Electoral politics is among the most contentious topics of discussion between anarchists and liberals or Progressives. In a recent online discussion I told someone that, if my only choice was between the “viable alternatives” available in electoral politics today, I’d be on a chair in the attic, attaching a noose to a rafter. Her response was that there are real, pressing differences between the parties — like reproductive freedom for women — and that, despite her admiration for anarchist writers like Kropotkin, such ideas aren’t even in the picture right now.
Fair enough. I don’t object to voting on principled grounds (like, for example the late Sam Konkin, founder of the Agorist movement and author of the New Libertarian Manifesto, who spelled it “v**e” out of respect for his readers’ sensibilities). I don’t believe voting is immoral, because it somehow sanctions or legitimizes the state’s coercion — any more than not voting means “you don’t have a right to complain.” Be it active buy-in through voting or passive acquiescence through non-participation the state will deem whatever you do “consent” to its rule.
If you see some strategic utility in voting for the lesser evil, out of self-defense, more power to you. Both major parties share an agenda centered on alliance between big business and big government, and most of the 20% or so of stuff they disagree on has nothing to do with the fundamental structure of the corporate state. Both parties are all about state-forced privilege that redistributes wealth upward in the form of monopoly rents for the super-wealthy.
If you think it’s worthwhile to vote for a party that wants to re-redistribute a larger (but still miniscule) fraction of this wealth back to the underclass, in order to avoid politically destabilizing levels of starvation and homelessness, then knock yourself out. And if you want to vote for politicians who aren’t for trans-vaginal ultrasound or the criminalization of birth control, believe me, I don’t blame you one bit. Heck, I still even vote myself, for all the good it does me.
At the intermediate level, activist campaigns pressure the state from outside. I think these clearly do some good. States frequently retreat in the face of overwhelming public pressure, when they judge the cost in popular resistance to some new coercive inroad on liberty as more than it’s worth. For example I’m convinced that if it weren’t for Internet activism, SOPA would have passed both houses by a 90% margin last year. ACTA would have already passed the EU without a peep in the press.
But no matter how important such action may be, it’s still just secondary action to keep things from getting worse. It shouldn’t be our primary focus. All the things we do that really matter, for building a better society, will be done despite the state. As Howard Zinn said:
“Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes — the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth. But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools.”
People whose agenda for building a better society depends on electoral politics are like rubes in a carnival audience, so distracted by the pretty assistant that they don’t pay attention to the magician’s hands. The real action is the stuff people are doing outside the state, without waiting for the state’s permission, to create the building blocks of a new society. They include proxies and encrypted routers that protect us against surveillance by the state and ISPs, local wireless meshworks and open-source social media that can’t be shut down by the state, cheap neighborhood micromanufacturing facilities, permaculture and other local intensive forms of food production, low-overhead, home-based microenterprises that enable people to meet their needs through self-provisioning and trade with their neighbors, encrypted barter currencies, unschooling and libertarian alternative schooling, distributed power production, solidaristic social institutions for mutual aid and the pooling of costs and risks — and many, many more.
The more we build these things for ourselves, the less the state matters. The more we create the kind of free, fraternal, peaceful and human-friendly society we want to live in, without the state’s permission, and the more we render the state’s commands and prohibitions unenforceable, the more irrelevant the state becomes to us. It increasingly resembles a shrinking man, whose shouts become shriller and angrier the more he fades into insignificance.
So go on and vote, if you think it does any good. And then get back to our real work.
Translations for this article:
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, To Vote, or Not to Vote?, Infoshop News, 03/06/12
Great stuff! I would say that the main problem of voting and participating in the party politics of today's world is that current "democracies" are always playing by the rules of those in power. But as you say:
"So go on and vote, if you think it does any good. And then get back to our real work."
Fine, vote, but focus on REAL activism and organization building first and foremost.
My recent post "Property is Theft" is a contradiction – and it must be.
~ahhhhh….~ Thanks, I needed that ._
So, Kevin Carson votes? Thats interesting. Mind telling us who you are voting for in the election?
Any thoughts about the role of referenda? I’m in CA, and we’ve got tons of them.
A few weeks ago, a guy outside the grocery store asked me “are you a voter” and I quickly said “no” and walked away (while I actually vote in most elections, I was feeling pretty antagonistic towards the system that day). I noticed his “abolish the death penalty” sticker and thought to myself “good luck accomplishing anything through elections!” Later, I learned that there’s a referendum to abolish the death penalty in CA, and realized that this guy had been collecting signatures.
So do referenda suffer from the same problems as election voting? My general rule for referenda is that they should be simple — something like abolishing the death penalty or allowing gay marriage, not things like price controls or tax-and-spend policies.
Ironically, many “progressives” out here (such as the death penalty defense lawyer who told me about the referendum) disparage referenda on the grounds that they can be easily manipulated by “big money” (as though elections and politicians are immune) and make governance impossible (particularly when people try to micro-manage by referenda).
While I think the referendum system could be implemented more effectively, the general idea seems to be reasonable.
So, to wrap this up…
Is it worthwhile to vote for referenda, and to work for their passage (even if it detracts from other activism)? Could referenda make a meaningful contribution towards our goal of a free society? Could they be a good propaganda tool (I think it costs $200 to register, and then you send people out to collect signatures)?
Ignoring the state is the best idea. And I think of it (no offense intended) equivalent to or analogous to giving up religion. Once the impediment to thought has vanished, or the bias resulting from following your school (religion, party, peer group…) recedes into the noise, you can put yourself to work enjoying life.
Gee, it's starting to sound all hocus-pocus -ish.
You are right though, once it becomes irrelevant through independent exchange, the realization that it is what we do and think and say that matters, not what we think is 'correct' or legal, but what we actually know inherently and naturally to be right (peaceful and good for us), we'll all be healthier, at least mentally. Lacking the external stresses, we should live better and be happier. I am all for it.
Thanks.
I can't think of a good reason to vote. I can't imagine how the false hope will do me any good. I would much rather write a good piece of code or play a tune, or do something for someone I love than to drag myself down to the polls to participate in – what – an election? I have never seen one result in anything good.
"Her response was that there are real, pressing differences between the parties — like reproductive freedom for women — and that, despite her admiration for anarchist writers like Kropotkin, such ideas aren’t even in the picture right now."
Is the sum total of statism advocated by either party greater than that of the other? Not that I can tell. I think the real issue represented by the person mentioned in the above statement is that at present most anarchists care more about leftism than about anarchism per se. Yeah, all this "overthrow the government" stuff might be nice, but really matters is protecting abortion, advancing same-sex marriage, and making sure no one ever discriminates against anyone. These are essentially the same set of cultural values as the elite, thereby rendering the mainstream anarchist movement useless as an opposition force because they can be so easily coopted. Today's "anarchists" are tomorrow's public sector bureaucrats. After all, that's what happened to the New Left.
When I vote it's always in protest, as in I vote for anyone who isn't a Republican or Democrat.
I recommend voting for candidates that aren't members of corporate bribe taking parties that only represent the 1%.
Rick Santorum, obviously.
I used to vote for antiwar Democrats back in the day until I realized a trip to the ballot box was a waste of physical energy, so I haven't voted in nearly 20 years now.
In some countries (e.g. Australia) voting is compulsory. I.e. it is compulsory to enroll (with certain exceptions, such as if you have no fixed abode); and if you are enrolled, and you don’t vote, you will be asked to pay an administrative fee or explain why you didn’t vote. If your reason for not voting is not considered good enough, you will be asked to pay the fee again. (Good enough reasons include an explicit religious out, and things like “I was incapacitated” or “I was out of the country”.)
If you don’t pay the fee, you could be taken to court, and have to pay a maximum of $50 or $100 (I don’t recall, something like 10 penalty units, and it would vary depending on which state, or if it was the federal election you didn’t vote in).
Then again, I don’t vote anyway. One time I replied that I didn’t believe in voting. That wasn’t good enough, please pay up. So I sent a nice long letter explaining all the reasons why voting was a waste of time. That was the end of that. Once someone else paid the “administrative fee” (without telling me…). The third time I sent another long letter explaining stuff.
I’m now no longer on the roles.
Please note, rules differ from state to state and federally. But the general principle is the same in all the places.
I have to disagree with Kevin Carson on his stance on voting.
I do agree with his statement: "I don’t believe voting is immoral, because it somehow sanctions or legitimizes the state’s coercion."
But I disagree with what he implies with this statement: "If you see some strategic utility in voting for the lesser evil, out of self-defense, more power to you."
If you are voting for an anarchist (a consistent libertarian) then there's no problem.
But, if you are voting for a "lesser evil," even someone like Ron Paul who supports significantly less aggression than the other candidates, then there is a problem. Less evil is still evil and by voting for an evil candidate (even a less evil one), you are helping that candidate to gain the political power that he needs to commit the acts of aggression that he promises to commit during his election campaign. You are thus helping him to commit an act of aggression. This is a betrayal of libertarian principles.
For an analogy, imagine Bob has a gun and he is giving it away. "Should I give it to Person A or Person B?" he asks. Person A says that if he receives the gun he will go murder 5 people with it. Person B says that if he receives the gun he will murder just 1 person with it. Bob decides to hold an election. "I will give the gun to whoever gets more votes, Person A or Person B." Would it be wrong for you to vote to give the gun to person B? Yes, because that person promises to kill 1 person with the gun. It does not matter that that is a "lesser evil" than Person A killing 5 people.
If there is a Person C, an anarchist who promises not to harm anyone with the gun, then it is of course perfectly okay to vote for him. This is why the act of voting is not necessarily morally problematic to the anarchist. What we must remember, however, is that voting for a "lesser evil" is still voting for an evil. Casting such a vote would therefore be a betrayal of our libertarian principles of nonaggression.
My recent post David Friedman On Medieval Iceland
I am voting in the Dutch general elections. I am voting for the Libertarian Party.
I hope the Libertarian party gets atleast 2 seats in 'congress' so the message of liberty can be spread. I use this as a basis for further activism.
I hope the LP never gets any executive powers because I know anything they will do will be futile. And when the system finally fails its failure will be blamed on freedom.