Agenda for the Global South After COVID-19 03:34 Jun 28 1 comments Another Sanders Betrayal 23:08 Apr 15 3 comments Contradictions of Post-Soviet Ukraine and the New Left 04:54 Mar 11 0 comments An inevitable division: the politics and consequences of the Labour split 18:03 Feb 27 0 comments La ofensiva contra el chavismo fracasó. No pudieron y no pasaron 04:16 Feb 27 1 comments more >> |
Recent articles by Anarcho
Recensie: Het Internationaal Anarchistisch Congres Amsterdam (1907) 0 comments Review: The International Anarchist Congress Amsterdam (1907) 0 comments Proudhon, Marx and the Paris Commune 0 comments Recent Articles about North America / Mexico The LeftThe Right’s Fantasy of a “Marxist” Threat Feb 14 22 Did the System Work? Aftermath of the 2020 Election Dec 30 20 Another Sanders Betrayal Apr 15 20 Vermont elects America's first socialist senator
north america / mexico |
the left |
news report
Thursday November 09, 2006 18:39 by Anarcho
An anarchist analysis of Bernie Sanders victory Amidst the Democratic mid-term election victories on November 8th, an independent won the Senate race in Vermont. What is significant is that he is a self-proclaimed socialist and so the first socialist senator in US history. The previous best result in a Senate race by a socialist was in 1930 when Emil Seidel won 6% of the vote. Bernie Sanders is an unapologetic socialist and proud of it and has won eight consecutive elections to the US House of Representatives after being elected mayor of Burlington in 1981. However, do not get your hopes up too much as his vision of socialism is, well, simply reformed capitalism. According to Sanders, "Twenty years ago when people here thought about socialism they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania. Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people understand I'm talking about democratic socialism." |
Front pageSupport Sudanese anarchists in exile Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy 19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022 Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira ! Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19 Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet] Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again? Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis? Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte! Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5The best way, imho, to attack capitalism is at its weakest point - God and the state.
Libertarian socialists or anarchists also provide much needed 'product differention' when they reframe the revolutionary subject this way as authoritarian socialists are generally the ones squealing loudest about the evils of capitalism - and at the same time doing the least about overthrowing it.
Of course there is a weakness in the death-star...it's the reliance of it on God and the state.
Follow in the tradition of Stirner, Bakunin and Proudhon and you won't go far wrong.
Trust Marx and you're lost.
( just my 2c worth )
"It is sad, though, that the best on offer is simply a reformed capitalism which, while better to survive in, is hardly the best we can hope for."
This seems particulary not solid from an anarchist perspective.
One- who's voting? Not very many people.
Two- Even if they vote, do they think their senator is going to be their savior?
Three- Does make a choice imply embrace of reformed capitalism? What role does the conscious selection between options have to do with the struggle against power?
You could make a similar arguement about unions, but we see again and again people act collectively against capitalism and the unions without consciously having that orientation. Likewise people's perspective towards the State will be complex, and their actions again may reflect a number of tendencies, some of which are anti-state. Nor is making compromises inherently suggestive of them embracing all the above.
""It is sad, though, that the best on offer is simply a reformed capitalism which, while better to survive in, is hardly the best we can hope for."
"This seems particulary not solid from an anarchist perspective."
I really have no idea what you mean. The article is explictly anti-parliamentarian and anti-electioneering. Do you not think that it is sad that the alternative most people are aware of these days is reformed capitalism? Surely it is our task as anarchists to show that real alternatives exist -- and how to achieve them?
I just meant that just because some people voted for a socialist doesn't mean that they even think that is a real alternative. For example in non-presidential elections only about a quarter of the population votes (not sure about this one). Amongst those who vote for a candidate the percentage that actually thinks the candidate is more the a lesser evil is probably quite slim.
The second point is just that what constitutes an alternative can be seen from a person's thoughts and actions as an individual and a group. None of these things line up though, they have their own logic. So workers in the auto factories in WWII voted to not strike during the war, but then struck more than before the war. At home, as an individual, they supported the war and war time production. As a factory worker, their consciousness in a social context was completely different. They resisted these things on every level.
So I'm just trying to drive a wedge between the inference that since a socialist (whose been in the house anyway for a long time) got elected people are seeing it as an alternative in the strong sense.
Accoring to what I read Saunders has had a long political career in both local Vermont politics and in the House of Representatives. He seems to be quite popular with his constituents.
The CBC perhaps had the best quote on this man when they said that "in Canada he would be considered slightly left of centre". To my mind his election to the Senate is a marginal event that hardly says anything about "socialism", anarchist or otherwise. In Canada he would be considered to be part of either the centre or the moderate right wing of the NDP.
His election is ONLY significant in the context of American politics, and I would hazard a guess that there are more "socialists" in Wisconsin, the Dakotas or Minnesota than there are in Vermont. His election builds on his own personal popularity and effective action more than it builds on his ideas.