381
Violence not Votes (europe.pub)
submitted 1 week ago by [M] to c/mop@quokk.au
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Violence not Votes
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago* (10 children)

You can take direct action and also use every lever you have to try and bring about a better world.

Right, but my argument is that voting is not a lever. Yeah, use every lever you have, but voting is not a lever; it's something else, like a button that does nothing.

we can at least vote against accelerationists and buy ourselves some time.

No we can't. Both wings of capital are accelerationists in their own unique ways. Both wings of capital are pedocapitalist, fascist, settler-colonial, genocidal, racist, transphobic, homophobic, imperialist, and statist wastes of flesh and air. The only difference is their marketing. Our only hope is ourselves and the projects we build in opposition to capitalism and the State.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    How about a third party? Most people wouldn't vote for one in the US because they're worried about wasting their vote, but that doesn't seem to be a concern for you and you can freely vote for one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    What third party? The abusers at PSL? The hypercapitalists at the Libertarian Party? The sixty-nine bajillion centrist vanity parties started by failed politicians who are such vapid losers that they couldn't even hack it in the centrist caucuses of the big tent parties?

    Again, even if there was a third party nominally worth voting for, voting is a small waste of time, and electoralism is a tremendous waste of time, for the simple reason that States, in particular liberal democratic ones, are structurally incapable of bringing about anarchy or even approximating anarchist ends. Even if voting was somehow capable of imposing positive change upon us, it violates the principle of means-ends unity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    The first thing that comes to mind is the Green Party.

    Now, I don't know what the principle of means-end unity is, but I guess it makes sense that it wouldn't be possible to "bring about anarchy" from within the system. However, I wonder whether a different party being elected world make it easier/harder to do the things that can actually do that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Their position is ideological, not practical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Anarchist theory comes from thousands of combined years of practical experience from generations of anarchists who came before us. Yes my position is proudly ideological, and practical. And anti-electoralism has been a staple of anarchist theory because of the practical reality that electoralism is a seductive but ineffective waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I vote for leftist candidates on my local level and I vote for whichever option is more interested in preventing ecocide federally. It isn't going to fix anything, but we're at a very sensitive moment for climate change and it really matters what we're doing about it. I don't understand how that's not a lever at all. I would like it if the next generations have a world to inherit, and there is a tangible difference between the two major parties federally. I'll vote for the neoliberal that kills the planet slower, because the revolution isn't happening this election cycle, or likely for a long time. I take direct action in my community, and I use my vote in hopes of not killing the planet for shareholder value.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I vote for leftist candidates on my local level and I vote for whichever option is more interested in preventing ecocide federally.

    IMO there are certain special cases where one can accurately judge that voting in a local election will prevent or guarantee a specific event, e.g. voting in a politician who promises not to do a specific thing (but even then, no guarantees because politicians are lying scum...). The logic here is that the social network is small enough that you personally know or are not very far separated from all parties in the situation.

    I would like it if the next generations have a world to inherit, and there is a tangible difference between the two major parties federally. I'll vote for the neoliberal that kills the planet slower, because the revolution isn't happening this election cycle, or likely for a long time.

    My argument is that neither of these is possible through voting. There is no tangible difference between the two parties from an anti-capitalist perspective other than their marketing. And the neoliberals are united in all the ways that count.

    I take direct action in my community

    Excellent!

    and I use my vote in hopes of not killing the planet for shareholder value.

    Personally, I think the miniscule time spent voting would be better used for rest and enjoying your life.

    In general, I'm willing to agree to disagree with comrades on the voting issue...but emphasis on disagree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I really don't understand how you see no difference between the parties from an anti-capitalist view. If all you're concerned about is the economic system, I guess that's true, but one party is doing its best to burn the world down while the other is not doing that, or even investing more effort towards renewables. An anti-capitalist society can't exist without the planet surviving. My vote is valuable as a vote against the people that want to add more and more fossil fuel plants and decrease environmental protections. I am a leftist, and for me that is inseperable from my identity as an environmental activist. I don't vote for blue fascists instead of red fascists because I think they're less fascist, but because they're at least not activity speeding up the demise of the planet. I want a world without capital, borders, or state, but for that to happen, humanity needs to exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    If all you're concerned about is the economic system...
    I am a leftist, and for me that is inseperable from my identity as an environmental activist.

    I...think you're misreading me as a class reductionist? I'm not at all implying that the things you're trying to protect with your vote are unimportant. Exactly the opposite: these things are so important that we cannot afford to waste time interacting with the liberals' vile dictatorship on its own terms to solve these problems.

    I guess that's true, but one party is doing its best to burn the world down while the other is not doing that, or even investing more effort towards renewables.

    That's exactly my point: are you sure the other party is investing more effort towards renewables? Because I can't give out too many details without doxxing myself, but I was actually in the room for one of the meetings between the local regulatory agency, government, and academia over renewables. While the Dems in my state are not completely caving...they very much still are capitulating, and their answer for the foreseeable future is basically gonna be "build nuclear because we're too scared to continue our wind projects", almost indistinguishable from what Republicans want to do modulo marketing.

    Really, in most issues, the two parties are basically like this. They hem and haw about how different they are, and obviously I "vibe" more closely with the Dems' marketing because I am a feminist and LGBTQIA ally and neurodivergent and I want to be inclusive and included...but as bitter of a pill as it is to swallow, ultimately the two parties do basically the same shit in the shadows, basically whatever is worst for the proletariat and whatever reinforces existing hierarchies most effectively.

    I want a world without capital, borders, or state, but for that to happen, humanity needs to exist.

    Me too and I respect your logic...but I don't agree with the premise that the proletariat actually can change the trajectory of the system by changing the party of the figurehead. The State is uncontrollable from our perspective by design.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent