Do you vote?

[Art Vandelay]

Vote from the rooftops.

[Devrim]

By fun, I mean I occasionally write something silly or draw a little cartoon. I figure it might brighten up the day of the poor sods who have to count the votes

To me you sound like one of those lively funny people who try to liven up the postman's day by making some sparklingly witty comment like 'I hope it is not bills again'. I worked in the post office for five years and I heard this about ten times a day, which means I heard people saying this nearly 15,000 times (10 times x 6days a week x 48 weeks a year x 5 years =14,400). Did it brighten up my day. No, it didn't, surprisingly not at all. I imagine that people counting ballots who want to finish it to get home to whatever problems they have in their personal lives, and are quickly counting through them, and when they come across one that is spoiled have to slow down to decide if it actually counts as a spoilt ballot of not really appreciate your little witticisms.

As I said, we have a different idea of fun.

Devrim

[Sasha]

@ devrim, like said, when I vote I vote in general for people, not parties, because i personally know a lot of politicians (i guess I'm somewhat of an celeb autonomist) I can apply some pressure/get inside info on certain topics I'm myself active in if those people get ellected. I totalt admit that people who don't vote are more principled than I am. That said, the SP (who I tend to end up voting for in national elections) are (being ex-maoist) a lot better than labour, both by being actual soc-dems and their activist base (they are a bit like dielinke in Germany).
Locally I vote for the ex-provo's (radical greens that have a lot of ex-autonomists) or like said for my mum (who is a liberal green but yeah, my mum)..
Last its a bit of an personal thing, I grew up in a family where several ppl lost their right to vote (after fighting in Spain, so my family takes is quite badly if I don't vote. I can see myself very well stopping to vote after my mum is not arround anymore

[Sasha]

And last but not least I vote somewhat tactically for the SP to hurt labour (for becoming new-"left" and the center-right (liberal-conservative and Christian democrat) to hopefully prevent them from forming an coalition (again) with wilders. When it comes to the PVV there is such a thing as the somewhat lesser evil.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is one of the things with some anarchists that they are completely devoid of any political principle from the tragedy of anarchists joining the government in Spain to the farce of Class War standing candidates in the modern UK.

Personally I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the nature of capitalism, and social democracy.

Psycho expresses this confusion well here:



The social democratic parties today are not 'reformist' in the sense of the way the word was used in the late 19th and early 20th century. Then it referred to people who thought socialism could be implimented through peaceful parliamentary means. Today, the social democratic parties manage the state and capital, and there is no pretence of socialism whatsoever. Parties of whatever shade are obliged to manage the system, and people starve, and get deported under both right-wing and social democratic governments.

Even Quail, who at least has principals, falls into the same error:



What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.



You have a very different idea of fun than I do.

Devrim

First of all, I'm not an anarchist. Second, of course it hasn't anything to do with principles, it has everything to do with strategy. Which you didn't address. Third, you are delusional if you think that parties manage capital in an identical way. The Dutch Socialist Party will not have the same migration policy as the Dutch Freedom Party.

[Quail]

Only if your argument is that people should not vote because of positive developments for the working class arising from this very act of abstention. I don't think there are any signs pointing in that direction when it comes to relevant situation (e.g. small percentages of eligible citizenry actually voting). This is a far cry from a consistent revolutionary abstentionist position, at least in my view. I also don't think that it is the function of revolutionary organizations to tell people not to vote, but to disseminate clear ideas about the present configuration of forces and the character of the political process at play as part of the overall advocacy of class struggle.

The point is not to tell people not to vote and leave it at that, but rather explain why and show what they could be doing instead to actually improve their conditions. Do improvements in conditions ever come from voting? No, they have to be fought for and people have to organise. We should be arguing for alternatives to electoral politics and break down the illusion that voting actually does anything. Voting encourages people to sign away control of their lives to someone else instead of taking control themselves, which is exactly the opposite of the message we want to send out.

[Le Libérer]

Not voting without direct action is pretty much futile. I vote on a local level, not that it does any good, seeing I live in Tea Party heaven, same as on a national level. I did vote for Stewart Alexander for President. When asked I usually say, "I voted for the other black guy" and I usually get, who was that?? And I tell them to go look it up for themselves.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.

Devrim

The 'lesser evilism' comes, sometimes (because there are periods when the Labour Party is just as bad or worse than the Tories) the labour party is forced by the union movement, and by its grassroots, to at least make some concessions towards labour.

This doesn't change their function as a party of capital, but it can sometimes mean that workers are, in individual economic terms, better off to the tune of a few hundred quid a year.

I'm not saying I would advocate a vote for Labour, and I generally don't vote for them, but I think to dismiss the idea of 'lesser evilism' is actually quite out-of-step with reality. We advocate an analysis of society based on classes acting in their own self-interest, and so we shouldn't be hypocrites when it comes to voting: as individuals, if one party is offering something that is slightly less bad in some respects than the other parties, then we shouldn't castigate people for voting for that party. We don't have to do so under any pretences, we don't have to advocate other people voting for that party, or voting at all, but workers shouldn't be harangued for voting for their own self-interest. If the Labour Party being in power can make me £200 or £300 better off per year than if the others were in power, then why shouldn't I vote for them? It doesn't mean I go around supporting the Labour Party in the long-term, it doesn't mean I am wasting any revolutionary energy, it just means i'm acting in my own self-interest. It's just one small, non-committal political act out of the dozens or more political acts I might commit every year.

[Devrim]

First of all, I'm not an anarchist.

Sorry, that is my mistake then. Did you used to be or am I just completely confused?

Second, of course it hasn't anything to do with principles, it has everything to do with strategy. Which you didn't address.

No, I didn't but I was addressing it to anarchists for whom it is a point of principle. Obviously as you are not an anarchist it doesn't apply. I am quite happy to discuss 'strategy' if you would like to explain your view of it.

Third, you are delusional if you think that parties manage capital in an identical way.

There are different approaches to managing capital, but really the approach of parties, which have a chance of winning elections are all pretty similar these days. If you go back to the 70s there were two clear alternatives, monetarist, and Keynesian, in many countries, now all parties that have any chance of winning are pretty similar.

The Dutch Socialist Party will not have the same migration policy as the Dutch Freedom Party.

Neither of them will be in any position to implement that policy though. To become electable they would have to moderate their policies, and if they didn't if they somehow got into office, they would be forced to act in the interests of the state.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Got my shitty mail in ballot and voters guide today from King County. Ill just mark it for Sawant and be done with it. Petit bourgeois crackers better not start resisting that $15/hr min wage...

It is a transitional demand. That means that even Sawant and her party don't think it is possible.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I am a registered voter but have never voted. I'm not necessarily opposed to voting on some issues, like state ballot referendums on certain issues. I'm contemplating voting in favor of raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana when the issues come up for a vote in 2014, for example.

[Sasha]

The PVV was actually defacto in government and it was pretty bad, in the dutch electoral coalition system minority parties have a rather large influence, because its often so that no stable government can be formed without the biggest small party they can often drive an hard bargain. Don't forget that the PVV is in the polls the biggest party at the moment even while only becoming more extremist all the time, the conservative liberals are scared to death to loose even more votes to him so its not beyond the realm of possibilities that they will make them an full coalition partner if their current coalition falls and they can't count on labour as an partner anymore (who are currently 5th ! in the polls)

[Devrim]

The 'lesser evilism' comes, sometimes (because there are periods when the Labour Party is just as bad or worse than the Tories) the labour party is forced by the union movement, and by its grassroots, to at least make some concessions towards labour.

I don't think that this is true. We are both aware of how Labour has governed.

I'm not saying I would advocate a vote for Labour, and I generally don't vote for them, but I think to dismiss the idea of 'lesser evilism' is actually quite out-of-step with reality. We advocate an analysis of society based on classes acting in their own self-interest, and so we shouldn't be hypocrites when it comes to voting: as individuals, if one party is offering something that is slightly less bad in some respects than the other parties, then we shouldn't castigate people for voting for that party. We don't have to do so under any pretences, we don't have to advocate other people voting for that party, or voting at all, but workers shouldn't be harangued for voting for their own self-interest. If the Labour Party being in power can make me £200 or £300 better off per year than if the others were in power, then why shouldn't I vote for them? It doesn't mean I go around supporting the Labour Party in the long-term, it doesn't mean I am wasting any revolutionary energy, it just means i'm acting in my own self-interest. It's just one small, non-committal political act out of the dozens or more political acts I might commit every year.

I don't castigate people who vote. I was only commenting about anarchists with a complete lack of anarchist principles.

Of course though parties will offer lots of things. I think Nick Clegg promised there would be no rise in university tuition fees for example. When elected they will break promises. Generally I think there is more understand of this within the class as a whole than in the left.

I can remember in one general election in Turkey where someone I knew's father was offered a cow to vote AKP. Better than Jam tomorrow.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The PVV was actually defacto in government and it was pretty bad, in the dutch electoral coalition system minority parties have a rather large influence, because its often so that no stable government can be formed without the biggest small party they can often drive an hard bargain. Don't forget that the PVV is in the polls the biggest party at the moment even while only becoming more extremist all the time, the conservative liberals are scared to death to loose even more votes to him so its not beyond the realm of possibilities that they will make them an full coalition partner if their current coalition falls and they can't count on labour as an partner anymore (who are currently 5th ! in the polls)

They were a minor partner in a minority government. I wouldn't say they were in power. I can remember when the MHP (Grey Wolves) was in office (as a junior coalition partner) in Turkey. It wasn't really any different. For all the shouting of the far right parties about immigration none of them have ever taken such harsh measures against immigrants as the mainstream parties have.

Devrim

[Sasha]

Also I'm only an anarchist in the sense that its more or less the easiest label that somehow covers most of my sometimes completely contradictionary positions, I'm completely anti dogmatic when it comes to my "ideology".

[Devrim]

Also I'm only an anarchist in the sense that its more or less the easiest label that somehow covers most of my sometimes completely contradictionary positions, I'm completely anti dogmatic when it comes to my "ideology".

I can't say that I hadn't noticed.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

Sorry, that is my mistake then. Did you used to be or am I just completely confused?

I used to be.

No, I didn't but I was addressing it to anarchists for whom it is a point of principle. Obviously as you are not an anarchist it doesn't apply. I am quite happy to discuss 'strategy' if you would like to explain your view of it.



There are different approaches to managing capital, but really the approach of parties, which have a chance of winning elections are all pretty similar these days. If you go back to the 70s there were two clear alternatives, monetarist, and Keynesian, in many countries, now all parties that have any chance of winning are pretty similar.



Neither of them will be in any position to implement that policy though. To become electable they would have to moderate their policies, and if they didn't if they somehow got into office, they would be forced to act in the interests of the state.

Devrim

True. The Socialist Party would adopt a more 'pragmatic' stance, but even this is to a strategic advantage as it showcases why social policy in the neoliberal epoch has become incredibly difficult, and how it requires social reconstruction. I don't see any disadvantages in voting for the Dutch SP.

[Sasha]

They were a minor partner in a minority government. I wouldn't say they were in power. I can remember when the MHP (Grey Wolves) was in office (as a junior coalition partner) in Turkey. It wasn't really any different. For all the shouting of the far right parties about immigration none of them have ever taken such harsh measures against immigrants as the mainstream parties have.

Devrim

No, they where the "gedoog partner" of (the majority votes needed by an) an minority coalition, their vote could make or break any government proposal or even let the coalition fall without carying any of the responsibilities, they where essentially in the position of hostage taker.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE]

I don't think that this is true. We are both aware of how Labour has governed.

As I said, they sometimes do. I don't think voting for Labour in 2001, 2005 or 2010 was an option, for the reason of as you say, the way Labour had governed.

Of course though parties will offer lots of things. I think Nick Clegg promised there would be no rise in university tuition fees for example. When elected they will break promises. Generally I think there is more understand of this within the class as a whole than in the left.

Within the British context, I think there is a qualitative difference between a specific policy idea offered by a Labour leader/shadow cabinet in response to popular/trades union pressure, and a vague promise by the leader of a party with no formal connection to any sort of popular workers' or union movement.

I wouldn't push it so far as to say that Labour leaders carry through with their promises; as you've said, the way Labour has governed is absolute proof of that. But, thinking for example of the upcoming election in 2015, I would probably be well able enough to believe that Ed Miliband will personally offer me something slightly better than the other two when it comes to prospects of teachers' pay and conditions, when it comes to NHS services and waiting times, and when it comes to tax breaks for the poor/lower prices on energy, at least in the short term.

I can remember in one general election in Turkey where someone I knew's father was offered a cow to vote AKP. Better than Jam tomorrow.

You're right. I'm just saying (and I feel we're not hugely disagreeing here), I don't think there's anything wrong with a worker judging the options on a case-by-base basis; whilst normally i'd not be fucked to vote for any of them, if there is some clear ground, and as I live in a very marginal constituency, I don't see the problem in just ticking the Labour box if it means i'll benefit economically.

[Bardo]

I've been eligible to vote for two presidential elections so far. I didn't vote in 2008, but voted for the PSL in 2012. In the area where I was a registered voter atleast, I didn't find local or municipal ballots anymore broad than the presidential ticket. Many of the races were run by Republican candidates only, with no opposition.

It was a pretty conservative district.