>>I suggest the relative success of the Democrats does make a difference, as
>>the election victory of Blair last year made a difference
>
>To who? And how? Do Blair and Clinton represent critical movement toward
>the elimination of poverty,
No
ecological restoration,
No
the abolition of
>private property,
No
anti-authoritarian governance,
No
an end to whiteism?
No
>Usually, discussions about the "difference" that elections make are
>pretty sloppy but I'll play along: As far as I can tell, there is an
>inverse relationship between the "difference" that elections make and the
>intensification of global competition. Sure, elections make a differnce,
>but only, generally speaking, on the relative margins.
Yes there is a difference on the margins, there are differences that open up in terms of what people see as the range of possibilities.
Fundamentally,
>however, electoral politics in any authoritarian context is a form of
>social control.
Of course. It is about the regulation of state power.
>What the hell is the right to vote when one does not have
>the right to meaningful work, good health, etc.
It is a bourgeois democratic right in a capitalist system
>
>I have not voted for two years now. I must say, it's been quite
>liberating, not to mention elightening. Initially it was a difficult
>choice since much of my inspiration for becoming an agitator came from
>those who have died in the struggle for the franchise. In the end,
>however, I refused, and refuse, to partricipate in the reproduction of
>hopelessness.
Well I have seldom voted in fact, and would want to use my vote tactically and not to support any one party, certainly not with illusions. But as has been pointed out to me the USA has much in the way of campaigns around specific issues. These may be valuable without promoting an illusory dependence on any one party. Are you implying your participation in civil society has been mainly in terms of voting rather than in terms of a specific campaign, or campaigns?
Chris Burford
London