Anarchism, voting and Bernie Sanders

yuck

Every four years, some American idiot anarchist decides that this time it's the most important election of our lifetimes... As if the continual erosion of the electorate isn't happening, as if the Supreme Court decision that corporations are actually people didn't irreparably damage the illusion of individual participation, as if "the issues" were actually on the table, as if...

The smugness of this cretin is astounding. Hasn't he heard of the thousands of people removed from voter rolls because they have the same name (or even same-sounding name) as some convicted felon? Don't worry, though. So as long as these middle class so-called anarchists have nothing to fear from the state, they'll go ahead and exercise their privilege as American citizens to cast a ballot for whoever they want. But to behave as if they were actually doing something anarchist, and celebrate it, and encourage others to "make a difference" by following their pathetic example? Despicable.

Er, did I actually just read that? How is it even possible that someone so clueless can sound so condescending? That is one of the stupidest pieces of political writing I have ever seen.

It's this simple, an anarchist voting for Bernie Sanders is about as appropriate as a vegetarian voting for Colonel Sanders.

lt gets worse. Chomsky said he'd vote to Hillary. AND some people make him out to be an anarchist.

At least you don't live here in Europe where people who insist they are anarchists run in elections with fascists, claim they are not fascists and this is tolerated by other people who insist they are anarchists ... and all this goes on without the scrutiny of any of you because this happens outside the English speaking world.

Re Black Badger #3

'Word origin and history for cretin.

n.
1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, ‘a dwarfed and deformed idiot’ of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin christianus ‘a Christian’, a generic term for ‘anyone’, but often with a sense of ‘poor fellow’. Related: Cretinism (1801).

Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010 Douglas Harper'

On this basis, I feel the use of ‘cretin’ to describe the author of the ‘supporting Bernie Sanders’ post is an insult to a genuine ‘cretin’. After all they are genuinely worthy of pity.

The hierarchy of idiocy;

http://englishchamber.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09/idiots-morons-imbeciles-cretins.html?m=1

I can't actually bring myself to read that. But yes every single time there is any sort of election morons start declaring this one is the most important one ever:
akai

lt gets worse. Chomsky said he'd vote to Hillary. AND some people make him out to be an anarchist.

To be fair to him, he said he would vote for her if he lived in a swing state. And he pretty much always says he would vote for the "least worst" option…

Isn't this about the lesser-evilism fallacy rather than voting itself? You can reject the lesser-evilism fallacy without rejecting Chomsky. And if elections don't make any difference then why should candidate endorsements by 'anarchists'?

It doesn't matter to me and I can only presume it matters to you because you don't see opportunities for anarchists to organise. If you did I'd like to think you would be busy there, not moaning on here..

And that one's to Akai message #5

:-)

I think it's probably because akai is talking about something that is happening where akai is trying to organise.

It doesn't matter to me and I can only presume it matters to you because you don't see opportunities for anarchists to organise. If you did I'd like to think you would be busy there, not moaning on here..

Lol. Of all people sleeper can accuse of not seeing opportunities to organize, it is akai who clearly is very involved with anarchist organizing. Yet again Sleeper misses the mark.

Sleeper has adopted a very suitable name. But he should sleep more not less.

Well, precisely because l see opportunities for anarchists to organize movements, l think that voting is channeling people's energies in the wrong direction.

lf we believe what we are saying, than we know that the state is not the answer and the system needs to be destroyed, not reformed.

On the other hand, l can also refer to those who want some concrete reforms and argue that, because they want something concrete to be down, they choose to support a candidate that says he or she supports that thing. l really wonder what these people believe, for example, the competencies of politicians (for example president) are. Because l certainly know people who supported X,Y, Z or because they said "l support this or that" (le free health care) .... but there is still no free health care. The politicians certainly want you to think that if you change enough politicians, then capitalism will change, but it's bull.

Over here (which clearly is different than over there, but the principle is the same), we have some social movements that have been tremendously weakened by the fact that people got very caught up in trying to get people elected, which they see as the "best way" to make any changes for concrete reform. However, there is direct evidence to the contrary because any recent positive changes to the law (exactly reform .... the kind the politicians say they can do for people) have been made because of constant action and pressure of grassroots organizations like the ones l am in.... well, actually, not to sound immodest, but concretely not "like" the ones, but concretely them. Literally, we got some things changed. Not enough though. But the reason for that is because a big part of the people that used to do things just support charlatan politicians who came to ride on the movement.

ln the US situation, the type of pressure one would have to exert would certainly have to be far greater than what movements are currently doing. But things like direct actions of workers look like they can bring results and winning concrete reforms. So, in other words, if people are arguing they need reforms, (and that is essentially the voters' argument) there is a way to do it - but it is just harder than voting. Furthermore, voting will not bring too many results. lf all anarchists actually put more effort in organizing, at least there should be the result of stronger movements. (Provided they don't get stuck on nonsense.)

Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

jondwhite

Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

No, not in itself, but by doing so it does suggest there's some value in the electoral system - which can and does lead to people getting involved in election campaigns as well as reinforcing the belief change comes from above, not our own self-activity.

That said, I don't really a give a hoot if people want to vote. It's not an argument worth having, but an opposition to voting really is a fundamental part of the anarchist critique of the state.

Chilli Sauce

jondwhite

Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

No, not in itself, but by doing so it does suggest there's some value in the electoral system

i wouldn't put it that strongly. there is a difference between what a sanders and a cruz would do in office. to that extent, it's worth your time to vote. but electioneering is right out obv.

jondwhite

Does casting a ballot or even endorsing a candidate channel much energy of many people identifying as anarchist anyway?

Probably not much but I wouldn't want to waste even the miniscule morsel
of my energy on such a futile load of wank.

DP

Met an American woman moving randomly between tube stations with a vote Bernie Sanders placarde(we are the 51st state after all).I basically said he was the American Tony Blair and that he would bend to the real power is;military-industrial complex.All she could say was "he's better than Trump and a nice guy"Says it all :-(

This was in London btw

The American Tony Blair is Bill Clinton, though..

I don't think there's any point wasting much time getting involved in the Sanders campaign, especially since he's doomed in the Democratic primaries, but I don't think there's much real sense in the argument that voting in itself takes away from more effective activity. I voted in the last election for whatever candidates Planned Parenthood told me to without any exaggerated sense of its social impact and it took about fifteen minutes there and back that otherwise would have been spent reading or watching TV or surfing the internet. Definitely not something worth getting preachy Vote or Die!-ish about, but seems a bit stupid to act as if abstention from voting in this context is at all an act of political significance (not that voting is much of one). The Chomsky thing is a bit different, I think, in that he actually has influence and saying stuff like that might encourage misguided ideas about the value of devoting oneself to electioneering, but it also seems baseless to act like the likely matchup of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would necessarily govern in equally horrific ways on the basis that they'd both be serving as agents of American capital. So I don't see much offense in tossing a vote for the candidate who does't call for the mass expulsion of over eleven million people or barring Muslims from entering the US, particularly given that Trump's success is probably already increasing the likelihood of racial pogroms. Definitely nothing to do with anarchism or communism, though.

I don't think there's much real sense in the argument that voting in itself takes away from more effective activity

Maybe not amongst those actively involved in class struggle in one way or another but amongst the general population I'd say the effect is enormous. The idea that the main route to change is through the ballot box is so deeply entrenched. It's one of the main reasons we are so small in number.

I personally don't understand the hardline attitude against voting. Isn't it simple game theory? You gain little by voting, but you can lose much by not voting. If there was a candidate running who was likely to privatize the healthcare system or increase tuition costs of higher education, then I would certainly go out and vote for the other candidate. If every left-leaning person avoided voting altogether then their lives would be made even more miserable by rightwing presidents.

I once met a communist who was against charity. He said that donating money to impoverished countries only makes things worse by prolonging their poverty. If you let things get bad enough, then they will turn to communism. If you give them money, they will have false hope in the system. It's a similar argument to the one against voting, and i find it hopelessly naive. No, if I stop giving money to the Children's Cancer Hospital in Egypt, those children will die. Not turn into communists.

^^ Agreed.

I'm sorry, but if trump or cruz are running in the general, I'm going to have to vote democrat. My skin is too brown and my name is too muslim for that shit. I'm not too sure trump or cruz would be able to accomplish anything they are saying, but I feel it would be psychologically traumatizing for my parents nonetheless.

I think there are two different levels to this conversation, the organizational one and the personal. With the former, it makes sense for anarchist and communist organizations to put out anti-electoral material and point out the shortcomings of relying on personalities and politicians to do things. Nobody else is going to do this.

On the personal level though, I don't really care what people do, even if they consider themselves anarchists or communists. I think arguing over the personal decision to vote or not often takes a moralistic tone and gets turned into questioning people's principles. That's stupid. That vitriol should be saved for movements and organizations that attempt to funnel energy and people into active support and organizing for political campaigns, not individuals making a choice to go vote.

That said, personally, despite his many shortcomings, I would probably vote for Sanders in a general election. But I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary, even if Trump is the GOP nominee. I haven't voted in any election since the Anybody-But-Bush 2004 election.

Juan Conatz

That vitriol should be saved for movements and organizations that attempt to funnel energy and people into active support and organizing for political campaigns, not individuals making a choice to go vote.

It depends though- if the current level of activity is low then participating in political campaigning as a way to stimulate discourse and general political consciousness, then working within presidential campaigns is not necessarily recuperating, although it could be energy spent otherwise...

The American Tony Blair is Hilary Clinton: beware the 'lesser evil'. Evil is just evil.