If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points.
Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?)
Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.
The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.
I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.
which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost
Once you’re at the point of advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers, you’ve lost the ability to just dismiss things out of hand by invoking the “human cost”.
Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.
Citation needed mate. I’m pretty sure you just mean you’ll be more materially comfortable under Labour.
I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.
If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.
If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.
citation needed
Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.
Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better
Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.
Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.
We argue that electoralism ensures that a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention and following the decisions of the leaders, which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help – the very keys to creating change in a society.
OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.
But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up
you should still vote blue even if you’re an anarchist.
Oh hey, you’re the guy in the meme
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aotearoa-workers-solidarity-movement-why-we-don-t-vote
I think voting is useful tho
If there are decent options, votes can show support for it, regardless of a win or loss. The results would signal that there is decent support on it or became a part of awareness on issues or points.
Not dismissing other parts on direct action and the fact that there is no right to recall in elections(Not USAmerican or EU-ian. Do you have right to recall?)
Have you ever read anything about Anarchists, Anarchism or Anarchist philosophy and thought?
Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.
The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.
I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.
Once you’re at the point of advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers, you’ve lost the ability to just dismiss things out of hand by invoking the “human cost”.
Citation needed mate. I’m pretty sure you just mean you’ll be more materially comfortable under Labour.
I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.
If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.
If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.
Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.
Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better
You clearly didn’t read past the first paragraph then
Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.
Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.
It is literally in paragraph 2
We argue that electoralism ensures that a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention and following the decisions of the leaders, which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help – the very keys to creating change in a society.
OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.
But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up
Basically 1 billion dollars for 2022-2023 alone in Australia
https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/cost-of-elections.htm
“Very cheap” in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved