Subject: RE: anarchists & voting
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:30:38 -0500


[Greens: What I say here more or less applies to Greens also.  Berkman's
observations on revolution (below) can just as effectively be applied to
running 3rd party/independent candidates in the US]

Human nature is such that social goals can never be achieved in an absolute
sense, so it only makes sense to talk about whether actions do or do not
move us closer to our goals.  Anarchist goals, as I understand them, are
freedom, equality, and justice (to simplify the two components of anarchism:
libertarianism and socialism).

I don't think any of us can authoritatively state whether or not getting
Kerry into office will bring about the slightest improvement in freedom,
equality, or justice, but most people seem to think so, at least most people
on the left (whether or not you include Democrats).  Therefore, by most
people's individual assessments, voting for Kerry has some reasonable chance
of working toward anarchist goals.

GWB has been the most powerful organizing force for leftists in decades.  As
much as I want to see Bush go, I have to acknowledge that putting Kerry into
office will instantly cut the current levels of domestic opposition in half
while solidifying the "resistance" among Republicans and neoconservatives.

While there is a chance of some very slight "reformist" type improvements
under Kerry, what would such a development mean for those of us who seek
revolution?  Alexander Berkman presents 4 conclusions regarding revolution:
<begin quote>
1) a social revolution is one that entirely changes the foundation of
society, its political, economic, and social character;
2) such a change must *first* take place in the ideas and opinions of the
people, in the minds of men [sic];
3) oppression and misery may hasten revolution, but may *thereby* also turn
it into failure, because lack of evolutionary preparation will make real
accomplishment impossible;
4) only that revolution can be fundamental, social, and successful which
will be the expression of a basic change of ideas and opinions
<end quote>

So, a successful revolution cannot take place until the conditions are
right.  Those conditions are a widespread deep dissatisfaction with the
current arrangements, and a shared vision of what these arrangements should
be.  So if one focuses on revolution to the exclusion of any short-term
"reformist" relief, then let's consider whether this election could make a
difference in that regard.  While Bush has been a great stimulus for
organizing resistance, this dynamic fits almost entirely into Berkman's
observation #2: hastening the revolution but dooming it to failure due to
lack of evolutionary preparation.  The anarchist vision is understood by
very few, and embraced by even fewer.  We are nowhere near the level of
evolutionary preparation necessary for a successful revolution.  If we may
assume that things will be slightly less oppressive under Kerry (NOT a safe
assumption), the conditions will be better for evolutionary preparation,
that is, a change in social consciousness.  Under Bush, we have been
operating in crisis mode, and any movement toward revolution under such
conditions will be premature.

To sum up, although there is no way of knowing what a Kerry presidency will
be like, it is very unlikely to be worse, and quite possibly a little
better, for both reformist and revolutionary goals of libertarian socialism.
Either way, I believe we all (anarchists) can agree that no real solution
comes from the electoral process, and therefore whether we choose to vote or
not is far less important than the work that we are all hopefully doing to
tear down the old system and build the new.

One last point: Some people who advocate revolution (whether violent or not)
favor making things worse in order to increase public discontent ("objective
conditions") and thereby precipitate the revolution.  I know for example
there is some thinking in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) along
these lines.  This is totally working the wrong end of the equation.  The
precipitation point of revolution is determined by a balance of objective
conditions and social consciousness.  Making objective conditions worse
increases the chances of some kind of revolt, but also increases the chances
that the revolution will fail, not to mention that this path requires
greater levels of violence (such as a 'vanguard').  Improving social
consciousness, on the other hand, helps ensure that the revolution will be
successful and will require little or no violence.  Such an approach is far
more consistent with anarchist (and green) principles of decentralization
and nonviolence.

Not tellin anyone what to do; just callin it as I sees it.

-m


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of
liz-AT-black-rose.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:04 AM
To: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: anarchists & voting




Mike says:

> If an anarchist thinks that voting can achieve their anarchist goals I
> will listen, and critique for my own self-knowledge.

I don't think voting will achieve anarchist goals, and I don't know
any voting anarchists who argue this.

I do think in certain elections, like this one, voting for a lesser of
two evils candidate who has a plausible chace of winning might help
prevent things from getting even worse as people simultaneously work
to achieve anarchist goals by anarchist means.

Four years ago, I would have agreed with the idea that politicians are
pretty much the same. But Bush and co have fucked things up beyond my
pessimistic imaginings. Having a president less likely to inflame
international tensions and promote religious fundamentalism (of
whatever ilk) won't usher in anarchy, but it just might make our job a
bit less difficult.

-Liz