AUT: Re: electorial politcs

[Bill Bartlett <billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

commie zero zero wrote:

>  > Few anarchists would see getting rid of the state
>>  without ending
>>  capitalism as the answer.  Overthrowing the state is
>>  seen as somehow
>>  a means to ending alienation. Looked at closely that
>>  sort of thinking
>>  is seriously flawed.
>
>this doesn't seem right either. or is too general.
>many anarchists i know work in the assumption that the
>state is part and parcel of capital, and that
>destroying capital means destroying the state, and
>vise-versa... leaving part alive (kinda like a worm)
>enables the rest to come back.

The state is an instrument of class rule and the class that rule are
the capitalist class. But the state precedes capitalism and as Chris
Wright noted in a recent post the state functions uniquely in a
capitalist society. The capitalists main instrument of rule is not
the state, they rule over us economically more than politically.

>  > The real difficulty I perceive is the fundamental
>>  aversion of
>>  anarchists to electoral politics and political
>>  activity in general.
>
>yer whole analysis here is skewed due to what seems to
>me a real limitation on what you perceive as
>political. the word "political" comes from (i believe)
>the greek "polis", meaning (i think) community. thus
>politics would be the affairs of the community.

I will explain what i mean by political, I admit I was a bit vague. I
think of political power as direct control over other people.  So in
that sense politics is the pursuit of or use of power to directly
control people, including physical force or the threat of such. This
is slightly different to economic power, which is indirect, the power
to deprive people of what they need or want in order to control them.

Electoral politics makes direct (political) power subject to the will
of the majority of people. Elected politicians become, in theory,
merely the servants of the new sovereign (the people). Which is close
enough to the truth for the present discussion.

Of course the political state in a capitalist society is carefully
and deliberately constituted to be without any authority to interfere
with the economic power of the capitalist class, who rule by virtue
of their absolute and unfettered monopoly control of the very means
of survival of all people. The main role of the state is to protect
the capitalist class from any attempt by the people to interfere with
this economic power.

The state may also regulate market power, to some degree. But this
authority is limited both by the constitution of the state and by the
market itself. Attempts by quasi-socialists to  use state political
power to control the economy in the interests of the many has led to
a collapse of capitalist economy. This is because the interests of
the capitalist and the interests of the working class are opposing.
The quasi-socialists have attempted to "reform" a capitalist system
just enough so that its main object was to serve people's needs.
Ubfortunately a capitalist economy simply can't do that, anymore than
a pig can fly through the air. When you try to make a capitalist
system do that, it just collapses under the weight of the
contradiction.


>
>now: the anti-electorial notion that i (and many other
>commies) share with anarchists is, in part, based on
>the notion that electorial politics is itself
>anti-political (i.e. against the affairs of the
>community) because it is the rhelm of capitalist rule.


This is silly. Capitalists are a tiny minority of the population.
Electoral politics is only the realm of the capitalists so long as
There Is No Alternative. In other words, so long as the great
majority of people see no viable and acceptable alternative to a
capitalist system, the only viable electoral choices then, are
options which will result in a the most efficient political state for
capitalism. Meanwhile, the structures which most control our lives,
the corporations, will be able to get on with the business of
exploiting and controlling us.

But it is not strictly correct to say it is the realm of capitalist
rule. Because a political dictatorship is just as destructive of
efficient capitalist exploitation as a half-arsed socialist
government attempting to bend a capitalist economy to serve human
needs rather than profit. Political dictatorship always leads to
corruption, cronyism and all sorts of other market manipulation up to
and including neo-feudalism, all of which eventually lead to the
collapse of the economy. So democratic political government is the
highest and, inevitably the only viable, form of political government
of a capitalist society.

By its very nature this form of government carries great risks for
the capitalist class, because the only thing standing between them
and the overthrow of capitalism is the lack of any acceptable or
viable alternative. Once the great majority of people accept as
natural the notion that the people themselves are sovereign, that the
people have the inalienable right to determine political policies of
government, it is natural that they will also come to see that they
have the same inalienable right to determine control the economy, to
make the economy itself (not just political government) serve the
interests of the whole population, instead of serving a tiny few.

All that would then be needed is the practical means of actually
achieving that. Nothing on earth can physically prevent the people
from determining to do it.

I agree that political government is not, directly, a means to
achieve this end. But the political process is. Both materially and
subjectively.

>[...]



>the notion that electorial politics is a good place to
>agitate for social revolution is flawed on many
>levels: 1) the capitalist nature of electorial
>politics makes it difficult to actually get an
>intellegible word in edgewise.


I didn't say it was a fair system, or that it would be easy. But I
maintain that it is possible. Even you yourself implicitly admit as
much, claiming that it is "difficult". You don't say it is
impossible. But of course they are not going to make it easy,
revolution was never easy.


>2) the vast majority of
>people in coutries with voting don't pay any attention
>to elections, don't vote, and are rather jaded on the
>whole mess.


Well of course. There is no alternative, so the choices are all the
same. Or the choices are not acceptable, because most of the minority
parties are cranks with a platform so totally lacking in cohesion
that 99% of voters can see at a glance that it would lead to disaster.


>  3) the basic contradition inherent in
>using the state to advocate otherthrowing the state
>(as part of overthrowing capitalism)... you can not
>forget that the medium is the message.

I wasn't suggesting using the state to overthrow the state, I was
suggesting using electoral politics to present a viable alternative
to capitalism.

But as you say, the medium is the message. That is part of my
argument. Have you considered what that little pearl of wisdom
implies, in terms of the message conveyed by those who flatly refuse
to put their politics to the test of a democratic vote? Who instead
attempt to simply impose their will, by "direct action" without
consulting the people affected?

The message that conveys, in case you haven't got my drift, is that
such people are would-be dictators. Oh yes, the medium is the
message, I couldn't agree more.


>[...]
>>  What the latter ignores is that state politics,
>>  electoral politics in
>>  particular, is the main arena for debate in
>>  democratic capitalist
>>  societies.
>
>this is not true. in my experience the main arenas for
>debate are workplaces, schools, homes / porches,
>coffeehouses, bars, show spaces, etc. electorial
>politics is generally ignored by most people.

I meant debate about social and economic policy, i didn't mean debate
about football, beer and sex. I'm sorry to be flippant, you are right
to some degree. But those arenas are ones where one discusses with
one's direct acquaintances. Wider issues will and does require wider
debate. There are some decisions on we need to consult with a wider
group than just our friends and family, before going ahead.


>  > This is where political ideas are openly
>>  debated and
>>  considered.
>
>uhm... on what planet? hell, the frickin' debates are
>staged and basically scriped. this is pretty common
>knowledge. hell, they even did an episode about it on
>"law & order" (a fictional melodrama on nbc, for those
>who don't know).

There are other ways and means of getting into the debate, your
scripted presidential debates are not the only game in town. If push
comes to shove you can always bail up politicians out on the hustings
and start debating them in front of the camera. Instead of politely
listening to their prepared speeches. Their speeches and campaigns
are usually so boring that something interestsing like that will
usually make it onto the TV news that night. Its not as hard as you
seem to imagine, if you have something intelligible to say that is.


>  > More importantly, this is where ideas
>>  for social progress
>>  are put to the test of public opinion.
>
>nah... this is like saying the corporate media is the
>expression of public opinion.

Why do you say that? I can't discern any relevant meaning from the comment.


>i've yet to EVER in my 25 years see the "will of the
>people" expressed in an election. even people that
>vote just vote for the "lesser evil" from their
>perspective. they are resigned to this. they don't
>like it, and i've yet to meet anyone dumb enough to
>think that who they vote for acctually represents
>their will.

You might need to get out and listen to more people then.


>
>>  Anarchists believe that electoral politics is a
>>  barren field for the
>>  revolutionary, that "direct action" is the only area
>>  that serves any
>>  purpose. This view is often expressed but as I
>>  demonstrated a few
>>  days ago on this list it is a view that is unable to
>>  survive even a
>>  cursory analysis.
>
>i must have missed this...

You aren't paying attention are you? ;-)

>but the reason direct
>action (in all forms: propaganda, dual power, concrete
>protest, etc.) is prefered over electorial politics
>(aside from the reasons i've already delineated) is
>because only direct action ever works.

Propaganda and protests are not "direct action". They are debate.

>  in all my years
>doing this kind of work now, i've yet to see even a
>minor reform come about thru electorial political
>crap.


That was roughly the same assertion that I demonstrated to be
unambiguously false in the earlier post that I mentioned. But I begin
to see a trend, you claim you've never seen even a minor reform via
electoral politics, you also claim that you didn't see my recent post
showing this view to be wrong. You shouldn't completely rule outthese
possibilities simply because you don't seem to see see them.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---