@ AlienTwo:I think in order to fully understand my argument, you have to understand I am neither conservative, nor liberal, neither democrat, nor republican. I am, first and foremost, an insurrectionary anarchist-communist. I have no desire to reform capitalism. I have no faith in the bourgeoisie, nor their social-democracy, to provide for the needs of all. I recognize that the existence of the state--that is, a monopoly on force--coincides with the development of class society, and that the state will only cease to exist when all existing social conditions--namely those of class, race, and gender--are overthrown. Since a global communist revolution seems unlikely--at least in my lifetime--my prerogative is to foster class consciousness, participate in class struggle, and attack the bourgeoisie until I am unable to do so--and of course, the illegitimate hierarchies and institutions of which they have established. At the same time though, we should be forming alternatives to the existing by reclaiming social space, our workplaces, and forming inclusive communities that negate their power. To put it simply, on the question of whether we should reform capital, I say 'death to capital, long live anarchy.'
What does this have to do with voting? Well, for one, I don't think any political party will ever be able to fix this system, because there is nothing 'wrong' with it. It is functioning exactly as it should: in the interests of bosses and landowners, at the expense of labor and the planet. It is a mistake to assume that we can have a fair, gentle, safe capitalism, and more importantly, a mistake that we can rely on bourgeois politicians to bring us the society we need. As I mentioned in the 'Have a Question?' thread, the state is an organ of class rule. Whether we're discussing the U.S., or Venezuela, the U.K. or North Korea, we find hierarchy; we find a social class that is entirely distinct from the majority--distinct in interests, lifestyle, power, and privilege. Even the Bolsheviks, what with their squashing of the Soviets (workers' committees), the Kronstadt rebellion, the Ukraine free-territory, and the Hungarian revolution--and with their mass-executions and purges--we're wholly representative of bourgeois class interests.
If there was a larger group of concerned and active voters, corporate money would have been kept away and the things that influenced both Presidents you referenced would have been negated by the influence of the voters.
Why? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Look at the vast majority of the the southern US states, they rely desperately on social welfare programs to keep their citizens alive, fed, medicated and in homes, yet they consistently vote for politicians who's campaigns are based upon removing and destroying the programs that keep them alive.
People routinely act against their own objective class interests. No surprise there.
Had enough of the US, not the world, protested the war and voted out anyone who voted for the war, Iraq would have been short and we wouldn't be where we are, sitting on the precipice of another potential conflict. Instead, we focus on who's dick is in who's mouth, or who made a public flub of words while ripping apart the private lives and families of those who run, pushing out potential great leaders while paving the road for people who are in no way qualified to lead a murder of crows to a rotting corpse, let alone a nation to war. Or better yet, away from war.
Again, sounds like wishful thinking. The anti-war movement of the '60s too accomplished f*ck all.
By burying your head in the sand and just putting up with what they give us, like gruel in a sh*tty wooden bowl, you help to propagate the horrible system that we have.
Which is exactly why I'm not going to vote and pretend I'm changing the world.