There are some anarchist arguments for monkeywrenching the system to either ridicule it or to bring up issues. I've known of anarchists who ran for office, mainly to raise issues that weren't being addressed in that particular election spectacle.
But in general, there is no anarchist position for voting for Ralph. Anarchists support average folks working together to make social change happen through direct action, either in the workplace or in your neighborhood.
Or, to quote the Anarchist FAQ on this matter:
Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons, anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon, we see the "problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing of] not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state and subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 398 and p. 397]
> So what's your reasons for not voting for Nader, Chuck, either as an
> individual or anarchist? You have acknowledged some good things that
> have come from what Nader is saying and doing. What tips the scale to
> negative for you? You know, of course, that the decision is *not*
> whether or not to vote (as you have posed it so far), but whether to
> vote for Nader or not vote.
Well, for progressive activists, the decision tomorrow seems to be whether to vote for Nader or to not vote. Of course, as we see on this list, there are still some "radicals" who think there is a significant difference between Gore and Bush, despite the evidence.
As I've said before, the true value of Nader's campaign (for progressives) is that he raised many important issues that are ignored by the mainstream media and politics. Ralph has some name recognition, a fairly solid background working for average people against corporate interests, so he was a good choice for the Greens at this moment in time. I think it's a shame that many of his supporters got suckered into discussions about vote-swapping, polls, and the stupid idea that a Bush presidency would be worse than a Gore one.
Personally, I find it important to myself to stick by my principles this election, because I'm interested in raising awareness about the limitations of participating in electoral politics. I'm encouraged this year that so many of my anarchist comrades will be doing anti-voting actions tomorrow. I'm 35, so that means that I've been able to participate in major elections since 1984. In fact, in 1984 I was a Young Democrat and attended the Dems viewing party in Kansas City for the Reagan-Mondale debate. Boy, was Mondale ever a pathetic joke. It was pretty disgusting to see some of my fellow YDs *crying* after Mondale lost. Crying over Mondale?
I became an anarchist the next year. I think the Young Democrat thing was a way to piss off my Goldwater conservative father (who incidentally, is supporting the Libertarians this year.) BTW, my family is going to be voting across the spectrum tomorrow. My father will be voting for Browne (unless he decides to vote Bush because he hates Gore). My mom and rich sister will vote for Bush. Middle sister, who voted for Perot in 1992, will be voting for Nader. I don't know where my little sister is leaning. I'm not voting.
One of the other reasons why I'm so outspoken this year about not voting is that I remmber the stuff I was told back in 1992, when I lived in madions, by progressive friends. They argued that it was imperative to vote for Clinton to break the Reagan/Bush hold on the presidency. I explained to them that Clinton was more of the same; it was obvious if you looked at his record in Arkansas. I predicted for my friends that the Clinton administration would long be remembered for how it stripped us of our civil liberties.
I was right about that, unfortunately.
> > Chomsky's anarchism is the subject of some controversy within the
> > anarchist movement. He's written several articles about why he supports
> > anarchism, at least in the long term. I'm one of those who sees Chomsky
> > as anarchist, albeit one who is flexible as the circumstances dictate.
>
> And you see yourself as inflexible, at least on this point?
Yes, I personally am inflexible on this point. I will not vote, regardless of who or what issue is on the ballot. The capitalist system won't be abolished at the ballot box. If anything, if I were a capitalist, I'd start donating money to the Green Party. Reformism is an effective safety valve that diverts radicals from working on projects and campaigns that truly change the system.
Just consider what the situation would have been like if the WTO talks were happening at the end of this month, instead of a year ago. Would we have been subjected to arguments from progressives about how we could get rid of the WTO by electing a few green politicians, or getting Nader 10% of the vote so that it would "send a message to the WTO?" I think we all prefer what activists actually did directly last year. The Battle for Seattle was a vivid demonstration of what happens when the diverse groups that make up the "Left" work together to engage in direct action that goes outside of the parameters of protest that the state would limit us to.
Which do you prefer?
"Capitalism? Not thanks, we'll burn your fucking banks!"
or
"Vote Nader to build the socialist alternative"
I want to get rid of capitalism, not elect a new class of Body-Shopping Green politicans.
Chuck0