Voting Doesn't Create Social Change by Chuck0

chuck@tao.ca

First of all, I want to remind everybody that most anarchists don't vote. There are a few anarchists who do vote, but they do so for personal reasons. Voting, as most anarchists would argue, is a method to sanction the political system. If you are interested in regaining control over your life, you aren't going to waste your day voting for a candidates who aren't going to make any radical changes. Ralph Nader may be an excellent anti-corporate crusadr, but he is no anti-capitalist and certainly isn't an anti-statist. Nader's campaign is valuable in that he is raising issues that aren't being covered in the major media, like corporate power, the environment, and so on. But if

you actually think that Nader getting 5% in the election is going to help the cause of anti-capitalism or any of the traditional concerns of progressives, you are politically naive. If thousands of people start working after the election to build a bigger Green Part, then that will be the movement's loss, because this activist energy won't even be able to REFORM the system in the next 20-30 years. Don't underestimate the power of the rich to tinker with things to keep the system favorable to their interests. If I were a smart capitalist, I would donate lots of cash to the Green Party after the election. This would help sidetrack thousands of well-meaning activists for years to come.

Instead of engaging in direct action, resisting capital, and creating alternative institutions in their communities, these electoral-minded activists will squander their energy electing a few Greens to office, who will only let the power go to their heads as soon as they get there. We've seen this before and we'll see it again. These may be nice people, but power always corrupts people.

So, I invite you all to join the majority of Americans who won't be voting on Election Day. They know the system is a sham, so why don't you?

http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html

I agree with chuck.

I am not voting either, however if i were to vote i may vote for bush. BUSH? WTF? yes bush in the sense of furthering the movement.

Maybe Nader is better than both but he will lose anyway, and like you said even if he got his 5% it will take at least several decades. Gore is the lesser evil but if gore wins people will feel they are "safe" and will slack off politically.

However, bush is "evil one." Since he is the worse of the three, a vote for him would create reationary politics which in turn may force the political pendulum too far to the right that it will swing people faster to the left.



Buchanan may be even ther better choice of all since he is outright racist and a xenophobe but a vote for him is wasted cause like nader he cant win.

The only problem with this is that the workers, non-whites, and the immigrants will be ther first ones to suffer from the reactionary right politics that right wing politicians would push forward.

But because of this people will be pissed! And we may have a new momentum.

Now this is all theoretical, but who gives a shit voting does not create social change. And whoever wins we will still keep pushing.