                           J.2 What is direct action?

   Direct action, to use Rudolf Rocker's words, is "every method of
   immediate warfare by the workers [or other sections of society] against
   their economic and political oppressors. Among these the outstanding
   are: the strike, in all its graduations from the simple wage struggle
   to the general strike; the boycott; sabotage in all its countless
   forms; anti-militarist propaganda, and in particularly critical cases .
   . . armed resistance of the people for the protection of life and
   liberty." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 78]

   Not that anarchists think that direct action is only applicable within
   the workplace. Far from it. Direct action must occur everywhere! So, in
   non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes, consumer
   boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-down strikes
   by workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment of taxes,
   blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social
   nature and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting,
   includes strikes and protests on social issues, not directly related to
   working conditions and pay. Such activity aims to ensure the
   "protection of the community against the most pernicious outgrowths of
   the present system. The social strike seeks to force upon the employers
   a responsibility to the public. Primarily it has in view the protection
   of the customers, of whom the workers themselves [and their families]
   constitute the great majority" [Op. Cit., p. 86]

   Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone else to
   act for you (e.g. a politician), you act for yourself. Its essential
   feature is an organised protest by ordinary people to make a change by
   their own efforts. Thus Voltairine De Cleyre's excellent statement on
   this topic:

     "Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went
     boldly and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared
     his convictions, was a direct actionist. Some thirty years ago I
     recall that the Salvation Army was vigorously practicing direct
     action in the maintenance of the freedom of its members to speak,
     assemble, and pray. Over and over they were arrested, fined, and
     imprisoned; but they kept right on singing, praying, and marching,
     till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them alone. The
     Industrial Workers [of the World] are now conducting the same fight,
     and have, in a number of cases, compelled the officials to let them
     alone by the same direct tactics.

     "Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did
     it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation
     to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please
     do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative
     experiments are essentially direct action.

     "Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to
     settle, and went straight to the other persons involved to settle
     it, either by a peaceable plan or otherwise, was a direct actionist.
     Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts; many persons will
     recall the action of the housewives of New York who boycotted the
     butchers, and lowered the price of meat; at the present moment a
     butter boycott seems looming up, as a direct reply to the
     price-makers for butter.

     "These actions are generally not due to any one's reasoning overmuch
     on the respective merits of directness or indirectness, but are the
     spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation. In
     other words, all people are, most of the time, believers in the
     principle of direct action, and practisers of it." [The Voltairine
     De Cleyre Reader, pp. 47-8]

   So direct action means acting for yourself against injustice and
   oppression. It can, sometimes, involve putting pressure on politicians
   or companies, for example, to ensure a change in an oppressive law or
   destructive practices. However, such appeals are direct action simply
   because they do not assume that the parties in question we will act for
   us -- indeed the assumption is that change only occurs when we act to
   create it. Regardless of what it is, "if such actions are to have the
   desired empowerment effect, they must be largely self-generated, rather
   than being devised and directed from above" and be "ways in which
   people could take control of their lives" so that it "empowered those
   who participated in it." [Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, p.
   55]

   So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people
   themselves decide upon and organise themselves which is based on their
   own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to
   act for them. As such direct action is a natural expression of liberty,
   of self-government, for direct action "against the authority in the
   shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action
   against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the
   logical, consistent method of Anarchism." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma
   Speaks, pp. 76-7] It is clear that by acting for yourself you are
   expressing the ability to govern yourself. Thus it is a means by which
   people can take control of their own lives. It is a means of
   self-empowerment and self-liberation.

   Anarchists reject the view that society is static and that people's
   consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be changed. Far from it
   and anarchists support direct action because it actively encourages the
   transformation of those who use it. Direct action is the means of
   creating a new consciousness, a means of self-liberation from the
   chains placed around our minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy and
   oppression.

   As direct action is the expression of liberty, the powers that be are
   vitally concerned only when the oppressed use direct action to win its
   demands, for it is a method which is not easy or cheap to combat. Any
   hierarchical system is placed into danger when those at the bottom
   start to act for themselves and, historically, people have invariably
   gained more by acting directly than could have been won by playing ring
   around the rosy with indirect means. Direct action tore the chains of
   open slavery from humanity. Over the centuries it has established
   individual rights and modified the life and death power of the master
   class. Direct action won political liberties such as the vote and free
   speech. Used fully, used wisely and well, direct action can forever end
   injustice and the mastery of humans by other humans.

   In the sections that follow, we will indicate why anarchists are in
   favour of direct action and why they are against electioneering as a
   means of change.

J.2.1 Why do anarchists favour using direct action to change things?

   Simply because it is effective and it has a radicalising impact on
   those who practice it. As it is based on people acting for themselves,
   it shatters the dependency and marginalisation created by hierarchy.
   This is key:

   "What is even more important about direct action is that it forms a
   decisive step toward recovering the personal power over social life
   that the centralised, over-bearing bureaucracies have usurped from the
   people . . . we not only gain a sense that we can control the course of
   social events again; we recover a new sense of selfhood and personality
   without which a truly free society, based in self-activity and
   self-management, is utterly impossible." [Murray Bookchin, Toward an
   Ecological Society, p. 47]

   By acting for themselves, people gain a sense of their own power and
   abilities. This is essential if people are to run their own lives. As
   such, direct action is the means by which individuals empower
   themselves, to assert their individuality, to make themselves count as
   individuals by organising and acting collectively. It is the opposite
   of hierarchy, within which individuals are told again and again that
   they are nothing, are insignificant and must dissolve themselves into a
   higher power (the state, the company, the party, the people, etc.) and
   feel proud in participating in the strength and glory of this higher
   power. Direct action, in contrast, is the means of asserting your
   individual opinion, interests and happiness, of fighting against
   self-negation:

     "man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism
     therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and
     resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social and
     moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the
     salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity,
     self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free independent
     spirits, for men who are men, and who have a bone in their back
     which you cannot pass your hand through." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma
     Speaks, pp. 75-6]

   In addition, because direct action is based around individuals solving
   their own problems, by their own action, it awakens those aspects of
   individuals crushed by hierarchy and oppression -- such as initiative,
   solidarity, imagination, self-confidence and a sense of individual and
   collective power, that what you do matters and that you with others
   like you can change the world. Direct action is the means by which
   people can liberate themselves and educate themselves in the ways of
   and skills required for self-management and liberty:

     "Direct action meant that the goal of . . . these activities was to
     provide ways for people to get in touch with their own powers and
     capacities, to take back the power of naming themselves and their
     lives . . . we learn to think and act for ourselves by joining
     together in organisations in which our experience, our perception,
     and our activity can guide and make the change. Knowledge does not
     precede experience, it flows from it . . . People learn to be free
     only by exercising freedom. [As one Spanish Anarchist put it] 'We
     are not going to find ourselves . . . with people ready-made for the
     future . . . Without continued exercise of their faculties, there
     will be no free people . . . The external revolution and the
     internal revolution presuppose one another, and they must be
     simultaneous in order to be successful.'" [Martha Ackelsberg, Free
     Women of Spain, pp. 54-5]

   So direct action, to use Bookchin's words, is "the means whereby each
   individual awakens to the hidden powers within herself and himself, to
   a new sense of self-confidence and self-competence; it is the means
   whereby individuals take control of society directly." [Op. Cit., p.
   48]

   In addition, direct action creates the need for new forms of social
   organisation. These new forms of organisation will be informed and
   shaped by the process of self-liberation, so be more anarchistic and
   based upon self-management. Direct action, as well as liberating
   individuals, can also create the free, self-managed organisations which
   can replace the current hierarchical ones (see [1]section I.2.3). For
   example, for Kropotkin, unions were "natural organs for the direct
   struggle with capitalism and for the composition of the future order."
   [quoted by Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p. 81] In other words,
   direct action helps create the new world in the shell of the old:

     "direct action not only empowered those who participated in it, it
     also had effects on others . . . [it includes] exemplary action that
     attracted adherents by the power of the positive example it set.
     Contemporary examples . . . include food or day-care co-ops,
     collectively run businesses, sweat equity housing programmes,
     women's self-help health collectives, urban squats or women's peace
     camps [as well as traditional examples as industrial unions, social
     centres, etc.]. While such activities empower those who engage in
     them, they also demonstrate to others that non-hierarchical forms of
     organisation can and do exist -- and that they can function
     effectively." [Ackelsberg, Op. Cit., p. 55]

   Also, direct action such as strikes encourage and promote class
   consciousness and class solidarity. According to Kropotkin, "the strike
   develops the sentiment of solidarity" while, for Bakunin, it "is the
   beginnings of the social war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie
   . . . Strikes are a valuable instrument from two points of view.
   Firstly, they electrify the masses, invigorate their moral energy and
   awaken in them the feeling of the deep antagonism which exists between
   their interests and those of the bourgeoisie . . . secondly they help
   immensely to provoke and establish between the workers of all trades,
   localities and countries the consciousness and very fact of solidarity:
   a twofold action, both negative and positive, which tends to constitute
   directly the new world of the proletariat, opposing it almost in an
   absolute way to the bourgeois world." [quoted by Caroline Cahm,
   Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 1872-1886, p. 256 and
   pp. 216-217]

   Direct action, therefore, helps to create anarchists and anarchist
   alternatives within capitalism and statism. As such, it plays an
   essential role in anarchist theory and activity. For anarchists, direct
   action "is not a 'tactic' . . . it is a moral principle, an ideal, a
   sensibility. It should imbue every aspect of our lives and behaviour
   and outlook." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 48]

J.2.2 Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for change?

   Simply because electioneering does not work. History is littered with
   examples of radicals being voted into office only to become as, or even
   more, conservative than the politicians they replaced.

   As we have discussed previously (see [2]section B.2) any government is
   under pressure from two sources of power, the state bureaucracy and big
   business. This ensures that any attempts at social change would be
   undermined and made hollow by vested interests, assuming they even
   reached that level to begin with (the de-radicalising effects of
   electioneering is discussed in [3]section J.2.6). Here we will
   highlight the power of vested interests within democratic government.

   For anarchists, the general nature of the state and its role within
   society is to ensure "the preservation of the economic 'status quo,'
   the protection of the economic privileges of the ruling class, whose
   agent and gendarme it is". [Luigi Galleani, The End of Anarchism?, p.
   28] As such, the state and capital restricts and controls the outcome
   of political action of the so-called sovereign people as expressed by
   voting.

   Taking capital to begin with, if we assume that a relatively reformist
   government were elected it would soon find itself facing various
   economic pressures. Either capital would disinvest, so forcing the
   government to back down in the face of economic collapse, or the
   government in question would control capital leaving the country and so
   would soon be isolated from new investment and its currency would
   become worthless. Either is an effective weapon to control
   democratically elected governments as before ensure that the economy
   would be severely damaged and the promised "reforms" would be dead
   letters. Far fetched? No, not really. As discussed in [4]section D.2.1
   such pressures were inflicted on the 1974 Labour Government in Britain
   and we see the threat reported everyday when the media reports on what
   "the markets" think of government policies or when loans are given only
   guarantee that the country is structurally adjusted in-line with
   corporate interests and bourgeous economic dogma.

   As far as political pressures go, we must remember that there is a
   difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent
   collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and
   interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It is the
   institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not
   the representatives who come and go. In other words, the state
   bureaucracy has vested interests and elected politicians cannot
   effectively control them:

     "Such a bureaucracy consists of armed forces, police forces, and a
     civil service. These are largely autonomous bodies. Theoretically
     they are subordinate to a democratically elected Parliament, but the
     Army, Navy, and Air Forces are controlled by specially trained
     officers who from their schooldays onwards are brought up in a
     narrow caste tradition, and who always, in dealing with Parliament,
     can dominate that body by their superior technical knowledge,
     professional secrecy, and strategic bluff. As for the bureaucracy
     proper, the Civil Service, anyone who has had any experience of its
     inner workings knows the extent to which it controls the Cabinet,
     and through the Cabinet, Parliament itself. We are really ruled by a
     secret shadow cabinet . . . All these worthy servants of the State
     are completely out of touch with the normal life of the nation."
     [Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p. 100]

   As an aside, it should be noted that while "in a society of rich and
   poor nothing is more necessary" than a bureaucracy as it is "necessary
   to protect an unfair distribution of property" it would be wrong to
   think that it does not have its own class interests: "Even if you
   abolish all other classes and distinctions and retain a bureaucracy you
   are still far from the classless society, for the bureaucracy is itself
   the nucleus of a class whose interests are totally opposed to the
   people it supposedly serves." [Op. Cit., p. 99 and p. 100]

   In addition to the official bureaucracies and their power, there is
   also the network of behind the scenes agencies which are its arm. This
   can be termed "the permanent government" and "the secret state",
   respectively. The latter, in Britain, is "the security services, MI5,
   Special Branch and the secret intelligence service, MI6." Other states
   have their equivalents (the FBI, CIA, and so on in the USA). By the
   former, it is meant "the secret state plus the Cabinet Office and upper
   echelons of Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, the Armed Forces
   and Ministry of Defence . . . and the so-called 'Permanent Secretaries
   Club,' the network of very senior civil servants -- the 'Mandarins.'"
   In short, the upper-echelons of the bureaucracy and state apparatus.
   Add to this "its satellites", including M.P.s (particularly right-wing
   ones), "agents of influence" in the media, former security services
   personnel, think tanks and opinion forming bodies, front companies of
   the security services, and so on. [Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay,
   Smear! Wilson and the Secret State, pp. X-XI]

   These bodies, while theoretically under the control of the elected
   government, can effectively (via disinformation, black operations,
   bureaucratic slowdowns, media attacks, etc.) ensure that any government
   trying to introduce policies which the powers that be disagree with
   will be stopped. In other words the state is not a neutral body,
   somehow rising above vested interests and politics. It is, and always
   will be, a institution which aims to protect specific sections of
   society as well as its own.

   An example of this "secret state" at work can be seen in the campaign
   against Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister of Britain in the
   1970s, which resulted in his resignation (as documented by Stephen
   Dorril and Robin Ramsay). Left-wing Labour M.P. Tony Benn was subjected
   to intense pressure by "his" Whitehall advisers during the same period:

     "In early 1975, the campaign against Benn by the media was joined by
     the secret state. The timing is interesting. In January, his
     Permanent Secretary had 'declared war' and the following month began
     the most extraordinary campaign of harassment any major British
     politician has experienced. While this is not provable by any means,
     it does look as though there is a clear causal connection between
     withdrawal of Prime Ministerial support, the open hostility from the
     Whitehall mandarins and the onset of covert operations." [Dorril and
     Ramsay, Op. Cit., p. 279]

   This is not to forget the role of the secret state in undermining
   reformist and radical organisations and movements. This involvement
   goes from pure information gathering on "subversives", to disruption
   and repression. Taking the example of the US secret state, Howard Zinn
   notes that in 1975:

     "congressional committees . . . began investigations of the FBI and
     CIA.

     "The CIA inquiry disclosed that the CIA had gone beyond its original
     mission of gathering intelligence and was conducting secret
     operations of all kinds . . . [for example] the CIA - with the
     collusion of a secret Committee of Forty headed by Henry Kissinger -
     had worked to 'destabilize' the [democratically elected, left-wing]
     Chilean government . . .

     "The investigation of the FBI disclosed many years of illegal
     actions to disrupt and destroy radical groups and left-wing groups
     of all kinds. The FBI had sent forged letters, engaged in burglaries
     . . . opened mail illegally, and in the case of Black Panther leader
     Fred Hampton, seems to have conspired in murder . . .

     "The investigations themselves revealed the limits of government
     willingness to probe into such activities . . . [and they] submitted
     its findings on the CIA to the CIA to see if there was material the
     Agency wanted omitted." [A People's History of the United States,
     pp. 542-3]

   Also, the CIA secretly employs several hundred American academics to
   write books and other materials to be used for propaganda purposes, an
   important weapon in the battle for hearts and minds. In other words,
   the CIA, FBI (and their equivalents in other countries) and other state
   bodies can hardly be considered neutral bodies, who just follow orders.
   They are a network of vested interests, with specific ideological
   viewpoints and aims which usually place the wishes of the voting
   population below maintaining the state-capital power structure in
   place.

   Therefore we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react in
   different ways to the same economic and institutional influences and
   interests. Its no coincidence that left-wing, reformist parties have
   introduced right-wing, pro-capitalist ("Thatcherite/Reaganite")
   policies similiar to those right-wing, explicitly pro-capitalist
   parties have. This is to be expected as the basic function of any
   political system is to manage the existing state and economic
   structures and a society's power relationships. It is not to alter them
   radically, The great illusion of politics is the notion that
   politicians have the power to make whatever changes they like. Looking
   at the international picture, the question obviously arises as to what
   real control do the politicians have over the international economy and
   its institutions or the pattern of world trade and investment. These
   institutions have great power and, moreover, have a driving force (the
   profit motive) which is essentially out of control (as can be seen by
   the regular financial crises during the neo-liberal era).

   This can be seen most dramatically in the military coup in Chile
   against the democratically re-elected (left-wing) Allende government by
   the military, aided by the CIA, US based corporations and the US
   government to make it harder for the Allende regime. The coup resulted
   in thousands murdered and years of terror and dictatorship, but the
   danger of a pro-labour government was ended and the business
   environment was made healthy for profits (see [5]section C.11). An
   extreme example, we know, but an important one for any believer in
   freedom or the idea that the state machine is somehow neutral and can
   be captured and used by left-wing parties -- particularly as the fate
   of Chile has been suffered by many other reformist governments across
   the world.

   Of course there have been examples of quite extensive reforms which did
   benefit working class people in major countries. The New Deal in the
   USA and the 1945-51 Labour Governments spring to mind. Surely these
   indicate that our claims are false? Simply put, no, they do not.
   Reforms can be won from the state when the dangers of not giving in
   outweigh any weakening of ruling class power implied in the reforms. In
   the face of economic crisis and working class protest, the ruling elite
   often tolerates changes it would otherwise fight tooth-and-nail in
   other circumstances. Reforms will be allowed if they can be used to
   save the capitalist system and the state from its own excesses and even
   improve their operation or if not bending will mean being broke in the
   storm of social protest. After all, the possibility of getting rid of
   the reforms when they are no longer required will always exist as long
   as class society remains.

   This can be seen from the reformist governments of 1930s USA and 1940s
   UK. Both faced substantial economic problems and both were under
   pressure from below, by waves of militant working class struggle which
   could have developed beyond mere reformism. The waves of sit-down
   strikes in the 1930s ensured the passing of pro-union laws which
   allowed workers to organise without fear of being fired. This measure
   also partly integrated the unions into the capitalist-state machine by
   making them responsible for controlling "unofficial" workplace action
   (and so ensuring profits). The nationalisation of roughly 20% of the UK
   economy during the Labour administration of 1945 (the most unprofitable
   sections of it as well) was also the direct result of ruling class
   fear. As Conservative M.P. Quintin Hogg acknowledged in the House of
   Commons on the 17th February 1943: "If you do not give the people
   reform they are going to give you revolution". Memories of the near
   revolutions across Europe after the First World War were obviously in
   many minds, on both sides. Not that nationalisation was particularly
   feared as "socialism." Indeed it was argued that it was the best means
   of improving the performance of the British economy. As anarchists at
   the time noted "the real opinions of capitalists can be seen from Stock
   Exchange conditions and statements of industrialists than the Tory
   Front bench" and from these it be seen "that the owning class is not at
   all displeased with the record and tendency of the Labour Party."
   [Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation, Vernon Richards (ed.), p.
   9]

   History confirms Proudhon's argument that the state "can only turn into
   something and do the work of the revolution insofar as it will be so
   invited, provoked or compelled by some power outside of itself that
   seizes the initiative and sets things rolling," namely by "a body
   representative of the proletariat be formed in Paris . . . in
   opposition to the bourgeoisies representation." [Le Reprsentant du
   Peuple, 5th May 1848] So, if extensive reforms have implemented by the
   state, just remember what they were in response to militant pressure
   from below and that we could have got so much more. In general, things
   have little changed since this anarchist argument against
   electioneering was put forward in the 1880s:

     "in the electoral process, the working class will always be cheated
     and deceived . . . if they did manage to send, one, or ten, or fifty
     of them[selves to Parliament], they would become spoiled and
     powerless. Furthermore, even if the majority of Parliament were
     composed of workers, they could do nothing. Not only is there the
     senate . . . the chiefs of the armed forces, the heads of the
     judiciary and of the police, who would be against the parliamentary
     bills advanced by such a chamber and would refuse to enforce laws
     favouring the workers (it has happened); but furthermore laws are
     not miraculous; no law can prevent the capitalists from exploiting
     the workers; no law can force them to keep their factories open and
     employ workers at such and such conditions, nor force shopkeepers to
     sell as a certain price, and so on." [S. Merlino, quoted by
     Galleani, Op. Cit., p. 13]

   As any worker will tell you, just because there are laws on such things
   as health and safety, union organising, working hours or whatever, it
   does not mean that bosses will pay any attention to them. While firing
   people for joining a union is illegal in America, it does not stop
   bosses doing so. Similarly, many would be surprised to discover that
   the 8 hour working day was legally created in many US states by the
   1870s but workers had to strike for it in 1886 as it as not enforced.
   Ultimately, political action is dependent on direct action to be
   enforced where it counts (in the workplace and streets). And if only
   direct action can enforce a political decision once it is made, then it
   can do so beforehand so showing the limitations in waiting for
   politicians to act.

   Anarchists reject voting for other reasons. The fact is that electoral
   procedures are the opposite of direct action. They are based on getting
   someone else to act on your behalf. Therefore, far from empowering
   people and giving them a sense of confidence and ability,
   electioneering dis-empowers them by creating a "leader" figure from
   which changes are expected to flow. As Brian Martin observes:

     "all the historical evidence suggests that parties are more a drag
     than an impetus to radical change. One obvious problem is that
     parties can be voted out. All the policy changes they brought in can
     simply be reversed later.

     "More important, though, is the pacifying influence of the radical
     party itself. On a number of occasions, radical parties have been
     elected to power as a result of popular upsurges. Time after time,
     the 'radical' parties have become chains to hold back the process of
     radical change." ["Democracy without Elections", pp. 123-36,
     Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]

   This can easily be seen from the history of various left-wing parties.
   Labour or socialist parties, elected in periods of social turbulence,
   have often acted to reassure the ruling elite by dampening popular
   action that could have threatened capitalist interests. For example,
   the first action undertaken by the Popular Front elected in France in
   1936 was to put an end to strikes and occupations and generally to cool
   popular militancy, which was the Front's strongest ally in coming to
   power. The Labour government elected in Britain in 1945 got by with as
   few reforms as it could, refusing to consider changing basic social
   structures and simply replaced wage-labour to a boss with wage-labour
   to the state via nationalisation of certain industries. It did,
   however, manage to find time within the first days of taking office to
   send troops in to break a dockers' strike (this was no isolated event:
   Labour has used troops to break strikes far more often than the
   Conservatives have).

   These points indicate why existing power structures cannot effectively
   be challenged through elections. For one thing, elected representatives
   are not mandated, which is to say they are not tied in any binding way
   to particular policies, no matter what promises they have made or what
   voters may prefer. Around election time, the public's influence on
   politicians is strongest, but after the election, representatives can
   do practically whatever they want, because there is no procedure for
   instant recall. In practice it is impossible to recall politicians
   before the next election, and between elections they are continually
   exposed to pressure from powerful special-interest groups -- especially
   business lobbyists, state bureaucracies and political party power
   brokers.

   Under such pressure, the tendency of politicians to break campaign
   promises has become legendary. Generally, such promise breaking is
   blamed on bad character, leading to periodic "throw-the-bastards-out"
   fervour -- after which a new set of representatives is elected, who
   also mysteriously turn out to be bastards! In reality it is the system
   itself that produces "bastards," the sell-outs and shady dealing we
   have come to expect from politicians. In light of modern "democracy",
   it is amazing that anyone takes the system seriously enough to vote at
   all. In fact, voter turnout in the US and other nations where
   "democracy" is practiced in this fashion is typically low.
   Nevertheless, some voters continue to participate, pinning their hopes
   on new parties or trying to reform a major party. For anarchists this
   activity is pointless as it does not get at the root of the problem, it
   is the system which shapes politicians and parties in its own image and
   marginalises and alienates people due to its hierarchical and
   centralised nature. No amount of party politics can change that.

   However, we should make it clear that most anarchists recognise there
   is a difference between voting for a government and voting in a
   referendum. Here we are discussing the former, electioneering, as a
   means of social change. Referenda are closer to anarchist ideas of
   direct democracy and are, while flawed, far better than electing a
   politician to office once every four years or so. In addition,
   Anarchists are not necessarily against all involvement in electoral
   politics. Some advocate voting when the possible outcome of an election
   could be disastrous (for example, if a fascist or quasi-fascist party
   looks likely to win the election). Some Social Ecologists, following
   Murray Bookchin's arguments, support actual standing in elections and
   think anarchists by taking part in local elections can use them to
   create self-governing community assemblies. However, few anarchists
   support such means to create community assemblies (see [6]section
   J.5.14 for a discussion on this).

   The problem of elections in a statist system, even on a local scale,
   means that the vast majority of anarchists reject voting as a means of
   change. Instead we wholeheartedly support direct action as the means of
   getting improvements in the here and now as well as the means of
   creating an alternative to the current system.

J.2.3 What are the political implications of voting?

   At its most basic, voting implies agreement with the status quo. It is
   worth quoting the Scottish libertarian socialist James Kelman at length
   on this:

     "State propaganda insists that the reason why at least 40 percent of
     the voting public don't vote at all is because they have no feelings
     one way or the other. They say the same thing in the USA, where some
     85 percent of the population are apparently 'apolitical' since they
     don't bother registering a vote. Rejection of the political system
     is inadmissible as far as the state is concerned . . . Of course the
     one thing that does happen when you vote is that someone else has
     endorsed an unfair political system . . . A vote for any party or
     any individual is always a vote for the political system. You can
     interpret your vote in whichever way you like but it remains an
     endorsement of the apparatus . . . If there was any possibility that
     the apparatus could effect a change in the system then they would
     dismantle it immediately. In other words the political system is an
     integral state institution, designed and refined to perpetuate its
     own existence. Ruling authority fixes the agenda by which the public
     are allowed 'to enter the political arena' and that's the fix
     they've settled on." [Some Recent Attacks, p. 87]

   We are taught from an early age that voting in elections is right and a
   duty. In US schools, for example, children elect class presidents and
   other officers. Often mini-general elections are held to "educate"
   children in "democracy." Periodically, election coverage monopolises
   the media. We are made to feel guilty about shirking our "civic
   responsibility" if we do not vote. Countries that have no elections, or
   only rigged elections, are regarded as failures. As a result, elections
   have become a quasi-religious ritual. Yet, in reality, "elections in
   practice have served well to maintain dominant power structures such as
   private property, the military, male domination, and economic
   inequality. None of these has been seriously threatened through voting.
   It is from the point of view of radical critics that elections are most
   limiting." ["Democracy without Elections", pp. 123-36, Reinventing
   Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 124]

   Elections serve the interests of state power in other ways. First,
   voting helps to legitimate government; hence suffrage has often been
   expanded at times when there was little popular demand for it but when
   mass support of government was crucial, as during a war or revolution.
   Second, it comes to be seen as the only legitimate form of political
   participation, thus making it likely that any revolts by oppressed or
   marginalised groups will be viewed by the general public as
   illegitimate. It helps focus attention away from direct action and
   building new social structures back into institutions which the ruling
   class can easily control. The general election during the May '68
   revolt in France, for example, helped diffuse the revolutionary
   situation, as did the elections during the Argentine revolt against
   neo-liberalism in the early 2000s.

   So by turning political participation into the "safe" activities of
   campaigning and voting, elections have reduced the risk of more radical
   direct action as well as building a false sense of power and
   sovereignty among the general population. Voting disempowers the
   grassroots by diverting energy from grassroots action. After all, the
   goal of electoral politics is to elect a representative who will act
   for us. Therefore, instead of taking direct action to solve problems
   ourselves, action becomes indirect, though the government. This is an
   insidiously easy trap to fall into, as we have been conditioned in
   hierarchical society from day one into attitudes of passivity and
   obedience, which gives most of us a deep-seated tendency to leave
   important matters to the "experts" and "authorities." Kropotkin
   described well the net effect:

     "Vote! Greater men that you will tell you the moment when the
     self-annihilation of capital has been accomplished. They will then
     expropriate the few usurpers left . . . and you will be freed
     without having taken any more trouble than that of writing on a bit
     of paper the name of the man whom the heads of your faction of the
     party told you to vote for!" [quoted by Ruth Kinna, "Kropotkin's
     theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context", pp. 259-283,
     International Review of Social History, No. 40, pp. 265-6]

   Anarchists also criticise elections for giving citizens the false
   impression that the government serves, or can serve, the people. As
   Martin remains us "the founding of the modern state a few centuries ago
   was met with great resistance: people would refuse to pay taxes, to be
   conscripted or to obey laws passed by national governments. The
   introduction of voting and the expanded suffrage have greatly aided the
   expansion of state power. Rather than seeing the system as one of ruler
   and ruled, people see at least the possibility of using state power to
   serve themselves. As electoral participation has increased, the degree
   of resistance to taxation, military service, and the immense variety of
   laws regulating behaviour, has been greatly attenuated" [Op. Cit., p.
   126]

   Ironically, voting has legitimated the growth of state power to such an
   extent that the state is now beyond any real popular control by the
   form of participation that made that growth possible. Nevertheless, the
   idea that electoral participation means popular control of government
   is so deeply implanted in people's psyches that even the most overtly
   sceptical radical often cannot fully free themselves from it.

   Therefore, voting has the important political implication of
   encouraging people to identify with state power and to justify the
   status quo. In addition, it feeds the illusion that the state is
   neutral and that electing parties to office means that people have
   control over their own lives. Moreover, elections have a tendency to
   make people passive, to look for salvation from above and not from
   their own self-activity. As such it produces a division between leaders
   and led, with the voters turned into spectators of activity, not the
   participants within it.

   All this does not mean, obviously, that anarchists prefer dictatorship
   or an "enlightened" monarchy. Far from it, democratising state power
   can be an important step towards abolishing it. All anarchists agree
   with Bakunin when he argued that "the most imperfect republic is a
   thousand times better that even the most enlightened monarchy." [quoted
   by Daniel Guerin, Anarchism, p. 20] It simply means that anarchists
   refuse to join in with the farce of electioneering, particularly when
   there are more effective means available for changing things for the
   better. Anarchists reject the idea that our problems can be solved by
   the very institutions that cause them in the first place!

J.2.4 Surely voting for radical parties will be effective?

   There is no doubt that voting can lead to changes in policies, which
   can be a good thing as far as it goes. However, such policies are
   formulated and implemented within the authoritarian framework of the
   hierarchical capitalist state -- a framework which itself is never open
   to challenge by voting. On the contrary, voting legitimates the state
   framework ensuring that social change will be (at best) mild, gradual,
   and reformist rather than rapid and radical. Indeed, the "democratic"
   process has resulted in all successful political parties becoming
   committed to "more of the same" or tinkering with the details at best
   (which is usually the limits of any policy changes). This seems
   unlikely to change.

   Given the need for radical systemic changes as soon as possible due to
   the exponentially accelerating crises of modern civilisation, working
   for gradual reforms within the electoral system must be seen as a
   potentially deadly tactical error. Electioneering has always been the
   death of radicalism. Political parties are only radical when they do
   not stand a chance of election. However, many social activists continue
   to try to use elections, so participating in the system which
   disempowers the majority and so helps create the social problems they
   are protesting against. It should be a widely recognised truism in
   radical circles that elections empower the politicians and not the
   voters. Thus elections focus attention to a few leaders, urging them to
   act for rather than acting for ourselves (see [7]section H.1.5). If
   genuine social change needs mass participation then, by definition,
   using elections will undermine that. This applies to within the party
   as well, for working "within the system" disempowers grassroots
   activists, as can be seen by the Green party in Germany during the
   early eighties. The coalitions into which the Greens entered with
   Social Democrats in the German legislature often had the effect of
   strengthening the status quo by co-opting those whose energies might
   otherwise have gone into more radical and effective forms of activism.
   Principles were ignored in favour of having some influence, so
   producing watered-down legislation which tinkered with the system
   rather than transforming it.

   As discussed in [8]section H.3.9, the state is more complicated than
   the simple organ of the economically dominant class pictured by
   Marxists. There are continual struggles both inside and outside the
   state bureaucracies, struggles that influence policies and empower
   different groups of people. This can produce clashes with the ruling
   elite, while the need of the state to defend the system as a whole
   causes conflict with the interests of sections of the capitalist class.
   Due to this, many radical parties believe that the state is neutral and
   so it makes sense to work within it -- for example, to obtain labour,
   consumer, and environmental protection laws. However, this reasoning
   ignores the fact that the organisational structure of the state is not
   neutral. To quote Brian Martin:

     "The basic anarchist insight is that the structure of the state, as
     a centralised administrative apparatus, is inherently flawed from
     the point of view of human freedom and equality. Even though the
     state can be used occasionally for valuable ends, as a means the
     state is flawed and impossible to reform. The non-reformable aspects
     of the state include, centrally, its monopoly over 'legitimate'
     violence and its consequent power to coerce for the purpose of war,
     internal control, taxation and the protection of property and
     bureaucratic privilege.

     "The problem with voting is that the basic premises of the state are
     never considered open for debate, much less challenge. The state's
     monopoly over the use of violence for war is never at issue. Neither
     is the state's use of violence against revolt from within. The
     state's right to extract economic resources from the population is
     never questioned. Neither is the state's guarantee of either private
     property (under capitalism) or bureaucratic prerogative (under state
     socialism) -- or both." ["Democracy without Elections", pp. 123-36,
     Reinventing Anarchy, Again, Howard J. Ehrlich (ed.), p. 127]

   It may be argued that if a new political group is radical enough it
   will be able to use state power for good purposes. While we discuss
   this in more detail in [9]section J.2.6, let us consider a specific
   case, that of the Greens as many of them believe that the best way to
   achieve their aims is to work within the current political system.

   By pledging to use the electoral system to achieve change, Green
   parties necessarily commit themselves to formulating their proposals as
   legislative agendas. But once legislation is passed, the coercive
   mechanisms of the state will be needed to enforce it. Therefore, Green
   parties are committed to upholding state power. However, our analysis
   in [10]section B.2 indicated that the state is a set of hierarchical
   institutions through which a ruling elite dominates society and
   individuals. And, as we have seen in [11]section E, ecologists,
   feminists, and peace activists -- who are key constituencies of the
   Green movement -- all need to dismantle hierarchies and domination in
   order to achieve their respective aims. Therefore, since the state is
   not only the largest and most powerful hierarchy but also serves to
   maintain the hierarchical form of all major institutions in society
   (since this form is the most suitable for achieving ruling-class
   interests), the state itself is the main obstacle to the success of key
   constituencies of the Green movement. Hence it is impossible in
   principle for a parliamentary Green party to achieve the essential
   objectives of the Green movement. A similar argument would apply to any
   radical party whose main emphasis was social justice, which like the
   goals of feminists, radical ecologists, and peace activists, depends on
   dismantling hierarchies.

   As we argued in the [12]previous section, radical parties are under
   pressure from economic and state bureaucracies that ensure that even a
   sincere radical party would be powerless to introduce significant
   reforms. The only real response to the problems of representative
   democracy is to urge people not to vote. Such anti-election campaigns
   can be a valuable way of making others aware of the limitations of the
   current system, which is a necessary condition for their seriously
   considering the anarchist alternative of using direct action and build
   alternative social and economic organisations. The implications of
   abstentionism are discussed in the [13]next section.

J.2.5 Why do anarchists support abstentionism and what are its implications?

   At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because
   "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and
   decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles
   of anarchism." [Emma Goldman, Vision on Fire, p. 89] For, as Proudhon
   stressed, in a statist democracy, the people "is limited to choosing,
   every three or four years, its chiefs and its imposters." [quoted by
   George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 152]

   If you reject hierarchy then participating in a system by which you
   elect those who will govern you is almost like adding insult to injury!
   For, as Luigi Galleani pointed out, "whoever has the political
   competence to choose his own rulers is, by implication, also competent
   to do without them." [The End of Anarchism?, p. 37] In other words,
   because anarchists reject the idea of authority, we reject the idea
   that picking the authority (be it bosses or politicians) makes us free.
   Therefore, anarchists reject governmental elections in the name of
   self-government and free association. We refuse to vote as voting is
   endorsing authoritarian social structures. We are (in effect) being
   asked to make obligations to the state, not our fellow citizens, and so
   anarchists reject the symbolic process by which our liberty is
   alienated from us.

   Anarchists are aware that elections serve to legitimate government. We
   have always warned that since the state is an integral part of the
   system that perpetuates poverty, inequality, racism, imperialism,
   sexism, environmental destruction, and war, we should not expect to
   solve any of these problems by changing a few nominal state leaders
   every four or five years. Therefore anarchists (usually) advocate
   abstentionism at election time as a means of exposing the farce of
   "democracy", the disempowering nature of elections and the real role of
   the state.

   For anarchists, then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers.
   Instead of urging people to vote we raise the option of choosing to
   rule yourself, to organise freely with others -- in your workplace, in
   your community, everywhere -- as equals. The option of something you
   cannot vote for, a new society. Instead of waiting for others to make
   some changes for you, anarchists urge that you do it yourself. In this
   way, you cannot but build an alternative to the state which can reduce
   its power now and, in the long run, replace it. This is the core of the
   anarchist support for abstentionism.

   In addition, beyond this basic anarchist rejection of elections from an
   anti-statist position, anarchists also support abstentionism as it
   allows us to put across our ideas at election time. It is a fact that
   at such times people are often more interested in politics than usual.
   So, by arguing for abstentionism we can get our ideas across about the
   nature of the current system, how elected politicians do not control
   the state bureaucracy, now the state acts to protect capitalism and so
   on. In addition, it allows us to present the ideas of direct action and
   encourage those disillusioned with political parties and the current
   system to become anarchists by presenting a viable alternative to the
   farce of politics. For, after all, a sizeable percentage of non-voters
   and voters are disillusioned with the current set-up. Many who vote do
   so simply against the other candidate, seeking the least-worse option.
   Many who do not vote do so for essentially political reasons, such as
   being fed up with the political system, failing to see any major
   differences between the parties, or recognition that the candidates
   were not interested in people like them. These non-voters are often
   disproportionately left-leaning, compared with those who did vote. So,
   anarchist abstentionism is a means of turning this negative reaction to
   an unjust system into positive activity.

   So, anarchist opposition to electioneering has deep political
   implications which Luigi Galleani addressed when he wrote:

     "The anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a
     conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which
     is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute
     lack of confidence in the State . . . Furthermore, anarchist
     abstentionism has consequences which are much less superficial than
     the inert apathy ascribed to it by the sneering careerists of
     'scientific socialism' [i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the
     constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible
     as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing,
     exposes its essential character as representative, procurer and
     policeman of the ruling classes.

     "Distrust of reforms, of public power and of delegated authority,
     can lead to direct action [in the class struggle] . . . It can
     determine the revolutionary character of this . . . action; and,
     accordingly, anarchists regard it as the best available means for
     preparing the masses to manage their own personal and collective
     interests; and, besides, anarchists feel that even now the working
     people are fully capable of handling their own political and
     administrative interests." [Op. Cit., pp. 13-14]

   Therefore abstentionism stresses the importance of self-activity and
   self-libertarian as well as having an important educational effect in
   highlighting that the state is not neutral but serves to protect class
   rule and that meaningful change only comes from below, by direct
   action. For the dominant ideas within any class society reflect the
   opinions of the ruling elite of that society and so any campaign at
   election times which argues for abstentionism and indicates why voting
   is a farce will obviously challenge them. In other words, abstentionism
   combined with direct action and the building of libertarian
   alternatives is a very effective means of changing people's ideas and
   encouraging a process of self-education and, ultimately,
   self-liberation.

   In summary, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to encourage
   activity, not apathy. Not voting is not enough, and anarchists urge
   people to organise and resist as well. Abstentionism must be the
   political counterpart of class struggle, self-activity and
   self-management in order to be effective -- otherwise it is as
   pointless as voting is.

J.2.6 What are the effects of radicals using electioneering?

   While many radicals would be tempted to agree with our analysis of the
   limitations of electioneering and voting, few would automatically agree
   with anarchist abstentionist arguments. Instead, they argue that we
   should combine direct action with electioneering. In that way (it is
   argued) we can overcome the limitations of electioneering by
   invigorating it with self-activity. In addition, they suggest, the
   state is too powerful to leave in the hands of the enemies of the
   working class. A radical politician will refuse to give the orders to
   crush social protest that a right-wing, pro-capitalist one would.

   While these are important arguments in favour of radicals using
   elections, they ultimately fail to take into account the nature of the
   state and the corrupting effect it has on radicals. This reformist idea
   has met a nasty end. If history is anything to go by, the net effect of
   radicals using elections is that by the time they are elected to office
   the radicals will happily do what they claimed the right-wing would
   have done. In 1899, for example, the Socialist Alexandre Millerand
   joined the French Government. Nothing changed. During industrial
   disputes strikers "appealed to Millerand for help, confident that, with
   him in the government, the state would be on their side. Much of this
   confidence was dispelled within a few years. The government did little
   more for workers than its predecessors had done; soldiers and police
   were still sent in to repress serious strikes." [Peter N. Stearns,
   Revolutionary Syndicalism and French Labour, p. 16] Aristide Briand,
   another socialist politician was the Minister of the Interior in 1910
   and "broke a general strike of railwaymen by use of the most draconian
   methods. Having declared a military emergency he threatened all
   strikers with court martial." [Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France
   p. 36] These events occurred, it should be noted, during the period
   when social democratic parties were self-proclaimed revolutionaries and
   arguing against anarcho-syndicalism by using the argument that working
   people needed their own representatives in office to stop troops being
   used against them during strikes!

   Looking at the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951 we find the
   same actions. What is often considered the most left-wing Labour
   government ever used troops to break strikes in every year it was in
   office, starting with a dockers' strike days after it became the new
   government. Again, in the 1970s, Labour used troops to break strikes.
   Indeed, the Labour Party has used troops to break strikes more often
   than the Conservative Party.

   Many blame the individuals elected to office for these betrayals,
   arguing that we need to elect better politicians, select better
   leaders. For anarchists nothing could be more wrong as its the means
   used, not the individuals involved, which is the problem. Writing of
   his personal experience as a member of Parliament, Proudhon recounted
   that "[a]s soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to
   be in touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative
   work, I entirely lost sight of the current events . . . One must have
   lived in that isolator which is called a National Assembly to realise
   how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state of the
   country are almost always those who represent it." There was "ignorance
   of daily facts" and "fear of the people" ("the sickness of all those
   who belong to authority") for "the people, for those in power, are the
   enemy." [The Anarchist Reader, p. 111] Ultimately, as syndicalist Emile
   Pouget argued, this fate was inevitable as any socialist politician
   "could not break the mould; he is only a cog in the machine of
   oppression and whether he wishes it or not he must, as minister,
   participate in the job of crushing the proletariat." [quoted by
   Jennings, Op. Cit., p. 36]

   These days, few enter Parliament as radicals like Proudhon. The notion
   of using elections for radical change is rare. Such a development in
   itself shows the correctness of the anarchist critique of
   electioneering. At its most basic, electioneering results in the party
   using it becoming more moderate and reformist -- it becomes the victim
   of its own success. In order to gain votes, the party must appear
   "moderate" and "practical" and that means working within the system:

     "Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not
     brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism,
     but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely
     crushed and condemned to insignificance . . . Participation in
     parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement
     like an insidious poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity
     of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse
     to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion that
     salvation always comes from above." [Rudolf Rocker,
     Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 54]

   This corruption does not happen overnight. Alexander Berkman indicated
   how it slowly developed:

     "In former days the Socialists . . . claimed that they meant to use
     politics only for the purpose of propaganda . . . and took part in
     elections on order to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism

     "It may seem a harmless thing but it proved the undoing of
     Socialism. Because nothing is truer than the means you use to attain
     your object soon themselves become your object . . . Little by
     little they changed their attitude. Instead of electioneering being
     merely an educational method, it gradually became their only method
     to secure political office, to get elected to legislative bodies and
     other government positions. The change naturally led the Socialists
     to tone down their revolutionary ardour; it compelled them to soften
     their criticism of capitalism and government in order to avoid
     persecution and secure more votes . . . they have ceased to be
     revolutionists; they have become reformers who want to change things
     by law . . . And everywhere, without exception, they have followed
     the same course, everywhere they have forsworn their ideals, have
     duped the masses . . . There is a deeper reason for this constant
     and regular betrayal [than individual scoundrels being elected] . .
     . no man turns scoundrel or traitor overnight.

     "It is power which corrupts . . . The filth and contamination of
     politics everywhere proves that. Moreover, even with the best
     intentions Socialists in legislative bodies or in governments find
     themselves entirely powerless to accomplishing anything of a
     socialistic nature . . . The demoralisation and vitiation take place
     little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself .
     . . [The elected Socialist] finds himself in a strange and
     unfriendly atmosphere . . . and he must participate in the business
     that is being transacted. Most of that business . . . has no bearing
     whatever on the things the Socialist believes in, no connection with
     the interests of the working class voters who elected him . . . when
     a bill of some bearing upon labour . . . comes up . . . he is
     ignored or laughed at for his impractical ideas on the matter . . .

     "Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock [by
     the other politicians] . . . and finds more and more difficulty in
     securing the floor. . . he knows that neither by his talk nor by his
     vote can he influence the proceedings . . . His speeches don't even
     reach the public . . . He appeals to the voters to elect more
     comrades. . . Years pass . . . [and a] number . . . are elected.
     Each of them goes through the same experience . . . [and] quickly
     come to the conclusion . . . [that they] must show that they are
     practical men . . . that they are doing something for their
     constituency . . . In this manner the situation compels them to take
     a 'practical' part in the proceedings, to 'talk business,' to fall
     in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body
     . . . Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay,
     the elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel of the
     political machinery . . . With growing success in elections and
     securing political power they turn more and more conservative and
     content with existing conditions. Removal from the life and
     suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the
     bourgeoisie . . . they have become what they call 'practical' . . .
     Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience and they
     have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current . . .
     They have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism." [What is
     Anarchism?, pp. 92-8]

   So the "political power which they had wanted to conquer had gradually
   conquered their Socialism until there was scarcely anything left of
   it." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 55]

   Not that these arguments are the result of hindsight, we must add.
   Bakunin was arguing in the early 1870s that the "inevitable result [of
   using elections] will be that workers' deputies, transferred to a
   purely bourgeois environment, and into an atmosphere of purely
   bourgeois political ideas . . . will become middle class in their
   outlook, perhaps even more so than the bourgeois themselves." As long
   as universal suffrage "is exercised in a society where the people, the
   mass of workers, are economically dominated by a minority holding
   exclusive possession the property and capital of the country" elections
   "can only be illusory, anti-democratic in their results." [The
   Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 216 and p. 213] This meant that
   "the election to the German parliament of one or two workers . . . from
   the Social Democratic Party" was "not dangerous" and, in fact, was
   "highly useful to the German state as a lightning-rod, or a
   safety-valve." Unlike the "political and social theory" of the
   anarchists, which "leads them directly and inexorably to a complete
   break with all governments and all forms of bourgeois politics, leaving
   no alternative but social revolution," Marxism, he argued, "inexorably
   enmeshes and entangles its adherents, under the pretext of political
   tactics, in endless accommodation with governments and the various
   bourgeois political parties - that is, it thrusts them directly into
   reaction." [Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, p. 193 and pp. 179-80] In the
   case of the German Social Democrats, this became obvious in 1914, when
   they supported their state in the First World war, and after 1918, when
   they crushed the German Revolution.

   So history proved Bakunin's prediction correct (as it did with his
   prediction that Marxism would result in elite rule). Simply put, for
   anarchists, the net effect of socialists using bourgeois elections
   would be to put them (and the movements they represent) into the
   quagmire of bourgeois politics and influences. In other words, the
   parties involved will be shaped by the environment they are working
   within and not vice versa.

   History is littered with examples of radical parties becoming a part of
   the system. From Marxian Social Democracy at the turn of the 19th
   century to the German Green Party in the 1980s, we have seen radical
   parties, initially proclaiming the need for direct action and
   extra-parliamentary activity denouncing these activities once in power.
   From only using parliament as a means of spreading their message, the
   parties involved end up considering votes as more important than the
   message. Janet Biehl sums up the effects on the German Green Party of
   trying to combine radical electioneering with direct action:

     "the German Greens, once a flagship for the Green movement
     worldwide, should now be considered stink normal, as their de facto
     boss himself declares. Now a repository of careerists, the Greens
     stand out only for the rapidity with which the old cadre of
     careerism, party politics, and business-as-usual once again played
     itself out in their saga of compromise and betrayal of principle.
     Under the superficial veil of their old values -- a very thin veil
     indeed, now -- they can seek positions and make compromises to their
     heart's content . . . They have become 'practical,' 'realistic' and
     'power-orientated.' This former New Left ages badly, not only in
     Germany but everywhere else. But then, it happened with the S.P.D.
     [The German Social Democratic Party] in August 1914, then why not
     with Die Grunen in 1991? So it did." ["Party or Movement?",
     Greenline, no. 89, p. 14]

   This, sadly, is the end result of all such attempts. Ultimately,
   supporters of using political action can only appeal to the good
   intentions and character of their candidates. Anarchists, however,
   present an analysis of state structures and other influences that will
   determine how the character of the successful candidates will change.
   In other words, in contrast to Marxists and other radicals, anarchists
   present a materialist, scientific analysis of the dynamics of
   electioneering and its effects on radicals. Like most forms of
   idealism, the arguments of Marxists and other radicals flounder on the
   rocks of reality.

   However, many radicals refuse to learn this lesson of history and keep
   trying to create a new party which will not repeat the saga of
   compromise and betrayal which all other radical parties have suffered.
   And they say that anarchists are utopian! "You cannot dive into a swamp
   and remain clean." [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 99] Such is the result of
   rejecting (or "supplementing" with electioneering) direct action as the
   means to change things, for any social movement "to ever surrender
   their commitment to direct action for 'working within the system' is to
   destroy their personality as socially innovative movements. It is to
   dissolve back into the hopeless morass of 'mass organisations' that
   seek respectability rather than change." [Murray Bookchin, Toward an
   Ecological Society, p. 47]

   Moreover, the use of electioneering has a centralising effect on the
   movements that use it. Political actions become considered as
   parliamentary activities made for the population by their
   representatives, with the 'rank and file' left with no other role than
   that of passive support. Only the leaders are actively involved and the
   main emphasis falls upon them and it soon becomes taken for granted
   that they should determine policy. Conferences become little more than
   rallies with politicians freely admitting that they will ignore any
   conference decisions as and when required. Not to mention the
   all-too-common sight of politicians turning round and doing the exact
   opposite of what they promised. In the end, party conferences become
   simply like parliamentary elections, with party members supporting this
   leader against another.

   Soon the party reflects the division between manual and mental labour
   so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class
   self-activity and self-determination, there is a substitution of a
   non-working class leadership acting for people. This replaces
   self-management in social struggle and within the party itself.
   Electoralism strengthens the leaders dominance over the party and the
   party over the people it claims to represent. The real causes and
   solutions to the problems we face are mystified by the leadership and
   rarely discussed in order to concentrate on the popular issues that
   will get them elected. Ultimately, radicals "instead of weakening the
   false and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually work to
   strengthen the people's faith in forcible authority and government."
   [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 100] Which has always proved deadly to
   encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help -- the
   very keys to creating change in a society. Thus this 1870 resolution of
   the Spanish section of the First International seems to have been
   proven to be correct:

     "Any participation of the working class in the middle class
     political government would merely consolidate the present state of
     affairs and necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action
     of the proletariat. The Federation [of unions] is the true
     representative of labour, and should work outside the political
     system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish
     Revolution, p. 169]

   Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons,
   anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that
   makes the state subject to pressure from outside (see [14]section
   J.2.9). And, we feel, history has proven us right time and time again.

J.2.7 Surely we should vote for reformist parties in order to expose them?

   Some Leninist socialists (like the British Socialist Workers Party and
   its offshoots) argue that we should urge people to vote for Labour and
   other social democratic parties. In this they follow Lenin's 1920
   argument against the anti-Parliamentarian left that revolutionaries
   "help" elect such parties as many workers still follow their lead so
   that they will be "convinced by their own experience that we are
   right," that such parties "are absolutely good for nothing, that they
   are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their
   bankruptcy is inevitable." If we "want the masses to follow us", we
   need to "support" such parties "in the same way as the rope supports a
   hanged man." In this way, by experiencing the reformists in official,
   "the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and will
   begin to support communism." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 603, p. 605 and
   p. 602]

   This tactic is suggested for two reasons. The first is that
   revolutionaries will be able to reach more people by being seen to
   support popular, trade union based, parties. If they do not, then they
   are in danger of alienating sizeable sections of the working class by
   arguing that such parties will be no better than explicitly
   pro-capitalist ones. The second, and the more important one, is that by
   electing reformist parties into office the experience of living under
   such a government will shatter whatever illusions its supporters had in
   them. The reformist parties will be given the test of experience and
   when they betray their supporters to protect the status quo it will
   radicalise those who voted for them, who will then seek out real
   socialist parties (namely the likes of the SWP and ISO).

   Libertarians reject these arguments for three reasons.

   Firstly, it is deeply dishonest as it hides the true thoughts of those
   who support the tactic. To tell the truth is a revolutionary act.
   Radicals should not follow the capitalist media by telling half-truths,
   distorting the facts, hiding what they believe or supporting a party
   they are opposed to. If this means being less popular in the short run,
   then so be it. Attacking nationalism, capitalism, religion, or a host
   of other things can alienate people but few revolutionaries would be so
   opportunistic as to hold their tongues on these. In the long run being
   honest about your ideas is the best way of producing a movement which
   aims to get rid of a corrupt social system. Starting such a movement
   with half-truths is doomed to failure.

   Secondly, anarchists reject the basis of this argument. The logic
   underlying it is that by being disillusioned by their reformist leaders
   and party, voters will look for new, "better" leaders and parties.
   However, this fails to go to the root of the problem, namely the
   dependence on leaders which hierarchical society creates within people.
   Anarchists do not want people to follow the "best" leadership, they
   want them to govern themselves, to be self-active, manage their own
   affairs and not follow any would-be leaders. If you seriously think
   that the liberation of the oppressed is the task of the oppressed
   themselves (as Leninists claim to do) then you must reject this tactic
   in favour of ones that promote working class self-activity.

   The third reason we reject this tactic is that it has been proven to
   fail time and time again. What most of its supporters seem to fail to
   notice is that voters have indeed put reformist parties into office
   many times. Lenin suggested this tactic in 1920 and there has been no
   general radicalisation of the voting population by this method, nor
   even in reformist party militants in spite of the many Labour Party
   governments in Britain which all attacked the working class. Moreover,
   the disillusionment associated with the experience of reformist parties
   often expresses itself as a demoralisation with socialism as such,
   rather than with the reformist's watered down version of it. If Lenin's
   position could be persuasive to some in 1920 when it was untried, the
   experience of subsequent decades should show its weakness.

   This failure, for anarchists, is not surprising, considering the
   reasons why we reject this tactic. Given that this tactic does not
   attack hierarchy or dependence on leaders, does not attack the ideology
   and process of voting, it will obviously fail to present a real
   alternative to the voting population (who will turn to other
   alternatives available at election time and not embrace direct action).
   Also the sight of a so-called "socialist" or "radical" government
   managing capitalism, imposing cuts, breaking strikes and generally
   attacking its supporters will damage the credibility of any form of
   socialism and discredit all socialist and radical ideas in the eyes of
   the population. If the experience of the Labour Government in Britain
   during the 1970s and New Labour after 1997 are anything to go by, it
   may result in the rise of the far-right who will capitalise on this
   disillusionment.

   By refusing to argue that no government is "on our side," radicals who
   urge us to vote reformist "without illusions" help to disarm
   theoretically the people who listen to them. Working class people,
   surprised, confused and disorientated by the constant "betrayals" of
   left-wing parties may turn to right wing parties (who can be elected)
   to stop the attacks rather than turn to direct action as the radical
   minority within the working class did not attack voting as part of the
   problem. How many times must we elect the same party, go through the
   same process, the same betrayals before we realise this tactic does not
   work? Moreover, if it is a case of having to experience something
   before people reject it, few state socialists take this argument to its
   logical conclusion. We rarely hear them argue we must experience the
   hell of fascism or Stalinism or the nightmare of free market capitalism
   in order to ensure working class people "see through" them.

   Anarchists, in contrast, say that we can argue against reformist
   politics without having to associate ourselves with them by urging
   people to vote for them. By arguing for abstentionism we can help to
   theoretically arm the people who will come into conflict with these
   parties once they are in office. By arguing that all governments will
   be forced to attack us (due to the pressure from capital and state) and
   that we have to rely on our own organisations and power to defend
   ourselves, we can promote working class self-confidence in its own
   abilities, and encourage the rejection of capitalism, the state and
   hierarchical leadership as well as the use of direct action.

   Finally, we must add, it is not required for radicals to associate
   themselves with the farce of parliamentary propaganda in order to win
   people over to our ideas. Non-anarchists will see us use direct action,
   see us act, see the anarchistic alternatives we create and see our
   propaganda. Non-anarchists can be reached quite well without taking
   part in, or associating ourselves with, parliamentary action.

J.2.8 Will abstentionism lead to the right winning elections?

   Possibly. However anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say
   "organise" as well. Apathy is something anarchists have no interest in
   encouraging.

   The reasons why people abstain is more important than the act. The idea
   that the USA is closer to anarchy because around 50% of people do not
   vote is nonsense. Abstentionism in this case is the product of apathy
   and cynicism, not political ideas. So anarchists recognise that
   apathetic abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of
   anarchist sympathies. It is produced by apathy and a general level of
   cynicism at all forms of political ideas and the possibility of change.

   That is why anarchist abstentionism always stresses the need for direct
   action and organising economically and socially to change things, to
   resist oppression and exploitation. In such circumstances, the effect
   of an electoral strike would be fundamentally different than an apathy
   induced lack of voting. "If the anarchists", Vernon Richards argued,
   "could persuade half the electorate to abstain from voting this would,
   from an electoral point of view, contribute to the victory of the
   Right. But it would be a hollow victory, for what government could rule
   when half the electorate by not voting had expressed its lack of
   confidence in all governments?" The party in office would have to rule
   over a country in which a sizeable minority, even a majority, had
   rejected government as such. This would mean that the politicians
   "would be subjected to real pressures from people who believed in their
   own power" and acted accordingly. So anarchists call on people not to
   vote, but instead organise themselves and be conscious of their own
   power. Only this "can command the respect of governments, can curb the
   power of government as millions of crosses on bits of paper never
   will." [The Impossibilities of Social Democracy, p. 142]

   For, as Emma Goldman pointed out, "if the Anarchists were strong enough
   to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong
   enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of
   strikes . . . In the last analysis, the capitalist class knows too well
   that officials, whether they belong to the Right or the Left, can be
   bought. Or they are of no consequence to their pledge." [Vision on
   Fire, p. 90] The mass of the population, however, cannot be bought off
   and if they are willing and able to resist then they can become a power
   second to none. Only by organising, fighting back and practicing
   solidarity where we live and work can we really change things. That is
   where our power lies, that is where we can create a real alternative.
   By creating a network of self-managed, pro-active community and
   workplace organisations we can impose by direct action that which
   politicians can never give us from Parliament. Only such a movement can
   stop the attacks upon us by whoever gets into office. A government
   (left or right) which faces a mass movement based upon direct action
   and solidarity will always think twice before proposing cuts or
   introducing authoritarian laws.

   Of course, all the parties claim that they are better than the others
   and this is the logic of this question -- namely, we must vote for the
   lesser evil as the right-wing in office will be terrible. But what this
   forgets is that the lesser evil is still an evil. What happens is that
   instead of the greater evil attacking us, we get the lesser evil doing
   what the right-wing was going to do. Let us not forget it was the
   "lesser evil" of the Democrats (in the USA) and Labour (in the UK) who
   first introduced, in the 1970s, the monetarist and other policies that
   Reagan and Thatcher made their own in the 1980s.

   This is important to remember. The central fallacy in this kind of
   argument is the underlying assumption that "the left" will not
   implement the same kind of policies as the right. History does not
   support such a perspective and it is a weak hope to place a political
   strategy on. As such, when people worry that a right-wing government
   will come into power and seek to abolish previous social gains (such as
   abortion rights, welfare programmes, union rights, and so forth) they
   seem to forget that so-called left-wing administrations have also
   undermined such reforms. In response to queries by the left on how
   anarchists would seek to defend such reforms if their abstentionism
   aided the victory of the right, anarchists reply by asking the left how
   they seek to defend such reforms when their "left-wing" government
   starts to attack them.

   Ultimately, voting for other politicians will make little difference.
   The reality is that politicians are puppets. As we argued in
   [15]section J.2.2, real power in the state does not lie with
   politicians, but instead within the state bureaucracy and big business.
   Faced with these powers, we have seen left-wing governments from Spain
   to New Zealand introduce right-wing policies. So even if we elected a
   radical party, they would be powerless to change anything important and
   soon be forced to attack us in the interests of capitalism. Politicians
   come and go, but the state bureaucracy and big business remain forever!
   Simply put, we cannot expect a different group of politicians to react
   that differently to the same economic and political pressures and
   influences.

   Therefore we cannot rely on voting for the lesser evil to safe us from
   the possible dangers of a right-wing election victory. All we can hope
   for is that no matter who gets in, the population will resist the
   government because it knows and can use its real power: direct action.
   For the "only limit to the oppression of government is the power with
   which the people show themselves capable of opposing it." [Malatesta,
   Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 196] Hence Vernon Richards:

     "If the anarchist movement has a role to play in practical politics
     it is surely that of suggesting to, and persuading, as many people
     as possible that their freedom from the Hitlers, Francos and the
     rest, depends not on the right to vote or securing a majority of
     votes 'for the candidate of ones choice,' but on evolving new forms
     of political and social organisation which aim at the direct
     participation of the people, with the consequent weakening of the
     power, as well of the social role, of government in the life of the
     community." ["Anarchists and Voting", pp. 176-87, The Raven, no. 14,
     pp. 177-8]

   We discuss what this could involve in the [16]next section.

J.2.9 What do anarchists do instead of voting?

   While anarchists reject electioneering and voting, it does not mean
   that we are politically apathetic. Indeed, part of the reason why
   anarchists reject voting is because we think that voting is not part of
   the solution, it is part of the problem. This is because it endorses an
   unjust and unfree political system and makes us look to others to fight
   our battles for us. It blocks constructive self-activity and direct
   action. It stops the building of alternatives in our communities and
   workplaces. Voting breeds apathy and apathy is our worse enemy.

   Given that we have had universal suffrage for some time in the West and
   we have seen the rise of Labour and Radical parties aiming to use that
   system to effect change in a socialistic direction, it seems strange
   that we are probably further away from socialism than when they
   started. The simple fact is that these parties have spent so much time
   trying to win elections that they have stopped even thinking about
   creating socialist alternatives in our communities and workplaces. That
   is in itself enough to prove that electioneering, far from eliminating
   apathy, in fact helps to create it.

   So, because of this, anarchists argue that the only way to not waste
   your vote is to spoil it! We are the only political movement which
   argues that nothing will change unless you act for yourself, take back
   the power and fight the system directly. Only direct action breaks down
   apathy and gets results. It is the first steps towards real freedom,
   towards a free and just society. Unsurprisingly, then, anarchists are
   the first to point out that not voting is not enough: we need to
   actively struggle for an alternative to both voting and the current
   system. Just as the right to vote was won after a long series of
   struggles, so the creation of a free, decentralised, self-managed,
   libertarian socialist society will be the product of social struggle.

   Anarchists are the last people to deny the importance of political
   liberties or the importance in wining the right to vote. The question
   we must ask is whether it is a more a fitting tribute to the millions
   of people who used direct action, fought and suffered for the right to
   vote to use that victory to endorse a deeply unfair and undemocratic
   system or to use other means (indeed the means they used to win the
   vote) to create a system based upon true popular self-government? If we
   are true to our (and their) desire for a real, meaningful democracy, we
   would have to reject political action in favour of direct action.

   This obviously gives an idea of what anarchists do instead of voting,
   we agitate, organise and educate. Or, to quote Proudhon, the "problem
   before the labouring classes . . . consists not in capturing, but in
   subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating from the
   bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a
   more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state and
   subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to put it in its
   proper place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of power
   or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and
   industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the
   ruler of society, shall become its slave." [System of Economical
   Contradictions, p. 398 and p. 397]

   We do this by organising what Bakunin called "antipolitical social
   power of the working classes." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 263] This
   activity which bases itself on the two broad strategies of encouraging
   direct action and building alternatives where we live and work.

   Taking the first strategy, anarchists say that by using direct action
   we can force politicians to respect the wishes of the people. For
   example, if a government or boss tries to limit free speech, then
   anarchists would try to encourage a free speech fight to break the laws
   in question until such time as they are revoked. If a government or
   landlord refuses to limit rent increases or improve safety requirements
   for accommodation, anarchists would organise squats and rent strikes.
   In the case of environmental destruction, anarchists would support and
   encourage attempts at halting the damage by mass trespassing on sites,
   blocking the routes of developments, organising strikes and so on. If a
   boss refuses to introduce an 8 hour day, then workers should form a
   union and go on strike or simply stop working after 8 hours. Unlike
   laws, the boss cannot ignore direct action. Similarly, strikes combined
   with social protest would be effective means of stopping authoritarian
   laws being passed. For example, anti-union laws would be best fought by
   strike action and community boycotts (and given the utterly ineffectual
   defence pursued by pro-labour parties using political action to stop
   anti-union laws who can seriously say that the anarchist way would be
   any worse?). Collective non-payment of taxes would ensure the end of
   unpopular government decisions. The example of the poll tax rebellion
   in the UK in the late in 1980s shows the power of such direct action.
   The government could happily handle hours of speeches by opposition
   politicians but they could not ignore social protest (and we must add
   that the Labour Party which claimed to oppose the tax happily let the
   councils controlled by them introduce the tax and arrest non-payers).

   The aim would be to spread struggles and involve as many people as
   possible, for it is "merely stupid for a group of workers -- even for
   the workers organised as a national group -- to invite the making of a
   distinction between themselves and the community. The real protagonists
   in this struggle are the community and the State -- the community as an
   organic and inclusive body and the State as the representatives of a
   tyrannical minority . . . The General Strike of the future must be
   organised as a strike of the community against the State. The result of
   that strike will not be in doubt." [Herbert Read, Anarchy and Order, p.
   52]

   Such a counter-power would focus the attention of those in power far
   more than a ballot in a few years time (particularly as the state
   bureaucracy is not subject to even that weak form of accountability).
   As Noam Chomsky argues, "[w]ithin the constraints of existing state
   institutions, policies will be determined by people representing
   centres of concentrated power in the private economy, people who, in
   their institutional roles, will not be swayed by moral appeals but by
   the costs consequent upon the decisions they make -- not because they
   are 'bad people,' but because that is what the institutional roles
   demands." He continues: "Those who own and manage the society want a
   disciplined, apathetic and submissive public that will not challenge
   their privilege and the orderly world in which it thrives. The ordinary
   citizen need not grant them this gift. Enhancing the Crisis of
   Democracy by organisation and political engagement is itself a threat
   to power, a reason to undertake it quite apart from its crucial
   importance in itself as an essential step towards social change."
   [Turning the Tide, pp. 251-2]

   In this way, by encouraging social protest, any government would think
   twice before pursuing authoritarian, destructive and unpopular
   policies. In the final analysis, governments can and will ignore the
   talk of opposition politicians, but they cannot ignore social action
   for very long. In the words of a Spanish anarchosyndicalist, anarchists
   "do not ask for any concessions from the government. Our mission and
   our duty is to impose from the streets that which ministers and
   deputies are incapable of realising in parliament." [quoted by Graham
   Kelsey, Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State, p. 79]
   This was seen after the Popular Front was elected February 1936 and the
   Spanish landless workers, sick and tired of waiting for the politicians
   to act, started to occupy the land. The government "resorted to the
   time-tested procedure of expelling the peasants with the Civil Guard."
   The peasants responded with a "dramatic rebellion" which forced the
   politicians to "legalise the occupied farms. This proved once again
   that the only effective reforms are those imposed by force from below.
   Indeed, direct action was infinitely more successful than all the
   parliamentary debates that took place between 1931 and 1933 about
   whether to institute the approved Agrarian Reform law." [Abel Paz,
   Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, p. 391]

   The second strategy of building alternatives flows naturally from the
   first. Any form of campaign requires organisation and by organising in
   an anarchist manner we build organisations that "bear in them the
   living seed of the new society which is replace the old world."
   [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 255] In organising strikes in the workplace and
   community we can create a network of activists and union members who
   can encourage a spirit of revolt against authority. By creating
   assemblies where we live and work we can create an effective countering
   power to the state and capital. Such a union, as the anarchists in
   Spain and Italy proved, can be the focal point for recreating
   self-managed schools, social centres and so on. In this way the local
   community can ensure that it has sufficient independent, self-managed
   resources available to educate its members. Also, combined with credit
   unions (or mutual banks), cooperative workplaces and stores, a
   self-managed infrastructure could be created which would ensure that
   people can directly provide for their own needs without having to rely
   on capitalists or governments. In the words of a C.N.T. militant:

     "We must create that part of libertarian communism which can be
     created within bourgeois society and do so precisely to combat that
     society with our own special weapons." [quoted by Kelsey, Op. Cit.,
     p. 79]

   So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively
   encourages alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner argued,
   we "have a line to work upon, to teach the people self-reliance, to
   urge them to take part in non-political [i.e. non-electoral] movements
   directly started by themselves for themselves . . . as soon as people
   learn to rely upon themselves they will act for themselves . . . We
   teach the people to place their faith in themselves, we go on the lines
   of self-help. We teach them to form their own committees of management,
   to repudiate their masters, to despise the laws of the country."
   [quoted by John Quail, The Slow Burning Fuse, p. 87] In this way we
   encourage self-activity, self-organisation and self-help -- the
   opposite of apathy and doing nothing.

   Ultimately, what the state and capital gives, they can also take away.
   What we build by our own self-activity can last as long as we want it
   to and act to protect it:

     "The future belongs to those who continue daringly, consistently, to
     fight power and governmental authority. The future belongs to us and
     to our social philosophy. For it is the only social ideal that
     teaches independent thinking and direct participation of the workers
     in their economic struggle. For it is only through the organised
     economic strength of the masses that they can and will do away with
     the capitalist system and all the wrongs and injustices it contains.
     Any diversion from this stand will only retard our movement and make
     it a stepping stone for political climbers." [Emma Goldman, Vision
     on Fire, p. 92]

   In short, what happens in our communities, workplaces and environment
   is too important to be left to politicians -- or the ruling elite who
   control governments. Anarchists need to persuade "as many people as
   possible that their freedom . . . depends not on the right to vote or
   securing a majority of votes . . . but on evolving new forms of
   political and social organisation which aim at the direct participation
   of the people, with the consequent weakening of the power, as well as
   of the social role, of government in the life of the community."
   ["Anarchists and Voting", pp. 176-87, The Raven, No. 14, pp. 177-8] We
   discuss what new forms of economic and social organisations that this
   could involve in [17]section J.5.

J.2.10 Does rejecting electioneering mean that anarchists are apolitical?

   No. Far from it. The "apolitical" nature of anarchism is Marxist
   nonsense. As it desires to fundamentally change society, anarchism can
   be nothing but political. However, anarchism does reject (as we have
   seen) "normal" political activity as ineffectual and corrupting.
   However, many (particularly Marxists) imply this rejection of the con
   of capitalist politics means that anarchists concentrate on purely
   "economic" issues like wages, working conditions and so forth. By so
   doing, Marxists claim that anarchists leave the political agenda to be
   dominated by capitalist ideology, with disastrous results for the
   working class.

   This view, however, is utterly wrong. Indeed, Bakunin explicitly
   rejected the idea that working people could ignore politics and
   actually agreed with the Marxists that political indifference only led
   to capitalist control of the labour movement:

     "[some of] the workers in Germany . . . [were organised in] a kind
     of federation of small associations . . . 'Self-help' . . . was its
     slogan, in the sense that labouring people were persistently advised
     not to anticipate either deliverance or help from the state and the
     government, but only from their own efforts. This advice would have
     been excellent had it not been accompanied by the false assurance
     that liberation for the labouring people is possible under current
     conditions of social organisation . . . Under this delusion . . .
     the workers subject to [this] influence were supposed to disengage
     themselves systematically from all political and social concerns and
     questions about the state, property, and so forth . . . [This]
     completely subordinated the proletariat to the bourgeoisie which
     exploits it and for which it was to remain an obedient and mindless
     tool." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 174]

   In addition, Bakunin argued that the labour movement (and so the
   anarchist movement) would have to take into account political ideas and
   struggles but to do so in a working class way:

     "The International does not reject politics of a general kind; it
     will be compelled to intervene in politics so long as it is forced
     to struggle against the bourgeoisie. It rejects only bourgeois
     politics." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 313]

   To state the obvious, anarchists only reject working class "political
   action" if you equate (as did the early Marxists) "political action"
   with electioneering, standing candidates for Parliament, local town
   councils and so on -- what Bakunin termed bourgeois politics. We do not
   reject "political action" in the sense of direct action to effect
   political changes and reforms. As two American syndicalists argued,
   libertarians use "the term 'political action' . . . in its ordinary and
   correct sense. Parliamentary action resulting from the exercise of the
   franchise is political action. Parliamentary action caused by the
   influence of direct action tactics . . . is not political action. It is
   simply a registration of direct action." They also noted that
   syndicalists "have proven time and again that they can solve the many
   so-called political questions by direct action." [Earl C. Ford and
   William Z. Foster, Syndicalism, p. 19f and p. 23]

   So, anarchists reject capitalist politics (i.e. electioneering), but we
   do not ignore politics, wider political discussion or political
   struggles. Anarchists have always recognised the importance of
   political debate and ideas in social movements. Bakunin asked should a
   workers organisation "cease to concern itself with political and
   philosophical questions? Would [it] . . . ignore progress in the world
   of thought as well as the events which accompany or arise from the
   political struggle in and between states, concerning itself only with
   the economic problem?" He rejected such a position: "We hasten to say
   that it is absolutely impossible to ignore political and philosophical
   questions. An exclusive pre-occupation with economic questions would be
   fatal for the proletariat. Doubtless the defence and organisation of
   its economic interests . . . must be the principle task of the
   proletariat. But is impossible for the workers to stop there without
   renouncing their humanity and depriving themselves of the intellectual
   and moral power which is so necessary for the conquest of their
   economic rights." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 301]

   Nor do anarchists ignore elections. As Vernon Richards suggested,
   anarchists "cannot be uninterested in . . . election results, whatever
   their view about the demerits of the contending Parties. The fact that
   the anarchist movement has campaigned to persuade people not to use
   their vote is proof of our commitment and interest. If there is, say, a
   60 per cent. poll we will not assume that the 40 per cent. abstentions
   are anarchists, but we would surely be justified in drawing the
   conclusion that among the 40 per cent. there are a sizeable minority
   who have lost faith in political parties and were looking for other
   instruments, other values." [The Impossibilities of Social Democracy,
   p. 141] Nor, needless to say, are anarchists indifferent to struggles
   for political reforms and the need to stop the state pursuing
   authoritarian policies, imperialist adventures and such like.

   Thus the charge anarchists are apolitical or indifferent to politics
   (even capitalist politics) is a myth. Rather, "we are not concerned
   with choosing between governments but with creating the situation where
   government can no longer operate, because only then will we organise
   locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to satisfy real
   needs and common aspirations." For "so long as we have capitalism and
   government, the job of anarchists is to fight both, and at the same
   time encourage people to take what steps they can to run their own
   lives." ["Anarchists and Voting", pp. 176-87, The Raven, No. 14, p.
   179]

   Part of this process will be the discussion of political, social and
   economic issues in whatever self-managed organisations people create in
   their communities and workplaces (as Bakunin argued) and the use of
   these organisations to fight for (political, social and economic)
   improvements and reforms in the here and now using direct action and
   solidarity. This means, as Rudolf Rocker pointed out, anarchists desire
   a unification of political and economic struggles as the two as
   inseparable:

     "Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the
     viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a
     war against all institutions of political power, for in history
     economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political
     and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the
     domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the
     condition of the other." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 11]

   Such a unification must take place on the social and economic field,
   not the political, as that is where the working class is strongest. So
   anarchists are well aware of the need to fight for political issues and
   reforms, and so are "not in any way opposed to the political struggle,
   but in their opinion this struggle . . . must take the form of direct
   action, in which the instruments of economic [and social] power which
   the working class has at its command are the most effective. The most
   trivial wage-fight shows clearly that, whenever the employers find
   themselves in difficulties, the state steps in with the police, and
   even in some cases with the militia, to protect the threatened
   interests of the possessing classes. It would, therefore, be absurd for
   them to overlook the importance of the political struggle. Every event
   that affects the life of the community is of a political nature. In
   this sense every important economic action . . . is also a political
   action and, moreover, one of incomparably greater importance than any
   parliamentary proceeding." In other words, "just as the worker cannot
   be indifferent to the economic conditions of his life in existing
   society, so he cannot remain indifferent to the political structure of
   his country. Both in the struggle for his daily bread and for every
   kind of propaganda looking towards his social liberation he needs
   political rights and liberties, and he must fight for these himself
   with all his strength whenever the attempt is made to wrest them from
   him." So the "focal point of the political struggle lies, then, not in
   the political parties, but in the economic [and social] fighting
   organisations of the workers." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 77, p. 74 and p.
   77] Hence the comments in the CNT's newspaper Solidaridad Obrera:

     "Does anyone not know that we want to participate in public life?
     Does anyone not know that we have always done so? Yes, we want to
     participate. With our organisations. With our papers. Without
     intermediaries, delegates or representatives. No. We will not go to
     the Town Hall, to the Provincial Capitol, to Parliament." [quoted by
     Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 173]

   Indeed, Rudolf Rocker makes the point very clear. "It has often been
   charged against Anarcho-Syndicalism," he wrote, "that it has no
   interest in the political structure of the different countries, and
   consequently no interest in the political struggles of the time, and
   confines its activities entirely to the fight for purely economic
   demands. This idea is altogether erroneous and springs either from
   outright ignorance or wilful distortion of the facts. It is not the
   political struggle as such which distinguishes the Anarcho-Syndicalist
   from the modern labour parties, both in principle and tactics, but the
   form of this struggle and the aims which it has in view . . . their
   efforts are also directed, even today, at restricting the activities of
   the state . . . The attitude of Anarcho-Syndicalism towards the
   political power of the present-day state is exactly the same as it
   takes towards the system of capitalist exploitation" and "pursue the
   same tactics in their fight against . . . the state." [Op. Cit., pp.
   73-4]

   As historian Bob Holton suggests, the notion that syndicalism is
   apolitical "is certainly a deeply embedded article of faith among those
   marxists who have taken Lenin's strictures against syndicalism at face
   value. Yet it bears little relation to the actual nature of
   revolutionary industrial movements . . . Nor did syndicalists neglect
   politics and the state. Revolutionary industrial movements were on the
   contrary highly 'political' in that they sought to understand,
   challenge and destroy the structure of capitalist power in society,
   They quite clearly perceived the oppressive role of the state whose
   periodic intervention in industrial unrest could hardly have been
   missed." For example, the "vigorous campaign against the 'servile
   state' certainly disproves the notion that syndicalists ignored the
   role of the state in society. On the contrary, their analysis of
   bureaucratic state capitalism helped to make considerable inroads into
   prevailing Labourist and state socialist assumptions that the existing
   state could be captured by electoral means and used as an agent of
   through-going social reform." [British Syndicalism, 1900-1914, pp. 21-2
   and p. 204]

   Thus anarchism is not indifferent to or ignores political struggles and
   issues. Rather, it fights for political change and reforms as it fights
   for economic ones -- by direct action and solidarity. If anarchists
   "reject any participation in the works of bourgeois parliaments, it is
   not because they have no sympathy with political struggles in general,
   but because they are firmly convinced that parliamentary activity is
   for the workers the very weakest and most hopeless form of the
   political struggle." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 76] Anarchists reject the
   idea that political and economic struggles can be divided. Such an
   argument just reproduces the artificially created division of labour
   between mental and physical activity of capitalism within working class
   organisations and within anti-capitalist movements. We say that we
   should not separate out politics into some form of specialised activity
   that only certain people (i.e. our "representatives") can do. Instead,
   anarchists argue that political struggles, ideas and debates must be
   brought into the social and economic organisations of our class where
   they must be debated freely by all members as they see fit and that
   political and economic struggle and change must go hand in hand. Rather
   than being something other people discuss on behalf of working class
   people, anarchists, argue that politics must no longer be in the hands
   of so-called experts (i.e. politicians) but instead lie in the hands of
   those directly affected by it. Also, in this way the social struggle
   encourages the political development of its members by the process of
   participation and self-management.

   In other words, political issues must be raised in economic and social
   organisations and discussed there, where working class people have real
   power. As Bakunin put it, "the proletariat itself will pose" political
   and philosophical questions in their own organisations and so the
   political struggle (in the widest scene) will come from the class
   struggle, for "[w]ho can entertain any doubt that out of this
   ever-growing organisation of the militant solidarity of the proletariat
   against bourgeois exploitation there will issue forth the political
   struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie?" Anarchists simply
   think that the "policy of the proletariat" should be "the destruction
   of the State" rather than working within it and we argue for a union of
   political ideas and social organisation and activity. This is essential
   for promoting radical politics as it "digs a chasm between the
   bourgeoisie and the proletariat and places the proletariat outside the
   activity and political conniving of all parties within the State . . .
   in placing itself outside all bourgeois politics, the proletariat
   necessarily turns against it." So, by "placing the proletariat outside
   the politics in the State and of the bourgeois world, [the working
   class movement] thereby constructed a new world, the world of the
   united proletarians of all lands." [Op. Cit., p. 302 p. 276, p. 303 and
   p. 305]

   History supports Bakunin's arguments, as it indicates that any attempt
   at taking social and economic issues into political parties has
   resulting in wasted energy and their watering down into, at best,
   reformism and, at worse, the simple ignoring of them by politicians
   once in office (see [18]section J.2.6). Only by rejecting the
   artificial divisions of capitalist society can we remain true to our
   ideals of liberty, equality and solidarity. Every example of radicals
   using electioneering has resulted in them being changed by the system
   instead of them changing it. They have become dominated by capitalist
   ideas and activity (what is usually termed "realistic" and "practical")
   and by working within capitalist institutions they have, to use
   Bakunin's words, "filled in at a single stroke the abyss . . . between
   the proletariat and the bourgeoisie" that economic and social struggle
   creates and, worse, "have tied the proletariat to the bourgeois
   towline." [Op. Cit., p. 290]

   In addition, so-called "economic" struggles do not occur in a vacuum.
   They take place in a social and political context and so, necessarily,
   there can exist an separation of political and economic struggles only
   in the mind. Strikers or eco-warriors, for example, face the power of
   the state enforcing laws which protect the power of employers and
   polluters. This necessarily has a "political" impact on those involved
   in struggle. By channelling any "political" conclusions drawn by those
   involved in struggle into electoral politics, this development of
   political ideas and discussion will be distorted into discussions of
   what is possible in the current system, and so the radical impact of
   direct action and social struggle is weakened. Given this, is it
   surprising that anarchists argue that the people "must organise their
   powers apart from and against the State." [Bakunin, The Political
   Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 376]

   To conclude, anarchists are only "apolitical" about bourgeois elections
   and the dubious liberty and benefits associated with picking who will
   rule us and maintain capitalism for the next four or five years as well
   as the usefulness of socialists participating in them. We feel that our
   predictions have been confirmed time and time again. Anarchists reject
   electioneering not because they are "apolitical" but because they do
   not desire to see politics remain a thing purely for politicians and
   bureucrats. Political issues are far too important to leave to such
   people. Anarchists desire to see political discussion and change
   develop from the bottom up, this is hardly "apolitical" -- in fact with
   our desire to see ordinary people directly discuss the issues that
   affect them, act to change things by their own action and draw their
   own conclusions from their own activity anarchists are very
   "political." The process of individual and social liberation is the
   most political activity we can think of!

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI2.html#seci23
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj26
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD2.html#secd21
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC11.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj514
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech15
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj26
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secEcon.html
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj23
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj25
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj29
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj22
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj29
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj26
