Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:41 AM CST

Thank you at Anarchy and Infoshop for getting some anti-voting texts up before the election.
I think unfortunately there doesn\'t seem to have been enough of them before the election although I came across a few good ones.

I find it AMAZING to think that anybody in their right might can believe that the Democratic Party (perhaps straight to one of the points I frequently hear) is an anti-war party when Bill Clinton\'s adminstration was bombing Iraq for years. The anti-war movement was fucking asleep for all those years because the sad fact is that too many of you are caught up in your false dichotomies; you could only get your asses moving when Republicans were bombing because you all tend to simplify politics along a false left-right divide that doesn\'t even exist between the two big parties.

Anybody But Bush. What a joke! Kerry? You\'ve got to be kidding! I can\'t believe anybody would buy this \'we\'ve got to vote somebody out\' shit. You think Kerry\'s going to give you your freedom back? Shit, you\'ve got to get yourself organized and build your fucking alternatives to the whole system. The president does nothing but facilitate the system which really drives the machine and unless you dismantle the machine, each and every subsequent regime is just going to erode your rights. The world of capitalism is making you more precarious and expendable and no campaign promises are going to change that. Presidents have absolutely no power to do anything meaningful to halt those processes which are really attacking us. On the contrary, they are servants of those processes, selected by their architects to act as political front man and justifier. Only most people can\'t even put their finger on what\'s going on and what\'s going wrong, so they need no real justification. They just know something\'s not right. When a Republican\'s in office, they can blame it on him; when a Democrat\'s in office, they have a choice of blaming it all on him or on Republicans who block the progress... and they get caught up in this fake liberal/conservative game. Anarchists don\'t need to play into this game; we need to do more to expose it, to constantly demand something more horizontal and participatory than representative democracy, to set our agenda outside of their political manipulation.

\"Bullets not ballots\" or \"Direct Democracy Now\"; it doesn\'t matter if you are a revolutionary or an evolutionary, WE ARE NOT REFORMISTS!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:41 AM CST

I find it disturbing to realise that a number of \'anarchist\' are into voting and even more disturbing that they are into voting for a democrat. Is this really wide spread (I dont live in the US)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:36 AM CST

I am not against voting due to the fact that in local elections my vote really does matter, and my state wants to put 45 million dollars in tax money to go to the state university. Since that is an awful idea, I feel i need to vote against that. Also, there is a green running for mayor of my city and although i am much more radical than a green, I agree on many more issues w/ a green than with a dem. or republican. I think radicals voting is an individual choice; I don\'t believe I am throwing away my beliefs by voting. The presidential election is totally fucked; if either john kerry or bush wins then everything will be the same. Im more concerned with local matters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:49 AM CST

If you vote... vote in protest... write in(IL)
\"President of the United States: None
Vice President of the United States: None\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:48 AM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:01 AM CST

I don\'t think it is possible for an anarchist to live in this (U.S.) society without compromising several anarchist principles. How pure is anyone? I think that individuals should decide what they are comfortable with--me, I voted. I don\'t vote for canditates, but I vote on State Measures. I\'m not underground and don\'t care that I\'m registered though, so it isn\'t for everyone. I vote against religious right sponsored measures. Four years ago, I voted for the repeal of Measure 11 Mandatory Minimums. If that had passed, there\'d be a few anarchists let out of prison by now--but they are still there.

Some anarchists are always trying to lay out absolutes and not voting is always one of them. On one hand, they say it perpetuates the system--on the other, that it doesn\'t matter or really affect things. If it doesn\'t matter, why do you care if I vote? Buying a beer or a pair of shoes perpetuates the system.

I\'d like to see anarchist quit hashing over the same old shit and quit trying to set up rules for what an anarchist should be or do. For people who argue against ideology, Anarchy mag (and Green Anarchy) sure have a lot of rigid rules. There is no need to take my statements and make exaggerations--obviously there needs to be a base definition or something of anarchy, anarchists, but who gets to decide? Must all our actions fit into our ideology, or do we have room to take actions based on our judgement of a given situation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:33 AM CST

I have some questions for people who are militantly opposed to voting.

In my neighborhood, which was once largely African-American, which has had problems with gentrification (and continues to have them - fuck you very much Bruce Ratner), in which many folks live in public housing, there were, over the weekend, several tables and other gatherings to get out the vote. I walked around briefly and read some of the lit. and talked to a few people. When I was asked who I was voting for, and when I replied that I was not planning on voting for president, most people were confused and/or upset. I tried to explain the fact that Kerry and Bush are not that different, that the war in Iraq will continue, that corporate capitalism will continue, the state will stronger etc etc. They agreed with me on every point; however, they were still resolutely voting for Kerry, because, they argued, in their lives, the miniscule differences between the two are significant enough that it could make the next 4 years easier on them, if not utopian. Some folks implied, in their responses, that is was easier for me, a white boy, to not care than it was for them, working class African or Latin Americans.

So, are these people deluded and suffering from false consciousness? Are they blind followers of the ABB dogma and doctrine? What are the racial, gender and class privileges that allow us to dismiss voting this time around? If we still militantly oppose voting, how do we avoid alienating folks who find it useful or even vital?

I still plan on writing in Arundhati Roy (or p\'haps Jon Stewart) tomorrow. However, these conversations made me think. And I think that anarchists need to think about them too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:38 AM CST

No, they aren\'t deluded or sufferring from false consciousness. There is still the widespread belief among many Amaericans that the liberals care about poor people. The Democrats themselves believe this nonsense, which is patently untrue. These folks you talk to also see the widespread support by African-Americans for the Democrats ad take that as a sign that the Democrats care about African-Americans. I would just point out what Al Sharpton and other black leaders said early this year about taking African-Americans support for granted. I would also point out that for all of the support that African-Americans has shown for the Democrats, they\'ve gotten very little in return.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:48 AM CST

I think this is a good idea. It\'s not like anyone knows why you aren\'t voting. Everyone just assumes you\'re lazy and apathetic. And as much as we like to think we\'re better than the masses, they are our future allies if anyone is and it would be good to talk to them in their language so that we can teach them ours.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:45 AM CST

Many anarchists here are quick to say how voting for kerry or bush is a vote for empire. Do any of them ask what not voting does to help eliminate empire? Voting is note the variable that creates this change one way or the other. Obviously it\'s building movements. I am not voting because I think I am getting rid of empire. I am voting because peoples lives are affected by the outcome of this election and I am quite convinced that Kerry would be better...even while empire holds strong. It seems to be a question of tactics and not principle. The disgusting system exists whether you vote or not, that doens\'t mean voting will not have an impact on people. It\'s not that poor people and minorities feel that they are getting a lot from democrats, but they know that they will get nothing from Republicans. Regardless, it has nothing to do with how radical or revolutionary or how good of an anarchist you are. Don\'t get bogged down in some notion that participating in a messed up system somehow gives credit to the system. The system exists whether you vote or not so ask yourself if you care whether Kerry or Bush is in office. If you care than vote if you don\'t care than don\'t vote. A lot of people have decided they care for various reasons none of them being that one candidate will crush empire. but millions around the world and in the US feel that Kerry would be better for them. They aren\'t fools for thinking so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:39 AM CST

Voting the bad guy out will state that even post 9-11 it\'s not o.k. to invade another country-even tho now Iraqis get to kill us back instead of suffering without any opportunity for revenge. I hope for chaos soon, I think that deadlock of repub-demo exec-legis (vice versa) is also better on a continuum than one party

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:59 AM CST

It seems to me that someone should have already articulated this, but apparently noone on this forum has: the problem is not so much with anarchists voting, as with them really beleiving that their vote somehow matters (as otherwise why would they waste their time?), and even worse is if they actively participate in electoral campaigns. The twenty minutes or so you spend going to the polls really is irrelevant. I certainly spend a lot more time than that engaged in non-revolutionary activity every day. The problem is that if you really truly beleive that voting for Kerry is a worthwhile thing to do, then your critique of the state and electoral politics is sorely lacking. As for those who participate in campaigns, you\'d be better off doing nothing, or better yet using your time and energy as an activist to take action that actually means something. Hell, even FNB style action is more radical than knocking doors for Yale educated rich scum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:58 AM CST

One of the big lies of lesser-evilism is that people\'s lives will be improved or \"saved\" if Bush is ousted. This is so obviously wrong that I don\'t understand why people argue this. As several writers have pointed out, Bush\'s crazy imperalism has united the world against him. If Kerry was President, he would do a better job of getting international support for American imperialism (like Clinton did in Yugolsavia). American imperialism backed by allies is not better for people than imperialism instigated by Bush and his cronies. This is the basic thing wrong with the Anybody But Bush movement and Democrats. The problem is not Bush or the Republicans. The problem is the American state, worldwide capitalism and imperialism, and all of the support citizens give to these leaders. You have to change this through direct action and revolution, not in campaigning for a war criminal like Kerry, or wasting your time voting. None of this builds a movement, other than a movement and money machine for the Democrats. The essay I was writing on the fallacies of the ABB movement was going to outline the many ways that the ABB movement has set back progressive politics and movement-building.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:37 AM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:13 AM CST

. For people who argue against ideology, Anarchy mag (and Green Anarchy) sure have a lot of rigid rules.

Mishap, these aren\'t rigid rules. See the Anarchist FAQ for a more extended explanation of why anarchists are opposed to voting. Anarchism does have some basic core beliefs, which evidently come as news to people who thought that anarchism was liberalism with black clothes. Asking anarchists to support voting is like asking an anti-capitalist to support revolution by shopping at Urban Outfitters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:01 PM CST

Last election about 101 million Americans voted out of 200 million (guesstimate on the total voting eligible population) How many anarchists are in America? Even counting liberal-esque revolutionaries there are only like 1 million of us. Will John Kerry solve many problems over George Bush? No. Is reinstating the roadless rule in the nation\'s forests worth 20 minutes of your time? For 20 minutes of your time I think the Tongass National Forest should be given a chance to survive. Please continue reading before I\'m demonized as a starbucks sipping, hot topic buying liberal blac blocker. (Or in maoist terms, a dirty western capitalist roader counterrevolutionary)

This article should instead focus on those who actively participate in party politics and campaigns rather than those who vote. Imagine if the AFL-CIO used its 100 million bucks in campaign contributions for strike funds, or for purchasing a workplace to be run democratically? If you believe in the sanctity in the right for an abortion, your money shouldn\'t goto John Kerry, but perhaps an women\'s health clinic that is actually aiding women instead of just offering the hope of preserving abortion rights. If you want to protect American jobs, don\'t contribute to John Kerry but pay your dues to the IWW. The question should be where do we get the biggest bang for our buck, and spending 20 minutes of one\'s time voting is worth the possible benefit of having a democrat in office as compared to a mouth breatrhing religious fanatic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:46 PM CST

remember: the democratic party belonged to the deep south (currently the republican base) until JFK\'s \'endorsement\' of the civil rights movement. so, to speak of democrats and republicans prior to 1960 without considering the changes in party demographics and political messages is to ignore the history of the parties.

i\'m not voting.
but that\'s because i\'m registered in a state in which the outcome is already determined, with reasonable certainty, for kerry. of course, this highlights yet another failure in the electoral system, in the notion that democracy can function as it should in a nation state occupying as vast and diverse regions as the united states. i don\'t have to vote because i live in a democrat state. god, what a sorry excuse for democracy!

the primary fault which i find among anarchists opposed to voting is that they tend to disregard the DETAILS. the details are important. it\'s not inconceivable to believe that a 2nd bush term would bring a draft, or an overthrow of roe versus wade, or more breaks for the rich. this type of shit matters in the daily lives of groups who are most severely fucked over by the ideological leanings of the current administration. it\'s no joke. any improvement, or even pause, could mean a lot to certain people. as radicals, we have a choice: will we settle for nothing if we can\'t have it all?
in my opinion, if you follow this logic, you are not acknowledging the reality of our times, of american society.

no, voting is not a solution.
but if kerry is elected, it will mean that bush, and more importantly, his administration will be swept away. sure, the institutional problems with capitalism and the state will remain. but, the opportunity to rid america and the world of the white houses\'s clear, neoconservative agenda is an enticing reason to vote for kerry. after all, we should look at history, particularly in times of crisis such as these, as being steered by the policies of powerful individuals...like paul wolfowitz, dick cheney, etc.- people who, since 9/11, have received the carte blanche to pursue what they\'ve been dreaming about for years: aggressive interventionism in strategic regions on behalf of free markets.
i\'m not saying that kerry would curb this trend; but i don\'t believe that he would appoint a cabinet which is as hell-bent on realizing it. the categories which we create: working class, ruling class, imperialists, all of this jargon means nothing if not for individuals, powerful individuals from which we can create such juxtapositions. hell, without cortez, what would have happened on the land which we now call mexico? an impossible question, of course, but a question which serves a purpose. powerful individuals have within them the power to transform the course of history. we\'re dealing with a situation like that right fucking now. it\'s berlusconi, putin, bush...it\'s been hitler, stalin, franco...let\'s not kid ourselves!

now, in a completely unrelated angle: accounts from some www forums of muslim extremists show that they are hoping for bush\'s reelection because it might encourage a greater backlash, or increased recruitment. my question: are any of you, presumably anarchists, hoping for bush\'s election under the premise that, if shit REALLY hits the fan, radical resistance will grow?
just a thought.

-an impure anarchist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:46 PM CST

Exactly. And I continue to wonder how anarchists, as supposedly interested in the plight and politics of the working class, should respond to the fact that many working-class individuals consider voting, in this election at least, important, even if they are completely clear on the fact that it is just a stop-gap measure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 01:49 PM CST

\"These folks you talk to also see the widespread support by African-Americans for the Democrats ad take that as a sign that the Democrats care about African-Americans.\"

How would this be different from false consciousness?

Most of the individuals I spoke with have few illusions about Kerry - he is \"a rich white man\" just like Bush. But similarly they were of the opinion that, for the African-American urban community, life would be significantly less shitty should Kerry get elected.

That is what interests me. Because now we are talking not about a naive view of the power of polls, but a purely tactical exercise.

And we, as we continue to declare, are in favor of a diversity of tactics. Right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:32 PM CST

ChuckO: I wasn\'t asking anarchists to support voting, I was asking for people to recognize that casting a vote doesn\'t mean you aren\'t an anarchist.
I don\'t support Safeway, but I bought a beer there a few weeeks ago. Sorry to be simplistic in my answer, but it seems pretty simple to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:01 PM CST

Diversity of tactics never included voting!

Unless you are a liberal. We anarchists and anti-capitalists rely on a range of tactics and voting sure ain\'t one of them!

Sigh. It\'s sad to see how downhill American radicalism has gone this year. It\'s like many of my comrades have taken some pills being distributed by the liberals. Hopefully it will wear off.

Next time, take the red pill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:11 PM CST

I have several words for those who think a Democrat in the white house is better than a republican:
World War I
World War II
Korea
Bay of Pigs
Santo Domingo
VIETNAM
Somalia
Balkans
IRAQ

ex-Yugoslavia

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:49 PM CST

I agree. We all have to live in a capitalist economy, so we have to shop at Safeway. However, we don\'t have to vote. Some anarchists vote for personal and political reasons, but my beef is with anarchists who argue that: a) voting is an anarchist activity; and b) that this or that excuse demands that we vote.

People shouldn\'t vote. Anarchists have no excuse to vote, since we advocate direct action and opposition to government.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 02:49 PM CST

Then tell me, Chuck, what anarchism is all about since I\'m apparently so misinformed. I thought it was about liberation from the state, capitalism and hierarchy, using any tactics deemed necessary and that don\'t contradict the initial principles.

You are advancing a pretty simplistic view of history if you really and truly believe that politicians have never helped the working class in anyway. Because that is simply blatantly untrue. Granted, most of the mechanisms were advantageous to politicians and were de jure recognition of what had already been won on the street de facto, but if you are going to say that the working class has never gained a thing through electoral politics, I\'m going to say right now that you are full of shit, and blinded by ideology. Does that mean electoral politics will make a revolution? Fuck no! Let\'s just make it clear, however, that many many many working class people see a difference between Kerry and Bush. You can call them deluded, falsely conscious, liberals, whatever vanguardist smear word you want to use, but it doesn\'t change the fact that this phenomena exists, and unless anarchists respond to it (and fuck I certainly didn\'t say encourage people to vote for Kerry, I just said take the opinion of working class people into account when developing strategy - is that liberal?)we will be seen as just another batch of crackpot street corner preachers.

I wan\'t to win - and ideological purity can be damned.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:01 PM CST

Once again, let me explain why your argument is wrong. You are makign Chomsky\'s argument, that there are significant differences between Kerry and Bush that justify voting for Kerry. I was going to write a long critique of why Chomksy was wrong in my series of articles on the ABB movement, but I put that on hold.

If you really want to make a difference in the daily details of people\'s live, you will dedicate yourself to radical politics which include radical theory and praxis (practice). Arguing that we should vote because Bush is more evil than Kerry means that you accept the propaganda being spewed by the liberals. Evidently many progressives and a few anarchists have been suckered by these arguments. The Democrats have to promote this nonsense to get support, because many people see that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. I posted several articles to the newswire today that expand on these fallacious arguments.

Let\'s take the example you cited. Roe vs. Wade is not going to be overturned any time soon. Even liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes admitted as much on Air America when she pointed out that Bush has not been a vocal anti-choice politician and that he understands that it would be political suicide if he took up the anti-choice banner. That takes care of that so-called difference between Kerry and Bush.

The draft? If Kerry gets elected, the young people you know will be drafted. American Empire needs fresh troops to display its power around the world. Kerry is a hawk and he understands that a Democrat would find it easier to implement a draft instead of a conservative. Just like Clinton invaded Yugoslavia with the support of Europe and most of the American Left. Imperialism is always easier to practice under Democratic presidents. Watch all the liberals line up behind Kerry once he starts a war.

The devil is in the details and the details argue that Bush and Kerry are the same side of the same coin. Poor people in the United States and around the world will see no diferences in their lives because of which of these guys gets elected president. Real social change is accomplished by us, not through the ballot box.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:08 PM CST

Chuck, I\'m not talking about anarchists voting, I\'m not encouraging anarchists or anyone else for that matter to vote. I don\'t give a damn, to me its yr own business. I don\'t think voting is inherently anything - its just a ritual process that happens every 4 years.

However, to make my point a final time, one that no one has addressed, it what do we do when some of the most oppressed layers of society *honestly thinks* that voting is in their interest, and they *do think* that there is a difference between the candidates, even if they *are aware* that things won\'t change much?

And further, how is the anarchist confidence that voting is a waste of time a function of the fact that the movement is mostly white, male and of middle class origins? Cuz I\'d guess my position might change if I was one of the young African-American women who live down the street from me.

Do we dismiss this as false consciousness? Are they deluded? Or is this a legitimate political position? How do we respond?

Castiage them for their ignorance?

I\'m talking effective politics and propaganda here, not intellectual or ideological purity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:20 PM CST

so it boils down to, is participating in an electoral system the same as support for it? on a results-based assessment it is, because the party/candidate that wins can point to the number of votes it received and make a case for its mandate. And the system itself is justified with every person that participates. If those 1 million anarchists/quasi-anarchists did decide to vote, then apologists for the system could rightly say that the system is 1 million votes more credible.

i am leery of, as Chuck0 says, making not-voting a litmus test to separate the \"true\" or \"real\" anarchists from the \"fake\" anarchists. what is the point of talking about building a movement, only to encourage infighting, accusation and black-balling within that same movement? if some people operate tactically and pragmatically rather than theoretically, that is their perogative. i can see how, on the grassroots level, voting can make some change.

one thing for people to keep in mind is that they shouldn\'t stop with voting, they should start with it. or as thoreau says: \"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:20 PM CST

as a woman i hate it when i am told by reformist men how we will lose the right to chose. As you pointed out bush hasnt really done anything. Second of all and most importantly i am pro choice because i want autonomy over my own god damn body.things like plan colombia and NAFTA, the war in iraq rob women in other parts of the world of their autonomy. Liberals go on about how they dont want the govt to occupy wombs but they certainly have no problem with the us occcupation of iraq or us funded occupation of palestine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:22 PM CST

Some details:
I\'m a 52 year old Spaniard who has been always a pure anarchist till March04 when we voted Aznar out of office. I was planning going to vote well before the train bombing and, as me, many other old pure anarchist. We understood we were living under an emergency situation.

So, we all lost our virginity. Some details of what we got instead:
* Troops back from Iraq in less than one month, fullfilling a long time Zapatero\'s pledge
* Gay marriage Bill approved (also adoption)
* Pharaonic Aznar plan for water privatization with dramatic environmental impact kaput
* Steem cells Law passed
and so on
Am I better off without Aznar, yes or not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:28 PM CST

can you believe any of the propaganda that either candidate is saying, now that the race is in hyperdrive towards the election and the center?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 03:33 PM CST

None of the people here that are in support of voting have given examples how Kerry is even a little bit better than Bush. How will Kerry being elected improve \'working class\' peoples daily lives even in a minute sense? To me it seems like a big joke for anyone to claim that this could be the case. Its quite obvious that elections, in particularily the presidential election is the most well orchestrated game of manipulation that exists. How can anyone know what they are voting for??? Its an illusion to think you could possibly know. If the so called \'working class\' also maintains this illusion, it doesnt make things any different. Why should we vote because some african americans say there lives will be better because of it? People say many things. Being people of color doesnt give their opinions any more validity. As if they arent just as confused as us. I think onlly when *the hope* that things could possibly get better through elections (at least the presidential elections) is completely gone...only then can people begin to really start to changes their lives in a realistic sense through their own efforts. If we are serious about getting rid of this system, then this is the only way.

Again, how can one know what one is voting for??? Do you really believe the papers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:04 PM CST

Make up your mind. What is your point? I don\'t see one. You\'ve insulted anarchists by misrepresenting our demographics. You displayed your ignorance of Anarchism 101 by saying that our core beliefs are \"idological purity.\"

Why do working people support voting? Why do they stand for the pledge of allegiance? Because they\'ve been socialized and indoctrinated. They live in that paradigm. Do we want to change that paradigm? Before we go off and challenge people to think differently, we had better do some thinking ourselves and understand the basics of what we are advocating.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:06 PM CST

Have fun being a social democrat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:12 PM CST

I am leery about making voting some kind of litmus test for who is an anarchist or not. I may sound that way this week, but understand my anger as an anarchist of twenty years who suddenly sees his movement of comrades suddenly jumping on the liberal bandwagon. I\'ve said numerous times that anarchist who vote for personal reasons don\'t bother me, but I\'ve had it up to hear with anarchists who publicly rationalize their participation in a process that even half of Americans reject! I\'m also leery of working with anarchists in the future who don\'t understand the basics of anarchism, or twist the meaning of anarchism so they can fit in better with their leftist friends.

I\'ve engaged in anti-voting campaigns every four years for over a decade. Anti-voting is not a big issue for me, but it IS an issue where *anarchists* can talk to the general public about how we differ and what our vision is. If we are just going to run to the polls everytime the Democrats scare us into doing that, then we show everybody that anarchism is really not an alternative to liberalism. Some of us will still argue that certain topics warrant our participation in the process, but really guys, you vote doesn\'t make a difference. Your abstention from an election is not going to change anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:36 PM CST

To ChuckO,

Your response to the anarchist from Spain is so obnoxious you should consider never writing again. Apparently you consider lableing him a social democrat a sufficient answer to what he wrote. Have fun labeling people and avoiding talking about issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 04:50 PM CST

Why is it obnoxious? The guy posted on an anarchist website that he is proud to have lost his political virginity by voting for some Spanish social democrat. If the guy is so excited about this reformist action, then he is a social democrat.

Look folks, if you really don\'t understand anarchism, then start reading here:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

I\'m tired of rehashing arguments for people who are too intellectually lazy to understand the difference between anarchism and representative democracy. Jesus fucking christ, if you have to vote, at least vote for Ralph Nader or Leonard Peltier or your mom!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:07 PM CST

So it is false consciousness then. Just wanted a clarification. I wanted affirmation and I got it. I think this is a dangerous way to think. I think it leads to vanguardism, elitism or both. Vanguardism is the enemy of anarchism. Elitism is the enemy of anarchism. I want to figure out a way to reach oppressed peoples that takes them seriously, that doesn\'t just dismiss their opinions and beliefs (no matter how much I may object to them) as flat wrong but as refraction of some truth. Or even a strategy. This is what I am interested in. This isn\'t to say oppressed people are always right, or that hegemony and socialization doesn\'t exist. I just want to make sure we don\'t slip into the comfortable delusion that oppressed people are clueless.

Don\'t put words in my mouth Chuck. I don\'t think anarchism\'s core beliefs are ideological purity. But I do honestly believe that there are some who are more interested in purity of theory than they are in making a revolution.

My demographics come from your survey, combined with personal experience.

I\'m not misrepresenting anyone; I\'m asking questions. Are questions bad? Is asking the question, what does voting mean to some people, with out immediately starting from the a priori assumption that voting is always delusional, un-anarchist? If so that sucks, cuz I thought we were into free creative thinking and inquiry.

Is stating that a lot of anarchists haven\'t really thought out why they oppose voting misrepresentation? Can\'t we turn that around on you and say that there are many who have thought it through and decided to vote for reasons that seem reasonable to themselves? Aren\'t you misrepresenting them when you dismiss them as liberals or \'part-time anarchists?\' Is there no room for difference of opinion? Or just on this issue? Are these people apostates, idiots, liberals or traitors?

If you don\'t think that there are a lot of anarchists submerged in ideology - be it leftist, workerist, green, primitivist, what have you - then you are deluding yourself.

I understand anarchism 101; and I was under the impression that the discussions that have been going on in many places, say, Anarchy journal, were about questioning many of the musty premises that went into making up anarchism 101. Like the premise that the proletariat was the only subject of revolution. Or that we were just going to toss out the bosses and take over the factories for ourselves without altering the means of production. Or that science and reason are unmitigated positives, that technology was our friend. Etc etc.

I want to have an honest and open discussion here. Declaring some subjects off limits ruins that discussion. Am I saying anarchism should be whatever anyone decides it is? Hell no, that\'s postmodern inanity. I just want to know how to spread our ideas in the most effective and intellectually honest manner. I don\'t want anarchism to become another vanguardist-type sect. I don\'t really think it will, but there is always that danger when people convince themselves that the masses are deluded and that only they see clearly.

If that makes me a liberal (now officially the most meaningless word in the English language, shortly after revolution), whatever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:11 PM CST

However, in the U.S., we have two (so-called) \"electable\" candidates who would do none of the above - with the exception of stem cell research where they have taken incredible vague (non-)positions.

Both candidates:

Fully support the war in Iraq. The so-called \"anti-war\" candidate wants 50,000 more troops in Iraq than Bush.

Oppose gay marriage

Support the WTO, NAFTA, and the U.S. Patriot Act

.................................................

I happen to be an anarchist who votes, but I withhold a vote for any candidate who supports the war, the U.S. Patriot Act, WTO, and NAFTA. This means I vote for third party for President, the Senate, and State Elections (Governor, Secretary, Treasurer), for DeFazio (D) for U.S. Rep. (although he did support the war in Afghanistan and he supported the D version of the Healthy Forest Initiative ), and I vote for ballot initiatives such as expanding medical marijuana and protected forests, while opposing funding for police.

On the other hand, I voted for a D mayor candidate last election that I now seriously regret. I voted for her because she was an unknown and would likely oppose the expansion of Walmart. However, she has suddenly taken on expanding the police budget and has always blindly supported expanding student slave labor.

Voting is not an anarchist activity, nor is it worthy of any significant organizing energy. It certainly is not effective enough of a tactic to waste our energy campaigning.

I am totally astonished that any self-defined anarchist or libertarian socialist would vote for Kerry. Who are these people? Really, who are they? Chomsky publicly has denied supporting Kerry. I am unsure of Zinn\'s response. Otherwise, most of the so-called \"progressive\" intelligencia who support Kerry are the same \"progressives\" that called the Black Bloc street thugs without political motivation - people like Global Exchange\'s Medea Benjamin - people we were already aware of where their allegiances really stood.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:12 PM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:33 PM CST

Are any of you, presumably anarchists, hoping for bush\'s election under the premise that, if shit REALLY hits the fan, radical resistance will grow?

I think for us, the opposite is true. If a Democrat is in power and things are still fucked up, it forces people to look at the root of the problem. When a Republican is power, everyone begins to believe that the other party will solve all of the problems, which is the situation we\'re in now. Yeah, more people are at the protests, but they\'re basically protesting against a handful of guys, and most are in support of another. That\'s basically taking a huge step back from where american activism was four years ago. If Kerry wins, don\'t be surprised the protest numbers will drop dramatically, but at least those involved will be moving back to addressing the roots of the problem.

I think the only way to expect a revolution based on having a Republican in power is if the economy really goes to hell and/or they begin being extremely oppressive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:14 PM CST

Chuck0 has detailed his position several times in this thread and there are several articles previous to this one that back his position. I hate that Columbus has equated anti-electorialism as a form of post-left anarcho-purism and Chuck0 rightly equates anti-electorialism with a 101 on anarchy. Its always a pure position to be critical, but it\'s somehow a normal position to vote.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:40 PM CST

comeon that was not pro-Kerry trollbait.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 05:55 PM CST

The whole \"straw man\" metaphor seems apt here. I don\'t think ANYone believes that voting is going to really change the world. And I don\'t think ANYone is saying anarchists must vote for kerry. bullshit! I don\'t give a rat\'s ass whether you vote or not. That\'s YOUR decision. I\'m voting and if that means I\'m not a bonafide anarchist, whatever. Take away my card and pledgebook. Oops. Don\'t have any. Maybe I\'ll start wearing a scarlet \"V\". That way you\'ll know to steer clear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:23 PM CST

\"Have fun being a social democrat.\" Quite dogmatic if you ask me. You haven\'t provided any counter to why electing Anzar in Spain proved better for the working class than a neoconservative loony. He wasn\'t advocating holding bakesales for anzar or wasting union funds for him, just spending 20 minutes that would probably otherwise been used either arguing on infoshop or listening to crass.

There are differences in the domestic policies of Kerry v. Bush, primarily on the environment. Kerry recieved an A from the League of Conservation Voters whereas Bush wants to basically bring about ecological armegeddon by next july. From my experience as an Earth Firster is seems that we are constantly waging battles simply to survive, we aren\'t gaining ground. I believe rather firmly that if Kerry were elected that environmental activism would have a much greater impact in the public sphere because we wouldn\'t be attacked on every front by such an aggressive pro-industry executive branch, instead of going on the defensive we would be going on the offensive. This isn\'t a call to redirect jail solidarity funds to kerry\'s campaign, but perhaps its time to stop cosntantly posting rants asking people to boycott elections just because its the \"anarchist thing to do during elections\". You are wasting your time. The Don\'t Just Vote campaign has a much better message and is much better recepted by myself and people I know who actually have a political opinion(as compared to the 50% of america who annually doesn\'t vote becasue they are too busy chasing after more consumer goods) because that campaign doesn\'t neglect the fact that while voting might change a few things, it will never substitute for direct action and radical critiques.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 06:25 PM CST

I think I can sort of make out the nonsense you\'re advocating in spite of your clumsiness with the written word. Let\'s be clear here: Kerry does not believe that the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan was wrong, or if he does he sure as hell hasn\'t said it. In fact, he\'s said exactly the opposite on a great number of occasions. So what is this \"Voting the bad guy out will state that even post 9-11 it\'s not o.k. to invade another country\" statement all about? Looks like wishful thinking to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:52 PM CST

Well on one hand you hqve a candidate who has consistently denied the very existence of global warming to one that at least acknowledges the problem and would most likely bow to pressure from his party to bring America to parity with the global minimums (kyoto protocol). Bush suspended all new proposed forest regulations and told all federal agencies to cease creating new regulations. He then announced the \"Healthy Forests Intiative\" which allowed \"thinning\" of forests, and then he is currently working on revoking the roadless forest rule. Species like the lynx have been excluded from the ESA and could face extinction in our lifetimes. Plans for mercury scrubbers on coal plants have been scrapped and progress for clean energy has stalled and is now being diverted to nuclear energy. These regulations are part of the mainstream establishment politic, but Bush is even on the lunatic fringe with the political establishment. bush wants to completely dismantle the Social Security Adminsitration whereas Kerry will at least keep it from bursting at the seams, and right now there is no anarchist/libertarian alternative to this government run program for seniors. Are we just going to leave millions of seniors out to dry while we create alternatives? It isn\'t a question of whether electoral tactics will achieve libertarian alternatives to the establishment(they won\'t that is why we are anarchists and are fighting for libertarian alternatives to public schooling, healthcare, labor negotiation etc) but if merely casting a ballot will give us more time to create these alternatives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 07:19 PM CST

here are differences in the domestic policies of Kerry v. Bush, primarily on the environment. Kerry recieved an A from the League of Conservation Voters whereas Bush wants to basically bring about ecological armegeddon by next july. From my experience as an Earth Firster is seems that we are constantly waging battles simply to survive, we aren\'t gaining ground.

No wonder you aren\'t gaining any ground! If you base your politics on a liberal pro-corporate organization (the League of Conservation Voters), then I\'m not surprised that you aren\'t gainng any ground. Earth First is a radical, direct action response to liberal Beltway environmental organizations. The day Earth First asks people to vote is the day that Earth First becomes another failed environmental organization. Bush is just as bad for the environment as Clinton. Both parties are pro-corporate assholes who are bad for the environment. But if you are arguing for voting with these reasons, your criticism of anarchists who don\'t vote is just mere liberal reaction.

as compared to the 50% of america who annually doesn\'t vote becasue they are too busy chasing after more consumer goods

You don\'t know why Americans don\'t vote do you? Most Americans don\'t vote because \"see no difference between the two major parties.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:18 PM CST

Voting cannot make a difference unless the voter thinks with the majority. We KNOW that what is right for the majority is not right for everyone. Whether the issue to be voted on is right or wrong (in our anarchist opinion) it goes against our principles in the sense that we are (through law and elections) imposing our beliefs upon others that happen to be in the minority (usually us anyway so why vote unless it is for personal reasons?).

Im not saying that if you vote you cant be an anarchist, there are no rules. A social revolution doesnt look like it can happen soon but when it does come we will need all the support and understanding that we can get from general society. This cant happen if we separate ourselves from issues that people care about, but there are other ways to do this besides voting. We are slaves to the majority in the current system.

When the time is right for revolution it wont come from the small group of anarchists that exist in this country (US). It will most likely be brought on by the current system failing. It is our job to educate the public about our beliefs now so we arent seen as bomb throwing nut-jobs when society needs us most. Educating the public is the most important issue, not the issues in the ballot box.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 08:27 PM CST

Why does everyone ignore local elections???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 09:15 PM CST

Hey look, I think we need to cut this nonsense about dogmatically approaching voting.

It\'s not an all or nothing scenario. If an anarchist feels that s/he needs to make a decision for voting, than s/he should be able to without fear of being labelled outside of all anarchism.

It\'s particularly vexing because we\'re losing sight of the value of anti-voting traditions--pointing OUT the corruption of the system and the uselessness of our one tool. But being against the impotence of voting is about the SYSTEMIC role of voting. The individual vote or non-vote of a person makes no difference. Conflating what is ultimately a personal choice with the larger system misses the point.

Moreover, we\'re missing opportunities. If we refuse to even engage the electoral system (don\'t confuse this with ENDORSING the electoral system) we run the risk of being entirely irrelevant to a great swath of people at a potential rupture in history--what IF we get into situations over and over again that disenfranchise people like 2000? Just ignoring the attacks on people of colour is going to leave us out in the cold.

Moreover, there are some pragmatic reasons for why someone might vote. An easy example--it is definite that if elected Kerry would place the control of the National Labour Relations Board into the hands of Democrats. From there, it is possible (and in fact likely) that this new NRLB won\'t do what the Bush-controlled NRLB did this past summer--make a ruling that denies graduate students the right to form unions.

That kind of thing matters to people--and while I\'m not calling for people to vote, we need to understand what voting entails and figure out how our radical critique can fit in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:15 PM CST

on the national level, there\'s no difference, policy-wise, between bush and kerry, on any significant issue. Any differences arise from appeals to traditional constituencies of the Democratic and Republican parties and are insubstantial, and will be ignored after the election. If Kerry is elected, his people will move back into government jobs from the think-tanks where they have been parked for the last four years. Bush\'s people will park themselves in think-tanks and write papers. Kerry\'s faction in the Council on Foreign Relations will have (temporary) ascendancy over the Bush/Cheney faction. Both are part of the Eastern Neoliberal/Neoconservative Establishment, none of them have anything to do with people who have less than (say) $100 million in assets. People with less money show up as bit players to be discarded at will, after use, like yesterday\'s papers - they\'re off the radar screen, and always have been. If you can\'t spend $10,000 without batting an eyelash, you have no part in American politics. You can pretend all you want to, vote, support candidates, give them your $500 pittances of campaign contributions, and pledge allegiance until you choke out your last breath, but you\'re not part of the game, and won\'t ever be, as long as the game keeps being played.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:21 PM CST

hahahahaha!! kerry an environmentalist?!?!?!? then why has he supported NAFTA,WTO,and bush\'s fast track for the FTAA ?!?!? since you seem to be a nice little liberal let me send you to a nice little liberal site that tells you how bad globalization is for the environment http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/FTAAWTOEnvironment.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 10:25 PM CST

I am voting for David Cobb, a member of the Green Party. Screw the two party system. Vote for a third party. True, voting does not do a whole lot, but it takes a few minutes to vote third party. I think it\'s worth it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:14 PM CST

I\'m not going to vote in this election, but if I were I would almost certainly vote for one of the candidates who will win. I sympathize with the \"practical anarchist\" position, recognizing that voting can create at least superficial changes. That said, if you are an anarchist and are bothering to vote, why truly waste your vote on a third party candidate who cannot win? Isn\'t it more \"practical\" in this sense to vote for the \"lesser of two evils\"? (And I\'m not convinced that Kerry is the lesser, which is *part* of the reason I\'m not voting at all.)

I agree with Chuck0 above, that elections can provide a space for spreading anarchist propaganda. It\'s a chance to engage people and explain what\'s wrong with voting, and to present anarchist alternatives to our current capitalist-democratic monstrosity. But the ongoing vote-don\'t vote among radicals seems like a massive waste of time and a source of bitter divisiveness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:15 PM CST

Hey all my anarchist sisters and brothers, after we vote for Kerry, since democrats truly represent the poor, and don\'t make free trade policies, we should form a party of professional revolutionaries and go seize state power...who cares about abolishing capitalism and hierarchy! Anybody but Bush, right? Might as well say \"Fuck the revolution\", let\'s vote Bob Avakian to save us from the evil republicans! C\'mon, we all know anarchism can come through voting!

Damn this movement isn\'t going to get anywhere like this.

Vote ASSASSINATION In 2004!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:19 PM CST

while i personally am voting for the toxic avenger, this is only because i find this to be more amusing than my school work. if you plan on voting in order to change the world please dont. look people, i dont even consider myself to truely be an anarchist and i am not voting for that rich scumbag kerry. sorry if i seem mad, i probably am.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:20 PM CST

p.s. quit making chuck explain himself

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 12:44 AM CST

Don\'t ask - don\'t tell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:34 PM CST

I agree exactly with what mr Guy wrote, and am in a similar situation, peoepl dont understand that THE PRESIDENT ISNT THE ONLY THING YOU VOTE FOR TOMMOROW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:38 PM CST

Pannekok05 is saying what id been saying, i agree

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:44 PM CST

On a related note, what does everyone think of Eminem\'s new video Mosh? Produced by the Guerrilla News Network, it climaxes with an appeal to vote, but includes a lot of anarchist imagery, specifically a black bloc marching and fighting riot police. Its confrontational message targets both Bush and Kerry and seems rooted in class-based as well as generational politics. I obviously don\'t support its immediate message--that voting can ultimately serve our interests--but some of its other content is quite agreeable. With vote suppression having already begun, even part of its electoral message--that we should fight in the streets, if need be, to defend our right to vote--might not be entirely counterproductive. At any rate, it\'s definitely worth a view, for artistic reasons if no others.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:49 PM CST

because THE PRESIDENT ISNT THE ONLY THING ON THE BALLOT GODDAMMIT

why cant peopel understand this!?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 01 2004 @ 11:58 PM CST

*applause*

excactly, its so wierd peoeple act like theres only two people on the ballot total!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 01:21 AM CST

It\'s an aweful video. It\'s so fucking crazy and confusing and advocates voting and following Eminem as he shows you the light. You see a huge cross-section of the marginalized in our country, from the black man being harassed by the pigs, to the soldier being re-deployed to a single mom being evicted, suiting up and taking to the streets. They are thousands strong, and angry as hell, and they follow Eminem ashe takes off his black hoodie to reveal a corporate whore suit and vote? Ack!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 01:53 AM CST

There are differences between the domestic policies of the various politicians. The growing power of the religious right and super anti-labor appointments are why I will take the 10 minutes to go down and vote against the most offensive of the politicians. Also there is an anti-gay proposal on the ballot that if it passes will outlaw domestic partner benefits. These may be small differences but frankly they mean a lot to all of the working people I talk to every day. Elections will not solve anything but a Democratic adminstration may slow the pace of the ruling class attack on my class. I can not claim that by not voting my Brothers and Sisters will be making a powerful statement and taking a revolutionary step because it would be a lie. There is no point to argue that they should or should not vote because frankly our movement is weak in the US at this time in history. The reforms the capitalists made as the result of revolutionary action by working people are being rolled back because we have little to no power at the present time. If we want to have real power and a real revolution we have to organize ourselves and our class to fight back. When we have done this work and we have real power then there will be a reason to call for absetism from the elections because we will be ready to take the system head on.

I AM AN ANARCHIST! Don\'t let anyone tell you otherwise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 01:55 AM CST

chuck O may take away your anarchy card

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:05 AM CST

Most poor people and people of color don\'t vote, so your ramblings are merely theoretical. Liberals represent themselves as standing for them, but are unable to get the majority to vote for the democrats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:15 AM CST

\"Troops back from Iraq in less than one month, fullfilling a long time Zapatero\'s pledge\"

They were actually transfered to Afghanistan. This is effectively the same as putting them in Iraq, because it means the US doesn\'t need as many in Afghanistan and can transfer them to Iraq.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:22 AM CST

Because local governments are even more the whores of big business than the federal government. If the local gov\'t doesn\'t do exactly what the corporate elite wants they just move next door. Their economy collapses while the pro-corporate government\'s economy is healthy. Result: anti-corporate politicians change position or get voted out. This is true on a national level too, but moving internationally is a little harder due to greater distances, more paperwork, the occasional leftover tarrif, etc. As a result state governments are even more business dominated than the federal government.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

None of the pro-voting comments here address the basic anarchist critique of electoralism, focusing on things like capital flight & the like. It\'s all just liberal BS about how Kerry is better than Bush (BS that contradicts Kerry\'s own statements). See my \"Elections Are A Scam\" for an explanation of this standard anarchist critique. Anyone serious about defending electoralism from anarchists will need to critique this theory, but I have never seen any kind of decent critique of it. Most of these pro-voting \"anarchists\" don\'t understand their own theory.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 02:56 AM CST

Why does everyone have to cling to the definition of anarchy. The person who responded to my anger at ChuckO for basically telling off a social democrat told me to read Anarchism 101. So I looked at it and I saw Bakunin\'s quote that said

\"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.\" [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

I guess I want to know how you have decided that those voting or voicing their opinion within an existent (and obviously horrific, capitalist, imperialist etc.) system is against anarchist goals. Some people believe in non-reformist reforms, in other words, reforms that can help create room for radical change. I don\'t think Kerry is that neccesarily but we shouldn\'t ignore the possibility that short-term change can help make revolutionary change. For instance we should fight for laws that do not prohibit dissent so that dissent can be spread and expanded upon. There is not a large base that has a radical critique whether socialist or anarchist or whatever. There is a lot of skepticism and cynicism and we should fight for small changes that provide people with more freedom to organize and then organize more while at the same time forwarding a long term vision of anarchism.

I just don\'t understand why \"anarchism\" is a word that people cling to when Bakunin\'s definition above clearly makes it clear that it is not so rigid. It is finding how to create equality with freedom. Equality and Freedom not one or the other. It is more complex than many would like to admit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 05:53 AM CST

Personally, I think the whole debate above just goes to show that there are a lot of liberal folk out there who feel they want to be more radical, but don\'t want to call themselves socialists or communists like they would have a few years ago.

The anarchist label gets adopted by an awful lot of people who want to describe themselves as \'very radical\' but don\'t want to be associated with what is perceived as a failed ideology, since the fall of the USSR empire.

Chuck says that he doesn\'t have a problem with people who want to vote for their own reasons, just people who want to tell other people that, as anarchists, they should vote. It\'s beyond me how anyone coud object to Chuck\'s position on this, if they\'ve decided to call themselves anarchists.

The label of \'anarchist\' gets bandied about these days, in a very similar way to how the label \'communist\' got used in the post war McCarthy era. There are a lot of \'fellow travellers\' who have a lot in common with anarchist ideals, but with fundamental differences, like that voting isn\'t pointless.

When Bakunin wrote about \'Socialism\', the term hadn\'t ossified into something which implied a particular party running a state- it meant giving a shit about other people and behaving accordingly.

Voting for slightly less repressive regimes is like expecting trickle dowm economics to work- change does not come by begging for it, but by making the management of a repressive regime untenable. Like we say over here about the Labour party- a \'liberal\' government just means bigger cages and longer chains.

Which,in the short term, is nice- you get to stretch your legs a bit- but you\'re still in a fucking cage. Do you want to vote for the kind of cage you live in, or try to see what its like outside?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 07:41 AM CST

2 things:

1. what are the heck are you folks going to do today?

i don\'t live in your country, so i\'ll just watch the comedy show called \'election coverage\'.

why don\'t you folks print up some propaganda (anti-war, anti-globalization, anarchist, feminist, anti-racist) and hand it out to the thousands of people heading to the polls.

forget about infoshop for today and go discuss with folks how sick the US state is, why you\'re refusing to vote, how Kerry and Bush are the same, etc.

2. the political point that the US left should have made during the election campaign is that Kerry and Bush are the same, that neither of them will change policy course, that american democracy is a joke and that state policy is set by the exigencies of neoliberalism and US imperialism.

the US left should have worked to deepen and extend the anger and distance that US citizens have towards the state. instead, the US left appears to have tried to recuperate anger within the system, to integrate people into the bullshit structures of american capitalist democracy.

there was huge opportunity to deepen the ruptures that exist within the US. the Anyone But Bush campaign ignored them. and kerry is pro-war and pro-occupation. anyone who votes for him should not be considered a leftist/a radical. voting for kerry is the moral equivalent of the german social democratic party voting for war credits before world war 1.

where are the rosa luxemburg\'s in today\'s US left?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 08:52 AM CST

the political point that the US left should have made during the election campaign is that Kerry and Bush are the same, that neither of them will change policy course, that american democracy is a joke and that state policy is set by the exigencies of neoliberalism and US imperialism.

Careful, some of us yanks don\'t know that neo-liberalism is the same as Reaganism.

Seriously, I think your point gets to the crux of the matter. People in the U.S. have let themselves get so wrapped up in the dog and pony show of the election they\'re forgeting that they have a voice outside of voting. Which is, of course, why the elites want us to vote. Still here in the states we have some nifty weapons available to us should we choose to use them.

the US left should have worked to deepen and extend the anger and distance that US citizens have towards the state. instead, the US left appears to have tried to recuperate anger within the system, to integrate people into the bullshit structures of american capitalist democracy.

and to be fair Bush is pretty scary. That worked in the democrats favor this time arround. Bush is such an ogre that Keery seems better (all eveidence to the contrary not withstanding) It seems lost on our \"allies\" that Kerry isn\'t going to remove things like the Patriot Act, but hey, all that anger got channeled in an ineffective exercise of political masturbation. Thats good right?

there was huge opportunity to deepen the ruptures that exist within the US. the Anyone But Bush campaign ignored them.

It\'s not just the Anybody but Bush campaign, but the radical opposition in the States as a whole. We\'re going to have a lot to answer for when this is said and done. All of us. We blew it big time.

There is still a chance though. The election recounts are probably going to be really messy. I won\'t commit sedition by suggesting to folks just what we should do should things go to shit post election, but we\'re a bright bunch. I\'m shure there are some good ideas floating arround.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 09:14 AM CST

voting for presidency seems pretty dumb to me, but I respect that some people have different opinions about it. Voting on local issues isn\'t really particularly anarchist either, but it doesn\'t go against my anarchist principles [and I am nothing if not an anarchist.]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that chuck0 is referring people to a set of rules about anarchism that he presumably wrote himself?

There are a lot of people who seem to have valid reasons why they might want one person instead of the other for president or congressperson or whatever. Liberal anarchists, fake anarchists, whatever, might be people who put their organizing efforts into supporting government. But if voting doesn\'t really matter... then can we agree that voting doesn\'t really matter?
I don\'t buy it that somehow not voting is \'refusing\'. Refusing is voting with fuckin rocks.

As another thing, someone claiming that its okay to shop at safeway but not okay to vote is fairly confused. As anyone with an understanding of our system knows, money votes every day, people vote every two years. How you spend what money you have directly influences the government in far more serious ways then whether or not you vote.

no gods, no masters, no sacred texts

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 09:51 AM CST

I suspect that the \"Come along, follow me as I lead through the darkness\" chorus actually parodies Bush, although I can\'t be positive. Some of Eminem\'s other songs indicate that he has a much more realistic view of himself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 10:00 AM CST

>the US left should have worked to deepen and extend the anger and distance that US citizens have towards the state.

Why would the \'left\' undermine something they believe in and want to capture for themselves? The fact that people still view the state (and representative politics) as a \'benign institution\' must be the BIGGEST PROPAGANDA ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL TIME! For the giant mass of humanity to wake up and realise that it is all a giant scam would be the greatest achievement in the history of \'civilization\'!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 10:27 AM CST

No one is arguing that we can vote in a revolution. Don\'t put words in peoples mouths.

I at least am arguing that we can\'t reject voting a priori because its ignorant and doesn\'t gell with principles of free and open critical thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 10:34 AM CST

So being concerned about how anarchists represent themselves and the kind of claims they make - especially as regards peoples of color and working class populations - is theoretical rambling?

Shit dude, I think its pretty fuckin important even you don\'t.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 12:41 PM CST

I do agree with this article in many ways. I know that voting doesn\'t change anything, but it is a right taht we have. SOon it will be taken away. If you don\'t vote then people should be out tellign people why they shouldnt\' vote and not sit on the computer talking to poeple who already agree with them. I just want people to be active and not just bitch taht people are voting. Do something productive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 01:30 PM CST

\"I know that voting doesn\'t change anything, but it is a right that we have. Soon it will be taken away.\"

Government as parent, taking away a toy from a recalcitrant child? Where the child has no power whatsoever in making important decisions about his/her life, where the choice to be made is entirely predetermined by the parent?

Good analogy, you\'ve benefitted greatly from your public schooling. Most people have figured this out, it\'s just that all initiative to go out and actually do anything has been thoroughly beaten out of them by the time they reach third grade, and most are content to let authority dictate reality to them, rather than experience it for themselves. This continues in their adult years, with the boss or supervisor dictate reality to them while they are at work, the TV taking over for the rest of their waking hours, with the exception of a couple of hours on Sunday or Saturday, during which their reality is dictated to them by the Church (making great pretense of taking the place of God). Most people never directly experience any sort of unmediated reality, untainted by the inner conversation arising from the steady diet of conflict fed to us by the various authority figures in our lives, from teachers to bosses to TV to preachers. Only when you can shut off the TV, the preacher, and the boss will you be able to start thinking for yourself, and get your friends to do the same.

The crimethinc people put out a flyer telling people to \"Don\'t just vote\" - check it out - www.crimethinc.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 03:17 PM CST

because the basic principle is Absence of any form of political authority (websters)
why even the goddamn word ananrchy means WITHOUT RULER that means witohut a democrat as a ruler that means without a socialist ruler without a republican ruler. anarchy is about autonomy how the hell can you be an anarchist and vote for some one to rule over you and legitimize hierarchy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 03:45 PM CST

\"Is anyone else bothered by the fact that chuck0 is referring people to a set of rules about anarchism that he presumably wrote himself?\"

He didn\'t. They were written by anarchist movements over a hundred years ago based on practical experience. Events since then have more than confirmed their analysis, which is why all these pro-voting \"anarchists\" are so clueless.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 03:47 PM CST

No, this question:

\"However, to make my point a final time, one that no one has addressed, it what do we do when some of the most oppressed layers of society *honestly thinks* that voting is in their interest, and they *do think* that there is a difference between the candidates, even if they *are aware* that things won\'t change much?\"

Is theoretical rambling. Most of those people don\'t vote so your question can only be asked in a theoretical sense: what would we say to them if we *didn\'t* agree with them on this issue. In reality most of them don\'t vote and so we agree with them on this issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 04:25 PM CST

recently i was asked to mc a \"vote-a-pallooza\" event to \"get out the vote\"...serious, that\'s what it was called, and i accepted. why?

honestly, to make fun of it. i said things like, \"some people say if voting changed anything they\'d make it illegal...well, it\'s not illegal, so go vote!\" or plagiarized jokes like \"giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys, or was that giving whiskey and car keys to politicians? either way, i\'m drinking whiskey right now in this coffee cup. cheers.\"

no one got the jokes, oh well. the dvd player meant to show fahrenheit 9/11 was sabotaged with porn just as the democratic bigwigs entered the room (think Tyler Durden) and i got paid $50 for introducing lame bands. and wasted to boot. do i feel less of an anarchist now for having hosted a vote-a-pallooza? no. i never took it seriously. (course, with a name like that...)

my point is that if we understand that there is almost no concrete structural difference between a republican and a democrat in office, the state being what it is, then whether or not someone votes is just as irrellevant as the supposed choice...we need to concern ourselves less with how people vote or whether they do or don\'t. we need to focus seriously on what we\'re doing elsewhere.

i tire of these anarchist debate clubs putting so much weight on issues that are ultimately just small talk anyway. alas, i would throw my empty bottle of whisky at something but it\'s made of plastic, being of the cheap Canadian type.

aloha from dirty jerse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 05:07 PM CST

The people I had spoken to all planned to vote.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 05:19 PM CST

analyze your privilige before you talk about why someone should or should not vote...

in the sadly dominant white male anarcho world I dont see how folks can tell myself and other minorities its not worth my time to vote to defend my community from fucked up government shit (not that i wont defend it with my body). i need to create space within the government for me to work out side of, if all of us are in jail for simply being who we are, we cant do much. im voting. and im going to fuck shit up the next day.

it took me three minutes to vote. and it will take me three minutes to fight with my u-lock raised. im doing both, because its everyday revolution thats going to change shit (anarchy in action/mutual aid) not a violent overnight revolution...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 06:07 PM CST

I my self am a latina and that makes me not want to vote even more. YLa know kerry wants more kops on the streets and i think of my brothers and sisters in mexico and latin america who are suffering because of nafta and the ftaa both of which kerry supports. I also realize that as a minority living am the us am more privaleged than those people of color living in palestine and iraq. I chose to stand in solidarity with them rather than to give my stamp of approval to a rich white imperalist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 06:16 PM CST

I\'m amazed. You spoke to al of them? Even us latins? I didn\'t see you at my door step yesterday. I\'ll be here till 6:00. Stop by so you can get mine too! (Or I can just tell you now that I\'m not voting. Either way)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 06:33 PM CST

Billionaires for Bush: anarchist street theater group
Billionaires for Kerry: Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 06:43 PM CST

i hope this experience radicalizes some of you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 07:13 PM CST

Hey,

I just got done voting a few hrs. ago and I did a Write In. It is a little known fact that, at least where I live there is a place on the voting machine to write in a canidate. As a libertarian communist, I always utilize this space to write in:
Liberty
Workers Self-management
Ecological Balance

I had a lot of hard fought internal struggle this election on whether or not to vote Democrat and in the end I stuck to my anarchist guns. See, you can vote and avoid the system, just write in your ideas. Use it as a propaganda platform. Someone\'s bound to read it, even if it does end up in the can.

I just hope that no matter who wins the election that we keep up the struggle against capitalism and for humanity and freedom. Never surrender!!!
Oh, Hi Sunrise.

Solidarity and Struggle,
Wart

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 07:34 PM CST

1. I recently looked at a disclosure that showed whom donated money in my city to which candidates and I was just blown away. And it didn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 07:35 PM CST

As Anti-authoritarians we recognize no Gods or Masters. And yet a good number of those new to the anarchist movement in particular and the anti-capitalist/anti-authoritarian movement in general or Leftists sympathetic to anarchists but unfamiliar with our history, movement and stance are in the dark when it comes to the topic of abstention and what it means in an anarchist context. It seems as though it would be obvious that the simple act of having representatives over us serves to negate, contradict and subvert autonomy, anti-hierarchical commitment, individuality and anti-authority within the current US context/model. It also seems inherently obvious that to actively engage the statist game of electoral politics implies that one believes in and advocates the State- the State believes in you! (Obscure reference to Christians whom respond to the statement of,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 10:11 PM CST

Chuck0 wrote \"[voting means that you accept the propaganda being spewed by the liberals.\"

Well, not voting because you are an anarchist means that you accept the propaganda being spewed by the anarchists. Under this frame, either way one is no longer a critical thinker capable of making up ones own mind.

I hate to be realistic in this discussion, but the reality is in this winner-take-all system, not voting is a vote for the winner. Period.

Sure it sucks. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But that doesn\'t change the reality of the system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2004 @ 11:16 PM CST

Damn, i doubt anyone will read my comment all the way at the bottom of this massive discussion. Well my two cents as an anarchist person of color is that voting is useless and i agree with the many points that chuck-o has repeatedly made and also with the tradition of anti-voting which in my mind has always been associated with anarchism. however, i also think that people of color internationaly and in the u.s. have a diffrent perception of why they would want people to vote, and to vote against bush,and i havent seen any one in the messages i read and skimmed address this. Why arent radical movements as readily accesible to people of color and presenting radical alternatives to voting that can really change something. don\'t misconstrue what i am saying i dont think its the sole responsibility of these movements to do anything, however it seems like in alot of discourse anarchsits will take anti-racist postions but what are they doing in terms of anti-racist action? generally this kind of big picture politics and talking about the revolution does nothing to help oppressed people or any one for that matter,it might inflate the ego of those taking that stance but where is the action and the communtiy organizing, voting wont help either that is a fact. i understand that kerry is even more insidious as he will pepetuate the same systems of oppression, under a false guise, but what will end those systems? will it be a small (however dedicated) movement of prviledged white folk? no it requires a real multiculturalism and that is something i think is sorely lacking on this message board and in the north american anarchist movement in general

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2004 @ 03:42 AM CST

they don\'t even count write-ins that are not official write-in candidates...so the most impact you have by writing in \"none\" in most states is that maybe some election judges will read it, and these are older folks with enough faith in the system to see your statement as nonsense.

something like this might be more effective.
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/48718/index.php

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2004 @ 08:28 AM CST

Yes, I agree. A vote for either one is a vote for empire. But consider this: Will it be easier for us to get rid of this oppressive empire and capitalistic system when Bush is in office, or if Kerry is? I realize that it won\'t be easy either way, and that dubya and frankenstein are the same, but the more left-leaning party may actually consider listening to us. I doubt it, but you never know. I\'m not saying I support the democratic party in any way, shape, or form, and if a violent revolution is actually started in this country the military resistance the people face will be brutal nonetheless. The true powers that be will overpower the president anyhow and intall a police state. Then maybe people will see what this so-called \'freedom\' and \'democracy\' we enjoy is all about. Okay... I\'m done ranting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2004 @ 10:38 AM CST

Well, I vote because I like to take every opportunity I possibly can to speak. Voting is the weakest possible form of speach out there, but it\'s speech nonetheless. What\'s important is not getting people to stop voting. Not voting won\'t make a bit of difference. What\'s important is to get people to realize how small a difference voting makes and who is truly in power.

\"Bullets not ballots\" You\'ve got to be kidding me! We know that road. We know that propaganda by the deed doesn\'t work. We know that violence can\'t end violence. To vote with a bullet is to vote for fascism. They\'ll legislate something many orders of magnitude worse than the Patriot Act or COINTELPRO. A small handful of \"anarchists\" with guns doesn\'t stand a chance against the largest military in the world, nor should it even be attempted. This is why nobody likes anarchists, they think we\'re a bunch of fucking radical terrorists lacking the capacity for rational thought. The only true changes are cultural changes. If you want to see anarchy you better live in a world where most people believe in anarchy. And that\'s not going to happen if we alienate them with violence. It\'s unethical and it doesn\'t work. Fuck \"bullets not ballots.\" I choose \"food not bombs.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2004 @ 12:38 PM CST

good point subversive (and i\'m sure i\'m not the only person who read your comment ;). probably some anarchists do see themselves as rescuers fighting \"on behalf of\" the poor, minorities, women, groups to which they themselves don\'t belong. i prefer to see us as all belonging to one class, one that is in direct opposition to the state as an elitist and violent force that is imposed from above. it\'s not like i want to dissolve or ignore race/class. we should identify and combat the real and inordinate oppression that the state unleashes on these groups. however, it\'s a sad fact that there are race and class-based tensions in society which spill into leftist movements, and which are maintined by the state to divide us and divert attention from itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]