Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 04:34 PM CST

Why does everyone have to be so rigid about the vote/don\'t vote. I don\'t plan on voting but if someone calls themself an anarchist and works steadfastly to encourage the development of a society without state or capital... Hey that\'s good enough for me. I realize that it doesn\'t help the anarchist movement to cave in on voting, but I always feel there is this \"with us or against us\" attitude lurking in the background of the movement which I think alienates other people who probably are like \"Oh I guess I\'m not in your clique, see you later!\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 04:46 PM CST

Self-Proclaimed Anarchists Unveil Norm Chomsky
March 29, 2004 // 22:04:11

New York -- Dismayed at the failure of Chomsky v1/0, the first anti-statist intellectual droid, self-proclaimed anarchists in Brooklyn today announced the release of Chomsky v1/01.

\"Playing with the whole theme that we established in v1/0, we decided to call this one \'Norm\',\" noted a young woman wearing a \'Vote No One\' button.

\"And of course our collective fixed the bug from v1/0 that caused the droid\'s malfunction,\" an older man said. \"Looks like when we first established Chomsky v1/0 as our mascot, we got sloppy and borrowed some code from a liberal bot designed in Vermont. Some of that code was most likely responsible for Noam\'s reformist errors.\"

However, not everyone was please with the scrapping of \'Noam\' Chomsky, a droid whose popularity had spread rapidly among college students in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

\"I just don\'t get it,\" commented Erin Draker of New York University, proudly sporting an \'I Love Chomsky Now More Than Ever\' t-shirt. \"Noam was my idol. I\'ve, like, got all his books and a big poster of him on my dorm wall. I guess I\'m kinda pissed that I have to upgrade all this stuff. I mean, v1/01 looks totally different. He\'s too young to seem really smart.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:07 PM CST

voting, like everything else is multi-tiered. while voting in nation wide elections may not have a huge impact, voting in a local school board or town council certainly could.

and what about people who live in states that are solidly democratic or republican? do those votes count?

as far as the upcoming elections are concerned, i dont know. bush is bad, kerry is bad, raplh has no chance. as anarchists we can use the election to educate people that voting is not the only tool we have in this democracy.

am i going to vote in the next presidential election?

dont know yet, but ive got to consider whether or not passing up one of the few tools of participation offered to us in this system is wise. Its one of the weakest tools we have, but every little bit helps. especially because my peers are all 18-25 or so, the group that votes least but has the most potential and time to change the future. shouldn\'t i be an example? i think so, and hell, maybe voting could lead to petition signing, to attending meetings, to editorial writing, to going to demos, to creating one\'s very own media or organzing more demos.

voting, like everything else, is a tool. it all depends on how we use it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:25 PM CST

d, I agree totally. Voting can be a very important tool in local grassroots campaigns. I think most anarchists that advocate voting in one election or another are under no illusions about whether or not they have a voice in the system. Obviously they don\'t or they wouldn\'t have become anarchists in the first place. This idea that voting anarchists are not \"real\" anarchists makes me sick. I thought anarchism was about forming your own ideas and opinions. Fuck anyone that tells me what I am and am not supposed to do. I\'ll vote if I fuckin\' want to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:04 PM CST

The question is how to inspire a mass boycott of th eelections...other than that i am not so sure individual votes matter that much one way or another.

I will not be voting as I am disgusted by the whole thing...but for those who call themselves anarchist and are thinking of voting this time around I certainly understand the impulse. However I do not think ther are enough anarchists out there to sway the vote in any given state...if that were the case, we should be able to moblize a political boycott as well. But we cannot. so in any case it doesn\'t really matter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:20 PM CST

\'I Love Chomsky Now More Than Ever\' t-shirt

hahahahaha

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:24 PM CST

I see no use in throwing out the anarchist with the voting booth, which is why I\'m not going to make a big stink about Chomsky\'s current attitudes about voting. Chomsky is an anarchist as far as I\'m concerned, albeit one who is similar to other Americna anarchists in being afraid to discard the discredited baggage of voting in favor of anarchist methods like direct action.

Being against voting is not a \"rigid\" position for any anarchist to advocate. Opposition to voting goes hand in hand with what anarchism means. We are in favor of direct action, not the indirect and weak action of voting. Of course, it is incredibly easy to criticize those anarchists and radicals who advocate voting in American elections. How do these people explain the fact that over half of Americans don\'t vote and they aren\'t anarchists! Not voting is hardly a radical idea in America. What\'s more, what exactly are you hoping to acheive by participating in an election run by a plutocracy? You all do understand what a \"plutocracy\" is, right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:30 PM CST

Nobody cares if anarchists vote or not. There are no political parties that are courting the anarchist vote. So why don\'t we just stick to our principles and join the majority of Americans who say \"fuck the vote?\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:31 PM CST

bullshit
voting is voting
local government is government
locals function just the same as nationals

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:33 PM CST

bullshit, mang.
voting is dumber than cutting off your arm to play baseball

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 06:36 PM CST

THANK GOD 4 CHUCK ZERO

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 07:19 PM CST

I can understand boycotting the voting booth, but do we have to boycott punctuation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 07:32 PM CST

Kerry is even more of a warmonger than Bush. He wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq and openly says he\'ll be more of a \"war president\" (ie. warmonger) than Bush.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:15 PM CST

Have you head of the \"New Democrats\"? They have a similar agenda to that of the PNAC, and Kerry is their main man.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:20 PM CST

Oh yeah.. and my fave decolonisationist/American-anarchist slogan ever: \"US out of North America!\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:37 PM CST

Unfortunately \"GD?\" voting Democrat WILL NOT do anything for the billions who can\'t participate in the election. The American system is inherently imperialistic, and inherently demands constant warfare on the rest of the world. The only moral and immediate action worth taking has nothing to do with ballots.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 07:41 PM CST

I think Chomsky is right about this. The common person is really turned off by people who talk about not voting or voting for Nader, because as far they\'re concerned they figure voting Democrat would allieviate they\'re immediate suffering whether it\'s lack of jobs, healthcare, the environment,etc. I mean, i\'m seeing this perception in my daily life talking to people. My dad is a very liberal person and he\'s not of the illusion that the two parties are very different(in fact he despises the two party system). However, he\'s also unemployed, all while my mom works two jobs, and the rent for their apartment and city utilities costs continues to climb. So, as far as he\'s concerned voting Democrat in November is his only option toward getting some bit of relief(it\'s done so before). A lot of people feel they need some immediate relief from their economic woes and so do I personally. That\'s why I think it\'s important to care which faction of the ruliing elite are in power. We can reject the concept of representative democracy, but still make tactical decisions to help allieviate problems in the short-term and/or keep a greater theat at bay. This whole voting thing just really comes down to how you personally see the situation around you. At this point i\'m planning on voting in November but that could change if I percieve that it wouldn\'t make a difference for myself or my family. Just do what you feel needs to be done. (By the way, I think it\'s a bit lame to call anarchists who consider voting not anarchists. This about a difference of opinion and ideas about a particular methodology not about ideology).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 09:13 PM CST

Do you only read people you agree with?

Chomsky makes good arguments and has a lot of fuel that people can use in duscussions. I think not reading his books because you do not agree with this one particular instance of voting in these times is just reactionary and depriving yourself of what chomsky offers in the positive. Besides points like he is making about voting right now should cause us all to rethink our positions and either come down on his side or have stronger arguments as to why we abstain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:29 PM CST

It doesn\'t matter. Honestly, I barely care who wins, and don\'t have too much of a preference, though if forced, I would prefer Kerry. Likewise, I don\'t care who votes. It\'s a question of tactics, and tactics shouldn\'t be confused with principles.

I personally feel that voting on a local level is a legitimate way to make decisions. At least in things like referendums, where a decision MUST be made, and the people at least have direct control. I\'m not too fond of any representative \"democracy\", or majority rule approach, but there are places where voting is an effective tactic.

On a side note, I was reading an article on the NY Times website about the mayor in NY who preformed gay mairrages, and was getting arrested for it. In it, the mayor talked about the long struggle for equality, and he mentioned the anarchist movement as part of that. That is somebody I would have no problem voting for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:55 AM CST

I appreciate Ilan\'s work to demystify noam chomsky and I think it\'s integral into how we develop past radical celebrities and their influence. Focusing on it too much only seems to perpetuate his legitmacy as an authority and as a rigid definition of anarchist ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:24 AM CST

Ummm...I\'ve seen a lot of things get cut out by the moderators at infoshop, but why is this one staying up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:31 PM CST

I\'m sick of this arguement(I wasn\'t so pissed four months ago), but I\'ll chime in. To above us common people don\'t vote. Anarchists should stick to our principles and in a unified way show an alternative by doing direct action around the polls debates and conventions. Too bad Chmsky v1.0 has helped create a huge division. Though I agree with Chuck0\'s first post allot, I\'ll probobly never read Chomsky again, cause I\'m pissed. Let\'s set an example, and draw as mutch attention to it as possible.

\"The anarchists\' electoral abstentionism implies not only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in the State. And this distrust, which is instinctive in the working masses, is for the anarchists the result of their historical experience with the State and its function, which has, at all times and in all places, resulted in a selfish and exclusive protection of the ruling classes and their privileges. Anarchist abstentionism strips the State of the constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character as representative, procurer, and protector of the ruling classes.\"
-- Luigi Galleani, The End of Anarchism?

\"Government cannot exist without the tacit consent of the populace. This consent is maintained by keeping people in ignorance of their real power. Voting is not an expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness, since it cannot do otherwise than reaffirm the governmnet\'s supposed legitimacy.\"
-- Fred Woodworth, Anarchism

\"Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders.\"
--

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:34 PM CST

The common person is really turned off by people who talk about not voting or voting for Nader, because as far they\'re concerned they figure voting Democrat would allieviate they\'re immediate suffering whether it\'s lack of jobs, healthcare, the environment,etc. I mean, i\'m seeing this perception in my daily life talking to people.

Over 50% of the \"common people\" do not vote in U.S. presidential elections. If anarchists stuck to their principles, they\'d actually find much solidarity among these alienated people. Of the remaining 49% who still vote, half of them vote for Democrats and not all of them are gung ho on the Democrats. Therefore, advocating nonvoting is not going to be controversial among most Americans.

Voting for a Democrat will not alleviate any suffering and will only prolong and deepen suffering for many average people. The only suffering that will be alleviated when the Democrats take power is John Kerry\'s and everybody who will get a new job in the Kerry administration. The Democrats won\'t do anything about healthcare. They didn\'t do anything after Clinton was elected and they won\'t do anything when Kerry is elected. The Democrats won\'t increase social spending because the Bush deficit will force them to adopt austerity on the spending front (except when it comes to buying more weapons, which the Democrats are always good at).

Vote for Kerry in \'04. Clinton militarized our police departments and Kerry can finish the job by giving every cop a pocket nuke.

Vote for Kerry in \'04. He\'ll give us longer chains.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:50 PM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:28 AM CST

The headline is misleading. What picket line? There is no fucking picket line. There is no organized boycott, there are no demands being made, there is no negotiation, there is not even a public refusal to negotiate. Until anarchists can organize a visible and vocal boycott of the polls, their refusal to vote will be at least as ineffectual and insignificant as anybody else\'s voting.

...Which is not to say there\'s anything wrong with anarchists staying home from the polls...just don\'t make such a big deal out of it, please. If you think that we should do *more* than vote, that\'s great, but then do whatever more you think you/we should be doing and don\'t pretend that you are actually doing anything by blowing all this hot air as you sit at your computers and criticize other people for voting.

Anybody who says that the 50 percent of the people staying home from the polls are participating in some conscious, unified boycott or are \"voting anarchist\"...is being utterly ridiculous. Tonight there actually have been some -- quite correct -- messages about this in a discussion on the Aut-Op-Sy list. People skip voting for all sorts of reasons, and it is false and misleading for anarchists to imply that all those people who don\'t bother to vote are making the same kind of choice, for the same reasons, that the anarchists are.

Personally, I couldn\'t imagine voting for John Kerry, but I\'ll probably go vote for Nader. I didn\'t vote in 2000, but this time I want to vote for Nader because I personally think any Nader vote will make for a nice little symbolic protest, especially in light of the despicable Democratic Party reaction to the Nader candidacy. But that\'s just a choice I\'m making, and I don\'t pretend that it makes that big a difference one way or the other, and I see no reason to try to persuade other people to make the same choice, or to criticize them for not making that choice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:56 PM CST

Chuck0\":
I agree with everythig you posted. But regarding those 50% who do not vote, apatheticly not voting is not the same as an organized boycott, or a principled not voting. To get those same people to sign up for a boycott and an alternative direct action campaign agasint government and corporate interests would be pretty hard.

I am not so sure \"solidarity\" what 50% is as easily attained as abstention from the ballot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 08:58 PM CST

Persuading people not to vote is one of the most daunting tasks one can undertake. Unfortunately, there are millions who labour under the illusion that voting in and of itself is sufficient participation in a democracy.

Anarchists know better than anyone that progressive politics come from popular struggle and are merely ratified by suitably-inclined politicians. The vote/don\'t vote debate is essentially a matter of principle. Whether or not one votes, the point is to take action - particularly direct action (if and when circumstances permit). There is zero chance that the whole of the next cabinet will be composed out of anything but class enemies.

There is still room for creative voting-abstention actions. Publicly ridiculing or satirising candidates (via one\'s own propaganda or campaign poster defacement) is a popular option. Politicians tend to be good at absorbing bile, but not humour. Once they are established in the public mind as a joke, they NEVER win erections again.

There are also opportunities for symbolic actions like picketing voting areas with some good anarchist slogans (\"Whoever you vote for, the government gets in\", \"Don\'t vote, it only encourages Them\" or \"Bush or Kerry - the orders still come from Wall Street\") and/or publicly destroying ballots (especially in a group) and persuading others to do the same. Send out press releases to local media, try to get coverage. It may inspire a debate about voting outside the normal anarchist circles and raise our profile a little. This is simple stuff, and something you can do with a small affinity group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:01 PM CST

Since voting has a infintessimal effect on the way things are, but an effect nonetheless, I usually vote. But almost any other political activity will be more effective in promoting a just society, so I try to spend time talking about voting proportional to how much good it\'ll do.

If I was true to this principle, the time it takes to vote would already be as much if not more time than it\'s worth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:17 PM CST

You don\'t need to boycott an election that everyone thinks is a farse anyways. The only people that have faith in any sort of change are those that vote...so that faith is the minority. Around 50% vote in the Presidental Elections and an even lower precentage participate at the state and local levels. If anarchists are getting out the vote then anarchists are working against themselves.

Anarchists who vote often also justify the lesser evil of liberalism and social democracy and often attack Leninists as if they were to the right of Democrats (therefore justifying the Democrats\' regime and all that comes with it).

I think that the American Elections this year are going to matter less than they ever have. There will be no increases in social security or welfare (justified by the strength of the republicans in congress). War will be the perogative of both regimes. America will continue to hold more people in prison than any other country in the world, the highest precentage of people in prison in the world. Executive power will continue to wield the power of the Patriot Act. Occupation will continue in the countries that are now occupied and other countries will join them. Local Cities will continue to increase their police numbers nationally, laws will continue to pile up. Minimum Wage will only increase enough that it is really worth a little bit less than the last time it was raised.

There is no hope that the Democrats will help us. There is also no hope that the Greens will, the Libertarian Party, the Leninists, the Weirdos, whatever. All of the above will continue for the next four years unless the people themselves voice their dissent or if the international climate changes and thus changing the situation that the U.S. is in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:22 PM CST

While a local anarchist is running a \' vote informal\' campaign here in au to monkey around with the system, ( another way is to vote several times which is fun and easy) and anarchists voted for their officers during the Spanish civil war I would strongly argue against voting altogether. Think about it...
when participation rates drop below 50% NEITHER set of dropkicks can claim a mandate. Defacto anarchy is suddenly a reality.
An anarchist voting in a statist election is like a vegetarian at a carnivores bar-b-que.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 10:29 PM CST

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=252144

REad this statement form the \"New Democrats\" on foreign Policy and you can see that it is not much different that PNAC.

\"While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America\'s national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough. We need to do more, and do it smarter and better to protect our people and help shape a safer, freer world.\"

\"Democrats will maintain the world\'s most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world.\"

there is a whole lot in the \"New Democrat\" position that sounds exactly like PNAC stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:03 PM CST

\"Voting for a Democrat will not alleviate any suffering and will only prolong and deepen suffering for many average people. The only suffering that will be alleviated when the Democrats take power is John Kerry\'s and everybody who will get a new job in the Kerry administration.\" While I think this a gross generalization I won\'t argue it really. Most people who want Bush out of office are planning on voting against Bush than for Kerry anyways so perhaps they think that a Dem. will slow the hemorrhaging of the economy and general collapse of the world. As for the 50% who don\'t usually vote, while this has been true as recently as four years ago, I have a distinct feeling(based on the turnout at the democratic caucuses and primaries and the passion of republicans to keep their man in office)that the voter turnout is going to be much higher than it has been in decades, so I think trying to convince people not to vote this year will probably be met with more resistance than ever before because people passionately want to get rid of George W. Bush. Obviously they see enough of a diffence to want to even bother to participate in the system. I personally try and help people understand that the differences are between the Dems. and Repubs. are little on many issues(although I think the Dems. and Repubs. voters themselves are light-years apart on many things), but most don\'t care anymore they just want Bush out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 11:35 PM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:30 AM CST

By that logic you should be voting for Bush. Kerry says he is going to be more a warmonger (\"war president\") than Bush, wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq and echos the PNAC-like rhetoric of the DLC. In addition, a democrat in office will have to prove he\'s not \'soft\' while a Republican in office will face more opposition for doing the same things. Compare Clinton\'s dismembering of Yugoslavia with Bush\'s invasion of Iraq.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:32 AM CST

grammer is bourgeois

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:33 AM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:46 AM CST

Opposing the boycoting of election is like suggesting to cross a picket line.
Ilan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 04:33 AM CST

You know, I never knew direct action meant never touching anything indirect or ineffective - I thought it meant doing something direct or effective, whether instead or in addition to the indirect or ineffective stuff. Voting is rather ineffective. But it takes more of the state\'s resources than of my time, so I may as well fill in a blank ballot.

Now we respect a picket line because it represents our class interests, and the specific interests of the workers, or the community, or several groups with clear and obvious connections. But to respect this invisible boycott is just too much: all I have is the claim of authority against those who would dare to vote...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 05:51 AM CST

The point isn\'t whether Kerry is better than Bush anymore then it was if Mussolini was better than Hitler. The system works and it can always be sure that X will be slightly better than Y.

The question is \'Parliament or Democracy\'? The meaning of that question can be found in great detail at http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html

Chuck you might want to consider sticking a link to the above for the course of the elections.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 06:09 AM CST

I find it interesting that every single time some strategic alliance is formed between anarchists and some political party, anarchists are the first to be taken out ASAP.

On this instance, Chomsky can kiss my ass.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 06:11 AM CST

That was beautiful man. Your responses are getting better everyday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 10:51 AM CST

I\'m sorry that last sentence should read:

How can you pick a politican when they lie so fuckin much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:21 AM CST

\"I don

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 07:45 AM CST

I think one thing we need to start paying attention to in what Chomsky said (and, more importantly, what\'s been floating around for some time now) is the issue of building popular constituencies.

Like it or not (not, in this case) popular constituencies in this country can be built (and most likely WILL be built) through the act of voting. It\'s not entirely impossible that those blocs are going to be dependent on a party hierarchy--look at the relation of the MST to Lula. Obviously, Lula isn\'t the great white hope of the left (HAHAHAHAHA. sorry. very bad joke) but MST has been able to retain its extra-parliamentary identity and push on.

this isn\'t the battle between good and evil that we\'re being led to believe, but it\'s pretty clearly time that we need to evaluate how voting can help create useful interruptions into the normally functioning ideology of the capitalist state and its four-year turnover.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:15 PM CST

fully!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:21 AM CST

Thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:24 AM CST

Building popular constituencies? Examples please. Anarchism is not about \"building popular constituencies\" nor it is not about using the ballot box to accomplish political change.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 08:20 AM CST

Thank You!!! Chomsky is just another person -- not an authority or (gasp) leader! He\'s offered his thoughts on the vote/don\'t vote thing. I doubt he\'s claiming anything else. Great. disagree. but don\'t act like he\'s appropriating some kind of authoritarian position. That\'s being imposed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:27 AM CST

I would say that on the scale of things what Chomsky says about
voting this time is not a big thing. If anything, it says that there is
little in the way of a popular movement which can provide a real
alternative to voting.

So I would say this, start to be constructive and push the idea of
a mass movement based on direct action and solidarity as the
means of achieving real change. If we do that, then voting will be
less important as there is an alternative which works.

As far as anti-election campaigns go, i think we should remember
that they exist to raise the profile of anarchism and to point out
that real change comes from below, not the ballot box. So as we
are the only people who argue this, it would be silly not to conduct
an anti-election campaign. Perhaps it can be focused more on
\"voting is not enough\" than \"don\'t vote\" due to the nature of the
choice at hand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:12 PM CST

Well said. It was one anarchist protesting the 1984 election that got me interested in anarchism. I was a Young Democrat at the time working on the Mondale/Ferraro campaign.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:11 PM CST

Actually, I can say that anyway. They lie, I lie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:08 PM CST

There is an either/or choice here: voting or not voting.

There is another either/or choice: action or no action.

I just don\'t see how these have any connection to each other. It is not: voting vs. action. These are neither contrary nor contradictory... Now again, I know voting costs the state more than it costs me, and I doubt it does anything to reinforce belief...

And when the reformists come, I can stand, and say, \'I tried your way, it doesn\'t work.\' And what can they reply? That I should try harder?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 10:01 AM CST

I do not regard not voting as a principle or an ideological thing. If your alternative to voting is doing nothing - we are not on the same project.
Good peole can do many things to improve the world even when the abolishing of class society is not high on their agenda. However, if you belong to the crowd that take on itself that mission as first priority, voting is like shooting your own foot. It is hard to discredit the capitalist democracy if you give it a vote of confidance with your participating in the voting festival...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 10:13 AM CST

I\'d be remiss if I didn\'t give a plug here to the Don\'t Just Vote campaign dontjustvote.com. Our aim is to move past the voter/nonvoter split among radicals to instead work on propaganda in favor of direct action and against the farce of \"representative\" government.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:19 PM CST

QUOTE: \"as far as he\'s concerned voting Democrat in November is his only option toward getting some bit of relief(it\'s done so before). A lot of people feel they need some immediate relief from their economic woes and so do I personally. That\'s why I think it\'s important to care which faction of the ruliing elite are in power.\"
ANSWER: And if the Democrat faction get in they\'ll probably do nasty things like they did under Clinton. Things like slashing the hell out of welfare. _That\'s_ the kind of thing your dad can look forward to if he votes for Kerry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:54 PM CST

\"Over 50% of the \"common people\" do not vote in U.S. presidential elections. If anarchists stuck to their principles, they\'d actually find much solidarity among these alienated people.\"

This has been pointed out a number of times. So while we\'re throwing around statistics, let\'s dig out some more interesting ones.

* Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles

* 86 percent majority of adults between the ages of 18 to 34 believe in hell

* Overall, most Americans think religion plays too small a role in people

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 10:47 AM CST

I recal that back before the 2000 election bush took a stance against nation building. And now looking back from here I am certin that you can not determine the lesser of two evils. How can you pick a politican when they so fuckin much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:36 PM CST

becuase it\'s anarchist opinion
and we don\'t reform ourselfs like chomsky becuse we don\'t have enought guts to say vote nobody and explain alterate things like dirrect action.
action is what is not being taken by voting conceeding is.
if you\'re always gunna worry about your grandmas social security becuse your not community enought to take care of her(she did give you life) then your are most likey gunna be stuck in a system that dominates oppreses and treats you and your grandma like shit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:45 PM CST

GOD? hmm i need clarity what are you thanking for chuck0 ? or are you jsut thanking him for meeting your need for understanding and how do you feel about my request to leave that g word out?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:10 PM CST

using the right and wrong is gunna keep you in a cycle of violence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:14 PM CST

\'i tried it your way\' and now they have my ss address and the way in witch i voted and this info has been logged into homeland security computers. thanks chomsky!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:16 PM CST

polls are relative to who you cornered/scared to give answers to them

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:26 PM CST

you know who this election will matter too

the three million people who might get medicine that have AIDS from the World Health Organization, that Bush is blocking from producing generics, and Kerry is supporting by supporting the selling of generic medications. Kerry is still a capitalist nationalist, but at least 3 million people will be dead if Bush is re-elected and the WHO does not get the money to get 3 million people on drugs by 2005.

think about that.


peace and love
eric

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:36 PM CST

QUOTE: \"The Democrats won\'t do anything about healthcare. They didn\'t do anything after Clinton was elected and they won\'t do anything when Kerry is elected.\"
ANSWER: Oh yes they did!
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=4200
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/welf-j02_prn.shtml

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 04:59 PM CST

I was speaking about the comment mine was in reference to not the article itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 09:49 AM CST

Huh?

How in the hell is anarchism about or NOT about building popular constituencies or bases or blocs, etc. etc.? It\'s not an ideological platform, it\'s a strategy.

This website in and of itself is an act of creating a popular bloc of anarchists who read InfoShop and engage in dialogue.

Not sure what you\'re getting at. Maybe you need to explain yourself a little bit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 09:52 AM CST

Honey, they\'ve had all of that for a while.

I don\'t need to vote to be a part of surveillance culture. All I have to do is have a job, pay taxes, use a bank now and then, buy some groceries and, hey while we\'re at it, go for a walk outside and wave at the cameras.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 09:54 AM CST

Yeah and while I\'m at it, um, you do realize you didn\'t actually respond to anything in my post? I never mentioned what anarchism was or wasn\'t about.

Not trying to be a dick, just reaaalleee confused by the tack you\'re taking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 11:36 AM CST

This website in and of itself is an act of creating a popular bloc of anarchists who read InfoShop and engage in dialogue.

That is not the purpose of this website! The primary purpose of this website is to normalize anarchist ideas among members of the general public. Another purpose is to help anarchists organize themselves. We are not trying to create any kind of \"bloc\" or popular front!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 01:04 PM CST

It\'s true that more than half of the American population don\'t vote. But even more relevant
is how this is skewed in class terms. The professional/managerial segment
vote at twice the rate of the lower-income half of the working class. This is a
relatively recent phenomenon. 50 years ago this wasan\'t true, nor is it true
in Europe. It reflects the way that the neo-liberal agenda has taken over
the Democratic party, how they pay even less lip-service to working class
concerns than in earlier years. It also reflects the weak organizational strength
of the working class in the U.S. As a result, workers increasingly view
the two parties as indistinguishable. But this becomes, then, a self-fulfilling
prophecy, as lower working class voting leads to candidates paying less and
less attention to working class opinion.

The truth is, who is in office, who controls the local government or the
legislature, what the vote outcome is on ballot initiatives -- these things
can have a real impact on the lives of the mass of the population. The poster
above notes this in regard to AIDS. This is just one example.

I like to think of this by analogy with organizing a union to make demands
on one\'s employer. Surely most anarchists would have no problem with
doing that. But note that you\'re trying to change what a commandist
hierarchy does. That is, if you win certain demands and gain certain
benefits, for example, it is that boss hierarchy who implements it. From
the fact that we fought for that change, it doesn\'t follow we\'re committed
to approving the existence of that boss hierarchy.

The same is true in the case of the government. We can and do make
demands on the government to do or not do things. What we want is
to organize a democratic movement based on mass participation and direct
activity of people themselves -- that is how change is made. But in the
course of this there are struggles around what various parts of the
government is going to do, and the outcome of these struggles
will have an impact on people\'s lives. Sometimes who wins in an
election or what the outcome of a vote on a ballot initiative is can
impact a struggle. Why should the movement that is fighting around
that particular issue or demand ignore this fact?

Governments are public corporations, they have the same sort of
top-down hierarchies as private corporations. But one difference
is that there is a channel for public influence for what public
corporations do that is not there in the case of the private
corporations -- namely elections. We would argue that it is an
illusion to believe that the mass of the people, the working class,
could use these elections to gain actual control over the state.
The state is inherently a class institution. Nonetheless, it does
NOT follow that elections cannot be used to influence what
the public corporations, the government, does. To say that
we want to develop a mass democratic, self-managing movement,
which acts independently of the state and the parties and
politicians, is not inconsistent with voting as a tactic, used
with no illusions, to affect what the government does. Why should
the people throw away a tool that may be able to use to help defend
themselves? It\'s one thing to point out the illusory nature
of government elections, as a vehicle of real democratic
control; it\'s somethine else again to say it should be abstained
from as a matter of principle. The outcome of an election may
determine, in some cases, whether there are people in office
more or less willing to listen to popular concerns, more or
less inclined to support repressive measures, etc.

This is not, by the way, any sort of back-handed support for
Kerry. I\'ve not made up my mind on whether I will vote or not
for president this year. I\'m just arguing here about the general
question of voting as a tactic. On this point I tend to agree with
Chomsky\'s general point. It also follows from Chomsky\'s
point that hopeless leftist protest candicacies are worthless,
since they have no chance of making a difference.

Tom Wetzel

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 01:28 PM CST

I wish everything were as simple as you seem to think it is...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 02:03 PM CST

your logic makes a lot of sense \"anarcho\". I think a lot of people are turned off by negative \"anti\" sort of options. But are more turned on by positive options that are either \"pro\" something or perhaps as a starter \"this is not enough we can do more\". I think that would get FAR more attention. And if people experienced the power of direct action they may very well abandon voting enmass themselves in favor of the alternative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 07:02 PM CST

\"That is not the purpose of this website! The primary purpose of this website is to normalize
anarchist ideas among members of the general public. Another purpose is to help anarchists organize themselves. We are not trying to create any kind of \"bloc\" or popular front!\"

That\'s NOT what I just said (although I\'m perfectly willing to reason that I mistated myself).

The descriptive terms for this website that you just use are essentially the act of creating, through these processes, a \"bloc\" of anarchists--in specific, anarchists who use this convenient and useful service. You\'re talking about it like it\'s a bad thing--the creation of such a \"bloc\" DOES serve the function of \"normalizing anarchist ideas\" and helping \"anarchists organize themselves.\"

You\'re needlessly attaching some kind of essential, underlying, pejorative virtue to what we\'re talking about here. With regards to voting, if a sizeable \"bloc\" of Americans are driven to engaging in dialogue about left-of-center (or even more left than that) ideas, it doesn\'t mean the same thing as a bunch of people forced under the rubric and control of some Party. It does however mean that we have a bit more access to those people so we can go about the task of \"normalizing\" anti-capitalist/anti-authoritarian ideas AND those people are going to be pulled away from reactionary politics.

And if was talking about a \"popular front\", I would have said so. Don\'t use terms which have an automatic Stalinist connotation for so many anarchists to describe what I\'m talking about. It\'s setting me up to label ME a Stalinist.

Moreover, are you calling the Landless Peasant Movement a Stalinist popular front or something?

Please, let\'s keep in mind--nowhere in my post did I advocate voting or see it as a be-all/end-all or even really give it any kind of endorsement whatsoever.

[ Reply to This | # ]