Voting

[JRR883]

Is voting in governmental elections contradictory to anarchist beliefs? Should we not try to limit government powers until the Revolution? Or should we be passive and let the Revolution come in its own time, without giving in to the system?

Personally, I vote Libertarian. I hate their economic philosophy, but I'm all for making the government smaller and easier to overthrow.

I'm a novice, so if my assumptions are mistaken, please correct me.

[Cryotank Screams]

Is voting in governmental elections contradictory to anarchist beliefs?

IMO, yes.

Voting only gives validation to an oppressive system; however we should not be passive, we should work towards revolution and make it happen.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 25, 2006 04:38 am

Is voting in governmental elections contradictory to anarchist beliefs?

IMO, yes.

Voting only gives validation to an oppressive system; however we should not be passive, we should work towards revolution and make it happen.
But would weakening the system we aim to destroy not be working towards the revolution?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 01:01 am

But would weakening the system we aim to destroy not be working towards the revolution?
How is electing yet another aristocrat a step forward in revolution? Voting in elections will never weaken the government; it only enforces it, gives it power, fuel, and validation.

[MrDoom]

Bullets and bombs are far more effective.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:09 pm
Bullets and bombs are far more effective.
While I agree with this, I think we should emphasize to newer members such as JRR883 that educating yourself before engaging in acts that would require violence is essential, no matter if you are a Communist or Anarchist.

But as the others said, reforming the system does nothing. While it may look like it would be the best approach to this problem, congressmen are not there to see what is best for the lower class, just themselves.

[Delta]

I see no problem in voting in elections. Some electoral outcomes are actually better than others. However, it needs to be emphasized that we should never get "giddy" about elections, or think that they will give us the society that we want. We should have no loyalty to any party, and should discard them as soon as we get what is needed. And voting in elections should always be a side activity, and should not get in the way of more revolutionary actions.

Also, it's important to swing the politics to the left of the political spectrum. This is so that more revolutionary measures will seem appropriate to a larger segment of the population. If it apears that some change may be made by nonviolent elections, then some progressives will be unwilling to begin a revolution. We must always swing the political spectrum to as far left as it will go, and then we can point at the situation and say "see, there's nothing more that can be done this way".

[kuhkuh]

Now we live in the world as it it, no matter how nice dream we have of the future- at the moment we live in this voting world. Voting does not exclude that at the same time we can work for better system, but while we live in this system I think it's ok aswell to partisipate.

as Delta said "Some electoral outcomes are actually better than others"

[loveme4whoiam]

Voting validates the system that we are trying to bring down, so why on earth would you participate in it? If you want to make the current living conditions of people better, get involved in any number of extra-governmental organisations that help those people.

Like it says in my sig, "if voting changed anything it would be illegal". That is how you should view every single election and ballot. Voting is counter-revolutionary, especially if someone is using voting as an excuse for not becoming active and aiding the people they are supposedly helping by voting for a more "liberal" government.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 06:52 am

Voting validates the system that we are trying to bring down, so why on earth would you participate in it?
How does it necessarily validate the system? It's a method to extract some sort of concessions from the ruling class (who want to maintain the fascade of a "democracy"). It is a tool that can be used, and if it stops working, don't use it anymore.


Voting is counter-revolutionary, especially if someone is using voting as an excuse for not becoming active and aiding the people they are supposedly helping by voting for a more "liberal" government

Voting is counter-revolutionary if someone is using it as an excuse to not becoming active. However, if one is still active and doesn't put their work and hope into the electoral process, then I fail to see how that's counter-revolutionary.

Personally, I think this "voting is bullshit" is a good line for new leftists who may be inclined to think that fundamental change can come through elections. But for those who are able to know better and distinguish the severe limitations of voting, then it's not a problem.

[( R )evolution]

No matter who you are voting for they are serving the rich. Even if your politican is able to get elected without taking big-ass contribuations from the rich. Will he be able to withstan the lobbyist and the corruption within the political frame work?

[Delta]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected] 25, 2006 01:29 pm
No matter who you are voting for they are serving the rich. Even if your politican is able to get elected without taking big-ass contribuations from the rich. Will he be able to withstan the lobbyist and the corruption within the political frame work?
Of course not, but some politicians are willing to make more concessions than others to maintain the ruling class' position.

[loveme4whoiam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 06:52 am

Voting validates the system that we are trying to bring down, so why on earth would you participate in it?
How does it necessarily validate the system? It's a method to extract some sort of concessions from the ruling class (who want to maintain the fascade of a "democracy"). It is a tool that can be used, and if it stops working, don't use it anymore.
It validates the "democratic" system in the eyes of the majority of the proletariat. Imagine you are arguing the merits of communism with someone, pointing out that the current system is exploitative and corrupt. If some minor gain has been clawed from the ruling class because they can afford to give it away, then that person will say "well hang on, we just got a 5% increase in the minimum wage - that came through the system right?" See what I mean? That "gain" is insignificant and amounts to nothing, yet it came through the "democratic" channel and thus shows the system works in the eyes of those who, unfortunately, do not look closely enough.

My (admittedly crude and poorly written) example is what I mean by validating the system. Communists seek to destroy the capitalist system of "democracy" because it exploits people - this is a fact. By voting and engaging in other electoral activities, you are inherently supporting the system we wish to tear down by showing that it "works". Apologies if that didn't come through as clear in my first post, but that's my reasoning behind my argument.

A exception to this rule would be if the country you are in is in such a sorry state that, by standing as a socialist candidate who will turn that country around in a huge way, and above all in a socialist and eventually communist way, then I would say voting is okay :) That way, the gains that we desire could be achieved whilst doing the maximum damage to the capitalist system. That said, I can only think of very few countries that this situation could be applied to, because their circumstances are that the people of those countries would outweigh the ruling class's objections to your changes and allow them to happen.

Hmm, thats a fairly contorted way of stating my argument, but I've been reading all day and my eyes and brain are tired. Apolgies.

[Demogorgon]

I find it strange why eople presume when I vote, I must be backing the system by electing another rich aristocrat. I think the Single Mothers, Students, Trade Union activists, Peace Campaigners etc I vote for would be pretty offended by that statement.

Also it is so fucking arrogant of American Posters to presume that because they have a two party system and First past The Post elections that everyone else does too. Yes the American voting system is abysmal, and yes it is useless. But iif you think that means Europeans should give up ion the large Socialist representation we have in most of our Parliaments you are crazy.

Voting doesn't legitimise the system incidentally. it is a means of expressing an opinion. If you express an opinion contrary to the current system, you have not legitimised it, you have opposed it. It is all very well saying that the way the world is just now is not how it should be, but face it, this is how it is and we will never change it by sitting on our arses doing fuck all. Retreating into your own little world and hoping that capitalism will simply go away of it's own accord is not good enough.

As to the original poster, you vote Libertarian? You would have to vote Neo-Nazi to find a more dangerous bunch of scum bags.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 10:43 pm
I find it strange why eople presume when I vote, I must be backing the system by electing another rich aristocrat. I think the Single Mothers, Students, Trade Union activists, Peace Campaigners etc I vote for would be pretty offended by that statement.

Also it is so fucking arrogant of American Posters to presume that because they have a two party system and First past The Post elections that everyone else does too. Yes the American voting system is abysmal, and yes it is useless. But iif you think that means Europeans should give up ion the large Socialist representation we have in most of our Parliaments you are crazy.

Voting doesn't legitimise the system incidentally. it is a means of expressing an opinion. If you express an opinion contrary to the current system, you have not legitimised it, you have opposed it. It is all very well saying that the way the world is just now is not how it should be, but face it, this is how it is and we will never change it by sitting on our arses doing fuck all. Retreating into your own little world and hoping that capitalism will simply go away of it's own accord is not good enough.

As to the original poster, you vote Libertarian? You would have to vote Neo-Nazi to find a more dangerous bunch of scum bags.
I vote Libertarian simply because they seem to be the only party interested in weakening the government. Yes, their capitalistic policies are abhorrible [sic], but the smaller the government, the easier it will be to overthrow them. That, and the negative ramifications of their economic policies will bring more proletariats to the conclusion that we need a revolution.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected]ovember 26, 2006 12:11 am

I vote Libertarian simply because they seem to be the only party interested in weakening the government. Yes, their capitalistic policies are abhorrible [sic], but the smaller the government, the easier it will be to overthrow them. That, and the negative ramifications of their economic policies will bring more proletariats to the conclusion that we need a revolution.
The Libertarian party would never implement small government though. To enforce their economic policies you need somebody like Pinochet.

Their idea of smaller Government is transferring power from elected politicians to corporate aristocracy. That doesn't strike me as being an improvement by any stretch of the imagination. Politicians might be scum but businessmen are a whole different kettle of fish.

It is like claiming Reagan or Thatcher were good leaders.

[loveme4whoiam]

Voting doesn't legitimise the system incidentally. it is a means of expressing an opinion. If you express an opinion contrary to the current system, you have not legitimised it, you have opposed it. It is all very well saying that the way the world is just now is not how it should be, but face it, this is how it is and we will never change it by sitting on our arses doing fuck all. Retreating into your own little world and hoping that capitalism will simply go away of it's own accord is not good enough.
But you are expressing that opinion through the current system, which will not take one iota of notice. Oppose it by working outside the system, not through it. And by the way, if that "sitting on our asses doing fuck all" comment is directed at me, screw you. I don't vote because I chose not to, not because of some idiotic individualist position, and I do do what I have said in my above posts.

You and anyone else wish to vote, fine, I can't stop you (although the government can). But don't think it will ever achieve anything worth having.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 10:33 am
But you are expressing that opinion through the current system, which will not take one iota of notice. Oppose it by working outside the system, not through it. And by the way, if that "sitting on our asses doing fuck all" comment is directed at me, screw you. I don't vote because I chose not to, not because of some idiotic individualist position, and I do do what I have said in my above posts.

You and anyone else wish to vote, fine, I can't stop you (although the government can). But don't think it will ever achieve anything worth having.
For 150 years people opposed Warrant Sales outside the system. They didn't go anywhere. We voted for parties against them and away they went. If we had followed your advice, Scotland would still look like England, where Creditors could force an invasion of a Debtors house, the public confiscation of their property and forcibly selling it far below value in order to pay off debts. Only some spoiled little rich kid could claim it is ot meaningful change to get rid of it.

Of course we also have to work outside the system because the system isn't Democratic enough. But to throw away your most powerful weapon against the system because of some idiotic ideas about legitimising the system strikes me as a bizarre fear of actually bringing about change.

[loveme4whoiam]

Spoilt little rich kid? Fuck you. Figure out who the fuck you are talking to before you start spouting that kid of shite.

[Janus]

The fraud and failure of bourgeois elections have been expounded on many times before.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...=57547&st=0&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57547&st=0&hl=)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878

Elections (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764&hl=voting+elections)

[Delta]

Voting in elections can be interpreted both ways, as legimitizing the elections or as a poll of public sentiment. By voting for the left-most candidate (who usually has no shot at winning) it is effectively saying that I do not support the current government's actions, and want change. Now, the simple act of voting does not tell you whether that person thinks that the system is legitimate or not, but simply that they understand that it is a current political structure that is in place, and they intend to use it to whatever advantage they can.

The truth of the matter is is that in today's society if you don't vote the ruling classes are not going to think "uh oh, they think our system of control is illegitimate" but will most likely think "they are so obsessed with Grey's Anatomy that they can't even get off their asses to vote. They are politically apathetic, and we can do whatever the fuck we want". Now sure, if you are engaged in other, revolutionary, activities then it would be hard for them to think this. But then again, if you are engaged in revolutionary activities they are unlikely to think that you voting in elections makes you content with the current system and means of achieving change.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 06:01 pm
Spoilt little rich kid? Fuck you. Figure out who the fuck you are talking to before you start spouting that kid of shite.
Would you rather things like that were still going on here, so we can all fit into to this cool "let's not vote" rubbish.

[Demogorgon]

Come to think of it, the way people go on about 'Bourgoise elections" you would think there were still property qualifications to vote.

Granted if you have a first past the post voting system then the people's wishes are corrupted. But can anybody seriously claim that a system of full proportional representation is going to do anything other than express the will of the people exactly as they express it?

If you do not wish to have a parliament, persuade people to vote against it, and it will be gone if enough do. I think people are simply looking for an excuse to rationalise why they have been unable to convince more people yet.

[loveme4whoiam]

Would you rather things like that were still going on here, so we can all fit into to this cool "let's not vote" rubbish.
Granted the abolition of the Warrant Sales went to the bettering of people's lives, but do you honestly think that the sheer collective will of those voting for those things made them happen? Of course not (and if you do, you are far more misguided than I currently give you credit for). They happened because, yes, there was some political pressuring for them - the ruling class then decided that they could afford to do away with Warrant Sales. And, by the way, it seems that even the "democratic" way of doing things still gives leeway for abuses - http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5017080.html. Obviously that is an old report, but it illustrates the point that "representatives of the people" do not work in the way that they should - placing any faith in them is foolish.


The truth of the matter is is that in today's society if you don't vote the ruling classes are not going to think "uh oh, they think our system of control is illegitimate" but will most likely think "they are so obsessed with Grey's Anatomy that they can't even get off their asses to vote. They are politically apathetic, and we can do whatever the fuck we want". Now sure, if you are engaged in other, revolutionary, activities then it would be hard for them to think this. But then again, if you are engaged in revolutionary activities they are unlikely to think that you voting in elections makes you content with the current system and means of achieving change.
Now this I agree with, and completely take the point. People are apathetic to the point of ignorance - I&#39;m pretty sure there was a statistic stating that more people voted in the latest Big Brother than in the last UK general election <_< - and that is obviously something to be tackled. But at the same time, I would rather see people picketing election stations rather than voting in the election itself. It achieves the same end with a much better means.

Relying on the voting system to change anything that the ruling class does not want to be changed is ignorant - this is why reformism will never achieve lasting and significant ends. I don&#39;t think not voting is cool - and again, Demogorgon, why not take a second to figure out the background of the person you are accusing of being a "spoilt rich kid" :angry: - but I do think its the smart way to go.

[Demogorgon]

To claim that voting changes nothing is ignorant to the point of being hilarious. The NHS, the removal of Pinochet etc.

I don&#39;t like Representative Democracy very much. Allowing people to make decisions on our behave without our direct involvement is not in keeping with my views. But it exists and we have yet to be able to change that so we need to make the most of it until something better comes along.

The ruling classes don&#39;t respond to you not bothering to vote by saying "oh no the lefty&#39;s aren&#39;t legitimising us". Instead they rub their hands together with glee that the very people most likely to give them some real opposition don&#39;t bother to. By not voting you aren&#39;t advancing any cause, you are simply letting the ruling classes act with impunity and for that you should hang your head in shame.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

You&#39;re not going to be able to beat the system from the inside out. Don&#39;t join the army to stop war; don&#39;t work for a mega-corporation to stop capitalism, and don&#39;t vote to end government.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 04:21 pm
Now this I agree with, and completely take the point. People are apathetic to the point of ignorance - I&#39;m pretty sure there was a statistic stating that more people voted in the latest Big Brother than in the last UK general election <_< - and that is obviously something to be tackled. But at the same time, I would rather see people picketing election stations rather than voting in the election itself. It achieves the same end with a much better means.

Okay good. I think our views are pretty much in agreement.


You&#39;re not going to be able to beat the system from the inside out. Don&#39;t join the army to stop war; don&#39;t work for a mega-corporation to stop capitalism, and don&#39;t vote to end government

This sort of "sloganism" is dangerous and invalid. I guess you could also say "don&#39;t fight violence with violence", but the revolution is going to be somewhat violent by necessity.

[RedCommieBear]

The consensus (especially among anarchists) seems to be that voting in any national election is not the thing to do. But, what about local politics? Is that anarchist elected city Commisioner (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2665/) a hypocrite?

[Delta]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 26, 2006 05:54 pm
The consensus (especially among anarchists) seems to be that voting in any national election is not the thing to do. But, what about local politics? Is that anarchist elected city Commisioner (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2665/) a hypocrite?
There&#39;s no reason to believe that she is. Not all anarchists are against using electoral means for whatever good they might be used for. So without knowing that she is, there&#39;s no basis to say that she&#39;s a hypocrite.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 09:46 pm
There&#39;s no reason to believe that she is. Not all anarchists are against using electoral means for whatever good they might be used for. So without knowing that she is, there&#39;s no basis to say that she&#39;s a hypocrite.

From Dictionary.com:

Anarchist

1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

Anarchism

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty


Commissioner

2. a government official or representative in charge of a department or district





You can&#39;t be against government and be the government, it&#39;s a conflict of interests.

[apathy maybe]

There are so many other threads on voting it is ridiculous, can a mod start a sticky with an explanation of how to use the search function? And a link to all the voting threads?

That is not to say that it is ridiculous to ask questions, questions are always relevant.

On my view, anarchists should not vote for government (except sometimes local government). There are no candidates that put forward what we believe (except occasionally anarchists stand in the Victorian senate elections ...), and even if there were, voting legitimises a system that we oppose. By voting you tend to agree with the outcome of the election and to accept that you had your voice heard, even though you didn&#39;t. Voting is a sham and anarchists should not legitimise a completely flawed system by voting.

(See also local elections vs state/national elections which I am sure I have mentioned my views on before.)

[Delta]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 27, 2006 01:07 am

You can&#39;t be against government and be the government, it&#39;s a conflict of interests.
Right, and you can&#39;t be against capitalism and shop at capitalist businesses. Don&#39;t be so dogmatic.

[kuhkuh]

There has been now mainly conversation about voting at very high levels, natinal election with millons of voters- naturally the result can not be very satisfying.
Voting in town-elections, might make a slight difference, if eneugh people votes for example a party(/person) who wants a certain forest to be protected. Every tiny vote might make a bit of difference, maybe not really in politicts as such, but it does matter for the forest (and people who enjoy it).

If we go even smaller, even in a group of 3 "voting" must sometimes occure, do we go to place A or B.

This why this wholo discussion about votin is a bit irrelevant. Can one say "I dont like any vegetables" (maybe there are such a people too though, who knows)