Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Welcome to Infoshop News
Saturday, July 31 2010 @ 03:55 PM UTC

Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign

Local anarchist groups have joined forces to campaign in the upcoming provincial election. Their platform? Don’t vote. The Nous On Vote Pas (NOVP) coalition – a joint creation of the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) and the Student Community Anarchist Network (SCAN) – is pushing a city-wide campaign to persuade the electorate not to cast their ballots on March 26. According to NEFAC member Remi Bellemare, the campaign aims to convince people that representative democracy does not allow for a dramatic social change, since all elected officials operate within the capitalist status quo. Posters and flyers encourage Quebecers to forgo elections, push for real social change


Local anarchist groups have joined forces to campaign in the upcoming provincial election. Their platform? Don’t vote.

The Nous On Vote Pas (NOVP) coalition – a joint creation of the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) and the Student Community Anarchist Network (SCAN) – is pushing a city-wide campaign to persuade the electorate not to cast their ballots on March 26.

According to NEFAC member Remi Bellemare, the campaign aims to convince people that representative democracy does not allow for a dramatic social change, since all elected officials operate within the capitalist status quo.

“Change does not occur through elections – social organizations and unions are the root of change in society,” Bellemar said. “They are certainly more democratic than just marking an ‘X’ on a ballot every four years.”

Throughout the election campaign, NOVP has been handing out flyers at metro and bus stations and hanging posters around the city encouraging voters not to hand the government “un ch(r)que en blanc.”

According to Bellemar, people need to realize that, because no political party will push for effective social change, voter choice is an illusion. A NEFAC member who gave her name only as Amy agreed, blaming this lack of choice for further undermining the political process.

“The apathy is growing and growing. What we’re trying to say is that apathy isn’t the solution,” Amy said. “We’re not saying, ‘Don’t vote, it’s not worth it.’ We’re saying, ‘Don’t vote – get organized.’”

However, McGill Political Science Professor Imad Monsour disagreed with NOVP’s methodology, arguing that getting involved in the current political process by voting or running as a candidate was a more effective way to foster change than abstention.

“It is best if you organize to change the system from within,” he said. “If people are conscious of only having three parties to vote for, then they should lobby for the fourth or fifth option instead of sitting on the sidelines and watching the people who are really determined.”

But Amy argued that dependence on political institutions does not constitute real social engagement.

“Our notion of abstention doesn’t mean ‘don’t participate in the political system’ – it’s the opposite,” she said. “What we’re saying is that people need to engage on a day-to-day basis so we don’t need to rely on the state.”

Monsour added that the less drastic route of setting up another party was a more responsible route to social change.

“Even though people here are accustomed to voting because they were born with the privilege, they might not realize what they would be robbed of without this capacity,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive for anarchists to have a party, but it’s difficult to envision a society without some form of order.”

A representative from SCAN was unavailable for comment.

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=6080

Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Kirtsy
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Del.icio.us
  • Blogmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=20070322180917463

Here's what others have to say about 'Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign':
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign | 16 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Sigh
Authored by: RepetitiveStrain on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 08:32 PM UTC

Here we go again.
Maybe someone can explain to me what harm is done when I vote, or who benefits when yet more conscientious people decide they'd much rather just let those who are elected be elected by centrists and right-wingers.
Why anarchists don't vote
Authored by: Admin on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:00 PM UTC

The anarchist case against voting is detailed on the Infoshop page on this topic: The Anarchist Case Against Voting

Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: crudo on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:33 PM UTC
NEFAC is going Crimethinc! Just kidding, but Crimethinc did a campaign like this in the US in 2004, and I thought it was pretty cool.

Here's one tension - "unions are the root of change in society".

Unions are the political parties for the economy. Most of them are not democratic at all, or at least the way anarchists talk about "direct democracy".
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Admin on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:47 PM UTC

"What harm is done when I vote?"

This is a very revealing question. It more or less suggests that voting is harmless, then why should anarchists oppose the act of voting. If voting is seen as being harmless, at least in the American context, than it is certainly pointless. If voting doesn't chnage the system in any radical way, which you don't need anarchists to point out, then why participate at all? This is the conclusion that has been reached by many Americans who don't vote on a regular basis. Voting doesn't harm the ruling class--they are the ones who choose the candidates and who don't have to lose any sleep that any changes will come from voting or the political process.

Voting won't hurt you personally, but you are participating in a rigged spectacle that is against your interests. What have you changed through voting? I would argue that voting is disempowering and that people who defend voting are causing actual harm against the interests of the working class. Look at who still votes: mostly the white middle classes. If the rest of you who still vote would stop, then perhaps we would move towards a situation more favorable to systematic radical social change. Revolution if that's what you want. But people who defend the indefensible are acting as a brake on radical social change. It isn't a coincidence that the biggest defenders of voting also happen to be the biggest obstacle to radical social change: the liberal democrats and progressives.

Chuck

Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: RepetitiveStrain on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 11:44 AM UTC
"If voting doesn't chnage the system in any radical way, which you don't need anarchists to point out, then why participate at all?"

Because until The Glorious Revolution is feeding their kids, a one-percentile shift in income tax rates can determine whether thousands of (mostly non-white) single moms on the dole can afford to eat. As just one example. But I guess worrying about that would be liberal and reformist.

"but you are participating in a rigged spectacle that is against your interests."

Yeah, thanks. I get that. But if I were to abstain from everything that fit that description, I'd be living in a cardboard box in the woods, not talking to anybody. I realize that's actually some people's idea of revolution, but not mine, and probably not yours either.

"What have you changed through voting?"

What have you changed through not voting?

"If the rest of you who still vote would stop, then perhaps we would move towards a situation more favorable to systematic radical social change."

You're going to have to map that one out for me, because there's at least one step in the middle missing. It's not as though the climbing voter abstention has slowed down the political machine one iota. They would love it if we stopped voting. And anyway, all this seems to be operating on the false premise that voting is a lifelong endeavour or something. I read the papers, I follow politics, once every couple of years I take half an hour to vote. The rest of the time I'm working and organizing. So, again: explain the harm being done in that scenario.

This reminds me of Satanists. Call yourself whatever you want, if it's in reaction to Christianity, you're still a Christian to me. Same with this - Voters vs Anti-Voters. Whatever, I'm neither, I'm just a person, and voting is just one tool in a very big toolbox - people do get that, right? Or are we still at the point where "Diversity of Tactics" is just code for "punks should get to smash stuff?"
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 12:23 PM UTC
"Because until The Glorious Revolution is feeding their kids, a one-percentile shift in income tax rates can determine whether thousands of (mostly non-white) single moms on the dole can afford to eat. As just one example. But I guess worrying about that would be liberal and reformist."

If you think that by voting you can enact these reforms, then you should consider yourself to be a liberal and reformist. Anarchists do not seek social change through voting or reformism and never have. Anarchists are very clear about this, although some recent so-called "anarchists" have been told that somehow anarchism and electorialism are compatible. They aren't and every anarchist is going to tell you this.

Speaking to your specific example--changing tax rates to favor single moms does not happen at the ballot box. There have been times, such as back in 1992, when the election was cast as a choice to repudiate Reaganomics and help working people. What actually happened is that a Democrat was elected president who enacted welfare reform and hurt working families.

I'd also point out that significant changes for working people happen after people take to the streets or go on strike. That's when the ruling class is forced to make concessions.

Anarchists are much better off sticking with direct action and our other methods. The voting parties don't want our participation.

"What have you changed through voting?"

"What have you changed through not voting?"

I've changed many things by not voting. I have twenty years of activism and dissent under my belt as a result of realizing that voting was a sham.

"You're going to have to map that one out for me, because there's at least one step in the middle missing. It's not as though the climbing voter abstention has slowed down the political machine one iota. They would love it if we stopped voting. And anyway, all this seems to be operating on the false premise that voting is a lifelong endeavour or something. I read the papers, I follow politics, once every couple of years I take half an hour to vote. The rest of the time I'm working and organizing. So, again: explain the harm being done in that scenario."

On the contrary, the ruling class would be very upset if people stopped voting. They get their legitimacy through voting. Since the divine right of kings went away, people in power have depended on elections to give them legitimacy. Now that more than half of Americans don't vote, there is great consternation in the ruling class about people not voting. They are very concerned about the crisis in legitimacy.

It may take you an hour to vote, but you are still buying into the ideas of the dominant political system. You are clinging to your socialization and haven't freed your mind from the idea that you should vote. Give up the idea that you should vote and you'll feel really positive. I promise. ;-)

"This reminds me of Satanists. Call yourself whatever you want, if it's in reaction to Christianity, you're still a Christian to me. Same with this - Voters vs Anti-Voters. Whatever, I'm neither, I'm just a person, and voting is just one tool in a very big toolbox - people do get that, right? Or are we still at the point where "Diversity of Tactics" is just code for "punks should get to smash stuff?""

Voting is a tool that does not work. It also has nothing to do with "diversity of tactics." Voting may be a personal choice for you, but you should expect lots of hostility if you promote voting as just another radical tool.

Chuck

Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Killer Bunny on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 03:24 PM UTC
I won't advocate voting... I don't do it, and if you ask me you shouldn't either. But I do feel a little uncomfortable with a 'don't vote' campaign. The above poster is right that some elections do *seriously* impact some peoples' lives... and the above poster is also right when she points out that sometimes the people most impacted by electoral politics are people who rely on publicly funded programs.

I honestly am not impacted much by the outcome of local, state, or national elections... the state still sucks and I still have my job. But other folks are much much more seriously impacted by these elections, and I realize that many of the people who are most effected by electoral politics are much worse off than me.

I feel like it's not really my place to demand that they abstain from doing something that they think will make their lives better. And while you can point to a million anecdotal refutations of this, participation in electoral politics *can* bring positive (albeit short lived) change that seriously improves the conditions under which some of the poorest people in our society live.

To demand that poor folks forego this tool that might get them a little more in their welfare checks or a slightly better medicaid system seems to be asking quite a bit from people who don't have all that much to give up.

It just seems that we have much better tools, tactics, and campaign opportunities in pointing out the ineffectiveness and general ridiculousness of the state...



Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: RepetitiveStrain on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 04:51 PM UTC
"Anarchists are very clear about this, although some recent so-called "anarchists" have been told that somehow anarchism and electorialism are compatible. They aren't and every anarchist is going to tell you this."

No, but I'm betting every anarchist who you in your super hardcore wisdom deign to recognize as such will tell me this. And I will laugh at them too, if they also talk down to me.
Unless I missed a memo, there's no official anarchist body that can take away my secret decoder ring once it's been discovered I voted.

"Speaking to your specific example--changing tax rates to favor single moms does not happen at the ballot box."

Changing tax rates never happens to benefit single moms, we can agree there. But they do get changed, and there are political circumstances under which certain changes (such as cuts) are less likely to happen. When taxes get cut, social programs get cut to make up for it. When centrists or leftists are in power, or when there is a strong left-leaning opposition, tax cuts are less likely.
I don't like the idea of a welfare state but, again, that welfare state is feeding numerous people *at this very moment.* Until we make a viable, grassroots alternative - which I'm all for, believe me - I see no reason to not take modest action to possibly prevent the gutting of such programs. People can't organize when they spend all their time scrounging for food and shelter. If people taking half an hour out of their year to vote can support a system that eases that burden, well, great.
I'm not interested in ideology, I'm interested in anything that moves us toward more justice and more autonomy, baby steps or huge strides. I'm not picky.

"There have been times, such as back in 1992, when the election was cast as a choice to repudiate Reaganomics and help working people. What actually happened is that a Democrat was elected president who enacted welfare reform and hurt working families."

That's nice. This isn't a debate about parties; I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a leftist. In fact, since the campaign in the original post seems to be about a provincial election in Quebec, I wonder whether your example is relevant. I'd argue that provincial/state elections are more useful (or less useless) than federal; I rarely vote federally. By contrast, I always vote municipally.

"I'd also point out that significant changes for working people happen after people take to the streets or go on strike."

No argument there. Why does that mean I shouldn't vote?

"The voting parties don't want our participation."

No argument there. Why does that mean I shouldn't vote?

"I've changed many things by not voting. I have twenty years of activism and dissent under my belt as a result of realizing that voting was a sham."

Again - not seeing the connection. If you had kept on voting, you never would have become an activist? Like, you would have been a Cleric but you went with Elf instead? Seriously, that argument makes no sense.

"On the contrary, the ruling class would be very upset if people stopped voting."

I never quite know how to feel about this argument. On the one hand, yeah, ok, sure, it would certainly give them a crisis of legitimacy.
But the question is would they care? "OMG, people stopped voting. Dissolve the government immediately - we've obviously lost." That doesn't seem realistic, somehow.
But it's moot, since the last people to stop voting would be right-wing lunatics. They're authoritarians, after all.

"It may take you an hour to vote, but you are still buying into the ideas of the dominant political system. You are clinging to your socialization and haven't freed your mind from the idea that you should vote. Give up the idea that you should vote and you'll feel really positive. I promise. ;-)"

And you still seem to believe that, since I vote, I'm obviously some fresh-faced kid who hasn't spent years thinking, talking, and acting, or come to terms with a willingess to make contradictory choices as a vibrant individual navigating a path toward liberation through a complex system of oppression intrinsically tied up with people's daily lives.
I "feel really positive" about my political existence as it is, but thanks for talking to me like I'm a child, that really cleared some things up for me.

"It also has nothing to do with "diversity of tactics." "

Maybe you could define diversity of tactics for me, then. Because I've always understood it as a new spin on X's old adage: By any means necessary.

"Voting may be a personal choice for you, but you should expect lots of hostility if you promote voting as just another radical tool."

Oh, I stopped being concerned with the radical ghetto a long time ago. More interested in a movement than a clique. But, hey, thanks for that one last little bit of patronizing advice.
I'm not saying you should vote. You don't want to vote, don't vote. But don't waste resources trying to stop others from voting, and don't go flying your privilege like a flag.
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 06:44 PM UTC
"No, but I'm betting every anarchist who you in your super hardcore wisdom deign to recognize as such will tell me this. And I will laugh at them too, if they also talk down to me."

There is nothing "hardcore" in my position on voting. I'm coming at this issue as an anarchist. Not voting is Anarchism 101. This is a basic position for anarchists and one that differentiates us from non-anarchists. This position goes back to Bakunin, who advocated a social revolution instead of a political revolution. The anarchists broke with the Marxists over the issue of political participation. Anarchists advocate not participating in the political system.

"Unless I missed a memo, there's no official anarchist body that can take away my secret decoder ring once it's been discovered I voted."

I'm not into this postmodern crap where words can mean anything. Anarchists are opposed to voting. Those are anarchist basics. You can vote if you choose to, but don't pass off your actions as being a form of anarchism. Anarchists who aren't as nice as me will give you a hard time if you do.

"When centrists or leftists are in power, or when there is a strong left-leaning opposition, tax cuts are less likely."

Poor people get screwed over regardless of who is in power. If you are arguing that anarchists should vote because of these issues, than you are making a liberal argument. More importantly, if all the anarchists did go out and vote because of these issues, it wouldn't make a difference.

"I don't like the idea of a welfare state but, again, that welfare state is feeding numerous people *at this very moment.* Until we make a viable, grassroots alternative - which I'm all for, believe me - I see no reason to not take modest action to possibly prevent the gutting of such programs. People can't organize when they spend all their time scrounging for food and shelter. If people taking half an hour out of their year to vote can support a system that eases that burden, well, great."

I'm not in favor of pulling the threadbare rug of social services out from under poor people, but I'm against the liberal idea that voting can make any kind of difference when it comes to social services. The Democrats cut back on social services as much as the Republicans. If there was some kind of difference between the parties, you might have a point, but you don't have one given the current political situation.

Anarchists are better off organizing their own mutual aid projects like Food Not Bombs and engaging in activism to force the government to make changes. I've been part of anarchist campaigns that won shelter for the homeless. This shelter would never have happened if I had voted.

Voting is not just something that takes a half hour. Voting requires that you spend countless hours talking about the political process. A voting anarchist is a person who still hasn't killed the cop in her head.

"I'm not interested in ideology, I'm interested in anything that moves us toward more justice and more autonomy, baby steps or huge strides. I'm not picky."

In other words, lowest common denominator liberalism.

Instead of demanding the bakery, you'd settle for some free day old bread. Hey, at least it's bread!

"That's nice. This isn't a debate about parties; I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a leftist. In fact, since the campaign in the original post seems to be about a provincial election in Quebec, I wonder whether your example is relevant. I'd argue that provincial/state elections are more useful (or less useless) than federal; I rarely vote federally. By contrast, I always vote municipally."

Some anarchists argue that participation in local elections makes a bigger difference. The anarchists who vote usually just vote in local elections. But again, the political process is so messed up even at the local level.

"Again - not seeing the connection. If you had kept on voting, you never would have become an activist? Like, you would have been a Cleric but you went with Elf instead? Seriously, that argument makes no sense."

Of course it makes sense. If I had remained a Democrat I would have ended up being frustrated and apathetic because the "right people" never won elections. When you realize that voting of any kind is a scam, then you are in a better position to do activism and direct action.

"Oh, I stopped being concerned with the radical ghetto a long time ago. More interested in a movement than a clique. But, hey, thanks for that one last little bit of patronizing advice. I'm not saying you should vote. You don't want to vote, don't vote. But don't waste resources trying to stop others from voting, and don't go flying your privilege like a flag."

I'm not interested in any radical ghetto and I have yet to find one out there. I'm going to spend resources to stop people from voting, because this kind of work radicalizes people about how counterproductive it is to participate in the system. There are better alternatives, which anarchists are involved in. I don't understand how privilege has to do with this position. I'm talking about basic anarchist ideas. If you disagree, then perhaps you would be better off working with the socialists or liberal democrats.

Chuck0
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: ScavengerType on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 08:23 PM UTC
look chuck. Your arguement can be broken down into three components. Voting... is Inneffective, is un-anarchist, and legitimises authority.

First off I know that in america the politics is rather limited and that the partyies start at the anti-socialist center-right at best (being on a scale that eliminates socialist outcomes from the political spectrum). But even in this limmited view of the world one can atleast look at what a republican can get away with in the media and what a democrat can. If you want to compare that you'll see there is a difference. I know your BS theory about the 1990s when clinton hurt working familys but considdering how other economys were copeing with economic crunches of the 90s it could have been worse. The above poster is right when they say that different politicans respond differently because it's true, and short of the odd republican who sneeks himself in as a democrat you don't have to give more than fifteen munites or so to voting.

As for un-anarchist, well Just cause someone wrote it once or twice don't mean it's true always. It is obvious contemporary anarchism is indifferent to the process of political representation but devided on the subject of voting. Citing ancient writers in a world that is not like our own anymore won't make your case any stronger.

As for the notion that legitimacy is derived from the act of voting. Open your eyes, no government in the world has ever gained legitimacy by having more people show up to the polls. Even at the conception of democracy most elections were rigged by cohersion. Look at the bold fased bullshit the administration now has been able to sling at the media without scruteny. The administration has went out of its way bent over backwards with it's head placed firmly up it's own ass, walking of corse much like a crab, to look like an illigitamate government. And if electoral fraud aligations, and exposure for dire neglect of national defence on 2 seperate ocasions as well as a war started on false pretenses is not enough to stifle the legitimacy of the bush administration. Then maby Mao was right, "power flows from the barel of a gun" and your lucky enough to pick the douchbage behind the trigger.
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Admin on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 10:34 PM UTC

"look chuck. Your arguement can be broken down into three components. Voting... is Inneffective, is un-anarchist, and legitimises authority." Well, that's just a few arguments that I've made here. I could go on with more arguments and plenty of supporting documents. I haven't brought my "A game" to this discussion.

"First off I know that in america the politics is rather limited and that the partyies start at the anti-socialist center-right at best (being on a scale that eliminates socialist outcomes from the political spectrum). But even in this limmited view of the world one can atleast look at what a republican can get away with in the media and what a democrat can. If you want to compare that you'll see there is a difference. I know your BS theory about the 1990s when clinton hurt working familys but considdering how other economys were copeing with economic crunches of the 90s it could have been worse. The above poster is right when they say that different politicans respond differently because it's true, and short of the odd republican who sneeks himself in as a democrat you don't have to give more than fifteen munites or so to voting."

My "theory" about what Clinton did to the working class is a well-documented fact. Clinton passed welfare reform. The Democratic Congress did not oppose him. This is because there is really little difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats may claim that they want to spend more money on social problems, but they want to fund poverty pimp programs that manage poverty. The Democrats aren't going to implement and radical changes, for example, to end homelessness.

The same can be said about political systems in other countries. European countries have strong welfare systems, which I guess is good in that people aren't starving. But these countries still are capitalist and aren't bringing about a social revolution. Or look at how many liberal European democracies signed onto Bush's wars. Tony Blair marches in lockstep with Bush. He's the "liberal" alternative to the Tories. Not much difference as far as I can see.

"As for un-anarchist, well Just cause someone wrote it once or twice don't mean it's true always. It is obvious contemporary anarchism is indifferent to the process of political representation but devided on the subject of voting. Citing ancient writers in a world that is not like our own anymore won't make your case any stronger."

You couldn't be more wrong here. Contemporary anarchism is not divided on voting. In fact, most contemporary anarchists oppose voting. There are a few who do vote, but most of them do not argue that their actions are a form of anarchism. There are a few anarchists and so-called anarchists who do advocate voting. I think this has been more noticeable in the last ten years because with the explosion of interest in anarchism, some people started calling themselves anarchists thinking that anarchism was a "spikier" form of socialism.

Anarchists are very unified on the subject of voting, pretty much in the same way that all anarchists are anti-capitalists. The above call came from NEFAC, an organization of neo-platformists and anarcho-communists. NEFAC and similar groups have published similar calls against voting. The social anarchists oppose voting. We anarchists with adjectives are pretty vocal against voting. Green anarchists oppose voting. Ethical anarchists oppose voting. Insurrectionists oppose voting. One can go through classical and contemporary anarchist literature and find that anti-voting is a common position.

Anarchists oppose voting because it is incompatible with our basic ideas.

"As for the notion that legitimacy is derived from the act of voting. Open your eyes, no government in the world has ever gained legitimacy by having more people show up to the polls. Even at the conception of democracy most elections were rigged by cohersion. Look at the bold fased bullshit the administration now has been able to sling at the media without scruteny. The administration has went out of its way bent over backwards with it's head placed firmly up it's own ass, walking of corse much like a crab, to look like an illigitamate government. And if electoral fraud aligations, and exposure for dire neglect of national defence on 2 seperate ocasions as well as a war started on false pretenses is not enough to stifle the legitimacy of the bush administration. Then maby Mao was right, "power flows from the barel of a gun" and your lucky enough to pick the douchbage behind the trigger."

Government's get their legitimacy from a variety of methods. Voting is one of them. Yes, not voting is not going to end government, but voting is one process where government's derive their legitimacy. Look at how much effort the U.S. spends on interfering in elections around the world. Elections are pretty important to governments, who prefer them to revolution in the streets.

Chuck

Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: ScavengerType on Saturday, March 24 2007 @ 03:25 PM UTC
Chuck what do you think anarchism is. You threw around the label of Post-modernism earlyer (BTW it's just nhilism with a pc name) and the lack of concreate meaning is a part of everyone's perspective of different subjective values. Anarchism is not real you can't touch it it is a concept and a social construct. It is an immage, an icon to be scralled in concreate, and a sensibility to be offended against all in one. Can you listen to everything anarchism tells you? Is there realy a leagal system offered by anarchism that would be entirely to your satisfaction for example if a large gang of crack adicted hoodlems beat the piss out of you (and your staff?) and occupied infoshop is there an anarchist solution to this problem?

as for the effectiveness of not voting I'd say it's right below punks smashing stuff. Howabout diversity of tactics.

Anyway this is canadian elections I'd be real happy if the conservative pro bush conservative government was out of office. I'm surprised you havn't read the main article in the feb/march adbusters detailing the americanization of the canadian government and millitary that has happened since the conservatives moved in. Quite frankly I don't want to throw millitary support behind america when itis possible, even if just possible, that a short election could erode the US's reach inside the country's policy and change the millitary strategy to pro-UN humanitarian intervention.
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: RepetitiveStrain on Saturday, March 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM UTC
"You can vote if you choose to, but don't pass off your actions as being a form of anarchism."

I'm not trying to pass voting off as any such thing. I also don't try to pass of the act of eating yogurt off as any form of anarchism. They're just things I do. I vote, on occasion, because, on occasion, I see it as worth my time as a political being. I eat yogurt because the live bacterial culture is good for the beneficial flora that live in my intestines, and I like the taste.
"Anarchist" isn't my singular defining charactertistic. I'm pretty sure that's going to be problematic for you; I know the "all or nothing" types. I've no problem with that approach, but the judgmental attitude that tends to accompany it is self-defeating, in my opinion - and makes it hard to live in a complex world.

"Of course it makes sense. If I had remained a Democrat I would have ended up being frustrated and apathetic"

You're not listening. Voting does not equal Democrat, any more than not voting means you must be an anarchist. Voting = voting. *There are people who vote who are not invested in the system.* Please try to understand that, and to understand that you saying over and over that it isn't so doesn't actually make it not so.
You're relying on a tautology here. You're saying that voters can't be anarchists, and that's because people who vote aren't anarchists.

"If you disagree, then perhaps you would be better off working with the socialists or liberal democrats."

Not sure about that formulation, but I'm perfectly happy to work with socialists or liberal democrats, precisely to the extent that such work is politically expedient for those interested in liberation, and where the final result won't be a strengthening of overall state power relative to those on the bottom. By contrast, I won't work with calcified ideologues, regardless of their ideology. I've met a lot of social democrats who are actually a hell of a lot less authoritarian than some so-called anarchists. HERESY!, I know.

Chuck, look, the world isn't an anarchist space. And people aren't born radical; most of them do have to indeed kill the cop in their head, as you put it. I thought that was the reason we did what we did. I thought the point was to go in to problematic spaces and change them, to find people who are having doubts and encourage those doubts, all the while building alternatives so those people have somewhere to go. A direct, external assault on the forces of imperialism is doomed to fail. The biggest problem the anarchist scene has isn't voters; it's anti-social anarchists who believe that ignoring the dominant paradigm will make it go away.

I vote AND I organize. What the hell is wrong with that?
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: Admin on Saturday, March 24 2007 @ 04:04 PM UTC
"Chuck, look, the world isn't an anarchist space. And people aren't born radical; most of them do have to indeed kill the cop in their head, as you put it. I thought that was the reason we did what we did. I thought the point was to go in to problematic spaces and change them, to find people who are having doubts and encourage those doubts, all the while building alternatives so those people have somewhere to go. A direct, external assault on the forces of imperialism is doomed to fail. The biggest problem the anarchist scene has isn't voters; it's anti-social anarchists who believe that ignoring the dominant paradigm will make it go away."

I never said that the world is an anarchist space. I understand the world very well, perhaps better than most people. But I'm going to articulate my politics and make a case for my radical anarchist politics. Your comment about the biggest problem with anarchism just doesn't make any sense. Can you name any of these anti-social anarchists? Most anarchists I know understand the dominant paradigm and understand why they oppose it. Their understanding of how the system works has turned them into anarchists.

"I vote AND I organize. What the hell is wrong with that?"

I have lots of problems with that, as I've outlined above. If you aren't passing off voting as anarchist, then what you are doing is your own choice. If you pass voting off as a method of anarchism, anarchists will show you why you are wrong. So, at this point, I guess we are just discussing elections.

Chuck
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: RanDomino on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 10:12 AM UTC
I agree that in the long run, voting is counter-productive. But the philosophy of not voting seems to rely on the belief that revolution is 'just around the corner'. I vote because certain politicians are less likely to approve war and all the other nasty stuff government does- it's all a sham in the long run, of course, but it is a stopgap measure that can at least slightly reduce the harm government does.

But on the other hand, voting and get-out-the-vote drives are very disempowering and waste a lot of resources (time, morale), and when the lesser-of-two-evils party won last year, it knocked a lot of steam out of the anger that was building in this country... So I'm a hypocrite caught in a Catch-22. And I wasted everyone's time by not answering the question at hand.

On the grasping hand, progressive organizations are a great place to find fellow radicals in places where there are not established leftist organizations.
Anarchists launch an anti-get-out-the-vote campaign
Authored by: RepetitiveStrain on Friday, March 23 2007 @ 11:46 AM UTC
"On the grasping hand, progressive organizations are a great place to find fellow radicals in places where there are not established leftist organizations."

Yes. Yes. Well said.