Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - 13.06.2017
Anarchic update news all over the world - 13.06.2017
Today's Topics:
1. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - policy, The 13 th AL
congress ended Monday in Nantes by congress committee (fr, it,
pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Greece, Response from the 4th festival anarchist book in
Patras (gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. wsm.ie: The pay restoration con the politicans, media and
union leaders are trying to impose - Even a decade on its far
from full restoration to 2007 levels (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland): Anarchists, Is It
Really Our Duty To Vote? (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. colectivo libertario evora: There is no dog nor cat that
does not want to represent us ... (pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. US, black rose fed: CORBYN AND THE UK ELECTION - A NEW DAY
FOR ELECTORALISM? (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
A hundred delegates participated in the debates and workshops of the Alternative
Libertarian Congress held at the Manufacture des Tabacs in Nantes from 3 to 5 June. ----
Among other things, the organization drew lessons from the fight against the Labor Act,
one year after the events, and collectively reflected on the challenges of the coming
period. ---- An account of the congress and a summary of the debates will be published in
the monthly Alternative libertarian of July-August 2017. But here is the record of the
past two years and the general orientation 'action. ---- Review of AL 2015-2017 ----
Business and social movement ---- Against safe hardening ---- International Solidarity
---- Against racism ---- On the ecological front ---- On the feminist front ---- On the
cultural front ---- General Orientation Motion ---- From social regression to the
"conservative revolution" ?
Worsening of inequalities, rising capitalist profits and social breakdown
Semi-social, half-reactionary revolts
Liberals' leap forward, old recipes of neoreformism
Towards an authoritarian regime ?
Fighting the next government,
anticipating its objectives and finding breaches
Hot spots
Political practices, practices in struggles
Alternative libertarian in action
Neither angelicism nor paranoia: to prepare materially and morally for the hardening of
security
The intervention of AL: a voluntarism without blindness
During the fight against the El Khomri law, in 2016.
Cc AL Nantes
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Le-XIIIe-congres-d-AL-s-est-acheve-lundi-a-Nantes
------------------------------
Message: 2
"The anarchist books are weapons against modern totalitarianism" ---- Finished the evening
Saturday, May 27 4th Anarchist Book Festival, organized since 2014 by the self In the
Forward to Patras. And only the fourth consecutive organizing an anarchist book festival
in the city center, in which we live and intervene, is in itself a success, especially
when you consider the kinematics ebb conditions in which we live. ---- As we wrote
features and the first festival in 2014: ---- "The festival aims to highlight the wealth
of anarchist, antiauthoritarian and libertarian beliefs, diffusion of anarchist
imperatives in society and especially the youth of the city at a time when state
propaganda against those who resist self-organized and down prevalent, while racism,
social cannibalism and ekfasismos seem to be the only options a society in crisis.
Moreover, at a time and within the resistance movements formed depreciation terms for
political fermentation and deepening, we believe that the promotion of the culture of
self-education, politics and theoretical exploration, conservation of social and class
memory against the culture of lifestyle anarchism and chouligkanopoiisis policy are
particularly important moments in the direction of the broader reorganization of radical
and revolutionary movement. "
Despite the very bad weather conditions (strong storms 1st and 3rd day of the festival) a
lot of people went through the patio Esperion at the weekend. Several publications also
responded to our call for the festival support or their books or even more with the
presence or participating in events with book reviews.
On Thursday, May 25th, the first day of the festival, the events began in the afternoon
with a very interesting presentation of the Bolshevik myth of Alexander Berkman publishing
"Panopticon" by Yannis Ioannidis translator book. Many people interested and attended this
event. Feature that is not for the book so many people interested.
The first day continued with event-debate was the occasion of the publication of the book:
"Israeli Anarchists. Mobilizing the conflict Palestinian-Israeli "from versions OPPORTUNA,
and the book" Anarchists against the Wall "by EDITIONS colleagues, in the presence of the
author, active political activist and member of the collective" Anarchists against the
wall "by Israel, Uri Gordon.
The evening ended with a musical race and possible storm that was falling relentlessly
from the cloudy sky.
Undaunted and undeterred by the weather whims continued aloud the next day, Friday, May 26
with the presentation of the book: "A libertarian project. History, evolution and act
"from versions EKPIPTONTES attitude. The history of the anarchist movement, the need to
establish a realistic revolutionary program and challenges that leave the Spanish
anarchists in custody in the anarchist movement today, through the presentation of the
first volume and placements that followed for the very important work of Santigian.
Pending the adoption of the next two volumes.
Thereafter, the baton was passed versions new daemons, showing the first and second volume
of newly issued their anthology of Spanish Revolution, Spain in Red and Black. An
anthology that joins the ever burgeoning in recent years, Greek literature for the
hypothesis of social revolution in Spain. Pithy presentation, great interest in the world,
many questions and is thus logical that we expect the issue and the next two volumes of
the anthology.
The evening ended with live music rebetiko for the financial support of the festival,
under the threatening dark skies, but that did not make the threat of rain.
That's how we got in Saturday, the last day of the festival. Noon benches with books,
brochures, texts and music cds diy was erected. Shortly before the start of the event
Saturday the Achaikos Ouranos made the threats the previous evening and our filodorise a
storm rivaled in intensity that of the first day.
But the world had already come for the event to mark the 80 years since the events of May
'37 in Barcelona. The comrade and comrade from the CNT Madrid was there an appetite for
the big event, so do not procrastinate and the conversation began. Very interesting
information about the events of the civil war within the civil war, the revolutionary
attitude of the Stalinists in Spain, on the progress of collectivization and productive
reconstruction of Spain but for the moment the CNT in the races. Many questions, answer
key and a nice atmosphere at the end of the event, he still did the lousy weather to calm
down.
Most perfect closing of the festival of the Tango - Waltz Live that followed could not be
found. The musicians are exceptional, the beautiful singer and so somehow we traveled with
argentinoviennezikous rhythms and French verse.
Throughout the festival there alongside the kinematic book exhibition and poster
exhibition policy, photography, music distro self-organized and printed materials of the
anarchist / anti-authoritarian movement.
As a self-managed space In the Forward would like to thank everyone who responded to our
call for participation in the 4th Anarchist Book Fair (publishers, writers, collectives,
comrades who supported us with their presence the three-day event) and those who were
interested, although in the end it was not possible to participate in the festival.
From our side we can say that we will continue to promote the logic of unmediated
communication, self-organized expression, equal participation and horizontality in the
belief that the way we are fighting today has direct relevance to the society we want to
build tomorrow.
We will continue to put into practice the akidemonefti intervention and action on a range
of issues related to life our own and those around us and the impact on them, the options
and the plans for political and economic bosses ...
ON SOCIAL REVOLUTION, THE ANARCHY AND libertarian communism
self-managed space In the Weste
https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2017/06/08
------------------------------
Message: 3
Details of the latest national plan agreed between the government and union leaders have
appeared in the media today, as usual well ahead of the union leaders bothering to tell
their membership anything. Then union leaders intention is to present workers with a ‘take
it or leave it' choice accompanied by dire warnings that there is no choice. ---- The deal
as expected is pretty rotten and in effect ensures that the pay cuts imposed on public
sector workers from 2009 will at least partially be in place for some workers a full
decade and a year later in 2020. What's even worse is that the worse pay and conditions
imposed on workers employed after 2012 are being set in stone rather than overturned. This
despite it seeming an essential basic demand of a union that workers doing the same work
should receive the same pay.
The only resemblance of any sort of workers solidarity in the deal is the insistence that
low paid workers will receive pay restoration somewhat faster. But this is the group
earning below 30k and 32k, a rate of pay so low that it would be impossible for a couple
on such low earnings to get a mortgage in Dublin. And the faster restoration rates are
minuscule, 1% (or a max of 6 euro a week) on January 1st 1919 and an even more pathetic
0.5% (or a max of 3 euro plus change a week) on January 1st 2020.
The proposed pay restoration across the three years is structured as follows
2018
From January 1, 1pc pay rise
From October 1, 1pc pay rise
2019
From January 1, pay rise of 1pc for those earning below €30,000
From September 1, pay rise of 1.75pc
2020
From January 1, pay rise of 0.5pc for those earning below €32,000
From October 1, pay rise of 2pc
Of course public sector workers were really subjected to three different forms of pay
cuts. The restorations detailed above only tackle the most obvious of these.
There was also the so called ‘pension levy' that saw a substantial cut in take home pay.
This cut had an ideological purpose in addition to being pay cut, a media myth of all
public sector workers having access to ‘gold plated pensions' was one of a number of
methods used to drive a wedge was driven between public and private sector workers. That
wedge allowed the government and the employers to use ‘salami tactics' where rather than
risk a united working class fightback of the sort that defeated them with the water
charges they were able to isolate each sector and cut it slice by slice.
The pension reality was that large numbers of public sector low paid workers and the large
number who will not retire with anything like the full 40 years service will receive
almost nothing on top of the state pension. This despite being forced to pay thousands in
contributions every year in addition to losing pay through the pension levy. This is
because before public sector workers receive a penny the state pension is subtracted from
what they are due from their employers. In theory 40 years service, entitle's you to a
pension that is half your previous pay. But after this state pension is deducted this
means a workers on 24k a year receive's nothing and likewise a worker on 48k but with only
20 years service would likewise receive nothing in addition to their state pension. For
many more the so called ‘gold plated' pension only amounts to a top of a few thousand to
the state pension.
The proposed deal is forced to finally recognise this but without abolishing the pension
levy pay cut. Instead those who actually have a somewhat gold plated pension (
politicians, judges and screws, an interesting grouping ) will see no restoration. The
other 253,000 pre 2013 public servants will only see a partial restoration of the pay cut
implemented for what are in effect now recognised as not so gold plated pensions - as we
outline in some cases they are in fact worthless. And the post 2013 public servants will
see more of a restoration but still not a complete one.
The third method that pay was cut - which in real terms was often the largest - has not
been tackled at all. Workers are to continue to be forced to work additional unpaid hours
with reduced holidays and entitlement to sick pay. The additional hours were between 2.5
and 5 hours per week, in some circumstances, where someone gets a promotion, that could be
as much as additional 250 hours per year. In some sectors holidays were in effect cut by 4
or more days a year. If you work out what your wages were per hour before and after these
cuts they amount to large cuts in percentage terms and nothing is to be done about that.
In addition most workers now have to work three additional years before they qualify for
the state pension, across many of our working lifetimes that's equivalent to a 10% rise in
total working hours. These forced extra hours are counter productive in a society that has
enormous youth unemployment. Tens of millions of forced unpaid hours, and later retirement
means a huge number of jobs that will never be available for younger people to take up.
And even apart from the per hour pay loss it also adds greatly to the stress of those in
work, longer hours are terrible for workers health and the quality of service they can
deliver.
The union leaders are now going to be trying to sell us this deal as the best available.
No other choice will be presented by the unions leaders and we suspect in that context
that most public sector workers will end up voting for it as ‘better than nothing'. It is
the logic of ‘better than nothing' that has seen wages and conditions plummet over the
last decade.
An earlier generation of workers refused to accept this ‘better than nothing' logic in the
1960s and 1970s, and indeed earlier decades. They won increased pay, shorter hours, longer
holidays, better pensions and decent entitlement to sick leave. They won that through
being willing to stand together, agree demands and fight for this through strikes and
other forms of industrial action. The unions leaders won't present that as the alternative
but unless you want to still be working in your 67th year it is our only alternative.
Subject: Public sector, Pay, Partnership, ICTU
Topics: Workplace
Geography: National
Source: News alert
Type: Analysis
Author: Andrew N Flood
https://www.wsm.ie/c/pay-restoration-con-analysis-deal
------------------------------
Message: 4
Voting has just ended in the UK election. Many people are consumed with hope that Corbyn
could win and implement his reforms “for the many, not the few”. For those of us who work
with the broad left, it is inevitable that the topic of elections and voting will come up.
Heated debates can occur between those of us who would rather ignore the electoral circus
and those who strongly believe in using it as a vehicle on the road to a new society. ----
Before beginning, it is important to clarify the misconception that anarchists are against
voting. We have absolutely no problem with voting - how else could we make decisions? We
are against a system that allows for us to tick a box every four or five years which gives
whoever received the most X’s to make decisions that affect our lives in a fancy building
miles away from us. Politicians once elected do what they like because we can neither
mandate nor recall them.
This is a system that divides us into a massive majority ruled by a tiny minority, and
that allows for power, wealth and privilege to be concentrated into the hands of that
minority. We believe that this democracy is a farce devoid of any real choice; that this
form of voting creates the illusion of change while simultaneously reinforcing our current
oppressive system. Rather than us being against voting in this system, it is more accurate
to say that we are against peddling the belief that any lasting meaningful change can be
achieved through engaging in something that has been designed to constrain us.
Genuine radicals who campaign for Corbyn do so under the illusion that his election
campaign will significantly boost social movements in a way that putting their campaigning
work into workplace, community, and other organising would not. Not only is there no
evidence for this but the experience of previous electoral campaigns is that failure often
demoralises and demobilises such movements, as happened after the failure of Bernie
Sanders, and success often demobilises and then demoralises such movements when the moment
of disappointment or betrayal arrives, as happened with Syriza.
The huge amount of energy invested might mean something can be harvested for the future.
However the past suggests that only slim pickings are left when the that energy shifts
elsewhere. Counterexamples that are sometimes cited, such as Chile under Allende prior to
the coup, are not movements built out of electoralism but rather movements which opened up
the space for electoral success as a consequence of their own strength.
The nature of an election campaign means there is little space to prepare activists for
defeat or betrayal. All hope has to be entrusted in the candidate and even soft criticism
has to be avoided lest it deter voters. Elections are not fought and won around the slogan
of ‘our candidate although flawed is somewhat better than theirs’ but through insisting
that yes indeed they can perform miracles.
This article has been written in response to a piece written by Paddy Vipond titled
“Anarchists, It Is Our Duty To Vote” (1). Throughout I have summarised his arguments
before I have dealt with them and so it is not necessary to read his article to understand
this one. These headings have been taken from his article and follow the same structure.
Legitimacy
The most common argument that anarchists make about elections and their legitimacy is that
a vote represents a vote of confidence in this system. This is one of the weaker anarchist
arguments against voting, one that any electoral leftist could argue against with ease
when issues such as damage limitation come up, and so I was surprised that it did not
appear in this article. Instead it argues that the anarchist belief is that voting
legitimises the government - rather than the system. His argument against this is that
“governments take their legitimacy regardless of voter turnout”. This is very true.
However it is also an argument I have never seen an anarchist make. I am thus not familiar
with it as an anarchist argument against voting.
Of course if you vote for the Tories and they make it into power then that is legitimising
the Tories. But if you vote against them and they make it into power anyway, that is
hardly legitimation. No one, let alone any anarchist, would argue against that because it
is a basic logical conclusion. Rather, as anarchists we argue that through voting you are
legitimising the system. Through voting you are expressing faith in the “democratic”
systems put in place. If the Tories win despite you voting for someone else you are
required to respect the “democratic process”. Of course, there are many other reasons,
systemic reasons in particular, why the Tories could very well win this election and many
more, effectively argued by Andrew Flood in this article (2).
Vipond next goes on to illustrate a strange hypothetical scenario where the voter turnout
is at 0%. In this scenario, the 0% turnout means that the ruling government remain in
power and therefore that a dictatorship takes hold. Not only is this hypothetical
situation unhelpful in being unlikely in the extreme, but anarchists don’t aim for as few
people as possible to vote. In the US, only 40% of the population vote in the elections.
While there are a variety of reasons behind this, active and deliberate disenfranchisement
being one of them, much of it is because people simply don’t see a purpose in voting. If a
real aim of anarchism were to reduce voter turnout, then the face of every anarchist
should be completely covered in egg as it would be bizarre for anyone to claim that the US
is a shining model for anarchism. In reality it is a country where the masses have been
driven to despair and apathy; we have no interest in this kind of society. As anarchists
we don’t want 0% turnout, it’s not our aim. Our aim is a society where we are transformed
from passive observers to active participants in making political decisions about our lives.
Further along this section Vipond claims that any principled refusal to engage in
electoral voting, is “a selfish badge of honour”. He claims that through not voting we are
trying to absolve ourselves of any responsibility of the political mess we find ourselves
in. I would like to assume positive intent on his behalf here, and so I’m left with no
alternative than to believe that this argument is based on the author’s personal
experience with anarchists local to him. This attitude is certainly not one prevalent in
the Irish anarchist scene. This seems to be a description of an attitude the author
dislikes rather than addressing any positions we hold as anarchists against voting in
electoral politics, though.
Fairness
In this section of his article Vipond does not actually offer any solutions to the
unfairness of the system, which he acknowledges. Instead, Vipond makes arguments about how
withdrawing from the system does not make it fairer and does nothing to change it. This is
hardly a groundbreaking observation. However anarchists do not argue for withdrawal from
the system; we argue for its dismantling instead.
Costs
Oddly Vipond claims that anarchists argue we should abstain from voting because of the
time required (i.e. the cost) to educate yourself on parties, policies and
representatives. I am concerned again about the personal experiences that this writer has
had with other anarchists as it hasn’t been an argument made by any anarchist organisation
I am aware of. Organised anarchists spend quite a lot of their time organising in
opposition to the current order. This includes familiarising ourselves with ruling - and
otherwise - parties, policies, and representatives. We know this system very well, it’s
why we oppose it and work towards a new world. It would be ludicrous for us to want people
to have no knowledge or understanding of how broken and oppressive the system of the
ruling parties is. Only through this understanding of the system will people struggle
against it..
When discussing elections and costs, an argument that is typically made by anarchists is
that if we were to engage in them, and perhaps even to use them as a platform for our
ideas, it would come at too high a cost. This is a cost associated with electoralist
campaigning rather than personally voting, and has nothing to do with investing time in
researching our opponents but rather in reinforcing the idea that “someone else will fix
it” which is rampant in our society. As argued by Alan MacSimoin in this article (3):
“Elections are about leaving the vast majority of people in the role of passive observer
of political life rather than active participants. Anarchists want to see working class
people take an active role in bringing about change in society. Participation in electoral
politics has the opposite effect. The cost is too high a price to pay.” I highlight this
as yet another major omission and lack of understanding on the part of the author of what
the anarchist arguments against voting are.
Effectiveness
In this section the author argues that “the reality is that voting does change things and
there is absolutely no denying that.” On the contrary, we can deny that. Voting attempts
to provide the population with the illusion of change while in reality it reinforces the
current system. A policy here and there may change, the faces may change, but the system
of a wealthy minority ruling a poor majority remains.
So then what happens when voters in England are faced with two opposing choices between a
socialist and a bloodthirsty Tory? A situation we now see with Corbyn and May. How could a
broke anarchist student possibly resist the allure of supporting someone who would scrap
university fees? I’ll admit, I’d probably vote for him if I lived in his constituency
simply because I can’t afford my university fees and I will do anything to try to get out
of paying them. I remain unconvinced, however, that he can deliver any lasting and
meaningful structural and political change, especially with the Blairites in his party who
might as well be Tories who will attempt to thwart him at every opportunity.
True power does not rest in parliament. MPs, TDs and otherwise are little more than the
“committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” The markets dictate
what decisions are made in parliament rather than parliament dictating to the markets. We
cannot elect the revolution because capitalism has a backup if any of its opponents do
make it to parliament. This backup comes in two forms: the first is the soft force of
economic terrorism (the markets), and the second is the much harder force of a military
coup orchestrated through the secret state. These arguments have been articulated in more
detail by Andrew Flood in this article on Syriza (4).
I’m also cautious of this being seen as unchecked pessimism, as this is not my motivation.
Capitalism is all about quick fixes, about the speed of service, about receiving something
in an instant, this is deeply ingrained within us. So when we are presented with a quick
fix, a vote to make all our problems disappear, of course we are going to be viewed as
pessimistic when we maintain that it’s not going to work, that we have to build a more
sustainable resistance. Rather, we would prefer people didn’t spend their time getting
sucked into this system of parliamentary democracy in the first place and instead fought
against it and for a new world.
To return to the article, Vipond makes an astounding claim that voting has played a major
role in social change since the beginning of the 20th Century. This is not true. It is a
shocking erasure of the mass movements that lie behind every great social change. Societal
change occurs in our mass consciousness long before it is reflected, through the pressure
of those masses, in parliaments and other ruling class institutions. In these instances it
was not voting that was effective, but the work that occurred on the streets, within homes
and workplaces and other places in changing opinions.
So, Why Vote?
In this section Vipond argues that non-voting protects the state, therefore implying that
voting weakens it. I don’t see how participating in something that makes people believe
that their vote every four or five years gives them any input into their lives does damage
to a system based upon the furthering of this belief. The author seems to think that
stating that voting is “a right enshrined by law” would convince anarchists to vote. Given
the widespread awareness of the unfairness of the rule of law in anarchist circles, which
has seen many anarchists imprisoned for acting against it, I think Vipond is barking up
the wrong tree with this argument.
The author then proceeds to make an argument for damage limitation, and of course if you
are in a constituency where it is a neck and neck competition between a UKIP candidate and
Labour candidate no one could blame you for voting for Labour and if I was in such a
situation I would probably do so. But to do so without actively fighting - capacity
permitting - against the conditions that has led to such a dangerous level of UKIP support
is shirking of the highest order by anarchists.
This argument naturally leads to one of choosing between the lesser of two evils. We saw
very recently in the US where voting for the lesser evil eventually gets you. It led to a
choice between a “pussy-grabbing” living breathing manifestation of all oppression and a
war-mongering symbol of capitalism and imperialism. When all you can envisage as your role
in changing society is constantly choosing between the lesser of two evils in this
society, it allows for those who represent that evil to push their boundaries. Instead of
the levels of evil decreasing the opposite occurs.
Vipond goes on to make an attempt at pragmatism by advocating “evolution through the
ballot box whilst awaiting the necessary conditions to enact a revolution in society.”
Organised anarchists don’t sit around “awaiting the necessary conditions to enact a
revolution in society”, we work very hard to try to create them. History has shown us that
when fighting for these conditions to be realised with electoralism as one of those tools,
we see fighting becoming subservient to electoralism. Those of an electoral persuasion
involved in campaigns are forever on the lookout for opportunities to get their profile
out there, or are trying to find ‘leaders’ who could perhaps contest the next election.
This isn’t necessarily done out of ego, it is done because those who subscribe to this
ideology believe in using the platform of elections to advance their own ideals.
The remainder of the article is an argument for the benefits of reform and pushing parties
to the left through voting. This reinforces the illusion that there is power in your vote.
Fighting this illusion is a cornerstone of anarchist belief and action.
The article lacks a comprehensive understanding of how this system operates and how voting
ties into it, as well as a basic understanding of the anarchist arguments surrounding
voting. In many instances he argued against arguments that no anarchist organisation would
ever make. When we argue against voting we don’t mean that abstaining is the route to
anarchism. We make this argument to try to highlight the scam that is voting and to
encourage people to make political decisions and actions in other ways and to become
directly involved in building communities of resistance and support. We have absolutely no
interest in encouraging apathy. Yet Vipond seemed to imply this was the aim, or at the
very least a direct consequence of anarchist campaigning that we are wilfully neglectful of.
The most dangerously inaccurate statement made in this article is the claim that “voting
in elections is not only a duty of anarchists, it is the single easiest weapon at our
disposal”. After highlighting all of the negative effects that voting can have - of course
exceptions can be made such as the case of UKIP vs. Labour that was mentioned - it is
clear that voting in parliamentary elections is far from our single easiest weapon. Indeed
it is clear that it is the single easiest weapon of the ruling class in fooling us into
thinking we have any say in this society.
Whoever is voted in tomorrow, we still have a world to win and that fight will continue
until every institution and manifestation of oppression is dismantled. While institutions
of oppression remain we have a fight on our hands; while we’re still placing an X in a box
every couple of years in the belief that this is true power or democracy we are not free.
Here’s to solidarity among all those who suffer and who struggle for change: “It is
learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause
with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world
in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them
strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow
us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about
genuine change.” - Audre Lorde
Linked articles:
(1) https://troubleandsqueak.com/2015/04/25/anarchists-it-is-our-duty-to-vote-in-elections/
(2) https://www.wsm.ie/c/why-elections-fail-filters-parliament
(3) https://www.wsm.ie/c/anarchism-elections-your-questions-answered
(4) https://www.wsm.ie/c/election-syriza-power-parliament-anarchism
------------------------------
Message: 5
As anarchists and libertarians, determined in the radical change of society and in the
transformation of the social relations of power and production, we are told little by
electoral folklore that, every four years, they collect the cattle to take to the polling
station, closing His paper in an "urn", that is, in a place destined to the dead, in which
the vote counts for nothing because the whole game is already predetermined by those who
manage the strings of capital and power. If voting were to change anything, as
libertarians have always said, voting would already be prohibited. ---- However, as a
collective based in Évora nothing of what happens here is indifferent to us, so, after
careful reflection, we decided to intervene in these elections. No, of course! Presenting
lists or participating in the comedy-sick show of the local elections - which could be a
moment of affirmation of the place and of the citizens' proposals, in the spirit of the
assembly of libertarian municipalism, and became a caricature of the most retrograde and
reactionary Has partisan political activism in his recurring assertion of "vote for me
that I am better than the partner on the side", transforming local life into a swamp
similar to that existing in terms of national politics, where the interests and way of
life of Parties and their leaders (large, medium and small) overlap with the needs and
interests of the general population.
Not to speak, of course, of the corruption that is generalized to the other strata of
power. Whether local or national, corruption and public use by the private (whether
personal, partisan or group) is distributed in a very equal way.
No! We would not intervene in this way because it would mean that we also wanted to
participate in the banquet of representation and the use and abuse of public goods for
their own or group advantage and that, rather than fighting for another society, we would
be taking advantage of the crumbs it provides to Who follow their dictates.
No! Let's intervene by word and analysis. To show that the little reines and rainhitas who
appear for the dance do not differentiate them and who could well dance together, without
this multiplicity of acronyms and slogans; Than to the blatant violence of these electoral
periods, other periods have been - and there will be others - in which concord reigns and
that everything boils down to a question of places and who is in power; That of all these
shining heads, all together, there is no idea to change the world and society, but at
best, how to help her survive and be more effective in her effort of prey and domination. '
It's so sweet, it's so good, listening to them in opposition and then when, in the chairs
of power, they perform exactly what they criticized in previous management ...
Let us now turn to this fact which seems always so essential in the usual politicians:
renewal. Or, as they say, policy change. We know that they might even be the best
candidates in the world, but we also know that it is impossible to change the system from
the inside. But then, what will be possible with these candidates who present themselves
to us, all political people, bereft of parties, full of vices and manhas, and although the
age in this case is not a post, closer to the reform than to the capacity Of great
transformations or changes?
Where is the suggested renewal? Why all this sight of doubtful taste?
The CDU holds its candidate, political and autarkic professional, who managed to reconquer
Évora to join the PCP coalition with himself four years ago: Carlos Pinto Sá, 59 years
old, mayor since 1993 (Montemor, later Évora);
The PS, after the collapse and defeat four years ago, advances with Elsa Teigão, 50, a
teacher and leader of the county, trying to recover the lost ground;
The PSD, with only one councilman in the Chamber, bets on its current deputy, António
Costa e Silva, 49;
The Left Bloc, without any councilman, insists on Maria Helena Figueiredo, 62 years old,
while the CDS, who never had any elected in the municipal organs of the county, advances
with Pedro d'Orey Manoel, 48, just to make a number.
I admit they are already yawning. And the proposals of each of them have not yet arrived.
They may be less ambitious than the 20 subway stations of Cristas para Lisboa, but there
will be promises for all tastes. From now until the end of September is the season of hunting.
Citizen voters do not distract yourself. If you are caught unawares, whether in Geraldo
Square, next to the market or even in a suburban street, there is no kiss, no handshake or
selfie that you can escape! And I can not imagine what the Fair will be this year ...
Of all this we will be giving news.
Luis Bernardo
https://colectivolibertarioevora.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
Message: 6
The recent UK election handed the socialist leaning Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn a
minor though not insignificant victory. Once again many on the left are discussing the
tactic and value of strategies focused on voting and electoral change and advocates for
this are eager to present the moment as a major break through. But we think it's important
to understand the counter arguments and especially given the recent memory of Syriza in
Greece - the "Coalition of the Radical Left Party" which ran on a platform of
anti-austerity and once in power quickly caved in to demands from the EU and bankers. This
article is by our comrades with the Workers Solidarity Movement in Ireland.
By Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird
Voting has just ended in the UK election. Many people are consumed with hope that Corbyn
could win and implement his reforms "for the many, not the few". For those of us who work
with the broad left, it is inevitable that the topic of elections and voting will come up.
Heated debates can occur between those of us who would rather ignore the electoral circus
and those who strongly believe in using it as a vehicle on the road to a new society.
Before beginning, it is important to clarify the misconception that anarchists are against
voting. We have absolutely no problem with voting - how else could we make decisions? We
are against a system that allows for us to tick a box every four or five years which gives
whoever received the most X's to make decisions that affect our lives in a fancy building
miles away from us. Politicians once elected do what they like because we can neither
mandate nor recall them.
This is a system that divides us into a massive majority ruled by a tiny minority, and
that allows for power, wealth and privilege to be concentrated into the hands of that
minority. We believe that this democracy is a farce devoid of any real choice; that this
form of voting creates the illusion of change while simultaneously reinforcing our current
oppressive system. Rather than us being against voting in this system, it is more accurate
to say that we are against peddling the belief that any lasting meaningful change can be
achieved through engaging in something that has been designed to constrain us.
Genuine radicals who campaign for Corbyn do so under the illusion that his election
campaign will significantly boost social movements in a way that putting their campaigning
work into workplace, community, and other organizing would not. Not only is there no
evidence for this but the experience of previous electoral campaigns is that failure often
demoralizes and demobilizes such movements, as happened after the failure of Bernie
Sanders, and success often demobilizes and then demoralizes such movements when the moment
of disappointment or betrayal arrives, as happened with Syriza.
The huge amount of energy invested might mean something can be harvested for the future.
However the past suggests that only slim pickings are left when the that energy shifts
elsewhere. Counterexamples that are sometimes cited, such as Chile under Allende prior to
the coup, are not movements built out of electoralism but rather movements which opened up
the space for electoral success as a consequence of their own strength.
The nature of an election campaign means there is little space to prepare activists for
defeat or betrayal. All hope has to be entrusted in the candidate and even soft criticism
has to be avoided lest it deter voters. Elections are not fought and won around the slogan
of ‘our candidate although flawed is somewhat better than theirs' but through insisting
that yes indeed they can perform miracles.
This article has been written in response to a piece written by Paddy Vipond titled
"Anarchists, It Is Our Duty To Vote". Throughout I have summarized his arguments before I
have dealt with them and so it is not necessary to read his article to understand this
one. These headings have been taken from his article and follow the same structure.
Legitimacy
The most common argument that anarchists make about elections and their legitimacy is that
a vote represents a vote of confidence in this system. This is one of the weaker anarchist
arguments against voting, one that any electoral leftist could argue against with ease
when issues such as damage limitation come up, and so I was surprised that it did not
appear in this article. Instead it argues that the anarchist belief is that voting
legitimizes the government - rather than the system. His argument against this is that
"governments take their legitimacy regardless of voter turnout". This is very true.
However it is also an argument I have never seen an anarchist make. I am thus not familiar
with it as an anarchist argument against voting.
Of course if you vote for the Tories and they make it into power then that is legitimizing
the Tories. But if you vote against them and they make it into power anyway, that is
hardly legitimation. No one, let alone any anarchist, would argue against that because it
is a basic logical conclusion. Rather, as anarchists we argue that through voting you are
legitimizing the system. Through voting you are expressing faith in the "democratic"
systems put in place. If the Tories win despite you voting for someone else you are
required to respect the "democratic process". Of course, there are many other reasons,
systemic reasons in particular, why the Tories could very well win this election and many
more, effectively argued by Andrew Flood in this article.
Vipond next goes on to illustrate a strange hypothetical scenario where the voter turnout
is at 0%. In this scenario, the 0% turnout means that the ruling government remain in
power and therefore that a dictatorship takes hold. Not only is this hypothetical
situation unhelpful in being unlikely in the extreme, but anarchists don't aim for as few
people as possible to vote. In the US, only 40% of the population vote in the elections.
While there are a variety of reasons behind this, active and deliberate disenfranchisement
being one of them, much of it is because people simply don't see a purpose in voting. If a
real aim of anarchism were to reduce voter turnout, then the face of every anarchist
should be completely covered in egg as it would be bizarre for anyone to claim that the US
is a shining model for anarchism. In reality it is a country where the masses have been
driven to despair and apathy; we have no interest in this kind of society. As anarchists
we don't want 0% turnout, it's not our aim. Our aim is a society where we are transformed
from passive observers to active participants in making political decisions about our lives.
Further along this section Vipond claims that any principled refusal to engage in
electoral voting, is "a selfish badge of honor". He claims that through not voting we are
trying to absolve ourselves of any responsibility of the political mess we find ourselves
in. I would like to assume positive intent on his behalf here, and so I'm left with no
alternative than to believe that this argument is based on the author's personal
experience with anarchists local to him. This attitude is certainly not one prevalent in
the Irish anarchist scene. This seems to be a description of an attitude the author
dislikes rather than addressing any positions we hold as anarchists against voting in
electoral politics, though.
Fairness
In this section of his article Vipond does not actually offer any solutions to the
unfairness of the system, which he acknowledges. Instead, Vipond makes arguments about how
withdrawing from the system does not make it fairer and does nothing to change it. This is
hardly a groundbreaking observation. However anarchists do not argue for withdrawal from
the system; we argue for its dismantling instead.
Costs
Oddly Vipond claims that anarchists argue we should abstain from voting because of the
time required (i.e. the cost) to educate yourself on parties, policies and
representatives. I am concerned again about the personal experiences that this writer has
had with other anarchists as it hasn't been an argument made by any anarchist organization
I am aware of. Organized anarchists spend quite a lot of their time organizing in
opposition to the current order. This includes familiarizing ourselves with ruling - and
otherwise - parties, policies, and representatives. We know this system very well, it's
why we oppose it and work towards a new world. It would be ludicrous for us to want people
to have no knowledge or understanding of how broken and oppressive the system of the
ruling parties is. Only through this understanding of the system will people struggle
against it..
When discussing elections and costs, an argument that is typically made by anarchists is
that if we were to engage in them, and perhaps even to use them as a platform for our
ideas, it would come at too high a cost. This is a cost associated with electoralist
campaigning rather than personally voting, and has nothing to do with investing time in
researching our opponents but rather in reinforcing the idea that "someone else will fix
it" which is rampant in our society. As argued by Alan MacSimoin in this article:
"Elections are about leaving the vast majority of people in the role of passive observer
of political life rather than active participants. Anarchists want to see working class
people take an active role in bringing about change in society. Participation in electoral
politics has the opposite effect. The cost is too high a price to pay." I highlight this
as yet another major omission and lack of understanding on the part of the author of what
the anarchist arguments against voting are.
Effectiveness
In this section the author argues that "the reality is that voting does change things and
there is absolutely no denying that." On the contrary, we can deny that. Voting attempts
to provide the population with the illusion of change while in reality it reinforces the
current system. A policy here and there may change, the faces may change, but the system
of a wealthy minority ruling a poor majority remains.
So then what happens when voters in England are faced with two opposing choices between a
socialist and a bloodthirsty Tory? A situation we now see with Corbyn and May. How could a
broke anarchist student possibly resist the allure of supporting someone who would scrap
university fees? I'll admit, I'd probably vote for him if I lived in his constituency
simply because I can't afford my university fees and I will do anything to try to get out
of paying them. I remain unconvinced, however, that he can deliver any lasting and
meaningful structural and political change, especially with the Blairites in his party who
might as well be Tories who will attempt to thwart him at every opportunity.
True power does not rest in parliament. Members of Parliament (MPs), Teachta Dála (TDs -
elected members of parliament in Ireland) and otherwise are little more than the
"committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." The markets dictate
what decisions are made in parliament rather than parliament dictating to the markets. We
cannot elect the revolution because capitalism has a backup if any of its opponents do
make it to parliament. This backup comes in two forms: the first is the soft force of
economic terrorism (the markets), and the second is the much harder force of a military
coup orchestrated through the secret state. These arguments have been articulated in more
detail by Andrew Flood in this article on Syriza.
I'm also cautious of this being seen as unchecked pessimism, as this is not my motivation.
Capitalism is all about quick fixes, about the speed of service, about receiving something
in an instant, this is deeply ingrained within us. So when we are presented with a quick
fix, a vote to make all our problems disappear, of course we are going to be viewed as
pessimistic when we maintain that it's not going to work, that we have to build a more
sustainable resistance. Rather, we would prefer people didn't spend their time getting
sucked into this system of parliamentary democracy in the first place and instead fought
against it and for a new world.
To return to the article, Vipond makes an astounding claim that voting has played a major
role in social change since the beginning of the 20th Century. This is not true. It is a
shocking erasure of the mass movements that lie behind every great social change. Societal
change occurs in our mass consciousness long before it is reflected, through the pressure
of those masses, in parliaments and other ruling class institutions. In these instances it
was not voting that was effective, but the work that occurred on the streets, within homes
and workplaces and other places in changing opinions.
So, Why Vote?
In this section Vipond argues that non-voting protects the state, therefore implying that
voting weakens it. I don't see how participating in something that makes people believe
that their vote every four or five years gives them any input into their lives does damage
to a system based upon the furthering of this belief. The author seems to think that
stating that voting is "a right enshrined by law" would convince anarchists to vote. Given
the widespread awareness of the unfairness of the rule of law in anarchist circles, which
has seen many anarchists imprisoned for acting against it, I think Vipond is barking up
the wrong tree with this argument.
The author then proceeds to make an argument for damage limitation, and of course if you
are in a constituency where it is a neck and neck competition between a UKIP candidate and
Labour candidate no one could blame you for voting for Labour and if I was in such a
situation I would probably do so. But to do so without actively fighting - capacity
permitting - against the conditions that has led to such a dangerous level of UKIP support
is shirking of the highest order by anarchists.
This argument naturally leads to one of choosing between the lesser of two evils. We saw
very recently in the US where voting for the lesser evil eventually gets you. It led to a
choice between a "pussy-grabbing" living breathing manifestation of all oppression and a
war-mongering symbol of capitalism and imperialism. When all you can envisage as your role
in changing society is constantly choosing between the lesser of two evils in this
society, it allows for those who represent that evil to push their boundaries. Instead of
the levels of evil decreasing the opposite occurs.
Vipond goes on to make an attempt at pragmatism by advocating "evolution through the
ballot box whilst awaiting the necessary conditions to enact a revolution in society."
Organized anarchists don't sit around "awaiting the necessary conditions to enact a
revolution in society", we work very hard to try to create them. History has shown us that
when fighting for these conditions to be realized with electoralism as one of those tools,
we see fighting becoming subservient to electoralism. Those of an electoral persuasion
involved in campaigns are forever on the lookout for opportunities to get their profile
out there, or are trying to find ‘leaders' who could perhaps contest the next election.
This isn't necessarily done out of ego, it is done because those who subscribe to this
ideology believe in using the platform of elections to advance their own ideals.
The remainder of the article is an argument for the benefits of reform and pushing parties
to the left through voting. This reinforces the illusion that there is power in your vote.
Fighting this illusion is a cornerstone of anarchist belief and action.
The article lacks a comprehensive understanding of how this system operates and how voting
ties into it, as well as a basic understanding of the anarchist arguments surrounding
voting. In many instances he argued against arguments that no anarchist organization would
ever make. When we argue against voting we don't mean that abstaining is the route to
anarchism. We make this argument to try to highlight the scam that is voting and to
encourage people to make political decisions and actions in other ways and to become
directly involved in building communities of resistance and support. We have absolutely no
interest in encouraging apathy. Yet Vipond seemed to imply this was the aim, or at the
very least a direct consequence of anarchist campaigning that we are willfully neglectful of.
The most dangerously inaccurate statement made in this article is the claim that "voting
in elections is not only a duty of anarchists, it is the single easiest weapon at our
disposal". After highlighting all of the negative effects that voting can have - of course
exceptions can be made such as the case of UKIP vs. Labour that was mentioned - it is
clear that voting in parliamentary elections is far from our single easiest weapon. Indeed
it is clear that it is the single easiest weapon of the ruling class in fooling us into
thinking we have any say in this society.
Whoever is voted in tomorrow, we still have a world to win and that fight will continue
until every institution and manifestation of oppression is dismantled. While institutions
of oppression remain we have a fight on our hands; while we're still placing an X in a box
every couple of years in the belief that this is true power or democracy we are not free.
Here's to solidarity among all those who suffer and who struggle for change: "It is
learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause
with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world
in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them
strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow
us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about
genuine change." - Audre Lorde
This article originally appeared as "Anarchists, Is It Really Our Duty To Vote?" and the
spelling has been modified for a US audience.
#BuildMovementsNotElections #BuildPowerFromBelow #Corbyn
http://blackrosefed.org/anarchists-really-duty-vote
------------------------------