> I've really never met anyone on the left, whether they describe themselves
> as anarchists or socialists, who doesn't support the extension of democratic
> rights and social measures under capitalism pending the deeper change in
> class power and property relations they are seeking, nor anyone who doesn't
> hope that a future political system will be less "authoritarian" than
> anything which has been seen to date.
There are probably quite a few anarchists who would disagree with you.
I tend to agree, but I'll point out several pages from An Anarchist FAQ:
Are anarchists involved in social struggles? http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ1.html
Especially: Why are anarchists against reformism? http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ1.html#secj13
Witht he situation being so bad, I'd like to see plenty of reforms including universal health care. This would make a real difference in people's lives.
But like most anarchists, I reject arguments that I should abandon my anarchist principles and become a social democratic reformer.
Here is where voting is again a counter-productive tactic, while traditional anarchist tactics such as protest and direct action make more sense for anarchists. If anarchists go out and engage in direct action on the health care issue, we're more likely to help more mainstream reformers than we would with voting?
Sound far-fetched?
Let me provide a recent example of how anarchist direct action gets the goods.
Some of you may live in cities which have new LPFM radio stations. Those stations are a direct result of anarchist direct action during the 1990s. Anarchists were heavily involved in the pirate radio movement of the 90s. Pirate radio is a classic example of direct action. You don't ask the government for permission to do something, you just do it. The government did what it could to stamp out this movement, but it eventually decided to co-opt it through legislative reforms.
Voila! LPFM radio. Brought to you by Direct Action Powdered Milk Biscuits (no voting).
> What essentially distinguishes anarchism is its refusal to participate in
> bourgeois democratic electoral politics, to organize political parties, to
> run in elections and seek office - even if only, as Marxists believe(d), as
> a platform for disseminating radical ideas and organizing the masses for
> what they expect will ultimately lead to a decisive, probably armed,
> confrontation for state power.
Right. Anarchists and Marxists have disagreed on this going back to Marx.
There are some anarchists who have run for political office and saw their campaigns as opportunities to use elections as a platform for anarchist ideas. Dario Fo tried to do this in Italy and lost. Cara Jennings ran for city council in Lake Worth, Florida and won. It was pretty funny when an anarchist beat out a well-funded, pro-developer candidate.
> Instead, working class anarcho-syndicalists used to promote the concept of
> the revolutionary general strike as the means of toppling capitalism, and
> many of today's middle class anarchists seem to believe capitalism will be
> undermined by a coordinated multiplicity of extra-parliamentary community
> struggles - without appreicating that these latter inevitably find their way
> into the political arena in pursuit of their objectives.
I think that most anarchists still see the value of the general strike, although we realize that given the changes in the economy, esp. in the U.S., that this tactic is tougher to achieve. I also know that there is alot more going on in these community struggles. Some of us see them as being one ingredient in an overall recipe leading to revolution. We fully understand that many community campaigns move into the electoral arena or into NGO institionalization.
BTW, here's a good anarchist overview about why we don't participate in the political process:
J.2 What is direct action? http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ2.html
Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/