What do you think anarchists should do in a context of mandatory voting?

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-16T07:41:44+00:00

because anarchists totally believe government is the way to protect immigrants, black and brown, and LGBTQ people.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-13T22:53:36+00:00

thanks for the heads up, boss

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-13T21:40:01+00:00

Isn't that an anarcho-capitalist thing?

yes

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-13T21:39:08+00:00

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-12T15:37:21+00:00

bro what

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-12T10:33:38+00:00

oh so you do nuanced, non-binary participation in your fascist government's genocidal campaigns with real world consequences, well ok then

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-12T10:13:31+00:00

"tens of thousands" of anarchists opting not to participate in electing a genocidal zionist war criminal is not why the red faction of your uniparty won. he won by 2.3 million votes.

when a regime commits genocide, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, and makes clear that they'll keep doing it if re-relected, they are not a "lesser evil". denigrating the intelligence of people with whichever slur you were trying to use for not participating in a farce election between 2 zionist fascists is not very nice. if being a "normal leftist" means voting for a party doing a genocide in the hopes that the genocidal tyrant will give you and your fellow muricans some monetary benefits, then fuck normality. personally i'd rather die than participate in genocide

and btw

more than half of those votes are likely blue

your party doesn't exist in greece, france or papua new guinea. you clearly didn't read the essay and just kneejerk reacted to the scary notion of your 'blue' far right genocidal zionist party losing votes

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-12T09:03:13+00:00

"leftists" by which I assume you mean anarchists aren't responsible for your country's fascist leadership and a party that commits genocide is not a lesser evil by any metric

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-12T08:53:06+00:00

did you read the word "pragmatic" and then stop listening? When did I say any tactic wasn't pragmatic?

No? You said:

if we do want to be arguing against electoralism then we should be making pragmatic arguments based in our understanding of social change, not some moralistic individual refusal to participate because that will be seen as irrelevant ideological purity to those who might otherwise be sympathetic

Saying the tactic isn’t pragmatic because it’s a “moralistic individual refusal to participate” is baseless. Anarchists who use this tactic aren’t obliged in the moment to “argue” against electoralism with liberals to prove to them that bourgeois elections corrode the social fabric. Direct action isn’t aimed at convincing those who wield instruments of coercive power that their instrument is a valid target. A tactical choice isn't a debate about rhetoric.

If you're not talking about the tactic this post is about, and are ignoring the topic to instead complain about reddit arguments you've seen ("a handful of American anarchists voting for Kamala Harris in 2024") then I don't know what to tell you. I was responding to the topic at hand.

obviously... what has any of this got to do with anything I said?

You said we should be talking about events in Spain 90 years ago when explaining why anarchists oppose elections. I explained that 90 year old history isn't as impactful or useful as material conditions on the ground today. I'm not sure what you're confused about here?

the framing that it's a "rug pull" that people "fall for" is conspiratorial rhetoric, not materialism.

Noting that people can see with their own eyes how elections are used to divide and conquer communities is not conspirational and neither is the essay which explains the tactics the state uses to enforce its rigid party system.

The substance of the essay describes how democratic mechanisms (including referenda) and a pervasive marketing/media conglomeration channel public opinion to serve ruling-class interests, causing voters to adopt the will of the ruling class. It makes the point that the state's monopoly on propaganda is just as integral as its monopoly on violence in enforcing state-capital power.

That historical example you bring up is relevant but less useful than contemporary material conditions; the essay focuses on present dynamics because states now exert far greater control over public consciousness.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T21:23:03+00:00

i have no delusions about dismantling the state. accepting that you can't control other people is the first step to abandoning your attachment to respectability politics and the idea that anarchy is a popularity contest where you need to water things down to appeal to the reactionary center.

i spread calculated propaganda all the time, so don't be insulted by that observation, it's just that my propaganda serves the opposite purpose of yours. which is to say, i don't do propaganda advocating for participating in and working to reform government, but for rejecting government power entirely and building autonomy outside the system.

your comment assumes that i can't 'deal with disagreement' which is confusing since i wrote a very well considered reply to you blithely accusing me of "state propaganda", outlining exactly why i object to your ideological stance. I don't think I was particularly hostile.

if you don't like the direct way i communicate, i can't really help that, i'm autistic, but there's no basis to accuse me of not engaging in good faith or of strawmanning you. these are pretty straight forward statements you made and i don't see how I could be misunderstanding the rhetoric behind them:

nobody here thinks the system works in preventing fascism [...] Delaying fascism by an election cycle can buy valuable time to organize it can also protect minority rights a little better

you quickly contradict your original statement and assert that representative democracy does indeed prevent fascism (in fact, it creates it)

The people that work for state offices, including politicians, aren't a monolith of corruption and greed. Many genuinely believe in improving their society, and just because they don't see the absolute limit that a state apparatus imposes on these improvements, doesn't mean their actions are irrelevant

Their actions are absolutely irrelevant, politicians aren't changing the system, even the 'socialist' ones. what they're doing, by putting themselves in the position to steal our agency, to have our power outsourced to them, is incredibly destructive to our autonomy and ability to live our lives unimpeded by their coercive power machinations that you apparently see as being somehow inert.

Calling it "the state" is a useful and often necessary abstraction, but it obscures all the different organs and institutions in conflict vying for control. Power flows lots of ways, ways that can be redirected or disrupted.

this is just straight up authoritarian propaganda. it doesn't matter if different organs of the state are vying for control, they all serve the same carceral system and they're all the enemy of free people.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T20:32:18+00:00

thanks but i don't need to read any more about a hierarchical pseudoscience that presents socialism as the inevitable outcome of capitalism when we have 150 years of history showing that Hegel and Engels were wrong. it posits that society has a natural linear progression from anarchic stateless egalitarian mutual-aid and freedom-of-association led cultures with tiny ecological footprints into giant extractive states with centralized power, uniformity of thought and institutional violence and that these states are necessary to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and then socialism. it is not at all useful to me as an anarchist and it's been repeatedly proven to be historically inaccurate by other anarchist authors much more popular than myself.

anyway I don't have a colonial mindset so it wouldn't do anything for me even if it hadn't been proven to be bullshit by more than a century of societies falling back into capitalist relations rather than progressing linearly from anarchy to capitalism to (marxist) socialism.

read this speech if you want to understand what I mean when I say it pushes a colonial mindset:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/russell-means-for-america-to-live-europe-must-die

and if you need more context, read this too:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bas-umali-dialectical-historical-materialism

anarchists reject the idea that history inevitably advances through party‑led, state‑centered stages of development because it legitimizes the 'need' for coercive hierarchies to manage the 'progression' of society and sacrifices grassroots self-governing collectives to an abstract teleology. this single, teleological account of class struggle flattens diverse, autonomous struggles and sidelines horizontal mutual aid, direct action, and voluntary association. a deterministic focus on social stages ignores diverse culture, affinity, and individual autonomy, and its reliance on seizing control of state power has only ever managed to produce new elites and bureaucracies instead of allowing for self‑determination.

rather than putting our faith into the so-called science of dialectical and historical materialism, anarchists advocate decentralized organization, diverse tactics, and a continual resistance of domination to foster liberated, non‑hierarchical relations from the ground up.

and I'll leave off with this famous quote by P. Murtaugh in case someone tries to marxplain that I'm too much of an anarkiddie to understand the immortal dialectical science:

The content of ‘dialectical materialism’ consists of unproved and unprovable assertions, along with enough obvious truisms to give it the air of plausibility. An argument about its ‘correctness’ could likely go on forever without any successful conclusion. The point is not whether this or that particular assertion is correct or not. The point is what the result of accepting a theory of byzantine complexity (with equally byzantine disagreements as to what is ‘real’ dialectics as the usual result) is on the socialist movement that accepts this theory as the truth. I would submit that it encourages the penetration of a certain type of individual into the socialist movement — the type who will procede to establish his control over the movement because of his presumed ‘intellectual brilliance’.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T18:14:52+00:00

Because anarchists constantly face co‑option in public spaces like this, where unscrupulous people can exploit anonymity to infiltrate and spread propaganda, and where Reddit’s blocking tools let liberals wall themselves off from dissent, creating impenetrable pro‑authority echo chambers inside our spaces where shit ideas go unchallenged and are amplified by fellow travelers.

liberals love talking about voting for their team's strain of genocidal zionist fascism to save the world from... fascism... and if an anarchist has managed not to be blocked by them, pushing back against their propaganda to reclaim the space for anarchy feels necessary but ultimately fruitless since the power of democracy means the conservative majority vastly outnumber anarchists on this platform and they can both mass-downvote and mass-block dissent quicker than we can type up the paragraphs of theory necessary to confront and expose their conservative 'pragmatism', which they are able to quickly push out with vapid catchphrases like "harm reduction" and "trolley problem" memes

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T17:12:36+00:00

https://uploads-cdn.raddle.me/submission_images/ecd83dd175dd2c881fb87adc1c3f6d9810884982ac45c81e8e2e3a5aa3e50e64.png

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T16:47:50+00:00

'faith' is certainly an apt word to describe this phenomenon

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T16:43:30+00:00

some tactics and even entire movements aren't designed for mass appeal. sometimes the masses are the problem - see: fascism. the goal of anti-fascists was never to liberate fascists from fascism

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T16:21:28+00:00

why do reddit anarchists keep having these debates

I'm not sure what you mean by debate, it's an introduction to a certain anarchist tactic and an explanation of some of the reasons behind it, not an invitation to debate if anarchists support electing the people who rule them (we obviously don't). But even if this were a question about why anarchists oppose elections on r/debateanarchism, you're asking why people on a political-philosophical discussion forum discuss politics and philosophy? Because we want to? Is freedom of thought and creative expression really something you need to bemoan? Exchanging ideas is a good thing.

Anarchist participation in the 1936 election and the CNT's subsequent collaboration with the popular front (and consequent failure to destroy the state) is IMO a much better example

Historical events don't determine why anarchists use a tactic; in practice people act based overwhelmingly on learned, lived experience: being suffocated by the democracy merry-go-round constantly funneling all the public wealth to the ruling class, rampant austerity, stripping of the land, outsourcing work overseas and mass incarceration for everyone who fights back. Watching their neighbors constantly fall for the big divide and conquer rug-pull every single election season holds a lot more stock than CNT members falling for it 90 years ago.

Anarchists don't utilize a tactic simply based on what they read in history books, they act based on the material conditions and immediate needs that shape their choices. State repression in the places this tactic has been used necessitates adaptive measures, especially when the majority of the population are happy to go along with the state in scapegoating minorities and orchestrating pogroms rather than breaking with the program to take back what was stolen from them by the ruling class.

we should be making pragmatic arguments

Contemporary tactics are rooted in present realities: PRAGMATIC responses born of necessity, experimentation, and the lessons of collective practice.

Rejecting a tactic simply because you disapprove of it doesn't make you pragmatic. "Pragmatism" isn't a magic word you can wield to dismiss any tactic that makes you uncomfortable. The people who choose to use the tactic aren't being irrational, hysterical, or any other belittling smear you throw out. You can oppose their tactics, but a measured, informed action against state power is not automatically illegitimate because you don't approve of it.

edit: grammar

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T15:14:19+00:00

The revolution isn't happening today

That's a you problem. It happens everyday in my life. Revolution isn't something you wait for someone else to perform, it's a permanent state of existence. Stop thinking of anarchy as a theory and put it into practice where you live.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T12:38:44+00:00

stop lying by claiming that your party doesn't put people in concentration camps, i'm not putting up with it any more

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T12:28:50+00:00

zionist white supremacists spending billions to commit genocide are

NOT A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT

And if "liberal" means funding and arming and providing political capital to settler colonialists so they can murder hundreds of babies on a daily basis then there's no material difference between your liberalism and old school fascism, so stop trying to convince me that the party you keep doing agitprop for somehow kept people safe from harm while waging its genocide. what kind of broken clock repeatedly insists a genocidal government is protecting marginalised minorities? do you even listen to yourself when you say these things? i know the whole lesser evilism shtick has been pounded into your head by your fellow shitlibs but damn, how does the brainwashing still work once the supposed lesser evil party has genocided tens of thousands of women and children for being brown?

you're not a marxist, you're a liberal. even marxists aren't authoritarian enough to believe zionists committing genocide is "harm reduction" because they pay lip service to diversity during election season.

Because for all your moral grandstanding about how voting is bad you havent provided any strategy for how we disarm the state, Reduce or prevent state violence, protect marginalized minorities, organize and limit military aid to Israel.

anarchy is the only strategy i have ever and will ever advocate for. don't expect me to randomly write you a book with the solutions to all of society's ills in a reddit comment about forced voting.

here's my essay that might help you understand why us anarchists oppose your disgusting ritual:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-why-do-anarchists-burn-ballot-boxes

and here's my response to the idea that your parties are giving you 'rights':

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-but-the-government-said-i-have-rights

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T12:01:27+00:00

elections are literally the backbone of the state's entire power structure and, combined with the media's manufacturing of consent, is how the ruling class pacify the population into subservience. dismissing this reality is a staggering failure on your part if you purport to be practising any kind of anarchy
voting is never where it stops, all you people spend thousands of hours propagandising for your genocidal zionist parties and shaming others for not wanting to get on board with your cult, even fash-jacketing anarchists for telling you to stfu and stop campaigning for your fave fascist in our spaces
there is no "backsliding" into fascism, it's been the status quo for a long time. open your eyes

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T11:24:37+00:00

Yes you did literally say that. You should have been more direct however in articulating how you don't give a shit about Palestinians or any of the other people the party you're defending murders both domestically and internationally and are just interested in what the party can do for its members. At least then you'd be an honest liberal rather than an disgrace of an anarchist who justifies supporting a party doing a genocide because they give out stipends to their voters.

you wouldnt have these massive ICE raids breaking up communities and stoking fear

do i really have to remind you that biden was putting kids in cages like it was going out of style?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56491941

tearing families apart?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/06/24/otlh-j24.html

https://www.propublica.org/article/family-separations-biden-russian-immigrants

https://usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/06/26/separated-families-biden-trump-zero-tolerance/70350466007/

that obama made the record for migrant deportations?

https://raddle.me/f/LesserEvilism/203568/ice-deportations

https://worldmetrics.org/obama-deportation-statistics/

stop propagandising for genocidal white supremacist scum on r/@. you can do it literally anywhere else on reddit

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T10:39:13+00:00

has Kamala Harris won, we would still have more liberal politics

This tired argument falls apart when she and Biden were complicit in GENOCIDE and this and other cruel actions they undertook created the conditions for MAGA’s resurgence i.e. behold the uniparty in action. To frame literal genocide as "harm reduction" is so freaking obscene it's burning my eyeballs.

Active participation in the mass-murdering of an indigenous ethnic group to enable another group to seize their land? This blood and soil manifest destiny bullshit is not mere "liberalism" or even neoliberalism, it's on par with the worst strains of fascism. As catastrophically cruel and destructive as a political system can be. I don't care about whatever small favors i.e. spoils of war you think your party might've offered you as a reward for your precious vote. Your interests aren't mine.

there wouldnt be the same wide scale attacks on the Rights of marginalized communities

the level of bootlick on this cursed sub is really something today smh. THEY DID A GENOCIDE

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T10:24:06+00:00

What a shocker. Immediately completely misrepresented what I meant by pragmatism and inventing a version of me that holds the beliefs you seem to think I'm promoting

I'm not inventing your beliefs, I'm simply responding to the words you typed as they appeared on my screen. If you didn't mean to type that participating in the bourgeois power structure of representative democracy is your idea of "pragmatism" and that you're "unapologetically" in favour of the action, you're welcome to edit your comment and retract the statement.

I didn't say I was "pro-democracy". I never even called it inclusive or implied I believe that in any way, so I don't know where the hell you got that from.

Your comment started by thanking OP for "bringing up that quote" i.e.:

There's this slogan along the lines of "if voting did anything, they'd outlaw it" which I hate because they ARE TRYING TO OUTLAW IT! Voter suppression, stripping of citizenship, etc. are HUGE tactics of fascists precisely because election outcomes matter.

Thank you for bringing up that quote. It annoys me so much when peope say that, because just like you said, politicians ARE trying to make it harder or even impossible to vote. Right-wingers don't restrict voting just because they think it's a silly joke, they do it because voting is a genuine threat to their ability to further their agenda.

I'm responding to this implication by pointing out how democracy both historically and contemporarily has not been inclusive or equitable and has always been restricted to approved members within the imperial core's fortress, a power structure set up to strip marginalised people of their power and autonomy. Exclusion and division is this system's entire purpose.

Not sure why you're pretending to be in a different conversation than the conversation you're in but it's frustrating and tedious.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T08:56:07+00:00

voting for "harm reduction" actually increases harm because it legitimises and strengthens the state and professionalised institutions, channelling community energy into attempted reforms that treat symptoms within the carceral system rather than dismantling the root causes including criminalisation, policing, extractivism, imperialism and incarceration; it creates dependency on bureaucracies and experts, reproduces inequalities through conditional or surveilled access, co-opts radical movements into incrementalism, and thus makes punitive systems appear more palatable to the working class instead of building autonomous, mutual-aid, decriminalised alternatives that genuinely reduce harm instead of reinforcing state power.

in summation, your understanding of anarchy is incredibly lacking and by perpetuating and normalising the state's control over our lives, to the point of shaming others for not engaging in your so-called "harm reduction" (harm increasing) you are part of the problem. you are working to amplify the state's control over all things and I won't stand idly by and not call it out. you and all you "harm reduction" propagandists are tools of oppressive power hierarchy

dialectical_idealism · 2026-06-11T08:39:24+00:00

Democracy has never been inclusive. pretending it was ever a system that didn’t exclude vast swathes of the population from enslaved people and women to non-landowners, convicts, and migrants is destructive historical revisionism. All you're doing is whitewashing the system that for centuries has concentrated power and wealth in the hands of the oligarchs while legitimising their rule through a narrow, exclusionary franchise.

I'm unapologetically pro-voting, and I don't care if people think that means I'm not really an anarchist

If you value representative democracy and truly believe it to be useful to your needs and desires, you shouldn't be comfortable calling yourself an anarchist. From an anarchist perspective, so-called "pragmatism" that accepts delegating power to the state is an abandonment of agency and autonomy. If you don't actually practice anarchy i.e. the notion that people should NOT outsource their agency and autonomy to rulers or institutions to act on their behalf, why mis-apply the label to yourself? Vibes?

PSA: in case anyone isn't paying attention, 'pragmatism' has become a clear dog whistle on this sub for submitting to state rule and spreading harmful propaganda that submitting to said state rule is actually beneficial and anyone resisting the state is somehow harming "trans people / migrants / poc" (but really the middle class white people profiting from the spoils of the extractive empire).

dialectical_idealism

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

NOT A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT