Political Flights of Fancy and Democratic Farces
by andy Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 6:33am
A crude but effective strategy for limiting discourse and narrowing political choice is to present pre-selected, owned candidates. Take for example the current media saturation on Romney and Obama, two servants of the same ruling elite, and the point is well illustrated!
A race for the American presidency between two loathed candidates is not an exercise in democracy, it is a game of charades that little children play. However, children are denied the vote in the USA -- so in order to remedy the situation the adult population is reduced to infantile status with banalities, baubles, flashing lights and party tricks. Neither candidate has the confidence or support of the majority but popularity is only a 'minor' detail for those running the circus.
If some clown attempted to force you to make a choice between bubonic plague or leprosy when no disease is desired or required, you would unhesitatingly (I hope) tell the person to fuck off! Yet this ability seems to be lacking in the US population. Rather than confront an absurd reality and rectify the problem, people prefer to abstain from voting -- which, not accidentally, also serves minority elite interests.
The menu for lunch today is a choice between a shit or vomit sandwich. Faced with choices like that the solution is plain; change restaurants or replace existing staff -- in other words REFORM the system BUT never forfeit your right to participate in your democracy, lest you run the risk of losing it.
But perhaps I am pissing on the wrong tree; the problem may not be unrepresentative elites but a dysfunctional population. Take for example noted alternative journalist and activist Chris Hedges, whose latest contribution to the alternative media is titled, "Occupy Will Be Back," and it immediately becomes apparent that the mainstream media disease is also active in the American alternative media. We would first draw attention to the fact that 'Occupy' has no 'location' from which to return; notwithstanding that it ever had a locus or focus. It was designed to fail from the start, no charter or agenda or defined cause to rally behind.
Some clever OTPOR/CANVAS clown thought it wise to remove the 'bricks from the house' and leave only a facade or the appearance of something substantive. There would be no charter, defined agenda, leaders or followers in fact there would be nothing to locate except that which was designed to neutralize the movement, like the fanatical fixed adherence to the principle of 'participatory democracy' -- whatever that is? But wait, we know what that is, it's nothing new! According to Kropotkin and others, Anarchy is participatory democracy; but real Anarchy, unlike the pretend Occupy 'movements' is held together with principles; principally, mutual aid, mutual co-operation and working toward a common goal -- the magic in the formula was not excluded by Kropotkin.
Anarchy works locally as community and nationally and co-operating communities, it was never intended to be a centralized national government of the 'one size fits all' variety we have today in the western world. But to return to my ol' mate Chris Hedges, who seems prone to taking flights of fancy in his old age.
I would ask Mr Hedges why Occupy failed in the first instance before I would ask to which social space or 'location' it would return. There simply is nothing to return to, unless of course well-meaning Occupy imbeciles have learned something from their many previous mistakes.
Now letís analyse briefly why classical Anarchism can work today.
Anarchism first targets dysfunctional and corrupt political systems with the view/intent of removing or destroying them. It then establishes mutually co-operative systems/communities based on equitable distributions of resources and constructs or builds open, participatory, WORKING democracies that self-regulate by nature.
Anarchism always targets obstructions/corruptions/obstacles and then clearly defines goals to be achieved. It then sets out to remove/destroy the old and construct the new -- now what's difficult about that, Chris?
<< back to stories