Vote & Elections

"anarchists should be able to vote for an anarchist party"

I find anarchist partys (not the let's-drink-beer-and-listen-to-punk kind of party...) to be an extreme contradiction. How can there be such thing, really? If they would win an election, what would they do with that?
Here we have one party that claims, not to the public but to the anarchists, to have anarchist ideas and that we all should vote for them so they could get power over the rightwingers. But they are very quick to hook up with any other party wanting them, so they can be in the government. This is the green party who's leaders several times a week are on domestic flights... So the contradictions just keep comming. Still this could be concidered the "less evil" of the parties here. An other "less evil" could to some be the left party, wich have taken the word comunists out of their name and have taken quite a few steps to the right over the last years.
I have earlier voted for the least evil parties but I really don't think it does any good, cos as mentioned earlier (don't remember by whom) voting says i agree with their system. And I don't. This is an electionyear here and a rasist party seems to be able to get in to the government so this is the only reason I have not yet fully descided weather or not to vote this time. If I do, it will probably be for the unity party, very small and almost no one has heard of them. They basically only want to get someone in to the government who is a nice person.

 

Anarchists have long argued that we are ungovernable. To suggest that there should be an anarchist party is utter bollocks and Marxism by any other name!!!

Bakunin and Marx split over this idea back at the First International in 1866. Marx suggested we needed a revolutionary party that would take control, form a temporary dicattaorship and then allow the transition to a libertarian socilaist society. Bakunin countered that a 'temporary dictatorship' was in effect just another government taking the reins of power away from people. Anarchists have rejected the notion of party politics ever since. The problem is not who you can or can't vote for, and who might be better in power, the problem is the actual system itself which we never get to vote for. Anarchists work towards replacing the system itself (capitalism) so that there is no longer any need for the illusion of 2-party politics.

Marx's idea of the revolutionary party turned into some of the most ruthless dictatorships in modern history with the rise of State Communism and all those other so-called 'temporary dictatorships'.
WE need to move beyond this idea of party politics and think about how we might create a society were we ourselves have a say.

The people who live in your street might get together and make some decisions and then elect someone to represent them. But they can recall that representitive at any time and they can rotate their representative. The representitive meets with the delegates from other streets and they form a regional council, and so the process continues. This is organisaton from the bottom up rather than the top down. At every stage each represntative can be called back to their group to ensure their views are put forward and so we create a system of direct democracy where everyone in society has a say in how things are run.

What we have now are top down bearocracies hell-bent on maintaining capitalism for the benefit of corporate elites. People thousands of miles away make decisions that affect people they will never meet and places they will never see and they are driven by the false notion that if we have an unhindered capitalist economy it will trickle down honey and milk for one and all. The falsehood of this disneyland is perpetrated by the electoral system. The corrupt politician is soon gone only to be replaced by some other cunt and on it goes ad infinitum. Changing leaders will never change the system - changing the system and getting rid of leaders will!

But anarchism needs to be critiqued continually and some have argued that the above is true of elections at a national level but not as true at a regional one. For example an anarchist might run locally on a particular issue. The problem here though is that this is diluting struggle into single-issue politics and diverting potential. It is in effect a form of reformism. I know there's more to this than meets the eye and struggle is relative to events on the ground but I think that any entry into the current system, not matter how good the intentions of that person might be, will always lead to failure, marginalisation or corruption!

 

Because, an anarchist 'party' should be set up on the premise that it is not set up in the same way as any other party, not top down, rather a group of people giving any decisions back to the people not instilled seats, so that the ideas become populace rather than rhetorical or beatan back by perception and i'm no utopiest but aim for it always. If it is set up correctly then it should be immediately disbanded if seen not to be becoming popular amongst many and not just preaching to the converted and indiviuals can make idiots of themselves while leaving with clear statements that we have nothing to do with representaives of the people but people representing themselves, or if it serves a purpose as an umbrella group then fine but i couldn't see that being completely symbiotic with positive perception or reaffirmation, remember it is the people who should be given a chance to really choose not parties but plans and we gotta do something but anarchists don't do things the way they do them but we have to show, as goodwill, and all action, that we are not the issue to the people

i've thought about this for a bit and i haven't seen things change in fact i've seen them get worse so....lets not play pretends or wallow in the marshes or give in, for all.

 

You gotta vote in Australia...or at least sign your name off the role at the polling booth hehehe...

I just vote informal nowadays.

But if I had to vote I would vote for the Australian Sex Party....who are running in the next federal election. Hahaha.

There used to be people who would register a party to take the piss out of the system like The Birthday Party or Party Party Party.

Then again a local Anarchist; Joe Toscano runs as an independent and tells people not to vote for him...does it for shits and giggles I guess. He hosts an Anarchist show on community radio station 3CR (855AM) in Melbourne Australia. You can get his shows on webcast/podcast.

 

Everyone that dont turn up should count as anarchist vote, but whatever, dont vote, it just encourage them.

 

That's asinine.

 

No, its called wisdom. The only people that enter politics are self interested dickheads that think they got some right to order other people around, and the ones that get to the top of the shit pile are the worst, they only get there by fucking over their 'comrades', so go ahead, choose between power junkie A, or power junkie B, or if you lucky, power junkie C; all you will do is legitimise their game, nothing else. Don't be a fukin tool.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

Like I said last time;"...this is bad argument. Honestly, when the same bad arguments get repeated, then refuted, then repeated again as if nothing ever happened I have to wonder if there isn't a deliberate misunderstanding.
Let's look at the bigger fallacies;

1.That not voting accomplishes something or has some symbolic value.

False. The message you send to the government when you don't vote is "Do whatever you want, I won't stop you." If everybody stops voting we get fascism, which doesn't sound like fun.

2.The notion that voting undermines or replaces other forms of activism.

False. As I said you can protest on tuesday and vote on wednesday. There is no conflict.

3.That "real" Anarchists don't vote.

Well, I suppose that would depend on how you define a real Anarchist. However, one of the major undercurrents in Anarchists thought is a moral outrage. If you don't vote you don't care. If you don't care I don't see any sense being an Anarchist.

4. Voting doesn't matter.

Essentially false. Oh, don't get me wrong, we're choosing between two wings of the business party, HOWEVER.. These wings operate in slightly different ways, and serve different elite constituencies. A recent Princeton survey showed that poor families do worse under republican administrations. (Which isn't really news.) Now, for the families that get wiped out or go bankrupt, or whatever, that makes a difference. The question you have to ask yourself, again, is; "Do I care?"
I don't have any illusions, but I vote because I care. If you're living in a blue state, you might want to vote Green/Socialist. I usually do in the primaries, but as of yet have not in the real election. In addition to weeding out the worse candidates, you get to vote on issues. Like I said, me and my fellow citizens passed gay marriage and decriminalized pot. Now people won't be getting arrested for a victimless crime. I think that's a good thing. It isn't ideal, but for those people it means the world."

 

u don't get anarchy at all, there is a means to an end then cutting ya nose off ta save ya face

voting for a system is the same as ignoring a dangerous situation, they don't call it voting they cal it conseunsus in anarchism, confusion does set in in general but its essentailly voting but obvs set up diff so your not going for clog 1 or 2

 

So you have never actually voted, then. Er, yeah, you know another gem of wisdom is trying something before you comment on it.

 

i've never voted, and i don't need to to know it's bullshit.

 

I'm going to give you a little benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just misinterpreting this statement; "I usually do in the primaries, but as of yet have not in the real election." However I thought I made it very clear in the previous sentence;"If you're living in a blue state, you might want to vote Green/Socialist." Because I live in a historically blue state, with the fairly recent exception, I would be more inclined to vote Green/Socialist, instead of one of the Democrats, and there's a logic to that. I thought it was pretty clear I was saying I've voted for Green/Socialist candidates AND Democrats, however I have, so far, only voted Green/Socialist in the primaries. I don't see why primaries don't count, but either way I thought it was pretty clear that I have voted in both state and national elections.

I take this as progress because you didn't reiterate the previous nonsense, which, I will hope, means you have seen the error of your ways.

 

Finally. Now can you say this in a way that the others can comprehend? I don't see why it's so complicated. What really confounds me is that the same statement is just repeated as if nothing ever happened.

 

I'm going to just throw this out there. Anyone who doesn't believe bloodshed can be reduced by leaving the house for 15 minutes (went with my mom, literally took 15) and voting for the lesser of two evils is a FUCKING IDIOT. I'm not saying any monumental change is going to occur (it's hard to get ANY change to occur in the current state of american politics) but it can mean the difference of life and death for thousands of people. Each party is taking donations from a different set of wealthy individuals. But who those individuals are can make a world of difference. Feel free to tear me a new anus for this one but I'm pretty sure I put the cost of human life above the cost of any "never mind the ballots" refference or anti voting symbolism.

 

guess im a fucking idiot then, as i would have rather stuck splinters under my nails then voted for obama bin laden or crazy mcain.

 

geez: a means to an end: bush or obama hmmm

systemno means to an end) democracy or anarchism

voting greens in a corrupt system, 'waste' of time, r u a 'minority' then um yea focus group my arse, middle class more like, we all bleed the same

'socialists' tend to follow the same system while denyin ya rights as they feel they are the 'one', what a surprise they follow this system, their mandate is faulty as fuck, this century has proved this form of freedom is morrre than faulty but corrupt and broke(they call them industry zones), fix, anarchy! freeforall, speak too and help each other/the people, not at them

why don't anarchists have 'a group' to show goodwill for others as much as their ideal, only way i can see it workin, why, too much nihilsm and they've been sold the same old shit, ie: lotta humans silly, love em all don't trust em, guess its diy then, get off your arse!!!! huahaha

 

Well I thought you said you never voted in general election, but anyway, I used to vote when I was younger, til I realised they just taking the piss out of me. Last time was 93, I think. UK, since then I seen a socialist party produce policy that's more right wing then Thatcher ever was, so yeah, it's bullshit, they may give a little to get you to play their game, but they will take it away, behind closed doors and veil of deceit if possible. All politicians are fascist, it the nature of the beast. Some try to pretend they not if that gets them into power, if you want to fall for that, go ahead, make your mark on the scrap of paper, but don't come to me in sixty years wondering why nothing got any better.

 

I never said the state was NOT largely an illegitimate institution. As far as I'm concerned that's a given. However, that doesn't mean one shouldn't vote. You seem to be expressing the same fallacies. Primarily here you seem to be reiterating the second fallacy; that voting undermines or inhibits other forms of activism. This is simply not true. If you go at the right time you can get out in under 15 minutes. There's also an implication of the first fallacy, that not voting has any kind of symbolic value. That's also fundamentally bogus. Then we come to the third fallacy, that voting changes nothing. We're not going to get to a libertarian socialist utopian paradise by voting, alone, but that's a straw man argument. I made it very clear I fully support and encourage a multitude of forms of activism. However, it DOES, make a difference. The difference can be measured in the amount of bankruptcies, or unemployment, or incarceration rates, etc. To pick a specific example that I cited before, in my state I and my fellow citizens voted to decriminalize marijuana. Now, I would have preferred to just legalize it, but are you honestly suggesting that was a bad thing? I don't see any way that makes sense. Like I said; if you don't vote, you don't care. If you don't care, I don't see any sense being an Anarchist.

 

I don't give a shit about your theories on fallacies, I judge from what I seen myself, you know, that thing called real life. I remember lots of people supporting the Labour party, for years, some for decades, and I seen how they fucked over all their supporters, how they continued to lie right up to the day they got elected, and then continued Tory policies, taking them even further than Thatcher would ever have hoped possible. These are people that voted for something that won, and then turned out to be WORSE, on a national and international level, and you know what, I didn't vote for that fuck, I had sussed the bastard out, even though other say no, it ok, the Labour back benchers would keep him in line. Bullshit, and I so fucking proud that I didn't give that shit my support.

A lot of people learnt from it, maybe you should too.

 

So basically one single event is the entire basis of your deduction that voting is evil?