If you’re downvoting this post and calling yourself an anarchist, you need to go take a look in the mirror.
Sincerely an anarchist who votes and knows electoralism is a trap.
Electoralism is a false dichotomy. It’s like when I would tell my small kids, “Would you like to leave the playground in 5 minutes, or in 10? Okay, now let’s set a timer and when it’s done we’re going.” We’re doing what I decided in the end, but I know they’ll come without a fight because I gave them the most minor of choice in the matter.
It’s a more sophisticated method of control, not actual power sharing.
Also notice the electoralists in this thread have nothing of substance to argue, they’re just saying, “No.” Cool, sounds like you’ve thought this through.
The problem is that metaphorically it’s less that and more you going to your kids
“So would you like to be murdered by me in 10 minutes or would you like severe ass beatings in 10 minutes? By the way if you say both is bad and refuse to choose the latter I will still murder you”
A lot of us are fighting for our lives and trying not to let the ultrafascists that would LOVE shooting us on the spot take control. It’s messed up, wrong in every way and we shouldn’t be blackmailed this way by the people who “represent” us.
I’ll always be against elections but I won’t just refuse to participate in them for the sheer fact that if I don’t, my existence might be made illegal very fast.
Okay but are you saying you’ll vote, or are you saying you’ll canvass and provide other material long term support? I vote, of course, it’s a 15 minute commitment where I am. I sure as hell won’t give the process my full time and attention.
This is the difficult thing when discussing this issue. People like to discuss it as if it’s only about voting.
In this case there are three major positions: electoralism; just vote; refuse to vote.
The issue being mentioned in the OP is electoralism, and people are in the comments thinking we’re talking about whether or not to vote, which we’re not.
Also in general when you look at who doesn’t vote, you’ll find it’s not coming from a position of privilege. It’s the most vulnerable communities that tend not to vote, because they are usually vulnerable because they’ve been neglected or even attacked from both sides of the aisle, and they are also often gerrymandered to the point their vote literally wouldn’t matter.
I used to think like this, but I’m not sure I do anymore.
First, it seems like it’d be much harder to create alternate systems if the people in power are making it even harder to achieve basic survival. As much as we all despise capitalism, there are degrees of shitness within it. And as much as I dislike the current system of power and wish we could ignore it, it does ultimately wield a lot of power that can lessen suffering sometimes. As an example, Medicaid alone allowed 83 million people this year to have access to healthcare, and it would be an incalculable loss if it was allowed to be gutted nationwide. Add to that that Biden is, at the very least, not interfering too much with the resurgence in unions, which will further enable people to survive easier, and expose a new generation of workers to the power they wield. And the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) was a pretty decent step in the right direction for climate change, and is something that we at a grassroots level wouldn’t have been able to implement (I.E, big businesses getting financial incentives to switch away from fossil fuels, big financial subsidies to alternative power companies, etc). I hate capitialism, but manipulating their psychological need for profit into doing the right thing is overall a good thing, and is sadly needed until we’re able to find a way off the capitalism train altogether.
Second, while every previous election in U.S. history has seemingly always been a choice between an evil and a lesser evil, in this very specific case, it’s a choice between a lesser evil and a pretty much openly fascist wannabe dictator. If we look to history, I feel it’s important to point out Hitler was ultimately voted in initially (or at least his party was, since it was a Parliament, and he won the most seats). That majority win likely allowed for him to create policies and laws that enabled him to further his grip until it was unstoppable. How easy was it for socialists and anarchists to ignore politics in Nazi Germany and built alternate systems or feed the homeless when their government was literally going to hunt them with secret police? Things are bad in America, but bear in mind they could be so much worse (and I know that argument is used a lot to maintain the status quo, it’s the neoliberal democrat’s main thing they use to get you to keep voting them in, but fuck me guys, this time the stakes are high AF).
This is like the one time we should really engage hard, and then after it’s all over, and we can breathe a little easier, go back to focusing more on mutual aid until another Trump-like figure pops up, which will hopefully be a while.
But that’s just my 2 cents.
I think we should vote, but I understand that we are not voting for someone to “represent” us. We are voting for our preferred enemy.
I think the real message here is against engaging in electoralism, which is the political strategy of effecting change through electoral politics, which means canvassing, participating in campaigns, volunteering time and energy beyond the simple act of casting a vote, maybe even attempting to run for office. That’s what they’re saying takes people away from direct action.
Ah, in that case I fully agree. Thank you for clarifying. :)
Not now Tabby, things are bad.
Oof, this is a bad reception to get in an anarchism community to what should be a fairly basic anarchic sentiment.
Elected representatives never gave us anything. Whenever positive change happens it comes from direct action and people on the ground forcing those in power to give something up. Civil rights, women’s suffrage, labour protections, and so many more were fought and bled for on the ground, and politicians decried and attacked the whole way.
Then when they have no other choice, they relent and sign a law that makes some token allowances but keeps the details in their hands so they don’t give us too much, and they then fight to prevent people from taking any more. It becomes a new trench to defend.
How much more headway would we make if we could just sweep them aside and organise ourselves, and make these gains without having to go through the gatekeepers.
EDIT: Where’s the lie? In the OP or what I said?
Direct Action (doing) > Electoralism (asking for permission)
Remember, the whole point of social mobilization is to be able to use social force so people is able, more and more, to change their situation, to help them see they can change things if we organize and respect each other in solidarity. The issue with voting, is not the vote itself, that’s whatever. Is that all that effort helping putting a “new boss” in the old position, could have been put in working towards social organization.
Do remember to learn about politics, and why anarchist do what we do. Is not because of being a square, is because social organizations are the most effective way to deal with all those issues you see politicians go in circles and circles, and you just got really stigmatized about the beliefs that political participation is electoralism. It is not, political action is way more than that: is making water and food access a right, is helping people without a ceiling improve their living conditions, is about creating industry and fighting business, etc.
Now, if you feel uncomfortable with this idea, maybe you are more aligned with social democracy and those other kinds of socialism that ain’t really into the working with each-other thing, but in need of an elite of help you move through everyday bullshit. The same ones that put us in this precarious position to begin with. Organized anarchism is about helping and solidarity, federalism and autonomy, not dependence on bosses. We find problems, we deal with them.
This is an interesting approach to the question, because it contrapositions not the ordinary “voting vs. activism”, but a different pair of actions, namely “campaigning vs. activism”.
A few words about voting
Voting is cheap, accessible and doesn’t require much of your time either - IMHO you should always vote, but assume it accomplishes very little. I won’t blame a person if they don’t vote - but if a population consistently does not vote, I will say that “they had it coming”. The way to anarchy likely doesn’t go crashing through populism and authoritarianism, so people should bother to prevent these. Everyone can stop voting at the point when parliaments get sortitioned (drawn with a lottery).
A few words about campaigning
If you campaign for a political power that doesn’t represent you well, that’s putting in more effort - for a not exactly increasing return. I have assisted a socialist politician in their campaign. During the course of this work, I learned a few things that were useful, but the guy lost laughably. In my country, votes “lost” by an individual candidate still contribute to a party’s success, but in your country, things may differ, so take note of what the rules are. :)
A few words about activism
Activism can get you goods directly. Both voting and campaigning are low-return activity, but if you can figure out a way to make some part of society work better without a general referendum - go for it! :)
Umm, no.
deleted by creator
Voting is an inherently immoral act.
