Add new comment

“This November, if Trump attempts to hold on to power and legalistic solutions fail to resolve the crisis, some liberal centrists will press us to serve as the shock troops of democracy, taking risks that they would never take themselves in order to preserve the integrity of an electoral system that has always suppressed our voices and our autonomy. Far-right Republicans and outright fascists would love to see us locked in symmetrical warfare with better-armed militias who want nothing more than a fixed target and a legitimate excuse to employ their weapons. We should be careful not to end up playing either of these roles, but to chart our own path, evaluating the effectiveness of our actions according to the extent to which they achieve our goals.”

“Ordinarily, the anarchist position on elections is to reject the centrality of voting as the be-all-end-all of political participation. In 2020, it is just as important to reject civil war as the alternative.”

(The Emma Goldman article they share is prescient

While the article is a moment of lucidity and eloquence for CrimethInc, the characterization of voting as maybe ok in some circumstances as a tactic, acceptable with qualifications and caveats, still misses the point of abstaining.

“the strongest argument [they] can imagine for voting” is extremely weak and contradicted by what they later express and all that implies, including

“The first step in this process is to dismiss the idea that any law, majority, or leadership has an inherent claim on our obedience. The second step to throw out any lingering romanticism about what we can accomplish by force of arms alone—we seek to transform our relations with others, not to exterminate them. The third step is to refuse our roles in perpetuating the existing order—whether as active participants in it or passive accomplices who permit it to continue—setting contagious examples of rebellion that can spread throughout the entire social terrain.”

Another insightful thing they comment is: “The question is not how to foment social conflict, but how to maximize the likelihood that the outcome of these conflicts will be more freedom...”

I see this as the turn from an outlook of thinking of interventions with aims to build up to an insurrection, to instead how you can wrest freedom in the now, existing social conflicts as context. Anarchists are not in control of the outcomes of social conflicts nor macro-trends, and often have minimal influence so as to think they will steer things in any which way. At best I think they can try not to be dragged in these trends, to try not to drown while swimming against the current, not to be like a leaf blown in the wind, to have your own initiative.