Voting Labour?

Spoiler alert: they aren't anarchists

its a bit like signing a pertion, it has vary little impact, but it doesn't take much time either, the problem is when people invest it with to much importance and start thinking its going to solve all there problems. so people should vote or sign petitions if they want to, but just dont go thinking its a significant political action

Scallywag

their opposition to hierarchy, capitalism and the state is genuine

>Opposed to the state.
>Want a Labour government.

Pick one.

I said somewhere else on libcom the other day that although the actions of government are fundamentally driven by economic conditions, and that the political partiesystem are bassically just coalitions of interests that have different views on how to manage capitalism, it might still be worth casting a vote just for the small changes,made that can have a big impact on some people's lives.

I don't think corbyn will ever succeed on any scale if elected. The people who own the country have a bigger vote intrinsic to their day to day economic activities. If a policy is not in their economic interests then they will be compelled by the market to act im way that will ultimately undermine the government that has introduced such a policy in the first place, effectivly leaving the government with the choice of reduced growth or a U-turn.

That being said, I will cast a vote if I believe that there is even the slimist of chances of an improvment. It costs me nothing to do this, just a 15 minute walk to a polling station, so I may as well.

I am under no illusions here, the labour party are not going to liberate the working class. Corbyn may be a descent guy, but he will fail and go the same way as alexis tsipras or François miterend. He will Unable to fight the system that gives them their power I'm the first place, and will support it or go somehow.

And for those living in Scotland...what is the recommendation?

Other reasons not to vote Labour:
- If you are in a safe Labour seat then there is no point
- if you are in a safe Tory/LibDem seat then there is no point
- if you are in a Tory/LibDem marginal seat, then voting Labour helps the Tories
- if you are in a Green/SNP seat then you could be helping the Tories
- finally and most importantly (regardless of that Corbyn will probably lose, or that even if he did win he would be unable to control his party, and probably wouldn't be able to implement most of his programme), if you do vote for them then you will be actively supporting the government and party which will be making austerity cuts, locking up young people for smoking cannabis, imprisoning and deporting migrants, sanctioning disabled people on benefits, sacking public sector workers etc

I always spoil my ballot paper by slapping an Anarchist Federation sticker on it.

You may still die horribly voting labour, but equally you may live longer.

Well, you did ask whether it would be worthwhile voting for labour, not whether it matters if anarchists chose to vote on an individual basis... In any case, the latter discussion has been had many times here and the generally accepted position is that it's ok to vote as long as anarchists don't advocate it. And then there are people who will be against voting period.

.

Well, you wrote that your friends​ genuinely support Corbyn not that they were just voting for him because he's the lesser evil. Pretty sure Steven's comments were directed at them and I'm inclined to agree. If you are genuinely supporting a bourgeois politician your anarchism somewhere took a right turn.

I always spoil my ballot paper by slapping an Anarchist Federation sticker on it - RAT#11

These stickers are now available

In Islington North you could vote SPGB against Corbyn specifically. Also in Battersea and Swansea West you could vote SPGB against Labour.

The argument would be that by voting we are perpetuating the lie that we have some sort of self determination through the ballot box. This false hope is a huge obstacle in the road towards a mass movement of the working class. I mean, there are many that genuinely care about liberty and equality that, after a lifetime of having it rammed down their throats that the only effective way to effect change is through voting are still entranced by the idea despite having witnessed its ineffectiveness many times. If these people woke up I guess we would have many more in our number.
Voting or note voting is really symbolic, a single vote makes no difference and whoever wins the difference for the working class ranges from infinitesimal to fuck all. The lesser of two evils argument still supports the idea that the ballot gives us some degree of power. So for me voting is a bad move.
There is also the matter of principle and integrity - I'm sure some will think it's a pompous notion but to me it's important, I am an anarchist, having no government is the most basic and important tenet of anarchism, for me to vote for one is surely a great hypocrisy?

I can understand why say someone in the UK currently suffering for example from the effects of the 'Bedroom Tax' might be tempted to vote for one of the parties promising to get rid of it either in the hope of their success or just out of protest - but that is the point - all the parties (bar the spgb who offer nothing and are a wasted vote anyway) come out with promises on a host of issues targeted at particular sections of the working class and might deliver just a few of those, but cannot, because they are unable (even if we suspend belief and assume they wanted to) deliver for the working class as a whole. Reforms in one area are often as not offset by reforms in other areas and certainly in the current global economic crisis any reforms of substance will be few and far between irrespective of which political party is in power. They are capitalist parties who have and always will seek to serve the needs of capitalism which cannot bring any lasting solutions to working class or indeed wider human needs. There are no class interests in voting for any of these parties.

Just because someone identifies as something, doesn't mean they actually are that thing.

I'm sure we've all met quite a few [self-identified] anarchists over the years, through campaigns, occupations, demos who were nothing of the sort, more like direct-action liberals and lifestylists.

We can all pat ourselves on the back about how radical we are but meanwhile the NHS is fucked if the Tories get in, as is everything else and more people will suffer and die. As a person with a long term health condition, the last people I trust with our NHS are the Tories and probably won't be able to afford healthcare thats not free.. I don't see any harm in voting for the less anti-working class party-the anarchist 'movement' sure as hell is going to do fuck all in a significant way, it's too small. I know that ultimately capitalism needs to go but when the fuck is that going to happen? Meanwhile school kids get their free meals taken away and all kinds of other heinous structural violence is being inflicted upon us as working class people.

Basically I want to lessen the harm being inflicted on those around me. How many more people have to suffer and die before the revolution arrives?

radicalgraffiti

its a bit like signing a pertion, it has vary little impact, but it doesn't take much time either, the problem is when people invest it with to much importance and start thinking its going to solve all there problems. so people should vote or sign petitions if they want to, but just dont go thinking its a significant political action

I agree that it shouldn't be the be all and end all of political struggle. I think it's also important for me mentioning that where I live, the anarchist movement doesn't exist.

Good posts by Spikeymike and Craftwork!

And well said about the 'activist' type anarchist scene in the UK:

Craftwork

I'm sure we've all met quite a few [self-identified] anarchists over the years, through campaigns, occupations, demos who were nothing of the sort, more like direct-action liberals and lifestylists.

It is not that much of a surprise that there are anarchists out there who believe that the class struggle can be represented by a leadership figure as embodied in the Leftist saviour of JC; the Messiah, the Redeemer.

Also it is completely naive to think that the Labour Party are the 'lesser of two evils'. The same party that sponsored the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in the mass slaughter and mutilation of untold amounts of workers in those countries.

Aside from that little blot; the real role of the Labour Party is to demobilise, divert, disarm, distract and defeat any real working class antagonism to the capitalist order.
In power, either as central government or as the local state, the Labour Party has to act as Left-wing managers of capitalism.

Where is ''the less anti-working class party'' - has it just arrived this election? In this discussion I presume that to mean the so-called Labour Party. Judged purely by the current LP manifesto's promise to roll back some of the more recent austerity measures that might appear to be the case, but if (unlikely though it seems) they were to become the next majority government they will be ruled by the economy not rule it and any gains in one area will surely be losses elsewhere in practice. I was brought up in a Labour voting household and I hate the arrogance of the Tories as much as anyone but can't bring myself to vote Labour simply on some misplaced emotional grounds. We should do nothing to encourage people to think there is an easy way to roll back austerity simply by voting Labour and our own political practice should reflect that in a consistent manner. Protest votes are exactly that a cry in the wilderness - an expression of our defeat not the beginning of any fight back.

Waste of time voting Labour (or anyone else) though I totally understand anarchists/communists voting Labour as a lesser evil to the Tories. It's misguided though as politicians don't really run things but are more of a front for decisions made on trading floors, by boards of directors, multinational corporations, in Whitehall back rooms, etc.

It's very long odds for those who like a punt though - Labour would have to win currently at 8/1 (Tories odds on at 1/20 for fuck sake). And if Labour by some outside chance did win it, then the odds on them being able to do anything remotely "socialisticky" rather than just managing capitalism... well, you'd have more chance of winning the big payout in the national lottery than that happening - and that's currently around 45,000,000/1!

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

S. Artesian

Re individual votes: who cares?

But what have your organizations been saying, arguing over the last couple months, or years, about a Labour government?

As far as the AF goes, basically "whoever you vote for, the bosses win" and it's a "vote for capitalism" or "Labour Tory, same old story" kinda stuff.

I swear I'll never understand you guys. You seem great in so many ways but this parliamentary thing is quite beyond me and the sticker is just plain daft.

Noah Fence

I swear I'll never understand you guys. You seem great in so many ways but this parliamentary thing is quite beyond me and the sticker is just plain daft.

You can read about impossibilism here - https://libcom.org/library/impossibilism

Spikymike

Where is ''the less anti-working class party'' - has it just arrived this election? In this discussion I presume that to mean the so-called Labour Party. Judged purely by the current LP manifesto's promise to roll back some of the more recent austerity measures that might appear to be the case

Yes I was ofcourse referring to Labour. I think they will do less harm than the Tories.

Spikymike

We should do nothing to encourage people to think there is an easy way to roll back austerity simply by voting Labour and our own political practice should reflect that in a consistent manner. Protest votes are exactly that a cry in the wilderness - an expression of our defeat not the beginning of any fight back.

I did state that I don't think we should restrict ourselves to just voting.

I swear I'll never understand you guys. You seem great in so many ways but this parliamentary thing is quite beyond me and the sticker is just plain daft.

You might disagree Noah but there is a logic to it and therefore not daft but foremost we adopt the position of the Chartist Ernest Jones.

“It must, therefore, become manifest that unless the working classes fight this battle as a Class, that is, in one universal union by a mass movement, they will be inevitably defeated...”

How to conduct the fight, i think we can comradely disagree and most people on Libcom are aware of the pros and cons of the SPGB case.

Our "parliamentary thing" for some in the SPGB is merely applying the coup de grace to capitalist rule. What really matters is a conscious socialist majority outside parliament, ready and organised, to take over and run industry and society. It is not Parliaments that establishes socialism, but the socialist working-class majority outside parliament and they do this, not by their votes, but by their active participating beyond this in the transformation of society. The real revolution in social relations will be made in our lives and by ourselves, not Parliament. The SPGB said in 1915

"The workers must prepare themselves for their emancipation by class-conscious organisation on both the political and the economic fields,the first to gain control of the forces with which the masters maintain their dominance, the second to carry on production in the new order of things."

The SPGB has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls will give the workers power to achieve socialism. It is the quality of the voters behind the vote that, in the revolutionary struggle, will be decisive.We have always emphasised that such a majority must be educated in the essentials of socialist principles and have a party democratically organised. In our Declaration of Principles we stress the necessity of capturing the machinery of government including the armed forces. That is the fundamental thing. The method, though important, is secondary to this. Historically, the SPGB had to answer many other groups who were presenting differing options for the working class and many have been discarded by the wayside...no-one these days seriously suggests armed insurrection, nor do they accept the original syndicalist /industrial union case of trade unions via a general strike assuming political power.

The capitalist class are the dominant class today because they control the State (the machinery of government). And they control the State because a majority of the population allow them to do so by consenting with their everyday attitudes and the acquiescence to the legitimacy of capitalist democracy. To receive that working-class sanction of capitalist society, our masters are reduced to numerous sleight of hands to fool the workers and to prevent the workers from becoming class conscious.

There has never been a question of the SPGB forming a government simply that the working class as a whole having demonstrated their will proceed to take over the means of production for which they will also have organised themselves at their places of work. This done, the repressive state is disbanded and its remaining administrative and service features, reorganised on a democratic basis, are merged with the organisations which the useful majority will have formed to take over and run production, to form the democratic administrative structure of the state-free society of common ownership.

No-one can be sure which form the revolutionary process will take but the SPGB has always held that making use of parliament is vitally important in neutralising the ruling class's hold on state power. Behind the ballot paper is real power. Thus the SPGB reasoning it is important to gain control of the political machinery because the political machine is the real centre of social control

Of course, many will argue what is now called the "Deep State", or as the products of the 60s and 70s used to call it,"The Establishment", would maintain their rule. The worst they are likely to achieve, however, is to bribe fools to do their dirty work for them.

Voting in general elections is an essential bit of the tool-kit for making a democratic revolution and that the ballot is the enemy's weakest spot.

Not daft, at all but up for debate, for sure.

jondwhite

In Islington North you could vote SPGB against Corbyn specifically. Also in Battersea and Swansea West you could vote SPGB against Labour.

let's see if you get more votes there than the Communist League ... they're good boys too

What really matters is a conscious socialist majority outside parliament, ready and organised, to take over and run industry and society. It is not Parliaments that establishes socialism, but the socialist working-class majority outside parliament and they do this, not by their votes, but by their active participating beyond this in the transformation of society. The real revolution in social relations will be made in our lives and by ourselves,

While I don't want to make this a thread about the SPGB, I just want to say that the above is spot-on - and really beautifully written as well. However, given that this is the SPGB's position, I just don't see why in the world you all participate in parliamentary politics at all.

If the above is true, engaging with parliamentarianism at all is, at best, a waste of time. More likely, you're put in a position where your actions undermine your words. At worst, you'll end up participating - even to a small degree - in the administration of the capitalist state.

While I don't want to make this a thread about the SPGB

The debate has been engaged ad nauseum on Libcom and really anyone really interested should use the search facility. I'm not saying much different from what i have said before on other threads and those who have read this will be bored to tears with its repetition.

Obviously, your 3 points are contested by the SPGB - but not entirely. The first that it is a waste of time is debated within the party at the present time in the current context and you would find a receptive ear to that. Some members patiently await different circumstances that would be more fruitful for the SPGB.

Your second point, i am not sure how electoral participation would undermine what you quoted. We envisage involvement in a yet-to-be-built mass socialist party and engaging in electoral process is not necessarily a passive spectator affair that many assume it to be.

Your final point is certainly valid when the Socialist Party is a minority within Parliament and again this is often debated within the SPGB regards attitudes towards reforms and reformism.

My own view is that I don't think a caucus of SPGB (or their ilk) MPs would be idle but would be at the beck and call of those outside Parliament, carrying out their wishes and i cannot imagine they will not try to extract as many concessions as achievable from the growing threat of socialism...(which obviously there would must be if the SPGB is being elected...)

But broadly the issue is between the SPGB and its anarchist critics is, should we avoid challenging the rule of the capitalist class on every field of the class war battle-field? The ruling class uses their political power as much as their economic power as a weapon against us.

I'm a bit of a De Leonist in that i have sympathy for the sword and shield analogy.

The SPGB has always argued that political action is the primary force we possess and that determines our activities when it comes to elections. Our choice to take part in General Election as i said is a cogent consequence of this analysis - and not simply daft. Basically, that's all i'm trying to refute.

For those who really don't want to make this a thread about the spgb see this very short exchange of views here: http://libcom.org/history/democracy-ballots and a longer discussion here:
http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/midlands-discussion-forum-workers-councils-or-parliament-27012014 , though mainly between the spgb and various assorted left/council communists rather than anarchists.

Yeah, I thought this thread was meant to be about Labour, not about plugs for the Small Party of Good Boys

I think our answer to the original question depends on how we frame things.

If we reduce the question of capitalism versus communism down to an ethical question, then we end up with formulas like, we are communists because we want to improve the living conditions of the working class, labour also wants to improve the living conditions of the working class by increasing funding for public services, renationalising various key industries and opposing cuts to welfare. In this context, although still 'evil' within the general framework of anti-authoritarianism, they are 'less' evil than the Tories.

We have to leave the misty realms of ethics and enter the very real world of capitalism as a definite mode of production, and it's historical tendencies, and pose the question differently. The capitalist production process is not an unethical system that nevertheless works, whose evils can be blunted by changes in the mode of distribution. It is inherently contradictory, it produces crises as a result of an inherent feature, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The Tories might be 'nasty', but they aren't necessarily nasty arbitrarily, their social policy constitutes an attempt to manage the current crisis of profitability while shifting the burden onto the working class.

Corbyn represents a kind of vaguely intuited reaction to this. The class basis of the movement is vague, Labour has never been a straightforward 'working class' party, inasfar as their current manifesto even mentions class it does so from a sort of harmonist perspective in which all classes contribute in some measure to society, it is only the balance between them that needs to be redressed. And references to small business indicate petit bourgeois tendencies. But the fact is that the strategy outline by Corbyn will do nothing to solve capitalism's existing state of crisis.

And the fact is that if Corbyn wins the election, he will be at the head of the British state. A state which in it's current form, with it's monarchy, house of lords, court system, police, military and secret service is nothing but a monstrous apparatus for the protection of the interests of the British capitalist class. A state moreover that will be at the beck and call of international capital. We have already seen in Greece with the situation surrounding Syriza's election what happens when a national government tries to fight a capitalism which is international in scope (One of the primary weaknesses of reformist movements is their national scope, only proletarian internationalism has a chance of even winning small concessions from capital at our current historic juncture).

Having said which I have a little bit of sympathy for Corbyn supporters. He says things about the nature of society which haven't been openly voiced on such a public stage in a very long time, and his opposition to British imperialism and the clear connections between the actions of the British government in the middle east and contemporary terrorism was brave. Inasmuch as media criticisms of Corbyn revolve around criticisms of radical opposition to contemporary society as such, this needs to be addressed. But I cannot in good conscience support any group that seeks to manage the bourgeois state, nor should anyone who self-describes as a Marxist or Anarchist who has any shred of self-respect.

The only solution to the crisis of capitalism is socialism, and the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the workers themselves. On the basis of history I feel confident in saying that the Labour party will never be the vehicle for that emancipation.

meh i used to take a harder 'i don;t vote on principle, they're all the same'' line on it all but seeing the extent to which eu migrants like my wife, being largely unable to vote, could have no affect electorally on right wing populism directed against them and also notably little or no voice in the media, i'm not so sure that said principles don't blur into more of a grey area a bit for me now as with the referendum.

Pensioners shoplifting food. Families nearing eviction. The wheelchair user sleeping rough smoking smack. This is my neighbourhood. Presumably yours too. Sure, bring on the revolution, use your time for it, but it seems to me a no brainer to take two minutes to make some real imrpovements now, no matter how built on sand, to the lives of those most struggling to survive.

On another tack: might a failed popular left government recruit revolutionaries? Won't some reformist lefts be converted when confronted with the impossibility of social democracy to tackle capitalism. Is there any evidence for this? I guess I'm thinking of syriza.

pi

Pensioners shoplifting food. Families nearing eviction. The wheelchair user sleeping rough smoking smack. This is my neighbourhood. Presumably yours too. Sure, bring on the revolution, use your time for it, but it seems to me a no brainer to take two minutes to make some real imrpovements now, no matter how built on sand, to the lives of those most struggling to survive.

On another tack: might a failed popular left government recruit revolutionaries? Won't some reformist lefts be converted when confronted with the impossibility of social democracy to tackle capitalism. Is there any evidence for this? I guess I'm thinking of syriza.

Just spotted on FB, seems relevant to your post.

People forget how much they loved Blair. They forget how they formed a big gang and demonised anyone who didn't follow the herd. They forget pontificating that Blair was the only chance for real change we'd see in our lifetime. They forget cheering on a gang of capitalists gyrating awkwardly to Things Can Only Get Better. They forget that the champagne socialists of the 'old labour,' government before Blair's feathered their own nests as gleefully as any Tory. Basically, people just forget and keep on maintaining the same cycle in the name of, 'real change.' People are too weak, frightened and self-absorbed to see that it's us that need to change, not the masters we choose. Delegating that responsibility to politicians is true apathy.

pi

On another tack: might a failed popular left government recruit revolutionaries? Won't some reformist lefts be converted when confronted with the impossibility of social democracy to tackle capitalism.

That is possible. However what is equally possible and perhaps more likely is that seeing the failings of "the left" in government pushes lots more people to the right. For example under Labour the BNP grew to the point of getting around a million votes

Noah

OK but I declared no love for no one. I don't long for any parliament to save us. I don't see quietly voing as any part of a long term solution to capitalism.

However, I don't believe politicians are entirely without power and that a labour government will slightly alleviate the immediate pressure on those struggling the most. The slim diferenes between the two, things like the housing bill, does make a difference to lives.

So. Don't expend any effort in it except the 2 minutes it takes to vote. Don't be deluded that this will achieve anything revolutionary. Maybe I'm struggling more to shake off my unthinking liberal/lefty old self than I realise but I don't get the problem with voting like this.

Marx always makes the analogy, and I think it is a good one, between the political and economic action of the working-class. Let's say that there is a strike or some form of industrial action, which results in capital in one particular industry or branch of industry agreeing to better pay and working conditions. Do we condemn the workers for tacitly consenting to the rule of capital by going back to work afterwards? Do we insist that every strike or industrial action has to lead to the workers' seizing the means of production? No. But equally, do we then go on go give support to the capitalists themselves, thank them for being a nice bunch of chaps really? No.

It is the same with politics.

Are we going to stand here with folded arms and tell the workers that fighting for better living conditions is pointless because it leaves capital and the state intact? No. But equally, are we then going to go on to give 'critical support' to whoever is running the state? Again, no. What we have to bring out is the fact that any gain we can make in this field is not the result of the good will of capital, or the state, but of the struggle of the working-class. Theoretically and practically we have to decouple the support for immediate improvements with becoming cheerleaders for the 'Labour Left' or whichever group is promising these improvements in exchange for a license to become the managers of the bourgeois state.

I think this is an inherently emotive issue. And lord knows I would also like to see a rise in wages, a more robust public infrastructure, a better welfare system. But we also have to keep clear in our minds the nature of capital and the state. If we need proof of what can happen by following this path (of reducing your politics to 'oust the nasty Tories') to it's logical conclusion, all we need to do is look at the contemporary filth of British Trotskyism.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

S. Artesian

You expect that if Corbyn wins, it's not going to lead to what it has always lead to in the past?

Well I guess I do. The management of capitalism. The continuation of exploitation, oppression and and war. But with Labour my neighbour wouldn't have to steal to eat. It's not the revolution, it's spending 2 minutes doing something that might bring about a small but needed improvement for the most oppressed.

I don't imagine that you reject all non-revolutionary action (perhaps I'm wrong). So is it that you see something uniquely corrosive about voting no matter the thinking behind it?

Zanthorus

Sorry, I'm not an experienced reader, I don't fully understand your comment and I'm not even sure it is particularly meant for me. But is it a typo when you said you wouldn't want to see a rise in wages etc?

pi

Sorry, I'm not an experienced reader, I don't fully understand your comment and I'm not even sure it is particularly meant for me. But is it a typo when you said you wouldn't want to see a rise in wages etc?

Yeah, it was a typo, thanks for pointing that out.

with Labour my neighbor wouldn't have to steal to eat

That's quite a claim comrade. What makes you so sure?

Noah

She's been stung by the bedroom tax which labour say they'll undo. Maybe I was over the top with certainty of my claim. There's a ton of other things which could also change her situation.

pi

Noah

She's been stung by the bedroom tax which labour say they'll undo. Maybe I was over the top with certainty of my claim. There's a ton of other things which could also change her situation.

As others have noted, improvements for one section of the working class will probably lead to deterioration for others and then as S. Artesian pointed out history shows us that every single ncoming party makes promises that it doesn't keep. Labour has a long history of being anti working class, it just that it mostly makes more effort to disguise it than the Tories. Superficially it's having a real good go at it at the moment.

Oops. DP.

Noah Fence

improvements for one section of the working class will probably lead to deterioration for others

I accept that. I guess I still cling to the notion that, for whatever reason, labour tend to not attack the poorest quite as viciously as the tories.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

pi

I still cling to the notion that, for whatever reason, labour tend to not attack the poorest quite as viciously as the tories.

It was the Labour govt. that originally brought in the vicious benefit sanctions regime - leading to foodbank dependence etc - and the ATOS assessments of the disabled that led to 90 people a month dying after being found fit for work; https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures Labour might reverse that in the unlikely event they won (according to one recent poll though surprisingly they've narrowed the gap to 5 points with the Tories and it could get closer) - but their manifesto pledges to reverse only £2 billion of the Tories' planned further £7 billion in benefit cuts.

The vaudeville show
Labour - Good cop, Tory - Bad cop

Every general election for decades and decades produces the same debate...voting Labour with or without illusions for what Chomsky once described as the cigarette-paper thickness difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

The lesser evil argument has always been mistaken

I like the way that there are British anarchists who will vote Labour — even try and encourage workers to vote Labour.

But at the same time there are tons of people who can see through the bullshit of democracy and refuse to vote. Strange.

rat

I like the way that there are British anarchists who will vote Labour — even try and encourage workers to vote Labour.

But at the same time there are tons of people who can see through the bullshit of democracy and refuse to vote. Strange.

I don't know about all that, Rat. For the record, I'm not going to vote although I don't really think it's worth arguing with other people who intend to vote. That said, of the British anarchists I know, even the ones who vote, I can't recall them encouraging others to do so. And the British anarchist organizations certainly don't encourage voting in any form.

Two other points: One, this shit is not only reserved for Britain. It's certainly an issue in the US and I've heard of these same debates happening in Spain and Turkey and I'm sure lots of other places.

Two, I'm not sure that most people who don't vote "see through" electoralism as such. Apathy towards electoral politics is a perfectly reasonable response to capitalist democracy, but "seeing through" requires a critique that I'm just not sure exists amongst the vast majority of non-voters. If it did, it seems to me there'd be much higher levels of non-electoral political activity and that's just not the case.

Coincidentally, Chilli, this article appeared today on non-voters

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/40-of-non-voters-think-who-is-in-government-makes-no-difference-1-4459340

A survey carried out for the Electoral Reform Society Scotland, found a significant number of those who will not vote on June 8 are not apathetic about politics.

Jonathon Shafi, Electoral Reform Society Scotland campaigns officer, said: “We find time and again that the claim that those who are not voting are totally apathetic is simply untrue...we find that large sections of those who don’t vote regularly discuss politics with friends and family. We also find that this part of the electorate want to make their community a better place to live. That is politics, just not in the ‘formal’ traditional sense: after all, this comes down to getting the power and resources to change things.” He continued: “Where we do find a disconnect with politics, it comes down in part to a strong feeling that their vote doesn’t make a difference. At a more personal level, they also feel that politicians don’t understand their lives, never mind being able to change it. This is an issue of political culture and how parties and politicians communicate with the public. But it’s also about how we deepen democracy and bring decision-making closer to communities.”

Two-fifths of non-voters think who is in government makes no difference to their lives. Meanwhile, a similar number (42 percent) said they felt all the candidates they could vote for did not understand their life. Just over a quarter (26 percent) of non-voters said they regularly talked about how to make their community a better place - with this rising to about a third (32 per cent) when those who probably will not vote are included. In addition, 27 percent of those who say they are certain not to cast their ballot said they regularly discuss politics with friends and family.

ajj, that does make for interesting reading, I must say.

.

ZZ, Trump's extreme actions so far have been blocked by the other parts of government (the travel ban, for example, the wall etc).

Bernie Sanders would have faced exactly the same problem: but even more so as most of his programme would have had more opposition from within his own party than Trump (for example most of the Republicans are behind his agenda to cut taxes for business and the rich, whereas almost no Democrats would be in favour of Sanders' plans to redistribute wealth in the opposite direction)

.

Scallywag

Still following this thread, thanks for the comments. I am pretty convinced now that there is just no point in voting in this election, maybe there is point in voting in some elections like to stop someone like Donald Trump becoming prime minister, but in this case there is no point lending support to labour. In fact the view that there is something even if its small for the working class to gain from backing labour is counter-revolutionary and I think those who have argued along those lines have been right to do so.

So you would vote for Hillary to keep Trump out but you wouldn't vote Corbyn (someone on the left) to keep May out? May being someone who will destroy the NHS, make the housing crisis worse, thus creating more homelessness, take kid's free school meals away, introduce a dementia tax, take away pensioner's winter fuel allowance, create more people reliant on foodbanks and legalize fox hunting etc. Weird, especially as I couldn't have voted for Hillary. I think it's obvious that a Corbyn led Labour government will be better than the Tories and thats why I'm voting for Corbyn- the revolution ain't happening any time soon. Why would you turn down the chance to vote for a government that will not only do less harm but will likely actually do some good? And I'm not counter-revolutionary, I'm just being realistic, I want a revolution that gets rid of capitalism but how much longer do the oppressed working class people struggling to survive, have to wait for this to happen?

Well Potrokin, a number of pretty good reasons why people are not voting Labour have been given. They are at least as valid as your hopeful vote. You talk as though the benefits you're suggesting are guaranteed. They're are far from guaranteed mate.
Have you looked at the history of the Labour Party? Phil's blogs are a good place to start. You've got to look at that - "it will be different this time", "at last we have a chance for a principled PM" doesn't mean shit. You are voting for party, not for a nice fella. All incoming governments both Tory and Labour, fail to deliver on their election promises. Always. Different this time? Not a fucking chance.

Yeah, potrokin, we went over this in quite a lot of detail in another Vote Corbyn thread.

I suggest you read that thread as it discusses the concrete reasons why people think there's no point voting for Corbyn (one being that, unless you live in Islington North, you're not voting for Corbyn, you're probably voting for someone in the PLP who hates him and was possibly even involved in privatising the NHS!).

Yeah, I'm just a Labour voting liberal, not a real libcommie. I need to just shut up. How dare I express my views.

potrokin

Yeah, I'm just a Labour voting liberal, not a real libcommie. I need to just shut up. How dare I express my views.

Come on, that's pretty unfair. I usually like your contributions coz you are open minded and often express personal reflection and feelings rather than just straight ideology. It's a pity you posted that.

potrokin

Yeah, I'm just a Labour voting liberal, not a real libcommie. I need to just shut up. How dare I express my views.

Who said this? As an admin I will personally find and cut them ;)

Noah Fence

potrokin

Yeah, I'm just a Labour voting liberal, not a real libcommie. I need to just shut up. How dare I express my views.

Come on, that's pretty unfair. I usually like your contributions coz you are open minded and often express personal reflection and feelings rather than just straight ideology. It's a pity you posted that.

Well sorry but it's like I'm not allowed to express my opinion.

It just felt like I was being jumped on. I guess I can express my opinion, but we disagree so I'm sorry. At the end of the day, I think a Corbyn led Labour government will do some positive things for the working class, and will do less harm than the Tories. You guys disagree, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

I am pretty convinced now that there is just no point in voting in this election, maybe there is point in voting in some elections like to stop someone like Donald Trump becoming prime minister

While I believe there's no point in voting, I also understand people like Potrokin's reasons to decide to vote for that nice Mr Corbyn (though in reality, they are voting for whoever their local Labour candidate is - in my case, the not so nice Liz Kendall). But I really don't understand why Scallywag thinks that horrid Mr Trump is nasty enough to vote against while that horrid Mrs May is not nasty enough to vote against. At what point does a politician become so beyond the pale that you'd go out and "actively" vote against them?

Anyway, I think we need to go back to basics. Voting in elections encourages the buggers. Also, voting means a misguided faith in the system that a vote for a particular candidate or party, for whatever reason, can somehow make a difference. It also means those with pro-revolutionary views temporarily put those views to one side in order to for the moment endorse capitalism (or at best a "kinder" form of capitalism) with their vote.

Now if people want to do that, that's entirely up to them and I won't condemn them for it because like I say, I understand. But coming on Libcom and proselytising the merits of voting in a bourgeois election for whoever they hope will form the next government, ie the political wing of the capitalist class in the UK, is poor.

potrokin

It just felt like I was being jumped on. I guess I can express my opinion, but we disagree so I'm sorry. At the end of the day, I think a Corbyn led Labour government will do some positive things for the working class, and will do less harm than the Tories. You guys disagree, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

On that subject then, do you remember that Labour MPs passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn 172-40?

Even if he did win the election, do you think he would be able to survive with only 40 MPs supporting him out of 650?

And a follow-up question then, if you don't, do you think that a non-Corbyn Labour Party would be any different from a Blair/Brown style Labour Party?

.

At what point does a politician become so beyond the pale that you'd go out and "actively" vote against them?

I advocate a points based system. We should probably form a workshop so that we can thresh out the criteria, how many points a particular misdemeanour should be allocated etc.
Any suggestions? Personally, I think the use of catchphrases should carry a high score - I heard Jezza say "foodbank Britain" on telly last night. What an absolute wanker.

Steven.

potrokin

It just felt like I was being jumped on. I guess I can express my opinion, but we disagree so I'm sorry. At the end of the day, I think a Corbyn led Labour government will do some positive things for the working class, and will do less harm than the Tories. You guys disagree, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

On that subject then, do you remember that Labour MPs passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn 172-40?

Even if he did win the election, do you think he would be able to survive with only 40 MPs supporting him out of 650?

And a follow-up question then, if you don't, do you think that a non-Corbyn Labour Party would be any different from a Blair/Brown style Labour Party?

I don't know the answer to the first part of your question but no, I would not vote Labour if it was led by neo-liberals again.

.

And why can't voting against the greater evil (in the States it was abundantly clear who that was),

I'm not sure we can say that.

Clinton was a proven evil. Trump we could only speculate about and surmise.

I recall many saw Ron Paul as a genuine libertarian anti-statist and anti-foreign-interventionists. He attracted a surprisiing amount of what you could say was "lefty-liberal" support. His advocates were out in force during the Occupy Movement appealing to their anti-corporate, anti-government sentiments and his policies resonated with many of them.

potrokin

Steven.

potrokin

It just felt like I was being jumped on. I guess I can express my opinion, but we disagree so I'm sorry. At the end of the day, I think a Corbyn led Labour government will do some positive things for the working class, and will do less harm than the Tories. You guys disagree, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

On that subject then, do you remember that Labour MPs passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn 172-40?

Even if he did win the election, do you think he would be able to survive with only 40 MPs supporting him out of 650?

And a follow-up question then, if you don't, do you think that a non-Corbyn Labour Party would be any different from a Blair/Brown style Labour Party?

I don't know the answer to the first part of your question but no, I would not vote Labour if it was led by neo-liberals again.

John McDonnell said...

We are the party of business

We are an entrepreneurial party

What makes you so sure these aren't neo-liberals we're dealing with here?

.

.

Amusingly, I have just found out that my Green Party candidate is a former well known Trot. He is, wait for it, none other than Robert Lindsay, formerly know as Wolfie Smith, south London's premier revolutionary!
FREEDOM FOR, er, SOUTH SUFFOLK!

https://youtu.be/fMKsR_wUSfA

.

It’s probably been mentioned earlier in this thread, and I'm probably stating the obvious, but there is also the idea that anarchist and communist organisations are meant to be the antitheses of the capitalist political parties, such as the Labour Party, which are organised with a strictly hierarchical or top down structure. So shouldn’t communists and anarchists, in their actions, propaganda and theory always be fundamentally opposed to all those parliamentary parties? And never sanction, support or back them in anyway?

.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

When someone like Sanders fails, which he would have if elected, possessing neither house majorities nor any State legislature to implement his ideals, who gets the blame? ...

Him or the concept of "democratic socialism' he claimed to represent? He eventually passes into history but the socialist idea is discredited for much longer and we have an increased task of conveying it as a solution because we have to spend all our time and resources, distancing ourselves from Sanders...or Chavez...or ...Corbyn if he becomes PM....you know where i am ultimately heading...

In many cases ...lesser evil is more appropriatey summed up ....be careful about what you wish for.

.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

Noah Fence

potrokin

Steven.

potrokin

It just felt like I was being jumped on. I guess I can express my opinion, but we disagree so I'm sorry. At the end of the day, I think a Corbyn led Labour government will do some positive things for the working class, and will do less harm than the Tories. You guys disagree, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

On that subject then, do you remember that Labour MPs passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn 172-40?

Even if he did win the election, do you think he would be able to survive with only 40 MPs supporting him out of 650?

And a follow-up question then, if you don't, do you think that a non-Corbyn Labour Party would be any different from a Blair/Brown style Labour Party?

I don't know the answer to the first part of your question but no, I would not vote Labour if it was led by neo-liberals again.

John McDonnell said...

We are the party of business

We are an entrepreneurial party

What makes you so sure these aren't neo-liberals we're dealing with here?

If people have more money to spend, it can be said that that is better for the economy and therefore for business. I think that sort of thing is what is being referred to.

Or, in other words, they have a neo-liberal fiscal policy.

To be fair, in the States that was a pretty standard New Deal argument - "aggregate demand" being the term used by Keynes at the time.

And it's exactly the type of argument that liberals and leftists trot out when they're trying to find a way to promote both their labor policies and to show their support for "small businesses" - which is exactly what Corbyn did in the debate the other night.

And just to add that there was a television UK 'Leaders' election debate last night in which 7 nationalists debated what was best for the UK and it's constituent nations on the shared assumption that 'we are all in it together' despite throwaway references to looking after so-called 'ordinary working people', ie 'not them'.

Spikymike

And just to add that there was a television UK 'Leaders' election debate last night in which 7 nationalists debated what was best for the UK and it's constituent nations on the shared assumption that 'we are all in it together' despite throwaway references to looking after so-called 'ordinary working people', ie 'not them'.

Christ, it was just embarrassing. Soundbite after sounbite. Ugh. My girlfriend reckons I looked horror struck all the way through it.
They're all so insipid, specially that Lib Dem bloke. I honestly don't know how anyone, anarchist or not, can't see through the whole sorry charade and refuse to vote.

.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

Obviously Trump is dangerous, in that he could theoretically create a very dangerous situation through sheer inability to understand anything. Hence his blustering on N Korea, then 'faith' in China, then trying to goad China by saying that N Korea was direspecting them. Honestly
I expected his next move to be telling Kim Jong-un that nukes were gay.

But that doesn't hide the fact that the stoking of tensions continued pretty much unabated under Obama, the occupation of Crimea, the movement towards fascism in Turkey and so much more.

I think one of the main reasons we don't vote is that we simply don't believe in it. I think government makes concessions to appease the working class, a political system like the one we have doesn't require them to do so. Obviously it's less lucrative to be in opposition than in power but not enough to risk upsetting any wheelbarrows, and of course if you start giving things away the working class will only ask for more and your backers won't support your campaigns, buy you nice things, give you cushy private sector jobs etc.

It is all set up to make us think that voting is the only way that we can have an influence which is clear anti-communist propaganda.

zugzwang

We live in a contradictory capitalist system and we have to make all kinds of compromises to survive, like selling our labor-power and reproducing the conditions of our own exploitation, etc.

But how does this statement relate to voting for the capitalist Labour Party?
You don't have to vote for those bastards.

.

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

.

.

This persistence about the greater threat is pretty presumptuous. If Labour or the democrats get elected then maybe the effect on the economy may result in more lay offs, wage cuts etc. You have to start to buy into the whole thing if you're gonna provide support for the capitalist system through the ballet box.

Voting for the lesser evil will in many cases lead to greater evils. Look at Blair and education in the 90s, look at Obama's expansion of drone warfare and letting special forces loose on the world, the socialist left party (SV) in Norway supporting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (a party that was founded on opposition against NATO)... ad nauseam. The lesser evil is always in the position to do more harm because the lesser evil is always the one we think "they are not going to that" (whatever that may be that you hold dear).

Sure, fucking vote if you feel compelled to it, it does not make you a worse person, but those of us who are against the lesser evil argument (the position Noah and Artesian explain so well) just don't buy it. We're not even cynical, merely realistic because it's just history fucking repeating itself.

Noah Fence

Or, in other words, they have a neo-liberal fiscal policy.

That is not the case in my view, no.

A socialist I know (a trot, I think) recently said he feels that once the left are winning, there will be some kind of momentum that would take us further, and views a labour party victory as somthing like that. It seems a bit far fetched to think that voting for the labour party is likely to bring us closer to revolution, but the point that the working class push harder when they have already made gains, rather then when they are being completely crushed on the back foot as we are now, that point kinda struck me. You guys know your history more then I do most likely. Is that true? It seems it intuitively

I mean what's going to have to happen to turn this around? Wait for the assault on the working class run out of steam somehow? Work with small things first and then get bigger? Idk

Edit: I get the impression that I at least am just twiddling my thumbs waiting for some kind of struggle to spring up.i

The debates in Parliament which led to voting rights for most British adults took place exactly 100 years ago.

For those interested, here is a list of quotes from these debates - and from Sylvia Pankhurst. These quotes show that a major reason why the ruling class gave us voting rights, was to counter any revolutionary tendencies inspired by the Russian Revolution.

'Voting as Counter-Revolution – how the politicians who gave us the vote saw things 100 years ago'

my endorsement:

[youtube]a3ks7ENOPbY[/youtube]

SPGB did beat the Communist League at Islington North by 21 to 7 votes ... yeah!

Just watched Jezza's speech at Glastonbury, inspiring to the deluded, stomach churning to me.

Not a fan of techno?
https://youtu.be/neA9YvxKfxE

Aw Comrade Woj, did you really have to do that to me! You be g fucking meanie!

Lets say Corbyn got elected and wanted to reverse what the Tories are doing. The trouble with that is the source of the income of the few is profits, and the pursuit of profits is what drives the capitalist economic system- threaten profits and the economic system stalls. A left-wing government which taxed profits merely to improve the lives of the many would come against the basic economic law of capitalism of 'no profits, no production'.
The historically-confirmed scenario for a left-wing government is : it is elected and begins to implement it's programme; an economic crisis breaks out; the government reacts by backtracking on it's reforms and accepting, reluctantly or not, that profits have to come first, and implement this. They then lose popularity and either get voted out at the next election or re-elected on a different programme (not of radical reforms but merely that they won't be as bad as the other lot).

Corbyn: What He Did Achieve and What He Could Not, latest edition of the Socialist Standard, pg 11.

If the SPGB are right then voting Labour is pointless.

Well, that point was made from the start of this thread, what's made you change your position at this stage?