Vermont elects America's first socialist senator

by professor rat Fri Nov 10, 2006 06:50

The 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 )

by t Fri Nov 10, 2006 07:32

"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.

by Anarcho Fri Nov 10, 2006 17:17

""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?

by todd Sun Nov 12, 2006 02:56

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.

by Pat Murtagh Sun Nov 12, 2006 08:10 murtaghpatrick at hotmail dot com

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.