Voting: Waste of time or path to socialism?
Perspective on whether anarchists and leftists should engage in electoral politics as a means for change in society.
Voting in general (or federal) and local elections is a topic which is becoming increasingly important with elections in the US and UK set to take place this year (date for UK election TBC). With these elections coming up anarchists and other leftists must decide if voting should be used as a means for change, within Marxist and anarchist circles there are varying opinions on the viability of electoral politics to achieve favourable conditions for the working class to operate in. I like many others would reject voting and participation in electoral politics as a viable means to achieve socialism, historical anarchist theory and practice have made this abundantly clear and we as modern anarchists should continue to abide by our principles.
Voting in elections within liberal (or illiberal) democracies is the main way through which the ruling class provides the illusion of representation and choice. We are told that only through voting for a representative can we achieve the changes we want to improve our livelihoods and opportunities, with election cycles often taking place every five years (or four) the governments of today have achieved a remarkable amount of success in channeling the frustration of voters into a repetitive cycle of voting for your next oppressor. This is not to say that living within a liberal democracy is the worst form of government to live under, no anarchist will tell you that living under an absolute monarchy or fascistic regime is preferable to living in a liberal democracy.
Rather than embracing the kindness of the ruling class who give workers the privilege of voting for their next oppressor, anarchists would argue that parliament and other democratic institutions are products of the ruling class to reinforce their interests backed by organised violence to enforce the will of the so-called people’s representatives or MPs.
Because this system was created by and ruled by the capitalist class, any attempt by workers to vote themselves in and subsequently socialism in through the ballot box will inevitably fail, by participating within the system so-called socialist MPs or representatives present the ruling class with an option to reinforce their position by offering small concessions which present no harm to their power but can be presented as heroic victories on the road to socialism by those so-called socialist MPs. Before long those who become voted into the system thinking of change become those fighting tooth and nail to defend the status quo.
Historical anarchy:
To fully understand this critique it is necessary to understand the distinction between the state and government, the state within anarchist theory is the collection of permanent institutions which have entrenched power structures and interests whereas the government is the collection of representative politicians who represent the people within the state. The clear distinction here is the lack of permanence that democratic representatives have compared to the established institutions in the state whose permanence allows them to continually reinforce and build on the interests of the capitalist class1.
Historical anarchists through their extensive writings at the time developed and built on the ideas of anarchism established in the first international (or international working men’s association). Theorists ranging from Proudhon to Malatesta to Goldman wrote extensively on the topic of democracy, however, anarchists’ critique of democracy is underpinned by the anarchist analysis of authority and its understanding of the state (outlined above).
Lucy Parsons within her text “The Ballot Humbug” (1905)2 plainly outlines what anarchists believe about the authority of men:
“It is better to have majority rule [...] than to have minority rule which is only in the interest of the few [...]. But the principle of rulership is in itself wrong; no man has any right to rule another man.”
To reject the principle of rulership thereby forming the basis for the rejection of the liberal understanding of democracy. Alongside this rejection of leadership, several anarchists developed critiques of moderate state socialists (those who believed that winning elections alongside measures of direct action could be used to transform the bourgeois state into an instrument for the development of socialism). Contemporary anarchist historian Zoe Baker3 synthesises the anarchist critiques of parliamentarianism and electoralism into four distinct points.
Firstly, anarchists critiqued the moderate state socialists for having the belief that state power could be captured peacefully through a primary focus on winning elections. Both radical Marxists and Anarchists accepted that ruling capitalist classes would not allow a socialist parliamentary majority to vote away their privileges through legislative means simply. This in turn meant the only way to overthrow capitalism was instead through a working-class social revolution, details on the outcomes of this social revolution differed between both groups. Secondly, anarchists understood and rejected the idea that immediate improvements in conditions could be won through passing legislation e.g. the eight-hour workday.
When legislation becomes law within liberal democracies there often lacks mechanisms to force capitalists to institute the requirements outlined in laws, instead, workers themselves through direction such as strikes often force the implementation of laws through their means. In addition to this, moderate state socialists who argued for a combination of both electoralism and direct action were bound to create a contradiction, most state socialists would have argued for electing socialists to parliament while placing pressure on liberal politicians from below through various means such as socialist press, strikes and demonstrations. However, the inevitable outcome of this process (in theory) is a socialist majority in parliament which would continually be pressured by the same working class they were elected to represent. This therefore would be pointless.
Although there was no unanimous agreement about the exact form of anarchist organisation many currents such as anarcho-syndicalism argued for winning immediate improvements through strike action as argued by Rudolf Rocker4. Thirdly, anarchists critiqued electoralism because of the dangerous habits that it makes working people practice.
By participating in elections, anarchists argued that workers would develop counter-revolutionary traits such as believing that change will come from above and thereby waiting for elections to make change. Instead, anarchists due to their belief in the unity of means and ends believe that by participating in direct action workers will develop mental faculties which allow them to contribute to the self-liberation of the working class through the social revolution. Finally, anarchists unlike moderate state socialists argued that any group entering the state no matter their intentions end up slowly diluting their beliefs and convictions due to the nature of the system reflecting the interests of the bourgeoisie. The seizing of state power via democratic means would therefore require the leadership of any socialist party to administer the economy and state in the same ways that the prior capitalists did, which in turn leads to a gulf between the newly elected socialists and the working class who would not see immediate benefits from the rise of socialists to the top of the political pyramid.
Many nations experienced the state socialist decline into capitalist management, France for example had multiple socialist ministers enter the cabinet only to utilise the organised violence of the state to hamper the direct action of unions and working-class organisers during periods of labour unrest. 5 Meanwhile in Germany and Britain, their respective socialist/social democratic parties rallied to their imperialist governments during 1914 which saw them completely abandon any pretense of working-class internationalism.
The British political establishment:
Bourgeois democracy in Britain has an extensive history spanning back several hundred years, with the rise of industrial capitalism within the 18th and 19th centuries the old system of parliament used by the aristocrats to govern was suddenly under pressure from the new middle class to grant them representation within the lords and commons. Several acts of parliament followed which pushed through a long process of suffrage extension starting with industrial capitalists and ending with universal suffrage for all workers in 1928. Throughout this time several thoughts emerged among socialist circles in Britain about using this emerging system as a means through which positive change for the workers could be made, the main articulation of this emerging belief in reformism came through the founding of the Labour Party in the early 20th century who emerged through a growing desire for working class and union representation in parliament which the establishment Liberal party could not provide.
Since the Labour Party’s first entry into government in 1914 they have been responsible and complicit within the British political establishment and its efforts to stem workers’ action in the economic sphere. Under the post-war consensus, Labour championed Keynesian economics (full employment and welfare development) as a method by which capitalism could be restructured to be more humane but also keep the workers in good health to continue high levels of productivity. The flip side of this however was a continuing opposition to any working-class action which threatened the establishment both before and after the Second World War, whether this be crushing strikes using Tory legislation or cutting workers’ pay in times of recession the Labour Party and its affiliated trade unions have in many ways been the oppressors of the very people it has in the past claimed to represent.
As the Labour Party became more and more entrenched within the capitalist system it gradually moved towards shedding any pretense of “socialism”, by the mid-1990s Labour had fully dropped any commitment to any policy outside of collaborating with and managing the affairs of capital, this largely came after workers in the 1970s-1980s began banging on the limits of capitalism which prompted the Thatcherite neoliberal counter-revolution. Some may argue the removal of clause four is what marked this transition while others may point elsewhere - Regardless of this debate in the 21st century, we can all but confirm that a labour vote is a vote for capital.
Between the 1990s and the early 2020s the role of political parties and voting has stayed largely the same with voters once again trudging to the voting booth to elect or reelect capital’s newest puppets, during this time labour militancy was at an all-time low with both parties (Labour and Tories) presenting the workers with acceptable standards of living for the middle class while the TUC unions kept the lid on what little working-class anger there was left in Britain.
Where does this leave us today? With an election cycle upcoming and the Tories looking like they are on the way out of parliament what should we as anarchists do?
Activity paralysis:
During election time it seems to be the case that the media, party activists, social media and workplaces all stop their activities to focus on the election. Whether this is attending hustings, door knocking, watching debates or voting itself, life outside of elections seems to stop. This is a phenomenon we must break, the changing of capital representatives from one to another does not change the fact that workplace struggles, organising and demonstrating will go on. Our focus cannot become clouded by engaging with middle-class liberals in their political sphere, life will go on even if you decide to vote for the most radical candidate in the election (Green, Workers Party, TUSC etc)
Those left-wing political parties like the Greens, Workers Party and TUSC (Trade Union and Socialist Coalition) fail to understand that the resources spent on mobilising activists and campaigning are all for nought. Take for example the UK Green Party’s aim to elect four MPs to parliament at the expense of Labour and the Tories. Out of the 650 MPs elected to the commons, the maximum influence the Greens could have on policy decisions is at best negligible, by sending their party leadership to Westminster the gulf between party members and leaders becomes ever wider. As we have seen with other parties, this will allow the Greens to take their rightfully earned place as mediators between capital and the working class. The French Popular Front government of 1936 provides an excellent example of an incoming socialist government immediately repressing workers’ strikes to restore stability in 1936-19388.
Even if we were to believe that a radical left-wing party were to win a majority in the election there are several countermeasures the state and capital will take to ensure its downfall. The reaction of the markets is often the first to strike, after the government whether left or right announces a policy that the markets do not like the value of stocks will plummet thereby signalling the masters of capital want a reverse in policy which almost always occurs (As seen by the fall of the Truss government). 9
Secondly, the incoming government could pursue a policy of banning capital from fleeing thereby isolating the government from further capital investment which leads to economic collapse and a sharp decline in living standards as seen in the Cuban state capitalist project. Thirdly when all else fails, the mask of liberal democracy falls to pave the way for a capitalist counter-revolution in the form of fascism which represents capitalism in its purest form - barbarism.
Realistically if you as an anarchist live in an area where a candidate like Jeremy Corbyn or a Green Party candidate is likely to win then the harm in voting is minimal, the act of voting becomes harmful when it is adopted as the primary method used to achieve social change. Anarchists as far back as 1869 rejected this as a strategy, to adopt electioneering as a strategy for social change and improvements in conditions would be a betrayal of our ideals and principles.
Contrast this to the organising that we in the anarchist scene can pursue, pouring time into local, regional and national struggles for a better future for the working class is where our time must lie. Anarchists place major importance on the self-liberation of the working class, by using direct action workers can reclaim individual capacities such as initiative, solidarity and creativity when it comes to solving problems of their own. Not only does direct action restore workers’ capacity to act for themselves and their collective interests but direct action allows for the prefiguring of our future society within our current society. When the revolution happens we will not find an army of workers premade for the revolution, only through exercising our mental faculties can we build towards libertarian communism. This is not a phenomenon that electoralism can achieve, the emancipation of the workers is not compatible with voting for your next oppressor to do it for you.
Those who still have faith in electoralism could present several reasons why voting is a necessary thing to do, within the US democrats or liberals will often make a fuss about rallying behind one evil to stop another (Biden > Trump) thereby making the argument that under a democratic president, the working class are more likely to win favourable concessions as well as radicalise more people towards socialism (often through failed campaigns like those of Bernie Sanders).
From the past to the future:
The lesser of two evils idea has become increasingly prominent within US politics as the stage is set for Trump to take on Biden for the presidency, many on the center left are engaging in a rally to the flag mentality concerning the democrats. The argument goes as follows, if center-left democratic socialists do not vote for Biden then Trump will win the presidency and everyone will suffer more than under Joe Biden. It is not exactly contested on the left about who is the better candidate between Trump and Biden, it is important to consider however the allocation of resources, time and faith in the system11.
As well as this, voting for the lesser of two evils is often regarded as damage control as even some on the center-left recognise the glaring similarities between the Republicans and Democrats. Naturally, however, every election cycle the Republicans or Tories or CDU-CSU will summon a candidate who the centrists deem as the next reincarnation of the devil and therefore once again we must all rally behind the least worst candidate (Biden, Starmer, Scholtz etc). At what point however does defeating the bigger evil turn into a repetitive process of voting time and time again for bourgeoisie politicians?
A further issue related to this point is that when discussing electoral politics by placing support behind an individual candidate or party you create the impression that the system itself is not the issue, instead it is merely an issue of who occupies the system. It is particularly easy to point out the flaws of a capitalist, pro-business politician by looking into their voting records and money received from various lobbying organisations12, this provides great ammunition for aspiring opposition politicians who can use this same information to argue that if only they were in that position they could do better for their constituents. As mentioned before, the issue with electoralism is the system itself. Regardless of who enters the system whether they be a liberal environmentalist, a community activist or a socialist the power relations and structure of the system are designed to transform those who enter into statesmen who become more concerned with reproducing their power rather than pushing for radical social change.
From a local to a national level, liberal democratic systems of governance have a remarkable prowess at watering down the radicalism of elected politicians. It is a common story of radical politicians campaigning on radical policies including healthcare expansion, nationalisation or increasing the minimum wage. Grandiose promises like these are a fantastic magnet for attracting voters to a politician’s cause, Obama I would argue is the best example for this argument. The policy of Obamacare proved popular enough to propel him to the White house in 2008, the congressional system however and its extensive association with lobbyists and business interests proved more than capable of slashing the original proposal down to a palatable enough reform for both the business elites and Obama himself who took his watered down win and used it to secure another term in the halls of power.
The role of these democratic institutions therefore is not to provide an avenue for change, these institutions serve as a distraction through which radicalism can be assimilated and eliminated to preserve the integrity of the system at large. No matter if you vote or not your conditions at work, at home and in your community will not change no matter which scumbag sits in parliament on your behalf.
Is direct action compatible with electoralism?:
Inevitably there will always be some who advocate for the dual approach of doing both participating in elections as well as conducting direct action in the workplace and wider society. Anarchists (once again) reject this outright. Although voting for the most progressive candidate poses no real threat to anarchists the idea that we can do both strategies with equal vigor is, as we have established the nature of the electoral system is hierarchical but this also extends to the campaigns which prospective politicians conduct to be elected to office. Contrary to what some on the left may tell you, electoral campaigns are not a way through which we can encourage equal and mass participation. To illustrate this take the example of the UK Green Party14, within its political party programme the MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas says:
“What’s special about the political programme is that it’s the culmination of a grassroots democratic exercise. Our policy is set by our members - meaning that our leaders have no more voting power than our newest recruits - and the breadth of these transformative ideas reflects just how lucky we are to have such a dynamic membership.”15
In their political party programme the idea of mass and equal participation seems to be prominent and at the forefront of the Green Party Campaign. But is this reflected in the Green Parties election campaign? Quite quickly you can see that it is not, the Green Party’s “Four for 24” campaign illustrates the hierarchical nature of their campaign through their desire to concentrate support and attention around the four politicians with the best chances of securing power at the next election. This phenomenon of hierarchical electoral campaigns is not unique to the Greens however, the nature of electoralism requires each campaign to have one face, a leader to be the center of the campaign within the media which requires everyone else (voters, party activists etc) to be the followers who delegate their authority to this leader16
Within the US despite growing opposition to Biden within the democratic caucus through voting for uncommitted in party ballots (organised by pro Palestinian mass action groups) the effect has largely been minimal. Biden nonetheless still swept the nomination, it is interesting to think about what could have been achieved in Michigan if this effort and organisation could have been put towards a direct action project17 The governments of today through legislation have achieved remarkable success in exporting this model of delegating authority to other aspects of our society, the trade unions in Britain for example having been so restricted by the countless anti union acts of parliament are plagued by issues of bureaucrats suffocating rank and file militant action. The downturn in wildcat strikes and rank and file action can in part be attributed to the fact increasing amounts of power is being concentrated in the hands of union officials whose interests are in fact with the employers not the workers!
Delegation of power to another and direct action are polar opposites, there is simply no way for people to both simultaneously develop ideas of solidarity and mutual aid while also participating in a hierarchical system of governance. To best make change and build towards our future society we cannot rely time and time again on prospective politicians who seek to slightly lessen our suffering, whether you organise a strike, a campaign or a reading group doing any form of direct action remains a better and more promising method of change rather than trudging back to the voting booth.
What is to be done:
If we in the anarchist scene recognise the ploy of electoralism and the infallible control of bureaucrats and capitalists over the state then what should we do? To put it simply - organise! By breaking the cycle of elections and educating workers on the pointlessness of voting we can contribute towards the development of new forms of social organisation based on the self-emancipation of the working class through direct action, solidarity and mutual aid. We know capitalism is not invincible, we know the ruling class will do everything they can to stem the direct action of workers - This is a sign to push forward even more, towards a new society - Anarchist Communism.
This is by no means an easy task, but a necessary one if we are to continue the ongoing struggle against the twin evils of the state and capitalism.
The Anarchist FAQ, section J.2.2, https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj21
The Ballot Humbug by Lucy Parsons (1905) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lucy-e-parsons-the-ballot-humbug
Means and Ends, The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States by Zoe Baker (2023). Pp 143-153, available via AK press.
Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker (1938), Chapter 5 “The Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism”, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism#toc5
Syndicalism in France: A Study of Ideas by Jeremy Jennings (1990), pg 36. https://archive.org/details/syndicalisminfra0000jenn/page/36/mode/2up
“Don’t be a slave”, International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam)
“Abstention is the anarchist vote”, International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam), https://hdl.handle.net/10622/N30051001994398?locatt=view:level3
Workers Against Work Labor in Paris and Barcelona During the Popular Fronts by Michael Seidman, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michael-seidman-workers-against-work
https://theconversation.com/liz-truss-resigns-as-prime-minister-the-five-causes-of-her-downfall-explained-192979
“Non Votate!", International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam),
‘It will be the end of democracy: Bernie Sanders on what happens if Trump wins - and how to stop him by Ed Pilkington (2024 )https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/13/end-of-democracy-bernie-sanders-on-if-trump-wins-and-how-to-stop-him
https://www.statista.com/topics/11840/lobbying-in-the-us/#topicOverview
“Elections? … Abstention!”, International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam), https://hdl.handle.net/10622/N30051001649281?locatt=view:level3.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/
https://greenparty.org.uk/political-programme.html
Direct Action Gets The Goods - But How? by Gregor Kerr (2007), https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gregor-kerr-direct-action-gets-the-goods-but-how
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/critics-bidens-handling-israel-hamas-war-push-protest-vote-michigan-pr-rcna140395