Anarchist Group asks ‘Why bother voting?’

by Ishmael Lemass Wed Jun 03, 2009 17:52

It's not an either/or situation. As long as the outdated, 19th century form of parlay-mentary talk shop persists, then ordinary people are entitled to vote for representation at such a chamber. We are entitled to identify persons and policies that correspond to our vision of the ways of the world. We are entitled to endow our favoured candidates with a mandate to negotiate policy and resource allocation on our behalf at local, national or European level. If WSM had the confidence to stand for election, we may even contemplate mandating their representatives.

Direct action brings about cultural change, from which follows legislative and policy change. Carnsore Point, (from which WSM and the Greenflies evolved), Glen of the Downs, and U2's endoresment of Greenpeace's international direct action campaigns, all helped plant eco issues in the national consciousness. Without such actions, we wouldn't have the cultural momentum to persuade elected representatives to enact as many pro eco directives as we have. Would hazardous waste still be poisoning rivers? Would we have a climate change strategy? Would we have an EPA? Perhaps not.

Direct action is about the positive development of community resilience to determine our own destiny. It's about getting stuck in to local issues. It's about staying abreast of international developments and translating these into local action. It's not just about protest and being outlandish in your opposition to consensus reality.

WSM don't have the resources to mount a successful election campaign, not even in Passage West where a mere 77 votes got a Greenfly elected in 2004. If they had the confidence to contest an election, their policy on elections would change. But they don't have that confidence. There's not enough of them, they have only a handful of members and supporters.

They are all about theory and talk, rather than engagement and action. Show me the WSM contributions to County and local development plans over the last 5 years. Show me the boardrooms of Leader companies where WSM members have taken positions representing the needs of their communities. Show me the list of WSM reps on CDP committees, RAPID AITs and all those other fora where ordinary people stick their necks out to provide resources for their communities. I don't believe they've done that work. But I'm sure they've written many eloquent papers over the last 5 years on the theoretical application of the ideas of obscure philosophers known only to the illuminated intelligentsia.

Despite their acknowledged grasp of anarchist theory and history, WSM don't have the internal confidence to engage with the real Ireland. More's the pity says I - put a WSM name on the ballot in 2014 - you'll be the stronger and wiser for it. You might even get enough votes for a seat on Passage West Town Council, and wouldn't the anarchist "movement" be all the stronger for it?

by voter Wed Jun 03, 2009 18:13

It is sad that if Joe Higgins gets elected as an MEP many working class people all over Ireland will celebrate it as a victory except the WSM.

by Susan Boyle Wed Jun 03, 2009 22:05

Face it, the PDs were never going to almost do something about Chewing Gum. They propped up the FF regime despite them being in any way neccesary to the good governance of Ireland in either its states for years, but never had the gumption to deal with the Chewing Gum blight on our streets and landscape. It was the Green Party's Minister gummy Gormley who announced he was sick of chewing gum, without dwelling on its nature as a byproduct of hydrocarbon exploitation industries such as the Oil or Gas cartels & in no uncertain terms unveiled his plans to make the polluters pay.

Did the polluters pay?

Do you have hair close to your gonads? If you don't you can't vote anyway but you can probably get your head around the 1st Socialist International's declaration on non-participation in and abstention from liberal democratic parliamentary, municipal or still then unheard of EU elections. It's quite simple.

The government always wins and they never take the chewing gum off your sole or out of your hair.

But nonetheless, the WSM aren't the only anarchists commenting on or interpreting purist faith based options of near fatwa import from the distant past. The fact is there are many anarchosyndicalists who are standing on political platforms within political groupings throughout Europe. We oughtn't shout "splitter!" at this type of anarchist, nor eschew them in local hosteleries or teach our children they are unfit for marriage or mortgage commitment. Nope. We should simply go on singing our songs.

I hope Joe gets his seat along with many others - but I for one won't be voting

a link to a tale of criminalisation followed by a constitutional overturn which has allowed several anarchists of the CGT tradition in the Spanish state run for election on a platform which is acceptable to amonfst others, the seperatists of the Basque, Catalonia & Galicia. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92326 & list of its candidates from an anarchist website - http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/apoderados-ii-sp-com...junio

If you don't vote you can feel good about it. No need to go to confession or ask a priest for absolution. If you DO VOTE then make sure you vote LEFT as in L-e-f-t.

work it out.
the other side have.

by Conor Wed Jun 03, 2009 22:42

Ishmael Lemass,

You underestimate the WSM

by Soundmigration - WSM Wed Jun 03, 2009 22:55

The European elections: only struggle pays!

From June 4th to 7th, European voters are called to the polls to choose who will "represent" them in the European Parliament.

As anarchist communists, we do not think elections can bring any real change, as we prefer direct democracy to representative democracy. In other words, we prefer decisions affecting all workers to be discussed and made by those workers themselves, collectively.

The European Union's functioning and goals are opposed to this self-managing model and thus to the interests of the workers and the people. Its leaders despise the people so much that, although they may ask for our opinion, the only answer allowed is one which accepts the EU's political line which has already been decided eslewhere. The EU's attitude to the rejection by referendum of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe exemplifies this fact.

The role of MEPs is to be part of the system which defends the interests of the capitalist class. On top of that, the actual leaders of the EU (the European Commission, the chair of the European Central Bank, etc.) are not subject to any democratic control and so they are even freer to defend those interests against the interests of the working class. This can be seen in the outrageous liberalization and privatization policies that have been enacted, and in the budgetary and monetary austerity (launched with Maastricht). In the current period of crisis, such policies only cause suffering for working-class people. There has been hardly any relaxation of the strict effects of the Stability Pact, which imposes very low public deficit levels. And while the European Central Bank did agree to relax monetary austerity, it has done so only in a very limited way that will only contribute to deepening the European crisis.

The European Union is a war machine to be used against social rights and workers, especially migrant workers: social dumping, cutting "labour costs", "free and undistorted competition", the hunt for migrants, border closures, police co-operation, and so on.

So the European Union is not a neutral institution whose policies should be "reshaped" - it is the institutional fulfilment of a capitalist power dedicated to serving the bosses and the bankers.

The election of new MEPs will not change this situation in any way. Only joint social struggles by all workers in a Europe-wide social movement can halt those policies and encourage the growth of a revolutionary force against capitalism and its institutions, for another society. A society based on the truly internationalist ideals of freedom, equality and solidarity.

Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici - Italy
http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen

Alternative Libertaire - France
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/

Workers Solidarity Movement - Ireland
http://www.wsm.ie/

Liberty and Solidarity - UK
http://libertyandsolidarity.org/

by w. Wed Jun 03, 2009 23:21

A member of the syndicalist CGT running for election is not the same thing as the CGT or anarchists backing an election. The CGT is a union.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Wed Jun 03, 2009 23:25

Just like in 1996 when they told people in Dublin West not to vote for Joe Higgins in the by-election. It was stupid then and it's even more stupid now!!!!

Give FF a bloody nose and give a working class fighter a platform to attack the right.

Vote for Joe Higgins on Friday.

by Soundmigration - WSM - per cap Thu Jun 04, 2009 00:36

This is just a quick personal contribution

Ive no problem with people voting for Joe or other groups trying to advance radical left politics via the ballot box. Joe is sincere in both his actions and deeds. And yes id like to see the FF'ers get a hammering. Nor does Joe advocate " vote for me and them sit on yer ass and i'll sort it out for ya". I have a geniune respect for everyone i know in the SP, and wouldnt begrudge success to PBP candidate either. But i would also like to see a society where working people refuse to engage in parliamentary politics, not as a form of protest, but because they see it as a hinderance to meeting there own collective needs.

None of this changes changes the equally pragmatic and realistic idea that electing people to institutional forms (that have as their reson d'entre that sustaining of capitalism, explotiation and hieracrical power structures as the very core) isnt the only, or best way to facilitate building progressive workplace and social/community movements against capitalism. Indeed most radical leftists accept and understand this. But it seems churlish that anarchists are slated for pointing this out. Are we to ignore the reality of neutered parlimentary politics and the lessons of the history itself.

To attack anarchists for publically rejecting election representation, rather than engaging in the process itself is pointless and indeed misses the point. We seek to advance our ideas amongst people, where there is a growing trend of not voting in any case, not (solely) because of the arguments anarchist make, but from the lived experience of people themselves.

Anarchists generally, (and i'd include WSM in this) arent blind to the contradictions. We, like many revolutionaries and socialists, recognise that our stance can be reduced to simplistic jingoism, and empty rethoric. Would i like to see genuinely left candidates do well. of course i would. Nothing we have said, or do, suggests that we see Joe Higgins et al in the same way we see FF, FG or Labour.
Whilst i can understand that many within the small left of ireland might want to read it that way, its not the reality.

But the question of where power actually lies remains.

by Ishmael Lemass Thu Jun 04, 2009 01:04

Greetings Conor,

please make a contribution to inform me how I am underestimating the WSM.

I haven't heard of any WSM reps/members active in anything beyond postured abstractions. if I'm misinformed, please enlighten me.

I'd wager the WSM have less than 1,000 members . . . less than 500 . . . less than 234? You telll me. I behold the WSM as clustered in the university towns, a few academics, a handful of students, a few public servants and the odd barman. Not too many female members, methinks, despite, no doubt, an enlightened gender policy.

And not a single member on the board of management of a local school, perhaps? Or active in a sports club? Tidy Towns? Meals on wheels? Credit Union directors? Leader company? Strategic Policy Committee? making contributions to development plans? Active in the real world where tensions between State policy and citizens' needs emerge and are resolved?

No?

No. Just sitting on perches. Parroting the doctrine of disenchantment. Of disengagement.

Voting is compulsory in Belgium and Luxemburg. Australia too. There's an eFFer 'round here who made a statement that: "bad candidates are elected by people who don't vote" - no it doesn't make sense, but I offer it to you as a Zen koan, for comtemplation and endless debate at the next gathering of the WSM.

please make a contribution to inform me how I am underestimating the WSM.

Tell me I'm wrong Conor, tell me I'm wrong.

Tell me you're 20,000 strong, active in rural, provincial and urban communities. Tell me you have input into national and local policy. Tell me that after 30 years of meetings, you've achieved something tangible. Tell me Conor, tell me.

bless,
vote WSM . . .

by Soundmigration - WSM - per cap Thu Jun 04, 2009 02:26

Hi Ishmael

Jeepers dont be given conor a hard time

ya seemed to have lathered yourself into a bit of a storm there big lad. whats the problem exactly? Sure WSM is a relatively small anarchist organisation. we dont make any pretense of being other than than.

However check out our website for details of concrete struggles we currently and have been involved with in the past. Most of what we do isnt abstract at all.

You might be suprised to know that several WSM members, in their own capacity, helped initiate with others this very forum of independant media your going bat crazy on right now. But i guess if you bothered havin a 5 min look around da net, or where involved in any meaningful grassroots activity in Ireland you might know that already.

Just out of interest, what do ya do yerself Ishmael?

by WSMer Thu Jun 04, 2009 05:08

Ishmael, snideness and condescension are all very well, but it is often the case, as here, that when somebody employs them to such an extent the arguments that hide behind them are very weak indeed. You either haven't read the article or your reading comprehension skills are very poor.

"It's not an either/or situation. As long as the outdated, 19th century form of parlay-mentary talk shop persists, then ordinary people are entitled to vote for representation at such a chamber. We are entitled to identify persons and policies that correspond to our vision of the ways of the world. We are entitled to endow our favoured candidates with a mandate to negotiate policy and resource allocation on our behalf at local, national or European level. If WSM had the confidence to stand for election, we may even contemplate mandating their representatives."

Which misses the point in spectacular fashion. I don't think you will find that the WSM thinks that people aren't entitled to vote - they obviously are and this is an entitlement that we would defend absolutely. We, however, believe that parliamentary elections are a superficial process that is almost entirely devoid of meaningful democratic content. Now, you may disagree with this, as is your "entitlement". You may believe, against all the evidence, that our local councils or the European parliament do in fact define policy on behalf of those who they purport to represent. But we don't, as is our entitlement. And believing what we do, it would make absolutely no sense at all for us to put ourselves forward for election in processes whose democratic content we think is entirely illusory.

"Direct action brings about cultural change, from which follows legislative and policy change. Carnsore Point, (from which WSM and the Greenflies evolved), Glen of the Downs, and U2's endoresment of Greenpeace's international direct action campaigns, all helped plant eco issues in the national consciousness. Without such actions, we wouldn't have the cultural momentum to persuade elected representatives to enact as many pro eco directives as we have. Would hazardous waste still be poisoning rivers? Would we have a climate change strategy? Would we have an EPA? Perhaps not."

This is a very peculiar line of argument - if direct action is the force that brings about cultural change, why the outpouring of snideness and condescension when we put forward an argument in favour of it rather than the conventional focus on electoralism as the driver of political change?

"Direct action is about the positive development of community resilience to determine our own destiny. It's about getting stuck in to local issues. It's about staying abreast of international developments and translating these into local action. It's not just about protest and being outlandish in your opposition to consensus reality."

So, an argument that parliamentary elections do not provide ordinary people with a meaningful input into collective decision making is "outlandish opposition to consensus reality" is it? If that's the case, then so be it. Sometimes, truth lies outside of whatever is considered to be 'consensus reality'. At one time, the idea that black people or women were intelligent enough to govern themsleves lay outside of consensus reality. But in truth, the fierce belief in the meaningfulness of parliamentary elections is not exactly all pervasive - in fact, it's only really an obvious 'reality' to the liberal intelligentsia. It is not very difficult at all to find people who consider, as we do, that the whole process is little more than a farce. And this election will see the majority of the eligible population proving this to be the case through their inaction. Of course you would presumably dismiss such inaction as being inherently invalid and evidence of some moral failing on the part of those who fail to vote. The only valid opinion is your own.

"WSM don't have the resources to mount a successful election campaign, not even in Passage West where a mere 77 votes got a Greenfly elected in 2004. If they had the confidence to contest an election, their policy on elections would change. But they don't have that confidence. There's not enough of them, they have only a handful of members and supporters."

You really aren't going to get very far in understanding the WSM if you assume that we are as dishonest as your good self. The idea that our anti-electoralism is merely a front to cover up the fact that we would fail is utterly ridiculous. Non participation in elections - and opposition to the idea that parliament is a meaningful decision making body - has been a mainstay of anarchism since the 1860s and anarchists have held true to the principle when their organisations numbered millions just as much as when they numbered in the dozens.

"They are all about theory and talk, rather than engagement and action. Show me the WSM contributions to County and local development plans over the last 5 years."

If you want a good example of "all theory and talk" you should take a close look at those same county and local development plans over the last 5 years and compare them to what actually happened. Do you really believe that development over the last 5, 10, 20 years in this country has been democratically driven by public contributions to development plans? Really? Have you been high for the last 20 years? Or maybe you've been sitting in some meeting room and have somehow failed to notice that it really, really doesn't work that way in the real world? I mean, come on. Have you actually noticed what has happened in terms of development in this country during the rise and fall of the Celtic tiger?

"Despite their acknowledged grasp of anarchist theory and history, WSM don't have the internal confidence to engage with the real Ireland. More's the pity says I - put a WSM name on the ballot in 2014 - you'll be the stronger and wiser for it. You might even get enough votes for a seat on Passage West Town Council, and wouldn't the anarchist "movement" be all the stronger for it?"

No it wouldn't. It would be stuck in an irrelevant chamber, with a whole load of pompous windbags, patting itself on the back for doing sweet fa while the developers, bankers and major capitalists got on with their usual business of doing whatever the hell they want.

Then we come to your second contribution, which discards all pretence at being anything other than a snide and nasty attack.

"I'd wager the WSM have less than 1,000 members . . . less than 500 . . . less than 234? You telll me. I behold the WSM as clustered in the university towns, a few academics, a handful of students, a few public servants and the odd barman. Not too many female members, methinks, despite, no doubt, an enlightened gender policy....

...

Tell me I'm wrong Conor, tell me I'm wrong.

Tell me you're 20,000 strong, active in rural, provincial and urban communities. Tell me you have input into national and local policy. Tell me that after 30 years of meetings, you've achieved something tangible. Tell me Conor, tell me.
"

It's amazing that only a few hours before you made this comment you appeared to know exactly how big the WSM was and even claimed to know where it was born. As you know perfectly well, I'm sure, the WSM is a small, but growing organisation. Anarchism in Ireland is tiny, but it's still the only part of the left that is growing. In the last year or so, we have held meetings and events in many of the smaller towns of this country and we are slowly extending into new areas - it takes time for radically new ideas and movements to gain critical mass to establish themselves outside of population centres.

"And not a single member on the board of management of a local school, perhaps? Or active in a sports club? Tidy Towns? Meals on wheels? Credit Union directors? Leader company? Strategic Policy Committee? making contributions to development plans? Active in the real world where tensions between State policy and citizens' needs emerge and are resolved?"

For you the real world is 'leader companies' 'strategic policy committees' and local development plans. Decision making power in this world comes primarily from boardrooms, dealing floors and, to a lesser extent, cabinet rooms. If you don't realise that, then you are a fantasist. The talking shops and chambers that you seem to think are so important are little more than sops to the pompous windbags who want to feel important and are desperate to feel as if they are fighting for the people while enjoying the little perks and pathetic privileges that are offered to the tame representatives - but they are primarily representing nothing but their own egos and sesne of self-important. The Demort Lacey's of the world.

"No. Just sitting on perches. Parroting the doctrine of disenchantment. Of disengagement."

You will find very few people in the world who are less disengaged than the members of the WSM. You will find us on the streets, in campaign groups, in Rossport, on picket lines and wherever we think we can actually make some real difference to ordinary people's sense of self-confidence in their ability to self-organise and challenge the rule of the wealthy and powerful. The tame, wind-bag filled chambers that you seem so fond of are not such places.

"Voting is compulsory in Belgium and Luxemburg. Australia too. There's an eFFer 'round here who made a statement that: "bad candidates are elected by people who don't vote" - no it doesn't make sense, but I offer it to you as a Zen koan, for comtemplation and endless debate at the next gathering of the WSM."

Yep, brilliant argument. Of course Belgium, Luxemburg and Australia never elect appalling right wing racist ignoramus governments do they?

by Cagp - SP Thu Jun 04, 2009 07:12

Hi, a few thoughts on soundmigration's post and the WSM's position generally.

1. "Ive no problem with people voting for Joe or other groups trying to advance radical left politics via the ballot box."

Well the WSM does, that's why its arguing that people not vote for any candidates, including the radical left. Similarly, you may genuinely want to see left candidates do well but this doesn't mean much in practice. You're arguing people shouldn't vote and are more likely to have an impact on a potential SP voter than a potential FF voter.

2. "None of this changes changes the equally pragmatic and realistic idea that electing people to institutional forms (that have as their reson d'entre that sustaining of capitalism, explotiation and hieracrical power structures as the very core) isnt the only, or best way to facilitate building progressive workplace and social/community movements against capitalism."

The media is another institution which serves primarily to defend capitalism, yet anarchists are happy to make use of it, to appear in it, to write articles for it etc. You do this while understanding its limitations and being aware of the dangers. Why can't you take the same attitude to elections and parliament?

3. A feature of the above statement and others is to suggest that taking part in elections and engaging in real class struggle are mutually exclusive. I'd argue that tthe SP's use of elections flies in the face of this. In the water charges, bin charges, GAMA and countless other campaigns, the effect of our elected positions is to encourage struggle and self-activity not to distract from it. The point is the politics you use to approach electoral participation.

4. "But i would also like to see a society where working people refuse to engage in parliamentary politics, not as a form of protest, but because they see it as a hinderance to meeting there own collective needs."

The question is how we get there. For most people, elections are their primary means of political engagement and for those who reject voting it is often linked to a broader cynicism about the possibilities of effecting change at all. I don't see how boycotting elections in the current climate changes this situation one iota. All it does is cut you off from people at a time when they are more likely to be considerinng issues of what's wrong with society, what the solutions are etc. At the same time, Joe Higgins is a national figure who regularly argues in front of large audiences in the media for the need for a militant struggle in workplaces and communities and the need for an end to the capitalist system and the bringing of society's wealth under workers' control. This platform for revolutionary politics has been gained because we ran for election and got elected.Hi, a few thoughts on soundmigration's post and the WSM's position generally. Sorry if its a bit incoherent.

1. "Ive no problem with people voting for Joe or other groups trying to advance radical left politics via the ballot box."

Well the WSM does, that's why its arguing that people not vote for any candidates, including the radical left. Similarly, you may genuinely want to see left candidates do well but this doesn't mean much in practice. You're arguing people shouldn't vote and are more likely to have an impact on a potential SP voter than a potential FF voter.

2. "None of this changes changes the equally pragmatic and realistic idea that electing people to institutional forms (that have as their reson d'entre that sustaining of capitalism, explotiation and hieracrical power structures as the very core) isnt the only, or best way to facilitate building progressive workplace and social/community movements against capitalism."

The media is another institution which serves primarily to defend capitalism, yet anarchists are happy to make use of it, to appear in it, to write articles for it etc. You do this while understanding its limitations and being aware of the dangers. Why can't you take the same attitude to elections and parliament?

3. A feature of the above statement and others is to suggest that taking part in elections and engaging in real class struggle are mutually exclusive. I'd argue that tthe SP's use of elections flies in the face of this. In the water charges, bin charges, GAMA and countless other campaigns, the effect of our elected positions is to encourage struggle and self-activity not to distract from it.

4. "But i would also like to see a society where working people refuse to engage in parliamentary politics, not as a form of protest, but because they see it as a hinderance to meeting there own collective needs."

The question is how we get there. For most people, elections are their primary means of political engagement and for those who reject voting it is often linked to a broader cynicism about the possibilities of effecting change at all. I don't see how boycotting elections in the current climate changes this situation one iota. All it does is cut you off from people at a time when they are more likely to be considerinng issues of what's wrong with society, what the solutions are etc. At the same time, Joe Higgins is a national figure who regularly argues in front of large audiences in the media for the need for a militant struggle in workplaces and communities and the need for an end to the capitalist system and the bringing of society's wealth under workers' control. This platform for revolutionary politics has been gained because we ran for election and got elected. I don't see why we should have passed up the opportunity.

If Joe is elected MEP ths will be a blow to the establishment and a victory for the working class and the left, if only on a small level. I don't see why we should pass up the opportunity.

by Paul Thu Jun 04, 2009 09:25

Taking a personal decision not to vote is one thing, but advocating a collective 'do not vote' campaign is political middle class luxury. Voting is the main political act of the vast majority of working people in this country. And we should empower people to direct that vote into a left wing alternative to FF and FG.

No one with half a poltical brain would argue that voting is the answer to all societal problems. But, voting is more effective than sitting on the sideline waiting for a revolution. Not voting will solve nothing - fact. Voting FF and FG out of office would make a substantial difference in terms of healthcare, transport, education and national economic policy. Increasing overall human welfare is a struggle for justice. The ballot box is one more tool in that struggle.

A Labour led government in coalition with Sinn Fein, SP, Greens and independents would achieve more than anarchism has achieved over the past 100 years and will achieve over the next 100 years in this country. I mean, how many of you knock on doors to talk to people about politics? If you did you would quickly realise how far removed your ideas are from the working class in this country. Theorising about politics will solve nothing.

Get out and vote FF and FG out of existence on Friday.

by Ishmael Lemass Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:49

Thanks for the comprehensive reply WSMer

I express solidarity with (some of) your core beliefs and frustration that you have not been more successful. I apologise for not copping on to your regional meetings throughout the island and look forward to coming to them in the future.

I'm an advocate of the vote - not as the only way to engage with policy development and advocacy, but as one of many tools to do so. As in my original posting - "it's not an either/or".

yes, WSM is small, WSM is growing.

May your confidence grow too. I appeal to ye to spend as much time engaging with the beleagured communities in RAPID areas as ye do in engaging with the intricate details of anarchist theory. I appeal to ye to use your intelligence and advocacy skills to engage with democracy as it is, as well as imagining how democracy could be.

I wish ye well.

But if Joe Higgins or - "hello" Mary Lou "goodbye heart" - loses to eFFer Eoin Ryan by a fistful of votes, then perhaps the WSM may revise their policy of abstaining from the ballot box.

nothing ever burned down by itself
every fire needs a little bit of help

throw the anarchist a cigarette

by Don't Vote Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:20

One of the major disadvantages of voting at the present time is that it significantly feeds the dangerous illusion that our State is being governed by a "democratic government": which is exactly what the "Ruling Elites" want everyone to blindly believe, and which is also unfortunately the exact opposite of the truth.

In reality, it's the despots and plutocrats among the Ruling Elites who rule us, through a carefully crafted and essentially lawless form of disguised tyranny, which they have very successfully "packaged-up" and sold to billions of gullible voters around the world as "democracy and the rule of law", and which is implemented, enforced, and sustained with the robust support of the various participating legal professions, police, military, main-stream-media, and so on.

I wonder how our own "democracy" illusion would respond to a 5% (or less say) turnout in tomorrow's elections?

Would our "Elected Representatives" then be in position to credibly claim -- as is their way -- that they "have a mandate from the people" to give away our oil and gas reserves, make smithereens out of our priceless and irreplaceable ancient heritage sites in places such as Tara and Turoe, allow Shannon Airport to used for supporting the unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003, bail out bankers to the tune of billions of Euros (which the taxpayer is forced foot the bill for), embrace PPP (Public, Private, Partnership or Plunder, Plunder, Plunder if you prefer) schemes designed to undermine the hard-won sovereignty of our State, abandon large parts of Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland) without the necessary constitutional referendums, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera?

Democracy and The Ruling Elites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Democracy+and+The+...&aqi=

by The Fox Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:37

It's important to vote. It's simple, vote for whom you normally never would vote for. And then you get rid of the current bad government. That will give them a real shocker!!!!!!

by A.R Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:10

I can barely entertain this debate but I have to respond to the following statement by 'dont vote'

"One of the major disadvantages of voting at the present time is that it significantly feeds the dangerous illusion that our State is being governed by a "democratic government": which is exactly what the "Ruling Elites" want everyone to blindly believe"

This is not an illusion on behalf of the electorate but it is paranoid nonsense on your behalf. Nobody is stupid enough to think voting is going to radically alter the structure of power in this country. But, this is irrelevant as most people do not want to radically alter the structures of power. They dont want a revolution so you are speaking to a hypothetical audience.

Also, as much as I agree that power is concentrated in the business class in this country; your rhetoric (and the WSM in general) would have us believe that there is a Wizard behind the curtains intentionally deceiving everyone of their grand capitalist plan. There is no man behind the curtain. The Irish electorate VOTE for Fianna Fail. Irish workers go to work everyday and know that the CEO is earning 50 times their salary. It is ironic that a group that is premised upon the power of ordinary people (agency) yet treat people as if they are docile victims. We are not. We are born into structures beyond our control but we do have choice. This is not a Stalinist state.

Furthermore, almost every piece of evidence/research carried out by social scientists in the past 50 years indicates that people are NOT opposed to living in a liberal representative democracy. This is a social fact. People favour markets as the mechanism to coordinate economies, and they prefer liberal democratic instiutions to almost every other alternative. You and I may not like this but to ignore this empirical fact is completely delusional.

Thus, according to your logic, the ruling class dominate all us docile subjects (working class) and us victims (working class) need to rise up and shoot the master. But, this never happens. Why? Because people do not want to. We live in an extremely conservative society, and by not voting you are surrendering power to the right. It is irresponsible and irrational. No amount of theoretical-logical-arguments can provide a valid reason for choosing to surrender power to FF and FG.

So, why not just openly patronise everyone and say: all of you idiots have been induced into false consciousness. Because this is exactly what you are saying. But the reality is that people are NOT living under false consciousness and do not ahve the luxury of opting out of society. Working class people accept the democracy you hate and therefore they are perfectly rational when they go out and vote this Friday.

The rational debate is about who should be in power in our liberal democratic institutions. The choice facing working class people is whether they keep voting FG and FF or they shift towards a new Left Wing alternative. A low turnout will favour one party and one party only: Fianna Fail. 8 years of low voter turn out kept GW Bush and the Republicans in power in the US. The effect was an almighty assault on the social rights of working class US citizens (not to mention the 100,000's of lost innocent lives in Iraq).

I for one will be voting Joe Higgins for Europe and the left wing candidates in my constiuency of Tallaght South West tomorrow. Furthermore, I will be proud to do so..............

I take my hat off to Sinn Fein, the Socialist Party, elements of the Labour party, the People before Profit Alliance and other left wing independents when they go out and mobilise working class support for a left wing alternative in the elections tomorrow.

by John, Friend of WSM - In the gaps Thu Jun 04, 2009 13:39

I offer this slogan in an attempt to synthesise the two sides of this debate and move on:
"Vote for who you like or don't vote at all but if you aren't organised you'll still get shat on"
A bit unwieldy but.......

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Thu Jun 04, 2009 15:22

"Anarchist organisation, Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM), has claimed that voting in Friday’s local, European and by-elections is a waste of time."

The simple fact is that voting for Joe Higgins in the Euro Elections is not a waste of time - just as it wasn't a waste of time in the Dublin West By-Election in 1996.

If Joe Higgins gets elected then if will deal a major blow to FF and significantly increase the possibility of the building of a political left-wing alternative - and alternative that will organise in workplaces and communities.

The same applies to electing councillors - the more Socialist Party Councillors elected the better the chance of defeating unplanned development, organising community campaigns etc etc etc.

The WSM position - while theoretically pure from an anarchist perspective - is a nonsense in reality and makes the WSM look more than a little silly.

by mick b Thu Jun 04, 2009 17:27

The WSM are right ,the election won’t alter the fundamental nature of the system , only the faces of the people pretending to run it . I wouldn’t be against people contesting elections if they were to use the opportunity to show the whole process up as a fraud , or if they were to say that no matter who you vote for you'll get only get what's going (nothing) unless you want to start seriously talking about a revolution .

But the left groups contesting these elections aren’t doing any of that .They end up planting illusions in the electoral system and in the possibility of democracy and reform under the present system if people only voted the right way . They fight for every vote in the same way as the right wing parties do , as if it's so important . Anyone who follows indymedia comments knows what the PBPA and Socialist party think about each other for instance . And yet they have a pact going calling for voters to transfer to each other. To me that comes across as dishonest and suggests both groups are working the system trying to win votes .

by pbpa - PBPA Thu Jun 04, 2009 18:38

The WSM have left the building and are busy over on the capitalist media of the Irish Times arguing with people not to vote!
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/campaignwatch/2009/06/0...ting/

by WSMer - WSM - Personal Capacity Thu Jun 04, 2009 19:23

It's interesting that the non-participation position is being described as "theoretically pure" but impractical. In fact the position comes out of a long history of liberal democracy failing to change when we elect new leaders. The most critical factor has always been the ability of the people to develop it's own democratic institutions in order to force change and concessions.

I think it's up to the electoralists to name a structural change that came out of electoralism. They are the ones that seem to have the failed strategy. It seems to me that, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the improvement of conditions for the working class including the 8 hour day and 40 hour work week all came out of self-organisation and *not* through voting.

I can't help but wonder if the other left parties in Ireland spent their time, money and effort trying to build real democratic working class institutions and fighting unions instead of wasting time on a strategy which has a history of nothing but failure, how much better a position we'd be in.

by come again Thu Jun 04, 2009 19:31

"The WSM have left the building and are busy over on the capitalist media of the Irish Times arguing with people not to vote!
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/campaignwatch/2009/06/0...ting/ "

Are PBPA anti-capitalist now? That's news to me!

http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/search/node/socialism

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Thu Jun 04, 2009 20:06

"I think it's up to the electoralists to name a structural change that came out of electoralism."

And where has anyone from the SP suggested that structural change come out of electoralism?

The position of the WSM is that you must go from A to Z directly - do not pass GO and do not collect £200.

The problem with this is that the vast majority of working class people want and need to pass GO and they want and need to collect £200. They get to Z when they realise that by continuously passing GO they are going around in circles and that £200 does not go far when you live in a capitalist society. The SP would like to get to Z as quickly as possible but realise that in order not to disappear into the distance we have to hang around Busarus or Heuston Station for a while.

by Godot Thu Jun 04, 2009 20:36

"The WSM have left the building and are busy over on the capitalist media of the Irish Times arguing with people not to vote!"

Jaysus, I heard some of them wear clothes that were made in factories that weren't run by the workers, use pcs running windows, shop in tescos and even use state funded services (and they claim to be anti-statist!) - the hypocrites.

Giving a comment to a journalist hardly betrays anyones anti-capitalist beliefs.

AR:
this is irrelevant as most people do not want to radically alter the structures of power

Most people don't want to be represented by Labour or any left group. You "may not like this but to ignore this empirical fact is completely delusional. " Does this mean that the electoral left and their efforts are equally irrelevant? Should they quit now and give up?

So, why not just openly patronise everyone and say: all of you idiots have been induced into false consciousness

You essentially do the same thing - stating that working class people should be voting for a left alternative, despite the fact that most working class people vote FF/FG. People don't see voting for the left as being in their interests. By your logic, isn't your advocacy of something people don't currently support equally patronising. Somehow this criticism of false consciouness doesn't extend to people not voting for a left wing government?

by WSMer Thu Jun 04, 2009 22:02

First off A.R:

"Also, as much as I agree that power is concentrated in the business class in this country; your rhetoric (and the WSM in general) would have us believe that there is a Wizard behind the curtains intentionally deceiving everyone of their grand capitalist plan. There is no man behind the curtain. The Irish electorate VOTE for Fianna Fail. Irish workers go to work everyday and know that the CEO is earning 50 times their salary. It is ironic that a group that is premised upon the power of ordinary people (agency) yet treat people as if they are docile victims. We are not. We are born into structures beyond our control but we do have choice. This is not a Stalinist state.

Furthermore, almost every piece of evidence/research carried out by social scientists in the past 50 years indicates that people are NOT opposed to living in a liberal representative democracy. This is a social fact. People favour markets as the mechanism to coordinate economies, and they prefer liberal democratic instiutions to almost every other alternative. You and I may not like this but to ignore this empirical fact is completely delusional."

It is very clear from any sort of cursory view of history that what people favour is heavily constrained by what people think is possible and realistic in any given situation. It is equally the case that every piece of evidence/research carried out in the past 50 years indicates that people, in general, believe that the social and economic system that we live in is unfair. If people favour the current economic and political system it is because they do not believe there is a better alternative. The whole point of our political message is to attempt to convince people that there are better alternatives and that these alternatives are viable and achievable. Human social history is absolutely chock a block full of movements which have managed to consciously and actively change the boundaries of what is considered possible within broader society. To attempt to do this does not imply, in any way, delusions about what people currently think. It simply requires one to accept the reality that the boundaries and limits of what is considered possible can and do change.

"Thus, according to your logic, the ruling class dominate all us docile subjects (working class) and us victims (working class) need to rise up and shoot the master. But, this never happens. Why? Because people do not want to. We live in an extremely conservative society, and by not voting you are surrendering power to the right. It is irresponsible and irrational. No amount of theoretical-logical-arguments can provide a valid reason for choosing to surrender power to FF and FG."

This is not our logic. It is the logic of somebody who believes, against all the historical evidence, that ideas exist independently of the social and political boundaries that are the feature of any particular social order. Furthermore, the idea that "this never happens" is simply bizzare given the fact that human social history for the last 10,000 years has been characterised by extreme volatility and has experienced multiple extraordinary transformations in both social forms and the ideas that underly them.

It is also the case that you have completely missed our point by refering to surrdendering power to FF and FG. The underlying point of our entire approach to electoral politics is that they don't really have much of a role in allocation of power. The market does that. Sure, argue against that position if you will, but it's foolish to argue against us on a theoretical basis which is directly opposite to what we actually believe.

"So, why not just openly patronise everyone and say: all of you idiots have been induced into false consciousness. Because this is exactly what you are saying. But the reality is that people are NOT living under false consciousness and do not ahve the luxury of opting out of society. Working class people accept the democracy you hate and therefore they are perfectly rational when they go out and vote this Friday."

Well, we don't say this, because this isn't what we believe. We don't think people are idiots, we don't think that "false consciousness" is a useful concept and we don't think that anybody has the choice of opting out of society. Those implications are drawn by your good self and merely reflect your inability to handle systemic criticisms or differentiate between your own culturally delimited assumptions and rationality.

It is also worth pointing out that your sweeping assertion as to what working class people accept and what they will do next Friday will be contradicted by the fact that the majority of the population will do no such thing. And this trend will be directly correlated with income, education and social status. Since you seem to think that disagreement with the political importance of parliamentary elections is akin to irrationalism, I rather fear that you are the one who is bound to consider that the working class are, in the main, irrational fools.

From our point of view, it is rather foolish and close-minded to frame the debate in terms of rationality. What people do and what they do not do is constrained by what they think is possible and, within those constraints, what people do is broadly rational. The way that social change is achieved is by examining and challenging the constraints and boundaries on what is considered possible - because in any particular social order, it is inevitably the case that many of the things that are considered to flow directly from rationality are, in fact, based upon arbitrary assumptions that are merely features of particular social orders.

"The rational debate is about who should be in power in our liberal democratic institutions. The choice facing working class people is whether they keep voting FG and FF or they shift towards a new Left Wing alternative. A low turnout will favour one party and one party only: Fianna Fail. 8 years of low voter turn out kept GW Bush and the Republicans in power in the US. The effect was an almighty assault on the social rights of working class US citizens (not to mention the 100,000's of lost innocent lives in Iraq)."

I'm afraid that, little as you like it, your own prejudices are not necessarily identical with objective rationality. At particular historical times, the rational debate was about how slaves should be treated, how africans should be civilized, how women's special place in the home should be cherished and so on. The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing inherently less rational about debating the shape of a political system and its underlying assumptions than there is debating the details of that system within those assumptions.

I should also add that, once again, your empirical claims that you use to back up your "objective rationality" are incredibly weak. If you actually look at the numbers, there is no possible way in the world that you can explain the relative political positions of elected US presidents as being a function of voter turnout. The turnout in the two elections that elected Bush was greater than the turnout in the two elections that elected Clinton, for example.

Of course, since your prejudices apparently, by definition, define the bounds of rationality, the empirical evidence can be ignored.

Then from Jolly Red Giant:

"The problem with this is that the vast majority of working class people want and need to pass GO and they want and need to collect £200. They get to Z when they realise that by continuously passing GO they are going around in circles and that £200 does not go far when you live in a capitalist society. The SP would like to get to Z as quickly as possible but realise that in order not to disappear into the distance we have to hang around Busarus or Heuston Station for a while."

Oh dear. So, your strategy is to lead the working class around and around in circles so that they will eventually come to the conclusion that it's all a bit of a sham? Isn't that all a bit, umm, dishonest? And, when you lead them around in circles a few times and they eventually come to the conclusion that it was all a waste of time, don't you think that they may somewhat resent the fact that you led them around in what you knew to be circles? Why not just actually tell them up front?

Finally, from Paul:

"Taking a personal decision not to vote is one thing, but advocating a collective 'do not vote' campaign is political middle class luxury."

That's a pretty funny example of a single-transferrable anti-anarchist argument being used in a totally inappropriate place. How on earth is advocating abstention in an election a "middle class luxury"? Proles don't have the luxury of not voting eh? Somebody should tell them.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Thu Jun 04, 2009 22:42

"Oh dear. So, your strategy is to lead the working class around and around in circles so that they will eventually come to the conclusion that it's all a bit of a sham? Isn't that all a bit, umm, dishonest? And, when you lead them around in circles a few times and they eventually come to the conclusion that it was all a waste of time, don't you think that they may somewhat resent the fact that you led them around in what you knew to be circles? Why not just actually tell them up front?"

No - the strategy is to understand where the level of class consciousness among the working class is at and develop a programme to educate and empower working class communities so they can understand that under capitalism the £200 is worth diddly-squat and move through the letters of the alphabet without going in circles.

If the WSM were honest about their convictions they would argue that voters should go into the polling boot - get a ballot paper - and then write - "f*ck capitalism - voting changes nothing and the system sucks" - or something to that effect.

Do that - see how many people follow your lead and then come back and talk to me. Telling people not to vote is a cop-out because you never have to address whether the people are actually listening to you or not.

by Janus Fri Jun 05, 2009 04:48

The people have been duped by the "Gobshites".
In its present state, one of the most destructive systems of our country is the educational system.
And I do not mean the teachers, I mean WHAT we teach.
What have we been teaching our young since year dot.
Success is.... wealth!
Success is.... wealth!
Success is.... wealth!
If you want to be seen as a "success" you must have MORE than the next person.
The people cannot be blamed for the corruption of the "Gobshites", even the "Gobshites" cannot be blamed.
They know no better. (Thats WHY they're gobshites)
They are completely incapable of seeing beyond their own ignorance.
The "gobshites" which govern us (laugh) are just public examples of those who have taken this twisted thinking a
step further and have crossed over into the realm of not caring where, or at what cost to others, their personal
"success" comes from. And by not caring, I mean not caring who suffers as long as they get their "success".
In the present financial climate (caused by the reckless clamour for "success" ) it is the honest people who are suffering.
It is any honest, working person. It is any person seen as vulnerable and an easy target.
Here is an incomplete list of those who are seen as mere burdens by the "success" seekers;
The sick, The elderly, The nurses, Civil servants, The unemployed, The employed, Women, Children, Students...
incomplete as I said. Many more can be added.
And be sure that when the small fish are all eaten up they will turn on each other.
To late for the small fish though.
Kick them out and in comes another bunch of "well educated" success hunters.

by Cagp - SP Fri Jun 05, 2009 09:18

WSMers on here are not dealing with important ponts that have been made. Correct points about the sham of democracy in this society have been made but the point that elections can and have been used to promote working-class struggle and revolutionary politics is being for the most part ignored or brushed aside. Some more responses.

1. "I think it's up to the electoralists to name a structural change that came out of electoralism."

Maybe it is, but for the most part you're not arguing with people who think that society can be transformed through elections. The SP people here at least are saying that elections can, in this time and place, be used as one tactic among many without exaggerating of its importance. You're the ones proposing a one-size-fits-all-dogma so i think its up to you to explain why elections can never play any beneficial role.

2. "I can't help but wonder if the other left parties in Ireland spent their time, money and effort trying to build real democratic working class institutions and fighting unions instead of wasting time on a strategy which has a history of nothing but failure, how much better a position we'd be in."

I can't speak for other groups but as an SP member a tiny amount of my time and effort is spent on election-based activities. The SP spends a lot of energy on building campaigns and struggles and arguing within them for a militant strategy. Indeed, we've worked with WSM membersin doing this (most recently FEE). But more importantly, you're ignoring the point that we've actually used our elcted positions to promote and encourage struggle and that these positions have at times been an objective benefit to these struggles. Take Gama. What decisively won the Gama was the fact that workers took militant all-out strike action. But the platforms in the Dail andcouncil allowed us to force it onto the national agenda and put significant pressure on the government as well as to make the important points about, for example, the failures of the union leadership and the need for fighting unionism to a mass audience. Withot the elected positions it is doubtful we would have been tipped off about the exploitation at all or been able to initiallly gain an audience with workers. None of this skillful use of bourgeois institutions took away from our understanding of the need for workers to organise themselves and take action.

3. "So, your strategy is to lead the working class around and around in circles so that they will eventually come to the conclusion that it's all a bit of a sham?"

If you read our election material, we don't tell workers that voting for us, or anyone, will change things fundamentally. We tell them more or less what we tell you. That our positions will be a platform for our opposition to the political establishment and a mechanism to assist and promote strugglles and campaigns. We consistently make the point that people themselves need to take action.

4. "Jaysus, I heard some of them wear clothes that were made in factories that weren't run by the workers, use pcs running windows, shop in tescos and even use state funded services (and they claim to be anti-statist!) - the hypocrites"

You're missing the point. The WSM as an organisation are willing to use the media to prommte their politics and promote the struggles they are involved in. This is despite the fact that the capitalist media will always be biased against those politics and against the interests of workers and there are numerous potential dangers in taking part in it.. This is clearly analagous to using another capitalist institution, parliament, for the same ends.

by dunk Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:10

RTE. Morning Ireland:

Sean Whelan, Europe Editor, reports that Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) will win four Dutch seats in the European parliament
audio links at http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0605/election.html

interesting discussion with chomsky outlining issues about when taking strategical voting at certain times
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism Part 1 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGzltPTOVyI

Caption: Video Id: AGzltPTOVyI Type: Youtube Video
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism and voting

by Reluctant Cynic Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:53

It's fair enough if people want to take a position of not voting on principle. We can debate back and forth whether that is more useful than using your vote for whatever it's worth. But if you don't think it's worth while voting, make sure you go to the polling station and spoil it!

The basic practical reason first: If you don't spoil your vote, it will be stolen. Fianna Fail especially has a long history of doing this. Every election on the 9.00 news you hear of an unexpected "late surge" in polling. This is not people rushing to take part in democracy - it is the big parties using their resources to impersonate people who haven't voted and aren't likely to.

The other reason: Spoiling your vote is a positive rather than a negative act, actively opposing the process rather than staying home and watching Eastenders. It also gives us an idea of how many people are refusing to vote out of radical principle, and how many just can't be bothered voting, out of disinterest, not giving a toss what happens to society.

It would also be handy as a yardstick to measure support. The results will give us a fairly good idea of how many people like what they hear from the SP, PBPA etc etc. If the WSM were to take their position to its logical conclusion and call for vote-spoiling, we would know how many people that idea appeals to. I'm not saying this to attack or defend either side in this debate, but it would be good if support for the abstentionist position could be judged too.

by Solidarity Fri Jun 05, 2009 14:24

Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

by Voter. Fri Jun 05, 2009 20:01

On the 4th June 1913 Emily Davison threw herself under the King George 5th's horse at the Epsom Darby as part of the struggle to get votes for women.

The moment was filmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emily_davison_killed_...3.jpg

She died from her injuries on the 8th June...her anniversary is on Monday next.

Emily is one of the Great Martyrs for women and for democracy.

She died for the right to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison

Emily understood the awesome power of the vote.

Unlike some around here.

.

by sigh Fri Jun 05, 2009 20:45

Is this where we stack up the list of martyrs, whoever has the most at the end wins, right? Can we include war dead in that?
I don't think anyone is claiming there weren't struggles to obtain voting or people including some anarchists wouldn't oppose them being taken away, but it's a case of some done alot more to do.

How about engaging with the arguments?

by dunk Fri Jun 05, 2009 21:56

I fully agree with the anarchist arguments of constant open dialogue, organising, action.... indeed revolution.

But, one of the arguments is that the electoral mechanism is unable to deliver, is corrupt, or corrupted, and takes away from the organised masses effecting change.

But what happens, if and when, the masses and "leaders" (those as reps of the groups of masses they are part of and represent) do get a chance to effect change, and massive change at that? I think there is tonnes to be learned from recent activities in Latin America, where unlike Ireland today it really was a matter of life or death. Fed up with being shafter, and feeling there was nothing to lose, the masses did take action, they said BASTA! (no more), they stood up, some fell, they engaged in widespread direct action, and from that the country has changed radically. Some might argue that they could have kept up the revolt and built the revolution. Anyway, as it stands now, Morales has gone from worker, activist, (still a local footy player, still indigineos, still enjoying the craic with the lads, and lassies) to president of the country. And the revolution hasnt stopped, last mayday, another energy plant was reclaimed from external multinationals....

Anyway, this is just an example, of what has grown from the use of the vote. Other countries have been energised by Evo, Chavez and others. As we speak, there are 25 dead indigineos in Peru, perhaps they too were excited by their indigineos rights being recognised and a stop to corrupt, community killing resource giveaways to multinationals. On that note, one point being expressed by many is why there is no-one running in irish elections today on the "shell to sea" bill.

I think there is a time when voting is in-effective, but there is also a time when it is a strategic move to use the vote, in attempt to prevent far right or more of the same from entering or keeping office. BUT, to finsih, Far more has to be done from X-ing a few boxs every 4 years or so, and feeling youve done your bit. To do your bit, is daily, learning, doing, connecting, growing...

Eitherway, today is Environmental Day, saludos to those who do whatever they do for a better world...

dunk

related links on peru, bolivia, democracy and all that

Yesterdays 25 people massacre in Peru
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/urgente-represion-sa...ruana

WSM article: What’s happening in Bolivia? http://www.indymedia.ie/article/90029

The War On Democracy A film by John Pilger (09/10/2007 )
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-4221598130733050551

Noam Chomsky on the Global Economic Crisis, Health Care, U.S. Foreign Policy and Resistance to American Empire

Latin America, for the first time in 500 years, is moving towards a degree of independence and a kind of integration, which is a prerequisite for independence

Bolivia is, in my opinion at least, probably the most democratic country in the world. Nobody says that, but if you look at what happened in the last couple of years, there were huge, popular, mass organizations of the most repressed population in the hemisphere, the indigenous population, which for the first time ever has entered the political arena significantly and were able to elect a president from their own ranks and one who doesn’t give instructions to his army, but who’s following policies that were largely produced by the population. So he’s their representative, in a sense in which democracy is supposed to work.

And they know the issues. It’s not like our elections. They know the issues. They’re serious issues: control over resources, economic justice, cultural rights, and so on. You can say they’re right or wrong, but at least it’s functioning.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/13/noam_chomsky_on_t...nomic

Where voting AND direct action have led improved that space between life and death

by christianarchy Fri Jun 05, 2009 23:28

Ammon Hennacy - on why christians refuse to vote

http://www.catholicworker.com/ah_anar.htm

by realist. Sat Jun 06, 2009 05:30

Why people get hot and bothered about these calls from the WSM every election is beyond me. For the ~50 (?) or so people in the WSM who pay strict attention to the platform, there'll be hundreds of thousands of working class people who dont and decide to cast their vote.

by mick b Sat Jun 06, 2009 16:36

The revolutionary parties of the Irish left like the SWP and Socialist Party often seem to take their lead from whatever is going on in Britain . Perhaps after all the nail-biting is over and when the votes have been counted , they should take a look at the extraodinary events taking place over in the Mother of Parliaments at the moment .
All hell seems to have broken out apparantly amongst Westminster Labour Party backbenchers over the possible loss of their jobs and the proposal that MPs should in the future have to “clock-in” to receive attendance pay of £150 a day as replacement for the second-home allowance they can receive at the moment .

According to media reports the backbenchers have organized “ a highly secretive backbench revolt, run on a cell structure to prevent leaks.” It all sounds very revolutionary . If they can do it over there why not here.

See
http://www.u.tv/News/Gordon-Brown-clings-on-for-now/cfd...bd843

by Ken Lee Sat Jun 06, 2009 22:47

...do the Irish have to be kicked by the right wing before they realise they are being kicked by the foot of the same body? How many realise that if Fine Gael where in the position as Fianna Fail where in the last 10-15 years, they would have followed almost exactly the same policies as FF?

While I will always vote socialist, for real change in this country to come about, elections are far to slow at bearing fruit for the genuine left to have any real effect in councils and parliament.
Bottom line is, as a people, we will have to hit real rock bottom before we see the wood for the trees and the revelent revolutionaries come to the fore, in the style of Chavez and Morales.

How much more damage will be done to our society, eg, our people most in need such as our homeless, our drug addicts, our poor, unemployed and disenfrachised before we realise as a people, that real change needs to happen.
Real revolutionary change for the majority?

by Voter Sun Jun 07, 2009 23:49

Q) Why did the center right and far right increase their power in the European parliament?

A) There was a very low voter turn out across Europe (average around 40 per cent).

Lesson: The political impact of not voting increases the power of the right.

Q) Is it not the case that the left become more powerful during an economic crisis?

A) Yes, but only when there is a high voter turn out (60 per cent plus).

Lesson: Support for left wing policies is dependent upon a high voter turn out.

Contribution to this debate: the WSM policy of calling for a collective abstention from voting benefits the right wing establishment

by Godot Mon Jun 08, 2009 00:02

By voting Tory or Labour, to keep out the BNP, you're strengthening the right wing policies that create an environment the far right thrive in. It's entirely self-defeating.

by StiffNeck - unaffiliated Mon Jun 08, 2009 01:50

I know members of the WSM and the SP, all good people, on the right side of the fight.

The SP knows the WSM's policy on voting, they WSM knows the SPs political policies. Members of WSM have nice things to say about the socialists and generally 'support' them (probably not voting) but believe they are using the wrong route (the state), and the SP have good things to say about the anarchists but dont believe you can achieve communism (what we ALL want) without utilising the state.

The left is small enough, dont bicker. Fine Gael just took over. The last thing we need is to fight amongst each other no?

Spread the love on the left my friends!!!

by smee again Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:31

A political question:

At the height of the worst recession in three generations the entire combined republican/fringe left manages to get less than 10% of the vote, and the only possible alternative to the present government is an utterly centrist and moderate Fine Gael/Labour coalition which would probably continue the exact same policies.

This result demonstrates once and for all time that a free electorate in this country will never ever elect a radical government. What few radicals get elected are usually consigned to the irrelevancies of local government and Europe.

The same applies in the UK where in spite of recession, unemployment, and mass immigration, the BNP can manage less than 20% of the vote - even in areas where the demographics are mose positive for the fringe right.

Meanwhile on the Continent, the moderate right is the major winner at both local and EU level.

The triumph of democratic capitalism tempered by generous social welfare would seem secure.

Comment>

by Sean Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:21

The answer to your query is Repressive Tolerance, a concept discussed by a 60s guru called Herbert Marcuse. The welfare state (called Butskellite consensus policies in 1950s UK) has shaved the sharp edges off class conflict as envisaged in Marx-Lenin-Mao. "The Workers" don't massively vote for their Class Interests - some of them (as in Ireland 1932 onwards) have voted for FF, and in the UK, for the Tories, preferring them to the smoke salmon/champagne socialists in the social democrat parties.
PS: Not all votes for Joe Higgins (no disrespect to his hard work and personal convictions) are socialist votes. Some are disgust with game playing by mainstream parties. These voters could go elsewhere in 5 years time. Good luck to Joe anyway. What you see on the label is what you get when you vote for him.

Want to know any more?

by China Buff. Mon Jun 08, 2009 13:30

"Has shaved the sharp edges off class conflict as envisaged in Marx-Lenin-Mao. "

Mao???

Mao didn't give a toss about "Class Conflict".

If you want to read a horror story,written by someone who suffered under Mao,Jung Chang, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/067974632...38208

The paperback is on the shelves here in Ireland right now.
Jung herself was in Ireland and spoke on the Pat Kenny show earlier this year.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung_Chang
.

by Non alligned Mon Jun 08, 2009 17:35

Not voting favours the right and damages the left. But, if your an anarchist, reforming public services and retristributing wealth through the state is unimportant so not voting is logically consistent. But, If someone politically decides not to vote (because they think it reinforces the system) they automatically lose the right to have an opinion on health, education, social welfare and other policies financed/delivered through that system.

Also, I assume anarchists dont consume goods in a market economy if they dont vote in electoral state politics?

by iosaf Mon Jun 08, 2009 18:25

If I understood the last commentator properly, their idea was to argue against voting disqualifies one from having an opinion on health care, education, social welfare and all the baggage supposedly the preserve of the modern state & its beurocracy. That's crap. Just as one does not have to show an inked thumb and voting record or assurance of being on the live electoral register to refuse or accept medical treatment, go on a waiting list for a hair-transplant or deep aural canal irrigation - nor does one have to believe in the incarnation of God's only son, the immaculate conception of his mammy or both their ascensions into space to sign your sweet innocent kiddies up for a RC order run national school in the Irish state. At no stage does franchise its exercise or its grant, gift even - enter the means testing and appraisal of fiscal contribution in either the Irish state or other EU states when assigning social wefare benefits or payments.

& I haven't even touched upon the fountainhead of all liberal democracy which is the opinion poll taken by tippy toppy statistically honed scientific method or simply a voxpop to the local moral crusade morning telly or radio show or a click on an internet screen webpage.

We are all entitled to our opinions and I daresay without getting all snooty and uppity about it, that entitlement is neither gift nor grant, it is one of those lovely-little-quite-inalienable Human Rights.

Participation in emergent democracy, for our systems despite their names and pretensions are nothing if not far short of emergent democracy must not be confined to inking a paw and ticking ballot box papers nor must it only be considered as engaging in such farces. Democracy's roots are nurtured by the contemplation and study of the lovely-little-quite-inalienable Human Rights and the true realisation that a right which is refused a fellow human being regardless of class, supposed ethnicity, option if any of worship, gender or ear canal waxiness - devalues the right and reduces it to a privilege.

I for one wish no part in this privilege to participate in liberal democratic elections & hold true to the principles of the first international - but I also attend my local community meetings, lobby politicians both in my home of Barcelona and thousands of kilometres away, engaging processes and volunteering my abilities as interlocutor and relatively literate kind of chap to fellow humans. It's hardly revolutionary, but it is political engagement. & I pretty much take for granted that is a profile common to every person who in thinks enough of about their world to chose to describe their outlook as an anarchist, anarchosyndicalist or libertarian positions.

by Voter Mon Jun 08, 2009 18:27

Godot wrote:

"By voting Tory or Labour, to keep out the BNP, you're strengthening the right wing policies that create an environment the far right thrive in. It's entirely self-defeating"

To assume the BNP emerge because of the environment created by New Labour is completely false. Anti-Immigrant sentiment cannot be blamed on the evils of capitalism. It is a much more complex sociological phenomena. Removing New Labour, the Tories (or capitalism in general) will not remove racism. To discuss why, how and where groups like the BNP emerge would require a different thread. Most facist groups used the language of anti-capitalism.

But, facist groups like the BNP thrive on cultural nationalism. They also espouse left wing economic policies and generally organise in working class communities like North Manchester. Anti Capitalism and Organised Racism can quite easily fit together as we know from the rise of the Third Reich and the National Socialist Party in Germany. In this country we know only too well about the evils of Nationalism. Personally, I despise anything resembling nationalist rhetoric, and therefore would never work with groups such as IRSP or Eirigi.

In Dublin, the Immigration Platform Candidate, Pat Talbot received 614 first prefence votes in the Dublin Central By election. This was only 100 votes less than the Green Party Candidate. I sense their are less than 100 organised anarchists in Dublin so do the maths in terms of the political preference of those in Dublin Central. Multiply the probablity of that constiuency across Ireland and you get a very very worrying figure; almost 25,000 first preference votes. You can hardly blame FF and FG on this now, can you?

There is a worrying lesson to be taken from the low voter turn out across Europe and the influence it gives to the Far Right. They now have 52 + seats in the European parliament. The far right party in Romania ran an Anti-Roma campaign and won two seats. In Denmark the far right 'peoples party' doubled their vote from 6.8 to 14.9 per cent. Far right candidates were also elected in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland (turn out was less than 28 per cent and they have one of the most right wing governments in Europe) and the Netherlands.

Voting to keep semi facist groups like the BNP and the Immigration Platform out of power is not self defeating. If required, it is absolutely neccessary. To argue otherwise is nothing short of political insanity.

by Sean Tue Jun 09, 2009 00:10

There is some truth in China buff's above comments on Mao Tse Tung. He constantly wrote about and made speeches about Class Conflict, but in his personal life he lived it up in the guarded compound in Peking. I haven't read Jung's book but did read the memoirs of Mao's personal physician. In that book he reveals Mao's preference for 18-year-old girls from villages who had settled in the capital.

Mao stirred up class conflict by letting the red guards loose to settle 'contradictions among the masses'. They created mayhem with their 'public criticism sessions' in which village leaders and university professors were bullied into confessing bourgeois tendencies and thought crimes.

Mao's writings have continued to be influential in parts of India and Nepal. Some people there believe he was a champion of the downtrodden peasants and proletariat.