Can't figure out how to answer this...

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I was discussing the subject of voting with my dad. He's a democrat and I'm an anarchist. I understand the idea that anarchists are against voting but somehow I got stuck on one of his points. He said that if enough people voted for a democrat instead of Bush the Iraq war could've been prevented and used that as a defense for voting, saying similar things that conservatives want to do could also be prevented. I don't know how to respond. Surely there must be some sort of good response to this.

Thanks for your help.

[Sosa]

How does he know that the war could've been prevented? Who is to say that Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq as well?

[The Grey Blur]

notwithstanding the fact that the democrats by and large supported the war in iraq, your dad makes a fair point. radicals can and should use bourgeois elections and political insitutions to make a concrete difference for working people as well as propogate a radical message. seamus costello the irish socialist used to bring homeless people in his constituency into the council chamber and demand housing. he said this:

"I favour guerilla tactics in parliament the same as I do in other respects. I favour them in local elections and local government bodies, they've proved successful there. And I see no reason,why, with a few TDs or MPs of the right calibre, pursuing the right policies, why they cannot destroy the confidence of the people within these institutions and bring them tumbling down in ruins"

the fact is that as much as bourgeois institutions are a sham unfortunately they're a sham that massively affects the lives of working people and also a structure which by and large working people have political faith in. you can either accept that fact and work to undermine these institutions via participation or remain irrelevant and smoke grass in a squat with some vegans. to avoid electoralism or 'selling out' by individual representatives you need them on a worker's wage and democratically accountable etc, all the usual democratic checks and balances of a healthy revolutionary movement.

[Oswy]

I was discussing the subject of voting with my dad. He's a democrat and I'm an anarchist. I understand the idea that anarchists are against voting but somehow I got stuck on one of his points. He said that if enough people voted for a democrat instead of Bush the Iraq war could've been prevented and used that as a defense for voting, saying similar things that conservatives want to do could also be prevented. I don't know how to respond. Surely there must be some sort of good response to this.

Thanks for your help.

Under liberal-capitalism, democracy, that is to say 'formal democracy' is necessarily affected and colonised by capitalism. The most obvious example of this is the way that most media, 'mainstream' media, is controlled by individuals or groups who represent the interests of business, i.e. capital. In the recent General Election in the UK almost all of the national newspapers came out in support for the Conservative Party, even the one 'serious' newspaper which had tepidly supported the left-leaning (though not socialist) Labour Party, urged its readers to vote Liberal. Television media is even more obviously controlled by big business interests. In the UK we have the BBC, which is a state-sponsored broadcaster and which tends to represent middle-class and 'establishment values', every other channel in news and public affairs represents a normativised capitalist agenda. How does this affect democracy? Well, we have to think about the impact all this has on what we find out about in the news (and what we don't), how stories are presented and prioritised, what kinds of values are expressed. Democracy, that is to say our power to vote, is always at the mercy of capitalism's huge power to shape our thinking and influence our decisions. In short, democracy under capitalism is the weakest kind of democracy because the world is presented through the prism of capitalism.

Beyond this capitalism is driving US intervention in the middle-east, regardless of who is in power, it's thus likely that, for all their posturing, politicians in power in the US will have to give in to the very real demands of capitalism. I think Chomsky, among others, has noted that there's only one party in US politics, 'the business party', and that Republican and Democrat are simply the fake 'choice' through which that hidden party operates.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was discussing the subject of voting with my dad. He's a democrat and I'm an anarchist. I understand the idea that anarchists are against voting but somehow I got stuck on one of his points. He said that if enough people voted for a democrat instead of Bush the Iraq war could've been prevented and used that as a defense for voting, saying similar things that conservatives want to do could also be prevented. I don't know how to respond. Surely there must be some sort of good response to this.

Thanks for your help.

Enough people did vote for a Democrat and that Democrat is currently in office running a surge in Afghanistan and continuing US operations in Iraq. Al Gore didn't run on nearly as liberal a platform as Obama did, and none of the Democrats ever challenged the Republicans on the war. If the Republicans as a minority party can stop healthcare, a popular demand for 50+ years, with the support of some Fox-News sponsored tea-party protests of 10,000s or town-halls of a few dozen hecklers, then surely the Democrats, if they wanted to (this is key), could end an unpopular war when 100,000s of people protested that.

But the thing is that the Democrats don't want this - they supported the war, nominated Kerry who argued for a surge in Iraq before Bush, and have been running the wars and funding it since 2006.

I think protest votes can be a useful tactic, but really I think Howard Zinn's line about elections is spot-on: it matters less who is sitting in the White House than who is sitting-in! Votes, electing friendly Democrats did less to end jim-crow and legal segregation than the civil rights movement; Abortion rights, the end of the draft, school busing and so on actually happened during Nixon's administration because of people out in the streets and organizing in communities; while FDR granted fake rights to unions, it took sit-down strikes and general strikes to actually win union rights in practice.

The Democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same coin. In California right now we have a vile Republican candidate Meg Whitman who is running on a platform of slashing pensions for public workers (other than the police and prison workers) - the alternative? Only a candidate that the right considers to be a far-out liberal to end all liberals: Jerry Brown. His alternative to cutting pensions? Making public workers pay more for their pensions. So they are both essentially arguing for the same thing through different means... and the choice for us, if left to the election system alone, is do we want to be burnt alive or hanged.

...that is unless public employees and allies fight back.

[Revolution starts with U]

As an anarchist, I vote. Just like if my kidnapper offered me the choice of bullet in brain, or slow bleeding to death, I'd choose the bullet.

[RadioRaheem84]

Heck, it was Clinton who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which stated that it wished for regime change in Iraq.

Gore most assuredly would've went into Afghanistan. The Democrats are just slightly less hawkish than the GOP but that is not saying much.

During the Cold War most of the Wars were started by Dems.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

It shouldn't be forgotten not only that the Democrats support the continuing occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, but that Obama also supports incursions into Pakistan, Somalia, and despite what the media like to paint as tension, has been standing behind Israel even with all of its recent genocidal crimes, supports militarization of the southern border with Mexico (as well as increased deportations), and it is under Obama that the FBI has begun to openly persecute peace activists (socialists) with phony terrorism charges. And that the previous Democrat, Clinton, sent troops to Somalia, Yugoslavia, and killed thousands of Iraqi people through sanctions. And that the Democrats initiated the war and genocide in Vietnam as well. Why do people think Democrats are less hawkish?

[GPDP]

Why do people think Democrats are less hawkish?

Because that's the mainstream narrative, and it's a hell of a useful one. It portrays the illusion that the problem is not the system, but the party in power.

Hell, even out of the states this narrative holds strong sway. Lord knows I love Eddie Izzard, but listen to how he shills for the Democrats as the people who go into office to supposedly fix the Republicans' mess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7wQfdW16eQ

[ZeroNowhere]

Obama [...] has been standing behind Israel even with all of its recent genocidal crimes,
"We very much disapprove of your behaviour. We are enraged. Grrr."

[Ocean Seal]

It should be noted that Obama and other democrats have had the chance to stand up to conservatives and guarantee things for the people. However, Obama serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps the best example of this is when Ted Kennedy died. Scott Brown had not come into the Senate yet and the Republicans did not have a filibuster minority. Obama had the chance to pass significant and relevant legislation to healthcare, but he held himself back. Why did he do this? He puts image before the people. He is a reactionary and additionally, he came in with massive support from the people, yet he was meek as a mouse. Perhaps if the socialist parties had gotten about 5-10% of the vote he would have done something different.

[ZeroNowhere]

Incidentally, the original poster may be interested in this website (http://www.chris-floyd.com/), which is probably the best source as regards the rather unsavoury activities of our benevolent liberal rulers. That mainly documents modern events, however, although it does have an archive reaching back to the Bush years; however, the Obama coverage is probably more relevant. A more historical record may be found in Dennis Perrin's 'Savage Mules', which is, in addition, quite a fun book; as fun as killing on a large scale may be, anyhow. That covers Democrats for quite a while, including Teddy, JFK, Carter and the lot.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

What about the environment? Are the democrats really helping with it at all? I think they continued off shore drilling and didnt help much with the bp oil spill but I'm not sure.

[WeAreReborn]

Democrats did not help with the environment. The only laws that any passed are just fees if they pollute a certain amount, that hardly makes a change. No real law or bill or even a motion for one has recently came into effect regarding ending environmental destruction, as it would hinder industrial progress, at least in an economic way.

[Revolution starts with U]

ya cap and trade; i'll sell you the rights to the pollution I wasn't going to create anyway :thumbup1:
what a joke

[PoliticalNightmare]

Instead of voting for the state, we should spoil our votes (blank ballots), demand rights, laws and legislations from them and demand they stop enforcing property rights: any attempt to try and antagonise these basic philosophies should be met with violent resistance.

Failing this, we should organise workers' syndicates and co-operatives which would pave the way for revolution.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What about the environment? Are the democrats really helping with it at all? I think they continued off shore drilling and didnt help much with the bp oil spill but I'm not sure.

I heard they passed a legislation a year before the BP oil spill which was to let the company off the hook, justice-wice.