Syndicate: mailradek no. 6

[Oleg Kireev <radek@glasnet.ru>]

Moscow-based magazine "Radek", dedicated to theory, art and politics
continues the project "mailradek in english". The information about the
magazine is available on the Website:
 	http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1457.
Everybody who doesn't receive it can send a "subscribe english mailradek"
e-mail to radek@glasnet.ru, and we'll include him into the mailing list.
	Our address is: Russia 117333 Moscow, Vavilova 48-237, for O.Kireev.
tel./fax:(095)137 71 31. 

							text no. 56
                		7.09.1998
	The major argument of our main opponents is that the voting *against all
parties*, just as any other form of a participation in elections, would be a
support to the state machine, and therefore, we should call for an electoral
boycotte instead. At least they insist on the following modification: *Don't
participate in elections, but if you do, then vote *against all parties*. We
suppose that the same argument can be repeated by some other actors, whose
position is more or less close to ours, and we are clear what to answer them.
	The *against all parties* campaign is directed on the subvertion of the
representative democracy as we know it and as such it is a more powerful
instrument than elections' boycott, due to the following:
        1) it concentrates on the subvertion of an entire system in general,
and not only of some random electoral campaigns, since it creates the
historical precedent. What is more important, it explains to voters the
grounds behind their manipulatebility, it develops an active protestive
consciosness (since it's accompanied by a strong explanatory work);
	2)it concentrates on mobilizing our electorate in favour of the protestive
actions instead of passivity (non-participation in elections);
	3) therefore a voting *against all parties* would allow one to observe a
force and a quantity of the mobilized electorate after counting the votes;
while in case of a boycotte, such voters would just stay in the *blind
zone*, among the non-voters, and their protest could be reduced to or
charged as electoral *indifference* and *passivity*;
	4) In a very probable case of a deception and a forgery during the vote
counting we would get the result anyway, because a voting will be only a
factual finale of our campaign *against all parties*, while the pursued
agitation itself will mobilize the protestive consciousness of voters by its
own way, so that discreditation of the representative democracy the
"boycotters" are talking about will be reached anyway, which is
*program-minimum*.
	We state once again, that our will to win more votes in the elections isn't
determined by any desire to "win over" and to take part in the following
power distribution, but seems to be a convenient instrumental  way to
evaluate results of our work. Herewith we speak of making use of the
bourgois electoral procedure for our own goals, without supporting it.
Engels wrote in his preface to Marx's "The Class Struggle in France", that
after the establishment of the public electoral law revolutionary movement
had obtained new possibilities for political struggle. Since then the
military technique has improved and electoral laws have changed, hence the
street fighting methods used, for example, in 1848, are admittedly doomed to
fail. "We, "revolutionaries", "subverts", we succeed much better with legal
methods than with illegal ones or with the coup". And public elections have
already opened a way to the number of our victories, together with allowing
us to see the real distribution of social forces and effecting the masses
significantly in a propagandist sense, -- *if it continues the same way,
we'll win before the end of the century a large part of society's middle
classes, petit-bourgoisie and petit-peasantry and we will expand into a
decisive power, when all other forces are forced to pay respect to us. Right
in this way "as an inspection of revolutionary forces", that Lenin
interpretes elections in his article *The Duma Elections and the Tactics of
Russian Social-Democrats* -- an article, written in the period when these
forces had already been influencing that political situation, 11 years
before the October Revolution.
             						Oleg Kireev
project: Anatoly Osmolovsky, Oleg Kireev
translation: Irina Aristarkhova
realization: mailradek


     		"Against all parties"

What is modern democracy? A system of government based of representativity.
Representativity utilizes the following idea: a mass of people chooses one
man who represents them all in government institutions. The more important
the institution is, the less representatives are participating in it, the
less quantity of people they represent. But do they really represent any
people? Don't we think that, having the power in their hands, they play
their own game by that power's rules? Man primarily wants to rule, not to
gratify the others' wishes.  The history has been always guided by its
heroes' selfish motivations. Possibly they became representatives not
because they wanted to represent some people but because of their lust for
power? Now let us call them "the best of the best" or, maybe, "the most
predacious of the predators"?

What's power then? Undoubtedly, power is the ability to control events,
money and people. But power is also a great delusion. No one ever will get
the lusted power. No one of the "representatives" can neither tame the
predatism of the others nor get a major supremacy over them. Thus, the most
the "representatives" in the authority institutions can do is to control the
power distribution. The power itself will never be possessed by anybody, it
will remain desired and unobtainable. Therefore, if we don't like the system
based on the will for power, we shouldn't assail separate "representatives".
Their petty selfishness and dirty games are perspicuous. Everyone of us is
brought up and exists in the system based on the will for power. What we
should truly loathe is power itself. And we must defy the will to grasp the
power. 

But how can we survive in the system based on the will for power? Power is
money - it's the roughest and the most ingenuous way of power. Power is
knowledge - for education gives the ability to reach the reins of power.
Power is social hierarchy - for anybody who has the power overindulges it.
And however small rein of power we consider (will it be a shopman, a housing
maintenance agent, a ticket collector, a policeman), it's always based on
representativity. The militioner disposes his power exactly because there's
an idea that the society itself gave him that power. Have they ever asked
those whom they're supposed to represent what to do? The state power takes
away the people's money as taxes to maintain police and army, this reign of
power. The state power considers itself having the right to judge and
execute people, to imprison them. But even if we ask those people, they
would never feel indignant and would never deny the power - for everybody is
in the system and everybody wants the power. Only we must understand it and
deny the power.
Therefore we can do just one thing - never join the power and fight the
power. But we should never fight by the power's rules. We're on it's
territory and cannot leave, for power is everywhere. 
Never play the rules which the mightiest suggests! Political nobility is for
political whores!
As much madness, absurdity, clownery, hardcore porno as possible! Discredit
the power, expose its stupidity, harshness and illiteracy! And the first
thing we can do in this case is to deny the idea of representativity. Not to
let anyone speak for you! Not to sign for anyone! They're all lying, all
they want is power! They spend so much of your taxes to beg a piece of power
from you!

It's our illusion that power is rapid and intelligent. Truly, it's dunder
and clumsy, because it's based on compulsion by power itself. A policeman is
harrased by a sergeant, who is, in his turn, insulted by an officer. Look at
our parliament - they're all idiots. And this power leaves a lot of
unpatched holes, loathsome spots. One of them is the "against all parties"
section in the ballot-paper. Check this section! Remember: if you trust your
voice to anybody, this man will spit at you! He wants power! Against all
parties!
Even if it's your friend or the man you trust - the power will absorb him
anyway. Never participate in distributing power! Against all parties!

Imagine what they'll have to do if not only you but many other act the same!
They'll have to reappoint the elections, spend money, jitter, bustle, be
afraid for the future, make public hysterics and cheap scenes. But the main
thing is that they'll understand that you want no more power! 	
AGAINST ALL PARTIES!