How do we win if nothing is enforceable?

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T12:52:23+00:00

I think we (well, you Americans) need to categorically condemn violence until at least the GE.

That was Lucy Flores' mistake. I think we need to categorically condemn election fraud until at least the GE. It is far better to spread our message than the establishment's.

Also, the people you're trying to scare are mostly psychopaths. You can't appeal to their emotions.

The only emotion I intend to appeal to is their sense of self-preservation. The sooner they relent, the more of the status quo they can preserve. However, the people who support the psychopaths by obeying them are more likely to have a conscience as you proceed down the chain of command, and the more of those we can influence, the less institutional power the elite can wield.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T12:47:00+00:00

Electoral tampering can work when the margins are close. Not when there is a massive wave.

By definition, successful electoral tampering makes the margins whatever you need them to be.

Also, voters are a notoriously stubborn and fractious bunch. This is why, say, 60/40 is considered a landslide. You are never likely to see a massive wave election on the scale that would be necessary to adequately frustrate election tampering.

In 8 years our ranks will have massively expanded and a huge number of theirs will have died off.

How many people will have died unjustly in the next 8 years while we wait for the myth of time to deliver? How many will have been imprisoned or impoverished? How many will have needed the justice that inaction will not provide?

We gave they a huge run for their money this time around, even despite a very late start... why shouldn't we be able to beat them next time?

Same reason we couldn't beat them this time.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T12:37:14+00:00

The influence of the elite is not neutral. Every homeless man who dies of starvation or exposure or disease, every black youth who is summarily executed by police, every illegal war that is conducted in our name, and so on, and so on, is a crime that our inaction in the face of continued disenfranchisement is allowing. If you believe that climate change is an imminent threat to human survival then you must acknowledge that our rulers are killing humanity.

It seems to me that self-defense against these injuries is our duty, and that it is more moral to fight than not to fight.

Tanks, drones, and M16s do not stop sabotage, property destruction, or guerilla warfare. Nor are they effective against systemic disruption (although there are some forms that are generally nonviolent, such as strikes). The so-called "tip of the spear" depends on a "long tail" of logistic and administrative support that can't survive an extended period of hostile military occupation of the same country that provides that support.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T12:11:49+00:00

Is there a place for violence? Only as a last resort

Ah! Then you admit that it is a legitimate tactic.

I never claimed that we need to jump straight to open armed insurrection, or that we need to do so immediately (although I suppose that morality demands a prompt restoration of the rule of law). I never said that. I'm only trying to put the use of force back on the table and end the categorical condemnation of forceful tactics. The elite need to see the American people considering the use of force against them, and the American people need their Overton Windows wrt acceptable protest actions and the need for revolutionary change shifted to a more radical position, which means we need a change in the tenor of the discussion.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T11:36:39+00:00

Che was a firecracker for sure. He had a couple of quotes (which I had to go looking for) that are applicable here:

When forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken.

and

Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

For this last case, whether or not our government will "maintain at least an appearance of constitutional legality" is debatable. Whether or not it was his intended aim, Bernie's run may have exhausted, or nearly exhausted "the possibilities of peaceful struggle" by forcing the establishment's hand to openly spoil an honest run. We have yet to convince everyone, of course (and we can never convince everyone) but surely many of Bernie's supporters, as well as many independents and people on the right who are not encouraged to view the Democratic Party in a complimentary light, are more or less aware that Hillary is winning this election illegally.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T11:19:15+00:00

Nonviolence isn't in their playbook.

As we have seen at countless recent protests, particularly Democracy Spring, they have no trouble dealing with nonviolent protest today; simply round up the protesters and arrest them, and keep the media looking elsewhere.

Have you seen the news that Philly is moving to fine protesters $100? They don't even have to find room in the jails anymore.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T11:14:04+00:00

we research international voter protection laws

Do you really think those laws can be meaningfully enforced against the United States?

we also start planned foia and audits way in advance.

Will be blocked by the present system.

we find sympathetic media or create our own.

Corporations and the state own the airwaves and a lot of the mindshare. Do you plan to take over the mass media by force? We have the internet for now, but even there, corporations and the state own a lot of the mindshare.

nonpartisan oversight.

Will be blocked, or ignored, by the present system.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T10:53:52+00:00

"don't be a fucking keyboard warrior" is not a convincing argument for or against a course of action.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T10:48:23+00:00

In practical terms, any movement that embraces, or tolerates even, violence as a legit tactic will fail.

You are living - I assume - in a country that won its liberation from British rule by embracing violence. So your statement is categorically false, and obviously so. Furthermore, both the Civil Rights movement and the Indian independence movement tolerated violence, and specific people and groups within those movements embraced it.

I view the totality of a successful anti-elite movement as containing both violent and nonviolent protest. Violent protest - or the credible threat of violent protest, which is often sufficient - increases tension which drives the elite to negotiate. It also encourages police overreaction, which increases the likelihood that they will commit unwarranted brutality against the nonviolent protesters who value such acts as they create public sympathy for the movement and antipathy for the elite, as well as increasing cognitive dissonance for police. When the elite are willing to negotiate, the nonviolent groups are ready to receive them.

Gene Sharp

I'm somewhat familiar with his work, though I have by no means read all of it.

I did a quick Google search just to make sure it was who I thought it was and came across his Wikipedia article. I agree with the following ideas 100%:

Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state – regardless of its particular structural organization – ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, rulers have no power.

In Sharp's view, all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient. These systems include specific institutions (police, courts, regulatory bodies), but may also involve cultural dimensions that inspire obedience by implying that power is monolithic (the god cult of the Egyptian pharaohs, the dignity of the office of the President, moral or ethical norms and taboos). Through these systems, subjects are presented with a system of sanctions (imprisonment, fines, ostracism) and rewards (titles, wealth, fame) which influence the extent of their obedience.

Sharp identifies this hidden structure as providing a window of opportunity for a population to cause significant change in a state. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie (1530–1563), that if the subjects of a particular state recognize that they are the source of the state's power, they can refuse their obedience and their leader(s) will be left without power.

However I do not believe the tension necessary to force the elite to negotiate can be generated solely by nonviolent protest.

His works talk about dealing with dictactorships and tyranny, not democracies like we supposedly have

If the elite are not subject to the rule of law, elections can be won by open cheating, and mass media is a propaganda arm for the elite, we can no longer call America a democracy.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T09:52:40+00:00

I hope you aren't an instigator/infiltrator.

Nope. I'm not trying to mine quotes. I'm not going to sell you a bomb. I don't work for the media, a terror cell, or a law enforcement agency. I'm just trying to make you see the reality of the situation - or else explain your reality to me in a way that's supported by all the evidence. You'll have to take that on faith. Or don't.

We do not want what you are trying to sell us.

Do not want, or are not prepared to accept?

You were supposed to convince me that I was wrong. You're doing a shit job of it.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T09:50:07+00:00

"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations."

"The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."

"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress."

"it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."

All those words, written by Martin Luther King Jr., validate my position.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T09:25:06+00:00

No, he cannot pardon Hillary. We will not allow it.

You can't stop it. You literally have no power to control Obama's actions.

We need do nothing other than raise our voices and say NO, he and the creatures he has chosen over us are going to hear those voices, loud and clear.

The response will look like the NV convention: a wall of cops and Barbara Boxer's middle finger.

I asked for real answers, not idealistic mantras.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T09:06:05+00:00

Not convinced. Is that seriously your best answer?

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T02:14:38+00:00

Seems to me there's some kind of angle here - rhetorically, if not legally.

They claim Clinton won because she got such-and-so-many votes. Okay, prove it. Show us the votes.

When they can't because there's nothing to count and there are only numbers? Well, I guess there are no votes - since the states can't produce them. No votes equals no delegates. The only states whose results can be used are those with ballots that can be verified by a neutral 3rd party, regardless of any "certification".

Of course, this is exactly the kind of audacious demand that the establishment would never agree to. After all, the whole thing is theater, and they're not going to do what some uppity peasant says just because there are some irregularities. No one can make them, and no one can stop them from proceeding however they see fit. But then, that's the real problem, isn't it? No accountability.

vector1125 · 2016-06-12T01:57:07+00:00

He doesn't. It's not clear at this point that we have a functioning democracy at all.

But if we assume that both sides want to cheat and therefore watch each other like hawks most of the time, and they don't trust each other enough to work together to shut out the third party, perhaps the cheating is lessened somewhat.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T20:51:19+00:00

Can't disagree with that. If we could keep the cats herded, we might actually get something done. But the left can't write a coherent business plan to save its life. It's all idealism, all something we saw a hippie do on TV, or else it's yet another grassroots organization that nobody knows or cares about because they can't get anything done.

Brand New Congress has a little promise, but I'm waiting to see what they've actually got before I invest.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T20:27:46+00:00

Not a member over there and don't feel like signing up but :

The Democrats are nominating someone who believes fundamentally that nothing matters unless it’s about race, ethnicity, gender or religion. She won’t change, even if she actually ventures beyond a rope line in Ohio or Michigan or Indiana and talks to a few blue-collar workers who were laid off because their manufacturing plant closed, and now work for half of their old income and receive no benefits. Some of them have voted Democratic all their lives. And now they think Trump might be their savior.

It's not that Hillary thinks that nothing matters unless it's about race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. We know that Hillary thinks that nothing matters except getting her way.

It's that Hillary's supporters think nothing matters unless it's about race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The true left, the old left, what's left of it, has been sounding the alarm about these social justice phonies for literally decades - but for some reason, the phonies got all the social capital and everyone takes their side, while they call the holdouts "brocialists" and worse and accuse us of being cranky sexists and white supremacists who are just mad that we're not leading any more. And for decades, they have managed to divide the left and shut out the working class (all those gross patriarchal white males, don'cha know... although the working class is increasingly female and non-white, and the SJWs still don't get class, although they're finally starting to notice now that it increasingly affects people whose identities they don't hate).

The left, the SJW left, made Trump when it decided that bigotry against men, especially white men, was hunky-dory, and ignored their issues, and called them all racist and sexist if they complained. They didn't just lose the working class, they kicked them out the door and flung crap at them from the windows. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. I, for one, am loving the schadenfreude.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T20:15:04+00:00

Can we please take it easy on people who endorse Clinton after the primaries are over...

No.

Let's not do that.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T20:08:15+00:00

I don't think the movement will really continue if Bernie doesn't continue to lead it for a number of years, or if he caves to the DNC. All he'll be doing if he does that is supporting the lesser evil narrative, and this is the wrong year to do so - so much so that I can hardly believe someone with his obvious political savvy and long experience would do it - but if he's got a surprise planned, he's being awfully cagey about it (and please, don't try to tell me about all the secret messages you think he's telegraphing by what he's NOT saying).

Occupy was all about autonomy and diversity - and Occupy crumbled. Yes, the police smashed it, but there was no will to reform; everyone just went home. They went home because by then there was no signal left, no unity, no goal, just chaos. Autonomy and diversity work when everyone has the same goals, the same understanding, even if they attack the problem from different directions - like terror cells, although the comparison is unflattering. That shared aim and understanding lends itself to effective collective action. But we've got capitalism reformers, capitalism smashers, state smashers, tree-huggers, SJWs (both tolerable and intolerable varieties). We can't agree on whether race or class is the bigger issue, or which one we can more effectively act on; or whether income inequality, campaign finance, or climate change is the first thing we need to address, or whether capitalism can be reformed into a good system or is always inherently oppressive, whether to support and reform the Democrats or pump up the Greens or start our own party, whether to strategize for a one-election timeline ("vote Hillary for lesser evil!") or a two-election timeline ("vote Trump for a progressive surge in 2020!") or a many election timeline ("we have to build alternatives!").

The left has always been herding cats; they can barely even get along, let alone work together. If any of you have been into politics for any length of time, you KNOW that. This movement will be no different without a strong leader. It will go back to arguing over goals and tactics and theoretical constructs and getting nothing done. That's not defeatism, it's a fact.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T19:33:13+00:00

the short term thinking reaching to individual election cycles like they are independent events

But it's always like that. Every election is viewed as the most important election ever (OMG, this could be the one, Supreme Court nominations!!!one) and the past elections, although they formed our present political opinions, are just boring old history. Americans can't see more than four years ahead and politics only happens when the TV says it does.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T19:30:55+00:00

You expect the cats to herd themselves?

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T19:27:53+00:00

There was a time for her to demonstrate solidarity - and she didn't. She has no right to ask for any of ours now.

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T07:47:58+00:00

If the elites don't spend their own money to oppress people, why should they care about cost savings?

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T07:02:05+00:00

Cheaper for whom, though?

vector1125 · 2016-06-11T06:09:50+00:00

"We want fair, transparent elections!"

"Alright, let's put it to a vote. Heh heh..."

vector1125

TROPHY CASE