Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.” The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Just be thankful this is a democracy! At least we got to have a say!”
-Crimethinc
Beatling democracy sais that we have a vote every few years which may sound nice, but distracts us from making decisions otherwise. We are alienated from the decision making process. This is the nature of hierarchical systems though, they need representatives in fern to be functioning.
The lokening is to move away from hierarchical towards locally run societies. Because then the decisionmaking will be direct as opposed to representative. For instance we can see this in democratic confederalism.
How do those systems deal with large-scale tragedies of the commons? I don’t see how it would work for even shallow tragedies of the commons like CFC emissions, let along deep ones like climate change.
I don’t get this false dichotomy, the sheep can both vote and do organized self-defense.
Don’t you think the goats made a mistake granting legitimacy to a process that would see their own demise? They had a say, after all. For them to organize defense would be to violate the law, which, after all, they participated in creating.
How do I differentiate the goats that didn’t vote because they didn’t want to grant legitimacy to the process from those that didn’t vote because they didn’t give a fuck and are OK with whatever outcome?
I’m not sure why you’d need to do that in the first place
Why not? I think it is a very good distinction to make, they are two opposite stances. One of rebellion and one of complacency.
Well, I don’t think you’d be able to parse through the intentions of non-voters in such a way. A non-voter may be a protest non-voter, a non-voter who thinks their vote is worth nothing, a non-voter who was actually unable to vote, or a non-voter who thinks the two candidates are functionally the same for them, or any and all other reasons for non-voting. Just because a non-voter may not view their non-vote as a protest non-vote, doesn’t mean they don’t give a fuck and are okay with whatever outcome, is my overall point.
With that said, I don’t think a protest non-vote is the opposite of a complacent non-vote. Functionally they’re the same. I guess if you wanted to judge a person by their non-voting intentions, you could do something like that. But I’m not sure its worth the time.
I guess its worth noting that even though I agree with the sentiment of the meme and the goat story, it doesn’t map 1:1 in the real world. I don’t think someone is necessarily foolish to vote, for example. I did. But generally I agree with Henry David Thoreau when it comes down to it:
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”
Exactly, since my protest non vote is indistinguishable from all the other non votes I don’t think it is a useful way to protest. I’d prefer to have my voice heard even if faintly and easily ignored. Where I live, the best option right now is to cast an invalid vote, they make it to the final statistics and don’t go to any candidate unlike the blank votes, that get proportionately distributed.
The analogy also isn’t accurate with the hidden threat. It’d be closer if the wolves convinced the three sheep that they could wear wolf clothing and be part of the pack if they vote with them.
It’s just saying the quiet part out loud is all.
How about rejecting the vote outright and not accepting the premise?
Why not use the little power you’re given? I’d rather live in a country with a center-left president than in one with a Hitler wannabe.
Because liberal democracy enables fascism. Capitalism condes nationalism as legitimization. When the people emiserate, they look for a reason outside of the nation as culprits instead of focusing on class.
You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.
Liberal democracy doesn’t enable fascism. It’s when liberal principals are abandoned that fascism rises. America hasn’t had a liberal party since FDR. The Democrats (and, to a large extent, Republicans) use the vocabulary of liberalism, but it’s just a facade.
Even now though, it’s the lingering scraps of liberal democracy that keep tripping up the fascists.
Fascists and repression are on the rise in all of europe, including the “socialist” northern countries. Stop looking at the world purely in an American way.
You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.
You can do multiple things, you know. Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.
It conveys the message that you actually had a say in politics.
Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.
Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.
Vote if you want. But don’t act as if it actually solves anything.
Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.
It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.
Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?
It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.
Way to go taking a joke literally.
Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same
No. But their degrees of freedom are limited by the way the system is set up.
and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?
Yes. Btw: remember rule 6 and 7.
With what claws and canines?
I think it’s showing the issue quite clearly: Vote and then shut up when it comes to political participation, because you exhausted all the ways you can influence policy.
It’s a shame there were no other options.
