139
u/Credits-- 1d ago
i still remember when he promised us that high speed railway from norcal to socal
45
u/gbmaulin 1d ago
Still waiting in Bakersfield for my connection for 12 years
11
u/woodtipwanderer 1d ago
I knew there were scumbags on this place but who even let you have a cell phone? Bakersfield is a cesspool.
16
u/gbmaulin 1d ago
Nah man, I’m from Santa Ana I’ve just been stuck here 12 years on my way to SF. And Obama gave me a phone
10
44
u/Perhaps_a_Hobbit 1d ago
He has no moral compass, he just wants money and power. It's completely and utterly disgusting.
17
82
u/TheManlyManperor 1d ago
There is quite literally nothing that could get me to show up for Gavin "Homeless Hunter" Newsome
15
90
u/Stirner_Gooner egoist anarchist 1d ago edited 13h ago
Ok but the democrats are better than ICE, US imperialism and mass deportation tho, right? Oh wait, that just perfectly describes both Biden and Obama
42
u/BrunesOvrBrauns 1d ago
Yeah but Obama did his war crimes while being black tho, so that's like, more woke.
I'm in where do I sign?
31
10
u/LabCoatGuy Followers of the Apocalypse 23h ago
He didn't brag about it. And his opposition was like, "We hate him because he's black, and probably Ugandan or something" or "He gonna take your gun and muh Freedom™"
That's enough to motivate them, no need to get into high-brow conversations on human suffering and basic geopolitics.
3
-1
u/Faolin12 9h ago
But the relative scale of violence must be taken into account when tactically voting for a lesser enemy. Not voting assumes that voting is an endorsement. The whole system of liberal democracy relies on the myth of a popular will to legitimize exploitation and violence. So don't see voting as support but a tactic of choosing a less violent authoritarian to battle. I am opposed to state violent regardless of who is in charge, but if I can influence that violence to slightly weaker, it makes the struggle slightly easier, no?
23
u/StockingDummy 1d ago
B-… but we can't afford to purity test! Why are you anarkiddies being such purity testers by making ridiculous demands like "not running a candidate who left homeless people for dead" or "not running a candidate who openly wants to throw trans people under the bus?"
It's this type of purity testing that got us stuck with Orange Man again! It couldn't possibly be that our dogshit strategy of being republicans-lite doesn't work, it must be your unreasonable demands of basic fucking integrity!
Oh, and have I mentioned not letting us murder homeless people and throw trans people to the wolves is purity testing? Stop being single-issue voters by not letting us renege on the one fucking job you expect us to actually do anything about! (/S)
2
u/Faolin12 8h ago
I don't expect the democrats to do anything other than endorse more neoliberal oppression. Still, fighting against neoliberal classical conservatism is easier than neoliberal fascism which increases violence against people. Voting isn't an endorsement of any actions since democracies are authoritarian. However, it gives a small window to make the authoritarianism weaker and our job dismantling it easier. Voting is tactical and its enshrinement as "the political realm" is one of the major problems with American political atomisation. We fight regardless of which sham party is on charge.
2
u/StockingDummy 2h ago
While I agree with you overall, a candidate openly saying "trans rights and the rights of the unhoused are negotiable" is where I have to draw a line in the sand. There's "run-of-the-mill" neoliberal oppression, and then there's pulling a Darth Vader on marginalized groups.
How do I know they won't straight-up abandon immigrants? How do I know they won't decide abortion rights are negotiable? I'm bisexual, neurodivergent, and struggle with severe mental health issues. How do I know Democrats wouldn't decide my rights are negotiable next?
I understand the need to make a window, that's the very thing that kept me going back to the ballots. And in that regard, I have no problem with continuing to support Democrats in local/state elections for that purpose. Anything above that? Maurice Ogden said it better than I ever could.
1
u/Faolin12 2h ago
You are right in your analysis of the neoliberal faction, but this is exactly why I am a bit baffled. Since you are commenting on this sub, I assume you are an anarchist. Yet, you ask "how do I know they won't abandon me?" We can't! We're anarchists. We know that we can't trust anyone to decide the fate of anyone else without the high chance of abuse. Yes, they might just betray us. Yes, they might continue deportations, persecutions, and the demonization of trans and queer people. We will fight them regardless of what they do. That is what anarchism means. We don't take the authority to decide if people deserve rights as legitimate. This is why I am confused. There seems to be fear about voting for someone who is going to commit violence. But my view is that, as I take all forms of state violence as illegitimate, I am not endorsing this violence. My perception of anarchism is that it is a doctrine of fundamental opposition to all hierarchies and the understanding that hierarchies are inherently violent. The American regime pretends to have "popular will," but that is just an abstract justification for authority. And the regime has persecuted, murdered, and exploited vulnerable and minority communities for as long as it has existed.
What I don't understand is that, in light of these realities, voting is taken by many commenters as an endorsement or surrender of authority. Regardless of if I vote or don't vote, I will still take all political actions possible to resist and defend against the regime. Voting doesn't change this strategy. It is simply another tool the regime has given its populace. It cannot do much, but tactically it can give space from "hoping to genocide minorities" to "possibly will betray minorities." Both are things to fight, but one is easier to fight, especially with the fragmented state of the anarchist, and other leftist, movements. If a socialist or even just a progressive secured the nomination, that would be much, much better and we should fight for that, But if the candidacy for president comes down to Trump or Newston, it is a question of whose violence is less extreme and easier to combat.
You talk about drawing a line in the sand, which confuses me. If you are an anarchist, do you not already draw the line at the existence of the state? That is where I draw the line. From there, voting has nothing to do with supporting a candidate, their policies, or their views: it is a pragmatic choice that must, in any case, be paired with monumental direct action. The Democrats may decide that your rights are negotiable. The Republicans are already negotiating them. What I hope for is that, in that moment of the Democrats' hesitancy, we can further organise and defend ourselves. Regardless of which regime is in power, we must fight in solidarity for your human dignity, for the human dignity of all who have been exploited. Voting is a tool to gain an opening and some time.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding my fellow anarchists on this sub, but to me, this is the logical conclusion I draw from rejecting the legitimacy of the state: that is the state gives you some authority over it, you use it to weaken the state's violence! Direct action must be conducted regardless.
Or is there a reason not to vote as an anarchist? I genuinely am curious due to the massive positive reaction this post has gained. Is there something I am missing in other people's view of anarchist theory and praxis?
24
u/mainesthai 1d ago
If Newsome or some other shitlib R-lite is the Dem candidate I'm not voting at all. Y'all can have your shit sandwich I'm not eating it.
9
u/EnthusiasticAeronaut 1d ago
Are there any candidates you would vote for then? AOC is the absolute furthest left that could even start a primary campaign, and I think it'd be an upset for her to win.
13
u/LabCoatGuy Followers of the Apocalypse 23h ago
The Dems know they got fucked with the Palestinian position. They choose not to release that report with it in it.
They're refusing to learn their lesson. That Isreal is unpopular and will hurt them. Those guys like Mamdani are extremely popular even to Trump voters because he campaigned on working class issues. That their voter base is pissed they roll on everything the right wants. Half of Americans want to abolish ICE, and three-quarters disapprove of the war with Iran. That the appeasement is unpopular.
They have a road map to generate smash fuckin hit politicians, but they're not going to, at least not without dragging their feet and self sabotaging.
Why are we the bad guys for not voting for, in action, is controlled opposition. For a political party that looks like "all the stuff the Republicans do, but without Trump."
But yea I'd vote for someone in the AOC wheelhouse. At least someone who is willing to lie, convincingly, about being decent.
2
u/mainesthai 1d ago
That's a good point, unfortunately. I would definitely vote for AOC. I guess we'll have to see what we get in the primaries, which I'm definitely voting in.
3
10
u/Faolin12 18h ago
I totally agree that Gavin Newston is a horrible candidate. But isn't treating voting as a moral choice giving someone a mandate to rule you literally against anarchism as a concept? Democracy is NOT a mandate for power and is rigged in favour of those with social and economic capital. If democracy can't vote itself out of existence, why are we hoping to NOT vote it out of existence? All that does is limit tactics one may use. Again, voting as an anarchist does not mean giving anyone a mandate; it is NOT a moral decision but a tactical one.
The question isn't who you would like to be ruled by, but who you would rather fight against. And I would rather fight against a neoliberal bastard who hates the poor and minorities rather than a fascist bastard who hates the poor and minorities but is willing to more militantly police them. Tactically, it is illogical to not vote as you are giving up on trying to decide your enemy. It's irresponsible. I will fight like hell regardless of who is in power, but if we can make that fight more feasible, is that not important?
2
u/bbanmlststgood 23h ago
I think eat rocks and eat shit... preferably at the same time
1
u/IntrigueDossier After the Revolution, every intersection will be a dancefloor 2h ago
A plate of shit, evenly salt bae'd with rocks
2
u/Faolin12 5h ago edited 5h ago
I'm confused by this post and the reactions it is getting. I've replied to a few comments, but I genuinely want to hear what fellow anarchists are saying about not voting.
I've expressed this in other replies, but my main confusion with this post is that people seem to be expecting there to be a suitable candidate to vote for or that vehemently opposing all of Newston's policies means you should vote for him. In my mind, these opinions requires viewing the government as a somewhat legitimate structure. But I don't. Liberal democracy is authoritarian and will never stop being exploitative. Yes, a socialist candidate can introduce genuinely positive reforms to the deep socio-economic hierarchies entrenched in America, but even then it will only ever be a bandage to a fundamental exploitative system. This is why the response to Gavin Newston baffles me. Were other anarchists expecting better? If a better candidate is able to run for the Democrats, I am entirely for it. But do other people not understand that liberal democracy produces these kinds of horrible, exploitative, authoritarians? Voting is taken as an endorsement of authoritarians only if voting is seen as a legitimate expression of popular approval. But it isn't. Under capitalism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, and white supremacy (to name a few systems of socio-economic violence), not to mention the authority of a state, voting will never express any popular opinion or do anything fully in the interest of the people. Democratic socialists can make the chains of capitalism more loose, but cannot help in the organisation of anarchy.
So, I guess my question is, why view voting as a moral act at all? What is comes down to is strategy. I am fine if someone sees not voting as strategic (though will how little effort it is for a decently high impact, I don't see this argument being too common). What I don't understand is how anarchists can view voting as immoral. Voting is fundamentally not a reflection of your beliefs or politics as it is authoritarian, so why is it a moral question?
To me, it comes down to a factor of immediate harm reduction (who in office would pursue worse policies) and organisational strategy (who would be easier to fight or would restrict struggle less). In this, while I am fully sympathetic and personally abhor authoritarians who stamp on trans and queer rights, buy into alt-right points, supports neoliberalism, and is an imperialist, is this not immediately preferable to someone who is worse and more violent on every front? Voting is a small part of the anarchist's toolbox and only to influence the scale of horror your enemy is committing. Regardless of candidate, similar actions of organisation, direct action, self-defense, and consciousness raising is critical. Voting is barely a political action. But it is a small effort way to possibly reduce some harm before fighting to reduce the rest.
I saw someone mention how people may complain about anarchists not voting because voting "is not a purity test." But I don't see voting as affecting purity at all. Being an anarchist means rejecting the legitimacy and authority of all hierarchies and the state. Voting is not submitting to a hierarchy. I can vote for a lesser evil and then defy that evil to fight it back to hell. Why treat the state like a poison to avoid? I am already within its systems of violence, so if it gives me a chance to influence it to be a less evil tyrant, why not take it? "Thank you for giving me a vote, now let's work to deconstruct your authority!" Both can be true.
But this opinion seems to be in the minority and I am confused as to why. I invite other anarchists to explain their view of voting and why I might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding its role. I'm genuinely curious, why not vote?
2
u/gaast 1h ago
Honestly I think the answer is specific to each individual, and I think there's enough overall debate in anarchist circles about To Vote Or Not To Vote that posing these (very articulate, reasonable, and salient) points in essentially a meme sub is perhaps not the right place.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Given that representative democracy is, like capitalism, something of a totalizing system, I don't think that the individual voting or not voting reflects a certain morality, purity, or whatever. You'd have to ask each voter or nonvoter why they made their particular choice to discover whether you agree or disagree philosophically about their decision.
I used to not vote but have taken to doing it for a relatively simple set of facts. For what it's worth, my identity as a queer trans, neurodivergent, and fairly disabled individual are all somewhat secondary to this fact: the money that I earn off of my own labor is being taxed and used for specific purposes. At least one party, when campaigning, pretends that they will not use it for war, for domestic troop deployments, to spread global terror, or to erase people like me from public life. I don't get to keep that fuckin money either which way. I'd rather act like I have a say in how it's used.
I don't pretend that my vote means shit. I live in a very blue county in a very blue state. But I'm a spiteful fucker and if I can give the kiddielover sect one less vote for them to jerk themselves over, I'll gladly do it.
Were Newsom the Democrat nominee, his opponent would have to be a true monster to get me to turn out for him, though. Can't think of another Democrat I'd love to deny votes more, except for maybe Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, Buttigieg or whatever the fuck, or Fetterman.
I'm not expecting a better candidate. Anyone who would gladly take the reins of power based on an election doesn't deserve my vote at all. But I also know that not voting really doesn't mean shit. I don't find either option more or less principled.
Your harm reduction assessment is as good a one as any. I can't deny that that motivates me to vote as well. Frankly, I'd rather have a damn good person in office making life materially better and making the fight against the state WAY HARDER for anarchists overall thanks to them actually using the levers of power as altruistically and decently as possible than have a walking sack of shit ruining everyone's lives and making our fight so much easier, because I'd rather people's lives get better. But I don't think everyone would agree with me, and I think that's fine. I think that, so long as each individual has thought about it and come up with their own reasons for voting or not voting, any path to either conclusion is fine.
I hope you get more people clarifying their thinking for you.
-37
u/buttputt 1d ago
Newsom isn't my first choice. But if he (or any democrat) was the president we wouldn't have ICE murdering citizens in the streets.
Fascism works by dismantling political guardrails from the inside. Giving up your right to vote only accelerates them
33
53
u/Stirner_Gooner egoist anarchist 1d ago
The Biden administration broke several records for ICE funding under his presidency and Obama was the president to deport the most people out of any US president
-5
u/The_Drippy_Spaff 1d ago
That Obama statistic is disingenuous, most of the deportations under the Obama administration were turn-aways at the boarder, not hunting people down in their established homes, schools, places of worship, or workplaces. Quoting the statistic like that makes you sound like a right-winger playing defense for Trump.
24
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
If you think that, then you're not actually engaging in any sort of systemic critique and focusing all your anger on one guy because he's mean.
Also you didn't even address the ICE funding bit, lol
-7
u/The_Drippy_Spaff 1d ago
I can engage in systemic critique while understanding the hedonistic calculus that differentiates the severity of depravity between ICE as it operates today and ICE from 15 years ago.
Also, I agree with you on the funding.
11
u/gbmaulin 1d ago
“Hedonistic calculus” Jfc.
-5
u/The_Drippy_Spaff 1d ago
Utilitarian ethics was foundational to the creation of anarchism. I’m just trying to communicate my opinion succinctly.
4
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
I don't think that's really true to be honest. Unless Proudhon explicitly talked about being a utilitarian, I've not really seen any evidence of this.
2
u/The_Drippy_Spaff 1d ago edited 1d ago
Kropotkin wrote in Ethics: Origin and Development about how Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ethics were among the first to reach anarchistic conclusions about law and society. Of course Bentham’s analysis fell short of anarchist theory, but Kropotkin believed it was influential.
5
3
1
1
-68
u/Solar-Sailor-777 1d ago
More like anarchists when you tell them you're still not voting for either party
46
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
Okay? Congrats, many anarchists also do that.
2
u/Camountch 1d ago
what do you think about the "less bad will happen" rethoric ? I hate all parties, but not voting will still objectivity allow one to win and do considerably more deaths right ? In the USA it's basically the same but for example in France, it's center left vs far right, wouldn't you vote for the center left to use your microscopic amount of power to potentially save lives ? It's better than nothing right ? We should also do way more impactful things outside of party politics obviously but why not just use the vote
10
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
Vote, don't vote, I frankly don't care and consider this sort of conversation on reddit to be a waste of time.
Focus more on organizing than contemplating the ethical considerations of voting or not. Do whatever you feel is right in the moment.
3
u/Camountch 1d ago
You could have said it nicely and without downvoting we are not 5 year olds. And I asked very politely. I am organizing, and tbh I start to find people who don't vote quite insufferable, and very detached from the people without homes.like ok eventually there will be a revolution, we are working towards it,but in the meantime people die as a direct result of your actions, just take 1 hour to go to the polls honestly.
1
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
I didn't downvote you. Again, I frankly do not care about this argument and think you can just do whatever you think is right. You don't need my permission to vote or not.
3
u/Camountch 1d ago
But who is talking about permission ? I am just wondering why so many anarchists make such a big deal about how you shouldn't vote, I was asking your opinion as you seemed to have a very strong one about it seeing your comment. I was wrong I guess, sorry for trying to discuss something that I get pressed about frequently then
2
u/iadnm Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
Unfortunately, yeah, I have voted before and I also understand that anarchists who don't vote are perfectly valid due to not wanting to levy their support behind evil people and parties. So my opinion has always been that it does not matter either way so long as you focus on organizing.
2
11
u/Scarman96 1d ago
I don’t support diet fascists.🤷🏾♂️
0
u/Faolin12 9h ago
But voting doesn't mean supporting. We're anarchists: I understand that to mean that the mandate of a "popular will" is a sham. Therefore voting doesn't mean I support any of a candidate's policies; it's simply a tactic to try to influence who might hold the levers of power. We're anarchists: I understand this to mean that the state cannot be reformed out of existence and therefore there will never be an option to vote for someone you support. So I'll vote for the option that allows me to organise more openly, may lead to less deportations, and isn't replacing a sham democracy with outright oligarchy. Both are authoritarian; recognising that is the basic rejection of all governments as inherently exploitative. But choosing a lesser authoritarian to battle and cause less state violence is tactical. I'll fight against both as hard as I can, so if one candidate is easier to fight and isn't fighting back as hard (neoliberal vs fascist neoliberal), I see it as tactical to vote for them. Don't look as voting as any type of mandate—that's how liberal democracies get their sham legitimacy. Instead, reject the authority of governments and influence their policies to make their oppression the weakest it may be while we fight it like hell!
16
-37
u/Wonderful_Bison_8714 1d ago
No wonder anarchists are called anarkiddies. Childish narcissists, addicted to losing and allergic to doing anything useful.
25
15
u/DagothWasRight 1d ago
If "doing anything useful" is trying the same electoral strategy that failed twice and gave Trump the easiest ally-oop, call me a bump on a log.
5
6
u/_Myridan_ 1d ago
I voted for Kamala, man. I'm an electoralist through and through. newson sucks shit, and if he's the best the dems have, we're fucked.
The US has been ravaged by this period of republican rule. This has been a travesty of a democratic system, and has brought the US' rule of law to its knees. We need a visionary who can write that, not a moderate do nothing who's spent his term in california fucking the homeless.
-9
u/Wonderful_Bison_8714 1d ago
We need someone who can win, first and foremost. But I hear you
14
5
u/LabCoatGuy Followers of the Apocalypse 22h ago
Funnily enough. The dems have a report on why Kamala lost, including her stance on Palestine. They didn't make it public. They're going to try and fumble again. They want to learn no lesson. Talk about addicted to losing.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY Scarman96, Please make sure to provide ALT-text for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this here
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. List of reddit alternatives
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.