MEDIA RELEASE ** MEDIA RELEASE ** MEDIA RELEASE
Jess Moore to preference Greens then Labor
Wednesday August 4, 2010
Jess Moore, Socialist Alliance candidate for Cunningham, will direct her preferences first to the Greens’ George Takacs, and then Labor’s Sharon Bird.
‘The Labor government has failed the Australian people. They have shown their inability to govern in the interest of people and the planet. But it’s important to recognise that a Liberal government, led by Tony Abbott, would be even worse’, said Moore. ‘That’s why we’ve chosen to preference Sharon Bird ahead of Philip Clifford in Cunningham.
‘Our preferences go to George Takacs first. The Greens have a range of policies that are far superior to either major party when it comes to social justice and action on climate. That being said we disagree with the Greens’ decision to issue an open ticket. It’s an example of electoral opportunism to maximise votes. We preference in a principled way, from left to right, regardless of what it might mean for our vote.
‘I strongly urge the people of Cunningham to maximise their vote. Vote Socialist then Greens, and then put Labor before Liberal. A large primary vote for Socialist Alliance and the Greens will show Labor that it’s just not good enough to be ‘less bad’ than the Liberals. It will pressure Labor in the direction of social justice and environmental sustainability while not risking a Tony Abbot led government’, Moore concluded.
For interviews or comments contact Jess Moore on 0416 232 349.
http://www.jessmoorecunningham.blogspot.com/
lol, actually how my vote was vaugely going anyway. with ASP and sec’s before greens too though. would be nice to have an anarchist party one day though.
An anarchist party, by its very nature, cannot exist.
logical fallicy. that would be similar to saying bombs don’t exist.
the aim of the party would be to disassemble government… eventually dissolving, yes, but government won’t disassembe its self. of course there would have to be a preperation phase, if it was to be done right… in terms of collective anarchy, there would be the useual preperation phases such as socialism, then communism, until the people are ready to finally inherit the world from the hands of posible oppressors.
It’s not a logical fallacy at all.
An anarchist party, to first be able to run for government, would need members who believe in the concept of government, which is the antithesis of anarchy. So no true anarchist could run for government under the banner of an anarchist party.
A group of anarchists could run for government individually without collusion between them while they were getting elected. Once elected, they could just hit bongs and do nothing if they had the majority, but as this is pretty much what both of our major parties do now, I’d have trouble distinguishing the difference.
It’s not necessarily fallacious, just depends on definition. A pro-anarchism party can exist. But strictly speaking a party of anarchists is a contradiction in terms – since by virtue of joining an organisation they are not longer entirely anarchist.
-_- you may want to look into anarchist philosophy a bit. there’s a fair bit of wiggle room. i tend to disagree with some of the ideals of the chaotic anarchists, who want no-consequence freedom.
the idea i run with is almost exactly the same as the most recognised communist ideal [collectivism], but with the dissolution of the government into self-government, once the society is adequitly ready.
there is recognition that with the status quo, there will be need of a government for some years to come [the speed of social change is unpredictable].
the nature of anarchy, that you’ve mentioned, is that governments are a tool of abuse, [like money] that is obselite in the modern world, and should be phased out. [or radically overthrown, depending on who you talk to; but the point is, it's subjective, and therefore, not implausable]
hang on chris, you’ve fallen for a common mis-perception… there’s a comic strip i stumbled accros one day that adresses this too, if i can just find -
ah, although it’s not strictly my point, you can get the point.
See, collectivism is a form of anarchism. But the strict definition of anarchy is what I suspect you are referring to as chaotic anarchy. Alternately, you might look at it the same way as the distinction between capital-C Communism and little-c communism. Same word, very distinct meanings. Given Dave referred to an ‘anarchist party’, not an ‘Anarchist party’, he is technically correct – the best kind of correct.
/I love the fact that 9th google result for that quote is this site.
Though, by the same token, you get your own technically correct. Everyone wins!
this capital letter buisiness confuses me. i’ve always been one for adjectives.
i know of 3 types of communism, plus what people confuse with communism, which i tend to call “communism” [with the quotations]….
there’s collective communism, set-line communism and market communism. and then there’s all those countries that claim to be communist, but clearly arnt, with their own versions of classes.
but yay for technically correct; i useually get that. [english having multiple definitions of the words doesn't help]