Why don't anarchists vote?

'At any one time one way of organizing the economy develops society more than another
i changed one word for the hard of thinking. i really don't see how it's meaningless.

i'm not even arguing for decadence.

what a pointless conversation.

George wrote:
"Okay the point is that there is no objective criteria to work turn this into a meaningful statement, 'At any one time one way of organizing society develops society more than another.' Thats the bit I have a problem with. Its meaningless so I can't accept it or reject it. But because your argument for decadence hinges on a meaningless statement I can say that its a bad argument".

and he also, in a different post, pointed to this bit of "scripture":
I
[i]Marx in The Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy wrote:
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. [/i]

I thought that lem was basically summarising this statement by Marx. So would you describe that as meaningless as well?

To give a more concrete example: is generalised commodity production the best possible way of feeding the world's population, or is it condemning a huge portion of humanity to permanent undernourishment, even though the technical and natural resources exist to feed the entire world? Have we reached the point where production for use is the only way to achieve this?

Anyway, about voting: no one answered alibadani's question - what's wrong with principles? Are they the same as religious dogma?

Was it ever?

why not just say that 'general development of society' is a meaningless less statement here, when you first used the term.

yeah alright. a reformism that led to better health service woulf be "nice". but you don't think it's possible that such would put revolution further off. or what then?

Capitalism never accumulated with the aim of feeding the world's population, it's true, but it was neverthless compelled to develop the productivity of labour to the point where the living standards of the working population substantially increased (not without them fighting for it, of course, and not until after a long period in which the majority were in many ways worse off than under feudalism). The 'agricultural revolution' shows all these contradictions, but would you not see it as an expression of (dare I say the word) progress?

lem, If you don't believe in decadence then why are we ahving this conversation?

No, but I would say it lacks clarity.

Alf, so that's essentially a 'no' then, albeit qualified with some things just about everyone knows and accepts.

Except if that's progress, so's computers, and the internet, and satellite phones, and solar power, wind turbines, those water battery thingies, space travel, shinkansen,cinema etc. etc.

I think since there's already 2-3 threads devoted to this discussion we should avoid further derailing this one though, since there's the potential for loooads of discussion on this point, and Dev and george have already suggested taking 'progress' elsewhere.

One last comment:: when the spinning jenny was invented, communism wasn't yet possible. The internet was invented decades after communism had become a vital necessity for human survival. And it was a direct spin-off from the war economy.

But I agree, we can discuss progress and decadence elsewhere.

The question about priniciples still stands.

I do talk to people, occasionally, but I never "distribute propaganda".
That was exactly my point.

No, I wasnt asking if anyone on the thread was a leftist (or even just wasnt an anarchist) - I was asking where on this thread have people been urging people to vote for the government?
The thread is (or was) a thread about whether voting should be ruled out as a general principle. No-one was urging anyone to vote for anyone.

Why don't anarchists vote? I can only speak for myself, but...

Because people can't gain power over their own lives by giving power way?
Because elections empower politicians rather than voters?
Because how can non-hierarchical social relations be created by participation in hierarchical institutions?
Because anarchist communism can't be legislated into place, because it depends on a willingness and ability of people to participate in directly democratic institutions, which arguably can only be developed in the struggle to create these institutions through direct action?
Because arguably the workplace is a more important area of struggle?
Because historically reforms have only been forthcoming when the bastards were scared of popular revolt.

Thats about it for me. Sorry if it seems a bit simplistic.

the bit i quoted was posi saying he'd vote labour against the BNP.

Fascinating question though. What should posi do? Assuming posi’s in a situation where his vote “counts”, perhaps it’s in his interests to abstain and pop a BNP Councillor or whatever in. Cause and effect. In that case he would be showing that he’s not going to support the present order against a “greater evil”. They’re not demonstrably worse.

I suppose we could set up a popular rival so that working class BNP voters can swap over to our side. Perhaps merely neutralising a threat isn’t worth the cost of setting it up.

Posi lives in George fuckin' Galloway's constituency. He will probably abstain, spoil his ballot, or vote for some local Save our Hospital type candidate - almost certainly the latter, if available. The BNP aren't an issue.

I used to live near (but not actually in) an area where an NF candidate was standing (a rare foray into electoral politics for them). Had I lived there, in the absence of any significant and active pro-working class ticket, I would have voted Labour. There appears to be a school of thought that it would represent a victory for the class of some kind if I abstained.

On reflection I think he [Meltzer] actually wrote something more like "a purely negative attitude" but in context it was clear that this amounted to the same thing. Anarchist opposition to participating in government was based on experience, rather than on an obsession with doctrinal purity.

Now I've gone to the trouble of looking up the relevant text of Meltzer's as archived by Spunk at
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

This is slightly rewriiten from the document I encountered back in the 1970s or very early 80s; as is shown by the fact that it now as archived refers to the fall of the Soviet Union. The particular quote I referred to has been disappeared. But there is other material that shows that Meltzer was not a non-voting fundamentalist. I quote it below. Of course there is plenty of other stuff about the limitations of voting and so forth.

Meltzer also makes an important distinction between what Anarchists do as individuals and as part of non-anarchist groups and waht they do 'as Anarchists":

So, Daniel, that whirring sound you hear when Anarchists revisit the question of electoral abstention is definitely not the Blessed Albert turning in his grave!

The point I would like to make is that Don't Vote campaigns and the like are making use of the electoral system just as much as voting, actually more so. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, in fact I think the false pretension of modern capitalism to "democracy" may well ne a weak point worth picking at. But I don't think that Anarchists can credibly insist on non-voting as a "purity" issue.

Ideology aside, I am not voting because it is not going to make any difference whatsoever who wins. Believe it or not, this concept is not exclusive to anarchists or those interested in anarchist ideology. I know shitloads of people who have never picked up Bakunin and are not going to vote because they really don't give a shit and just instinctively know it doesn't matter - particularly young people.

I thought lem made MArx's statement less meaningful by expressing it in an unclear manner, in fact I'd go as far as to say that the meaning itself was different.

You know the answer to this Alf. If we are talking politically then principles are (or rather should be) reasoned and therefore unlike dogma, which while it may contain logic is based upon principles that have been accepted without being questioned.

What I am unsure about is this

Is this not an on-going process within capitalism? Decadence is surely when such conflict is no longer possible as a method of increasing production/surplus value and therefore some other form of conflict must replace it. I'm not sure if such a point will ever be reached, I'm certain that it won't come in the time we have left.

I might defend myself from your allegations later

no i don't see how these are essentially different.

both share the thesis that material conditions mean that the form of society does not develop society as it could. what an earth is missing from my definition? no??

tbh, i feel almost a if these "attacks" on me are becoming irrational

lem, I'm not attacking you.
The part in bold you have omitted, I think it is the key to decadence theory.
You talk about shifts but don't give any explanation of what these shifts are.
point three doesn't really mean anything.
Your conclusions don't really follow on from what you've said largely because you haven't formulated an argument that will lead to a conclusion.

yeah whatever jef.

Lem's argument can be re-written to: form A of society S A will shift into B upon some state of Z (-material conditions) obtaining.
Hypothetical1: B organizes society better than A.
Hypothetical2: B does not obtain in S.
It follows from Lem's argument that Hypothetical2 occurs because Z is not met.
This can be re-written as: Society does not develop as as it could under the current form of society because of material conditions. Which is equivalent to marx's argument as written above.
shifts are obviously revolutions. durr.
the idea that point 3 is nonsensical, is plain nonsensical.

JEF:

or:]productive forces mean that the form of society does not develeop society. this can as it is be seen as a "conflict" on the assunption that society is dialetical (-which imo can be waived when considering decadence theory, along with the marx quote above); or alternatively some version of that "conflict" can be seen clearer with the rider that 'development of society is down to conflict between society and productive forces'.

I suppose you could argue that marx did not mean the statement i have quoted of his as i have taken it. Interested in thrashing out what he could have meant?

besides which, prima facie the icc know what their theory of decadece is better than you jef

something like that anyway. like i say the icc know their theory better than you do jef.

Wronf thread. Sorry

bumped out of curioisty. jef/alf?

sorry John.

lem I wasn't tryint to attack you and you clearly aren't getting what I'm saying. I can't really get what you're on about and it would require more effort than I can spare so lets just let it lie.

Alf et al. Any chance of a response to my question, I thought of a partial answer but I'd be interested to know yours.

well i've treid to explain how the conclusion follows and how i haven't omitted anything. fair enough if you can't be bothered like.

Jef: do you mean this question:

"What I am unsure about is this

Quote:
the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production

Is this not an on-going process within capitalism? Decadence is surely when such conflict is no longer possible as a method of increasing production/surplus value and therefore some other form of conflict must replace it. I'm not sure if such a point will ever be reached, I'm certain that it won't come in the time we have left".

Yes, it is an ongoing process to a certain extent. The crises of overproduction of the 19th century also showed the conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces. But each crisis was resolved by what Marx called "the expansion of the outlying fields of production". This expansion becomes more and more difficult once capitalism became a global system, and the overproduction crisis tends to become chronic. It can no longer be overcome simply by beginning a new and wider cycle of accumulation, but plunges more and more of the planet into catastrophe. The conflict between relations of production and the productive forces has become permanent rather than periodic. This is not the same as saying that capitalism will ever reach a point where it can simply not continue in purely economic terms. Before that, as you seem to agree, it will either be destroyed by revolution or destroy itself through war and/or ecological disaster.

so is this permanent state of conflict decadence then?

I think war is a method of avoiding conflict. Destruction and then rebuilding another country (or even a region) is a good way of creating need.

Jeff Costello wrote:

Quote:

It underpins it, yes IMO.

Jeff wrote:

True, WW2 produced a reconstruction period (late 40s to late 60s) which eventually permitted apparently spectacular growth. This was neither inevitable (still the world’s second largest economy, Britain was on the brink of starvation in 46-47) nor automatic (it took massive deficit financing thru the US Marshall Plan to kick-start economic growth in Europe, Japan, etc). And these rates of growth couldn't and didn't last: once the reconstructed countries picked up production: they became competitors contributing to a relative saturation of the world market once again.

Given the increasing irrationality of war (an idea probably best discussed under the decadence thread) I feel it unwise to assume capitalism can contain it's conflicts in decadence: they tend to spiral out of its control, beyond its 'intentions, if you like. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to confirm this. And, as opposed to the handful of nuclear weapons around in 1945, there are now an estimated 22,000-36,000 wielded by a growing number of states.

Plus, on a global and historical level, arms production and war represent a sterilisation of capital, not a field for accumulation, as I understand it. But that too is probably for the other thread.

On the voting front, all major parties are war parties, defenders of 'their' national who maintain permanently high levels of armaments which are a brake on real economic growth at the expense of society in general and the working class in particular.

Hi George,

As one of the people who has posted a fair bit on here and as someone who would generally fall under "left communist", I can say with no qualms that I do not now and never have subscribed to a theory of decadence. And I am fairly sure that a number of groups (regardless of size) at the very least heavily influenced by "left communist" thought also do not hold to it, such as the ICG, Wildcat in Germany, Aufheben, and possibly riff-raff. These may be smaller groups, but their influence politically is larger than their numerical size, too. I also think it is entirely unfair to refer to those groups as dogmatic quacks, though they, as do we all, suffer from the tenor of the times.

Cheers,
Chris