From: "David James" <shddemon-AT-concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Nader must pull out of the election!!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:09:57 -0700



> Great. You PERSONALLY don't obey a law you find intolerable. But what
about
> those under the bombs? What about those forced to live in the streets? Why
> are you only thinking of yourself? How do we help cohere a movement beyond
> one's own narcissistic and generally PRIVILEGED ability to say "Well, if I
> don't like it I just won't obey it." How about getting rid of the power
> structure promoting such laws, instead of just opting out of that
> revolutionary struggle by what amounts to BUYING one's way out?

Okay, what if someone who's not priveleged says they won't obey the laws?
(like, for example, the Black Panthers)... I guess they're just being
narcissistic too, eh?


>
> Scott:
> >OK, besides the obvious authoritarian nonsense of choosing a master,
let's
> >talk about Nader. He's got you snowed.  He really, really wants to be
> >boss.  He wants control badly.  Do you think he cares about liberty?
He's
> >out to save the world, whether it likes it or not.  His whole life has
been
> >spent protecting consumers, well, fuck the consumer.
>
> meantime? Your only answer is to, as an individual, not obey laws you
> disagree with. And, as I said, that is an answer that comes from
Privilege.

I don't see where you get this crap.. I guess general strikes are out then..
because obviously anyone who would take part is "priveleged" and would take
obviously no risk that would endanger themselves... since they are bourgeous
since
they have a sack of grain

> I say, we are building a movement, not to stick Nader into the presidency
> but to coalesce a direct action movement.
>
> When they came to draft us to fight in Vietnam, I was one of the
organizers
> of the anti-draft movement on Long Island. We said: "We don't agree with
> this law. We will refuse to serve. Arrest us if you will, but we will
> resist you." Similar to what you are saying we should do now. But that's
> not ALL we did, or it would have been ridiculous. There are always people
> to take our place and go off and murder Vietnamese people who were about
to
> be murdered en masse (2 million and counting) no matter what law we as
> individuals decided to break.

wow thats awfully pessimistic.. "there are always people to take our
place... no matter what law
we as individuals decided to break"
sounds like the reasoning of anyone who decides to engage in something
unethical, or just
wants to justify themselves
"well fuck, someone else will do it anyway"

guess what, we are all individuals

>
> >>If people on the anarchist listserve think that all of this is
irrelevant,
> >>fine, I'll take it elsewhere. (We'll wait to hear, first.)
>
> Scott:
> >Ooh yeah, let's vote on it, majority rules, that's anarchism.
>
> Mitchel:
> I'm not a fan of majority rule, either. But YOUR proposed alternative is
> that everyone else do what you, the dictator, say they should do. You
don't
> like it, so get lost (you say). Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

well you've just said only priveleged people can disobey the laws... what
room is
left for anarchism in your belief structure? don't you believe in courage,
self-sacrifice, etc?
> That is what I mean by the elections being a TACTIC in a much larger
> revolution. To repeat, I do NOT think there is an electoral road to
> revolutionary social transformation (anarchism, or what-have-you). That is
> not the reason for voting OR not-voting -- NEITHER is the road to
> revolution in itself, just as using ANY of the mechanisms of this society
> is neither revolutionary or not-revolutionary. You work for a wage, but
are

THE MEANS ARE THE END, MY FRIEND

> against the wage system, right? You use money because you have to, but

Actually I don't work for (much of) a wage... I rarely use money... I don't
pay rent and
I don't own anything except a (shitty) car and a computer... i help people
quit taking psychiatric drugs..at their homes
so "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
boom done here.. (except for $300/mo
to pay old debts)

you're right about the roads tho..

> think money should be abolished. You pay rent where you can't get out of
> it. You use roads built by taxes extorted from workingclass people, not
> from giant corporations -- you still use them, even though they've paved
> over the meadows. And so on. The question is the Movement, not whether any
> one thing, any one tactic, is "anarchistic" or not.

The Movement is composed only of people, and things done and tactics used!!!
The **method** is the idea. .If the tactics and things are not anarchistic,
then the movement
is not anarchistic


                        Dave