vote, the vote of active boycott of the non-representative parliamentarian system, does have consequences.
If I did not think it did, I would not be taking all this shit from people apparently believing they're on to the secret solution for improving the world by spouting the exact same thing indoctrinated to us all at the cost of many billions yearly.
So damn weird that some seem to assume the ones NOT following the imposed dogma, flowing along with the stream, because they struggle to move the world forward and after much study and discussions came to the conclusion that this was the only method... are "lazy" or "uninformed".
No, not "weird" actually, but kind of disgustingly egocentric, bigoted and elitist.

@b9ace Ah yes, the only way to ensure that you are entirely blameless, don't move a muscle.

Except that isn't true is it? Even inaction is an action, and the act of not voting when given the chance has actual consequences, for you and others who may not have the privilege to vote, or the privilege not to care about the outcome of a vote.

Though I guess it matters if you care more about who's fault a situation is than fixing the situation.

Vote if you can, for whatever group may possess and effect some good, if any, as long as the system is moderately democratic (the US may or may not qualify, but e.g. Sweden surely does). The impact it might have (positive or negative) really is rather impressive considering the rather minimal effort required.

@pettter If you don't understand something, it is better to ask than to make declarations based on speculation.

Active boycott of the current pacifying system is not even close to your "don't move a muscle", but rather requires more effort than just floating along within it or having one's propagandizing both funded and actively sought out to be promoted by the media that shuns those striving for a world more democratic than exists today.

You really oughtn't go around lecturing people about the cause or impact of their actions without knowing what they are.
I was an elected politician, then filed a motion and was voted to be allowed to resign.
An active stand, for a better future.

@b9ace Why would you assume that I don't understand rather than that I disagree?

"Not voting" is quite different from "active boycott", though both are misguided accelerationist crap. If you think you are more effective in doing good whilte working outside The System, then by all means go nuts and organise, build, feed, heal and create, but in the event you get a chance to nudge The System in a better or worse direction for very little effort, then you should always nudge it to be better.

@pettter Why? Because someone that has a basic grasp of the real world mechanisms and consequences recognizes that the act of not voting is also a vote, the only vote not legitimizing the current violence- and fear-based system; that it's only when enough people take their responsibility and refuse this participation that the debate on whether it is legitimate or not has been given place in the mainstream debates.

They're not "quite different", but rather one is a part required to define the other.
We already covered the "effort" bit. It requires more, not less, effort to promote doing the opposite of the indoctrinated norm than reinforcing the counter-democratic system for those in power and funds.

@b9ace Varför inte skämt/propagandarösta? Om du och en kompis skriver samma sak på en tom valsedel så kommer valmyndigheten publicera det. Källa: dagens diskussion i !umehack med @baader @zash m.fl

@tomas Ja, jag känner till och uppskattar det roliga i den paraktiken (här var mina favoriter 2014 pastebin.com/raw/pHpLe0FZ valda för att översätta och publicera så hela världen skulle få se pastebin.com/raw/7gxW1WWi) men jag har gjort bedömningen att min röst inte ska kunna beskrivas (felaktigt) som "de tycker ju bara det är ett skämt" utan som "de vägrar delta i dagens system" och därigenom leda till debatt om systemets legitimitet över huvud taget, såsom skett på andra platser vid extremt lågt valdeltagande (såklart i kombination med andra aktiva handlingar).
Det röstar jag för, genom att aktivt välja och propagera för att inte delta i de icke-representativa "representant"-valen.
@zash @baader

@b9ace Fast man ebjuds ju en chans till kreativ underminering, t.ex genom att rösta på "'; DROP TABLE votes --", "Ollad" eller "Mjältbrand"

@tomas Ja, alltså, jag tycker att metoden att driva med "auktoriteter" och auktoritära är jättebra i princip och ofta kan vara den bästa metoden,
men just i det här fallet väljer jag själv en annan och tråkigare metod, för att jag hoppas att den ger mer positivt resultat på lång sikt… men det är såklart omöjligt att veta ifall det är sant eller vad som skulle ge ännu mer, om någon.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
soc.ialis.me mastodon

A generalistic Mastodon instance hosted in France, open to all and available since the 9 April 2017. Learn about the instance information and guidelines.