This is an anarchist community, so here’s an anarchist perspective. Voting is not and cannot be harm reduction.
The idea of a ballot being capable of reducing the harm in a system rooted in colonial domination and exploitation, white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, and capitalism is an extraordinary exaggeration. There is no person whose lives aren’t impacted everyday by these systems of oppression, but instead of coded reformism and coercive “get out the vote” campaigns towards a “safer” form of settler colonialism, we’re asking “what is the real and tragic harm and danger associated with perpetuating colonial power and what can be done to end it?”
Voting as harm reduction does more harm than good. Accepting reforms through voting makes people settle for a partial goal; it is a concession. From this position of compromise, the state entrenches its position, and it becomes more difficult to push further, for voters fear losing their partial gains. Accepting harm reduction also divides the movement, because some will be satisfied with the crumbs, while others want it all (see the split at the ZAD). Harm reduction also assumes that the harm (the government) cannot be removed entirely, which is an argument that there can be no anarchy.
Voting is not harm reduction
For the vast majority of issues, there’s no difference between the political parties. They are all the parties of business, climate destruction, deportation, incarceration, police, surveillance, drone strikes, sacred site desecration, et cetera. By getting you to believe that there is a lesser of two evils, the state dampens your desire for abolishing it, because you are meant to believe that things will be worse if you don’t vote and support a political party. Look at the fact that the George Floyd Rebellion occurred under Trump, where liberals, and progressives, and leftists didn’t get what they want, where the harm was supposedly greater, than under Biden, where those same people lie dormant, accepting the lesser evil world as a blessed reprieve.
A lot of internet anarchists are like any other internet leftist: their main “actions” are gatekeeping, purity tests, and virtue signaling that they’re real [whatever flavor of the left they claim]. They have zero pragmatism and no actionable plans – but they get pissed if anyone suggests something that doesn’t perfectly align with their professed ideals.
They don’t actually do anything for their cause in the real world: all they do is bitch on the internet and to their close circle of interchangeable friends. They’re the dead wood of progressiveness.
Which to be fair, is kind of the case for a majority of the population
It’s clearly not. I don’t sit in a box until election day. I’ve got a household to tend to, friends to support, family to care for, and an economy to participate in. All of these actions have political implications and consequences.
People need to recognize that caring for an ailing parent, holding down a job at a convenience store, opening up your house to a roommate (or renting that unit for a profit), driving a car versus riding a bike, calling the cops, littering - these all carry political weight. How you spend the majority of your waking hours is still a consequence of your ideology even in constrained circumstances.
I’m glad you don’t, what I mean is that for a lot of people, participating in a democracy rarely goes beyond voting every cycle, even if they do other actions that can be considered participation to democracy
Both-sidesism isn’t anarchism. It’s nihilism. It’s the “nothing matters, so there are no rules” surface level “anarchism” take. You can’t hide behind hedonistic nihilism by calling it “anarchism”. You might as well just come out as the edgelord you want to be and tip your fedora.
Badjacketing would be misrepresenting, manufacturing or lying about a person to paint a bad image of them. I literally linked to the thing they just posted, and are doing… nothing about any of that is false or misrepresentative. Just because it makes them look bad and you don’t like it, doesn’t make it “badjacketing”.
Engage with what is being said instead of trying to appeal to some reddit-tier fallacy argument.
if we’re quoting handbooks, then doing a “both sides are bad” is right out the alt-right handbook.
And lets see… a “leftist” in “leftist spaces” making plays from the “alt-right handbook”, misrepresenting them as “leftist” opinions to fracture coalition… what would you call a person like that? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
howabout this, rather than sit here and argue theory and bullshit… lets reframe what you’re doing here and see if that’s the person you idealize yourself to be.
You’re coming to the defense of a powertripping mod that abuses their position to push centrist bullshit and then bans anyone who disagrees with them.
Would you, as an anarchist, come to defend any other self-appointed hierarchical leader that pushes harmful misinformation and silences critics? Hmm? Is this your ideal anarchist community member?
I don’t think the mod is power tripping. They used the piefed default ban length (2100-2026=74), and the mod is allowed to moderate their community as they see fit. They don’t allow aggressive neoliberal talking points. That’s their choice.
I’m a fan of the community, so I’m familiar with the mod’s behavior. They aren’t centrist, they were criticizing the democratic party. I don’t necessarily agree with the post, but that doesn’t make it misinformation.
As a mod of a few communities myself, we’re custodians of a community, not “hierarchical leaders”.
The principle of free association means that I can freely interact with them as long as both parties see it as mutually beneficial. If I didn’t like the mod, what they post, or their community, then I block them. If they don’t like me, what I post, or my communities, then they block me.
This is an anarchist community, so here’s an anarchist perspective. Voting is not and cannot be harm reduction.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voting-is-not-harm-reduction
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-why-you-shouldn-t-vote#toc1
This entire argument assumes no one does anything other than vote
A lot of internet anarchists are like any other internet leftist: their main “actions” are gatekeeping, purity tests, and virtue signaling that they’re real [whatever flavor of the left they claim]. They have zero pragmatism and no actionable plans – but they get pissed if anyone suggests something that doesn’t perfectly align with their professed ideals.
They don’t actually do anything for their cause in the real world: all they do is bitch on the internet and to their close circle of interchangeable friends. They’re the dead wood of progressiveness.
Which to be fair, is kind of the case for a majority of the population, which is perfectly fine for, and encouraged by, the people of power
It’s clearly not. I don’t sit in a box until election day. I’ve got a household to tend to, friends to support, family to care for, and an economy to participate in. All of these actions have political implications and consequences.
People need to recognize that caring for an ailing parent, holding down a job at a convenience store, opening up your house to a roommate (or renting that unit for a profit), driving a car versus riding a bike, calling the cops, littering - these all carry political weight. How you spend the majority of your waking hours is still a consequence of your ideology even in constrained circumstances.
I’m glad you don’t, what I mean is that for a lot of people, participating in a democracy rarely goes beyond voting every cycle, even if they do other actions that can be considered participation to democracy
The modern political system doesn’t offer many opportunities to interact with the government outside of the electoral cycle.
But that doesn’t constrain your politics, because people routinely organize outside the scope of government anyway.
Both-sidesism isn’t anarchism. It’s nihilism. It’s the “nothing matters, so there are no rules” surface level “anarchism” take. You can’t hide behind hedonistic nihilism by calling it “anarchism”. You might as well just come out as the edgelord you want to be and tip your fedora.
no one is saying “both sides”, as though there are only two. we’re talking about what harm reduction is, and whether voting qualifies. it does not.
Removed by mod
badjacketing isn’t allowed here.
proving you don’t read and huff your own farts.
Badjacketing would be misrepresenting, manufacturing or lying about a person to paint a bad image of them. I literally linked to the thing they just posted, and are doing… nothing about any of that is false or misrepresentative. Just because it makes them look bad and you don’t like it, doesn’t make it “badjacketing”.
Engage with what is being said instead of trying to appeal to some reddit-tier fallacy argument.
Engage with what is being said instead of trying to appeal to some reddit-tier fallacy argument.
calling it a psyop is straight out of cointelpro handbook.
if we’re quoting handbooks, then doing a “both sides are bad” is right out the alt-right handbook.
And lets see… a “leftist” in “leftist spaces” making plays from the “alt-right handbook”, misrepresenting them as “leftist” opinions to fracture coalition… what would you call a person like that? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
When neither side is an anarchist position? It’s not two sides. It’s one side with two faces.
Wtf are you talking about?
howabout this, rather than sit here and argue theory and bullshit… lets reframe what you’re doing here and see if that’s the person you idealize yourself to be.
You’re coming to the defense of a powertripping mod that abuses their position to push centrist bullshit and then bans anyone who disagrees with them.
Would you, as an anarchist, come to defend any other self-appointed hierarchical leader that pushes harmful misinformation and silences critics? Hmm? Is this your ideal anarchist community member?