Is it time for anarchists to vote?

That's hardly a mainstream opinion though, Invictus appears to be jumping through intellectual hoops to reach the most 'shocking' conclusion (i.e. voting tory). To be honest I'm much more disheartened at those who continue to support social democratic parties thinking it will provide a major change.

Why bother to go to the polling booth?

I will quote a rather long quote by Emma Goldman which is pretty relevant to what you say about you voting because others can't. Even though she was in america a long time ago when she wrote this its still relevant and exposes the charade.

"The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results of the twentieth century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured.

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.

As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political power are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing issues of life. This view is also borne out by a statement of one who is herself an ardent believer in woman suffrage, Dr. Helen L. Sumner. In her able work on EQUAL SUFFRAGE, she says: "In Colorado, we find that equal suffrage serves to show in the most striking way the essential rottenness and degrading character of the existing system." Of course, Dr. Sumner has in mind a particular system of voting, but the same applies with equal force to the entire machinery of the representative system. With such a basis, it is difficult to understand how woman, as a political factor, would benefit either herself or the rest of mankind."

This isn't actually true though - the majority of Americans have supported healthcare reforms for decades, the difference now is that the US healthcare system is that inefficient that, for instance, it costs capitalists more to produce cars in America than Canada. Noam Chomsky has written and spoken on this extensively.

So why is it an issue now, if public opinion hasn't changed? Well clearly its because of changing imperatives on the part of capital. Basically manufacturing capital has come over on the side of "socialised" healthcare in recent years.

What's your definition of socialism? Read this link please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Anyone who thinks Venezeula is moving towards socialism is an ostrich buried in sand comprised of soft tankie newspapers.

Here is quote from me, in the very post you read.

As I said, which you missed, for me Socialism for the revolutionary left (Classical Marxism-Anarchism) is Workers Control over all means of production and the elimination of the state.

Don't send me that shit about State Capitalism, I know what it is. Growing Cooperatives, Communal power that is closer to Socialism then in America or Europe. Not state Capitalism. Furthermore, it's more socialistic then Europe, the Soviet Union to have Co-Managed Industries, rather then just nationalized.

Now is it Socialism? No. Will it be? Maybe, probably not, but no doubt a step in the right direction. No doubt it's at least a training for the people of the coming insurrection. Giving them the tools of Communal Power, self management skills, etc.

That is nothing short of depressing. If you are not open to changing your position then what's the point in discussing anything at all?

The arguments put forward in this debate for anarchists voting have been terribly weak; they haven't even been good arguments for anyone voting, but this is the real dregs.

Right...... I have a good friend who lives in London, in the 1990s we were active in the same little anarchist group, a group of friends really, which tried for a while to combine a range of political activities with what you might call prefigurative living: a housing co-op; food growing and so on.

Well, just as this General Election kicked off my friend told me that she despaired about the borough she lived in and the future of the library service she works in. She is also a TU rep and has been having huge amounts of job-threatening grief off her senior management. In the face of all this, and the absence of any anarchist organisation to support her, she joined the Labour Party and is now canvassing and working in their campaign office... I imagine she will vote.

I spent a few really depressed days after I heard this news. If I try to talk about how much I hate Labour I normally just end up frothing at the mouth. I don't agree with my friend's decision, but she feels that in her circumstances the only way she can do anything about the future of her part of the world is to get involved........ she says that she is going to burn her Labour Party card on 7th May.

I just share that as an anecdote about how libertarian socialists - well at least one libertarian socialist - can feel isolated and desperate enough to enter into the electoral process. Frankly, I was a little relieved when she explained what she had done; at first I thought they might have given her a ward and she was going to stand for the council!

I suppose that what would make me different is that I have less faith in the value of public services, even libraries, than she does; one could probably say that she is definitely still of the left, whereas I have my doubts about even the validity of the term let alone the defence of social democratic "gains".

lets not get into petty name-calling now.

the 'they' debate is boring and pointless, tho. can we please forget it?

Whilst Governments base the running of an economy on succesful commercial enterprises, - it will always be the case: Business first, people last
Life is about expeiencing Life, - not slavery to a tax-system that doles out a p-poor return for the ordinary working population

If you think there's a symbolic worth in individually spoiling your ballot you may as well vote surely? Spoiled ballots are generally forgotten about and from what I've heard from some people who count ballots they are just regarded as a pain in the arse.

Im quoting armchairanarchist from the why bother voting thread. I think this is a good argument against your decision to spoil your ballot piper42, I would advocate like armchair to just staying at home...

Well , those anarchists registered to vote in the Vauxhall constituency should be expressing their support and endorsement for a society of co-operation , an end to buying and selling , where goods will be voluntarily produced and services voluntarily supplied to meet people's needs and all people can freely take the things they need and which will be a world without frontiers or leaders or a State , by voting for the SPGB candidate who is standing advocating such a community . And in the local elections, anarchists should be voting SPGB in Lambeth's Ferndale and Larkhall wards and Camden's Kentish Town ward.

Other anarchists should use the election as an opportunity for a write-in vote for World Socialism . One or two spoiled ballot papers can be ignored, tens of thousands or even millions can not be , especially if backed by a vocal protest movement .The SPGB doesn't advocate de facto disenfranchisement of the worker by promoting political abstention . Acquiring the vote was a gain for the working class and became a potential class weapon, a potential "instrument of emancipation" .In Britain, the provisions for voter registration, nomination of candidates, and counting of votes can be used to express the desire for socialism . So the SPGB haS no interest in running down the system as such and one way to show that you accept the electoral system but yet reject the sham choice is to go and use it but do not vote for any of the candidates and instead write-in for World Socialism.

But thats 'nuff of the party election broadcast ! But as an interesting aside though , there is currently a new documentary-play called Counted that examines the causes of political apathy . The material is based on research by Stephen Coleman, a specialist in political communication at Leeds University and , of course , an ex-SPGBer and ex-writer for the Socialist Standard .

Coleman told Channel 4 News:

Coleman visited various places including: prisons, community centres and golf clubs – in Leeds and Bradford – to gauge their opinions. Some prisoners serving life sentences told of how losing the right to vote brought home to them how much freedom they had lost, while one woman said she could not vote for fear of being traced by her estranged family – but longed for the day she could put herself on a voting register again.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/the+politics+of+voting/3599857
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/counted-county-hall-london-1950605.html

One of the major developments of state capitalism throughout the last century was that the different political parties no longer had any real differences as far as the working class was concerned. Going to a polling booth as an atomised individual or even as part of a "movement" for change - say voting for a third party candidate, will make absolutely no difference to the policies of the state except strengthen them overall. Parliamentary elections are campaigns and victories for the ruling class.

As an example of the non-differences between political parties on an imperialist level, ie, the needs of the national war machine, one could point to the seamless foreign policy of the Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations. Overall, with some secondary and minor differences, seamless. The same is true of Labour and Tory in relation to British imperialism, who both (have to) represent the needs of the latter. Invictus 88's position that the Falklands War was anti-imperialist is astonishing and chimes in with the Thatcherite ideology of the time that it was a war of "self-determination". It was an adventurist, imperialist war designed to boost British national interests and attack the current class struggle. Well summed up in the banners of returning warships directed towards workers in Britain: "Call off the rail strikes or we'll call in an air strike". 88's position on the first Gulf War similarly tails-end the ideological campaigns of the ruling class at the time. It was to defend 'poor little Kuwait' - just like WWI was to defend "poor little Belgium". It was an imperialist war designed by the Pentagon to reinforce US leadership towards its potential rivals in the face of the collapse of the eastern bloc. An imperialist war par excellence underwritten by the democratic slaughter unleashed on the road to Basra and elsewhere.

I think that the nationalisations of last century were similarly part of the tendency towards state capitalism and not necessarily to deal with the class struggle. A health service met the needs for fit workers and education for literate and basically skilled workers. I'm just coming up to 50 years of work and a rough estimate says that my National Insurance, that covers health care in great part, at today's values, works out to about £160,000 paid in my lifetime. That's about 10 years wages. Also on the "free" welfare system, I have to pay for glasses, teeth, various important drugs if needed (and that's if one can get them). Nationalising industries didn't stop massive job losses, nor wage cuts. On the contrary, it made them more effective. Similarly, my direct experience has been that privatisation did not in the least reduce state controle but greatly strengthened it.

Thats very interesting baboon. Especially what you said about National Insurance!

"there's no differentiation between someone who's written 'none of the above' and someone who hasn't followed the voting instructions correctly."

Having been an election agent , each and every spoiled ballot paper is inspected and examined by all the political parties as there can be a lively debate upon the voters intention since not all spoiled ballots are ruled invalid due to not following the instructions but can be left to the consensus of the candidates and the discretion of the returning officer . If there was a concerted write-in campaign that had an effect , it would be obvious to all taking part in the election from the candidates to the scrutineers and counters and also to the press , even though included with the genuine spoiled vote total at the declaration .

However , with the introduction of electronic voting , we can all say good-bye to any constructive use of spoiled ballot papers . It will become a redundant tactic . An application of new technology that will not advance democracy.

Not when it grows out of ecological principles rather than Marxist notions of class conflict. Though you're right that at face value it does look like a very incongruous sympathy!

But anarcho-syndicalism is based on notions of class conflict. Take point one from the IWA's 'Principles of Revolutionary Unionism':

Devrim

So you don't believe in class struggle?

Indubitably.

From the moment I started reading this thread, I knew it was only a matter of time before Piper42 mentioned the LibDem party. I didn't have to follow the link in the first post, I could tell from the mealy mouthed language he/she/it was using.

Sorry mate, but I'm not sure you do. You're making the classic Leninist error of confusing the state and the working class.

Did you read the Vetelca article? So-called "coops" are often used as a means to break workers organising to improve their rights (classic chavista quote "under socialism, there are no unions"). That's even without mentioning a critique of workers' coops.

#1 The USSR was state capitalist.

#2 The coops are integrated into the PSUV party-state machinery (ditto the oft-lauded consejos comunales, try going against Party line in a CC meeting)

#3 I'd actually say that there is a far greater chance of revolution in, say, Greece or Mexico than in Venezuela. Political debate here is very, very weak and consciously driven and dominated by individual celebrities. An average Venezuelan's definition of socialism is roughly equivocable to that of a Daily Mail reader for instance (including chavistas). Chavismo has successfully recuperated words like "socialismo" and "poder comunal" and it's a complicated, gradual process disentangling these concepts from the tarred PSUV brush, which is only really just starting in the last couple of years.

There is a small but growing post-chavista left, which is now just starting to experience the conflicts and debates that we would consider endemic to the British "revolutionary movement" (the role of the unions, whether to participate in elections, etc).

Like I say, your perception of daily life in Venezuela is so heavily distorted that it's actually laughable. Sorry, that has to rank as one of the most absurd comments in Libcom history.

Doesn't work for me.

I like how you tacked this on at the end...

Was it decided by committee?

You get pissed off with anarchism because of some posts on an internet forum? do you think ever post here represents the "anarchist movement"?

If your faith in the left is gone thought thats a start (since revolutionarys are not part of the left)