#not to endorse the fear of outsiders or the unknown but instead the fear of what is very well known but often ignored | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

schraubd · 4 years

Text

British Jews Should Announce They Can't Support Corbyn--or Johnson

This was a piece I initially wrote for publication outside of the blog. It had a tumultuous journey, including being accepted in one newspaper before the editor withdrew the offer an hour later. Most recently, it spent two weeks in limbo after the editor who was considering it solicited the draft ... then immediately went on vacation for a week. When he returned, he promised to get to it "first thing Monday". I never heard from him again. Anyway, the election is tomorrow and there's still no sign that he will get back to me, so you're getting the piece here. It's slightly less timely than I'd like -- though much more timely than if I posted it after election day. * * *

Earlier this month, The Guardian published a letter from twenty-four prominent non-Jewish figures, publicly declaring that they could not support Labour in the next election due to the raging antisemitism that has enveloped the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

For the UK’s beleaguered Jewish community, it was a taste of that elusive elixir: solidarity. The knowledge that Jews do not stand alone, that we do have allies, that there are people who will not stand idly by and do nothing as this wave of antisemitism comes bearing down. That the letter’s signatories included figures like Islamophobia watchdog Fiyaz Mughal, who is intimately and painfully aware of the direct dangers a Tory government would do to him and his community, only makes it more powerful. In a very real sense, this is what it means to have true allies.

These past few years have been rough on British Jews, but if there is a silver lining, it is in moments like these: the public witnessing of all those who remain willing to plant their banner and fight antisemitism. The statements of resignation from persons who no longer can associate with a party that has become a force for hatred against the nation’s Jews. The figures—some Jewish (like MP Ruth Smeeth), some not (like London Mayor Sadiq Khan)—still bravely resisting antisemitism from within the party.

And there is grim satisfaction to be taken in Corbyn’s almost comically-high public disapproval ratings—which have reached upwards of 75% in some polls. For this, too, is at least in part a public and visceral repudiation of the brand of antisemitism Corbyn has come to represent.

Yet it is the ironic misery of the Jewish fate that we cannot even take unmediated satisfaction in those rejecting Labour antisemitism. Why? Well, because of the primary alternative to Labour: the Conservative Party, led by Boris Johnson.

The Tories have their own antisemitism problems, although—and as a liberal it pains me to say this—they pale in comparison to those afflicting Labour, at least today. And for me, I’ve probably written more on Labour antisemitism than I have on any other social problem outside of America or Israel.

But if the Tories are not today as antisemitic as is Labour, where the Tories can be aptly compared to Labour is along the axis of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. It is fair to say that on those issues, the Conservative Party is institutionally xenophobic in a manner that is on par with Labour’s own institutional antisemitism. Or put differently: Boris Johnson is to Muslims, Blacks, and Asians what Jeremy Corbyn is to Jews.

This is hardly unknown, and the latent nativism of the Conservative Party’s Brexit policy is only the tip of the iceberg. We saw the ugliness of Conservative racism in the Windrush Scandal, where Afro-Caribbean British citizens were harassed, detained, and even deported as part of the Tories’ pledge to create a “hostile environment” for undesired immigrants in the country (notwithstanding the fact that the Windrush Generation consisted of natural-born British subjects). We saw it in the game efforts by Muslim Conservative politicians to draw attention to festering Islamophobia amongst Tory candidates and politicians, and the grinding resistance of the Conservative political leadership to seriously investigate the issue—surely, this resonates with Labour’s own kicking-and-screaming approach to rooting out antisemitism inside its own ranks.

And—like with Corbyn’s Labour party—Tory xenophobia starts right at the top. In 2018, Boris Johnson was slurring Muslim women in Europe as “letter boxes”. Advocates at that time urged then-Prime Minister Theresa May to withdraw Johnson’s whip. She declined. Now he’s Prime Minister. In the meantime, Islamophobic instances in the country surged 375%.

There is a terrible commonality here: the legitimate fears Jews have about a Corbyn-led British government are mirrored by the equally legitimate worries BAMEs (Blacks, Asians, and Minority Ethnics) about the prospect of another term of Conservative rule.

To be clear: the Jewish community has not endorsed these Conservative predations. They are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit. They have spoken out and stood out against racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, and have done so consistently.

But there is another step that has not yet been taken. The Jewish community might return solidarity with solidarity, and write their own letter announcing that they cannot sanction voting for Labour—or the Tories. Twenty-four Jewish luminaries, each pledging that just as Labour’s antisemitism means that they cannot support Labour, Conservative racism and xenophobia preclude them from backing the Tories.

The UK, after all, is not a complete two-party system, and in many constituencies there are very live options that extend beyond Labour and Tory. The resurgent Liberal Democrats, for one, bolstered by refugees repelled by Labour antisemitism or Conservative xenophobia and showing renewed strength particularly in marginal constituencies where Labour is flagging. Regionally, the SNP or Plaid Cymru also are often competitive. Even the Greens, in some locales, are a viable option.

None of these parties are perfect. One does not need to search far to find instances of antisemitism in these other parties, for example, and the Liberal Democrats still have trust to re-earn following their disastrous stint as junior coalition partners to the Tories less than a decade ago.

But imperfections notwithstanding, none of these parties has completely caved to gutter populism in the way that both Labour and Tory have. They are cosmopolitan in orientation. They have faced antisemitism and other forms of prejudice, but they’ve responded decisively to it. They are not perfect, but they are viable choices, in a way that neither the Tories nor Labour can at this point claim to be.

And yet, still this companion letter—rejecting Conservative hatred with the same public moral clarity as The Guardian writers rejected Labour hatred—hasn’t been written. As much as many dislike Conservative politics, as much as many loathe Boris Johnson and the insular nativism he stands for—we have not forthrightly declared that the bigotry of his party is of equal moral weight and equal moral impermissibility at the bigotry of Corbyn’s party. We have not insisted that both be rejected.

Responding to the argument that Labour antisemitism had to be overlooked because of the pressing necessity of avoiding the disasters of a Tory government, the Guardian letter writers asked “Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next?”

One could perhaps forgive the Windrush Generation for taking a tentative step forward in reply.

So again: why hasn’t that companion letter been written? Why hasn’t there been the declaration that the Windrushers, the migrants, the Muslims—that these community’s concerns are indispensable in the exact same way that the Jewish community’s concerns should (but often are not) be viewed as indispensable? Why has the wonderful solidarity demonstrated by the Guardian letter not been returned in kind?

The most common answer is that as terrible as Johnson is and as repulsive as Tory policies are, only a Conservative majority can guarantee that Corbyn will not become Prime Minister. Even the LibDems might ultimately elect to coalition with Labour if together they’d form a majority (ironically, many left-wing voters who dislike Corbyn but loathe Johnson express the same worry in reverse to explain why they can’t vote LibDem—they’re convinced that Jo Swinson would instead cut a deal to preserve a Conservative majority). As terrible as Johnson is, stopping Corbyn has to be the number one priority for British Jews. And a vote for anyone but the Tory candidates is, ultimately, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

Jewish voters who act under this logic, they would say, are by no means endorsing Brexit, which they detest, or xenophobia, which they abhor. They hate these things, genuinely and sincerely. But their hand has been forced. In this moment, they have to look out for Number One.

I understand this logic. I understand why some Jews might believe that in this moment, we cannot spare the luxury of thinking of others.

I understand it. But it is, ultimately, spectacularly short-sighted.

To begin, if we accept that British Jews are justified in voting Tory because we are justified looking out for our own existential self-preservation, then we have to accept that non-Jewish minorities are similarly justified in voting Labour in pursuit of their own communal security and safety. We cannot simultaneously say that our vote for the Tories cannot be construed as an endorsement of Conservative xenophobia but their vote for Labour represents tacit approval of Corbynista antisemitism. Maybe both groups feel their hands are tied; trapped between a bad option and a disastrous one. And so we get one letter from the Chief Rabbi, excoriating Jeremy Corbyn as an “unfit” leader, and another competing letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, bemoaning Conservatives open tolerance of Islamophobia.

But if the Jews reluctantly vote Conservative “in our self-interest” and BAME citizens reluctantly vote Labour “in their self-interest”—well, there are a lot more BAME voters in Britain than there are Jewish voters. So the result would be a massive net gain for Labour. Some pursuit of self-interest.

Meanwhile, those Brits who are neither Jewish nor members of any other minority group are given no guidance by this approach. There is no particular reason, after all, for why they should favor ameliorating Jewish fears of antisemitism over BAME fears of xenophobia. From their vantage point, these issues effectively cancel out, and they are freed to vote without regard to caring about either antisemitism or Islamophobia. At the very moment where these issues have been foregrounded in the British public imagination in an unprecedented way, insisting upon the primacy of pure self-interest would ensure that this attention would be squandered and rendered moot.

Of course, all this does not even contemplate the horrible dilemma imposed upon those persons who are both Jewish and BAME—the Afro-Caribbean Jew, for instance. They are truly being torn asunder, told that no matter how they vote they will be betraying a part of their whole self.

And finally, whatever we can say about the status of Tory antisemitism today, painful experience demonstrates that tides of xenophobia, nativism, and illiberal nationalism reflected in the Conservative Party will always eventually swallow Jews as well. That day will come, and if history is any guide it will come quickly. Jews should think twice and thrice before contemplating giving any succor to that brand of politics, no matter what seductive gestures it makes at us today.

So no—it will not do for Jews to back the Tories out of “self-interest”, for doing so will ultimately fail even in protecting ourselves. Ultimately, the reason that Jews should clearly and vocally reject both Labour and Tory is not sentimentality, but solidarity—solidarity in its truest and most robust sense. There simply are not enough Jews in the United Kingdom to make going it alone a viable strategy. We need allies, and so we need to find a way to respond to the reality of Labour antisemitism in a way that binds us closer to our allies rather than atomizing us apart. The solidarity they showed us must be reciprocated in kind.

If there is one theme I have heard over and over again from UK Jews, it is the fear of becoming “politically homeless”: unable to stomach voting for Tory nativism, unable to countenance backing Labour antisemitism.

But as The Guardian letter demonstrated, Jews still have friends, and allies, and people who will have our backs no matter what. And if you’ve got friends, allies, and people who have your back, what do you do if you’re worried about homelessness?

I’d say, you start building a new house—one with room enough for all of us.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2PcPNkz

#anti-semitism #Boris Johnson #Islamophobia #Jeremy Corbyn #Jews #racism #United Kingdom

29 notes · View notes

cosmicmomma · 4 years

Text

To The Mom Avoiding Unvaccinated Children,

I saw your meme. I saw your messages. You want the world to know what you think about unvaccinated children. You want them to know that you think of them as disease-ridden carriers and that you want to keep them as far away from your child as possible.

I get it. You’re upset. But you need to realize what you’re also saying when you post things like this. Your posts are communicating fear and uncertainty about a product that you’re trying to endorse.

They’re also telling the world that you really haven’t thought this all the way through. Because let’s be honest, do you really want to know who is and is not vaccinated? Do you really intend on “unfriending” and avoiding every single unvaccinated person? If so, I suggest you brace yourself. Because if you looked just a little bit deeper, this is what you would come to find.

YOU NEED TO KEEP YOUR CHILD AWAY FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION–INCLUDING YOURSELF.

The majority of the population is not “up to date.” The CDC recommended vaccine schedule is constantly adding more and more vaccines to the schedule, beginning with just a handful of vaccines in the mid 1900’s to about 14 doses in the 1980’s to the current recommendation of 72 doses from pregnancy to 18 years (1). Unless you’ve had all 72 doses of vaccines like your child is expected to get, you yourself are considered “unvaccinated” or “partially vaccinated” and definitely not “up-to-date.” This also goes for all adults, teens, and even older children.

You also need to know that vaccine immunity, if even attained, wanes over time (2, 3). It is unknown how long this so-called immunity lasts, and unless you pull titers on everyone in your family and contact list, it is impossible to know exactly what everyone is actually “immune” to.

The whole idea of herd immunity is just a myth, and if you look into the history of the concept, you’d find that it was a term coined in the 1930’s to explain the immunity attained by natural infection–not vaccination.

If your goal is to avoid everyone who is unvaccinated by today’s standards, then you’ll have to find out when the last CDC recommendation was made in order to avoid everyone born before that time. You’ll also have to find out what vaccines each person has received and declined from that point forward. Doing this for each person you meet is what it takes to truly keep your child away from the “unvaccinated.”

YOU SHOULD NEVER TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH YOUR CHILD.

I hope you don’t like traveling because you’ll really struggle with this if you are trying to avoid the unvaccinated. You see, the United States vaccinates far more than the rest of the industrialized world (4). In most cases, we give up to twice as many vaccines.

Some countries have banned certain vaccines because of the associated adverse reactions. Japan had postponed vaccination to the age of two in order to lower their incidences of SIDS (5). The UK does not vaccinate for the chicken pox because the vaccine can lead to more severe and higher incidences of shingles and chickenpox in adulthood (6), and many countries just don’t think that the chicken pox is that big of a deal (7).

If you truly want to stay away from all of the unvaccinated people in the world, then also stay away from foreign tourists, immigrants, and other countries. This will be what you need to do to keep your child truly “safe.”

YOU WOULD NEED TO KEEP YOUR CHILD AWAY FROM EVERYONE.

I know this sounds like a bit of a stretch, but the reality is that vaccines only somewhat “protect” us from about 16 diseases. The media does a great job of focusing on these 16 diseases in order to ensure pharmaceutical profits and vaccine compliance. They will cover every single case of the chicken pox or measles in a “doom-and-gloom” type of broadcast even if the nearest incidence is 1000 miles away. Notice that you will rarely hear anything about all of the other diseases in this world.

You may find it overwhelming to find that there are hundreds of bacteria and viruses capable of spreading infection. There’s leprosy, typhoid, scarlet fever, hand foot and mouth disease, tuberculosis, and so many more that you probably don’t even think about because they’re not being drilled into your psyche.

Should I fear you because you have not been vaccinated for any of those diseases? Think about that one for just a bit. You can’t spread what you don’t have, and just because you haven’t been vaccinated for a disease, doesn’t mean you carry it.

We’re all unvaccinated for the majority of infectious diseases. If you truly believe that vaccines are the only way to protect your child from disease, then they won’t be as safe as you think they should be.

YOU NEED TO RETHINK WHAT YOU’VE BEEN TOLD ABOUT VACCINES

You may strongly believe in vaccines, but you need to understand that not all of them prevent the spread of infection like you think they do. The pertussis vaccine only eliminates or reduces symptoms. It does not prevent the spread of infection, which can make for a dangerous situation because of the possibility of asymptomatic transmission (8).

Live-virus vaccines, such as the Rotavirus vaccine, shed and are capable of transmitting infection as well, especially to those who are immune-compromised (9-section 5.4). Some vaccines only prevent infection against certain strains, leaving your child more vulnerable to mutated or alternative strains that are far more dangerous.

Tetanus is not contagious. Hepatitis B can only be spread via sexual intercourse, shared needles, or by an infected mother at birth. Did you know that if a child at your child’s school has Hepatitis B, they cannot disclose this to you? The same goes for HIV. Or HPV. If those do not concern you, then why should another child’s vaccination status matter?

What should really matter is keeping your child as healthy as possible by feeding them nutrient-dense foods and making sure they gets proper exercise and sleep. Reducing their toxicity load can also help immensely. This can be done by limiting exposures to toxins and heavy metals, including those found in vaccines. You may even find it interesting that unvaccinated children are often healthier overall than vaccinated children for this very reason (10). It really changes the message when you take a closer look, doesn’t it?

I know you’re pretty set on what you believe. You’re afraid. You’ve been led to fear disease in order to vaccinate your child, and then further led to fear those who don’t vaccinate in order to make sure that they vaccinate their children as well. Because let’s be honest–if vaccines really worked the way you’ve been told they do, you really shouldn’t be worried and broadcasting your fears. If you truly believed in vaccines, your memes should exert confidence instead of fear.

The truth is, however, you worry because you’ve been told to worry. It wasn’t always like this though. People weren’t always afraid–even long before we had 72 doses of vaccines and high levels of compliance. You see, all of the infectious diseases we vaccinate for have not been deadly in this country since prior to the introduction of vaccines. Fear has just been used to sell vaccines. It’s all part of the plan to get everyone vaccinated.

I know it’s not what you’ve been told, and I know that rethinking everything can be scary. It may even be scarier for you than the diseases you fear, but you need to step back and do your own research. Use logic and reasoning to think through the propaganda. Learn the actual history behind vaccination (11).

And then, ask yourself, Why would someone choose not to vaccinate their child? You may be surprised at what you discover. You may also be surprised to find that many of us actually did vaccinate, and our children suffered from severe adverse reactions. It’s not just 1 in a million like you’ve been told.

Instead of fearing the majority of the population for being unvaccinated, fear those who are spreading the lies in order to coerce the population into mandatory vaccine compliance. Discover the truth for yourself and then rise up and share it, so that others may do the same. The truth is liberating, and it can truly set you free.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-indications.html

2. http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/21/mumps-vaccine-protection-wanes

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26091979

4. http://rescuepost.typepad.com/files/gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_special_report1.pdf

5. http://www.truthlibrary.info/articles/corporate-fraud/japan-and-the-mmr-vaccine-and-the-sids-connection/

6. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers/#routineschedule

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8CbgaDsoHs

8. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

9. https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Rotarix/pdf/ROTARIX-PI-PIL.PDF

10. http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

Find more articles like this one here..

11. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History

https://anupstreamlife.com/a-letter-to-the-mom-avoiding-unvaccinated-children/

3 notes · View notes

dispatchesfrom2020 · 3 years

Text

2020

Week 40: September 28-October 4

28: The global COVID death toll creeps past one million. In Quebec, hospital, a 37-year old Indigenous woman named Joyce Echaquan dies. Videos filmed on Facebook live record medical staff mocking Echaquan, calling her stupid and saying she’s only good for sex. The 2019 Viens commission identified a culture of anti-Indigenous racism in the Quebec healthcare system and the Joliette hospital where Echaquan was being treated has an especially turbulent history with local First Nations communities.

29: It’s debate night - and one of Donald Trump’s first appearances since his tax returns were leaked by the New York Times on Sunday. These reports found that Trump did not pay federal taxes in ten of the past 15 years - and paid just $750 for two of the remaining five. Trump has engaged in tax avoidance at an almost staggering level, often by claiming enormous business losses at his golf courses, hotels, resorts and other businesses. The Trump Organization also claimed deductibles for large consulting fees paid by the company to Trump family members ... who were already on their staff. The returns reveal that Trump has guaranteed $421m in debt - most of which will mature in the next four years.

Olivier Douliery/Getty Images

The debates are an unmitigated and unrelenting mess. Trump interrupted his Biden, democratic rival, and Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, a stagger 128 times. An exasperated Biden remarks, at one point, “Will you just shut up, man?” When asked if he would renounce the white supremacist “Proud Boys” group, Trump instead tells them to “Stand back and stand bye” - which obviously falls far short of rebuke. The group takes it as an endorsement from the President. During a segment on the military, as Biden pointed at recent reports that Trump has mocked American war dead, Trump went on the attack, ridiculing Biden’s son Hunter for his substance abuse issues. When the debate concludes, a bewildered Jake Tapper emerges on the screen, describing the night as “a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck”.

30: Allegations have emerged that Mexican women have been sterilized against their will or with uninformed consent in migrant detention centres. At least 18 women have been coerced or forced to have hysterectomies in a privately-run detention facility in Georgia. Mexico sends messages through diplomatic channels, asking the United States to ‘clarify’ the situation.

Dawn Wooten, far left, was a nurse at the Ocilla detention centre where many of the immigrant women given hysterectomies were housed. She became a whistleblower. She also alleges the facility refuses to test for COVID-19 and is underreporting cases of the virus - Jeff Amy/Associated Press

1: Donald Trump announces his close aide, Hope Hicks, has tested positive for coronavirus. He and his wife, Melania, will be self-isolating as they await test results. Given the White House’s access to rapid testing - which takes mere minutes - it becomes apparent quite quickly that the President has likely contracted the illness, but the news won’t be confirmed until tomorrow. It makes the Trump family’s decision not to wear masks at the week’s debates especially egregious. Wallace, the debate moderator, tells the press that the Trump family arrived too late to be tested at the event - and therefore were allowed in using an “honour” system, with organizers trusting that the family tested recently tested negative.

2: The White House confirms that Trump has tested positive - he is flown to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for observation and treatment. Melania is also making headlines. Her former aide Stephanie Winston Wolkoff leaks calls from the First Lady in which she complains about media attention on separated children at the border and whines about her duties decorating the White House for the holidays. “Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff?” Amy Coney Barrett, too, is in hot water as details emerge that the Supreme Court Nominee signed an ad in 2006 condemning abortion “on demand”. The Republican party has tried to soften Judge Barrett’s reputation on abortion and pro-life issues following her nomination to the court over the weekend, claiming her stance is unknown or unclear. It’s not.

3: Near the newly-reopened Djoser pyramid, Egypt showcases nearly 100 ancient sarcophagi newly discovered during excavations of the Saqqara necropolis. These coffins contain the bodies of mummified priests and clerks who lived over 2,500 years ago.

As somebody who has worked in the industry, mummies are a weird concept for a museum object. As many museums in Europe, Oceania and North America work towards repatriating Indigenous remains out of their archaeology collections, many museums are actively still actively accepting Egyptian mummies. But, at the same time, these mummies command a substantial commercial retail value on the artefact market, putting these graves at risk for being disturbed and robbed. I have no firm opinions on this matter - I just find it interesting.

4: In Artsakh, shelling by Azeri forces continues as the Azerbaijan army captures major settlements and cities in the Armenian separatist province. There are heavy Armenian casualties, especially in the regional capital of Stepanakert. Azerbaijan’s president criticizes international mediators’ calls for a ceasefire, demanding the complete withdrawal of Armenian forces from the disputed region. A large pile-up in China kills 18 passengers and flooding in France has left many missing, feared dead. Outside Walter Reed, Trump orders his security detail to drive around the facility so he could ride past supporters gathered outside to cheer him on. His detail wear respirators, face shields, and full medical gowns. The White House physician, Dr. Conley, admits that he’d neglected details about the president’s health in previous days’ briefings. Trump’s blood oxygen content had dropped to precariously low levels. Dr. Conley said he reflecting the President’s “upbeat attitude”.

#2020 recap

0 notes

wineanddinosaur · 3 years

Text

The Court of Master Sommeliers’ Lack of Transparency Has Failed Us

As a young woman in the wine industry, I have been warned to “stay away from” or not be in a room alone with certain Master Sommeliers. A handful have been known to leverage their powerful positions to sexually harass or assault young women throughout my career. So, I was not surprised when The New York Times published an article in which 21 brave women came forward to share their experiences of sexual misconduct with prominent Master Sommeliers.

While I believe it was a choice, or series of choices made by these individuals, and that each should be held fully accountable for his actions, it is also critical to discuss the system which has allowed these atrocities to occur. Only then can we stop it from perpetuating more harm in the future.

The Court of Master Sommeliers Americas (CMS-A), on paper, is a certifying body for wine professionals. However, in the context of social and political status as a sommelier, the CMS-A holds the keys to higher-paying jobs, coveted sommelier positions at elite restaurants, and increased social status in the community. These keys come in the form of passing the CMS-A’s multi-level exams, which are well known in the hospitality industry, and known to be challenging. Therefore, if you consider yourself a sommelier, it is all but expected that you will pursue its certifications.

You may be asking, how do difficult exams lead to sexual assault? They don’t. The problem does not inherently lie within the examinations themselves, but rather the road to being selected to take them. With each higher level of testing, there are fewer seats available — and the criteria on which you are selected becomes more mysterious.

“Imagine the fear as a young woman, freezing in the moment as you attempt to determine in real time whether or not rejecting a Master’s inappropriate sexual advances will negatively impact your career.”

The CMS-A has very few study materials available online and gives general, broad categories or book recommendations that will be on the examination. The program is completely self-guided study: If the exams are so difficult, how do candidates decide what to specifically focus on or memorize? The best way to succeed is to find a mentor who will guide you in your studies, and nudge you toward the type of questions to expect on the exam.

Although having “mastery” of any subject would require study outside of provided materials, the CMS-A does not publish questions from previous years, nor provide any scope of what types of questions will appear on exams. Instead, candidates are reliant on their network, and what that network chooses to share with them. Master Sommeliers in your direct network can be a huge advantage.

Previously, candidates were required to have a Master’s recommendation to even sit for the third-level (Advanced) exam or higher. The Court recently removed this requirement, but with so many candidates hoping to take the exam and only a limited number of seats available, many still feel the need to earn a Master’s unofficial counsel or approval. Networking with Master Sommeliers at classes, workshops, and conferences may put you in a more advantageous position to get a coveted spot.

Master Sommeliers are treated like wine industry celebrities — coveted not necessarily for their knowledge, but for the promise of access to their networks. The ambiguity and secrecy of the examination process adds to Master Sommeliers’ perceived power. A select few choose to wield this power over others in the form of sexual harassment and manipulation; however, everyone who saw, but chose not to respond, is responsible.

There are currently over 150 Master Sommeliers in the United States, and over 75 percent of them are white men. There are no mentorship requirements placed on Master Sommeliers. They are not required to teach or donate their time to the community; and they aren’t given any resources to effectively mentor. Instead, mentor-mentee relationships are formed at a fraternal level. Female candidates working to excel in higher levels of testing must find a member who is willing to take them on as their “mentee.” This puts the power of advancing careers into the hands of a select group of men, some of whom are known to be potentially unsafe individuals.

It is unknown how much influence a single Master Sommelier can have on a sommelier’s standing as a candidate. Yet, there is a shared and constant drive to impress Master Sommeliers by being friendly and accommodating; whether at social events; by purchasing brands they represent for your restaurant; by responding to private messages; or accepting invitations to events that you might not normally attend otherwise.

Speaking negatively about the Court in public or online is highly discouraged among candidates. Imagine the fear as a young woman, freezing in the moment as you attempt to determine in real time whether or not rejecting a Master’s inappropriate sexual advances will negatively impact your career.

“Without strict policies against sexual harassment, fraternization, or assault … [t]hese problems will continue to persist.”

Since there is a complete lack of transparency in all levels of the CMS-A candidate selection process, exam criteria, and scoring on its exams (these answers are never revealed, either), being in good favor of the Masters is the only part of the process that seems to be within our control. This system not only allows, but even unintentionally invites sexual misconduct, which the Court has had problems with for many years. It also invites other types of discrimination. Unconscious bias and “personal preference” of the Masters decide who gets mentorship and thus ultimately succeeds in their programs. There is no practical preparedness material elsewhere. Racism, ageism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination have been largely left unchecked.

When issues of sexual misconduct or other forms of unethical behavior have been brought to the CMS-A board of directors, discussions and disciplinary actions (or lack thereof) have largely been kept under wraps, often leaving Master Sommeliers outside of the board of directors completely unaware of the offenses of their peers and superiors. Without strict policies against sexual harassment, fraternization, or assault, or a third-party entity to investigate allegations (board members, instead, decide on punishment of their peers), it’s not surprising that these problems have persisted.

These problems will continue to persist, without a complete redesign of their organization.

The CMS-A, as it stands today, creates an unsafe and inequitable environment for everyone in the wine industry. The lack of leadership and gross ineptitude demonstrated by the board of directors on several public occasions have created an industry-wide uproar of anger and mistrust in the sommelier community toward the CMS-A.

A short summary of the current board’s failures this year include: remaining silent when sommeliers across the country lost their jobs due to Covid-19; botching the (very late) PR statement during the Black Lives Matter movement; and, finally, allowing known sexual predators to exist in the membership.

This is in addition to the board’s mishandling the 2018 cheating scandal, in which 23 newly appointed Master Sommeliers were stripped of certification and forced to retest, after an existing Master Sommelier leaked answers to an unknown number of candidates before the exam. Originally, I had faith that the board had done due diligence in making such a difficult decision, but now I believe it was the wrong choice.

As the president of the United Sommeliers Foundation, I have seen hundreds of sommeliers who have been economically impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. The CMS-A has done nothing to support or positively respond to the sommeliers in the process of testing. In fact, even though we were co-founded by a Master Sommelier and have had four Master Sommeliers on our board of directors since our inception, it took several weeks of lobbying for CMS-A to provide us a verbal endorsement, without any financial backing.

This is hugely important, since many sommeliers have been put into debt and negatively economically impacted by the CMS-A process. Its lack of transparency, response, and care for those testing have devalued the worth of the efforts of so many in trying to pass these exams. If the CMS-A fails to reform, the thousands of dollars spent by sommeliers to get that pin will be thrown in the trash.

“I am hopeful that a fair, inclusive, and safe certification process will emerge out of this moment.”

If there is any saving the CMS-A, it will start by removing all individuals from the board of directors immediately. The lack of accountability and consequence for members’ bad behavior against candidates have demonstrated time and time again, that they are unfit to lead an organization of this caliber. The chairman of the board, Devon Broglie, resigned on Nov. 6 amid allegations of his own inappropriate behavior, and another board member was suspended pending investigation. The rest of the board announced that they are stepping down on Nov. 8, but details on the new election are yet to be seen.

After the board is removed, a consultation with a hired third-party expert is needed to completely re-imagine this organization. As a sommelier who has experienced its programs first hand, these are some of the basic changes that would need to happen to save the organization from its pending demise:

For Exam Preparation:

Create comprehensive study guides and mock exams that accurately reflect the topics and difficulty of the examinations

Create regular, structured, and chaperoned learning opportunities accessible to all

For the examination process:

Create tangible criteria used for selecting candidates

Implement video proctoring for oral portions

Reveal wines used for blind tasting and theory questions after the exams

Give scores and specific feedback so candidates can improve

Waive examination fees and offer travel stipends for those who cannot afford it

Create mock service exams that reflect modern-day dining

For leadership:

Remove prerequisites that currently preclude new Master Sommeliers (including young people) from being decision makers

Expand the membership to include sommeliers at all testing levels (currently only Master Sommeliers are technically members of the CMS-A)

Hire a CEO who has experience running an organization of its size

Remove the word “Master” from all programming

With so many changes necessary, I’m unsure if the CMS-A is even worth saving, or if it would be better for a new group of professionals to begin with a clean slate. There are many passionate people within the organization who I believe could make it happen, who have always acted with integrity, but have unfortunately been cast into the spotlight due to the negligence of the leadership. I am unsure whether the current leadership will make way for this progress and allow the necessary changes to happen.

As a 19-year-old who wanted to learn about wine, I found the CMS-A’s program immediately due to its authority and online presence. My fear is that if these reforms are not made and the organization stays the same, hundreds of aspiring sommeliers will still join its programming. Any other organization that forms would take years to eclipse the presence of the CMS-A.

Either way, I am hopeful that a fair, inclusive, and safe certification process will emerge out of this moment and the imminent revolution. It is up to CMS-A whether or not it will adapt or be left behind.

The article The Court of Master Sommeliers’ Lack of Transparency Has Failed Us appeared first on VinePair.

source https://vinepair.com/articles/court-master-sommeliers-transparency/

0 notes

johnboothus · 3 years

Text

The Court of Master Sommeliers Lack of Transparency Has Failed Us

“Without strict policies against sexual harassment, fraternization, or assault … [t]hese problems will continue to persist.”

These problems will continue to persist, without a complete redesign of their organization.

“I am hopeful that a fair, inclusive, and safe certification process will emerge out of this moment.”

For Exam Preparation:

Create comprehensive study guides and mock exams that accurately reflect the topics and difficulty of the examinations

Create regular, structured, and chaperoned learning opportunities accessible to all

For the examination process:

Create tangible criteria used for selecting candidates

Implement video proctoring for oral portions

Reveal wines used for blind tasting and theory questions after the exams

Give scores and specific feedback so candidates can improve

Waive examination fees and offer travel stipends for those who cannot afford it

Create mock service exams that reflect modern-day dining

For leadership:

Remove prerequisites that currently preclude new Master Sommeliers (including young people) from being decision makers

Expand the membership to include sommeliers at all testing levels (currently only Master Sommeliers are technically members of the CMS-A)

Hire a CEO who has experience running an organization of its size

Remove the word “Master” from all programming

The article The Court of Master Sommeliers’ Lack of Transparency Has Failed Us appeared first on VinePair.

Via https://vinepair.com/articles/court-master-sommeliers-transparency/

source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/the-court-of-master-sommeliers-lack-of-transparency-has-failed-us

0 notes

swedna · 5 years

Link

Longtime airplane executive Alan Mulally took the wheel at Ford Motor Co. in 2006 asking the type of questions you’d expect from an outsider. Among the most pressing: Whatever happened to that aerodynamic family sedan named the Taurus?

The Taurus reinvigorated Ford in the 1980s but was killed after a botched redesign relegated it to rental-car status. In its place came the Five Hundred, a bulbous automobile as unloved as it was unknown. Mr. Mulally wanted Five Hundreds renamed Taurus and charged engineers with a necessary overhaul.

If Mr. Mullaly’s hunch that it’s bad business to discard a brand that cost decades and millions of dollars to build seems sound, that’s because it almost always is. Unless you’re U.K.-based Marks & Spencer , which had to change its “Isis” perfume to “Aqua,” or a search engine called “David and Jerry’s Guide to the World Wide Web” (appropriately renamed Yahoo!), branding experts say dance with the one that brung ya.

This is tough advice to follow when a product misstep or corporate scandal threatens to obliterate your prom date. Lululemon Athletica Inc. made yoga pants popular, but that didn’t stop questions about whether the brand could withstand its see-through leggings problem. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. is a fast-casual dining pioneer, but many wondered if E. coli outbreaks would kill demand for foil-wrapped burritos. ALSO READ: Return of the king: Tiger Woods clawed his way back from agony, ignominy

Stock prices swooned, public outrage swelled. As of 2019, however, those two brands are back, and their stocks are near their all-time highs.

As much as we enjoy kicking failures while they’re down, we also love redemption. Boston Consulting recently studied 11 companies it dubbed “Comeback Kids,” and found investors disproportionately rewarded turnaround success stories.

The latest product that’s seen its reputation suffer is Boeing Co.’s 737 MAX. On Monday, President Trump ramped up pressure in a tweet, saying that if he ran the company, he would fix it, add features and rebrand the plane with a new name. “No product has suffered like this one,” he wrote.

Boeing is racing to repair 737 MAX planes grounded after two fatal crashes led passengers to say they didn’t want to board them. John Deighton, teaching at Harvard Business School, said that after news of the second MAX crash broke, “we all looked at our tickets and said ‘these planes have a big problem.’” ALSO READ: Augusta Masters 2019: What is Tiger Woods when alone with himself?

The professor, who studied the decline and resurgence of Snapple fruit drinks, agrees Boeing has a tough to-do list–but says a name change shouldn’t be on it. “This incident transcends the naming of a plane,” he said. People want a safe plane. “Do the work.”

Consider another development from the past week that Mr. Trump took note of. Tiger Woods notched his first major golf victory since 2008, and the president tweeted to congratulate him on his once-unthinkable “comeback.”

Mr. Woods is not a product. However, much like Michael Jordan, his name is bought or sold like a can of Coke. Consider how cyclist Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation had to become Livestrong after its founder’s doping scandal. Likewise, when Mr. Woods’ career tanked in 2009 amid sex scandals and physical ailments, many sponsors dropped him like a tainted burrito.

Nike Inc. executives, who dumped Mr. Armstrong for misleading the public, didn’t bail on Tiger. On Sunday, as Mr. Woods played the final round of the Masters tournament, the company finally reaped the dividends of having stuck by the humbled athlete. Because the swoosh logo was sprinkled on Mr. Woods’ clothing from head to toe, it spent hours in front of cameras, earning an estimated $22.5 million worth of television exposure, according to analysis done by Apex Marketing Group Inc.

Over nearly a quarter century, Nike paid Mr. Woods hundreds of millions in endorsement deals. It crafted a Tiger Woods logo designed to be as distinctive as the Air Jordan silhouette, for instance.

Dropping him would have been equivalent to killing the Taurus (Ford, by the way, again scrapped the iconic car a few years after Mr. Mulally retired). ALSO READ: This first-time bettor won $1.2 million by putting his money on Tiger Woods

Stephen Brown, a marketing professor at Ulster University, outlined in “Brands and Branding” why investing in tarnished of brands is so important. His research indicates brand names typically make up at least a third of a company’s value. Analysts often scour corporate filings to gauge the health of a company’s trademarks. When things go south, investors are rattled. For instance, Kraft Heinz wrote down the value of recognizable brands in February, such as Oscar Mayer cold cuts, by $15.4 billion, and its market value declined by 27%.

Still, given how much it costs to create a household name, it could be more efficient to resurrect Oscar Mayer than find a replacement. One of the sponsors that dropped Mr. Woods back in 2009 was Accenture. They started out life as Andersen Consulting and know a little something about rebranding.

Accenture’s advent came after an international arbiter ruled Andersen Consulting needed to break from its sister company, accounting firm Arthur Andersen. The success of the identity switch is debated in marketing circles, but the $100 million price tag for just the first year of the rebranding campaign was undeniably steep. Not long after, Arthur Andersen was caught up in the Enron Corp. scandal and evaporated; Accenture escaped that tarnish and endures.

These days, advertising experts have new rebrands to debate. Weight Watchers recently simplified its name to WW. Dunkin’ Donuts is suddenly just Dunkin’. Boeing’s fix is far more complicated than donuts and diets, Mr. Deighton said. “It gets to the heart of something tangled in our fear of big data and the tech revolution and so many things in our lives where we feel a lack of control.”

It’s not unlike our distrust of Facebook Inc.’s mishandling of data, Tesla Inc.’s alleged mislabeling of its Autopilot semi-driverless car system, or Uber Technologies Inc.’s corporate policies, he said. This stuff angers us, but we forgive.

Facebook’s problems led to backlash, but it didn’t ultimately drive us to ditch the social network, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Protests like the #deleteuber campaign that followed public outrage over the ride-hailing company’s response to immigration policies led hundreds of thousands to stop using Uber at the time, according to a federal filing. But longer-term user growth has been eye-popping, with the number now equalling 91 million people.

Boeing and its troubled MAX planes will be forgiven. “People will be rooting for you and wanting you to recover,” Mr. Deighton said, even if that sentiment comes with some reluctance. I’d just like to be on the second plane that takes off instead of the first.

#Ford Motor

0 notes

whiskeyworen · 6 years

Photo

Name: Tenna

Race: Asura

Gender: Female

College: Synergetics

Class: Holosmith Engineer

Allies: Cyrus, Verula Faithbreaker, Moryggan Deralith,

Relationships: Youngest of three siblings. Strained relationship with elder siblings Miriya and Sonnya due to personal experiments. No known relationships, though is close with all members of her team.

Weapons: Holosmith Saber and Alchemist's Shield. Has a pair of Alchemists pistols tucked away in hidden pockets for emergencies. Prefers using her battleharness with its Elixir gun, Grenade launcher and Siege Cannon mounts, though her Holosmith weapons are a delight.

Tenna is the youngest of her sisters, and perhaps the most unstable of them. She loves tinkering with things, as well as explosives, and while her skills are undeniable, she tends to alienate others with her outside-the-box lateral thinking. As tall as her oldest sister Sonnya, but as slim as her middle sister Miriya, Tenna had the unfortunate luck to be tall and lanky, even by Asuran standards. Her gangliness led her to be teased by her classmates, as well as naturally be slightly more clumsy, which earned her more derision. Even among her sisters, Tenna is still very different; with long hair the color of a deep red wine, she stood out from her siblings. A genetic quirk also flipped her skin tones, making her the figurative and literal black sheep of her family. They still love her, but in public other Asura secretly wonder if she's not of their family, and was merely adopted.

Sufficed to say, Sonnya has always managed to curtail those rumors, being the super-protective older sibling, but they still left their mark on young Tenna. Even as a Synergetics college student, she kept to herself mostly, with a small circle of friends and no actual Krewe to be part of.

Her skills with record systems and design philosophy were of interest to the Durmand Priory, who outsourced to her. A member of the Priory, she was never called on missions; her only job was to create and administer incoming data while at the same time maintaining her studies in the college. Being alone took quite a toll on her. Already edgy about being without a Krewe, she got to watch her sisters advance out of their respective colleges and go out into the world, while she was stuck in her dorm, sorting files and trying desperately to invent things that would catch the eye of the Council, or at the very least, one of her professors who might bump it up the line. Sleep was troubled, and paranoia set in; she became convinced she was so much weaker than her sisters that she was bound to die in some horrible circumstance. Whether it was a lab explosion or accident, an Inquest raid on the workshops, or the far-distant but ever present threat of a Dragon assault or something worse, her fears dug deep into her. That was when the sample rolled across her desk. A sample of tainted plasma from an unknown subject. Most of the data about it had been lost as it had bounced from lab to lab, but it finally ended up on her desk, a curiousity of the Priory. Examining it, she found potentially a solution to her problem. The blood contained a viral agent. Something half-magic, half-chaos, half-again actual virus. It was clear that whoever was infected was going to be in a lot of trouble if the virus kept up its self-metamorphic changes, but that didn't matter to her at all. All that mattered was that the virus also changed its host to suit it, to keep it alive. Stripping away the chaotic and magical aspects of the virus was simple. What was left was a crippled thing that still made genetic tweaks, but not in a fashion unmanagable. Things like enhanced strength, speed, vision... altered vision, neural modification to accomodate for those changes. It also had markers for more unique things. Like regeneration. A fully organic, non-necrotic regeneration. It wasn't long before she injected it into herself and began culturing more 'clean' virus in self-maintaining portable mechanisms. Oh, she got her wish; she was no longer weak. Not by a long shot. Wounds healed in seconds. Terrible injuries reset within minutes. Aided by an auto-injector, Tenna suspected she'd be able to regenerate from almost anything. But there was a price to pay, she found. For every injury she sustained, whether it was a cut, a burnmark, or what have you, she found herself getting hungrier. Normal food wasn't working; she could eat it and be fine, but it didn't scratch the itch. She didn't need to sleep as much anymore, but as the virus affected her, she found herself weakened again, drawn, and gaunt. Something was wrong. That was when an Inquest agent tried to raid her private dorm for Priory secrets. In a fit of fear and rage, she instinctively went for his throat. It was a horrible, terrible thing...but after it was over, she felt more alive than she'd ever felt. Was that the secret? Blood?

One quick body-disposal later, she'd checked the virus again, this time delving deeper into its structure. There it was; a marker for hemophagia, only slightly altered by her attempts to clean the virus. She couldn't remove the marker; when she tried, the virus just fell apart. It was the lynchpin. The original virus would compell its victim to seek blood to sate the virus. HER virus however, as crippled and damaged as it was, needed iron as fuel. For every injury she'd sustain, it would burn iron as a fuelsource for the regeneration, coopting the ATP production of her own body to accelerate the healing process. If she calculated right, she could lose an entire limb or more, and regenerate completely from it...but be left a ravening beast hungry for blood and meat to replace what she'd lost. At least...till she had enough. She could work with that. Easily.

By that point, a number of her inventions had come back from the Council, not with endorsements, but with strict warnings and heavy seals, Cease and Desists, and Edicts from the Tyrian Royalty as well as the Charr Imperator. Her ideas, her...weapons... were considered far too dangerous and heinous to consider. What could be used of them would be used, and she would recieve the proceeds, but her best items were under strict lock and key.

Again, that was fine. She could work with that. She didn't intend for anyone else to have her toys now, anyway. Not when she'd finally gotten the strength she needed.

She sent a note of sabbatical to the Priory, claiming 'personal issues', and left the College entirely. Already rumors were circulating about her, and the fact she hadn't slept in weeks by that point. It mattered little to Tenna. Nothing really mattered except she was finally free from her fear. It's unknown how she met the others of her group, but her contact with Cyrus is at least partially known. Both were associated with the Priory, so it's assumed she contacted him. Another outcast by choice, Cyrus agreed. He must have had some connections, because soon after Moryggan and Verula joined their team. Both seemed familiar with Cyrus, and had no issue with Tenna.

When the topic of her viral agent came up, not one of them balked. All three were outcasts of their own design, for lateral thinking, disagreement, etc. None of them were surprised or horrified by Tenna's experiment, or the price she'd pay for it. If she needed help getting meat and blood when she was low, it was just another thing that made Tenna...well... Tenna.

She had a krewe now. And for the first time, a place to belong. ---- (Notes from Me: When I made Tenna, I’d already made one of every job class. I had an extra slot and thought “Hmm...well Dhangalor is an Engie, but I kinda really specialized him as a Juggernaut Flamethrower. I wanna try out the other kits, but I don’t wanna retrait him.” Back then, retraiting cost money and time and stuff. It was before the trait trees permanently opened and stayed modifiable. So I decided to make another Engie. Choosing a race was easy; I wanted to make a demolitionist Asura. But the connection to Miriya and Sonnya... That took some thought. Initially I wanted to make a male Asura so I could keep the Male/female balance I had going. It was almost a perfect balance, but Sonnya threw it off by being one additional female. But the male Asura were just...ugly...to me. So I decided that my duo sisters were actually a Trio, and then made her. She looked exactly like them at first, until I remembered I had a Makeover kit that gives access to rare hairs and eye colors and stuff. So in a flash, gone was her chinese bun hair, her green eyes, and her skin tone that perfectly mimicked her sisters. In her place, I made the OTHER sister. The one I have grown to love because she’s so chaotic. Glowing orange-gold eyes, hair of Cabernet Sauvignon, darker completion.... Setting her story up was almost an accident. I was brainstorming for the other two, and decided that all three sisters had grown apart over the years, and that Tenna had gone through a personal breakdown crisis that resulted in her doing something to herself. When I came up with the viral infection in Maeva (who I have yet to post), I realized I had an opportunity to make a watered down version of the vampiric elementalist. Instead of being just vampiric, Tenna would also be intensely CARNIVOROUS as a result of her infection. I literally wanted her to be a cannibal, because... well, it’d creep her sisters out especially, and it made her an outcast, to be teamed up with other outcasts. It worked perfectly. Tenna in-game is a disturbingly powerful condi Engie who’s bombs, grenades, and siege cannon work phenomenally well. And when I found the trait that auto-calls an Orbital Strike laser... Oh boy, I SO had to add that to her story. That it’s a prototype weapon she designed that was kiboshed by the Council and others. That the Inquest can’t take it away because it’s too well defended in orbit, and they can’t kill her to get it because it’d wipe them out in retaliation. That, and after the infection, it’s now tremendously HARD to kill her. One of these days, I’ll commission someone to draw her, either casually lobbing an entire belt full of armed grenades, a devious, very toothy grin on her face, or in the midst of bloodthirst after a battle, armor shredded but wounds healing, and intensely HUNGRY for blood and flesh. Both images in my head are glorious. I may even commission a pic someday of her feeding more casually on someone who gave permission; neck nibbles kinda thing. If you’ve got close enough friends who are willing to do that, you treat them gently, and Tenna definitely would, if they were willing to give her a blood meal when she needed it. )

#GW2 #Guild Wars 2 #Asura #Asura Engineer #Asura Holosmith #Holosmith #Engineer #My Characters #tenna danae

0 notes

omginstantpaperbouquetblr · 7 years

Link

By Josep Maria Antentas / Socialist Project.

In June 2017 a referendum on Catalan independence was announced by the Government of Catalonia, formed by members of the Junts pel Sí coalition, supported by the Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP), for October 1 2017.

The Spanish state government opposes any regional self-determination referendum, maintaining that the Spanish Constitution does not allow for a vote on the independence of any Spanish region.

1. The referendum on independence for Catalonia scheduled for October 1, 2017 comes five years after the beginning of the independence process marked by the gigantic demonstration of September 11, 2012. It reappears shaped by its three previous incarnations: first, as the official perspective of the movement in 2012-14; second, in the form of the mutation of the parliamentary elections of September 27, 2015 into a plebiscite on independence after the alternative consultation of November 9, 2014; third, in the proposal for a referendum agreed with the state within the framework of a new constitutional political majority formed by En Comú Podem;[1] and Unidos Podemos in the general election campaigns of December 20, 2015 and June 26, 2016. The referendum obtained a new and unexpected viability after September 2016, following the commitment of the Generalitat [Catalonian government] to hold it by the end of 2017. It was reborn as a result of the phantasmagorical incompleteness of its three previous lives: the failure to reach its goal in 2012-14, the imposture of the plebiscite version, and the impossibility of a short-term favourable majority in the state (an impossibility, however, parallel to the great evocative power of the proposal launched by En Comú Podem that destabilized Catalan politics).

End of the First Phase

2. November 9, 2014 (9N) marked the end of the first phase of the movement opened in 2012. Halfway between a legitimate consultation and a frontal act of institutional and civil disobedience, 9N was finally a disobedient detour that avoided both a surrender to the central state dictates and a direct institutional confrontation. The Spanish federal government could not prevent the celebration of a democratic and massive event. But neither was the pro-independence movement capable of promoting an act of explicit institutional rupture that would precipitate events decisively. It opted for a last-minute feint which involved an activity that was not simply bearing witness, but nevertheless without opening a scenario of an unequivocal future.

3. By not projecting an unambiguous political message, by a combination of the level of yes-yes support and by the hybrid nature of the consultation (neither a recognized referendum nor an open institutional confrontation) 9N was paradoxically the perfect formula to have a referendum without doing so, and not to do it. Thus, as it was an unquestionable political and social success, it represented a serious strategic error, opening a strange situation of impasse and precipitating the pro-independence movement onto a new roadmap that would continue to be based on an internal contradiction: the same movement that did not dare to disobey the first legal ban on one of its initiatives was now at a second stage that required more social strength, mobilization and clashes: initiating a process towards independence within eighteen months through the conversion of parliamentary elections into a plebiscite on the question.

4. With the diversion towards the 9N alternative and the plebiscitary elections, the Catalan government, endorsed by the pro-independence social organizations, gained time but at the cost of taking a detour through paths that, sooner or later, would have to return to a situation not very different from that of autumn 2014. Without having passed the first test, it entered a second phase that always rested on a fragile uncertainty. In the end, the strategic inconsistency of the itinerary outlined to justify the plebiscite-elections of September 27 became through an impossible strategic rewind, the initial goal of 2012-14, the referendum, was again put forward. This reflected the exhaustion in itself of the policy followed after 2012.

5. Implicitly, but without ever recognizing it, the Catalan government and the independence movement self-amended their own road map set in autumn 2014. Those who then argued that there were no conditions for a referendum, and sponsored an alternative consultation and the conversion of the parliamentary elections into a plebiscite, have not given any explanation, nor any serious public political balance sheet, of their strategic mistakes during these three years. In the end we have come back, but in different conditions, to the starting point. The need for a referendum as a precipitating and catalyzing moment of a democratic confrontation.

6. We cannot be neutral in the clash of legitimacies between the state and the Catalan government represented by October 1. On the one hand there is a reactionary and antidemocratic approach. On the other, a democratic demand. If it is the state and the PP government that win, their position will be strengthened. It is not certain that the referendum can be held under fully normal conditions, but there should be no doubt: this is the responsibility of the state, which has closed every door to negotiating its holding. Nor can it be argued, as some do, that the referendum is precipitous and the fruit of impatience for independence. Rather the process has been the opposite, kicking the ball forward for five years, and always with Convergencia clinging, ever more precariously, to the rudder.

Two Storm Clouds

7. For those who, inside and outside of the pro-independence movement, have a perspective of social and economic change, there are two storm clouds flying over October 1. The first, the attempt of the Catalan right to continue to lead Catalan politics in an artificial way, using another milestone of an independence process that has been built since 2012 with the idea that the leadership of Convergencia (now Catalan European Democratic Party, PDeCAT) was imperative. The second, ERC’s Republican Left of Catalonia claim to become the central party of Catalan politics, stealing part of its social base from the Catalan right, but also blocking the deployment of the potential of Catalunya en Comú. Short-circuiting the aspirations of PdeCAT and ERC is decisive in order to form a constituent and post-neoliberal majority in Catalonia in the future.

8. In the re-alignments preceding October 1, the unknown is the position of Catalunya en Comú.[2] It may not have yet taken its final position, but it has advanced much more in internal debate, and the provisional consultation with its affiliates is positive that it will have some kind of participation. After marking Catalan politics with its two electoral victories in the general elections of December 20, 2015 and June 26, 2016 and challenging the independence roadmap with its proposal to build a state-wide political majority favorable to the referendum, it was paralysed and placed on the defensive once the Catalan government set the course for the unilateral referendum. Contrary to strategic anticipation, its policy has been one of formal passivity.

9. Without a convincing discourse, and marked by electoralist tactics, a lightness of principles and an increasingly institutionalist mentality, the inconsistencies of Catalunya en Comú prevent it from exploiting those of the pro-independence movement and particularly the left-wing of the latter after the failed journey from the 9N alternative to the return of the referendum. Fearing being dragged along by the Catalan government, in reality their passivity is a gift to the PDeCAT and ERC, who will be able to capitalize better on October 1 if they present a positive balance sheet, or will try (rightly or not) to attribute to Catalunya en Comú their failure if things are not going well Passive spectator? Subaltern and second row participant? Both are very problematic options for a force like Catalunya en Comú.

10. Catalunya en Comú’s passivity and discomfort before the referendum is a concrete reflection of the superficiality of its position on the national question and the debate on independence, where it has prioritized a softly-softly approach to complex issues instead of addressing the great strategic debate on how to set a perspective and a concrete policy that would put an end to the bifurcation of coming from the 15M legacy and the independence process, and seeking points of common agreement in the perspective of breaking with the framework of 1978. The unexplored paths of the federalist-independence synthesis surrounding the slogans of the Catalan Republic and the Catalan constituent process remain there as future opportunities lost in the present. Like battles lost without even being waged. •

Josep Maria Antentas is a professor of sociology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). This article first published on the International Viewpoint website.

Endnotes

1. En Comú Podem (Catalan for In Common We Can) is an electoral coalition formed by Podemos, Barcelona en Comú, Initiative for Catalonia Greens and United and Alternative Left, lead by the Mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, and formed in October 2015 to contest the 2015 Spanish general election in Catalonia. See Wikipedia.

2. For an in-depth discussion of this party see Josep Maria Antentas “The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner.”

from Home http://ift.tt/2wniyCz

#NEWS

0 notes

anarchistvoting · 7 years

Text

~Core anarchist views/thoughts on why (not) vote and 2016 politics extracted from the below articles~

FROM: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionJ2

• “Man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action”

• Electioneering does not work

• Any government is under pressure from two sources of power, the state bureaucracy and big business, and is thus the same

• "the permanent government" and "the secret state"

• existing power structures cannot effectively be challenged through elections

• difference between voting for a government and voting in a referendum

• Also, "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism.” picking the authority does not makes us free

• Voting endorses authoritarian social structures

• The state in and of itself is an integral part of the system that perpetuates poverty, inequality, racism, imperialism, sexism, environmental destruction, and war, we should not expect to solve any of these problems by changing a few • nominal state leaders every four or five years.

• anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say "organize" instead – different from apathy. (apathetic abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies) we agitate, organize and educate.

• "if the Anarchists were strong enough to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of strikes”

• politicians are puppets

• voting is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem

• It blocks constructive self-activity and direct action. It stops the building of alternatives in our communities and workplaces. Voting breeds apathy and apathy is our worse enemy.

FROM: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr5/elections.html

• we are fervent believers in democracy - in “real” democracy

• Parliamentary democracy does not come anywhere close to real or direct democracy

• the ruling class were shit scared that if they didn't concede something, the working class would set about taking over completely. voting is that concession.

• Anarchists therefore prefer to spend our time helping to create the conditions outside of parliament that will force politicians and governments to make concessions to the working class rather than wasting our time running around trying to get politicians elected

• Direct democracy is the political system with which anarchists aim to replace parliamentary democracy

instead of looking to someone else - politician, boss, bishop or anyone else - to act for you or to make decisions for you, you act for yourself

• protest organized and controlled by ordinary working class

• Many on the left argue however that it is possible to combine both, but this position inevitably leads to compromise

History is littered with examples of parties which started off from this position of “why not both” but which became part of the system

FROM: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/reclus/dontvote.html

• To vote is to give up your own power.

• The possession of power has a maddening influence

• Instead of entrusting the defense of your interests to Others, see to the matter by yourselves. Instead of trying to choose advisers that will guide you in future actions, do the thing yourselves, and do it now!

FROM: http://www.spunk.org/texts/groups/bad/sp000227.txt

• some anarchists have advocated “lesser evil” voting, a kind of self-defense against the more conservative candidate

• Counterargument 1: voting rarely, if ever, accomplishes any of the goals its advocates claim it can

• Counterargument 2: voting in government elections is an inherently authoritarian activity authoritarian means never yield libertarian results.

• Counterargument 3: voting serves to legitimize the whole political process

• Government is based on coercion

• If people did not vote, the democratic theory of government would lose its legitimacy and politicians would have to justify their rule on the basis of something other than the alleged consent of the governed. This, hopefully, would make the true nature of the state more obvious to the governed.

• any candidate anarchists help elect will implement interventionist policies and initiate coercive actions, the results of which will be incompatible with anarchist goals

• While voting for a Democrat may arguably make intervention in cuba or nicaragua less likely, it could make matters worse in israel/palestine or south africa.

FROM: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/colin-ward-the-case-against-voting

• non-voters are among the largest of the political groups

• Among the abstainers is the unknown quantity of conscientious non-voters

• Parliamentary elections were not merely irrelevant, they were a ruling-class conspiracy to divert workers’ attention from the real struggle

• We need to find new forms of self-organization for the social functions that the state fulfills through the bureaucracy, and that ‘as long as this is not done, nothing will be done.’

• ‘If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.’

FROM: https://troubleandsqueak.com/2015/04/25/anarchists-it-is-our-duty-to-vote-in-elections/

• it is our duty to question everything

• What frustrated me was that we are told, as anarchists, that we have no place voting in an election… I disagree

• Voting in elections is not only a duty of anarchists, it is the single easiest weapon at our disposal.

• All anarchist arguments against voting seem to fall under four main topics. These are legitimacy, fairness, cost, and effectiveness

1) “participating in the election process the government are then legitimized in their role, making them the valid and rightful rulers of the country”

> Counterargument: governments take their legitimacy regardless of voter turnout. “well, I didn’t vote for them”, to which the only response can be, “yes, but you did not oppose them either”

2) Many say that it is an unfair system and that “the game is rigged”

> Counterargument: The system is unfair, it is biased, it is corrupt, and at times the game is even rigged, but withdrawing yourself entirely from the game does nothing to change it.

> if you choose to withdraw from it you will still feel its effects. you are still going to be subject to the rules and laws of the land

> when faced with such a situation, we as anarchists strive to improve it, not to ignore it. Improvement cannot come without participation.

3) The time (cost) taken educating yourself on the parties, the policies, and the representatives would be better spent elsewhere

> Counterargument: educating yourself on the political landscape of the country in which you live is never time wasted

> Voting doesn’t really take much time. Voting/Direct action are two separate tactics and weapons that should be used in conjunction with one another to bring about the desired goal. They are not mutually exclusive.

4) –“if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” ~effectiveness~

> Counterargument: The reality is that voting does change things and there is absolutely no denying that

> The solitary vote will never decide an election, but Elections are not individual events, they are societal events, and so our vote has to be seen in the context of voters as a whole.

***(Anarchy is about substance)***

• Why Vote?

-Non-voting protects the state

-Voting is the easiest tool to utilize in the anarchist arsenal [ it is open to a person no matter of race, gender, sexual preference, height, ability, age, weight, working pattern, or financial status (uh… NOPE!!!)]

-Choosing the lesser of the evils

-We must be prepared to play the long game (At each and every election the lesser of all evils should be voted for)

-We have a duty to shape a better world, and one of the methods of creating this better world, one of the arenas of opposing the government is through the ballot box

-governments can do nothing if they are voted out of office. So let’s vote them out!!

-Let’s make governments fearful of a large anarchist voting presence at elections

-we must make the most of a bad situation

FROM: https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/11/anarchists-who-vote-are-like-atheists-who-pray/

• anarchist who votes is legitimizing a political process that he knows will be used by the State to violate the rights of others

• All who vote are said to render their consent to ‘the system’ by voluntarily participating in it.

• It’s easy to stay away from the polls, and this in itself will create a revolution

• Shrinking government through political means is a fool’s errand

• It is not possible to know what a politician will do once massive power is his to wield.

FROM: http://www.infoshop.org/Voting

• Direct action and other alternatives are more likely to result in a better society than electing Candidate X to political office.

• Anarchists are also anti-statist and anti-hierarchy and see electoralism as contrary to our goals and practice

• These parties have spent so much time trying to win elections that they have stopped even thinking about creating socialist alternatives in our communities and workplaces

FROM: https://cbmilstein.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/voting-versus-electoralism/

• I vote — within collective projects, occupations (the good kind), neighborhood assemblies, and other directly democratic face-to-face structures, wherever and whenever I find them.

• Such voting is miles apart, conceptually and systemically, from electoralism

FROM: https://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/malatesta-looking-forward/

• Anarchists must also present a viable alternative

• Demonstrating that our tactics are better than those of the parliamentarists

• Being right in theory (cherishing loftier ideals, criticizing others, foreseeing the harmful consequences from incomplete and contradictory programs) is not enough

• We must turn whomever we lure away from the fetishism of the ballot box into a conscious and active fighter for genuine, complete emancipation

FROM: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/298.html

• There is but one evil party with two names

• The refusal to vote is a dogged hope – that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting, this might make the American people ask…

• Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have.

• Let’s vote when we have a real one

FROM: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37922-i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote

• What horrible things than can happen when a buffoon occupies the halls of state power…

• I have no illusion that all candidates are equal in their potential for harm

• I see the value of taking a harm reduction approach to elections, particularly when a candidate threatens to cause a great deal of harm to marginalized communities, including those who are barred from voting themselves.

(harm reduction philosophies came out of drug users and their allies' response to the AIDS epidemic in the '80s and '90s)

(harm reduction accepts that people are going to use drugs whether they are illegal or not, and the best strategy for dealing with that reality is to make sure the harmful effects associated with drug use are minimized)

• The elections will go on, with or without our input

• If this perennial electoral process is going to happen whether we like it or not, why not occasionally take the practical approach and vote in a way that reduces the harm associated with our elected leaders and government?

• The choice is not between either direct action organizing or voting, but both/and. The choice is not mutually exclusive.

• this harm-reduction style voting is but a small part of a larger strategy for social and economic justice

• things do not have to get worse to shake people from their complacency and rise up

For things to get worse before they get better means more death, poverty, incarceration, hunger and terror for our most precarious communities. That is not a price I am willing to pay for a revolution that may not actually be around

the corner.

• Things need to get organized, not worse, before they get better.

“I will vote to boot my Tea Party, anti-abortionist, homophobic, anti-environmentalist, gun lobby apologist "representative" out of office, and to keep a right-wing proponent of bigotry from ever reaching the White House. Locally, there are a number of ballot initiatives I am happy to push for at the ballot box, and if they lose, with continued direct action. I will vote to decriminalize recreational marijuana. I will vote for ranked-choice voting for future governors, so least-liked candidates like LePage will never win office again. I will vote for background checks on all gun sales. I will vote to significantly raise the minimum wage for tipped and un-tipped workers.

• I do not see harm reduction voting as irreconcilable with my anarchist politics

• The 30 seconds it took me to vote today by absentee ballot from Montréal feels simple and necessary

• You will never hear me exclaim the virtues of voting or encourage electoral politics beyond harm reduction voting, but it is one of many small strategies to make another world possible, and I remain unconvinced that never voting is a winning strategy to do anything

• Elected governments will manage many aspects of our lives, despite our rejection of them.

• Voting is just a tool that can be deployed strategically to reduce the harm they do to our communities.

FROM: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/09/anarchists-for-donald-trump-let-the-empire-burn.html

• We should vote for Donald Trump

• “There’s no way I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, because I know what a Clinton presidency bodes. More of the same neoliberal plundering with a friendly Democratic smile to quiet the left

• What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress”

• A politics of arson

• “With Trump it's a flip of the coin. Heads: his primary run was brilliant hyperbolic political theater that will mellow in the general, he's right on TPP, and less hawkish than Clinton internationally. Progressives gain ground in Congress (the more important body of government anyway) in the midterms, setting a foundation. Tails: he wasn’t acting and his presidency will summon a degree of economic uncertainty and social disorder that promises gasoline onto the flickering flames that is the nascent re-emergence of a grassroots radical left awakened with Occupy and given form in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.”

• Both candidates are monsters.

• We are already living in (what Princeton political scientist Sheldon Wolin calls) a soft or inverted totalitarian system, an illiberal democracy

• The trump transformation will be welcome, clarifying, a fresh breath of honesty, in which the trappings are tossed aside and the ugly reality is revealed.

• Such a revelation may inspire real resistance

• Or not. It’s the risk of the wild card. TRUMP! Let the fire burn how it will.

(^^^Response) FROM: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/leftists_for_trump_what_is_to_be_done_about_these_insufferable_nihilists.html

• I recoil from a personality type—not uncommon in radical movements—that treats politics as a realm in which to enact revenge on society for its own alienation and to claim a starring role in history

• The above article implies that that deteriorating social conditions would radicalize the populace and empower the left.

• ^ This isn’t how American politics work. When the right is in power, the political center of gravity moves right as well.

The left flourishes when Democrats are in power, raising people’s political expectations.

• Ketcham is, naturally, blithely uninterested in reckoning with the human cost of the political apocalypse he fantasizes about.

There’s not a word in his piece about the immigrants who would be rounded up and put into detention camps under Trump’s plan, or the people of color who would be terrorized by a total breakdown in the norms that make even an imperfect multiethnic democracy possible

• What is surprising is that the left sees politics purely in terms of personal catharsis.

FROM: https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/an-anarchist-looks-at-voting-in-2016/

• Some think we should weaken the state by not participating and looking hopefully toward the future in the knowledge that the nation-state will fall someday.

• BUT What if we don’t have much time left? What if this election cycle may determine if we live or die?

• So, who to vote for? I will vote Trump to stop the evil, corrupt, war-mongering, murdering Clinton.

FROM: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-anarchists-secretly-vote-donald-trump-article-1.2630345

Shaun King

• “Trump might also make sense to anarchists — who see a Trump presidency as a shortcut to mass chaos, protest, dissidence, and anger in our nation.”

• I could imagine complete chaos if Donald Trump won this election.

• Now I would never vote for Donald Trump under any circumstance, but for people who may want to see this country devolve into a horrific state of mass chaos, I think they're right —

voting for Donald Trump would send our nation down a path unlike anything we've experienced here before. I think this is why white supremacists, armed militias, and hate

groups are so enthusiastic about a Trump presidency — they see what anarchists see — the very real possibility of an ethnic, religious war in which even regular folk decide to choose a side.

(^^^Response) FROM: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/09/24063753/no-anarchists-dont-want-trump-to-win

• King is hitting on an important truth here. A Trump win would make the country more volatile.

• but ~”NOT ALL ANARCHISTS…”~

• Noam Chomsky… would "absolutely" vote for Hillary Clinton if he lived in a swing state where Trump was the alternative.

• I'm sure most anarchists—the decent ones—share this view

• They'll do what they can within the constraints of the political system to stop Trump. They certainly won't vote for him.

• They'll be on the front lines, putting their bodies on the line

• That's a far more accurate snapshot of anarchists today than the notion of them sneaking into the voting booth to cast ballots for Trump.

FROM: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/27/the-myth-of-catharsis/#.WI1e4Sv4XcU.twitter

• Myth: Trump will “heighten the contradictions” of late capitalism

– this will lead to a “catharsis” that will“purge” the system of its rottenness or “rip the Band-Aid off” society’s wounds

• It’s tempting to find comforting rationalizations that things will come out right in the end

• Myth: “things have to get worse before they get better.”

• Because the United States is the world’s oldest continuous constitutional republic, many Americans have been lulled into a belief that it has sort of inherent stability

• Democracies, and perhaps especially flawed ones like ours, are inherently fragile

• People rapidly acculturate themselves to the new regime and assume its features are the norm

• The notion of Trump as some sort of summer thunderstorm that will clear the air of American democracy is not only a fallacy that results from lazy thinking

Trump is not some deus ex machina intervening out of nowhere, but a culmination of all the underlying symptoms of its sickness.

FROM: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate

NOAM CHOMPSKY

• the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy (LEV) is that which many regard as the most effective response to this dilemma

where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

• ***what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences***

• the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves

• Those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case

• Far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center

• Cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change.

• Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy…

• The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) ) One of these candidates, Trump SUCKS (“denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.”)

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) (4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

FROM: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/4vf0le/voting_in_presidential_election_2016/ (Forum)

• If you must vote, select Jill Stein. This way at least you're not responsible for Clinton/Trump

• Individual votes have no effect on the outcome of a national election

• I am against voting for "representatives" of any kind in principle, regardless of the individuals… I am frustrated by how much energy people spend on national elections when there are local elections and issue-specific referenda, not to mention direct actions, that could use the attention so much better.

FROM: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/anarchism-voting-bernie-sanders-02032016 (Forum)

• Every four years, some American idiot anarchist decides that this time it's the most important election of our lifetimes... As if the continual erosion of the electorate isn't happening, as if the Supreme Court decision that corporations are actually people didn't irreparably damage the illusion of individual participation, as if "the issues" were actually on the table, as if...

• The lesser-evilism fallacy

• l think that voting is channeling people's energies in the wrong direction.

any recent positive changes to the law, have been made because of constant action and pressure of grassroots organizations

• If we want reform, there is a way to do it - but it is just harder than voting.

• Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

• No, not in itself, but by doing so it does suggest there's some value in the electoral system - which can and does lead to people getting involved in election campaigns as well

• Reinforcing the belief change comes from above, not our own self-activity.

• There is a difference between what a sanders and a cruz would do in office. to that extent, it's worth your time to vote

• So I don't see much offense in tossing a vote for the candidate who does't call for the mass expulsion of over eleven million people or barring Muslims from entering the US, particularly given that Trump's success is probably already increasing the likelihood of racial pogroms. Definitely nothing to do with anarchism or communism, though.

• Isn't it simple game theory? You gain little by voting, but you can lose much by not voting.

• If there was a candidate running who was likely to privatize the healthcare system or increase tuition costs of higher education, then I would certainly go out and vote for the other candidate.

If every left-leaning person avoided voting altogether then their lives would be made even more miserable by rightwing presidents.

FROM: https://libcom.org/forums/theory/anarchist-voting-strategy-13102016 (Forum)

I was pretty shocked at how many anarchists I know personally got on the Bernie bandwagon. There's a lot of social democracy lurking right underneath the surface of the anarchist movement...

"the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable"

0 notes