Ask an Anarchist #1
Welcome to the first in my series of blogs on anarchism. The plan for this series is pretty simple... you ask questions, and I do my best to answer them. I'll post blogs as I get questions, depending upon how busy I am with other projects. Remember, anarchism is very diverse and what I say here only reflects my opinion and my understanding of anarchism.
That being said, my first question comes from
Mike, who says:
Hey, I'm ust wondering what is your stance on the upcoming presidential election?
Hmmm... I've got mixed feelings about electoral politics, and I haven't yet taken the time to sit down and put them into words. I'd hate to be glib, but what the hell, this is anarchy, right?
First off, I probably don't need to tell you about the structural problems with the representative system, the influence of big money, or the narrow choice of allowed candidates. As most of the non-voting public knows, voting ultimately only has major influence on election outcomes if you're voting in a block, and even then, the differences between all of the potential candidates are far less significant than they are portrayed. Furthermore, even these differences diminish as a result of interaction with congress and the judiciary. (Remember, we were bombing Iraq under Clinton and Bush Sr., and we would have been under Gore too, so very little changes but style.) The government operates as a single system. Though the parts may change, the function of the system doesn't change without major redesign.
However, I do think the candidates that get in office matter in a more general way... on the one hand, a female or black presidency could do wonders for opening up the social dialogue. On the other hand, another right wing nutcase could further expose the government for what it is: a tool for redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy. This sort of "revelation" just might hasten the demise of capitalism. So, should we pick who to vote for based on...
Ask an Anarchist #1
Welcome to the first in my series of blogs on anarchism. The plan for this series is pretty simple... you ask questions, and I do my best to answer them. I'll post blogs as I get questions, depending upon how busy I am with other projects. Remember, anarchism is very diverse and what I say here only reflects my opinion and my understanding of anarchism.
That being said, my first question comes from
Mike, who says:
Hey, I'm ust wondering what is your stance on the upcoming presidential election?
Hmmm... I've got mixed feelings about electoral politics, and I haven't yet taken the time to sit down and put them into words. I'd hate to be glib, but what the hell, this is anarchy, right?
First off, I probably don't need to tell you about the structural problems with the representative system, the influence of big money, or the narrow choice of allowed candidates. As most of the non-voting public knows, voting ultimately only has major influence on election outcomes if you're voting in a block, and even then, the differences between all of the potential candidates are far less significant than they are portrayed. Furthermore, even these differences diminish as a result of interaction with congress and the judiciary. (Remember, we were bombing Iraq under Clinton and Bush Sr., and we would have been under Gore too, so very little changes but style.) The government operates as a single system. Though the parts may change, the function of the system doesn't change without major redesign.
However, I do think the candidates that get in office matter in a more general way... on the one hand, a female or black presidency could do wonders for opening up the social dialogue. On the other hand, another right wing nutcase could further expose the government for what it is: a tool for redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy. This sort of "revelation" just might hasten the demise of capitalism. So, should we pick who to vote for based on this type of social analysis? Meh, if you like I suppose. It matters very litte beacause, as mere voters, we are only spectators. Our job is to watch and see who ends up with the most funding.
As an alternative to voting, might I suggest doing something constructive? Your time is much better spent by taking on the challenges of society directly: feed the poor, protest the wars, educate, educate, educate. That's how all the real changes happen. Think of the great accomplishments in US history... emancipation, womens' suffrage, workers' rights, civil rights... all of these came down to getting out in the streets and actually making changes happen. In short: the ruling classes will play their games, and we should hope for the best, but if you really and truly want to make a difference, you've got to go out and do it yourself.
-N
www.nathanmcknight.com
IPOD
RADIO
Welcome to the first in my series of blogs on anarchism. The plan for this series is pretty simple... you ask questions, and I do my best to answer them. I'll post blogs as I get questions, depending upon how busy I am with other projects. Remember, anarchism is very diverse and what I say here only reflects my opinion and my understanding of anarchism.
That being said, my first question comes from Mike, who says:
Hey, I'm ust wondering what is your stance on the upcoming presidential election?
Hmmm... I've got mixed feelings about electoral politics, and I haven't yet taken the time to sit down and put them into words. I'd hate to be glib, but what the hell, this is anarchy, right?
First off, I probably don't need to tell you about the structural problems with the representative system, the influence of big money, or the narrow choice of allowed candidates. As most of the non-voting public knows, voting ultimately only has major influence on election outcomes if you're voting in a block, and even then, the differences between all of the potential candidates are far less significant than they are portrayed. Furthermore, even these differences diminish as a result of interaction with congress and the judiciary. (Remember, we were bombing Iraq under Clinton and Bush Sr., and we would have been under Gore too, so very little changes but style.) The government operates as a single system. Though the parts may change, the function of the system doesn't change without major redesign.
However, I do think the candidates that get in office matter in a more general way... on the one hand, a female or black presidency could do wonders for opening up the social dialogue. On the other hand, another right wing nutcase could further expose the government for what it is: a tool for redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy. This sort of "revelation" just might hasten the demise of capitalism. So, should we pick who to vote for based on...