I'm An Anarchist, and I Vote.

"I'M AN ANARCHIST, AND I VOTE."

A shout-out to all of us who believe that "another world is possible" by building a left based on community-building -- in the wake of this war, let's take a long look in the mirror...

If activists in the global justice and antiwar movements can resist the military, challenge the corporations, and declare War on the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism, why not run for public office
in the United States of America?

Because...instead of challenging society's mores, any such person is challenging a central anarchist taboo.

The taboo: "Don't work within the electoral process. It inevitably undermines your ideals and your cause, and will turn you into the very thing that you oppose. Let the more moderate people tinker with it. Instead, work outside the system and focus on its injustices. And, whatever you do, don't run for
election. That way lies madness."

This taboo is grounded in hard-earned wisdom, based on observations of many people and causes that have compromised their ideals in order to get elected in capitalist societies. This taboo is embraced by anarchists and others in the global justice and antiwar movements, who may not use the anarchist
label but share many of the same anti-statist and anti-capitalist beliefs as well as the vision that "another world is possible". Like anarchists, these activists believe in "direct democracy" (horizontal organizing, direct action, and nonhierarchical decision-making), not parliamentary democracy. Of the global justice activists that earn their wages in the political arena,
it may be revealing that most of them are employed by the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) rather than by the public sector.

I would describe this activist camp as he "decentralist left" -- easily distinguished from the more "traditional left" which opposes capitalism but not the centralized state apparatus. Direct democracy advocates agree that a nonhierarchical society is a worthy social goal, but there are many perspectives on how we get from here to there. As anarchism has served as the engine of contemporary thought in challenging both the state and the corporations, I think it's fair to refer to anarchism as the leading source of political theory within the decentralist left and the global justice and antiwar movements -- whether or not we
personally label ourselves as "anarchists".

Who do I mean by the decentralist left? Besides the groups mentioned above, I would include other sectors that are internally democratic, open to the concepts of direct democracy, and agree that our common adversaries are the twin idols of capital and the state. Rank and file blue-collar workers,
oppressed minorities, disaffected white-collar employees, church groups, neighborhood groups and other non-governmental organizations, students and youth, and many more...here are social actors that can work together in harmony, break the barriers of class, race and sex, and transform the landscape of
our common assumptions.

FACING THE TABOO

In the wake of this war on Iraq, I am as restless as a cat. I can't stand living in the world as it is, and I certainly don't feel that makes me unique. I feel driven to speak out and take action on problems that have long troubled me. If democracy is ever coming to the USA, just what is it going to take? Arundhati
Roy writes about how people around the world are counting on us - the resistance in US cities! -- to come up with the answer. Che's famous send-off reminds us of our good fortune. "You North
Americans are living in the belly of the beast. I envy you."

I have come to the conclusion that the subject of "revolution and the ballot" invokes both fear and power. Both of these forces, coming together, inflict emotional conflict and irrationality on anyone within their range. It is this conflict that I want to tease apart somehow.

Global justice and antiwar activists have made history as highly effective agitators, yet are among the most reluctant to utilize the ballot for any possible urpose. Historically, few people on the left have been willing to enter the public arena and rub elbows with the Republicans and Democrats. But isn't the essence of effective agitation the ability to inject new issues
into the public discourse and to motivate our fellow citizens into action?

All activists, regardless of political stripe, need to be
consistently mixing it up with people from diverse viewpoints if they hope to be effective. Social change is made when a variety of peoples come together for a common cause. In our media-driven
society, the apparent contradiction of a maverick running for public office is itself newsworthy and at least worthy of notice as potentially effective agitation. Unfortunately, such candidacies is generally taken by flamboyant personalities such as Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys or Jerry Rubin of the
Yippies! -- while they provided a platform for their
antiauthoritarian views and actually won a large number of votes, their message was often lost in the ensuing notoriety.

Here's the question: Why not choose candidates for office without any illusion of immediately threatening state power, or any goal of attaining personal fame, but rather as a tool to get direct democracy and a joint critique of both capital and the state into the mainstream of political discussion? With the advent of instant run-off voting in the Bay Area, the field is
open for movements to put up "no-compromise candidates" that can actually swing (if not actually win) local elections by bringing new issues into the race without the fear of being a "spoiler".

I know a large number of people in the SF Bay Area who describe themselves as anarchists. I did an informal survey. Most of them told me that they always vote in elections. Why? Most of the responses, simply told, boiled down to "the need to be involved" and that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Although it's difficult to predict when voting will do any good, it's not like the perpetrator is spreading anthrax spores or an infectious disease. The USA has muddled along with politicians throughout its history for the same simple reason as in all parliamentary democracies: The politicians do most of the talking, while business makes most of the decisions.

Generally speaking, anarchists are opposed to all forms of government and an anarchist political party is seen as a contradiction of terms. For the same reason, you don't see anarchists running for office. Anarchists served as government officeholders in 1930s Spain, but were unable to prevent the
fascist triumph. Historians don't seem to agree whether the experiment was a failure or not, but there is a consensus that it was a mistake for the anarchists to ally with the Stalin-led Spanish Communists. Such an experiment has not been repeated, mainly because anarchists have come nowhere near the summit of power, with the exception of those tantalizing moments in France
during the spring of 1968.

I would argue that the danger of an electoral campaign corrupting our political movements is relatively small, and certainly worth the risk. No one running on a decentralist left platform is going to get elected to state or federal office in the foreseeable future. But running for local office is an excellent
and time-honored manner to engage other sectors of civil society about the evils of capitalism, the weaknesses of government, and the effectiveness of "getting things done" in a nonhierarchical
way.

What's wrong with talking with our neighbors on the issues of the day? Does it make us nervous - or does it empower us - to listen to their beliefs while trying to persuade them towards our point of view? Why should we let the party formations of the traditional left (International Socialist Organization, Workers
World Party, Socialist Viewpoint, etc.) dominate the myopic discussion of socialist-type ideas in the public arena? Why not spin the discussion towards libertarian socialism and what that could look like?

Why shouldn't global justice and antiwar activists be out there in the public eye, talking with people from a variety of backgrounds, educating people on self-empowerment and community control, and trying to apply these principles in everyday life? Groups as disparate as the Wobblies and the Diggers have
historically played a special role in shifting public opinion on social advances such as the 40-hour work week, free speech and economic justice. A hallmark of US society is a visceral dislike of government and an attraction to models of self-management. I don't think we fully realize how attractive our ideas are to the average citizen, if we could only learn how to speak their language and talk with them face-to-face.

You know the standard rejoinders. "Don't vote, it only encourages them." "Anyone who runs for office is a sellout." "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal." We can agree to disagree on the tactic of engaging in electoral politics. It's hard to imagine anyone on the decentralist left pointing to electoral politics as a model. But we should at least
refrain from vicious personal attacks on one another while we experiment with the breaking of this taboo.

A disclaimer here: I have no interest in running for office, but I'm fascinated by the new "instant run-off" procedure that will make it easier for outsiders to win or influence elections in San Francisco, the city where I live. Such a procedure is almost uprecedented in this country, and we have to take these new conditions into account. It's not too late to be encouraging activists to step forward into the November, 2003 local elections. I will say that if an outspoken candidate ran on a sound decentralist left platform for the Board of Supervisors or School Board, I would be willing to consider working in my first
electoral campaign -- simply for the pleasure of shaking up both the system and my friends.

IN LEARNING HOW TO SPEAK WITH A COLLECTIVE VOICE, ELECTORAL POLITICS IS ONE SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE

Look, electoral politics is a terrible model, has little to do with the society that we want to build, and a primary focus on electoral campaigns would expend resources better used elsewhere. But a short-term strategy that includes "the ballot box as one of
the paths on the road to self-management, global justice, and peace" within a broad campaign to build global justice here in our communities -- an effort that flourished throughout the Bay Area during 2000 in the wake of Seattle, although the focus was
unfortunately to elect "traditional liberal" candidates -- may lead to a broader design that weaves libertarian anti-capitalist thought and philosophy into general public discourse.

There's no getting around it - an election is a great stage for agitation! Besides another context for us to talk with our neighbors, it provides another place for many of us to enjoy one another's company, to band together for a good cause, and to provide the decentralist left with a solid place on the political
map. We don't want or need to win a lot of elections. But we deeply need to jell as a movement, and to reach out and extend our base. I think that getting out there and facing the public
with a platform based on hard-headed vision would enable us to find our collective voice.

I see the long-term strategy for the decentralist left --which I perceive as largely Anglo and middle-class in origin -- to continue our exploration of direct action in both the political and economic spheres. For many of us, protesting the outrages of everyday life is like going to the well. If we want to build a movement ready and able to take power some day, protest has to expand into working with and learning from Third World and working-class communities. We have to build a new wave of cooperatives -- prefigurative economic forms of organization within the shell of the corporate state -- that offer better process, higher wages, and shorter meetings. We have to proceed
in what has been referred to as "a long march through the institutions" of American life, wrestling away the workplaces and schools from the powers that be. As we organize ourselves, we need to be watchful and observant, looking for a historical
moment when the system is in crisis and we can offer an alternative.

In any revolution or social upheaval, it is generally the acts of a focused minority that makes change possible. But these acts must flow from the power centers that are accessible to this group. Activists here can point to infoshops, bookstores, and
some of the movement offices, art centers, and co-ops around the country. Lots of corporate temps. Some in public health. Little else. We need to form radical caucuses -- what the Brits call "ginger groups" -- and unearth potential allies within these various institutions. When alliances are politically impossible,
we should at least establish listening posts within them.

An amusing yet pointed example: There's nothing illegal about anarchists joining the police department. Nor is there anything illegal about informing other citizens about current law enforcement strategies and tactics, although a wise government employee would use discretion in order to ensure continued
employment and a well-deserved pension. Any serious political movement will embrace such well-placed allies.

Once we have organized ourselves throughout the institutions of American society, fighting on a daily basis to make the workplaces and the schools like the world we want to live in, we'll be in a place to take effective action when the times are right. Throughout this process, it's imperative to stay in face-to-face communication with each another and other fellow citizens in hard times as well as periods of struggle. Electoral politics is not a panacea, but it is one small piece of the puzzle.

Electoral politics is not only under our radar - it's the kind of issue that gets right under our skin. It irritates us. It's scary and it threatens us. It's a subject guaranteed to result in old friends shouting at one another. In short, it's taboo.

Ever since the crush of the movements of the sixties, there was a similar taboo about effective protest tactics. Was the action "nonviolent" ("good protester") or was it "violent" ("bad protester")? Is property damage violent or not? In the wake of
Seattle and much earnest discussion, this debate has been largely laid to rest for the first time since the Vietnam War with the adoption of the concept of "diversity of tactics" within the activist community. When an exasperating subject is approached
in the right spirit, such a reevaluation may avoid many time-wasting debates later on.

I think that's where we are here. We don't have to be in constant reaction mode by the latest outrages of the government, voting for traditional liberal candidates and constantly moaning about their inadequacies at our emergency meetings. We have the power to shape, guide, and mold the public agenda, whether or not we have a single representative in office. We can do it with our
presence, our analysis, and our vision. We have to learn to speak with a collective voice.

WHY NOT EXPERIMENT?

Why can't we experiment? What harm would it do? Political theory should be a fountain of historical reference, not a source of veneration. Although there's no need to win in order to attain the goals of the short-term strategy mentioned above, it's
not impossible that an anarchist could win a district election in San Francisco, Berkeley, or other cities, particularly in an "instant run-off" situation. Green supervisorial candidates like Matt Gonzalez in SF have won office. In such a scenario, there are at least three approaches that could be taken:

1. Refuse to serve;
2. Accept the office, refuse to vote, and use the office as a platform to advocate for a different decision-making model; or
3. Same as 2., except to vote on issues of critical importance. An anarchist officeholder would hopefully be seeking to resolve parliamentary cul-de-sacs with some type of consensus.

Of course, any candidate of the decentralist left would have a special need to remain accountable to their community base. All officeholders should be subject to recall and rotation. It's axiomatic that most politicians succumb to the pressures of public office and lose their focus. The outspoken anarchists
would set a superior example in this setting. The German Greens have had mixed successes on the issue of accountability (part of the ongoing debate between the "realos" and the "fundis"), but
most observers would agree that the experiments have been worth the effort. An anarchist friend of mine in San Jose was a Green officeholder, and he emerged from the process with his soul and
his values firmly intact.

Why can't we place our own initiatives on the local ballot? Change the city charter to mandate consensus decision-making at the Board of Supervisors! What would that do to traditional
"interest group" politics? Or pull all city money out of
corporate investments and into creating city-wide credit unions and land trusts. The idea is to push for "non-reformist reforms", reforms that push desire for more change while illustrating the basic unfairness of the power structure.

Educate, agitate, organize. Those are the three immortal words of advice absorbed by anyone who is serious in wanting to change the world. Again, global justice and peace activists are among the world's greatest agitators, raising questions that others have
neither thought to voice nor dared to ask. Similarly, a good argument can be made that global justice has become the largest worldwide political movement, with organizers key in building the recent antiwar efforts. But education? Sadly, most of these
activists spend most of their political lives talking to each other, either face-to-face or on the Internet. Or, worse, make the assumption that one's allies share the same values - only to find out in the heat of struggle that certain assumptions are not
shared, because they've never truly been confronted!

Let's address the contradictions in a straightforward way, by asking the real tough questions...

In a just society, can we get resources to the poor without taxation, and if so, how?

If our ultimate goal is to "abolish the government" in either the near or distant future, what realistic paths are available in heading towards the "no government" destination? What interim social policies do we advocate to redistribute resources? In the
'70s, the activist response seemed to backslide from "a guaranteed national income" to "food co-ops". What about now? Community land trusts? Rent reduction? Corporate taxation?

How could political and economic power be transferred from the Board of Supervisors to the neighborhoods? How can we encourage
local cooperative ventures and discourage corporate investment within our immediate geographic area (i.e. watershed)?

How and can the decentralist left effectively organize as a political entity? Is the Green Party or the Left Greens a possible vehicle, or is the Green Party fatally flawed by a tendency to rely too much on the state and capitalism as part of the solution? Would the better approach be to form a "movement
of movements", as is seen in the "Alternative List" in Europe and South America, that sometimes lines up with forces such as the Greens and sometimes opposes them?

After the above questions are figured out, when and on what terms do we ally with the more traditional left? Or the libertarians on the right? Or others?

And, of course, perhaps the most important question of our time: How do we build a worldwide political force that brings an end to corporate rule? Until that happens, our plans for fundamental social change will remain just that.

What's stopping us from mixing it up and getting our hands dirty in the rich soil of civil society, instead of the smudged ink of abstract political theory? Fear of public ridicule. Fear of personal embarrassment. Fear of putting our emotions on the line - we might get hurt that way. Fear of setting our imaginations
on fire.


Bill Simpich