DIRECT ACTION!
This whole 'dont vote' thing, stirred up recently by Russell Brand, has been hugely missunderstood - from a mix of Brand not explaining it well enough maybe, and because these kinds of things are deliberatey hidden from us. Anarchism, that often has this no voting thing as part of its approach, does NOT suggest therefore doing nothing and being lazy. The total opposite.
A key element in anarchism is direct action - of changing society by actually DOING those changes directly, not voting for others to do them on your behalf. This is a valid course of action. It's one choice we have. I dont know enough about Brand to know if he is supporting such anarchism or not. But to say that by not voting someone has no right to influence their own society is simply incorrect.This is a more specific and correct wording: 'If you dont vote, within the CURRENT system, then you DECREASE your influence on how political parties decide how things are run.'
But it does not, at all, mean you have no right anymore, or that you have no other way to contribute towards how society is run. Voting is just one way of doing that, not the only way. The idea of not voting is normally seen as a question of not belieiving anything, or of giving up a right in a lazy way or of avoid responsibility - all those are simply not applicable to those who do it for anarchist reasons. As their choice is not to take No action, but to take DIRECT action, of various kinds... and they see that as MORE active, more responsible, and more successful.
The only question is this: IS it more successful or not? That is the big debate, actually. I now add this definition of DIRECT ACTION from Anarchist FAQ:
Direct action: "in non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes, consumer boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-down strikes by workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment of taxes, blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social nature and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting, includes strikes and protests on social issues, not directly related to working conditions and pay."
"if such actions are to have the desired empowerment effect, they must be largely self-generated, rather than being devised and directed from above" and be "ways in which people could take control of their lives" so that it "empowered those who participated in it."
"So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organise themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them. As such direct action is a natural expression of liberty, of self-government.."
So, as you can see - direct action is very much MORE active than merely voting alone.
This whole 'dont vote' thing, stirred up recently by Russell Brand, has been hugely missunderstood - from a mix of Brand not explaining it well enough maybe, and because these kinds of things are deliberatey hidden from us. Anarchism, that often has this no voting thing as part of its approach, does NOT suggest therefore doing nothing and being lazy. The total opposite.
A key element in anarchism is direct action - of changing society by actually DOING those changes directly, not voting for others to do them on your behalf. This is a valid course of action. It's one choice we have. I dont know enough about Brand to know if he is supporting such anarchism or not. But to say that by not voting someone has no right to influence their own society is simply incorrect.This is a more specific and correct wording: 'If you dont vote, within the CURRENT system, then you DECREASE your influence on how political parties decide how things are run.'
But it does not, at all, mean you have no right anymore, or that you have no other way to contribute towards how society is run. Voting is just one way of doing that, not the only way. The idea of not voting is normally seen as a question of not belieiving anything, or of giving up a right in a lazy way or of avoid responsibility - all those are simply not applicable to those who do it for anarchist reasons. As their choice is not to take No action, but to take DIRECT action, of various kinds... and they see that as MORE active, more responsible, and more successful.
The only question is this: IS it more successful or not? That is the big debate, actually. I now add this definition of DIRECT ACTION from Anarchist FAQ:
Direct action: "in non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes, consumer boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-down strikes by workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment of taxes, blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social nature and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting, includes strikes and protests on social issues, not directly related to working conditions and pay."
"if such actions are to have the desired empowerment effect, they must be largely self-generated, rather than being devised and directed from above" and be "ways in which people could take control of their lives" so that it "empowered those who participated in it."
"So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organise themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them. As such direct action is a natural expression of liberty, of self-government.."
So, as you can see - direct action is very much MORE active than merely voting alone.