Plea to the Left

by David Madden Fri May 14, 2004 14:07

I too will be voting. I'll be giving my number 1 vote to Joe Higgins. I think that it's important that the likes of Brady, Ryan, Mitchell, DeRossa, Bacik etc. get a challange in this election. Anarchists will have to realise that at this stage the way to challenge them is not by boycotting elections as there are no workers councils to be an alternative to the bourgeois parties. Running in the elections makes working class issues put on the agenda and allows you to talk about your ideas to thousands of workers.

I was never won over to the anarchist view. I agree that elections don't solve anything as they will only listen to the result they want (remember Nice Treaty!). I always found it weird that some anarchists would vote in referenda but not elections! Afterall is it not the politicians that decide the question in a referendum.. not exactly "empowering". I also disagree that capitalism is the way it is because "power is delegated to politicians. The reality is that real power is in the boardrooms of big business. It's all about who owns and controls wealth not who is in "political" power.

So that's why I'm voting for Joe Higgins in the election. Not because of the EU Constitution having opponants in the European Parliament, but because I want to cast a protest vote against the Europe of Capitalism.

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 14:18

Interesting to see that the left is starting to panic over the influence of anarchism in Ireland.

Unfortuanatly the reasons for voting given above have very, very little to do with the reasons why anarchists ask the question 'parlaiment or democracy' If you want to actually address the anarchist arguments then please do so by don't thow out a lot of old red herrings.

Anyone interested in why anarchists ask 'Parliament or Democracy' can find out at http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html

This text is also available as a PDF file at http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 14:56

Above is a general answer pointing out that these pleas don't actually address the reason why anarchist ask 'parliament or democracy'. Now I'm going to look at the pleas themselves in more detail, but really, as above the core to understanding the anarchist postion is actually taking the time to read and understand it.

Lets starts with ****Things are urgent!!****

The EU constitution argument is a subset of a very commen argument. That is that something so bad is about to happen that it's time to throw principles to the wind. If the Nazis were at the door I might consider this (a little known fact is that the Free French tanks that liberated Paris in 1944 were largely crewed by veterns of the Durruti column). Not the case here.

But the argument made is a neat demonstration of the problem with electoralism. To take the relevant lines

"Does anyone, of whatever politics, seriously think it will be easier to beat the EU Constitution if Royston Brady for example is an MEP and Patricia McKenna is not? Like it or not (And I don’t for the record), having MEPs, people who can articulate and defend the arguments against the Constitution, have a certain level of respect by virtue of their experience and tens of thousands of people who listened to them enough to vote for them in the first place are imperative to beating the Constitution"

The first thing that has to be said is that if McKenna loses the election there will not be men in dark suits around to cut out he tongue in the morning. What she could say before June 11th is what she can say after June 11th, win or lose.

Beyond that, central to the anarchist argument against elections is the idea that it traps us into a model of searching for the few good men (or in this case women) who will sort out our problems for us. The idea that the vote in the European constitution can only be won if one women holds onto an MEPs seat is a very good example of this in practise.

You won't build a real movement around a few good men or women although you might build a party. And to change the direction of Europe and the world requires a movement, not a good speaker or someone whose head is full of figures.

My own interest in the consitution campaign is more long term. Following on from the Mayday protests this could well be the moment when the old 'anti-European' politics of the left and the nationalist right start to be replace by a new alternative Europe politics of the libertarian movement. The last thing I want to do in that context is imagine that one of the figureheads of the old anti-European left is out only saviour.

One snapshot of the new movement is to be found at http://struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/eu/alternative.html

by RED BHOY Fri May 14, 2004 15:01

If only to help anyone running against Royston. This clown couldnt even name the 10 states who recently joined the EU. I think he could only name 3.

by PosterWatch Fri May 14, 2004 15:12

I know it causes disquiet but the Americans were largely responsible for the liberation of France. The "Free French" was a token force which was given the privalege of leading the parade into Paris. The French did little to liberate themselves - the notorious Vichy government was the visible manisfestation of this.

If it werent for the Americans in WW2, we would either be part of a facsist Europe or a Stalinist one. In either case we are probably better off as we are.

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 15:23

Next let's look at the arguments of David Madden/ David I think I actually replied to the same points a few days back but perhaps you missed this reply.

Anyway David misses the point of the anarchist critique of electoralism. It is not a more left version of what the trots say ('real power lies elsewhere') even if it agrees with that point. Rather it is based on an opposition to ANY division between leaders and led, bosses and workers. Electoralism does not make propaganda for breaking down such divisions, it re-enforces them and makes them stronger.

David tells us "Anarchists will have to realise that at this stage the way to challenge them is not by boycotting elections as there are no workers councils to be an alternative to the bourgeois parties."

Firstly the purpose of boycotting elections is not to "challenge them" rather it is a refusal to take part in the system that legtimises the bosses rule. At their core that is what elections are, the act of consenting to be bossed around for another 4/5/7 years in return for a limited say about who gets to give you the orders.

Secondly no anarchist I know thinks 'workers councils' are on the immediate agenda. The alternative we argue for in the short term is not 'workers councils' but self-managment of struggles and direct action to achieve reforms. Both these build towards creating a society based on workers self-management but this is a long struggle. We simply don't see the struggle for workers self-management as being advanced by choosing a good boss over a bad boss.

"Running in the elections makes working class issues put on the agenda and allows you to talk about your ideas to thousands of workers."

You can do both of these any day of the week. It is true that it helps if there is something that makes such talk seem immediately relevant which is why the may day protests were so important. Not only did we distribute 50,000 leaflets putting forward our ideas in advance of the protest but in the aftermath the events themselves generated a huge level of political discussion both between those on them and with those who 'saw' them on Sky.

Elections in fact tend to encourage you to be dishonest with workers. Generally you are not going to get someones vote if you turn up on their door steps and tell them the truth, ie that 'voting for me won't make much of a difference but does at least demonstrate support for left ideas'. Rather we have lots of parties and individuals telling people that a vote for them will help to get rid of the bin tax, improve the health service, reduce crime etc etc. None of this is true.

In any case anarchist often choose to make propaganda around elections, mostly be addressing those who have decided not to vote and encouraging them to think about the alternatives (rather than just being apartheic). People are pretty open to these arguments.

"I always found it weird that some anarchists would vote in referenda but not elections! "

Maybe you should read some anarchist material on this as its a very simple 'contradiction' to answer. See http://struggle.ws/ws/2002/ws69/referendum.html for instance.

Briefly referenda at least mean that we directly make a decision on the way things will be done, even if we are limited to the choices offered by the bosses. Which is why we nearly always end up calling for a no vote as the only choice is whether or not to make things worse. Parliamentary elections are all about getting someone else to make decisions for us, in other words choosing who our boss will be.

On the subject of referenda this illustrates another problem with electoralism. As your aware on June 11th we will also vote on a racist referenda that McDowell has created because he hopes it will reduce support for the 'left' and republicans. His reckoning is that the proposals are quite popular and that the left and republican parties will lose votes because they are seen to oppose a popular referenda.

Those of us not concerned with the electoral popularity contest are putting our energy into defeating the referenda. But of the parties running in the elections it appears only the SWP are not running scared (wow I just said something nice about the SWP). All the others are claiming to support the campaign against the referenda but finding excuses to downplay this support on the doorsteps (by for instance only giving leafets to those who request them!?!?).

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 15:29

Yeah you right (although I'd add the fact that the Russians were tying up the vast bulk of the German army elsewhere was probably the biggest factor).

But anyway my original point was hardly a French nationalist one! More of an example of a situation where things were so bad that anarchists went for a short term solution (joining an imperialist army) at odds with their anti-militarism. Mind you they were nicking and stashing weapons right left and centre for the expected post war struggle against Franco.

Those interested in reading more about this little sideshoot will find a useful article at http://anarchism.ws/fight/fascism.html

by John Fri May 14, 2004 15:51

The outcome of the referendum on the EU Constitution will not be affected in the slightest by whether Joe Higgins, the Sinn Feiner whose name I forget and can't be bothered to look up, Patricia McKenna or any other socialist, republican, green or even anarchist wins the single left-wing seat in Dublin. So, stop trying to pretend that it will. If you have other reasons for voting for one left-wing candidate as opposed to another, fine! But, don't deceive yourself into thinking that you have the slightest chance of winning a referendum on the EU Constitution. The EU Constitution will be passed by at least 65% of the vote. The pro-EU vote has been consistently close to that level for at least 25 years. It isn't going to change now. The only exception was the first Nice referendum. The result of that referendum was a freak, resulting from the fact that the pro-EU side made no effort to campaign at all, probably due to complacency after a series of easy
victories in such referenda. When they pulled their finger out for the second Nice referendum they won easily and got the usual 65% or so in favour. I'll predict that the EU Constitution will be passed by a much bigger majority than the second Nice referendum. Two reasons. First, the Nice referendum took place in the middle of a recession. That is now over and the economy is booming again. Second, agreement on the EU Constitution will be finalised in Dublin. The slogan 'No to Nice' was a nice slogan (sic), quite alliterative and conjuring up images of being ruled from abroad. Full marks to the advertising agency that thought of it. 'No to Dublin' will have far less appeal, at least in this country.

by PosterWatch Fri May 14, 2004 16:04

I fully accept your point about the impact of the Red army in winning WW2. However the left often igonores Stalin's craven treaty with Hitler which could have led to a FAscist europe.

The pragmatism of the French anarchists is hardly praise worthy. The irony is that a democratic government is more tolerant of Anarchism that either a Fascist or a commumist totaltitarian one.

by Gaillimhed Fri May 14, 2004 16:06

With an engaged and educated electorate the political spectrum can be influenced gradually and irresistably by voting for candidates year after year who lean in your direction.
We need to use the electoral system,, not ignore it, it only doesnt work when we dont use it.
No single candidate is going to carry all the necessary desirable traits, but by voting for those that tend towards what is required by the electorate you apply pressure for modification of their manifestos.
You must realise that the candidates are in competition for your vote. If a large section of the electorate (YOU) get off their arses and vote for anything or anyone that professes to lean towards your leftist anarchist ideal, then the candidates will have to compete for those votes next time around, hence a new (modified) set of electoral policies in the following election, incorporating the ideals that people are professing a preference for.
And so on.
current irish politics is corporate, americaniZed and soulless. This is because the people who continue to vote, year after year after year, are soulless, greedy americaniZed corporites. They keep it the way they want it by voting in the guys who will keep it that way for them. the remaining candidates tilt their policies in that general direction to catch voteds faklling off the table. why would they even pretend to be interested in representing people who dont vote.
Whinging about it on Indymedia will not change it, and believe it or not, no matter how many marches and demos take place nothing will change POLITICALLY until you start to exert Electoral pressure on the candidates. They dont represent your views because they know you dont VOTE, therefore you are no threat to them.
March all you like against FFand their cronyism but FF wil still get in.. because... FF voters will vote them in.
You cannnot influence the politics of this state (peacefully) in any other way.
Get out and vote,

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 16:09

Err posterwatch you want to go up and read on anarchism a little, we are not exactly fans of Stalin (or Lenin or Trotsky for that matter). Your point about the Hitler deal is spot on but it still remains the fact that the Russians and other people subject to the Kremlin did most of the fighting and dying in WWII.

And if you followed the link I gave you'd have realised that they were Spanish rather than French anarchists I was talking of.

by Ray Fri May 14, 2004 16:13

While we're on the subject, European thanks to the US should be tempered by the fact that they didn't intervene until they were attacked themselves.
And before people start talking about cheese-eating surrender monkeys, they should look at the French casualty figures for the two world wars (and compare them to the US figures).
Arguments along "if it weren't for the X you'd all be speaking Y" lines are usually based on partial readings of history, and are pointless anyway, because there have been millions of events that changed the course of European history.

by David Madden Fri May 14, 2004 16:17

Joe, thanks for the reply to the points I make.

I disagree with you on a number of points you make. I agree that real change does not happen in elections, I don't have any illusions that a vote in capitalist "democracy" will be respected unless it mets their ends.

I fail to see how a vote for Joe Higgins in these elections will legitimise bosses' rule. Joe is standing on a clearly pro-working class platform. Every vote for him is a vote against the political establishment. Same goes for those on clearly anti-establishment anti-capitalist platforms. I really don't see how my No. 1 vote for Higgins is legitimising capitalist "democracy", quiet the opposite in my opinion.

Surely voting in referenda legitimises exploitation? Afterall you are involving yourself in their process. In a referendum you only have 2 choices Yes and No (well, or a spoilt vote). A No vote on 11 June does not mean you are voting against capitalism. While a vote for Joe Higgins on 11 June clearly does.

You also make the point that it enforces the divide between leaders and the led. But surely anarchists are involved in Shop Steward, Class Rep, other Union elections etc. Is this not enforcing a divide between leaders and led. Full-time Union elected officials are on a salary above the people they represent, yet you contest electons for these positions.

You also make points about Lies on the doorsteps. I got someone from the SP canvassing me for Joe Higgins and a local election candidate. They did not lie. They did not make false claims that voting for them will mean everything will be rosy. You're problem is with parties and candidates who lie on doorsteps not the process of engaging with the electorate.

And again you are wrong when you say left parties are not involved in the anti-referendum campaign. I was speaking to an SP member on the door and we talked about the referendum. He was totally against and called for a No vote. I can't speak for SF, FG, Labour, Greens, SWP or others as they have not knocked on my door.

In my opinion the anarchist position on the election question shows a misanalysis of society. They believe exploitation happend by the existance of unaccountable leaders. I agree that unaccountable leaders can exploit people, BUT this is not the main arena for exploitation. Real exploitation happens because capitalism is not paying workers their value. This is the problem with capitalism- not how elections happen.

by Flabbergasted Fri May 14, 2004 16:20

"Interesting to see that the left is starting to panic over the influence of anarchism in Ireland."

I'm really surprised by this statement!
I personally thought that the organised anarchists in this country where of the left. I'm not panic-stricken by the influence of anarchism in Ireland. I think considering the fact that what a lot of the trot's consider to be an apathy with politics which in actual fact translates to plain hostility I find it surprising that anarchism hasn't got a lot more support, where it matters - in the communities.
I find the original posting bizarre but your response seems more fitting to a SWP frame of mind. There should really be no 'us and them' when it comes to the left. The fact that the trots (lets exclude the social democrats and stalinists) are still hankering for a system that was corrupt from more of less the start doesn't mean that anarchists should be so smug. Name a mass anarchist movement, anywhere in the world now.
Our main enemy is still capitalism not each other. Don't fall into the same way of looking at the world as the cultists.

by Chekov Fri May 14, 2004 16:25

"I fail to see how a vote for Joe Higgins in these elections will legitimise bosses' rule"

Because you are accepting the fact that Joe has somehow the right to make decisions on your behalf, ie be your boss (although he might be a nicer one than the current one).

You see there is a fundamental difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists. For us somebody who can make decisions on your behalf is as much your boss as the guy who owns the company you work in. Anarchists want to do away with all bosses, political and economic. Voting for a 'better boss' is hardly a way towards this.

by ZXBarcalow Fri May 14, 2004 16:29

Why dont you guys vote AND work to build a more substantial, deeper democracy? Surely the time it takes to vote isn't going to set back you other plans THAT much?!?

And why will someone be less likely to build for a deeper democracy if he or she take the half hour to vote in the elections? That's like saying we shouldn't give money to homeless people because it'll "trap us into a model" of charity, rather than working for social justice -which might sound great in principle but tell that to the homeless guy.

And if some right-winger wins in these elections, you can explain your wonderful principles to the rest of us, who're stuck with a snowball's chance in hell of influencing the outcome of the EU constitution, and so more cuts and privatization.

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 16:30

Gaillimhed a full answer to what you post would run on for many pages, you might like to look at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr5/elections.html

In summary there are several problems you ignore. Some of these are also ignored by the left. Briefly

1. Power does not lie in parliament. This is very clearly the case in the elections coming up. In the locals there is not even any pretence of the councillors having the say on important matters like the bin tax. This is in the hands of the county manager. So even if every concillor voted to abolish the tax he can just dissolve the council and impose it anyway. On the EU level the parliament is just a talking shop with all important decisions being made elsewhere.

2. Power does not lie in parliament. It lies in brown envelopes. After years of scandel we know by now that planning decisions are not influenced so much by who you vote for on June 11th but by who gives brown envelopes to who after this date.

3. Power does not lie in parliament. It lies on the trading floors of Wall Street and the City. Even moderate reforming governments like the 1974 British Labour one or Lula in Brazil are aware that any attempt to implement real change will be met by capital flight. When capital flies then credit status drops and when credit status drops then interest rates rise leading to money going not to reforms but to international speculators and banks. Push on anyway and you have Chile '74 and Venezula today as a model of how things can be.

4. Power does not lie in parliament. It lies in the boardrooms and the golf clubs. It lies with those who provide the cash to the parties and the politicans in return for radio licences and telecoms licences, IDA grants, patent laws, protection of monopolies and trade supsidies, low corporate tax and so on.

5. Power does not lie in parliament. It lies with those who own and control the media. One man controls the majority of not only national but also local newspapers in Ireland and we've already seen him swing an election 'pay back time' and heard him boast of excluding favourable comments about those he hates from the pages of his press.

That is one side of the coin. The other is that electoralism works. It converts radicals into respectables faster than any other know method. This is what the left misses on despite the fact that in this country every party bar the Greens once existed as the political wing of an armed revolutionary group (Labor its true only through merger).

Look at Workers Party -> Democratic Left -> Labour and you are looking at the best outcome for the SP. Yesterdays critics of capitalism become todays puppies turning tricks to please the master and get favorable coverage.

But when you say
"Whinging about it on Indymedia will not change it, and believe it or not, no matter how many marches and demos take place nothing will change POLITICALLY ...You cannnot influence the politics of this state (peacefully) in any other way."

You are right.

Which is why we are anarchists. Marches and demos do not create a new society. Direct action, self-management of struggles and one day revolution will.

by PosterWatch Fri May 14, 2004 16:32

Joe, I assumed you were talking about French anarchists - I promise to read up on Anarchism!

I accept that ther French had more casualties than the US but the point remains that US intervention in WW1 changed its course. In WW2 the fact that Stalin kept the greater part of the German Army busy combined with the US intervention, was crucial.

There is an excellent history book, "What if" which looks at the what might have beens in World history. The level of luck which aided the Allies in WW2 is staggering.

by ZXBarcalow Fri May 14, 2004 16:38

Oh and Chekov:

yeah, voting for a "better boss" might not be the best way to eliminate hierarchy etc, but by not voting you are effectively voting for the WORSE boss, which makes what you want to achieve even harder.

And could you not maybe appreciate that many others who are on your side are working very hard to achieve real change, and would appreciate a bit of support and solidarity. Are you really so inflexible and incapaple of compromise that you equate voting with completely throwing away your principles? The equivalent of a die-hard christian wiping his ass with the Bible?

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 16:39

I'm having a problem with keeping up.

David

Everything you raise is in fact answered in the article I suggested you read at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr5/elections.html

Now if your trying to convince me (and other anarchists) you'd be wiser reading that and replying on the basis of the ground that covers.

Very briefly though there are 2 not 1 types of voting

Type 1 - vote to give someone else the power to make decisions for you. This is 'parliamentary democracy'.

Type 2 - either directly vote on a decision (referendum) or to mandate someone to carry your opinions and those of your group to the next level. This is how shop stewards are meant to function. It's how anarchist and libertarian groups function. It's how many students unions and campaign groups function.

Anarchists argue that the two forms are in conflict, we want to see only Type 2 being used. A lot on the left, including yourself (from your examples) fail to realise that the two are even different never mind opposed.

All this is explained in some detail in 'Parliament or Democracy', download the PDF file from http://struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/pdf_parliament.html read it over the weekend and then you can have a go at anarchism where you understand what our argument is.

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 16:41

You caught me out there.

I'm being lazy and using 'the left' as a crude catch all for the traditional left in Ireland. Yes in a historical and indeed current sense anarchists are also 'of the left' but I'm already losing my finger prints with all this typing so I stooped to some very sloppy shorthand. Any real discussion of everything behind that shorthand would require pages.

by Ray Fri May 14, 2004 16:43

"I accept that ther French had more casualties than the US but the point remains that US intervention in WW1 changed its course. "

But only after the course of WWI had already been changed by revolution in Russia. And that only happened after some surprising Russian victories against Germany/Austria. Which only happened after England and France were surprised by the speed of the German advance through the low countries. Which only hapened after Germany had its hand forced in mobilising by Austrian mobilisation. Which only happened... which only happened because of Austerlitz ... which only happened because of the surprising effectiveness of the Swiss pikemen ... which only happened because of the surprising effectiveness of the English bowmen ... which only happened because the Normans got lucky with an arrow ... which only happened because Germanicus was poisoned ... which only happened because of Alexander's untimely death ... which only happened because of the disastrous Sicilian adventure ... which only happened because of Salamis ... which only happened because...

History happened as it did.

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 16:50

"Why dont you guys vote AND work to build a more substantial, deeper democracy?"

Because we consider that voting in parlaimentary elections far from helping to create 'deeper democracy' or even being neutral actually undermines what democracy is really about. In other words its not a step forwards or even sideways but backwards. (The pamphlet whose URL I keep posting explains this in great detail, read it over the weekend and demolish it on Monday if you wish. Again its at http://struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/pdf_parliament.html )

"That's like saying we shouldn't give money to homeless people because it'll "trap us into a model" of charity, rather than working for social justice -which might sound great in principle but tell that to the homeless guy. "

The problem with analogies is that often they don't hold. As is the case above. In so far as there is an analogy its on the NGO level of campaigning work 'threatening' government funding. As with the government withdrawing funding from Citizen Traveller a couple of years back. One activity works against the other, this is widely recognised in the NGO sphere.

"And if some right-winger wins in these elections, you can explain your wonderful principles to the rest of us, who're stuck with a snowball's chance in hell of influencing the outcome of the EU constitution"

Huh? (No really, this is a repetition of the main point in the original story which I've already answered. If you disagree with the answer then move on to tackle the answer, don't just repeat the original point).

by student Fri May 14, 2004 17:09

I can hear the politicians crying with fear because a couple of hundred anarchists are not going to vote!

If you really want to give people an alternative go out make the arguments and then let them vote on it. Saying that your not going to vote will achieve nothing.

by Chekov Fri May 14, 2004 17:10

I don't really see what you are getting at here. Who should I show solidarity and support with? If I think that electoralism is counterproductive, then surely I should say so, regardless of how worthy the candidate may be.

Once again, I think that the way to social change is through empowerment, self-management and direct action. Most people believe that social change can come through choosing better 'bosses'. This is one of the biggest challenge facing anarchists, we have to persuade people to 'do it yourself' with the people around you if you want change, rather than getting better bosses to do it for you. So telling people to vote in elections in order to further their chances of acheiving social change is exactly the wrong message that we want to give. If people are going to listen to us and be influenced by what we say, we might as well tell them what we actually think and not pretend that there is any hope in elections achieving anything.

This is not to say that I'd condemn anybody who votes for 'progressives'. It's up to the individual and doesn't harm anybody. I do not personally accept that anybody has the right to make decisions on my behalf, and so I don't vote on principle. But there is more to electoralism than a personal choice. As Joe says, there is no point in running for election if you are honest and tell people how little difference the election will make. Therefore electoralism almost always goes hand in hand with an attempt to convince people that their vote can make a real difference. This is the most harmful aspect of electoralism, you end up trying to persuade people to believe in an institution and political system that they should not.

There is also the fact that if anybody thinks that these particular elections are going to have a major impact on anything in the real world, they are just plain crazy.

by seedot Fri May 14, 2004 17:16

Thanks Joe, Chekov et al for taking the time on responses to these questions. I have 2 more which have always bothered me about the Anarchist position:

1. privatisation vs. public services

I can understand the logic of not voting for a representative when this seems to prop up representative democracy, but surely the same could be said of opposing privatisation i.e. it props up the role of the state? If public services are worth fighting for as ‘collective ownership’ surely then voting for candidates who will impact on privatisation is also consistent. The public services that anarchists join with others in fighting to defend were delivered through parliamentary votes? Can they not be defended through parliamentary votes?

2. the legal framework

you (Joe) state :’Power does not lie in parliament. It lies in the boardrooms and the golf clubs. It lies with those who provide the cash to the parties and the politicians in return for radio licences and telecoms licences, IDA grants, patent laws, protection of monopolies and trade supsidies, low corporate tax and so on.’
But all of these legal instruments are managed by legislators. So different legislators will have power, even if it is just in the setting of the regulatory framework. The fact that they currently use this on behalf of ‘brown envelopes’ is not intrinsic to the system - in part it is facilitated by abstentionism. Politicians first and foremost protect their jobs. But the Public health act had to be changed by legislators to defeat the bin tax – different legislators would have helped there.

On a minor note: I agree the bin tax campaign has been co-opted by electoral ambitions. However, the councilors do have the power to sack the city manager. If there was a clear platform of sacking the city manager that looked like it could win out then would this not be worth voting for?

by Joe Fri May 14, 2004 17:41

a) re student

Its not about getting to 'hear the politicians crying with fear'. It's about changing the world.

b) Seedot

Two good questions

1. privatisation vs. public services

The argument that 'public services' were delivered through representative democracy rather then struggle is actually pretty weak. If you look at it you'll find the welfare state was introduced across Europe in countries with both the left and right in power and was later attacked across Europe in countries with both the left and right in power. There are small differences its true but the major difference is/was not where on the spectrum people were voting. Often the same parties that introduced public services are the ones that later abolished them (true of both Fianna Fail and the British Labour Party).

Any real answer to the driving forces behind both has to involve both the level and type of struggle in society and the needs of capitalism in that period. Elections often mirror this, they don't create it.

On the broader point anarchists are not for a 'everyone for themselves' system they are for a (not state) form of communism ie 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. So we are for a social sphere that right now is very crudely represented by public education, health, transport etc. There are lots of contradictions involved in defending these from privitisation but it is still a position that makes sense.

2. the legal framework

"the fact that they currently use this on behalf of ‘brown envelopes’ is not intrinsic to the system"

I'd argue that what is called 'corruption' is in fact intrinsic to the system although the brown envelopes is a parody version of the oil companines funding Bushs election campaign. There is a whole index of articles making this point at length at http://struggle.ws/wsm/corruption.html

Of course the state also exists as a mechanism by which capitalism tries to regulate itself and to put limits on such corruption. But as long as you have politicians who make decisions and billionares with the wealth to buy decisions you will have corruption. I'm not daft enough to think I couldn't be bought for 100 million, why should I expect that everyone else does not have a price.

I didn't know the councillers could sack the city manager, seeing as he can also in effect sack the council this sounds like a set up for an interesting catch22.

But this reminds me that I left out the biggest problem with representative democracy. And that is that politicans lie. I think if it looked like the abolition of the bin tax was the sure way of getting elected then every concillor, including FF, PD and FG would stand on this platform. And then once elected they'd say they'd looked at the books and realised how serious the situation was so that they'd no choice but to impose it. After all its not like this hasn't happened several times already!

by Chekov Fri May 14, 2004 17:46

1. Privatisation etc...

The thing to understand here is that anarchists do not fight to maintain governmental ownership of industries. Anarchists oppose privatisation in the current era because it "invariably results in worse working conditions, greater inequality of services, lay-offs and wage cuts" (quote from Mayday leaflet). If there was a hypothetical privatisation scheme which was likely to lead to better working conditions, equality of services, job security, better wages, etc. then anarchists would probably not oppose it. This is a pretty clear distinction between anarchists and state socialists, as nationalisation is part of their programme. For us it is the effects of such ownership that are important, not which unaccountable hierarchy controls it.

2. Legal framework

The answer to this one is a bit abstract as a detailled treatment of it would take a lot of space (see the pamphlet above for that). But it comes down to the fact that our 'democratic' institutions have evolved to ensure that the right people occupy the legislative positions of (some) power. For example, if there was a real threat of a group of councillers getting elected on a platform of sacking the city manager, the fourth estate of capitalist control (the media) would swing into action and ensure that the candidates in question were suitably demonised so that the more respectable elements would split away and a vote for the rest would be presented as a vote for Stalin.

On another point, I do think that the brown envelopes are integral to the system. I can think of no capitalist economy where corruption does not play a large part in the functioning of the system. Corruption exists as a structural necessity of capitalism as it is deemed politic to conceal some of the balder realities of how power is distributed and wielded in our 'democratic' societies.

by pat c Fri May 14, 2004 18:11

anarchist organisations have always been in the fore in opposing reactionary and suporting progressive referendums. i realy dont se why their oposition to a vote for left candidates shd be an issue now.

i might end up voting for a "left" candidate but then i'm not a fuly convinced anarchist. but i can well see that the wsm oposition to voting for any candidate in a state electoral contest is based on principle.

by ZXBarcalow aka Dave Curran, UCD Fri May 14, 2004 18:40

I promise I'll read that article, but its 21 pages so i'm going to respond first before this discussion gets pushed further down the Indymedia list.

I'm in UCD. I know students union elections are hardly comparable to EU or national elections or whatever. But I think Paul Dillon, Aidan Regan etc being in office made a difference in the campaign against fees, preventing cuts in our library hours etc and generally did some good. And i was on Fergal Scully's campaign team, and i think its a substantial enough victory that we got him (plus Ciaran Weafer etc) in as president, one that will be a little help in campaigns and stuff in the future.

So i guess im finding it hard to see how anything would have been achieved by not voting for them. Not enough people vote anyway, so i dont see why a few more non-votes would make a difference. And the same, i think, applies at the national and European levels.

People have fought and died all over the world for the right to vote, and sure -maybe being able to vote is far from a thouroughly democratic society, but its still worthwhile. People in the Third World seem to think so. And if corporate power makes voting less useful, then lets tackle corporate power WITHOUT abandoning our votes, which people fought long and hard for. Why not take what we have -representative democracy- and use it, all the while pushing for more change until we have the kind of democracy that we want?

Can you tell me that poor people in Venezuela, for example, ought not to bother voting for Chavez in the next election? Sure it would be better if people empowered themselves and their communities and created a better society themselves, but that is easier said than done, and will take years to develop. Meanwhile Chavez' progressive government is actually helping the poeple to become active and fight for their rights.

The same is true here: it will take a long time to encourage people to get out of the lazy mentality of "lets leave it to the politicians" but in the meantime, life-or-death decisions are going to be made by whoever gets into power.

For example Global warming: this is probably the single most urgent thing facing our planet right now, and if it takes 20 or 30 years or more to reach the kind of active, democratic society you (and I) would like, then by that stage it may be too late, and our atmosphere will be so fucked that we will be more concerned with survival than deepening democracy, and all the radical theory in the world won't save us from the chaos we'll have to deal with. So if there's candidates running who will push for REAL moves to tackle this threat, dont you think its worthwhile voting for them?

I've got alot of respect for anarchist ideas, at least what i know of them, but i know Im not alone in being frustrated at what i see as some people's over-rigidity and maybe too much zeal in pursuing the One True Path(tm) to a better society. None of this is meant as a sectarian rant, like I say i've got alot of respect for your principles -what i know of them. I just think that i detect elements of the same closed-mindedness in some people on the libertarian left as i do in the most ardent Communist-Manifesto-peddling Crusties of what remains of the authoritarian left.

by I'll be voting on June 11 Fri May 14, 2004 19:20

Anarchists believe the source of exploitation happens when people delegate power to others

Socialists believe that it's source is in the extraction of profit from wage labour.

That is the key question and where the source on the different approaches to elections come from.

For me I have one big problem with Anarchists' view of democracy. How are we going to run society if and when we end capitalism? How can you plan and manage the economy without delegating power to soem people? Are we to have national referendums on every little silly decision? I would invisage that we do elect delegates that are accountable to the people, they should have to go before the people in regular elections, respect any mandates they recieve and the subject to immediate recall. I can't see how tis system is not democratic. It is the position held by the SP as far as I know.

by Stalinist Airbrush watch Fri May 14, 2004 19:21

"But I think Paul Dillon, Aidan Regan etc being in office made a difference in the campaign against fees, preventing cuts in our library hours etc and generally did some good"

Are we seeing a re-writing of history here?

Oisin who?

by vote if u want Fri May 14, 2004 19:24

"I would invisage that we do elect delegates that are accountable to the people, they should have to go before the people in regular elections, respect any mandates they recieve and the subject to immediate recall. I can't see how tis system is not democratic. It is the position held by the SP as far as I know."

Ever try recalling Steven Boyd or Kevin McLoughlin or Peter Hadden?

by Andy F Fri May 14, 2004 19:31

Maybe the SP membership are satisfied with Boyd, McLoughlin etc? Ever consider that?

Those of you who take an interest in the John Throne saga will know that Throne and the bulk of the US leadership of the CWI were at one point recalled by the members. The International's refusal to support an undemocratic overturning of this this recall is the source of Thrones difficulties with the CWI.

by ZXBarcalow Fri May 14, 2004 19:35

Writing 'etc' was my way of not having to name every single person involved... Of course I mean Oisin too. Anyway I could ask the same of you: "Dermot who?" etc...

Maybe i shouldnt have named anybody at all :)

by vote if you want Fri May 14, 2004 19:43

Did poor JT write his long thesis for nothing? Come on you will have to do beter than that. Why wasnt JT alowed an appeal to the US Section congress or the CWI World Congress?

by Anarcho Fri May 14, 2004 21:06

I have to admit to finding it funny to see Marxists repeat all the same mistakes they made over 100 years ago. We had this debate when Marx and Bakunin were alive. Social Democracy proved Bakunin was right. So did the German Greens. And here we go again!

A few links for the fuller argument:

"An Anarchist FAQ": J.2 What is direct action?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ2.html

Don't Vote, Organise!
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/vote.html

Making history or just repeating it?
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/left/electoralism.html

by doh! Fri May 14, 2004 21:14

lake bikhail!
came to me later.

by Anarcho Fri May 14, 2004 21:16

"Anarchists believe the source of exploitation happens when people delegate power to others."

The above is true and in no way contradictions the following:

"Socialists believe that it's source is in the extraction of profit from wage labour."

Anarchists are socialists. And how do bosses extract profit from wage labour? It does not "just happen" -- they use their power over the worker to tell them what to do, making them produce more than they get back in wages. If wage labour by itself resulted in exploitation, bosses would not need to boss the workers around and spy on them to ensure they are doing what they are told.

So power in the workplace which results in exploitation. How much exploitation depends on the relative strength between wage slaves and bosses.

"That is the key question and where the source on the different approaches to elections come from."

Not at all. Firstly, our Marxist friend's case is wrong. Secondly, it has nothing to with the reason why anarchists and Marxists have different takes on elections. Anarchists simply look at the logic and results of electioneering and draw the obvious conclusions. It's called the scientific method.

"For me I have one big problem with Anarchists' view of democracy."

perhaps you should find out more about it before rushing to judgment! Have a look at "An Anarchist FAQ" for some discussion:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org

by R. Isible Fri May 14, 2004 21:33

Seeing as this is a good discussion:
Aren't there many edge cases where voting even in a highly undemocratic system can result in a better outcome? I'm thinking about the upcoming US presidential elections and Chomsky's recommendation that Kerry is slightly better than Bush and that slight difference is worth having.

(I know all the reasons why Kerry is nearly as bad: voted PATRIOT Act, wants more troops in Iraq, has Warren Buffet which means he'll slash social services some more, Democrats not distinguishable; _but_ Kerry won't be having the Project for A New American Century people in his team and he's not anti-gay or anti-abortion).

So, even if wasting time doing election work for "left" candidates or even expending thought on them is not good what's wrong with voting for the least repellent and putting all your energy into more worthwhile projects?

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Sat May 15, 2004 02:09

Maybe if we remember that elected representatives are servants not bosses it might overcome scruples about voting. Nobody's perfect but with no immediate prospect of living in an absolutely free world, voting for a better servants of the people is better than allowing the system to keep putting back the usual suspects.
Servants wish to be accountable if they are true servants. Put that type in, instead of the other type.

by oid Sat May 15, 2004 04:49

nature......the survival instinct
In this funny old world you'd have to go back to the very first inhabitants to find anarchism work, even then, it was shortlived, so, in fact we have actually ended up in this divided inequal state having spent 1000's of years to get here.
it's unbelievable to think that having lived through these 1000's of years, humans have not yet worked out that anarchism is the only way.......sure it is, it's utopia, heaven, nirvana etc.. but not humanly possible......even with some form of multiple leadership......and then off we go again, remember, no-body's perfect, there are inherent divisions etc....all that is possible at any given time is the best situation available......it's a long, hard game of reversal, it's going on all the time, but because of the environmental state of our world now, it's the end-game. until again
But at least we can live shamelessly thinking we're improving it as best we can, at this stage of play (which as we all know is pretty bad) pushing the reversal for our decendants, for fuck sake go out and vote there's always gonna be the goodguys and the badguys.......
See you all in hell :)

by Guy Bague Sat May 15, 2004 07:41

My mother made me a homosexual. If you give her the wool, she'll make you one as well.

by MarxistWaldo - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat May 15, 2004 14:19 omaghsocialist at hotmail dot com

that (most) anarchists and Marxists have the same ultimate goal. We both believe in creating a world with no oppressive government, no army, no police force, no currency, no state. A world based on self-regulating communities, free from sexism, racism, homophobia and all other forms of chauvinism, where the resources of society are controlled democratically by the citizens under a planned economy.

We just disagree on how to get there. From my point of view, obviously, the Marxist view is correct. Anarchists believe that we can jump straight from capitalism to this new society, while Marxists believe that the intermediary stage of socialism is necessary. This is because the working class is divided into different states, with different objective conditions, and this means that the proletariat will not revolt simultaneously on a global scale. For me, this is the primary reason why anarchism is incorrect. If one country experienced a proletarian revolution, on an anarchist basis, effective organisation to defend the country from the inevitable onslaught of global capitalism would be almost impossible, and the revolution would soon be crushed. That is why I feel a revolutionary STATE democratically controlled by the people must be established in order to effectively defend the revolution. This revolution, if conditions are correct, will then spread, and once capitalism has been defeated globally and the destruction which capitalism has caused has ben effectively dealt with, the move towards what I would call communism will naturally happen.

However, I do respect the ideas of anarchism and understand a lot of the concerns they have with Marxism. Most anarchists are very genuine people. We all have to remember that we are all comrades in the struggle against the capitalism. THAT is the real enemy!

by Anarcho Sat May 15, 2004 14:41

"Anarchists believe that we can jump straight from capitalism to this new society, while Marxists believe that the intermediary stage of socialism is necessary."

Depends what you mean. Have a look here:

I.2.2 Will it be possible to go straight to an anarchist society from capitalism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI2.html#seci22

As you can see from that part of "An Anarchist FAQ" anarchists are not stupid enough to think we will get to a perfect society overnight.

"This is because the working class is divided into different states, with different objective conditions, and this means that the proletariat will not revolt simultaneously on a global scale."

who said they would? Anarchists from bakunin onwards have argued that a revolution would need to defend itself against counter-revolution:

H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21

if you read that section of "An Anarchist FAQ" you will see that anarchists have never subscribed to the position our Marxist friend says we hold.

"For me, this is the primary reason why anarchism is incorrect. If one country experienced a proletarian revolution, on an anarchist basis, effective organisation to defend the country from the inevitable onslaught of global capitalism would be almost impossible, and the revolution would soon be crushed."

So you do not think that a federation of workers' councils/communes and their militias can defend a revolution? If not, what is needed?

And the example of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, which defended workers' and peasants' autonomy from both red and white dictatorship, shows that it is possible:

H.11 Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH11.html

Hopefully our Marxist friend will take the time to actually read about anarchist theory and practice before making such silly comments about it.

by Sp member Sat May 15, 2004 16:00

Vote if you want - you suggested that SP members should recall Boyd, McLoughlin and Peter Hadden. Peter Hadden has had to stand for election to any positions he holds in the SP every year he has been a member, I think that's about 35 years. Stephen Boyd and Kevin McLoughlin have also had to stand for election every year and they have been members for about 25 years. In all of these elections that have been elected and contrary to postings on Indy by a few people there isn't opposition to these comrades in the SP. They are all held in high respect especially because they have given such long dedicated, service to our party and have never received anything in return they have all sacreficed what many of us take for granted - a decent wage - owning a home -they live in poverty, because they are have decided to dedicate their lives on a full time basis to fighting for socialism.
Unlike the leading members of the SWP they don't have cosy high paid jobs as lecturers or rich Daddys to fund them.
They are "leaders" of the SP because of their political ideas, and their vast experience, and are democratically accountable to the membership. If there was a problem with these comrades they wouldn't get elected. That is the real point of the John Throne story - he was voted out by the membership who no longer supported his ideas and methods. John Throne's expulsion shows that democracy in the CWI works. And to the poster who asked about John Throne's appeal, he was given an appeal, to a world congress, the problem is he didn't turn up!

by David Sat May 15, 2004 16:18

Marxists are still clinging to the idea that it is possible that there be dictatorship of the prolitariat through the medium of some kind of benevolent state which will act in solidarity with the workers?

This is neither possible in theory or practise. It ignores history entirely.

Marxists claim that the socialist state is necessary to defend the workers from counter revolutionary capitalist interests, but the obvious question follows, who will defend the workers from the counter revolutionary workers state?

It is obvious what will happen once power is concentrated through paranoid rulers. They will act as if they alone know whats best for the people and use power of the state to protect their vision for the future, the 5 year plans that must be completed for the good of the country...

While they are waiting for the conditions to be correct (and of course only they can judge when these conditions prevail) they will interfere in the politics of neighbouring countries, shaping their movements to bring them into line with their own. they will make 'real politik' decisions sabbotaging some revolutions that they see as misguided or premature (or they feel would threaten their own position as leaders of the worker movement)

They would claim to be democratic but refuse to allow candidates run for office if they viewed them as agents of capitalism or a threat to the workers state

They would force everyone to read the voice or 'socialist worker' newspaper where they would continue the standard of news that they have been so proud of over the last few years.

Socialism without liberty is slavery.

It is no use arguing that this time it will be different, we have found new leaders who will be much more democratic and willing to operate in a much more open and transparant way... leaders who have no qualms about sabbotaging the anti-war movement through the use of pseudo delegates stuffing ballots and monopolising the media for their own ineffective and undemocratic forms of protest.

by Socker Sat May 15, 2004 17:32

Jesus Christ! "vote if u want" and "sp member" stop mentioning the J**n Th**ne's name for fuck's sake!

I enjoy a dig at the SP or any of the other groups as much as the next guy but I don't enjoy ten thousand word screeds of dullness incarnate all over this website. He hasn't been around for a while, let's not risk changing that. I'm half convinced that he will appear if you say his name three times in a mirror.

This has the potential to be an interesting discussion about elections. Let's keep it that way.

by Orwell spotter Sat May 15, 2004 19:14

I love the idea that expelling dissidents is a demonstration that democracy works - one justification advanced here by an SP member for getting rid of John Throne. This is Doublethink on a grand scale. What next - war is peace; hate is love; famine is plenty; a pound an hour is a living wage.... I suppose the notion that a gag is free speech is enough to be getting on with.

There really is an interesting discussion here, on other issues - however, I note in passing that dishonest mental gymnastics of that kind is precisely the sort of twaddle that has kept the far left Leninist groups in the shrinking, disorientated, fractured state they rather deservedly enjoy today. Honesty in debate is important, but is too often absent in these quarters.

On to more important things....

by MarxistWaldo - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sun May 16, 2004 12:02

Firstly, a revolutionary state would be based upon the workers' and peasants' councils that my anarchist friend referred to. The state would be defended by workers' militia. However, a state is necessary to co-ordinate the defence of the revolution and the economic shift into socialism. While many changes can be co-ordinated at a local level, much would have to be done at a national level.

Also, I'm puzzled about anarchists talking about councils and militia. Obviously, these bodies must have leaders. Every meeting needs a chairperson! Every militia needs a commander! Now, you can say these people would be democratically elected, but they are still essentially leaders. Of course, our leaders would be democratically elected also.

Why is it that people on this site can't particpate in comradely debate? If I misunderstand your ideas, fair enough. Explain them. But there's no need to immediately jump into hostilities just because I don't share your beliefs. If that's the way you talk to ordinary workers, your movement is doomed.

On the subject of John Throne, his removal was not "removal of a dissenter". He was a full-time member and the head of our American section, Socialist Alternative. He was DEMOCRATICALLY removed by a large majority of the AMERICAN MEMBERSHIP. He then asked the International Secretariat of the CWI to reinstate him against the membership's wishes! He subsequently left the organisation, and now spends his time sending out annoying, meaningless e-mails to CWI members about his new "break-away organisation", Labour's Militant Voice. In what way does this show any lack of democracy within the CWI?

by Orwell spotter Sun May 16, 2004 13:11

The subject of John Throne and several of his colleagues, also expelled, has been exhaustively dealt with elsewhere. However, the essenceof the issue to me as an outsider appears to be that this very prominent member of the CWI developed disagreements with the Taaffe leadership, and Taaff'e supporters in the US. For this, he was expelled. Now, you can argue that this is democracy in action if you wish - or that war is peace, hate is love or any other mutually exclusive and inherently contradictory proposition you wish. Everyone is entitled to be wrong, and even to make a system out of it.

But for me, and I suspect for most non-CWI members who look at all closely at the organisation, it is evidence of naked intolerance, authoritarinism and a thoroughly unhealthy and unappealing internal regime. If even senior CWI members get the boot for having political differences with the leadership, no wonder your organisation is bereft of both factions, sustained debates or any other sign of a healthy internal life. And it is precisely this dynamic that keeps you in a sectarian/ cultist existence, utterly unattractive to the majority of working people and labour movement activists. They will never join in large numbers, or stay for any length of time, in an organisation which sees nothing unsual about kicking out people with a different point of view to the leadership.

Organisations that raise concerns about workers rights and democracy forfeit all credibility in such campaigns when they treat their own members in such a revolting fashion. None of it inspires any confidence that a society in which the CWI succeededin seizing power would be anything but a ghastly nightmare.

The CWI is now an insignificant sect, largely because of these issues. And the only point in commenting on it at all, if there is one, is that what they do all the democratic centralist far leftist groups also do. Which is why they are all locked in the same dreadful cycle of irrelevance.

by David Sun May 16, 2004 13:11

In Libertarian style meetings, discussions are controlled through the use of Facilitation techniques, A facilitator is agreed amongst those meeting and his/her job is to keep track of who's turn it is to speak and to keep to an agenda as much as possible. There are simple and well known facilitation guidelines that are easy to teach and empower everybody at a meeting to contribute as equals.

In Workers Militia the leaders would be democratically elected by those he/she would have leadership over. He/she would be on the same pay and status as the other workers and would be instantly recallable if he/she ever lost the confidence of the militia. It worked well in Spain. The Government "popular army", supported by the communists demolished this system, returning rank and uniforms and pay differentials, totally counter revolutionary.

The point about having a state to defend the revolution is that it must necessarily control the army and therefore have a monopoly over force, so that if the state becomes corrupt (and most anarchists believe this to be inevitable) the people will find themselves trapped once again in an oppressive regime with no way out other than another gruelling fight.

Communists claim that when the conditions are right the state will melt away. But the Authoritarian left in Ireland are shown to incredibly conservative when it comes to tactics (with a few notable exceptions) almost always claiming that conditions are not yet right for people to engage in direct action even though they would admit that inevitably this would have to happen in the course of a revolutionary movement.
How could anyone have confidence that the 'workers state' would not be so conservative when it comes to recognising the right conditions to allow it to melt away.

And that includes the grand assumption that melting away is even a real part of Marxist strategy and not just some rhetoric to appease the people in the short term that can always be delayed into the near future.

by alter David Sun May 16, 2004 14:44

David
you say
"And that includes the grand assumption that melting away is even a real part of Marxist strategy and not just some rhetoric to appease the people in the short term that can always be delayed into the near future."

isnt that a little like saying

and that includes the grand assumption that in workers Militia the leaders would be democratically elected by those he/she would have leadership over. He/she would be on the same pay and status as the other workers and would be instantly recallable if he/she ever lost the confidence of the militia is even a real part of anarchists strategy and not just some rhetoric to appease the people in the short term that can always be betrayed into the near future as happened in Spain.

by Anarcho Sun May 16, 2004 20:12

"Firstly, a revolutionary state would be based upon the workers' and peasants' councils that my anarchist friend referred to. The state would be defended by workers' militia."

Under Lenin, the state was defended by the
cheka (secret police) and a regular army (trotsky abolished elected officiers in favour of appointees from above). The Bolsheviks also disbanded any soviets elected with non-Bolshevik majorities.

Does this mean that Lenin's state was not a revolutionary state?

"However, a state is necessary to co-ordinate the defence of the revolution and the economic shift into socialism. While many changes can be co-ordinated at a local level, much would have to be done at a national level."

Which is why anarchists argue for federalism. The state is based on centralising power into a few hands (the 19 members of the central commitee Lenin talked about in Left-wing communism). It does not co-ordinate decisions from below, it imposes them from above.

The greate con of marxism is to confuse coordination with centralism.

"Also, I'm puzzled about anarchists talking about councils and militia."

Why? Anarchists have been doing that since Bakunin in the 1860s. In fact, anarchists have been talking about workers' councils decades before marxists did.

"Obviously, these bodies must have leaders."

Why? Why give power to a few people?

"Every meeting needs a chairperson! Every militia needs a commander! Now, you can say these people would be democratically elected, but they are still essentially leaders."

if the elected person is mandated by the mass assemblies and subject to instant recall then they are not "leaders" as they carry out the wishes of the people. Marxism always confuses a delegate (who carries out instructions) with a representative (who makes decisions on behalf of others).

"Of course, our leaders would be democratically elected also."

surely people considered intelligent enough to pick their masters are intelligent to govern themselves?

"Why is it that people on this site can't particpate in comradely debate? If I misunderstand your ideas, fair enough. Explain them."

We do. Marxists ignore us.

"But there's no need to immediately jump into hostilities just because I don't share your beliefs. If that's the way you talk to ordinary workers, your movement is doomed."

I am an ordinary worker. I am a wage slave. And why do we jump to hostilities? Well, if you see Marxists repeat the same nonsense about anarchism for over 15 years, nonsense easily refuted by looking at anarchist books, you would get a bit hostile to.

I would suggest the following webpage as a start:

H.2 What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 12:11

Dave posted Friday " I know students union elections are hardly comparable to EU or national elections"

This is exactly the point. Most Students Union constitutions include provision for recall and allow for regular mandating of the officers by referendum/assembly/council/officer board. Believe it or not this is very similar to the structures advocated by anarchists, we don't have a problem with student unions election in general and indeed Aileen ran for the TCD presidency back in 1990 (she got 37%)

If there is a difference it would be that we'd see running for such election as being the result of building a significant grassroots struggle with real support. So getting people elected would not be to change policy but to make sure those implementing decisions were supportive of the decisions rather than hostile to them. But again with UCD a good case can be made that this was done first (CFE etc).

Read the thread on the resignation of the DGN press spokespeople for some more on the sort of decisions making mechanisms anarchists favour.

One tiny other point. A SP member above argues that the SP leaders are re-elected every year. All well and good but do you not think having the same people as the leadership for 35 and 20 years suggests some problem? If we were talking of a country having the same president for that sort of period of time we'd assume this was a demonstration that whatever electoral process existed was a rubber stamping exercise rather than a real matter of choice.

by Hector Mon May 17, 2004 12:49

The problem is a matter of slates. At the SP conference each year the outgoing NC nominates the incoming NC! This incoming NC is then "democratically" elected by the conference. THerefore you have a self-perpetuating clique who occasionally make a blood sdacrifice of one of their own. Its not real workers democracy.

by SP Member - SP Mon May 17, 2004 13:04

There are regular changes to the membership of the Socialist Party National Committee. I belive there were 3 or 4 new members this year. We do not have the same individuals there for the past 25 years. In fact there are only 2 members of the National Committee out of 28 that have been members that long, Joe Higgins and Peter Hadden.

Again you are wrong about this idea of a slate. Please refer to the SP constitution. Any branch of the SP can nominate a candidate for the National Committee. The outgoing National Committee can also nominate candidates but at the end of the day the National Conference decides the composition of the National Committee not on the basis of a yes or no vote for a slate but on the basis of votes for individual members.

Not knowing what you talking about really does discredit your arguement.

by escobar Mon May 17, 2004 13:05

At the SP conference any delegate or branch can nominate a candidate for the NC. This has regularly happened.

by Sir. Mixalot Mon May 17, 2004 14:24

While formally any SP branch can nominate a comrade for the national Committee- what happens IN PRACTISE is that the NEC proposes a slate of candidates which is then ALWAYS endorsed as is by Conference.

by voter Mon May 17, 2004 14:28

There's a vote of course. Have you ever read the SP constitution?

by What? Mon May 17, 2004 14:29

Many would like to live in Peter Hadden's poverty.

I do not know where you get that from as he lives in a private semi in a much sought after leafy residential area, with a nice car etc.

I have no problems with that but poverty it is not in comparison to those others in estates around him.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 14:31

Okay, hands up anyone who can think of another political organisation that's had the same leadership for that long?

Go on admit it - you all thought of dictatorships and Trot groups, didn't you?

by You're a troll fool Mon May 17, 2004 14:36

Please read the post above it clearly states:

"There are regular changes to the membership of the Socialist Party National Committee. I belive there were 3 or 4 new members this year. We do not have the same individuals there for the past 25 years. In fact there are only 2 members of the National Committee out of 28 that have been members that long"

The SP leadership has changed alot in the past 25 years. And even is it didn't, so what? what does that prove? Does the SP have to engage in the careerist manoeverings and backstabbings that FF, FG, Labour etc engage in for it to be counted as democratic?

by Me Mon May 17, 2004 14:43

I just love it when a SP member shouts troll.
On a couple of other threads going on at the moment, it is obvious that the SP are trolling and they have to the cheek to call foul here.
Fuck off, until you practice what you preach. Bit like your socialism really, good at the preaching but useless at the practice.

by trollwatch Mon May 17, 2004 14:45

"good at the preaching but useless at the practice"

What about the Bin Tax campaign?

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 14:45

It matter because the SP is organised from the top down. Policy is made and enforced the the committee, and everyone else gets to agree or leave.
The SP organisation distinguishes between leaders and led. And it just so happens that some people are always the leaders, and others are always the led. Nice.

by Pat Mon May 17, 2004 14:47

Ray have you ever been a member of the SP?
If you never were, where does this experience come from?

by Me Mon May 17, 2004 14:48

Is wasn't just yourselves. Unless you believe Kevin's rewriting of history.
Fairly good campaign but not very democratic, mainly due to the fact that the SP thought it was their campaign.

by Tahoma Mon May 17, 2004 14:48

Judging by what George O'Toole says about the undemocratic actions of the WSM in DGN I think Ray should put his own house in order first

by amohat Mon May 17, 2004 14:50

And now we have tahoma back. It looks like all the puppies must be finished in their bourgeois schools of learning.

by Pat Mon May 17, 2004 14:50

How is it that during the bin tax struggle strategy and tactics of the campaign were discussed openly and decided upon in public meetings open to all?

Maybe you only believe it is democracy when it goes your way?

by George O Toole Mon May 17, 2004 14:51

The SP is run by leaders for life and they torture the members into keeping quiet. I am a member who nobody has ever heard of in the party but have been at most of the meetings ever and I know it is all true.

by Me Mon May 17, 2004 14:53

When and where was the meeting that discussed the signing of waivers?

by 'SP troll' Mon May 17, 2004 14:56

Where were all you 'virtual warriors' when it came to building the campaign of non payment, organising blockades, leafletting, canvassing, organising public meetings, facing down the cops, going to court, pressurising the unions, being sent to jail....

Ye were nowhere to be seen.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 14:56

1. I'm not a member of the WSM, haven't been for over two years now. (Though I still support them, and think the 'criticisms' of them in the other thread are laughably transparent)
2. I'm not basing my criticisms of the SP on personal experience, but on the things that have been said about them by SP members. They are a 'democratic centralist' organisation, where policy is made by the central committee, and two of the members of that committee have been there for 25 years. I can't comment on the argument that each committee essentially picks its own successors, but it sounds extremely plausible.

by Anarcho sabbotage Mon May 17, 2004 14:57

Where were the Anarchists when a democratic decision was taken to block the Grangegorman depot for a second day?

by Chekov Mon May 17, 2004 14:57

I think that everybody who was involved in the bin tax campaign realises that there were severe inadequacies when it came to democracy. Blockades called without meetings at very short notice; Blockades cancelled by persons unknown; Steering committee meetings before open meetings to decide the leadership 'line' to be delivered. Certain parties ignoring totally the decisions of open meetings (hint: not the SP this time). Parties controlling local campaigns and effectively debarring members of rival parties. Although there have certainly been less democratic campaigns, this was far from an example of a well functioning democratic campaign.

by David Mon May 17, 2004 14:57

pretending to be a member of the SP and a Member of the DGN and claiming to go to all these meetings with nobody ever knowing you're there. do you wear a disguise or something?

by Chekov Mon May 17, 2004 15:02

You may not think that you are a troll, but you sure sound like one.

QUOTE "Where were all you 'virtual warriors' when it came to building the campaign of non payment, organising blockades, leafletting, canvassing, organising public meetings, facing down the cops, going to court, pressurising the unions, being sent to jail...."

Follow the link to the WSM's bin tax site below and you will get your answer to where the 'virtual warriors' were while all the hard slog was going on - we were in the thick of it. Or maybe the detailed accounts of years of activity in the campaign are merely 'virtual' dreams?

by sdk Mon May 17, 2004 15:04

Didn't see you lot on the second day of the All Dublin blockade.

Or in fingal, or South Dublin, or in Dun Laoghaire........

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 15:14

You SP puppies are such morans that you keep posting lies that are easly disproved. In this latest case the 2nd day of the blockades you were referring to was Oct 15 and if you had checked the archive before posting your latest lie you would have realised that I posted a report from Grangegorman on Oct 15 (its at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61666 ) Other WSM members also posted reports from Grangegorman later that day in the same thread!!

Duh!

by Not amused Mon May 17, 2004 15:14

Well I saw them on the second day. Didn't see any SP at Grangegorman. Even though Kevin M lives nearby, he was in Collins Ave. But then that was when they were still thinking of running a candidate in Finglas.
Stop with the rewriting of history.

by AWOL Mon May 17, 2004 15:19

It is historical fact that the WSM boycotted another blockade at the Davitt Rd depot

by Archivist Mon May 17, 2004 15:21

It is a matter of historical fact that SP members signed waivers with the hated council officials.

by Chekov Mon May 17, 2004 15:21

"Didn't see you lot on the second day of the All Dublin blockade."

Then you must not have been there. "e were. For example, a report from Grangegorman on that day written by a WSM member:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61666

"Or in fingal"

We have no members at the moment resident in Fingal. On the other hand we did try to take part in the blockades there before they spread to the rest of the city. Details of the location of blockades was unforthcoming for whatever reason.

"or South Dublin"

Maybe you never met the WSM member who was on the co-ordinating committee of the South Dublin campaign and did an awful lot of the initial work in setting up the campaign over 3 years. Sadly he went away just before the crisis broke.

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2003/ws75/bintax.html

"or in Dun Laoghaire........"

Once again, easily refuted:

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/binsDLDEC.html.html

Why bother throwing all this mud around when you just prove how little you know? Take what your leaders tell you with a hefty pinch of salt, my little puppy.

by Chekov Mon May 17, 2004 15:26

What is this, "lie about the anarchists day"?

"It is historical fact that the WSM boycotted another blockade at the Davitt Rd depot"

Historical fact my ass. Historical fact like the way Stalin was universally loved by the people, maybe. Your stream of lies without any attempt to back them up with evidence across multiple articles is shameful.

by Brian C. - SP (personal capacity) Mon May 17, 2004 15:44

Many of the regular users of this site, of all political views, never cease to amaze me with their inability to identify and ignore a troll.

Three quarters of the last twenty or so posts have been anonymous. Most of them have contained attacks on left organisations of one kind of another. The best thing to do with such posts is to ignore them. It is impossible to know who any anonymous poster is and when someone posts anonymous attacks on a left group it is abundantly clear that they are trying to stir shit. If they were honestly raising genuine criticisms, they would do so under their own names.

I have no idea if the anonymous people claiming all kinds of rubbish about how the Socialist Party elects its leadership body are anarchists or not. Neither do I care. I have no idea if the anonymous person trying to rubbish (pardon the pun) the WSM's small but valuable contribution to the anti-bin tax campaign is a foolish member of the Socialist Party or someone else trying to create bad blood. Given that the WSM was mostly on the same side as the SP in major debate within the campaigns, I suspect the latter but I don't really care either.

All of you should know better than to get involved in this kind of thread. It makes everybody look ridiculous and it just encourages the trolls to continue their behaviour. How long have people like Chekov, Joe and Tahoma been contributing to this site? The trolls have become a little more sophisticated in their behaviour, I realise, but you really should know better than to give them the satisfaction of rising to this kind of shit.

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 16:03

Brian unfortunately the sort of mud your troll has been throwing is of the variety that may stick unless you go to the bother of scrapping it off. It's a nasty job but someone has to do it and it would be a lot easier if the filthy puppy concerned was house trained. His habit of shitting all over the place and then running straight home is doing your reputation a lot of damage even though you come out and try to disown him afterwards.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 16:24

The WSM and other left-wing anarcho-sydicalist movements engage in Nadairesque (Bush is better than Gore as he’ll show how bad it can be) electoral ideas.

This is never overt as it would be too damaging to their pr drive (and as we have all seen they are keen students of pr). They seek to dissuade those who would vote for leftist candidates on the grounds that these are another version of bosses in an unequal and unfair power relation (leaving aside the political and philosophical impossibility of the removal of power relations). By so doing they allow right-wing, capitalist candidates to gain a slight lead (slight only because of the feebleness of anarchist movements) this in turn leads to more suffering for the workers and a big pay day for the bosses. This serves these left-wing anarchists well as they can operate in a world of suffering and their ideas can gain currency. However for the rest of us who find ourselves in this world for a brief spell and want to make the most of it life gets worse. We want to make are lives better incrementally and if this means voting for the 'better' over the 'worse' so be it.

I encourage everyone to forget about self-serving theoretical ideals and engage in making the world a slightly better place.

by Brian Mon May 17, 2004 16:30

You unfortunately have that wrong. I used to take the view that when someone threw lies and abuse at the Socialist Party on this site that it should be answered. And let's be clear, the Socialist Party is on the receiving end of a lot more of this kind of crap than the WSM is. I took the view that if you allowed smears to be spread unchallenged then eventually they would be accepted as truth.

What actually happens though when you try to respond to a troll is that you quickly discover that this site is not designed for serious discussion. It is designed for news stories and peer review of those stories.

Its very structure makes it incredibly easy for a determined troll to cause a great deal of trouble. There are no limits on how often you can post, other than the time you are willing to devote to it. There are no limits on the number of fictional identities you can create, other than your imagination. Similarly there are no limits to the lies you can spread, other than the reaches of your own malice. Responding to trolling only makes the situation worse. The troll succeeds both in wasting your time and in making you look like an idiot for being involved in a ridiculous argument.

A sophisticated troll won't even make straightforwardly anonymous attacks on his (or her) target. Instead he will post as a member of another group. Or better still he will post something foolish and aggressive while posing as a member of his target group. As I've pointed out here before I have been impersonated on more than two dozen occasions. One of those impersonations even made me laugh because it was quite clever, but the vast bulk of them have just consisted of people using my name to write attacks on other groups or people. Other members of the SP have been impersonated on many more occasions than I have.

That makes me very skeptical when an anonymous poster, claiming to be in the SP, suddenly pops up to post an attack on someone else. It could be an idiot (like any other large group of people we have some of those) or it could be a sophisticated troll. It doesn't really matter.

The best way to kill the trolls is to deny them the oxygen of controversy. Don't respond to them. If they try spreading their filth over multiple threads, demanding a response, remind the editors that such behaviour is against the guidelines. Just don't do what they want you to do - which is to get into rancorous and pointless denunciations of each other.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 16:43

Stop all this bleedin' talk of trolls and anti-trolls and the best way of dealing with trolls. Every time an interesting debate starts the same process ensues. First good strong points then a bit of slagging which is maybe trolling but then self-important spas start arguing over the best way to deal with trolls.

The trolls I can deal with but you muppets need to stop.

[Editor delete this and all posts concerning how to deal with trolls please]

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 16:51

Thanks for putting us back on topic 'sense'.

Your analysis is however wrong. The only 'left' movement I'm aware of that openly engaged in that sort of 'the worse the better' strategy was leninism in the 1930's when the wing around Stalin reacted to the growth of fascism with the slogan 'After Hitler, us". Arguably there were some echos of this in the 1960's 'Pigs in the park' idea (you provoked police repression in order to demonstrate how bad the state was and therefore radicalise people).

Anarchism has a long history and has survived some pretty fierce periods of repression. In fact the term 'libertarian' emerged from one such period, after the Paris commune it became illegal to even promote anarchism as an idea so many French anarchists began to promote 'libertarian commmunism' instead.

Anyone who is aware of the history of that repression would be an idiot to adopt a 'worse the better' strategy as they would know that real repression can destroy not only the anarchist movement but all workers organisation. The US backed military dictatorships that crushed the workers movements in Latin American in the 1970's did not radicalise the population (it was already radicalised). It did mean that instead of fighting for radical change many were willing to accept a return to (neoliberal) ' democracy'.

We say there is very little difference between those who would rule us because there is very little difference between those who would rule us. If you want to make the world a slightly better place (as we also do, we just also want to make it a lot better place) then you do this through struggle not through selecting the better ruler. Most of the time the policies that are set by various governments have less to do with their ideological make up than with the needs of capitalism intersecting the level of working class struggle. As above that is why in one period both right and left nationalise while in another period both right and left privitise.

This is the general pattern, one in which it makes little difference if Kerry or Bush is elected because both are committed to US imperialist interests and both will fight the war as long as those interests want the war. As already stated sometimes the difference is of such a maganitude (eg 1994 South African elections which were in effect also a 'referendum' on apartheid) that anarchists don't run abstention campaigns. Another example of this would be the 1934 Spanish elections, the anarchists went into these with 30,000 political prisoners and as a left victory would result in the release of many of them there was no organised abstention campaign of note.

BTW the reference to Nader is pretty odd as anarchists don't vote for him either. It does demonstrate the problem of the 'lesser of two evils' logic, in the US it has built a powerful trap where alternating right wing parties run the show and every attempt to create an electoral alternative crumbles when it threatens to allow the worse of the two in.

by Fujishock Mon May 17, 2004 16:52

I was at home recently in Dublin South West and was talking to few of the lads down the pub about the upcoming local and European elections. All of my friends have been in full time employment since they were 15,16 and are not politically active in the general sense of the term. Interestingly enough a few of them said they were not voting or are going to spoil their votes. I asked them why? The obvious answer was " because they are all the same, dont trust any of them, whats the difference? False promises, heard it all before, government means nothing to me". I found this very interesting, admittedly they have not read any of the manifestos yet it is a striking reality how indifferent and how disenchanted thier lives are from the government. regardless of what government it is, if a party does not organise democratically it is ridiculous to think they will deliver democracy when in power.

This is a very simple reality that little political knowledge is needed to provide....the structures of government are designed to enhance the power of a party and the ordinary Joe accepts that they will abuse it. Hence voting once every couple of years to an individual that is unaccountable to his/her electorate, can change their policies as soon as they get into power, have no clear mandate, is not democracy, it is a repetitive process that was designed to make people believe their vote will make a difference when it will not.

Working on a building site for most people means their lives are orientated around the work place. Some bloke that knocks on your door and tells you he is from whatever party means very little to the average punter. They are alienated from the electoral process, it is obvious that there political activity should be carried out by them and not in their name in the workplace. The electoral process and the government neutralises the power of the people as it offers them one route to express their democratic energy. The party they elect are already restricted by policies made in an undemocratic EU. One voice at the european roundtable of industrialists is more powerful than most parties in Europe and it will not be muted by a political party. It will be muted by a political comitment by the people to an alternative form of democracy...participatory democracy at the lowest possible level. Democracy does not exist. Handing over your voice to a party member once every few years who is not accountable and whom you will unlikely hear from again until the next election is a process that adds to the alienation of people from government and hence drives them to come to the logical conclusion " fuck them all"... the question for me is how to get people to say " fuck them all and lets organise ourselves , we do not need to be led". Political organisation is vital but as a libertarian i will be exercising my democratic right to vote by not voting because i know none of them offer a sustainable alternative.

Granted some parties are active as a party in the community particularly Sinn Fein in working class dublin but so were Fianna Fail at one stage. Also i admit my opinion is very Dublin orientated. Equally i commend the efforts made by those in political parties but i sincerely believe that when it comes to the battle of ideas Libertarianism outweighs the authoritarian left by a long shot and ordinary people people strive to it because it is based on freedom and tolerance not dogmatism and vanguardism. Most people are anarchists in their day to day relations, everybody dislikes authority and most are affected by patriarchy, they key is how to focus this energy into a ploitical commitment. I know it will not be done in a political party because the party is based around the very principles we are trying to remove hence it is patronising to ask us to remove our core political principles and beliefs to vote for someone we believe regardless of their intentions faces the same doom. The question of the constitutional referendum is different, i shall be voting No and i will encourage others to do so because it is a direct change to the policy of immigration in the country i live, my vote will make a differnce but as for the government itself....the fact that the referendum is being held constitutes the dangers of parliamentary democracy that one individual that was not elected to the post of justice, he was appointed, carries no mandate and is unaccountable for each individual policy can impinge his ideology on the rest of us.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 17:10

This is interesting historical perspective but it doesn't address the truth that if I want to make my life better I should vote.

Left-wing anarchism as espoused by the WSM is great; it sounds like a wonderful place where my concerns are met by a recallable, representative, body that is reactive, in a real way, to my needs. However no anarchist that I know believes that we will see this future any time soon. In fact many modern Marxist theorists see the problems as insurmountable. So I'm left with the simple choice - do what I can to make my life and the lives of the oppressed around me better in every way I can including voting for my candidate or abstain and allow life to get a little worse.

To say that struggle outside of the system is the only way towards change is childish, we must work with the world we find in front of us and not in a 'Walter Mitty' world. There is a difference between Joe Higgins and Royston Brady.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 17:22

How *exactly* will voting improve your life? I'd like some details, please, and I'd like your explanation of how these improvements couldn't happen unless you voted.

(If you are running for election and are looking forward to a cushy job, consider my question withdrawn)

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 17:33

Unfortunately you seem to be retreating into attacks on your opponent rather than your opponents arguments. If anarchism is fantasy or childish then it should be easy enough for you to go beyond stating this as FACT to showing why this is the case.

The point is not that Roystan Brady and Joe Higgins are the same, the point is that voting for either will have little or no impact on your life. Brady is a rightwing idiot from the ruling party, Joe is a leftwinger with no hope of power and so no hope of being able to do anything for you. The idea of voting for Higgins as a short term solution makes no sense.

This is one of the problems at the heart of the electoral strategy. Getting votes or even getting elected is pretty meaningless unless you have some chance of making policy. But making policy requires you get into power, either as the ruling party or in coalition.

The parties know this and the electorate know this which is what brought the PDs back from the dead. So a vote for Joe (who won't be going into coalition anytime in this decade) makes NO sense as a short term solution. It only makes sense in a 'more votes for Joe = more publicity = more SP councillors = more publicity = more SP TDs = more publicity = more SP TD's = ???' Something that at the very least is spanning two or more decades.

Anarchist also want to win small changes but we believe these are always won through struggle and that a struggle that is slef-managed rather than based on 'a few good men' also builds for a free society.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 17:33

Ray you delude yourself if you can honestly think that elections and elected officials have no power to change our lives for the better or the worse. In fact Joe, another earnest anarchist, pointed out the '34 Spanish elections and the '94 South African elections.

So it is easy to see how elections to a parliamentary body can change people’s lives, in a general sense, for the better.

In my case it's not as clear, I would be entering a protest vote at best and not voting for those likely to be in power. However the benefit of having a man on a council or a parliamentary committee or even in a cabinet should not be overlooked. If a culture of capitalist agreement grows on a council where there are no nah sayers we are all worse off. I think that Joe Higgins has done a sterling Job in the Dail by fighting and attempting to embarrass the powers that be. We would all be worse off with him.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 17:40

You said that if you want to make your life better you should vote. How will voting make your life better?

"I would be entering a protest vote at best and not voting for those likely to be in power."

and this would make your life better?

"the benefit of having a man on a council or a parliamentary committee or even in a cabinet should not be overlooked"

How will voting give you control of a man on a council, parliamentary committee, or even a cabinet? You do realise that you can go ask this bloke for whatever you want anyway - he has no way of knowing whether you voted for him or not.

"I think that Joe Higgins has done a sterling Job in the Dail by fighting and attempting to embarrass the powers that be. "

And Joe will stop fighting the powers that be if he loses his seat? Or you'll sit back and leave it to him if he wins?

by qwerty Mon May 17, 2004 17:42

Has Joe having a seat in the Dail not been of some assistence to the left in this country?

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 17:48

Higgins gains local power through his constituency office and the committees he sits on in the Dail, he also allows a message to be delivered to those in power and to the public at large. I’m not claiming that anarchism is childish or fantasy just the section of the view that believes that we should not engage with the world as it is but as it should be. For example what’s the most effective way to get rid of a tax like the bin tax? Anarchists will argue that struggle in the streets is not only the best way but the only way we should go about it. However there is no doubt that combining this type of protest with an electoral strategy is best. This returns to my original point; anarchists are blinded by theory and those of us in the real world have to get on with making it a better place by any means available.

by Joe Mon May 17, 2004 17:54

Bad example sense. Even if all 30 people running on an anti-bin tax ticket were to be elected they would find themselves powerless to abolish the charge.

Your example in fact demonstrates the problem of electoralism, creating the illusion that change is possible by that route when it is not. Not to mention the way electoral rivalary weakened the campaign itself by splitting it into competing fiedoms based on electoral wards. Win or lose we'd have been better off without the local elections on this issue for sure.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 17:56

Qwerty it has, but as I point out Ray is blinded by a theory and anything that falls outside the ground set up by that theory offends him. Ray I think that we can all agree that having people in office that are sympathetic to the ideas of the left is of great benefit. Look at Joe’s arrest during the bin tax campaign, do you think if he were a lowly serf anyone would have cared? While he may not know that I voted for him my vote will have got him there assuming the election is fair. Electing a candidate that reflects my views will make a difference, however small, to my life and that’s all that concerns me not the advance of a theory.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 17:57

"Higgins gains local power through his constituency office and the committees he sits on in the Dail, he also allows a message to be delivered to those in power and to the public at large."

You still haven't explained how this benefits you, or explained why Higgins couldn't deliver the same message from outside the Dail. (yeah, it gives him a platform, but if the SP put as much effort into building him a platform outside the Dail as they do on getting him elected...)

"I’m not claiming that anarchism is childish or fantasy just the section of the view that believes that we should not engage with the world as it is but as it should be. "

Tell me one anarchist who has said this.


For example what’s the most effective way to get rid of a tax like the bin tax?

The same way the water tax was defeated - by making it impossible to collect.

You started this by saying that you wanted your vote to improve your life. Honestly, do you think your vote will defeat the bin tax?

by Chekov Mon May 17, 2004 18:02

QUOTE "Higgins gains local power through his constituency office and the committees he sits on in the Dail"

I don't know what his constituency office has to do with electoralism - surely he could run one even if he never ran for election.

On every single committee in the dail there is a right wing majority - hence no power there for joe.

QUOTE: "he also allows a message to be delivered to those in power and to the public at large"

Again, I fail to see how he would be prevented from delivering a message if he was not in the Dail Socialist and alternative voices generally get heard in the media when there is a major struggle going on. How much coverage of Joe's utterances on the Bin tax was there in the media before September 2003? How much in the following month? (the answer is none, loads btw). The coverage of the issue was not affected by the fact that Joe was in the Dail, it was affected by the levels of struggle. In this way, having a figurehead like Joe in the Dail is a bad thing. People come to believe that the public exposure that an issue gets is down to his work, rather than the broader struggle. If there were anarchists in the Dail, the only difference in the coverage of Mayday in the media would have been that the TD would have been the spokesperson by default instead of whoever was mandated to be it.

QUOTE: "For example what’s the most effective way to get rid of a tax like the bin tax? Anarchists will argue that struggle in the streets is not only the best way but the only way we should go about it. However there is no doubt that combining this type of protest with an electoral strategy is best."

This is argument by assertion and is worthless. Far from there being 'no doubt' about the best strategy, most of the non-party bin tax activists (and some who are even running for election) agree that the electoral diversion in the campaign in recent months has been disasterous. Explain to me again, how even a good electoral showing is going to get rid of the bin tax?

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 18:02

I don't know if your right about the tactical split, I'd argue this was caused by lack of leadership and agreement on direction. If everyone had been committed to using every mean possible to defeat the tax and anarchists hadn't been blinded by theory then maybe the split wouldn't have occurred.

While all 30 running on an 'axe the tax' ticket may not change the law there is no doubt they will be more effective than the campaign so far which has achieved nothing.

by Bill - none Mon May 17, 2004 18:03

I dont think the SP, SWP, WCA or ISN as well as the various anti bin tax independents give the illusion that real change can be won through elections.

I know that the SP, who have a TD position and a couple of cllrs, don't do so, there position is (please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not a SPer) that electiosn wont change the world workers taking control and ownership of the economy will but that elections can be used and the positions that arise from them can be used as platforms for spreading your ideas and for mobilising people. The SWP have a similar position. In my view you must look at the source of oppression, someone said this previously but I'll repeat them, Anarchists seem to believe that the source of oppression in society is at the point at which people delegate power to their leaders. The SP and SWP argue that the source of oppression is in the private ownership of property.

I think therefore the Anarchist view is more electoralist. They are the ones obsessed with elections? Have I taken this up wrong? If you beleive that delegating power is the source of the worlds problems then can we end oppression by just adjusting how we organise elections and government? This is the question that needs to be answered by anarchists in my view.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 18:07

And here's why anarchists oppose electoralism. You're happy to continue with a system that makes some people - TDs - more important than other people - everyone else. Joe Higgins getting arrested is news, anybody else getting arrested is meaningless. Joe Higgins saying something in the Dail is important. Other people saying the same thing outside the Dail can be ignored.
But you are the one ignoring facts to fit your theory. How many people had heard of Mary Kelly, or the CW5, before they were arrested? Did they get any less coverage in the news because they weren't TDs?
And besides, you are ignoring the opportunity cost of elections. Joe Higgins didn't get elected because of some spontaneous feeling in Dublin West. He got elected because the SP spents years building his profile, and pushing his name, and then in the end he managed to divert activity and get a boost in recognition from the (already successful) anti-water charges campaign. All of that work - and I'm sure the SP will tell you it was a lot of work - could have been put into other campaigns, but it wasn't.
Elections don't get you anything that you couldn't get through other means. But they mean you don't have the time, energy, or money to devote to those other means. And you're stuck with perpetuating a distinction between the important people with their hands on the levers of power, and everyone else whose job it is to choose their rulers and cheer them on from the sidelines.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 18:13

"Anarchists seem to believe that the source of oppression in society is at the point at which people delegate power to their leaders. The SP and SWP argue that the source of oppression is in the private ownership of property. "

No, anarchists believe that the source of oppression in society is some people having power over others. One such source of power is the private ownership of property. Another source of power is the control of the state - deciding who will get arrested, who will get the dole, who will be deported.

The lessons of history are clear on this. Even when socialists abolished private property, oppression didn't go away, because those who held state power wanted to keep it (and right from the beginning those who held state power in Russia used it to accumulate economic advantage). At the same time, we can see that people who have economic power try to exercise state power, through bribes and economic threats.

Trying to get rid of one but not the other is like trying to get rid of the chicken but not the egg.

by Sense Mon May 17, 2004 18:24

Chekov comes out and says that people are stupid, ‘People come to believe that the public exposure that an issue gets is down to his work, rather than the broader struggle’ and can’t read the press. I never believed this nor did anyone I spoke to, I say Joe was a key element of the fight as he was in an elevated position in society as it is. However I never disregard the work on the ground as I know no one man is a movement.

A good electoral showing will invigorate a campaign and allow people to get power. Once in power they can make decisions that will change our lives incrementally for the better. The anarchist position offends me because it forces theory onto struggle which may not be the best tactic. Sometimes of course it will be exactly the same however sometimes abandoning theory for pragmatism makes sense. If we elect anti-war td’s and they become government then we will make a difference however small.

by SP Member Mon May 17, 2004 21:56

How can voting make a difference?

Anarchists may not realise it but working class people are certainly aware of the fact, that the vote Joe Higgins received in the Dublin West by-election in 1996 was an important stepping stone towards the abolition of the water charges. This is not to say that the election was solely responsible, but, the result of the by-election scared the be-jazes out of the establishment politicians. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

This is not to say that the water charges would not have been defeated without the by-election but in the way events panned out it was a very important factor and working class people recognised it as such and as a result turned out to vote for Joe.

Incidentally, the WSM told people not to votr for Joe Higgins because he would sell-out.

by anarcho Mon May 17, 2004 22:41

"In my view you must look at the source of oppression, someone said this previously but I'll repeat them,"

I suppose I had better repeat the answer again, as obviously Marxists have problems reading what anarchists write.

"Anarchists seem to believe that the source of oppression in society is at the point at which people delegate power to their leaders. The SP and SWP argue that the source of oppression is in the private ownership of property."

You would think that 70 years of state capitalism in Russia under Lenin and then Stalin would have forced Marxists to realise that private ownership of property is not the source of oppression. You can get rid of it and still have oppression. Even if you like Lenin, you have to admit that the Russian workers were obviously oppressed under Stalinism. Or do you? If we take our Marxist's comment at face value, then we would have to conclude that the Russian workers were not oppressed regardless of the facts!

And to repeat my point, oppression and exploitation does not "just happen." It happens because the boss has power over the worker and organises the workplace to ensure that the worker produces more than they get earned. That is obvious. If "private ownership of property" was sufficient you would not get bosses moaning about workers being lazy and unproductive.

"I think therefore the Anarchist view is more electoralist. They are the ones obsessed with elections?"

It would not be an issue expect we continually see Marxists urging us to repeat the mistakes of the past and use tactics which have continually failed in the past. We have the German Social Democrats and Greens as classic examples of electioneering deradicalising left-wing parties, yet Marxists want us to keep on making the same mistakes!

"Have I taken this up wrong? If you beleive that delegating power is the source of the worlds problems then can we end oppression by just adjusting how we organise elections and government?"

We end oppression when those subject to power revolt and destroy it. That cannot be done via elections, in fact the opposite as electioneering builds illusions that we can free ourselves by picking better politicians to act for us.

Real change comes from below, by direct action and solidarity. Electioneering drains time and energy away from constructive activity in our workplaces and communities.

I would suggest reading some of the articles I linked to. Perhaps by understanding the anarchist argument we can get some debate going which does not involve anarchists having to correct Marxists about what anarchists think!

by Anarcho Mon May 17, 2004 22:46

"Anarchists may not realise it but working class people are certainly aware of the fact, that the vote Joe Higgins received in the Dublin West by-election in 1996 was an important stepping stone towards the abolition of the water charges. This is not to say that the election was solely responsible, but, the result of the by-election scared the be-jazes out of the establishment politicians. To suggest otherwise is laughable."

so the mass direct action did not scare the establishment politicians? That it was just the election of one socialist? Wow. I never thought I would see a Marxist dismiss the importance of collective action so...

"This is not to say that the water charges would not have been defeated without the by-election but in the way events panned out it was a very important factor and working class people recognised it as such and as a result turned out to vote for Joe."

So "working class people" (as if WSM members and other anarchists are not working class!) have Joe to thank for the defeat of the water charges. Great. What a message. Direct action does not matter, voting for socialists is the key!

Which confirms the anarchist critique of electioneering, that it places the emphasis on a few leaders acting for you rather than build a mass movement which involved the people in their own liberation.

"Incidentally, the WSM told people not to votr for Joe Higgins because he would sell-out."

The anarchist argument is that over time electioneering deradicalises the party which uses it. The German Social Democrats did not become opportunists overnight. But why bother with such minor things as learning from history!

Who knows. In 100 years radicals may be having this argument again, this time about the voting for the socialist alternative to the SP!

by SP member Tue May 18, 2004 00:28

"so the mass direct action did not scare the establishment politicians? That it was just the election of one socialist? Wow. I never thought I would see a Marxist dismiss the importance of collective action so..."

First point Joe Higgins was not elected in the Dublin West By-Election

Read what I wrote
"This is not to say that the water charges would not have been defeated without the by-election but in the way events panned out it was a very important factor and working class people recognised it as such and as a result turned out to vote for Joe."

Mass action was crucial in building the campaign. Without it the water charges would not have been defeated. Is that clear enough for you!!!!!!

However, there is no guarantee that without the result in the Dublin West by-election that the anti-water charges campaign would have been successful. The by-election arose at an opportune time that allow the anger of working class people to be channelled into making an impact where right-wing politicians fear it most - their political careers. Anyone who attended the count for the by-election would have been aware that the politicians (and there were lots of them there) were clearly worried that the campaign could now extend to threatening their seats at the general election. It was no surprise that they were abolished before the general election took place.

"So "working class people" (as if WSM members and other anarchists are not working class!) have Joe to thank for the defeat of the water charges. Great. What a message. Direct action does not matter, voting for socialists is the key! "

The working class can take the credit for the defeat of the water charges. The working class backed the anti-water charges campaign and used the weapons at its disposal, including voting, to defeat it. Direct action is vital and is one of many tactics that can be imployed in the class struggle. It appears to me that all anarchists can say is "Direct Action, Direct Action and nothing but direct action" sounds a bit like "sell the paper and recruit"

Anarchists rabbit on about voting changes nothing!!!!! Unlike anarchists the working class know the value of using every means at its disposal to achieve victory.

I can't comment on whether members of the WSM and other anarchists are working class people I don't know that many, although the Pheonix has commented on it recently. However, anarchists I do know tend to be all over the place in terms of political ideas and tactics.

Finally,

"The anarchist argument is that over time electioneering deradicalises the party which uses it. The German Social Democrats did not become opportunists overnight. But why bother with such minor things as learning from history!"

Gregor Kerr told people not to vote for Joe Higgins because he would sell them out. Fortunately, the working class people of Dublin West ignored him and the WSM. Maybe Anarcho can tell us how long it will be before Joe Higgins sells out? has he done it yet? has he given any signs of selling out? has he ever stated that revolution can be achieved through the parliamentary road? has he ever back a national bourgeoisie in time of war?

by Joe Tue May 18, 2004 11:59

For those confused we have 3 people repeating the standard SP 'line on anarchism'. I describe it this way because it is a weird take on anarchism that only the SP put forward, not only has it little or no relation to anarchism but it is also different from the weird take that the SWP put forward.

Leaving aside what anarchists actually say about elections (rather than what the SP leadership tell the SP membership we say, go do some research guys, its all online) lets look at two claims that have not been dealt with so far on this thread.

1. The water tax and the by-election
One damaging aspect of electoralism is that it takes the victory away from the people and hands it to an individual or group of individuals. The claim that the 1996 Dublin west byelection had a significant role in defeating the bin tax is a case in point. In fact the tax was pretty much defeated by late 1995 if not yet abolished. This is what we wrote in Workers Solidarity at the start of 1996

"1995 WILL BE seen as the beginning of the end for the hated double taxation water charges in Dublin and throughout the country. For the first time in almost a decade, the year closed without a single water disconnection for non-payment in the entire country. This fact is a tremendous tribute to the hundreds of campaign activists who have been busy fighting the charges for almost two years in Dublin and for much longer in many other areas. As the campaign faces into the new year, much remains to be done but great heart can be taken from the successes of the last number of months."

2. What we actually said about Joe

We didn't urge people not to endorse Joe because he would 'sell out'. Anyone who has read this far will realise the anarchist critique of electoralism has very little to do with 'selling out', this is the trot put down for their rivals. This is what we actually said

"Water Charges
Watch where you step

After the 'success' of the Dublin West by-election where Joe Higgins (running as Militant Labour but widely identified in the election with the Anti-Water Charges Campaign) came within a few hundred votes of winning it seems the campaign has reached a cross roads. On the night of the count itself activists were declaring that come the general election the anti-Water Charge candidates would be running in every Dublin constituency. In fact no decision has been made as yet on running candidates by the campaign but it would seem this is now an unavoidable issue for the campaign to deal with.

To many this would seem the logical next step. We are taught after all that the best way to solve our problems to elect someone else to do it for us. Surly a dozen candidates in the next general election, with half of them getting elected could only do the campaign good. Refusing to stand in the elections could only be seen as an act of madness?

Perhaps, but on the other hand the campaign has stepped outside normal behaviour before. Most commentators considered the idea of mass non-payment a joke until recently when it became clear that we were not backing down in the face of court threats. But it was this mass non-payment that built the campaign (and indeed was the basis of Joe's vote).

There will of course be those who claim that the elections are just one other tactic that can be used. This might sound good in the abstract but in reality they would destroy the strength of the campaign as it moved from mobilising the mass of people to getting a tiny minority elected by the passive act of ticking a ballot paper. Almost as bad it would also represent a massive squandering of energy and resources, look at how much the by-election took up alone despite the fact it was Militant Labour and not the campaign itself that was running. Look how this took away from the mobilisation for today's march.

In many ways the establishment would be more then happy to see the campaign diverted away from the path of mass disobedience and down the safe road of electoral politics. The question is, will we allow this diversion?

As Anarchists we think electoral politics are a sham to trick ordinary people into believing they have power and influence over their 'leaders'. In many ways the whole issue of service charges underlines the nature of this sham as every political party has managed to run on both an anti-service charge platform and take part in the imposition of service charges. While in Limerick city mass non-payment defeated the charges, in Cork, where a majority of anti-charge councillors were elected, the establishment soon found ways to buy a sufficient number of these people off to bring in a charge anyway. There's an old saying fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

The real strength of the campaign, and it is a strength that cannot be bought off, is in the mass involvement of ordinary people. It's also a strength that is not just on this issue for its given us both confidence and contacts to act on things that affect us in the future. All this will be squandered if we go down the electoral path.

In many ways the best result for those of us who oppose involvement in the elections would have been if Joe Higgins was elected. The sight of him twiddling his thumbs in the Dail [or making passionate speeches to an empty room] would have underlined that this was no way to change things.

In the near future the campaign will be faced with a choice. To continue on the basis of mass mobilisation, non-payment and defiance of the state and its institutions. Or to seek to make a few campaign 'leaders' part of the state and so try to cause the state to reform itself. If the second (and wrong) choice is made it will be a big step backwards, not only for the campaign but for the organisation of the working class in Ireland as a whole."

by SP Member Tue May 18, 2004 20:04

The SP know nothing about anarchism....

I could also claim that from the comments here the WSM and anarchists in general know nothing about the SP, how it operates and how it campaigns in working class communities.

I am not going to go into a long reponse on the article that was copied and pasted but I will address two short points. I will repeat once again as you clearly didn't understand it the last time....Gergor Kerr told people not to vote for Joe Higgins BEFORE THE BY-ELECTION not after the by-election and before the general election that this article addresses.

Secondly "While in Limerick city mass non-payment defeated the charges, in Cork, where a majority of anti-charge councillors were elected, the establishment soon found ways to buy a sufficient number of these people off to bring in a charge anyway"

In fact with this quote you confirm the SP position instead of disproving it. It confirms the need for the building of a mass party of the working class and a mass revolutionary party. Oh but them I forgot "anarchism good, socialist parties (without capitals) bad"

by fuinseog Tue May 18, 2004 20:35

I accept that the process is one where electoral parties are encouraged become less radical in an attempt to appeal to more voters. Therefore if the most radical people don't vote, the most radical parties either become less radical or less strong.

None of the above takes away from critiques of the electoral system. All I'm pointing out is that abstaining makes the operation of that system worse.

by R. Isible Tue May 18, 2004 20:50

and somewhat similar to the one that I asked above (see URI below). I accept most of the criticism of elections above, but they all seem to be based on the belief that anyone voting is going to whole-heartedly believe that this is going to be all that they have to do and that they'll get sucked into party building.

Aren't there cases where voting against the worse candidate _and_ continuing more effective and radical actions is useful?

by Politics Student - UCD Tue May 18, 2004 21:36

The thesis that electoral politics always leads to deradicalisation is flawed.

It is based on 3 assumptions that are not correct.

1. That if one plots public opinion along a Left-Right axis it will be the shape of a bell curve with most people gathered in the middle and few on the extremes. this is a very flawed conception. Public opinion can't really be graphed like that. Public opinion and political views of individuals are continually changing. someone can go from being a PD to supporting the SP and changes like this can in certain conditions happen quite rapidly. Opinion can't also be graphed that simply it is far more complex.

2. It is assuming that political parties will always seek more votes regardless of the ideology of the party. For some parties electoral success may not be their prime goal. This can be seen in the SP or the SWP. For these parties winning votes is secondary to the message they are putting out, these parties will not thend to water down their politics to gain votes.

3. It assumes that watering down politics and moving to the centre will gain more votes. It discounts the fact that sometimes if a bold stance is taken people will support it. Parties can lead the people to a certain extent

by j26 Tue May 18, 2004 23:11

I'm afraid I'll have to challenge you on those UCD Student

"1. That if one plots public opinion along a Left-Right axis it will be the shape of a bell curve with most people gathered in the middle and few on the extremes. this is a very flawed conception. Public opinion can't really be graphed like that. Public opinion and political views of individuals are continually changing. someone can go from being a PD to supporting the SP and changes like this can in certain conditions happen quite rapidly. Opinion can't also be graphed that simply it is far more complex."

Although it can be skewed one way or the other - public opinion is generally pretty much a bell shaped curve. It may lean to the left or the right, but generally the majority of people are not too far off centre.
An individual can change radically over time - even pretty much instantly. A catastrophic or massive event can occur that will shift opinion of a significant number of people. However, in general opinions don't change that much or that rapidly. You are probably aware of the frightening statistics of how many people vote for the same party as their parents without even thinking.
This of course completely ignores the median voter hypothesis which pushes all policy towards the centre whether or not that is where most people lie. It is the basis of Prof Lavers hypothesis that FF are the natural party of government in Ireland (they are the median party on almost all major issues) (or at least it was when I was in college in 1994)



"2. It is assuming that political parties will always seek more votes regardless of the ideology of the party. For some parties electoral success may not be their prime goal. This can be seen in the SP or the SWP. For these parties winning votes is secondary to the message they are putting out, these parties will not thend to water down their politics to gain votes."

Parties seek power. End of story. Whether that is votes or advancement of their cause through other means (recognition, building a power base WITHIN the party, recruiting platform etc),electoralism is an immediate moderating factor - there is the need to please the voters or public and not to appear too intransigent - people are voting for people to represent them, not to sit in isolation on a perch. This of necessity involves dealmaking and ultimately the party can appear (or be) compromised. Eventually, itf the partyy is used to electoral success, then the elected representative has something to lose. This can concentrate minds.


"3. It assumes that watering down politics and moving to the centre will gain more votes. It discounts the fact that sometimes if a bold stance is taken people will support it. Parties can lead the people to a certain extent"

I don't like being led, but despite that, I will agree that a principled stance may be supported by large numbers of people, but this will only happen occasionally and tends to be fickle. It can die away, or like what happened with the Greens during the early nineties, mainstream (right of centrist) parties can adopt a pretence of concern for the issue and water down the vote for the radical.

You have also completely ignored the isssue of the media making opinion, and when the media is owned by large corporations then the agenda that is being pushed is pro-business (right wing) and "lefties" and "commie pinkos" are derided, then the exercise of free choice is limited by a skewed frame of reference. This will quite simply mitigate against the left and futher skew the bell curve to the right (kurtosis I think it's called, but I'm not sure - it has been about 10 years!) resulting in weaker left results.

P.S. How are things at the poly?

by Fact Wed May 19, 2004 00:01

"While in Limerick city mass non-payment defeated the charges" - Joe get your facts right the campaign in Limerick failed, in fact Limerick's bin collection service has been privatised.

by Anarcho Wed May 19, 2004 00:07

"Mass action was crucial in building the campaign. Without it the water charges would not have been defeated. Is that clear enough for you!!!!!!"

But you also said that the election was "a very important factor" in the defeat. So what is it to be? A very important factor or something which would not have made a difference as the changes would have been defeated anyway?

"However, there is no guarantee that without the result in the Dublin West by-election that the anti-water charges campaign would have been successful."

So the mass action was not enough? Rather the ballot box (individualised action) was what made the difference? Nice to know.

"The by-election arose at an opportune time that allow the anger of working class people to be channelled into making an impact where right-wing politicians fear it most - their political careers."

It allowed the anger of working class people to be channelled in such a way as to ensure the continuation of the system. The right-wing politicians can rest easy knowing that the system is safe and that the socialists are showing the masses that bourgeois democracy does work...

"Anyone who attended the count for the by-election would have been aware that the politicians (and there were lots of them there) were clearly worried that the campaign could now extend to threatening their seats at the general election. It was no surprise that they were abolished before the general election took place."

Nice to know that Marxists think that mass action really has no effect on the politicians or the actions of the state. No, what really matters is socialists standing in elections...

"The working class can take the credit for the defeat of the water charges. The working class backed the anti-water charges campaign and used the weapons at its disposal, including voting, to defeat it."

But voting is the kind of weapon that blows up in your face -- that is the problem. And the working class has learned the important lesson that to change things they need to vote for "good" politicians to act for them rather than act for themselves.

"Direct action is vital and is one of many tactics that can be imployed in the class struggle. It appears to me that all anarchists can say is 'Direct Action, Direct Action and nothing but direct action' sounds a bit like 'sell the paper and recruit'"

Only if you are being silly. Direct action is more than a tactic. It is a way of empowering people to change things by themselves. It is the only way of achieving socialism. Voting is about disempowering the people and empowering an individual to act for them. It never has achieved socialism and never will.

"Anarchists rabbit on about voting changes nothing!!!!! Unlike anarchists the working class know the value of using every means at its disposal to achieve victory."

Have you taken a poll of "the working class"? And if more of "the working class" vote for bourgeois parties than socialist ones does that mean "the working class" knows "the value" of voting capitalist?

And "using every means" seems a bit vague. What is one of the means used leads you away from your end? Would you still use it?

"I can't comment on whether members of the WSM and other anarchists are working class people I don't know that many, although the Pheonix has commented on it recently. However, anarchists I do know tend to be all over the place in terms of political ideas and tactics."

Most Marxists I know are not working class and tend to be utter ignorant of their practice and history of their own political tradition. And a bit confused on the whole learning from history aspect of socialism.


"Gregor Kerr told people not to vote for Joe Higgins because he would sell them out. Fortunately, the working class people of Dublin West ignored him and the WSM."

But in terms of it being a case of "fortunately", well, I suppose that means that it was the election, not mass direct action, which defeated the charges. And so the self-organisation of the working class becomes little more than a means of getting socialists elected. We know where that ends up.

"Maybe Anarcho can tell us how long it will be before Joe Higgins sells out? has he done it yet? has he given any signs of selling out? has he ever stated that revolution can be achieved through the parliamentary road? has he ever back a national bourgeoisie in time of war?"

Lenin talked about how well the German Social Democrats were doing in 1913! One year later, they (like most of the socialist parties) backed a national bourgeoisie in time of war. obviously this did not happen in one year, but it shows how blinded Marxists can be to the benefits of electioneering!

Suffice to say, no one can say exactly how long it takes. It is a slow process, but one which always happens.

I will say this. I'm not impressed by our comrades argument. His defence is that Comrade Joe is of fine, upstanding morals and will not be corrupted by electioneering. So it is a case of individual morality, not the objective circumstances they face. So much for materialism.

And what it seems to me we have a choice. Either we can look at the fate of every single socialist and green party that has achieved electoral success or we can look at how wonderful an individual comrade Joe is. We can look at the descent into reformism and opportunism of every single radical party which used elections or we can look at how comrade Joe has, of today, not sold out.

Tough choice. Looks like we can either try and generalise lessons from history or we can talk about how upstanding comrade Joe is. I think I'll stick with generalising facts from experience and not pin my hopes that all the socialists to may get elected will have Joe's strength of character.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 12:29

Err 'fact' before lecturing me you might like to consider that the water tax and the bin tax were two different things. That the bin tax was imposed in Limerick therefore says nothing about the water tax campaign there. This should be obvious.

SP member I see you are now trying to shift you position from the false "Gregor Kerr told people not to vote for Joe Higgins because he would sell them out" to the obviously true "Gergor Kerr told people not to vote for Joe Higgins". I posted the article to illustrate the actual grounds why we felt running was a bad idea which were not your made up (and a little ludicrous 'selling out;).

While I'm at it I didn't say "The SP know nothing about anarchism". What I said was
"For those confused we have 3 people repeating the standard SP 'line on anarchism'. I describe it this way because it is a weird take on anarchism that only the SP put forward, not only has it little or no relation to anarchism but it is also different from the weird take that the SWP put forward.

Leaving aside what anarchists actually say about elections (rather than what the SP leadership tell the SP membership we say, go do some research guys, its all online) lets look at two claims that have not been dealt with so far on this thread."

My implication here is that the SP leadership have a much better understanding of anarchism then the ludicrous strawmen they fed to the poor SP members who then innocently repeat this on indymedia. If you want to know what anarchism actually stands for then read some material written by anarchists rather then trusting the version your leadership spoon feed you. http://anarchism.ws would be a good place to start as would http://anarchistfaq.org

by Sense Wed May 19, 2004 13:56

I think we can conclude by asserting that elected officials have, on occasion, been instrumental in improving the lives of both the working class and the Irish people at large. While there are very good reasons for rejecting 'parliamentary democracy' as a thesis there is no doubt that power is held in the parliament and therefore it as a body can improve the lot of man. This leads me to say from a purely practical perspective that we should fight on two fronts, one working to bring about a better overall system of representation and two using the institutions that already exist to our benefit where we believe that it will work. To claim that in all cases an elected representative will not be useful in advancing the cause of the working class is to be blinded by a theory and not truly committed to making lives better now.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 14:15

'sense' apart from indicating you are perhaps bored with this long thread I don't get you post above. All your 'conclusions' seem to be no more that the assertions you made at the start of the thread and that you have yet to prove or in many cases even argue for.

In other words 'we' can conclude no such thing but your free to 'conclude' whatever you like.

by Sense Wed May 19, 2004 14:30

You accuse me of what you consistently do; say nothing. After reading this thread again and attempting to find what well argued and what's not I find that elected officials have been helpful if not instrumental to certain campaigns that improved the lot of the people.

Do you deny this?

I also conclude that the anarchist critique of 'parliamentary democracy' is a good one. However I believe in using all tools available to me to ameliorate the material situation of the working class and that the parliament can be one of those tools. If used carefully it can be useful as a short term solution.

Do you deny this?

If so then I believe you will be expressing a weakness of you position insofar as you also theory to overcome pragmatism.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 14:40

You are of course quite entitled to take the same conclusions from this thread that you entered with. The nature of political discussion means that this is most often the case, people change their minds over longer periods.

When i read it I see various assertions made that are challenged, I see various examples given that are also challenged. I come to different conclusions than you do and like you I leave with the ideas I entered with.

In other words you can draw what conclusions you like and so can I but lets neither of us pretend this is a common conclusion because that just makes us look silly.

by Sense Wed May 19, 2004 15:25

Good man joe, our conclusions are the conclusions of the majority and we find they are the only rational conclusions. Those few voices that tend to shout loudest are a small minority.

We conclude that anarchists are deluded.
We conclude that electoral engagement can achieve results.
We encourage you to vote if you feel, after reasonable consideration, that it will ammeloriate your situation.
We ask you to see beyond theory and do what will best achieve the solution.

[This is the conclusion of the above thread please close]

by Who's we? Wed May 19, 2004 15:31

We have a collective consciousness. We do everything in perfect unison, we agree completely with ourselves and obey the will of the leader.

We are always right. If you don't agree with us, you must be wrong. People who are wrong are irrational and we will not listen to them.

by Gaillimhed Wed May 19, 2004 15:44

Heres some more fuel for the fire:

Why I wont vote in the 2004 elections (US)

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_7467.shtml

by Chekov - WSM (personal capacity) Wed May 19, 2004 19:05

I've been meaning to reply to your (good) question for a while now, but have kept on getting sidetracked by the trollfest that we are currently going through. Anyway, you ask:

"Aren't there cases where voting against the worse candidate _and_ continuing more effective and radical actions is useful?"

Short answer: there probably are, but I've never come across one yet.

Long Answer: In general, I believe that elections in our capitalist representative democracy have generally no material bearing on the decisions that the government takes. The institutions of capitalist democracy have evolved to insulate the government from any really democratic influences.

If you look at the whole thing on an institutional level, it is quite clear that governments make decisions based upon the needs of capitalism and the whole system is designed so that whatever government is in place will be very sensitive towards these needs. As Joe has pointed out above, there is a lot of empirical proof for this assertion. There is no correlation between the introduction of leftist and rightist reforms and the rule of leftist and rightist governments, but there is a strong correlation between the introduction of such reforms and the needs of capitalism. Thus, Keynsian reforms were introduced across the world in the post WW2 period, irrespective of which parties were in control. Neo-liberal reforms have been introduced across the world in the last couple of decades in countries ruled by leftists like Lula as much as they have been in countries ruled by rightists like Chirac (actually more so in that case due to the organisation of the French working class).

In the specific case of the upcoming US presidential election, I disagree with Chomsky. I predict that, whoever wins, there will be a very large increase in the number of US troops in Iraq soon after the election. In some ways I expect that capitalism will 'choose' Kerry to do this as it will be easier for him to steamroll opposition to it. "Bush left me with a mess in Iraq, now I have to make the tough decision to tidy it up and it is obvious that we need more troops to do so". The simple fact is that US capitalism needs to send more troops to Iraq and therefore the US government will do so. The election will have no effect on this. If there was a significant upsurge in resistance to the war in the US and particularly within the US military, this would affect the decision, regardless of who is in power. The elections won't.

Again, as Joe has said, there have been some situations where anarchists have not run boycott campaigns. He mentions 1934 in Spain, I'd add the most recent French presidential elections where many French anarchists called for people "not to vote Le Pen". In both of these cases the anarchists did indeed decide that the outcome of the vote could make a real difference to the decisions that the government would take. Personally I suspect that they were mistaken in both cases, but one would have to have a very detailled understanding of the situations in order to know whether they were correct - I certainly don't think that anarchists should automatically condemn them for their stance.

Anyway, I do admit that there are hypothetical situations where I would think seriously about voting. However, I have never experienced one and don't expect to any time soon. Consider the Irish general elections.

We know that some coalition will be elected which is dominated by parties which will implement neo-liberal policies (FF,PD,FG,LP,SF - cf PFIs in the North). We can be very confident that the decisions that the government takes will not be substantially different no matter which of the possible coalitions gets in - they will depend on trends in international capitalism and the levels of opposition that they face on the ground.

In this context what is the point in voting for the least bad candidate? Let's say if we had even 30 SP TD's (faint chance I know) - they would still have no say in the actual decisions that are made. To my mind it would actually be counter-productive as people would see the verbal battles in the Dail etc and be more inclined to believe that our parliamentary system offers a real possibility of achieving substantial social change and that their opinions and needs are being represented, while the same decisions would be implemented anyway.

Therefore, I think it is far more worthwhile to concentrate our efforts on persuading people that the elections are not useful avenues for pursuing social change. Many people do really believe that our parliamentary system can bring about change and if we can persuade them of the falseness of this idea, we have achieved much more than we would have if we concentrated on getting a few token figures into a parliament that is going to make the same decisions anyway.

That also explains why we are not considering running any type of abstention campaign during the current elections. Very few people need persuading that these elections will make a difference to anything. The argument is already won, and probably 70% of the electorate will reflect this by their non-participation. It is instructive to note that none of the left-wing voting advocates on indymedia have so far been able to answer the question of exactly how a vote for them could possibly make things better for anybody. All we get is unsubstantiated assertions about 'of course a vote for X is good for X issue". From the bin-tax to the war, it is obvious to all but the ideologically blinkered that these elections won't make the slightest bit of difference to anything that our rulers do*.

(*well ok, elections do serve as an opinion poll of a certain segement of the population, so they can cause the government to adjust some policies due to the information they learn from them)

by anarcho Wed May 19, 2004 23:12

"We conclude that anarchists are deluded."

yet no one had refuted our arguments.

"We conclude that electoral engagement can achieve results."

Not what was being argued and so a strawman.

"We encourage you to vote if you feel, after reasonable consideration, that it will ammeloriate your situation."

Which is, of course, what you can do, if you think that voting is important.

"We ask you to see beyond theory and do what will best achieve the solution."

I thought that was what the anarchists have been arguing. After all, when has voting ever achieved socialism? Or moved society towards socialism? Nowhere.

So, perhaps, the marxists will see beyond the theory and do what will best achieve the solution -- meaningful reforms today and socialism in the future.

"[This is the conclusion of the above thread please close]"

nothing of the kind has been concluded, unless you think ignoring the arguments and refuting strawmen means conclusion...

by Ekul Thu May 20, 2004 16:07

Capitalism is not a system of rule as such so understanding what capitalism needs is not as simple as Chekov suggests. He says that “governments make decisions based upon the needs of capitalism”, but how do they gauge such needs? Every major series of workplace reforms that took place in the UK in the first 14 years of the last century was met with fierce opposition by the capitalist classes. Therefore you would suppose that this is the legitimate voice of capitalism however the government pushed ahead with these reforms in the face of opposition. The liberal government of the time realised that the country would collapse into possible civil war if reforms were not made, this was easy to see due to the escalation of protest and strike action. However the capitalists still opposed it as it hit their material well being. The government is not simply an arm of capitalism it safeguards the stability of society and therefore operates with a much more complex set of inputs which include the needs of capitalists, the needs of stability, and the needs of the people.

He then goes on to make the strange assertion (without evidence) that “capitalism will 'choose' Kerry” in the US presidential elections. This argument by assertion that he chided Sense for earlier in the thread does not hold up when placed under an empirical microscope. We can see that capitalism has already given much more cash to Bush/Cheney ’04 than to Kerry ’04. Major capitalist organisations such as the American Employers Federation have offered their support to Bush whereas major Labour organisations such as the AFL-CIO (not very radical of course) have offered support to Kerry. Moreover my problem is with the use of capitalism as something that has the ability to take decisions. It would make more sense to say neither Bush nor Kerry will make a difference to Iraq or American commercial interests so those with interests (capitalists) need not worry either way.

Chekov then never really gets to the heart of the argument that we should fight on the mass movement side of things while at least casting our votes for the better group. He suggests that we shouldn’t waste our time on running elections however I don’t think this was the avenue that has been argued. Whatever we should do we should fight on all fronts and if one of those fronts is elections then so be it. If the change that can come about is only incremental it’s good enough.

Throughout Chekov’s piece I get a feeling that he would like the collective suffering to increase so the people of the world realise what a shit system capitalism is and really rise up, I want life to get better in any way I can make it do so and that’s why I’ll be voting. Please don’t personify capitalism and please vote.

by Sense Thu May 20, 2004 16:08

We believe that anarcho is a mixed up individual.
We believe that he should read the thread before he writes.
We believe that this is not a strawman as can be seen if the thread is at least looked at.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 16:29

Ekul it is you in fact that is attempting to treat 'capitalism' as a single identity. It has never been the case that all capitalists have had an identical reaction to any issue. Even when revolutions break out there are always some capitalists who go along with the new regime confident of being able to carve out a niche in it (and they usually can).

The argument is that the state is principally a way of resolving differences betwen capitalists rather than a mechanism by which the people rule (through choosing leaders).

Differences between capitalists tend to be determined by three things
1. Their position in the economy (eg heavy industry v service industry)
2. The economic cycle
3. What the working class is up to

If you want to understand the post WWII introduction of welfare state across Europe by both right wing and left wing government or the introduction of neo-liberalism by both the right and left in the 1990's election are a very, very poor guide. Interestingly although this point has been made several times now none of the 'choosing between bosses makes a real difference' crowd have dared to tackle this.

by Ekul Thu May 20, 2004 16:55

Joe if you look at the period I highlighted you will find that the British capitalist classes were for the most part industrialists who relied on lots of labour. This is why they opposed workplace reform, it may surprise you but there were no call centres at the turn of the 20th century. The service industry accounted for a small proportion of the UK’s GDP and the industrialists had a rather unified position. They could therefore put forward the only position that could be really called ‘capitalisms position’ however the government realised that this was a short-sighted, greedy position and for the benefit of both the workers (in the form of reform) and the capitalists (in the form of stability) these changes were introduced.

That the state is “a way of resolving differences betwen capitalists” leaves out so many of the functions of the state it makes me want to cry. How does state funded childcare fit into that description? Of course that is slightly trite however there is no doubt that the state operates on many other levels than simply a place of resolution of problems between capitalist. The state in my example managed to look beyond the opinion of capitalists and ensured the continuation of the system they are therefore autonomous at least in part from the capitalist classes. States undoubtedly act with a certain autonomy. Each state has evolved, through its own institutions and practices, certain consistent notions of interest and modes of conduct that can be termed its raison d’etat. This autonomy is, however, conditioned by both internal and external constraints. State autonomy, in other words, is exercised within a structure created by the states own history. This leads into your final point that suggests that it didn’t make a difference what type of government you had, left or right, they still did the same things. Do you think that states operate in isolation? Do you think incurring the wrath of the superpower is a good thing for a state to do? Hegemonic rule in periods such as Pax Britannica and Pax Americana require a leading state to assert its ruling classes economic dominance, the rules of which are then adopted by the ruling classes of other nations to serve their interests. During periods of hegemonic rule there is relative stability. Government are constrained. Some ‘bosses’ to use your weighted language are better than others.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 17:10

"How does state funded childcare fit into that description?"

Thats a very easy one.

1. It may be needed simply to conceed a reform that is being struggled for. The exchange of reforms for social peace is as old as capitalism

2. If you look at where real 'state funded childcare' exists it is in countries with very low unemployment and high relative wages (Sweden etc). There the capitalists need to mobilise as great a percentage of the population into the workforce as possible. State funding of childcare can be quite an acceptable price for many of them.

I'm no expert on the 1900 - 1914 period but even I know this was a period of intense class struggle and the apperant rise of a revolutionary social democracy. In particular with WWI looming on the horizon its not much of a surprise that the capitalist class found reforms in order not only to pacify their workforce but also to bind them to the ruling class on a nationalist basis a smart move.

It should be said that to date we have been arguing a very simplifed model. Of course the state also has some autonomy, as we saw in the case of Russia a state that has mostly broken with the capitalist class can still exist and indeed recreate class relations. 'Yes Minister' was a good illustration of how sections of the state can accumulate and deploy a limited power all of their own.

So yes things are more complex but yet the 3 points above offer a much closer model of the decisions made by state then whether the electorate votes left or right. In Europe neoliberalism was mostly imposed by the left, trots can only explain this by referring to sell outs, to anarchists it is confirmation that the state operates in the interests of capitalism and not the electorate in 'the final analysis'.

by Chekov - WSM (personal capacity) Thu May 20, 2004 18:09

The complaint that capitalism is "not a person" is a typical misunderstanding of institutional analyses of complicated systems. When you say that 'companies exist to maximise profits', you will often hear the retort that this analysis is a simplification and that Joe, the head of marketing, doesn't care about making a profit, he's just interested in an easy life and he's actually quite a good guy. The point about institutional and systemic analysis is that you ignore the component parts of a system and analyse the emergent behaviour of the system as a whole - an approach that is often called black box analyis in science. You are interested in the outputs of the system, not exactly how they are created. With any such analysis of a complex system, you necessarily have to simplify and generalise in order to identify the most significant rules of its operation. Otherwise you would need to factor in and explain each individual action of all 6 billion people who form the system - which is hardly going to get you anywhere.

Capitalism is not just capitalists. It is a set of institutions and social relations which together form a system of social organisation. It has long been understood by *capitalism* that individual capitalists and companies have a tendency to maximise short term gains at the expense of systemic stability. Hence we have the creation of various institutions which are designed to offset this tendency towards instability. Some of these institutions are grouped together into states, such as central banks, social service departments, parliaments and so on. Others, especially in this era of economic globalisation are trans-national (eg. UN, WTO, IMF, WB) or may have no connection with nation states at all (eg WEF). These institutions rise and fall, evolve and fade over time, based upon their utility in maintaining and furthering the capitalist social order.

This way of analysing capitalism as a system is hardly new. As long ago as the 1800's you can find some interesting attempts at examining capitalism as such a system. Marx's capital, for example, is based around such an analysis - albeit primitive and polluted by the prevailing currents of 'scientific' determinism.

Within capitalism, parliaments serve as one of the most important institutions to counteract the short term focus of those who exercise immediate control over capital. They serve as both a 'pressure guage' and a 'release valve' for social discontent, by providing a measure of the levels of discontent among the masses and at the same time channelling that discontent into avenues that will never threaten the overall system of social organisation. They serve their purpose very well.

To get back to another point that Ekul makes. Not casting a vote is emphatically not equivalent with disdaining a weapon in the struggle for immediate gains. I have asked repeatedly, as have others, for an explanation of how a vote for a particular party can possibly advance any of the struggles that we are currently fighting, such as the bin tax, the war, environmental degradation. No answers are forthcoming, which is not surprising as there are none. We all know that the results of this election are not going to make any difference to the decisions that our rulers make on these issues. The parliamentary route is decidedly a part of a long term project - not a weapon in the struggle for immediate gains. If you believe that the route to a better society lies in the SP, SWP, SF or whoever _one day_ siezing power as a mass party of the working class (or whatever the Shinners would call it) then it makes sense to take part in the parliamentary game, but there is little point in pretending that a particular vote in these elections will usher in any immediate changes - it takes power to do that and even the illusory facade of power that comes with a parliamentary majority is a long way away from any of our 'revolutionary' parties.

by Ekul Thu May 20, 2004 18:18

While I don't have the time right now I will explain exactly why your model of the state is based on crude economic determinism which has been set aside by every major Marxist since Gramsci.

On the second point about voting, while it is difficult to see what the benefit of me voting for the socialist party in purely materialistic terms there are definitely benefits in terms of PR and for instilling a feeling into the process of power.

by Chekov Thu May 20, 2004 18:35

QUOTE "I will explain exactly why your model of the state is based on crude economic determinism which has been set aside by every major Marxist since Gramsci."

The fact that I never mentioned or described any "model of the state" doesn't give me a tremendous amount of confidence in your forthcoming 'exact' explanation. The unsubstantiated accusation of 'economic determinism' also looks like an insult picked at random from the SP denunciation recipe book, especially when I presented an analysis based on power and economics really didn't come into it at all. Your mention of Gramsci in dismissing me just looks like name-dropping to show off the breadth of your reading. You must do better.

Maybe you should wait until I actually present a model of the state and its economic system before you explain exactly how wrong it is?

QUOTE "On the second point about voting, while it is difficult to see what the benefit of me voting for the socialist party in purely materialistic terms there are definitely benefits in terms of PR"

Benefits in terms of PR? Perhaps, but only if you believe in the long term project of the SP taking state power - quite the opposite of what you argued above. And if it's just about PR, why not do some sort of stunt instead - maybe a mass nude pitch invasion of Croke Park, with hammer and sickly willie-warmers. I can guarantee it would get more attention and would be much less work too.

QUOTE "and for instilling a feeling into the process of power."

That clause does not mean anything. It's wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

by Ekul Thu May 20, 2004 19:20

Calm down there Chekov, you clearly proposed a model of government and therefore a model of state. The SP are even more likely to commit the dreaded 'economic determinism' link so I don't know why you accuse me of being anything to do with them. That sounds like the old anarchist line 'he's just a trot following orders you can ignore him'. Its bad argument. On the last points nobody wants silly PR, and parliamentary representation is good strong PR that allows a voice to be heard in the place of power. It’s not all materialism.

I'll be back.

by Anarcho Fri May 21, 2004 12:15

Anarchists argue that in a capitalist democracy the government is always (to quote Malatesta) the bourgeoisie's gendarme. If it were not, if it was to act in ways opposed to the interests of the ruling class, it would quickly be brought back under control. The recent electoral events in India are a striking confirmation of anarchist theory.

In modern "democracies" capital gets a bigger vote than the electorate. In developing countries this is most obviously the case. For example, during the last election in Brazil there was a major campaign to warn Brazilians that the markets would crash if Lula was elected. The prospect of a capital strike ensured that Lula pledged not to rock the boat. Since being elected to "power" he has kept his pledge to capital and, like any government, betrayed its promises to the people.

Similar developments have occurred In India. The Congress Party can only form the government with the support of the Left parties, none of which are particularly radical or socialist. Faced with a left of centre party, the Indian stock markets crashed. The primary index initially fell by about 6%. It fell again by another 11% after it became known that the Left parties would not join the ruling coalition, seeking to get greater leverage by supporting the Congress Party from the floor of Parliament.

Needless to say, this puts a real damper on the policies of any government. In India, the head of the Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi, has refused to become Prime Minister. The stock markets, which had fallen so dramatically at the surprise electoral defeat of the pro-market BJP party, rallied strongly when this became known. Gandhi has suggested that Manmohan Singh for the post. Needless to say, it is doubtful that she would implement different policies than Singh but what counts is that throughout India Manmohan Singh is the person most closely associated with "neoliberalism." Proving this, he quickly announced that as far as economic policy is concerned nothing would be altered. This in spite of the obvious fact that his party benefited from a vote against the last six years of economic "reform".

So India's new prime minister has been determined by the actions of the financial markets. The politicians are selecting a government which will keep the markets happy rather than what the people voted for. What a striking example of the role of stock markets as a way for the very rich as a class to own an economy's productive capital stock as a whole and, consequently, to bring a potentially rebel government to heel. Isn't democracy grand?