Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Vote & Elections

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by blackcat, Sep 10, 2009.

  1. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    [quote="Bones”] You can read all you want, but you clearly have a very weird understanding of anarchism. You're not an anarchist, ..[/quote]

    You don’t remotely know enough about me to make that sort of judgment.

    [quote="Bones”]..because you think appealing to the bourgeoisie can solve the problems the working class faces.[/quote]

    That’s a gross distortion of what I said.

    [quote="Bones”] Can you explain this to me then? [/quote]

    I’ll give it another shot.. Here’s some quotes from Chomsky’s “Anarchism” (AK press, 2005, highly recommended.) “..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
    …If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
    ..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”
    So again, the question is: Do you care?

    [quote="Bones”] Also, protesting the way doesn't make you an anarchist.[/quote]

    I didn’t say it did. However, Anarchism is rooted in the same moral and political beliefs that drove me to protest the war. Not everyone who protested the war was an Anarchist, that goes without saying, but you can’t be an Anarchist without opposing the war.

    [quote="Bones”] Maybe not, but you've already said that there is no other choice than to vote for the lesser of two (bourgeois) evils.[/quote]

    I meant in the polls in the presidential election. If I voted any way other than democrat in the presidential election, or if I didn’t vote at all, I would have essentially voted for Bush. So, you essentially voted for Bush. I wish you hadn’t.

    [quote="Bones”] Um, no. The commune is everything. What is the bigger picture?[/quote]

    That’s an absolutely ridiculous statement. What you’re doing in your community might be generally positive, but you’re essentially just dropping out. “Lifestyle Anarchism” might be fun but it’s really more of a posture, and has very little actual impact.

    [quote="Bones”] There is no way of telling how a different outcome of the 2000 election would have changed history, and to say otherwise is just making assumptions. This has no place in debate and certainly no place within anarchism.[/quote]

    Anytime we take any action we make assumptions about the results. Certain assumptions are more reliable than others. The more variables, the more complicated it gets. This is pretty basic logic. That said, based on what we know there is really no doubt that the Gore administration would not have invaded Iraq, that’s essentially indisputable. Afghanistan, very possibly, but not Iraq. The difference in human life makes it worth it. One human life is worth it. Again you’re going to repeat yourself about two bad choices, which I’m full aware of, but as I said it’s not a zero-sum game. If you were at the scene of some horrible catastrophe, a sinking ship, a burning building, and you couldn’t save everyone, a certain amount of people would die either way, would you just say “Fuck it.”, and do nothing? Not if you’re any kind of sane or decent person, and certainly not if you’re an Anarchist.

    [quote="Bones”] I'm not talking financially or economically supporting capitalism. I'm talking about politically supporting capitalism, which you do.[/quote]

    This is a false dichotomy.

    [quote="Bones”] I'm not concerned with making morally good choices, and I don't think a revolution will be born from this.[/quote]

    What’s the point of social change if it’s not because you care about people, because you want them to have better lives?

    [quote="Bones”] The most important thing we can be doing is thinking of and enacting ways that create working class power.[/quote]

    Well, you’re thinking seems to be counterproductive, and one-dimensional.
     
  2. Bones

    BonesMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Sep 11, 2009
     
    Based on the posts you've made here, you are incredibly liberal. I don't need to know you or your personality in order for me to make that judgment.

    When you say that the only choice we have is to participate in bourgeois political systems, then you are saying we should appealing to the bourgeoisie.


    Chomsky is hardly anarchist anymore. His support of the state is pretty obvious of this. Haha an anarchist supporting a state. FUNNY


    And you voted for a bourgeois capitalist. Such a good anarchist you are. Besides, what a stupid thing to say. A conservative could also say that not voting was a vote for Gore. Not voting isn't a vote for any party.


    Haha what the fuck? How is communizing our neighborhoods "dropping out?" Do you even understand what that means? I'm not saying that we should ignore capitalism. I'm saying we should confront it. And in order to do that we need our own space.

    Again. Making assumptions about what MAY have happened is not relevant, and if you continue to make arguments based on assumptions (or even what if questions) then I'm going to ignore your arguments.

    Strawman, son.

    Not at all.
     
  3. Bones

    BonesMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Sep 11, 2009
     
    Wrong. The dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx envisioned it is not necessarily a dictatorship. It's simply an area where the working class have power, and as a member of the working class I don't see anything wrong with this. A true DotP does not have a vanguard, because then the working class would no longer be in power. :)

    The reason why the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie are not included in an anarchist revolution is because they would have nothing to gain from a revolution. They already have power. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is class society, and exploitation. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is based on common need and desire.
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,336

    62

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada Canada
    Yes but dictatorship of the proletariat is still dictatorship, and all anarchists since Proudhon and Bakunin have critized it.

    I never understood why "working class stugglists" are so obsessed with the working class power.... Yes, anarcho-syndicalism is a big power for the revolutionnarys, but what about students, or even paysans (not everyone consider them as working class).... When i think about May 68 in France, or the revolt of Tianamen Place in China, or the Makhnovtchina paysan army... it reminds me why i am a synthesist and not only an anarcho-syndicalist!

    The problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it's a marxist concept, and as far as i know marx has talked about dictatorship of the proletariat only twice in his life (well, that's what various articles are saying) and he didn't say much about it... So a lot of peoples are interpreting it THEIR way, and a lot of peoples interprets it the wrong way (no wonder why most of marxists claim themselves to be marxists-LENINISTS)

    And like butcher said, dictatorship of the proletariat can easily become state capitalism. Look at the bolchevik revolution and lenist bureaucratized USSR...

    Of course i understand this concept. I wasn't talking about including the bourgeoiserie in an anarchist revolution, same thing for the fascists. Those peoples are the opposite side of the barricade.
     
  5. ringostare

    ringostareActive Member Forum Member


    29

    0

    0

    Sep 7, 2009
     
    Sorry for my English (I hope for Esperanto :D ) and thanks "reverso" :ecouteurs:

    I did not vote, for people, hanging of long years, but I a little changed opinion when I made the following theory:

    Utility of the white votes in France?

    Small calculation:

    Real votes :
    44 % votes party 1
    25 % votes party 2
    16 % votes party 3
    15 % whites or invalids votes

    I add 40 % of abstentions:
    100 % become 60 % 100/60=1,666666667 100/60=1,666666667)
    I divide pourcetages by 1,666666667

    We have now:
    40 % abstentions
    26 % votes party 1
    15 % votes party 2
    10 % votes party 3
    09 % whites or invalids votes

    The whites votes and the abstentions are withdrawn from the account:
    51 % become 100 % (100/51 = 1,960784314)
    I multiply pourcetages by 1,960784314

    51 % votes party 1
    29 % votes party 2
    20 % votes party 3

    There we see that the party 1 would be elected at the first tour with the absolute majority, while with the white votes, there would be a second tour.

    Conclusions:

    1-The abstention is better than the white vote simply because his number is announced, contrary to that of the white vote.

    2- The white bulletins + the abstentions, are redistributed, in uneven parts, according to the results, to the advantage of the parties in race. The biggest part thus goes to the one who is already at head. As a result, we vote involuntarily for him and precipitate his victory.

    3- To stop this problem, white vote must be taken into account, or it should become a party...
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I would agree I have liberal tendencies, although we'd probably disagree on what that means. I wouldn't define myself as being a liberal. Anarchism actually has it's roots in classical luberalism, like Locke and Rousseau, which led to Godwin, and then Proudhon.

    I'm starting to think you're being willfully dense. All I meant was in the presidential election, not the primaries, the presidential election, there were two choices. Thats' a pretty inoccuous statement and a basic truism.

    This is a pretty piss-poor excuse for intellectual debate. Anyhow, you continue to miss the point entirely. The point of changing the present political and economic structure, the war, sweat shops, whatever, is from a moral objection and political ideas about human dignity and individual rights, etc. Otherwise, you're simply a nihilist. This conception of freedom is so one-dimensional it's asinine. From you're perspective you could advocate repealing all penalties on sexually exploiting children, we'd be more free, technically, but thats' NOT the point! Anarchism is Libertarianism married with Humanism (Socialism as well, but socialism is really an extension of humanism.) both are equally significant. The desire for freedom is based on the idea that under the conditions of freedom people are happier and can more fully express themselves and persue their desires and have a greater quality of life. SOME state programs do actually help people, like medicare, or libraries, or healthcare programs for poor children like s-chip, etc. Theres' probably a better way to do these things but that takes time and systemic social change. Do you think it's actually better for children to starve or go without healthcare, for old people to not have medicine while you conduct your masterplan? Besides, even if you did dismantle these state programs, then we'd have corporations, which are more ruthless and less accountable. You can't be THAT naive.
    Lastly, Chomsky is a titan, he's the most influential and accomplished Anarchist alive.

    I made a choice that to all available knowledge would result in less death and suffering, I happen to think thats' important. Any Anarchist who wouldn't under those circumstances is either not really an anarchist, or is simply inconsistent in their values.

    No, in the words of Howard Zinn; "You can't be neutral on a moving train." Thats' been a pretty basic principle of the radical left since the sixties. It's like all those people who just stood there while Kitty Genovese was victimized, just because you didn't actively participate doesn't mean you didn't participate. You had a choice, you had control over one vote, there was one vote you could cast against Bush and you didn't do it. You essentially voted for Bush.

    Because you're disengaging from the country, from the greater social network. Lifestyle anarchism is a pose. Any substantial change is going to require tuning in, engaging with the big picture. What you do at home is nice, but it's never going to add up to much by itself.

    Not really. Enough material has been released or dug up that this is pretty much incontrovertible. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, and a number of administration officials and their associates were part of the Project For A New American Century think tank, which published a lot of material. If you read this stuff, everything that happened was promoted by this think tank in the late 90's. They wanted to ramp up the defense budget, to extend US military hegemony, specifically in the Middle East, and specifically for a full-scale invasion of Iraq. We know from testimony of former intelligence operatives that the administration was cooking the books on Iraq, in Wolfowitz's own words "fixing the intelligence around the policy." They lied, plain and simple, because they wanted to invade Iraq. You didn't have to be an intelligence expert to see it, the UN weapons inspectors made it very clear Iraq was no threat, and with our sanctions strangling the country so they couldn't even provide proper santitation or medical care it was pretty obvious this was bullshit. So the reason the Iraq war happened was because the Bush administration had been waiting for an oppertunity to do so. We know this, so it's not speculation.

    Not in the slightest. I concede that the state is not legitimate, but to obstruct instances where it is, or could actually help people, or at least be prevented from harming people, is immoral. Either you care or you don't. I mean this way of thinking is so asinine. Last election Massachusetts passed Proposition 2, decriminalizing marijuana. It should be legalized, I totally agree, however because me and many others voted for this motion, a significant amount of people, predominantly young people won't have to face incarceration or probation for a victimless crime, instead they get essentially a parking ticket. Again, it's not perfect, but I'd rather not have people going to jail for a victimless crime, so I did something about it, and it worked. To do otherwise is to say you don't care, plain and simple.
     
  7. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,336

    62

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada Canada
    Chomsky did some good writtings, but he is a lot overrated. And he has a lot of negative points. Like the story where he defended the freedom of speech of a revisionist/negationnist asshole... I used to like him a lot and this damn quote by him "if you don't believe in freedom of speech for your ennemies, you don't believe in it at all" made me waste years and years argueing with the worst nazi and racist assholes instead of radically opposing myself to it. This quote is valid for an accomplished anarchist society but NOT in a capitalist system...


    Also, chomsky is WAY overrated. Yes, he's "one of the last famous anarchist alive" but he's not famous for his actions, he's just famous because he got the diplomas to have credibility and he's a professor at the MIT. That's like Normand Baillargeon in quebec. Good thoughts but he's famous just because of his social status and the credibility it gives to him, he's not exceptionnal besides he writes good books (oh, and he's friend with chomsky lol)

    And im not even talking about the points already aborded by Bones...

    But oh well, all famous anarchists have their negative points and their positive points.... Even the first anarchists...

    Now i'm starting to be off-topic so i'll stop :p
     
  8. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    You're right, Marx's vision of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was one significantly different from, say, Leninist Russia, however 'Marxism' as a school of thought, not limited to what just Marx said, has often advocated vanguardism under the name of establishing a DotP, which has historically lead to State Capitalism and more of the classist, hierarchical shit we have now. I suppose my last post was kinda referring more to the historical cases of so-called DotP than Marx's theory. I can understand the appeal of clarifying what a DotP would actually mean, however the term is pretty bogged down by history.

    Further, Marx's conception of the DotP, to my understanding, was an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, a kind of 'emergency government' which wasn't in itself directly democratic but neither was it necessarily anti-democratic (although it has this potential like everything else) with the State left in tact until the 'right' time to push forward. As an anarchist I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how intermediate non-solutions are in any way advantageous to achieving direct worker's control over the means of production, direct democracy and socialised wealth.
     
  9. butcher

    butcherExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    0

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I hardly see how Bones is advocating repealing penalties on sexually exploiting children, or abolishing medicare, pensions, state services, etc, within the current framework of liberal democracy. These services do help people. What can be said though is these institutions exist (at best) to offset some of the worst effects of capitalism and the State, and to allow liberal democratic governments to appear to give a shit about the working class. These institutions have no revolutionary potential, they are band-aid solutions to classist society, they are charity writ large and unempowering to people.

    As for morality and political ideas about human dignity and individual rights, this sounds to me like classical liberalism, more of that shit please! As socialists should we not recognise that we are social(-ised) beings? My freedom is tied up with my community's, fuck that shit about individual rights, I can do that being a capitalist.

    As for Chomsky, he doesn't really do it for me, international politics has a funny way of putting a conservative outlook on even the best of radicals. He's been great at getting out one form of libertarian socialist ideas to a wider audience though.

    Right on. :rock: Organising directly democratic grassroots political organisations is a far more effective way to confront capitalism than encouraging people to choose between their bosses.
     
  10. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Chomsky was absolutely right, it's not his fault that other people with their own agendaas have tried to twist this. Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't, that means unpopular speech. Nobody's going to be arrested or blacklisted for supporting the status quo, thats' never been a problem. The point was that as long as Fourisson wasn't harming anyone, he should have the right to spread his views, bogus as they may be. With ideas like holocaust denial and insane shit like that, or for a more recent example the "birthers" in the united states, I say let 'em talk. Yes, it's going to appeal to a certain poorly-educated group, and thats' unfortunate, but I think the best tactic is to allowe these ridiculous ideas into the open where they can be seen for what they are, patent nonsense. One of the features I admire most about Chomsky it's his consistency in his values.

    I disagree. Chomsky has a lifelong history of activism, moreover his intellectual contributions are huge, in themselves.

    It's like anything, you don't buy anything wholesale, it;'s a matter of degrees. As much as I love Chomsky I disagree with him on a few issues, although not many.
     
  11. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,336

    62

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada Canada
    Yes you are right, it was supposed to be a transitory state, but of course this never happenned. And that's especially why Bakunin and peoples of the first international were critizing marxism and DotP and didn't believe in it. Like Bakunin said, a dictatorship can only be permanent and have the only objective of lasting the longest time as possible
     
  12. needlejerk

    needlejerkMember Forum Member


    16

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    I couldn't make an informed vote even if I wanted to. I don't keep up with other people's politics any more than I keep up with other people's religions. I find it quite useless.

    "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal," right?
     
  13. TheShape78

    TheShape78Member New Member


    5

    0

    0

    Sep 15, 2009
     
    Voting, if taken seriously would be alright. The problem though is it isn't taken seriously, a lot of people don't know why they vote for who they vote for, they think they have to vote, and worst of it is that there isn't anyone worth a damn to vote for. When it all comes down to it you only have 2 choices... 2 CHOICES, and not one of them cares about the people they supposedly represent. These politicians don't work for us, they work for the lobbyists, they're nothing more than mindless figureheads, corporate puppets. They say all the right things to easily fool the masses of sheeple and then they do whatever they want. Give me an honest candidate, a working class candidate not some rich silver spoon brat, get rid of political parties (these tend to blind people's judgment for some reason. "He's a republican I gotta vote for him" or "Oh, he's a democrat gotta vote for him" almost regardless of their policies) then maybe I would vote. Until we get atleast some halfway decent honest people in politics, I refuse to vote, to vote in a system I disagree with so much so that I can only perpetuate that which I despise. No way, not me. Voting is my right and it is my right not to make a mockary of that right and to refuse to take part in any of these corrupt elections. Voting is just a way for the politicians to make the masses feel "important". Their may be some honest people in politics, but they don't have enough backing or money to make it against the rich corrupt ones that have a monopoly on the ballots. I like that saying "whoever wins, we lose". Voting in our current system I find quite pointless, change will only come through action, and you can start by simply NOT voting, imo. Thank you.

    -mitch-
     
  14. needlejerk

    needlejerkMember Forum Member


    16

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    Except for the part where the future president's multi-billionaire warmongering backers bribe middlemen into fixing the votes so we don't get who we voted for in the first place. It's said that America, for example, did not vote for George Bush in the Bush/Kerry election.
     
  15. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I explained this earlier. Our president is not chosen by popular vote alone. The final decision comes down to the electoral college comprised of representatives from around the country. Gore won the poplar vote, by a fairly slim margin, but lost the electoral vote. It is bullshit, but like I said, if more people had turned out it wouldn't have happened.
     
  16. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    This is a sort of insular, circular logic. it's like saying 'People don't care, so i don't care about people."

    While i would certainly prefer a more parliamentary-style democracy, and something else more than that, we do have more than two choices. In local elections and primaries I usually vote Green/Socialist. If you live in a Blue state, it might make more sense to vote that way all the time. There is possibility for change, though. Political parties aren't in the constitution and grew organically, theres' possibility for change, but then you'd actually have to do something and be a part of it.

    Some more than most. For example, Al Gore has done a lot for environmentalism and would be a lot more sympathetic to progressive/radical ideas than most. It's a matter of degrees. Regardless, I'll pick the "puppet" who's going to do the most good, or at least the least harm.

    Well, party tends to dictate policies, to a certain degree. I can't forsee any reason why I would ever vote republican. There would have to be some fundamental transformation in the party. This would not be historically unprecedented, the parties have essentially flipped from what they used to be, but this would be a massive, and gradual change over a long time. The republican party at present is dominated by the hawks, the religious fundamentalists, and the uber-neoliberals.


    Then you don't care. I'm not going to admonish you for it, I've got bigger issues, but accept you don't care and admit you don't care. I also don't see how one can be an Anarchist and not care, so you might want to find another venue. You don't have to swear eternal loyalty to the state, it's not a zero-sum game as much as you might like it to be. When there was a movement to decriminalize cannabis I supported it and marched for it, and eventually voted for it. I could have stayed home, but I disagree with the prohibition and I don't want people in jail for a victimless crime so I showed up, and it passed. Again, do you care? How do you think gay marriage became legal in this state? I voted against George Bush, because I hated his policies and because I wanted to do what I could to prevent him from being president. If you care about something you don't drop out and wish it were so, and you certainly don't complain afterwards because you gave up that right.

    It's actually your most basic right upon which all other rights are predicated. Once the right to vote is gone, it's a dictatorship. You might say "Oh well, it might as well be..etc." Bullshit. Theres' an enormous difference, it could be a billion times worse.

    It's also a way to make the changes you want to see happen. Do you think Barack Obama's victory had nothing to do with the vast popular disgust with his predecessor? The people can make a difference, the sad part is they don't even try. Yeah, I'd love to see vast systemic change but we have the ability to make changes right here in front of us and not using that is just stupid. This swelf-defeating bullshit is a greater threat to social progress than anything the forces of empire have to offer. They're counting on it. They want people to not participate.

    But it makes no difference. You wouldn't vote for an honest candidate. You won't vote for the dishonest candidate who will probably get less people killed, either. Voting IS action. How do you think propositions get on a ballot, anyhow? Also, this idea that because you vote means you can't protest or sit-in, or whatever is nonsense. You can smash a starbucks window on thursday and vote the following wednesday, there is no conflict. Again, theres' this circular logic, and defeatist all-or-nothing nonsense. If you want to bury you're head in the sand and wait for Anarchosyndicalist paradise, and nothing less, to drop in your lap you'll be waiting a long time. Theres' no sense complaining about how unaccountable the system is and refusing to hold it to even the slightest accountability when you have the choice.
     
  17. (A) timmy (E)

    (A) timmy (E)Active Member Forum Member


    35

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    yesterday in russia was the election of the political parties to Duma, and i definately don't know what the procents are and how many seats every party has but i'd already known who would win because votes dont bring us a change - the main political party of the president has most places- no wonder.
    i can't vote because i'm 17 and when i ll have a right to vote i won't do it because i don't believe in it.
    who is untrested most places took - united russia heading with the president, then communist party but it doesn t make any sense because there are only old assholes who has already forgotten what for they are there, and the third place- liberal-democratical party - also includes the same shit but the name is different.
     
  18. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I want to begin by first expressing my sincere sympathies for your plight. It can't be easy essentially living in a police state. Us here in the west we like to make dramatic statements about oppression, etc, etc., but you're really living in it.
    However, for the most part this proves what I was saying. First, that free elections are the foundation on which all other rights and freedoms are based, once that goes, it's all gone.
    Unlike in you're country, however, here in the west we actually have mechanisms by which we can vote, we can form unions, etc. Rights which, sadly, you don't have.
    We don't have to start a revolution, we can create change using these mechanisms TODAY. If we want social progress, if we want things to change, it makes sense.
     
  19. (A) timmy (E)

    (A) timmy (E)Active Member Forum Member


    35

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    NGNM85,
    I crearly don't know about the political situation in usa , but i doubt that you have as many rights as you've said. more than i doubt that it influences on anything. i mean when you choose between politicans it can be no difference between one pig and other pig.
    that thing fantastic that your unions can stop working for the wages and our ones....pfff.. i dont understand what for they are formed.
     
  20. Solidaridad

    SolidaridadExperienced Member Experienced member


    63

    0

    4

    Oct 5, 2009
     
    I do not trust the corrupt politicians and I will never vote for them. I do not want to be a sheep of the government I do not beliefe in the democratic system tell you always the lie that we have political power if we make a cross once in fife years. I believe we have to organize ourself as anarchists.

    And know I am easy to lazy to go to the election and to make one big cross or to leave it blank, because for me it has no effect and it is a waste of time.
     
Loading...