💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › peter-burnett-the-anarchist-vote.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:13:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Anarchist Vote
Author: Peter Burnett
Date: 16th September 2014
Language: en
Topics: Scotland, voting, self-determination
Source: Retrieved on 3rd June 2021 from https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/16/the-anarchist-vote/

Peter Burnett

The Anarchist Vote

A some time theme of articles on Bella has been people’s journey from

DON’T KNOW to YES. The passage from ABSTENTION to YES has just as much

to offer however.

The possibility of abstention has been a real one for some Scots of the

anarchist persuasion, who don’t participate in the electoral process.

Not only is this not an election, though, but we’ve reached a glorious

stage in our political consciousness in that there is in fact nobody

left who can say they don’t care about this vote.

In 2012 when we began talking about our referendum in earnest, I noticed

to my pleasure a small number of anarchist articles on the subject were

published.

What drew me to these articles was the tone — they lacked the

hard-wearing sense of optimism that sometimes accompanies arguments for

YES, the vague background idea that independence can cure anything.

Likewise the articles presented what I felt were positive notes of

caution, contained in such phrases as:

‘We don’t deny that Scotland is a nation, but that nations are not

something communists can support. They are always in some way defined by

and tied to the state and are a means to bring about cohesion and

identity across classes.’

What is clearer two years later is that much of what is normally

labelled ‘communist’ or ‘anarchist’ is in fact reflected in some of the

thinking of the left, much of the thinking of the Radical independence

Campaign and is also evident in the minds of many of the Yes-leaning

populace. Angus Calder, whom no-one could ever describe as an anarchist,

said in Scotlands of the Mind in 2002:

‘Through the mists beyond our watershed, I hope that what I think I can

glimpse might actually emerge — a nation without the disastrous

paraphernalia of a nation state.’

This sentiment, while from a republican (or federalist?) stance, still

reflects the thinking of the self-confessed Glasgow Anarchist who wrote

the quote above.

Corollary to this, it appears that there is less need for anyone to use

the word ‘anarchist’ at all. You’ll see the word anarchist quite a bit

in this article, but it will be the only place you’ll see it in this

debate. It’s not that Scottish anarchists have avoided indyref, it’s

just that they’ve been more at home with it than many, because they have

been talking about ideas for new societies all along. There is also

among Scottish anarchists, some reasonable doubts concerning just how

rosy the future will be in an independent state. This is because it is a

mainstay for anyone who cares about class struggle politics that they be

opposed to both Scottish and British nationalism, as nationalism is seen

as binding people to the capitalist nation-state, reinforcing everyday

exploitation. The unknown future is a great place in which to speculate

on more equal societies, but anarchists as you are aware still believe

that what passes as representative democracy in the world today is a

front for class oppression, generally by corporate interest.

This leaves the question as to whether in practical terms, an anarchist

should vote YES or abstain. I should add quickly that there appears to

be no reason for an anarchist to vote NO, and nor have I have heard of

anyone identifying with anarchism who is voting NO. Of all the groups I

contacted in Scotland, numbering over 1,000 individuals, I obviously

couldn’t find anyone that supported a NO.

However, I am writing this because I have come across some who are still

considering abstaining.

This isn’t entirely great news for the YES campaign, because with the

polls pitting the race as close as they do, it looks like an abstention

will be as good as a NO on the day.

Traditionally, and within whichever associations they form, anarchists

in Scotland, as elsewhere, have always been organisers. Some of the

people that have undergone a political awakening and signed up to groups

like The Common Weal which gather around catchphrases such as

‘participatory democracy’ are in general not aware that the anarchists

among us have been organising real community action for a long time.

Now, and thanks to this referendum, anarchists have joined with Radical

Independence Campaign, and Radical Independence has been fortunate to

have the benefit of their experience.

The Radical Independence Campaign, and radical independence in general,

has reduced the need for the label ‘anarchist’, and this may be a good

thing. Anarchism isn’t discussed much as a concept. As a name, title or

descriptor of any sort, ‘anarchist’ isn’t popular with the people, and

it isn’t popular with political parties, but when there is such a large

crossover as there appears to be between anarchism in Scotland and the

radical independence movement, it’s worth a closer look.

THE NEED TO VOTE

As you are well aware we’re not talking about an election here.

Political parties, fortified with notions of their own dignity, have yet

to spoil this referendum debate, which is why it’s been such a high

quality debate.

We’ve been asked to imagine what Scotland will be like as an independent

country, and the imagining has been done entirely by the YES

campaigners. One of the slogans of the National Collective arts group

has been just that — Imagine a Better Scotland.

Politicians have done what they always do and protested the abhorrence

of the views of their parliamentary rivals, but politicians defend their

points merely to be singular in defending them. They don’t do imagining.

YES campaigners ask you to imagine what defence, equality, health, or

the economy might look like in a newly independent country — and there

is more to it than that. We may take any aspect of our lives and imagine

how it may develop. Much more imagining is possible than we are used to.

This is why some anarchist ideas are now being heard, whether they are

labelled anarchist or not, because imagining is what anarchists do.

Anarchists have been imagining societies outside the box for a long time

now. As the idea of the democratic nation state grew in strength, from

the time of the Enlightenment, so arose the anarchist ideals which were

critical of it. Among some of these anarchist goals were:

A totally voluntary society

Distribution that is communist with totally free accessibility

At the very least a delegate democracy over a representative democracy

Something like collective self-management

And this participatory society on a world-wide scale

These are sketches of a few ideas from a much wider variety of anarchist

aims, and here is a disclaimer which will set the record straight on

anarchism in general: There is no anarchist consensus about independence

movements in Scotland or anywhere. There is no anarchist consensus at

all, as anarchism isn’t programmatic like other political philosophies.

Anarchist associations are real, but sometimes people within them don’t

even identify with the word anarchism — that’s just how it works — so in

saying ‘anarchists’ in this article I am more correctly referring to

those who may identify with some or various anarchist goals or aims. I

am not speaking for anyone or any one group, although I have canvassed

anarchist groups in this country, and individuals within these groups

responded, speaking on behalf of themselves.

Back to practicalities then, and the anarchist journey to YES balances

the idea that anarchists don’t like the idea of nations, against their

tendency towards localisation. Ironically, when it comes to nation

states, it is sometimes felt that the breaking down of national

boundaries makes the boundaries less relevant. Here are some of the

opinions I have canvassed.

THE QUESTION

Do you view independence as a state towards breaking down power

structures, or do you support devolution as a move towards more

democratic federal structures?

THE ANSWERS

My road to anarchism began long ago when I became a socialist, and I did

so after reading the prison writings of Bobby Sands, so I can’t help but

sympathize with independence movements. Anti-imperialism is something I

can get behind, even when it’s not anarchist.

The recurring argument is that instead of creating new border, we should

destroy them. A government holding his power on millions of people is

not going to leave it any soon. However, when all the smaller states

will start to fight for their own independence, it is only a matter of

time before the people then overthrow their own state government to

create even smaller state.

I feel like independence would only replace a system of dominance by

another with the main difference being that it has a similar culture

than the majority of its oppressed populace. It seems to me that it is a

fight for a frontier not a liberation.

With a closer government, it is easier to protest authority.

I support nearly anybody fighting for the autonomy of their own

community. It decentralizes power and keeps the will of the people as

closely aligned to actuality as possible, while still functioning as a

united state.

I suppose, fundamentally, if you’re going to have a state, it might as

well be as small as possible, for the sake of being as accountable as

possible to its people, for smaller structures to have to devolve, and

to expose the violence by which other states manipulate its

constituents.

2012 TO DATE

A handful of definitive anarchist articles were written on the subject

of independence, two years ago. Since then, those involved in Scottish

class struggle have not changed their views. One of the best pieces was

written by a member of the Glasgow Anarchist Federation in a personal

capacity. This article presents:

Rather than simply repeat long-standing principles, however, we need to

articulate some kind of an analysis and ask ourselves how potential

state reorganization will affect us and the wider class struggle.

What is key to this report is the questions as to whether anarchists

even should be involved in this issue, and the fact that it is perhaps a

good opportunity to remind people of their aims.

As anarchists, we obviously shouldn’t argue for voting but nor should we

fetishize the act of not voting. Of far more importance is that we are

outside of the narrative and critique all political managers.

Critiquing political managers is necessary but I question placing

anarchism outside of the narrative. It might be wise to place the word

anarchism outside of the narrative, but not anarchist values because

these values are manifest in people, all of whom are dedicated to

change.

Radical Independence campaigners on Scottish doorsteps have discovered

afresh that everyday life is almost entirely anarchist. Voluntary

arrangements and understandings prevail almost everywhere — but tell the

people that it’s anarchist to want to co-operate on an entirely local

level, and you’ll find that the label is sometimes not helpful.

In absence of the word anarchism then, there is some huge crossover

between local Anarchist Federations in Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee,

Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the Radical Independence movements in these

places.

VOTING

It is held of anarchists, that they don’t participate in the electoral

process, believing that parliaments provide a facade behind which the

business of managing capitalism goes on.

However, anarchists have no problem voting. Anarchists vote all the time

because they understand that the process of finding out how many and how

few people want to do something is essential. The electoral process is

something different and means leaving decisions that will effect many

people to a few leaders or bosses.

To this extent anarchism is real democracy. Central to anarchist

politics is the idea that everyone effected by a decision should have

their say in making that decision. Anarchists oppose government

elections because these elections are about choosing rulers rather than

ending the division into rulers and ruled. Therefore I would argue that

this referendum is the exact kind of popular vote that anarchists have

always longed for.

Practical anarchy has never depended on total local self-sufficiency.

But many anarchists argue that communities and regions should be as

self-sufficient as possible, so as not to depend on distant, impersonal

outsiders for necessities. Is it beginning to sound a bit more like

indy?

I think it is. Even with modern technology which was designed to enlarge

commercial markets and destroy self-sufficiency, much more

self-sufficiency is possible than governments and corporations want us

to know.

IMAGINE

Some of the goals articulated by Scottish equality campaigners during

the referendum have been iterated by anarchists for a long time.

Anarchists are more serious about these ideas than their hearers have

ever been apt to believe, possibly because the ideas are often given

labels which make them sound seditious.

Anarchist comments reflect the ease with which the radical YES

campaigners are so alive because for the first time they are excited

about personally organising a new society.

While an independent Scotland will still have politicians and

bureaucrats who decide things for other people, it will be yet be closer

to anarchist ideals — a local community, in which people share common

knowledge of their community and its environment, where they will have

to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike politicians or

bureaucrats, who decide for other people.

and

I’m all for it. I see the further decentralisation of democracy in a

largely leftist country as a move anarchists should support.

and

While Scotland may be no better off under independence, a vote for YES

is yet a positive step towards the sort of localism which anarchists

would like to see characterise the coming century. While some anarchists

are ignoring the referendum as a sham, considering that voting either

YES or NO is promoting the statism they oppose the most, I’d argue to

them that the possibility of a YES result opens the door to a localised

globe ever so slightly wider, and could be a step in the right direction

towards an entirely localised voluntary and cooperative society.

and

We will help those who are poorer or having a shite time. Without

promise or punishment by an exterior moral arbiter. I think the concept

is something we could possibly strive towards. I think that an

Independent Scotland needs as many voices as possible.

and

I can appreciate both perspectives. Independence is not the solution to

the issues but “widening the floor of the prison cell” as Chomsky put

it.

The journey to YES, therefore, should be straightforward for anarchist

groups, whom in general believe in localisation. The ideas that the

referendum vote is another way to snare or divide us, and that it is a

social exercise to widen the floor of the prison cell, are both real,

but they are more than balanced by the possibility that by voting in

association with the rest of our country, we are effecting a change in

local values.

For those that may be planning abstention, now might be the time to

consider a vote for solidarity with the many people who have begun in

the last years to share views which in some cases anarchists have felt

to be their own.

There is no reason to believe that in an independent Scotland

libertarian organising would be any easier or that we would see an

upsurge in class struggle. Likewise anarchists will always push against

state solutions to social and labour problems, and yet who could resist

the chance to halt the embedded mechanisms as represented by the Acts of

Union

Stuart Christie, who has never had a problem with the label anarchist,

believes that a YES vote is the chance for ‘a break with history – it

offers a solution to the people of Scotland disgusted with — and alarmed

at — the anti-democratic and elitist behaviour of the Westminster

politicians.’

I quote Christie, from an article in the La Rioja newspaper, from

Northern Spain.

Christie says:

‘For me it has nothing to do with economic benefit. I’m not suggesting

that if Scottish independence comes, it will be a utopia. Far from it.

But for me it is an opportunity to create new institutions for a new

form of democracy.’

‘If Scotland votes for independence, it opens the floodgates for

Catalonia. And also creates an example for other countries to also break

free of those very centralized and authoritarian regimes that act with

impunity.’

It is this sort of practicality that I am also forwarding, and I think

any potential abstainers should read Stuart Christie’s article and

consider it. Anarchism has always been global, and has through history

focused on workers’ direct and democratic control of society. I think

this kind of aspiration has often been expressed in the last year of YES

campaigning in Scotland.