Yesterday, while I was attending a Hanukkah party at Gardens, someone brought up the 2012 election. I mentioned how many people are trying to convince me to vote, just because I'd be voting in the NH primary. My friend, who was sitting next to me, told me that she wishes she could vote so the lesser evil of all the Republican candidates would have a better chance at winning. Despite the fact that her views are very much to the left on the political spectrum, and she sympathizes very much with anarchism, she came out in support of Ron Paul, namely because of his (supposed) lesser evil status. She admitted that she knows I don't like the guy at all, since I don't even want a state to exist in the first place, but she feels compelled in her own right to get behind him out of fear that a much bigger asshole will end up taking power. I told her, I would never stop others from voting if they really felt it would do more good than harm, but I highly doubt Ron Paul would do anything he promises to do if he ended up taking power, because he'd be working in the same institutions as Obama and Bush.
Voting appears to be the easy way out for a lot of people. When they have no idea what they can do to fix all the shitty things in our world they resort to getting behind politicians and try to put them on top of the power structure in hopes that they'll do something, even after history shows they rarely ever do. I know a lot of libertarians (both left-libertarians and propertarians) who work on the Ron Paul campaign just because they think they can use the fad to "spread the message of liberty". I don't really see how Ron Paul is converting statists to anti-statists and having them reject statist politics; on the contrary, I see this campaign causing anti-statists to reject anti-state strategies for statist politics. I saw this a lot when I was home in NH for October and November breaks; you'd see people on the side of the street in Manchester holding both the "anarcho"-capitalist flag and a "Ron Paul 2012" campaign sign. So, on one hand (literally) you're telling me that you view the state as illegitimate (which, in all fairness, it is) but on the other you're telling me to vote for someone to take control of this illegitimate state - what? If there's any anti-statist message in that, it's being lost in the perceived legitimization of the electoral process. But above all, do you really think people who have been so conditioned to accept the current system are just going to take up full-blown libertarian ideals after listening to a few Ron Paul speeches? I'd argue that they'd need to see a reason as to why those ideas would work in practice, and that means all of those who desire such a new system would have to do something other than stand on the side of the road with a Ron Paul sign (as in - I don't know - taking up some kind of dual power strategies?). Once again, it all comes back to the idea that working with the current political framework is much easier. Thinking Ron Paul has a magic wand helps you sleep better at night than realizing how fucked up things really are.
It's the same problem that I have with Chomsky: he initially makes you feel good about sitting on your ass. Don't get me wrong, I still hold a high respect for most of what he's said and done, but if you ask him about solutions to the problems he'll keep telling you (or will at least imply) that we have to wait for the right conditions before we can carry out any radical action (apparently, this includes even mutualist strategies like building alternative institutions and such) and in the meantime all we need to be doing is voting for the lesser evil in every election and campaigning for nationalized health care and a higher minimum wage and whatnot. In a way, he's exactly like the marxist intellectuals who contend that people should just sit back, relax, and watch capitalism collapse on its own. Now, I agree that capitalism is in no way sustainable and will inevitably collapse, but the idea that we shouldn't be doing anything just doesn't hold weight. We have no idea what could come after the system we have now; for all we know capitalism could be replaced by neo-feudalism. It's not going to be worth it to do nothing but spread radical rhetoric about how much the current social order sucks all while playing into it through voting and statist reformism. Though I will say that's very much what you would expect a privileged, college-educated American to do. And honestly, Chomsky's words wouldn't bother me so much if he didn't have followers who hang on his every word, who think being a "good anarchist" means being taking up whatever position he takes regardless. Maybe that's why there's so much mental masturbation and not enough action from comrades here in the US, more of a reason why I'm thinking about leaving for Europe or South America once I'm finished school.
Anyway, I go back home in exactly one week and can't imagine how much election bullshit will be present between then and the primary. I'm thinking about wearing a sign reading, "I'M A SOCIAL ANARCHIST; I DON'T VOTE FOR POLITICIANS; NO THANKS" whenever my friends and I go into Manchester.
4 comments:
Hello!
"...you're telling me that you view the state as illegitimate (which, in all fairness, it is)..."
Q: How do you know the state is illegitimate? By which standard do you measure it?
In all fairness, the burden should be placed on you to prove it is legitimate. What would make institutions which exercise power over others legitimate in the first place?
I agree with your answer, actually, but lacking a social institution, like a democratic government, you then need a social theory around which people can organize. People need to take action just to live which, lacking a theory, would cause conflict with the actions of others. Most social-anarchists don't believe in private ownership of the means of production, but they do believe in some sort of undefined public ownership of the means of production because they do recognize that people need to produce. But this is a contradiction because a group of people can't act in any more of a legitimate way than an individual, using any theory.
So without a theory, you can't engage in all the different types of activity you need to live. Without a theory you can't justify those actions as legitimate.
"Most social-anarchists don't believe in private ownership of the means of production, but they do believe in some sort of undefined public ownership of the means of production because they do recognize that people need to produce."
Um, have you read anything about anarchist theory? We lay out our views on property ownership pretty clear (that means of production are "owned" by those who use them as opposed to being owned by a boss with an entitlement).
In Anarchist Catalonia, productivity and standards of living increased once workers took control themselves. Even today, the cooperative movement (which is based on anarchist principles) has exploded and is pulling tons of people out of economic depression.
"But this is a contradiction because a group of people can't act in any more of a legitimate way than an individual, using any theory."
What are you talking about? In anarchist institutions, everyone has an equal amount of power. An individual's rights end where someone else's begin. I see no contradiction.
And for the record, you still haven't shown me how bureaucratic hierarchy is legitimate at all.
Post a Comment