I recently asked Kevin through BAGR about voting, and I wanted to post his response and maybe get some conversation going. He said it was cool to throw it up here. Below is my original question to him, followed by his response.
Recently I got into an argument with other anti-civilizationists regarding the recent elections. As an anarchist, I do not vote for candidates in elections. First and foremost, I do not believe positions of coercive power should exist, and voting legitimizes political power. It also grants permission for a person to be in a position of power over others, and I do not believe I have the right to grant that. I feel that anyone who votes for a candidate to hold a position of power, even if they claim it’s for self-defense, is legitimizing power. And since power is so wrapped up in civilization, I don't believe you can be a true anti-civilizationist ally if you engage in electoral politics.
This is apparently a hardline stance, as I was surprised at the angst this position caused among other anti-civilizationists I communicated with, though they admittedly were not anarchists. I always figured green anarchy and anti-civilizationism are one in the same, differing only in name or qualifier. But that’s apparently not true. I was accused of selfishness, and blamed for Trump’s victory. In fact, they blamed everyone who either didn’t vote out of protest, or voted for a third party candidate, for Trump’s victory, and said we were to blame for everything he does while in power since we didn’t vote for Hillary. When I put forth the usual arguments against voting, I was challenged with the usual arguments of being childish and selfish, and putting my beliefs and principles above action and what’s right; that although power has no moral legitimacy, it exists, and therefore to abstain from elections out of protest is actually allowing it to flourish. I was told the argument that says I’m legitimizing power by voting is stupid as well, since any act of engagement with civ is legitimizing it: working, paying bills with money, buying food at the grocery store and sponsoring industrial agriculture, etc. I retorted that this is a displacement of blame given that I have to survive, and given the lack of choices civilization provides and the circumstances I was born into. I have to buy food and work, but I don’t have to do things like vote, or invest in the stock market, or anything else that perpetuates civ unnecessarily for no other reason than to profit or put someone in power. I also raised the usual arguments against Hillary and her record of imperialism and her quest for power. And how as anti-civlizationists, we should not be sucked into the leftist thinking of finding salvation in Democrats and pining for democracy (given the anger over her winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college). Didn’t matter, as Trump is considered more evil, and voting for the lesser of the two evils is considered the best strategy. Not voting is considered pointless, as at best it can accomplish nothing.
These people generally recognize the futility and facade of voting, and don't pine for a particular party. They're not usually advocating for Democrats or any other party. They simply believed Trump is so threatening, that THIS election required voting, even by anti-civilizationists, in order to keep him out of power. Someone IS going to hold the office, so they figured they'd at least vote against him.
I asked Kevin if he felt that self-defense voting, especially in an election as potentially devastating as the last one, is acceptable, or appropriate for a green anarchist. Or is this typical leftist thinking? I was thrown the quote by these non-anarchistic anti-civs by Lierre Kieth that states “Understand: the task of an activist is not to negotiate systems of power with as much integrity as possible – it’s to dismantle those systems.” I was blamed for putting personal integrity above right action. While I agree with her statement as far as it goes, I felt giving in was more than just about sacrificing a principle for the greater good; it was about legitimizing power and therefore perpetuating civ, and would therefore be in direct contrast to my duty as an anti-civ activist, not to mention anarchist. It would also be granting permission for Hillary, had I voted for her, to be in a position of power over others, which is antithetical to anti-civ philosophy, IMHO. Not to mention that I wouldn’t want her in power, even if I did agree with the position of power.
As always, he took the time to respond thoughtfully to my email, despite all his other projects and most likely a busy family life as well. I thought others could benefit from it too. Below is his response.
Hey [RTG],
There's a number of ways that you can break all this stuff down, but I don't think there's a single valid argument for voting, even in a case like this where Trump is clearly the more unhinged of two sociopaths. People are being defensive of their beliefs, but all those beliefs are just validations of everything that we've been told. Doesn't make them true, nor does it magically make the system work. If people wanted Clinton to win, then they should have voted for her. And then the should remind themselves that she won the popular vote and it didn't matter anyways. Then they can go ahead and keep blaming other people when they don't want to accept that the electoral college is the determining factor and not your or my lack of a vote.
I see it as principle: voting validates their system. You have to accept the results of the game if you chose to play it. I think anyone with a brain should have been able to see that both Clinton and Trump are lunatics. Even just as a litmus test, Trump is being called out about having stock in Energy Transfer Partners and thus having absolute investment in pushing through the Standing Rock camp to complete the pipeline. But even as that fire was drawn on him over the issue, Clinton wouldn't even take a stand on the issue. Even on something that did get wider support, she wasn't any better. Sanders and Stein both rallied in defense of Standing Rock, which isn't a claim for them, but, again, kind of a litmus test for the whole situation. If anyone could honestly say that they wanted Clinton or Trump to be their president, then congratulations, they're dumb enough to get the result they deserve.
Don't get me wrong, I ended up watching the whole train wreck as well. The whole fucking charade is insane and maddening, but that shows the insanity of the system and its level of collapse. Not exactly reasons to get in line at the voting booth.
In the end, the result of an election isn't the fault of the people who opted against taking part in it, it's the drive of the people who believe in it enough to have gotten in line in the first place. And that's just ludicrous. Here in the middle of nowhere Missouri, we're dead center for Trump territory and there are people with homemade Trump signs on houses that have boarded up or no windows. I think of Situationists in that scenario more than I even think of age old anarchist propaganda: this is the power of the Spectacle, making people feel invested in a made for TV reality game show and as though two of the 90s Arch Nemesis battling out everything could have a significantly positive impact on their lives. It's more sad than anything.
But to anyone who has tried to personally guilt trip me (good luck) on not voting, I've been considered a "terrorist" and faced persecution by both Democrats and Republicans. The FBI under both Bush, Obama and Clinton have all come at me and, in the end, the results look exactly the same. Fuck them all. And, everything else aside, no fucking way in hell that I would ever cast a vote to validate the very government that has come after me.
Interesting times, that is true. But it's their party and they just haven't noticed that it's over.
For wildness,
KT
All thoughts and opinions from anyone on my question or his response are welcome, and would be greatly appreciated.
-RTG
"voting validates their system. You have to accept the results of the game if you chose to play it."
this seems ideological. regardless of whether you accept them or not, the results remain. the question seems to be what power can be exercised to change the results. tactics/actions are on a spectrum, and electoral politics are on that spectrum, as is direct action. if the goal is to stop pipelines or fossil fuel projects, why not take an hour out of your day, vote for the person who isn't bought off, so that the next 4 years you don't have to spend 24/7 fighting the infrastructure that is coming in and can spend your time doing something important to you. i think voting is an insult to human freedom, but that doesn't mean voting is going to somehow make you lose that freedom, at least any more than not voting. i guess i would just include voting in a "diversity of tactics" knowing full well its limitations and contradictions, and still accepting it as one more way to exercise power to get at least a smidgeon closer to the ends you hope to see.
"i think voting is an insult to human freedom, but that doesn't mean voting is going to somehow make you lose that freedom, at least any more than not voting."
And it's up to you to feel that way. But the spectrum being political in nature doesn't mean you have to partake. I don't have to accept the outcome of an election, I just have to accept the reality that this is what is happening. Like everyone else, I'm seeing what's happening with Trump in amazement, as though all this is really just going to happen. I look forward to seeing how J20 and its aftermath play out. I hope they do some serious damage. I hope the Spectacle is halted. But considering this is the second election within the past two decades where the majority vote didn't determine the electoral outcome, it pretty much wipes out any element of what you or anyone else has to say about the practicality of voting.
The problem is this discussion becomes about the validation of voting: if you don't vote, you can't complain. Sure, it's compromise, but so what? Or that abstaining is as guilty as voting for the lesser of the lessors.
Politics is a reflection of the world as it is. But that doesn't make any of it okay. Just as people are having to say, "we can't normalize Trump," no one should say we have to normalize voting. If we accept direct action within the spectrum of possibilities, then we are embracing one form of direct dissent, one in line with your actual beliefs, not your compromised ones. Direct action negates the argument surrounding the "compromise of voting."
It would be delusional to think that simply not voting is the statement that needs to be made. It's a loud voice, less than half of eligible voters voted in this dumpster fire of an election, which says a lot. But I think it's clear that simply not voting isn't the end all for those of us here. Had we thought that, we'd be as delusional as this argument:
"if the goal is to stop pipelines or fossil fuel projects, why not take an hour out of your day, vote for the person who isn't bought off, so that the next 4 years you don't have to spend 24/7 fighting the infrastructure that is coming in and can spend your time doing something important to you."
Please, please, please, show me that person "who isn't bought off". Jill Stein? Who? By your own argument, voting for someone with no chance is as bad as not voting at all. It would be as ideological as not voting. It's just a louder statement of compromise so you can pat yourself on the back and pretend like you elevated a voice that wasn't the worst of the worst. Because that's definitely not Clinton, that's for damn sure. Trump is just too dumb to act more competent, but they're all socio-paths. Thinking you find a politician who isn't bought off is like thinking there's a good cop out there. I trust there are people who want to be cops to help people, just as there are politicians who solely want to help others, but those cops don't make it through the academy and those politicians would be chewed up and spit out by the apparatus before they even got to capital hill.
Our situation is absolutely dire. We face unprecedented levels of climate instability and socio-political catastrophe as a consequence of that. There are already wars being fought as a result of climate refugees and as the era of cheap oil continues progressing, we will be seeing grid refugees added to that.
There was never an option to make the next 4, 8, 12, or 16 years easier on us. Only half-assed measures to appease those who saw the worst case scenario playing out who were never committed to doing what it took to change them. Nothing short of complete and total collapse of civilization will give us that opportunity.
But for us, fortunately, reality is on our side. Not the politicians.
By all means, vote if you think it helps affect the ends you want to see. I don't vote.
What if you see voting as a way to identify the enemy? If the enemy is the state, which I personally think is how it should be seen, then perhaps the act of voting could be turned into electing the people you see as your enemies. Don't "choose the lesser of two evils", as the saying goes, choose what puts the institution in the cross-hairs. As such, it would funnel your enemies into a single entity which could potentially be targeted and delegitimized more readily.
I don't want to promote compromise with, or within, the state. It could be best to bring things to a head by using the vote as a way to foment confrontation and collapse, all while demonstrating how the concept of democracy is not desired.
So I have two questions regarding all this.
Snottknows (and anyone else that's open to voting as a tactic),
Regarding your acceptance of voting as a valid part of the spectrum of tactics that can be used to exercise change, since voting delegates power to another, do you believe WE can possess that power as well? If I were to run for a position of office, I could be one of those not 'bought off', and potentially affect even more change than an act of voting on my part ever could. If voting could be considered part of the spectrum of tactics appropriate for anarchists (I'm assuming everyone here would be an anarchist), then couldn't holding political office be part of that spectrum of tactics too?
Im concerned, because that's a slippery slope. I doubt anyone here would advocate running for or holding a political office. If we as anarchists oppose political power and coercion, then it would be inconsistent for us to hold such power. If we accept that individuals should not have the authority to coerce others, then I don't see how running for office would be appropriate, no matter what our motivations. And if that's the case, wouldn't delegating that power to others through voting be the same as holding that power ourselves?
The same argument could be made for actively campaigning for candidates; if voting is an acceptable tactic for an anarchist, even if we are aware of its limitations, then campaigning for a specific candidate and urging others to vote would be acceptable too.
And if all this is accepted, then is there a difference between said anarchist and your typical liberal? The faithful starry-eyed voter that is currently crying that Hillary isn't swearing in tomorrow? If anarchy is the philosophical opposition to coercive power, what sets us apart from Leftists when we partake in electoral politics, legitimizing coercive power?
I'm not criticizing you. Sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around all the nuances of this complex topic. Our slavery is exemplified by the fact that the spectacle can distract even anarchists with ethical debates on the validity of voting. I long for its collapse.
Also, do the reasons given here for not voting apply equally to referendum voting as they do for candidate voting? Putting someone into power is one thing, but what about voting in local or state elections for such things as Right to Die, drug decriminalization or environmental measures such as wildlife preservation set-asides, the outlawing of plastic grocery bags, etc? Though these won't stop the destructive force of civilization by any means, they could allow for the survival of species a little longer to maybe outlast the collapse, or help mitigate the destruction in some way, or loosen the nooses around our necks ever so slightly while we work for dismantlement through other tactics at the same time. Would voting for such things validate the system as equally as voting for a candidate, or endorse coercive power in the same way? Or would abstaining on principle at this level just be lifestylism and ideology?
The black and green view of the community is the only view with the formation of relative stuff and the structure building as well. The voting and GA has full frame of guiding the link at https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/08/how-to-write-quality-educational-content.html with the creative way of knowledge building and knowledge convincing power by the other people.
I am glad to read this info. genius
Distribution has some plan over the facts that can be shared over the voting policies it share over the categories among these. I have to make a report on this so I need to buying term papers online this will make some firms according to the plan that was good to read or have some format on this.