The Anarchist Revolt Against the Ideology of Not Voting Is Finally Taking Shape in 2017
![](http://web.archive.org./web/20170727070433im_/http://anarchistnews.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/234e0f6f-574b-41c9-b386-b0d448fc402e.jpg?itok=a270Sng6)
From Films For Action
By Tim Hjersted / filmsforaction.org / Jun 7, 2017
Anarchists have traditionally opposed voting for a variety of ideological reasons. For many, not voting is held as a badge of honor - a way of signaling one's commitment to anarchist theory. I've often thought that this belief in not voting almost represents a sort of religion for some anarchists, due to how they uphold "not voting" as the *one true* anarchist position.
If you vote, then you can't possibly be "a true anarchist." Not voting is essentially a purity test among the anarchist faithful, and this hegemony over the spectrum of acceptable thought is often reinforced by other anarchists, who make sure that anyone that disagrees understands that they are not "one of us."
A couple years ago, I was banned from Infoshop News for simply posting pro-voting arguments on their Facebook page. The idea of not voting as a tenant of the anarchist religion was cemented to me in that moment, seeing how utterly intolerable such views were to at least one of the admins of that page. After writing about that experience, I found out many other followers of that page had been banned for similar disagreements. But Infoshop's stance is not uncommon.
This tradition of promoting ideology from hundreds of years ago to explain why they're not voting continues today in 2017.
But recently, when I came across the two posts below, I was heartened to see that a full-on revolt against this type of thinking is starting to take shape among the anarchist peasant class. I say that lightheartedly, but by that I mean ordinary anarchists who follow anarchist pages, rather than the admins of anarchist pages, who most often promote the official line, either out of obligation or sincere commitment.
Seeing this sea change in attitude gives me hope for a fresh, non-dogmatic anarchism in 2017 and beyond.
I've often said that true anarchism (to me) also includes freedom from dogma and rigid rules about what tactics are and are not deemed acceptable if you're an anarchist. Rather than adhering to the same ideology, tactics and strategies decade after decade, I believe anarchism is at its best when we are free to employ a variety of tactics, experiment with new strategies, and form new holistic approaches based on the present political terrain. Direct action and voting are not jealous lovers, and it's high time we stopped treating them as such.
Reading the comments below, it's wonderful to see that more and more anarchists agree.
Eoin O'Connor: How do you defend them yourself when you're disabled and the Tories have you living a subhuman existence?
Reclus' specific alternative to voting was armed insurrection. Unless you're actively planning one of those in Britain, I'd say do what little you can to make peoples lives more tolerable.
I agree that direct action is more important than electoral action, but it's downright delusional to pretend that (1) there'd be no difference at all between a Corbyn government and a May government, and (2) that not taking the few minutes it takes to cast a ballot once every few years is somehow a waste of time, or, worse, taking time away from other more anarchistic activities.
Like what? Ranting about the Tories in Facebook chat groups? Get real.
Jehiel Lomaz: I feel like I have to really stress how flawed the anarchist position is on elections, because Libcom's position on relating to reformist workers seems to be dismissive, elitist, and generally shite. It's like the crap with "revolutionary" unionism. The British election represents so much more than just '4 years of Corbyn' in itself, and failing to see that is a real shame.
------------------------------------
This kind of elitist dismissal of the most significant political phenomenon for the british left is what you get if you have no intention of trying to relate to and mobilise the working class.
Yes, Corbyn being for only "fairly controlled" immigration is a thing we should be openly against. Yes, his reformism has stunted his capacity to shove off the blairites. Yes, the fact that he supports increasing police presence is a bad thing. But to miss out on the opportunities that the rise of Corbyn presents to the far-left by simply turning away from the whole situation is far worse.
The rise and potential fall of Corbyn is about so much more than just his policies being implemented; it's about the rise and potential fall of a future in which we actually have left-wing policies being put forward by a major party that can give people something to fight for. If Labour was to revert to being Blairite, we would just be returning to a situation in which the major parties both pushed for or capitulated to neoliberalism, racism, imperialism, etc.
The fact is that in Britain today, the vast majority of people look to electoralism as the centre of politics. This doesn't mean that Corbyn can't inspire ordinary people to organise in workplaces and in demonstrations to defend the good policies that Corbyn holds, putting them into positions that give them a better sense of their potential power as workers. To see Corbyn torn down at this point in history is not going to inspire the vast majority of people to be revolutionary socialists; it's going to instill hopelessness, and that puts us as the far-left in a much worse situation than simply having Tory legislation being passed through parliament.
The job of revolutionary socialists is to see how the political climate we face today can inspire people to engage in activity that brings about an awareness of class, and of their potential power in society, that brings people a step closer to our kind of politics, while also not compromising our capacity to maintain a revolutionary-socialist perspective and organisation. We have to figure out what can be done today so that the political situation we face now can be a step forward towards better things, centred around the activity of workers and ordinary people more generally. No, this doesn't mean embracing opportunistic political positions or liquidating into the Labour Party, but it also doesn't mean being a complete elitist and outright dismissing the people who support Corbyn but aren't actually socialists. You have to stand as the far-left differentiated from everyone to your right, but be willing to stand with those workers who aren't socialists yet to prove the supremacy of revolutionary politics in being able to actually form a better society. This can be done for many political questions, and it can still be done in a way that left reformism encourages people who hold those views to become active; refugee rights, anti-racism, anti-fascism, workers rights in and outside of unions, whatever else.
This is obviously still done while having a far-left that exists as an independent organisation, but still tries to mobilise and relate to people who are inspired by a left-wing break from Blairite Labourism. Telling people to not vote, when there is an option that will clearly put the left on a better footing for fighting against demoralisation and for better demands, is fucking ridiculous
Publishing the cynical crap that libcom.org does is completely counterposed to inspiring non-revolutionaries to become politically active.
Lukáš Kuchta: So glad that comment section is full of radical leftists who are able to think beyond old dogmatic 'truths'. From my anarchist point of view I'd say let's not give the ruling class the legitimacy, however as of now we don't have any viable parallel structures, revolution is not around the corner nor will really low voting turnout change the state-people relationship.
Still no avant-guarde is justifiable and not a single party will change the game. But much can be done towards the poor with a vote. Who says you can't do both organizing yourself with a radical group and cast a bloody vote?
Justin Ward: Emma Goldman said "If voting were effective, they would make it illegal," which is kind of ironic because, in her day women couldn't vote and white people in the South used violence, intimidation, poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent black people from voting up until the end of Jim Crow. While I don't think voting is a panacea, it does have its usefulness, and some anarchists have argued that it was a form of defense against the state. Voting should be seen as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. You shouldn't vote and just expect the candidate to protect your interests, but on the other hand elected office does serve as a "bully pulpit." Also, if a movement can get an official elected, it can serve to legitimize it.
This kind of cynicism is a luxury the poor can't afford.
J.M. Nejtek: As a revolutionary socialist, I think it's important to try and both raise people's horizons about what's possible and also to exacerbate the contradictions within the capitalist system. In the present moment, a Corbyn win or near-win is the obvious goal for anyone who desires a heightened state of class struggle in the UK.
That's the same way I felt about Sanders in the US. It's not that I thought he was gonna "save" my class, or that I thought his policies where all just swell...it's that I want to see my class raise its head, move into a sharper confrontation with the bosses, and draw revolutionary conclusions in the course of combat.
Instead, here in the states we have a situation where the Democrats are repairing their image as "opposition" to Trump, instead of a party that can't/won't deliver.
Don't let this opportunity slip by!
Phil Pope: "Corbyn, rather than being the saviour of the working class in Britain..." I don't think I have heard anyone claim that he is the saviour - just different enough from the Tories to justify 5 minutes at the polling station. After going wrong in the very first sentence, the rest of this article is a brain fart. Well done for finding a lame way to be edgy and different you utter bell-ends.
"Don't vote in bourgeois elections. The labour party is just another bourgeois party. Change is impossible without revolution. But you leftists will never understand this."
Tim Hjersted: This comment is a great example of how ideology can prevent a clear-thinking assessment of the political moment in 2017. Some anarchists would rather lose ground their entire lives and pontificate about how 'only revolution' can save us than spend 5 minutes working on the material realities which might improve the political terrain on which actual, real revolutions are built. It's very sad. But actually, all of the comments in this thread challenging centuries-old dogma is quite heartening.
Chris Lowe: We've a choice to finally change direction from 40 years of a strengthening Thatcherite consensus. Put that before feeling all intellectual while doing nothing.
Rowan Thomas: I'm about to be guilty of commenting based on click bait without reading the article. What a fucking stupid position. Take whatever moral high ground you want... America fucked it up and France got it right. You vote to keep the terrible people out. The lesser of two evils is a reality.
Rachel Broady: I'm a socialist. I entirely understand the Marxist recognition of the limitations of democracy in capitalism. Also, the Tories want to sell my social housing home from under me because I can't afford a mortgage. I'll be homeless. Thanks for the solidarity, comrades.
Get back to us when you're forming an armed struggle not writing snotty articles few workers will read.
Marco Böhm: Are you aware that part of labour's new manifesto is to democratize the workplace? Like supoorting workers cooperatives. Jacobin Magazine had a good article about it.
James Boultbee: You can't just will a mass movement into existence. It has to form around something. It's not about Corbyn it's about all these people. I'd rather be standing with them and hoping to push this into more radical waters than standing on the sidelines.
Aimée Fung: Actively doing nothing at a very crucial and desperate time in Britain doesn't win you any extra captain anarchy points. I'd rather vote for Corbyn in hopes of protecting the NHS and the welfare state, instead of sitting at home writing articles about being apathetic.
Hana Lein: Refusing to vote in such a crucial election is rank selfishness. This isn't about deifying a politician or "voting Corbyn", it's about rebalancing the reality we live in. I agree with some of the points made in the article but pontificating about the flaws in our system (which most thinking voters are well aware of) isn't changing anything at this point. It's a privileged position that people being sanctioned by the DWP, nurses going to food banks, children living in abject poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, don't and will never have the opportunity of occupying. This election is not about you, it's about an attempt to wrest some semblance of humanity and equality back for the general population. Get over this intellectual masturbation.
Baldwin Maximillian Strong: It's not some binary either / or equation. You don't have to believe party politics are the be-all and end-all to have the elementary common sense not to want to inflict on the populace 5 more years of the Tories siphoning off every penny they possibly can to the wealthiest and rejecting the possibility of some policies that just maybe will put the brakes on somewhat.
Robin French: People on the right will do anything to move things closer to the way they want them, regardless of principles. They're lucky so many on the left have their heads in the clouds. It's why they get their way so often.
Merlin Hogarth: The disabled people who'll die because of cuts won't thank you for your ideological purity.
Andreas Wittel: It's a position that ignores how change happens. Often slowly. It's a position of luxury. Of someone who wants all or nothing. Ultimately it's a childish position.
Alex Barrientos: Article should be titled "Why anarchists' opinions are still irrelevant."
Felix Fiedler: Voting is about picking your opponent, not your "saviour."
Even some anarchist pages are making a break with established tradition, a sight that brings a tear to my jaded anarchist eyes...
MESSAGE FOR BRITISH SOCIAL ANARCHISTS
You're probably not going to like this post ...
But if you're able to vote tomorrow, we'd recommend voting against the Conservative Party, which means voting for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in each constituency where it's got the best chance of beating a Tory.
You may be asking us to hand in our anarchist cards for such a treasonous position, in which case a few explanations are in order.
The main reason social anarchists historically recommended not voting was that it made little difference. Direct action, not state action, is what really produces results. This is true.
However, events such as the Iraq War and the Tory Party's undeclared war on the disabled have shown that sometimes "little differences" can add up to a lot for many people.
This does NOT mean we are under any illusion about the New-Old Labour Party being little more than a pitiful attempt to recapture the managerial capitalism of the mid 20th century, and won't be able to significantly pose a threat to global capital, even in the unlikely event they form the next British government.
We remain committed to direct action and grassroots self-organising as our primary mode of strategy for accomplishing anarchist goals. But we can no longer fool ourselves into believing there's no difference at all between a potential centre-left government and a right-wing government, in political, economic, and societal terms.
The fact is, it would be easier for anarchists to push change on a Labour government than a Tory one.
If anarchists can support joining a trade union as a form of self-defence against capitalism, then it doesn't make sense to not use their votes to pick the "least worst" government as a form of self-defence against the state.
That doesn't mean supporting the Labour Party. It just means accepting the obvious reality that things would be more tolerable under them.
The choice between 40 lashes and 80 lashes is still lashes either way, though you'd have to be the most puritanical ideologue to refuse to choose 40 lashes on principle alone.
For these reasons and others, be an ethical consequentialist and use what little formal political power you have to destroy the possibility of another Tory government. It won't get us closer to social anarchy, but it may give us more elbow-room to achieve more of our aims outside the state system.
Comments
SirEinzige
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 08:54
Permalink
On not voting
It's not just 'anarchist dogma'. Voting from a purely rational game theory perspective makes no sense due to the fact that the individual's vote is HIGHLY unlikely to be the deciding vote. The lottery gives you better odds. Voting is a homogenized lemming process of ideological collectivity. If you are really attached to the results of an election it would make more sense to have the ideological belief triumph. The voting result process is simply a consequence of homogenized belief patterns.
I myself have no issues with anarchists who PERSONALLY and PRIVATELY vote however public calls to vote are retarded and not rooted in any kind of individual rational decision making process. If proles(many of whom already don't vote) got even more rational and calculated in their self interests voting would wane even more.
The examples of illiberties in regards to not being able to vote or vote on something is also usually done on a deeper level of belief contestation. If for example there is ever significant changes in regards to childhood and adolescent autonomy it WILL NOT be tied to the process of voting. Voting may confirm the hard belief contestation changes that have come before but at that point you've either gotten the ideological lemmings to your preferential poll or you have not, either way you stay home and masturbate(George Carlin)
Hence why anarchists like me and others don't vote.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 11:52
Permalink
lol, rationality is a "spook"
lol, rationality is a "spook" if anything is, you dunce
anyway, if the lottery mailed a ticket to my house and all i had to do was mail it back, and it was totally free, i would play, because no matter how little the odds of me winning, it would be "rational" for me to do so in that it cost me nothing at all to play
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 11:56
Permalink
No ... rationality isn't a
No ... rationality isn't a "spook". You're confusing the tool with people that can't use it. And playing a game crafted by your enemies to make a fool of you makes you a compulsive neurotic, at best. It also costs you your dignity.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 13:49
Permalink
lol @ ppl who supposedly
lol @ ppl who supposedly understand Stirner and resort to abstractions like "rationality," "your dignity," and armchair psychologizing to float their weak arguments
ps i don't vote and i do believe in rational argumentation but no one who just says 'it's not rational bc game theory' is actually using rationality, nevermind even getting into rationality as a construct of the dominant order, meaning it IS rational to vote and pretty common sense why. anarchists opposing the rationality of the state by referring to logical rationality as a naturally occurring abstraction are just pathetic, especially those naming themselves after Stirner's book
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 14:40
Permalink
I know ziggy isn't using
I know ziggy isn't using rationality, that was my point. Participating in electoral politics doesn't survive any serious application of logic or rationality of any kind, which is a separate issue from dignity, as in "anarchists" who vote are fucking embarrassing.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 15:47
Permalink
Oh John, Peter Paul?
Oh John, Peter Paul? Named after an apostle, how sweet,,,,,
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 08:57
Permalink
This is bizarre. Of course
This is bizarre. Of course anarchists don't vote. If one concludes voting is good or necessary in some situation, I don't see why that person has to remain attached to the 'anarchist' label or identity. They're no longer anarchist, because anarchist has certain principles, and not voting is simply one of them. This isn't a moral or purist judgment. Is a communist who accepts private control of the means of production a communist? Of course not.
It's OK not to be an anarchist, or to be attracted to anarchism but not accept some of even its most foundational principles. That's not a failing, intellectual, moral, ethical, or otherwise. But neither is it anarchism.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 08:57
Permalink
^ was not a reply to Sir
^ was not a reply to Sir Einzige
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 11:53
Permalink
The hilarious weakness of the
The hilarious weakness of the entire argument is summed up in their incredibly lame conclusion in the last paragraph. It's a lot like buying lottery tickets and then getting mad at people who understand math better than you because otherwise you'd have to admit you're a fool.
SirEinzige
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 09:30
Permalink
Enslavement to principles
I don't think that should be the deciding factor in not voting and I certainly don't think it unbecomes you of being an anarchist. There are solid egoist preferential reasons to not vote that millions(AND MILLIONS) of people make every voting season. Principle can be part of it but to erode the power of voting you have to attack it on a rational self interest basis because that is its perceived strength.
This makes sense for someone who puts egoist drives before ethical ones.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 15:50
Permalink
Learn the nuance between
Learn the nuance between anarchist and anarch.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 16:51
Permalink
Why? it's a meaningless
Why? it's a meaningless difference, only important to pedantic assholes.
emile
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 10:57
Permalink
there's a lot of hidden assumptions in the either/or of voting
1, voting implies a belief in the existence of the independent sovereign state and its ability to forge its own destiny. this is ego-based anthropomorphism. It doesn't work in a relationally interdependent world.
2. the shortest path to anarchy could be through conservatism since a failed liberalism leads to conservatism rather than to anarchy.
3. we live in a post-truth, fake news era, so all our reasoned propositions about voting etc. are built on shifting sands. the reasoning in the article is suspect.
4. belief in putting science, rationality, reasoning into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition is what is trapping us. the institutions of the sovereign state supported by academia, including parliament, are reason-pushing killers and there is no ballot option to restore the natural primacy of experience-based intuition, unfettered by logic-infused institutional structures.
5. using the institutions to get rid of the institutions is like biting your own teeth. impossible.
6. nature's way is letting the unfolding situation inductively actualize one's actions rather than having one's behaviour driven from principles/ intentions and bulldozing through whatever situation is unfolding without feeding on its potentials.
7. the question is; how does this unfolding situation open up opportunity for the development of anarchist relations. The question is not about which ballot choice leads to an institutionalized set up with values closer to anarchist values. going down that path is more likely to dilute the energies needed for de-institutionalizing and the cultivating of direct action mutual support webs.
8. voting conservative could be the best option for anarchists since it is delusion for anarchists to reinforce an institutional system on the basis of its 'otherwise similar values', notionally as a step towards deinstitutionalizing. i.e. anarchist deinstitutionalizing energies will be best sustained within a conservative institutional structure.
EMILE9000 (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 12:21
Permalink
there's a lot of voting in either/or assumptions about openness
1. voting conservative could be the best option for anarchists since it is delusion for anarchists to reinforce an institutional system on the basis of its 'otherwise similar values', notionally as a step towards deinstitutionalizing. i.e. anarchist deinstitutionalizing energies will be best sustained within a conservative institutional structure.
2. the question is; how does this unfolding situation open up opportunity for the development of anarchist relations. The question is not about which ballot choice leads to an institutionalized set up with values closer to anarchist values. going down that path is more likely to dilute the energies needed for de-institutionalizing and the cultivating of direct action mutual support webs.
3. nature's way is letting the unfolding situation inductively actualize one's actions rather than having one's behaviour driven from principles/ intentions and bulldozing through whatever situation is unfolding without feeding on its potentials.
4. using the institutions to get rid of the institutions is like biting your own teeth. impossible.
5. belief in putting science, rationality, reasoning into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition is what is trapping us. the institutions of the sovereign state supported by academia, including parliament, are reason-pushing killers and there is no ballot option to restore the natural primacy of experience-based intuition, unfettered by logic-infused institutional structures.
6. we live in a post-truth, fake news era, so all our reasoned propositions about voting etc. are built on shifting sands. the reasoning in the article is suspect.
7. the shortest path to anarchy could be through conservatism since a failed liberalism leads to conservatism rather than to anarchy.
8, voting implies a belief in the existence of the independent sovereign state and its ability to forge its own destiny. this is ego-based anthropomorphism. It doesn't work in a relationally interdependent world.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 12:31
Permalink
You mention numbers, I don't
You mention numbers, I don't have answers, but rather, a better presentation of numbers, for which, you can, in fact, attempt to make your own assumptions and assertions from which others can learn all that they can from a master of word and language, syntax and logic. You are above it all and I'll suck your dick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZshZp-cxKg
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 18:59
Permalink
Dental Moment
"4. using the institutions to get rid of the institutions is like biting your own teeth. impossible."
I bite my teeth all the time. It's called bruxism.
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 19:29
Permalink
And they descended into hell
And they descended into hell with much wailing and gnashing of teeth :)
emile
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 20:52
Permalink
ok, its like trying to swallow your own head
.
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 00:53
Permalink
Yoga Moment
I can swallow my own head by doing a certain yoga pose that moves my head very close to my genitals.
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 06:57
Permalink
HAh... yeah that infamous
HAh... yeah that infamous Will Ferrel SNL sketch. lol
Lorne Michaels (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 08:33
Permalink
wait a moment
"emile" is really Will Ferrel? OMG: mind blown. Ka-blooey!
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 17:23
Permalink
"This kind of cynicism is a
"This kind of cynicism is a luxury the poor can't afford."
This is such condescending nonsense. Do these people realize that most poor people don't vote?
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 18:49
Permalink
Btw, one of Corbyn's biggest
Btw, one of Corbyn's biggest lamentations against the Tories is how they've been under-funding the pigs.
Talk about a candidate that anarchists can support!
Gunter (not verified)
Thu, 06/08/2017 - 19:23
Permalink
Individualists don't vote
Individualists don't vote, not from any duty to a personal ethical position, but because the act would immediately deconstruct their identity as individuals. Eccentric individual anarchists may choose to vote for the lulz though, that doesn't mean they've broken some sacred rule of anarchism, because there are no "rules" if one is an anarchist, and actually the ironic act of even anarchists becoming police officers for the state whilst still possessing a quintessential identification to anarchist principles is not a corruption of any "anarchist" code of conduct, and this weaning of anarchist values into the mainstream totality is ultimately the subliminal desire of any anarchist with a broad and empathetic desire to forward the advancement towards an egalitarian anarchist social structure.
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 09:09
Permalink
Oh man!
We're really gonna change things now! Good-bye balaclava! Get up extra early for a good spot in line. Make sure to volunteer for your local Democratic or Green party phone banks, or any other political party which is in-line (no pun intended) with anarchist values. Canvas and walk around for the salaried members of the PACs so that they can stay focused on their important work. And remember, GET OUT THE VOTE!!! We'll have the halls of power flush with anti-statists in no time.
Gunter (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:28
Permalink
But subliminal desire preceded
But subliminal desire preceded the institution. One has to leave the mechanistic 19/20th century behind, the politics today is still in terms of neo-colonial territorial and capital control in a binary field of libidinous economy and walls protecting monopolized desires. The individualist anarch has amoral sovereign agency outside of this drama. If they are intelligent and compassionate, they are living anarchy. The Black-Block are suppressing their subliminal desires to wield power, unintentional mimicry is their black uniform(ity) and their banner poles as spears, and news-paper boxes as projectiles. The institution, the walls of hierarchical inclusive/exclusive access to the bankvault of accumulated desires, mostly in the hands of capitalists, the market managers of desires. The fetishes, the suppressed and deprived desires of those primitives and beasts of lusts clashing and wrenching in frenzied warlike panic like ravenous dogs tearing at carrion. Don't you see the brutality of activism taken to its revolutionary conclusion?
Fauvenoir (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 08:23
Permalink
"But subliminal desire preceded the institution."
I'm caling a elite team of sociologists for confirmation but I'm fairly sure that's not what happened. But I wasn't there when it did, so I could be wrong...
Anonymous (not verified)
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 12:32
Permalink
He is erroneous
He is erroneous concerning a crypto-anarchist working for the State, and extending the libidinal economy to smaller institutional counterparts such as clubs or tendencies and fetishes, not the broader ones such as family, church, school, legislative dept, etc.is a bit pedantic and splitting hairs
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 14:58
Permalink
IMO, saying "anarchists don't
IMO, saying "anarchists don't vote" is like saying "anarchists don't buy things from WalMart". Like, yeah, I suppose there is some form of ideologically pure conception of anarchism that requires specific behaviors, but there's the whole "hypocrisy is a symptom of capitalism" thing that still applies, and literally everyone living in the conceptual bounds a democracy creates is already doing things that aren't "anarchist" in that sense of the word (which is half of what I think the author was trying to say, just not particularly effectively). So I don't understand the point of proselytizing not-voting. I mean, I'll talk about why I don't vote with other anarchists, but I'm not going to pretend it's a strategic thing.
The more interesting thing to me is why people often treat me like a fucking psychopath when I mention that I don't vote. I live outside the US right now, and when people here hear I didn't vote in the election, they treat me like I personally am responsible for getting Trump elected (despite the fact that the state I could have registered in went solidly blue). They'll also often accuse me of doing exactly what I critiqued above, promoting abstention, when typically all I said is "Oh, I don't know, I didn't vote" in response to a question about absentee ballots or something. Why the hell is it that so many people treat this shit so sacredly, when it so clearly and demonstrably does not matter what I did? Are they treating me as a representative of the entire set of "people who didn't vote but could have"? Or are they reacting based on conditioning of "It's everyone's duty to vote"? I'd ask them myself, but I'm trying not to piss off coworkers/friends unnecessarily, so I just try to drop the subject quickly. Plus, it's kind of creepy, like that Futurama episode where everyone loves The Tentacle.
Gunter (not verified)
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 15:48
Permalink
There are many morons
There are many morons out there who think non-voters are representatives of the evil empire where all the drugs, serial killers, pornography, homeless come from, yeah, the binary Idiotocracy.
Le Way (not verified)
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 12:45
Permalink
There are many hobos out there
There are many hobos out there who think voters are representatives of the evil empire where all the drugs, serial killers, pornography, bourgeoisie come from, yeah, the binary Idiocracy,,,,,,,,,,,,,duuuuuuh.
SirEinzige
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 19:47
Permalink
Shopping at WalMart
I don't really care if @s shop at walmart. If you can go to some fair trade place good for you but it's not that big of deal and makes sense for those who live paycheck to paycheck. Voting on the other hand is quite literally a waste of time and your ONE vote will in all probability not be the deciding vote. Even if there is someone you prefer to win just sit back and let the belief patterns do the talking.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 10:02
Permalink
That's not a very good
That's not a very good analogy. You're failing to grasp the actual critique of the state (bedrock anarchist analysis) and mistaking it for something much more asinine like ethical consumerism.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 10:03
Permalink
^^^Not a reply to ziggy,
^^^Not a reply to ziggy, intended for the OP
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 17:49
Permalink
Except that voting is no more
Except that voting is no more integral to the existence of the state than consuming corporate goods is necessary to capitalism. When you refuse to vote, you aren't resisting the state, just like when you refuse to buy stuff from walmart, you aren't resisting capital. You may think and feel like you are, but this is ultimately a delusion. The analogy falls short in that buying things from walmart can grant you some material benefit, but idk, maybe those who vote get some sense of psychological release --- a homeopathy of action, if you will. While you or I may not see the value in this, my point is that it has no more or less value than any other minor lifestyle choice, precisely like ethical consumerism, and telling others "Stop it!" or "You're not a *real* anarchist!" accomplishes fuckall and isn't something I find interesting (just like... voting!).
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 06/12/2017 - 15:25
Permalink
It's not about your feelings
It's not about your feelings or if you find it interesting. It's a fucking oxymoron. An inherently contradictory position, a failure to think in a coherent manner.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 10:59
Permalink
On one hand this entire
On one hand this entire argument is a symptom of being unable to grasp the concept of using direct action to achieve a goal. Which for USA anarchism shouldn't be surprising. Acting in defiance and putting forth self organized alternatives does more to influence the ideals people vote with in the first place. Not that anarchists who are planning the next protest at a neo folk metal band concert would arrive at this conclusion.
On the other hand and potentially more depressing is that these arguments always wreak of "why don't you anarchists vote and quit embarrassing me" in front of my shitty liberal friends
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 11:09
Permalink
Lack of the threat of a good
Lack of the threat of a good example, huh? Here's a more cheerful thought: I recently ran in to an old acquaintance who's basically one of these shitty liberals you mentioned. He casually lobbed a if-you-dont-vote-thats-privilege argument at me, while shit-talking one of my friends who's also an anarchist.
This is someone who almost exclusively inhabits liberal social-media echo chambers. On their planet, check-your-privilege is a guaranteed win for every debate and the look on his face when I tore it to pieces … delicious!
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 11:45
Permalink
Im not even interested in
Im not even interested in these people anymore, I just tell them I don't give a shit and would rather be "privileged" than clueless. Fuckem.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 13:31
Permalink
Meh, if somebody doesn't tell
Meh, if somebody doesn't tell them it's bullshit, they'll never stfu. I'll even settle for scaring him in to a temporary silence.
SirEinzige
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 12:00
Permalink
There's no such thing as objective privilage
This term begins on the assumption that wealth and power are good things in and of themselves. There are those born into that who reject it. Privilege divorced from SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE is meaningless. Tell your friend that and tell him to get that is/ought shit outta here.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 13:30
Permalink
Ziggy, the person isn't my
Ziggy, the person isn't my friend, nor are we presenting what he said as anything but ridiculous, you don't need to critique it. I'll assume it's part of your condition that you don't understand what's happening right now.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 13:52
Permalink
He's right though
You could be a millionaire with an eating disorder, starving while drowning in supposed privilege. Material wealth & money doesn't necessarilly correlate to a reduction in suffering.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 14:48
Permalink
uhm … I don't think that's
uhm … I don't think that's the issue. Pointing out how Mark Zuckerberg has anxiety too is completely missing the point.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 19:06
Permalink
Not to start a flame war, but
Not to start a flame war, but privilege, while reified and not objective, is real (just like chattel slavery was a social construct with material consequences). Even rejecting wealth and power requires a certain amount of agency that not everyone is granted. Which isn't to say it's a legitimate reason to delve into the logic of repenting for original sin, but it's at least worth acknowledging the experiences of individuals varies based on agency granted to them.
SirEinzige
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 20:18
Permalink
Everybody has agency
That's not the issue. Privilege only makes sense in the context of subjectivity and preference. If someone rejects wealth and power it means they reject the very idea of granted wealth and power having anything to do with their life preferences and aspirations which is source of any kind of ACTUAL privilege.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 00:09
Permalink
Agency isn't a discrete
Agency isn't a discrete binary. And it is most certainly the issue. Someone born with a certain amount of wealth, or a certain skin color, etc. has more options available to them than someone else who was dealt different cards. Even if someone prefers to reject their wealth and power, the very fact they did so of their own volition immediately places them with a distinct set of experiences to someone who had their lifestyle choices made for them, regardless of what their preferences are. If someone burns all their inheritance money to live an ascetic lifestyle, that doesn't give them the same experiences of someone who was raised on food stamps. And not all power is even capable of being rejected. Some people are more or less likely to get shot by cops based on the color of their skin, irrespective to how they feel about the matter.
SirEinzige
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 00:41
Permalink
This doesn't follow
For one thing I am not dividing agency into haves and have nots, agency is the one basic thing everyone has. Registerable affection is a different matter. Both the born rich and the born poor have their lifestyle choices made for them and they are already assigned these fallacious assumptions of the good and the bad life that is divorced from personal subjective preference. The good condition and the bad condition divorced from the subjective and the preferential is a spook plain and simple. Of course someone who gives up wealth has a different experience from someone born in poverty, the point is there is no basis to say that one is better or worse then the other. Also of course power can be rejected, simply don't pursue it. Of course life can deal bad cards, but that's life, you adjust and overcome.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 08:17
Permalink
You are treating agency as a
You are treating agency as a "have and have not", you're just also making the equally dumb claim that everyone is a "have". Does someone in a falling guillotine have as much agency as everyone else? Someone who received a lobotomy? Someone in a coma? If you want to delve into philosophical nonsense and convince yourself this is the case, I won't stop you, but the word has lost all utility at that point and I won't follow.
>Also of course power can be rejected, simply don't pursue it.
Tell me, how does a white person not pursue the power to walk home late at night without getting shot by racist cops? How does a man not pursue the power of being given preference for an interview? I suppose "don't get shot" and "don't live in poverty" are ultimately subjective preferences, but again, at that point you've disappeared so far up your own ass that you're no longer talking about people's lives and experiences as much as engaging in philosophical masturbation. And maybe that's all you're interested in, but my desires are social.
>Of course life can deal bad cards, but that's life, you adjust and overcome.
And belittling the fact this is more difficult for some than others doesn't make you insightful, it makes you an asshole.
SirEinzige
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 09:41
Permalink
Rich and poor
Is not akin to lobotomized vs non lobotomized or coma vs no coma, c'mon man. I'm not the one who's putting out bad analogies.
The issue of trying to improve a living standard or escape a life situation does not demonstrate some type of qua better or worse condition. It simply shows an observable phenomena of people who want to get out of a situation or find a preferential living condition. You can define better and worse in certain contingent subjective ways but not as such. Someone who despises a life of born affluenza for example might desire a life of self overcoming, there is no one size fits all better and worse condition.
Difficult is again a relative describer for various conditions. I'm not doing any belittling.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 10:38
Permalink
It's akin in that it is
It's akin in that it is clearly the case that material conditions affect the degree of agency a person has. Obviously a lobotomy is an extreme case, but you can't separate social factors from our reality, since ultimately social factors define us just as much as anything else (the individual is as much a spook as society is). Saying "agency is the one basic thing everyone has" and "Everybody has agency. That's not the issue" is clearly nonsense.
>The issue of trying to improve a living standard or escape a life situation does not demonstrate some type of qua better or worse condition.
I'm not advocating an objective measure of The Good or whatever here, I'm simply saying that when you say shit like "some people LIKE being poor!" every time someone brings up privilege, it's being technically right for what is almost always no actual benefit to the conversation. You're like one of those "Well actually, the Civil War was fought over the secession, not slavery itself" people. Sure, if you want to measure everything from first principles or the law, you can "win" all sorts of debates, but what the hell is it accomplishing?
>I'm not doing any belittling.
Okay, in that case, will you admit that some people are shot because of the color of their skin, and that only a pedantic jerk would say that this isn't worse than not being shot (because of the color of their skin)?
SirEinzige
Sun, 06/11/2017 - 10:54
Permalink
Again affection on agency is
Again affection on agency is relative when basic decision making powers are still in place. Being lobotomized is a life altering event that puts an end to basic powers of decision making and identity as it existed up until.
You may not be advocating an objective measurement of better and worse human conditions but that is what ALL privilege assumptions are based on. Given the loaded assumptions that privilege brings to the table based on logical analysis it BETTER be technically right in it's assumptions. I and others can show very plainly that it isn't. If there is not qua barometer to measure a better life or a worse life then there is no privilege outside of subjective preferences. What the hell is privilege theory accomplishing is what I would ask?
To your last point I would agree that it is generally preferable to not be in that position, but contingent definitions of better and worse situations and conditions do not demonstrate privilege in regards to those who are not in the worse.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 13:59
Permalink
Checking your privilege
Is like checking your oil. Both require a dipstick.
"...tore it to pieces." How did you?
Gunter (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 14:49
Permalink
These days the dipstick
These days the dipstick is a credit rating.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 15:09
Permalink
There's a lot of angles since
There's a lot of angles since there's so many glaring logic fallacies in voting-is-a-privilege, as any anarchist should probably know but really it's just not even a coherent argument.
I may have started ranting but if I remember correctly, it was stuff like: Anti-state doesn't mean, I'm usually just trying to be edgy but I'll set all that aside for the sake of participating in the total fraud of "democracy" grafted on to the military/industrial complex that is the state and that's IF I had any faith in ANY democratic process involving more than like, 5 people, which I don't!
To say nothing of the implied narrative of voting as some kind of sacred obligation, instead of a clumsy, commodified invention of people who have zero interest in representing the margins of the society they're attempting to rule OR the incredible condescension required to pretend like anarchism is a cute novelty to be set aside on election day, rather than a venerable traditional of total rejection of those fickle, asinine games of power, played by the wealthy to control all the fools who falsely believe themselves to be "free".
We're not on the field, arguing about the rules of a stupid game, we're not even in the stadium! We're out in the parking lot, trying to get a refund or leave and there's armed checkpoints with pigs saying "No refunds and no leaving." So no, I don't fucking vote.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 15:27
Permalink
You're a hundred miles from
You're a hundred miles from the stadium by the sound of things, nice.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 15:33
Permalink
Flatterer! ;)
Flatterer! ;)
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 06/12/2017 - 10:20
Permalink
We should have conversations
We should have conversations on the efficacy of @ news comments and if not commenting on here makes you not a True Anarchist. That'd be more effective.
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 06/12/2017 - 15:26
Permalink
You're still fixated on this
You're still fixated on this "purity" thing but it's not the point and never was.
Anonymous (not verified)
Tue, 06/13/2017 - 15:45
Permalink
'None Of The Above Candidates
'None Of The Above Candidates.' No one has mentioned that 'None Of The Above Candidates' could be added to each ballot paper. That way people can still vote (even the anarchists/so-called anarchists). It would be interesting to see what would happen if 'None Of The Above Candidates' received the most votes!
Add new comment