"We have several choices to make. The first is whether we want to pay attention to the real world, or prefer to keep to abstract discussions suitable to some seminar. Suppose we adopt the first alternative. Then there is another choice: electing Bush or seeking to prevent his election.What did Chomsky see as the difference between the candidates? In an interview he said he would not expect any foreign policy differences, but that:Naturally, Bush has an overwhelming funding advantage, thanks to the extraordinary gifts he lavishes on the super-rich and the corporate sector generally and his stellar record in demolishing the progressive legislation that has resulted from intense popular struggle over many years. Since US elections are pretty much bought, he will therefore win, unless there is a very powerful popular mobilization to overcome these enormous and usually decisive advantages. That leaves us with a choice: help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it.
It's a matter of judgment, of course, but mine is that those who favour electing Bush are making a very serious error. The people around him are likely to cause very serious, perhaps irreparable, harm if given another mandate. Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.
There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result." [1]
"On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference–it’s not huge–but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They’re quite open. They’re not hiding it; you can’t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They’ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They’re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They’re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population." [2]Ralph Nader used interesting arguments in criticising this:
"Well, it's a total loss of nerve. I mean, first of all, they didn't ask anything of Kerry. They said to the voters in the close states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, they said, vote for Kerry, quote, "even though we strongly disagree with Kerry on the war and other issues," end quote. Well, when you don't demand anything of Kerry, he gets worse. If you don't make Kerry better, he gets worse. Because the corporations are demanding 24 hours a day. They're not squeamish like the left is. .... It's a collapse of the left. They have in effect put a figurative ring in their nose." [3]I was struck by his statement that corporations are “not squeamish like the left is”. Are anarchists being too squeamish? Have we made the wrong choice in choosing principle over Chomsky's “real world”? Are we, as Chomsky alleges, saying to potential victims “I don’t care”?
"participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism." [4]There are many other reasons for not voting, I discuss them later, but it is this – the violation of our most fundamental principles – that is the real killer reason. Anarchists may allow for delegates to organised bodies, but never for representatives who cannot be recalled or mandated. That’s the way it is to be in an anarchist society, so that’s the way it has to be for anarchists before then too.
Or does it? Could the ends justify the means enough to violate the most fundamental principles?
Let us see what the old anarchists thought of all this.
"The anarchist does not believe in emancipation by the ballot. Proudhon was an abstentionist, at least in theory, thinking that "the social revolution is seriously compromised if it comes about through the political revolution." To vote would be a contradiction, an act of weakness and complicity with the corrupt regime: "We must make war on all the old parties together, using parliament as a legal battlefield, but staying outside it." "Universal suffrage is the counter-revolution," and to constitute itself a class the proletariat must first "secede from" bourgeois democracy.Somewhat surprisingly, it appears that elevating non voting to be a point of principle for anarchists is a relatively new (20th Century) development, that for the original anarchists non voting was instead more of a tactical issue.However, the militant Proudhon frequently departed from this position of principle. In June 1848 he let himself be elected to parliament and was briefly stuck in the parliamentary glue. On two occasions, during the partial elections of September 1848 and the presidential elections of December 10 of the same year, he supported the candidacy of Raspail, a spokesman of the extreme Left. He even went so far as to allow himself to be blinded by the tactic of the "the lesser evil," expressing a preference for General Cavaignac, persecutor of the Paris proletariat, over the apprentice dictator Louis Napoleon. Much later, in 1863 and 1864, he did advocate returning blank ballot papers, but as a demonstration against the imperial dictatorship, not in opposition to universal suffrage, which he now christened "the democratic principle par excellence."
Bakunin and his supporters in the First International objected to the epithet "abstentionist" hurled at them by the Marxists. For them, boycotting the ballot box was a simple tactical question and not an article of faith. Although they gave priority to the class struggle in the economic field, they would not agree that they ignored "politics." They were not rejecting "politics," but only bourgeois politics. They did not disapprove of a political revolution unless it was to come before the social revolution. They steered clear of other movements only if these were not directed to the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers. What they feared and denounced were ambiguous electoral alliances with radical bourgeois parties of the 1848 type, or "popular fronts," as they would be called today. They also feared that when workers were elected to parliament and translated into bourgeois living conditions, they would cease to be workers and turn into Statesmen, becoming bourgeois, perhaps even more bourgeois than the bourgeoisie itself.
However, the anarchist attitude toward universal suffrage is far from logical or consistent. Some considered the ballot as a last expedient. Others, more uncompromising, regarded its use as damnable in any circumstances and made it a matter of doctrinal purity. Thus, at the time of the Cartel des Gauches (Alliance of the Left) elections in May 1924, Malatesta refused to make any concession. He admitted that in certain circumstances the outcome of an election might have "good" or "bad" consequences and that the result would sometimes depend on anarchist votes, especially if the forces of the opposing political groupings were fairly evenly balanced. "But no matter! Even if some minimal progress were to be the direct result of an electoral victory, the anarchist should not rush to the polling stations." He concluded: "Anarchists have always kept themselves pure, and remain the revolutionary party par excellence, the party of the future, because they have been able to resist the siren song of elections."
The inconsistency of anarchist doctrine on this matter was to be especially well illustrated in Spain. In 1930 the anarchists joined in a common front with bourgeois democrats to overthrow the dictator, Primo de Rivera. The following year, despite their official abstention, many went to the polls in the municipal elections which led to the overthrow of the monarchy. In the general election of November 1933 they strongly recommended abstention from voting, and this returned a violently anti-labor Right to power for more than two years. The anarchists had taken care to announce in advance that if their abstention led to a victory for reaction they would launch the social revolution. They soon attempted to do so but in vain and at the cost of heavy losses (dead, wounded, and imprisoned).
When the parties of the Left came together in the Popular Front in 1936, the central anarcho-syndicalist organization was hard pressed to know what attitude to adopt. Finally it declared itself, very halfheartedly, for abstention, but its campaign was so tepid as to go unheard by the masses who were in any case already committed to participation in the elections. By going to the polls the mass of voters insured the triumph of the Popular Front (263 left-wing deputies, as against 181 others).
It should be noted that in spite of their savage attacks on bourgeois democracy, the anarchists admitted that it is relatively progressive. Even Stirner, the most intransigent, occasionally let slip the word "progress." Proudhon conceded: "When a people passes from the monarchical to the democratic State, some progress is made." And Bakunin said: "It should not be thought that we want . . . to criticize the bourgeois government in favour of monarchy.... The most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most enlightened monarchy.... The democratic system gradually educates the masses to public life." This disproves Lenin's view that "some anarchists" proclaim "that the form of oppression is a matter of indifference to the proletariat." This also dispels the fear expressed by Henri Arvon in his little book L'Anarchisme that anarchist opposition to democracy could be confused with counter-revolutionary opposition."[5]
What justifies making non voting such a point of principle? Errico Malatesta said:
"Anarchists have always kept themselves pure, and remain the revolutionary party par excellence, the party of the future, because they have been able to resist the siren song of elections."The problem with keeping yourself pure is that it can also render you ineffective.
Malatesta was also strictly opposed to Makhno’s ‘platform’ proposal to have an enduring organisational structure of anarchists. His criticism of that is relevant here:
"I believe that the important thing is not the victory of our plans, our projects, our utopias .... What matters most is that the people, men and women lose the sheeplike instincts and habits which thousands of years of slavery have instilled in them, and learn to think and act freely. And it is to this great work of moral liberation that the anarchists must specially dedicate themselves." [6]There would appear to be two competing strategies of anarchism here: one of the early 19th Century tradition carried on to Makhno, which is for concentrating on action in the here and now to deliver tactical victories; and a more modern anarchism which wants to focus on the long timescale with a grand strategy of moral liberation.
For the second tradition, it is certainly correct to avoid electoral politics. Not only does it violate fundamental anarchist principles; electoral politics is dirty, and dirtying, involving messy compromises, concern with day to day issues, and tactical manoeuvrings. So instead, time should be spent on educational work and on building utopian communities of the pure, which could gradually spread over the world.
That is a great ideal and I would wish those involved in it every success; but it is not for me: I would like to see some advances in a more human timescale. Also, actions speak louder than words: anarchists who can demonstrate an involvement in improving ordinary peoples lives in the short term will be listened to more than those who have dedicated themselves to distant works of moral liberation. Put this way, the question becomes more of a concern over whether the violation of fundamental anarchist principles on the one hand speaks louder than a less-than-complete involvement in day to day struggles on the other.
It will now be worthwhile to move on to more recent anarchist ideas on voting. The main Irish anarchist group, the Workers Solidarity Movement, get a lot of attention from now on; partly just because they maintain a more detailed website than other anarchist groups, but also because they have tried to face up to some genuinely tough calls on elections in Ireland in recent years. I am not meaning to be especially critical of that particular anarchist group, my arguments and examples are meant to be food for thought for all anarchists.
However, after the vote, WSM statements imply that they did not believe the two alternatives were equally completely flawed, that one was more flawed than the other, and that the difference was substantial. Because in afterwards criticising the Trotskyite SWP’s call for a 'No' vote, the WSM said:
"The SWP view that a 'No' vote would have resulted in the coming to the fore of class politics ignores completely the fact that the deal's rejection would have been hailed by the most reactionary elements on both sides of the sectarian divide – from Paisley and the LVF through to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee and RSF – as their victory. A more likely scenario than the coming to the fore of working class politics would have been a demoralisation of such tiny progressive forces as currently exist and the filling of the subsequent political vacuum by the forces of sectarian hatred. We would quite possibly have been facing into a Lebanon/Balkan type situation with each community retreating into 'its own' area and the possibilities of cross class unity would at the very least have been dealt a severe blow." [8]If the consequences of a 'No' vote would really have been that bad, the WSM decision to call for abstention has to be questioned. Had the result been close, the abstention call could have been enough to change the overall result from 'Yes' to 'No', and the WSM would then have found itself partially responsible for the possible "Lebanon/Balkan type situation". It would have been hard for any amount of fundamental principles to justify that. Not impossible, but hard.
In actual fact a "Yes" result was not in doubt [9], so the WSM could safely urge abstention, knowing that not enough people would heed their call to change the result. However, the WSM’s statement calling for abstention is apparently not influenced by the closeness of the expected result – it reads as if they would have called for abstention even if their doing so could have swung the result.
"The result of all this [government] manoeuvring is that we are being faced with three separate, and each in their own way highly insulting, referenda. These are on the right to Travel, the right to Information and on the right to Abortion in certain very restricted circumstances. Anarchists will be voting Yes to Travel, Yes to Information and No to the so called '"pro-life"' wording. Our decision on which way to vote is based on our support for a woman's right to choose." [10]It would have been difficult for anarchists to sincerely portray themselves as pro-choice had they campaigned for abstention in that election. Also, the result was thought to be too close to call: opinion polls reported an approximate 52% – 48% split, plus a large number undecided. It was conceivable that an anarchist abstention campaign could have swung the result against abortion. In those circumstances, I think their decision to vote was the correct one. Would other anarchists disagree?
Earlier that year, the Irish government held another referendum which was primarily on joining the Maastricht Treaty to extend European Union integration, but also on whether or not to allow appeals on abortion cases to be heard by the European Court. So it could be regarded as another referendum on abortion. Irish anarchists voted in that also:
"….in moral terms, the Maastricht Protocol is an addition to all the defeats we have suffered in the last 10 years. It may not be a very important addition, it's not a very major defeat, but every time we loose it makes it more difficult for people to keep on fighting to change Irish society. For this reason we will be voting NO to Maastricht." [11]It is notable that the WSMs belief that the choices offered in the abortion referenda were flawed was not reason enough for abstention, but was reason enough in the ‘Good Friday’ referendum six years later. That does not appear to be consistent reasoning.
"Libertarians against Nice launched: All the anarchist organisations in Ireland and a number of individual activists from direct action groups like Reclaim The Streets, Gluaiseacht and the Cork Peace Alliance have come together to campaign for a No vote in the Nice referendum. Campaigning as 'Libertarians against Nice' we intend to distribute tens of thousands of leaflets across the country arguing for a No vote. We also intend to link the Nice treaty with the various direct action protests scheduled before the vote will take place including Reclaim the Streets this Sunday in Dublin and the anti-war demonstration at Shannon airport on October 17th." [12]The press release concluded with an exposition of anarchism with which perhaps all anarchists would agree:
"While we do call for a NO vote, this isn't enough. We don't think an X on a piece of paper, useful protest though it might be, can stop the super state juggernaut. Ordinary working people taking action together can. The groups and individuals involved in this campaign are united by a vision of a better future, one without bosses or governments, be they in Dublin or Brussels. One in which all local communities are directly controlled by the people resident in them, and in which all workplaces are directly controlled by the people who work in them. A future where everyone has an equal say in the decisions that affect them." [12]except perhaps with the idea that voting might be a "useful protest".
Note here that ‘Libertarians against Nice’ take care to spell out their anarchist vision and their opposition to elections forming part of a future anarchist society.
Voting in referenda does not necessarily violate the fundamental principle of abstentionism because it does not involve voting for rulers: you are instead voting to decide on a specific question. Referenda are direct, rather than participatory, democracy, and that is ok with anarchists. Or at least it would be ok if people, rather than elected rulers, got to be involved in the process of choosing the questions to be put in the referenda. For some referenda that is actually the case – where citizens can themselves directly organise proposition referenda through gathering signatures, such as in perhaps Switzerland and some US states.
But all the referenda above were not like that: the questions to be voted upon, the whole agenda, was decided without popular participation. The Good Friday agreement, for example, was stitched up during months of secretive negotiations between politicians and paramilitaries; the voters just got a take it or leave it style question posed to them as their only form of involvement. That is why anarchists urged abstention. And the drafting of the Nice and Maastricht treaties was, if possible, even more secretive and undemocratic: the involvement of voters in European Union constitutional decisions was an obvious sham; yet the main Irish anarchist group nevertheless voted in those referenda. The “highly insulting” questions in the Irish abortion referenda were produced solely by internal government scheming, but again anarchists voted, and on that vote at least I think few anarchists would do otherwise if they were in that situation.
"Even more importantly [than tactical/resource issues], if we do not wish to see society divided into order-givers and order-takers we should not take part in choosing the order-givers. Our goal is efficient grassroots democracy, which will be co-ordinated nationally and internationally. We hold that everyone effected by a decision should be able to have a direct say in making that decision. Electing 166 TDs to make all the decisions "for us" is merely choosing rulers, not doing away with rulers." [13]That is a restatement of the fundamental principle of abstention, and it takes us back to the difference between Malatestas' purists and Makhnos' tacticians. Because unless you live a pure anarchist life in a community separate from the capitalist system, you will constantly be taking part in state capitalism. As an individual you will do that by working as a wage slave in a capitalist corporation; by paying taxes; by saving money in banks; by paying rent; and by using state services such as education and healthcare. Group actions for the tactical anarchists are also necessarily part of state capitalism: striking for higher wages or better conditions; campaigning for less unjust taxes; campaigning against the enactment of repressive laws. Participating in elections merely adds one more to these long lists of impure actions – although it can, of course, be argued that it is one addition too far.
"it is of course true that Joe's near election in that by-election sent a shockwave through the political establishment, laying the foundation for his election to the Dáil in the following year's general election. . . . . . While Joe's near election was obviously significant, the more frightening thing from the government's perspective was the sight of ordinary working class people refusing to bow down, standing shoulder to shoulder and delivering clear and tangible evidence that Solidarity is Strength." [14]This is similar to the Scottish experience with the Anti Poll Tax campaign. In the middle of the campaign, in 1987, Jim Sillars of the Scottish National Party used the issue to help him win the Glasgow Govan By-election. Rather than having “SNP” appear as his political party on the ballot papers, he instead had “SNP – no poll tax”. This was infuriating to anti Poll Tax campaigners, including anarchists, because they knew the SNP had not had any involvement in the anti poll tax campaign until then, and that did not much change afterwards. But the election result did have an impact on politicians and on their views of the poll tax. It was only a minor factor in the eventual victory of the anti Poll Tax campaign - the decisive factors were instead mass non payment and the riot at Trafalgar Square in London - but still, it was there as a factor.
To leave out factors like this from your armoury is justifiable on grounds of principle, but not on grounds of seeking successful tactics. The decision comes down to a question of which is most important – tactical victory, or principle?
I was struck at those demos of the seeming inconsistency of campaigning to influence the decision of parliament on whether or not to enact or amend a bill then progressing through committee stage, while at the same time disdaining that parliament to such an extent as to campaign for abstention in its elections. But it was obvious that British life would be freer without the Criminal Justice Act being enforced, and so I believe that participating in the campaign was correct.
Shortly afterwards, Glasgow Anarchists were involved in campaigning to prevent closure of a government school in a working class district of Glasgow. That campaign was successful due to occupation of the school, a tactic aimed partly at influencing the decisions of elected councillors, who may also have been influenced by (entirely unjustified) fear that anarchists involved in the school campaign would run for election against them.
Similar to the “Kill the Bill” campaign, the contrast between seeking to influence how the state runs its schools – which are incidentally anyway anathema to anarchists – while campaigning for abstention in voting for those who make precisely those decisions, was striking. Again, however, I believe it was correct to participate in that campaign.
This is often true, and I would agree that electioneering should always be kept to be a relatively minor component of activity. Fortunately, it is possible to intervene to some effect in elections with expenditure of only minor amounts of time and energy - if, to take the extreme example, nothing more was done than to lift the requirement to abstain, then the act of voting takes up almost no time by itself, and time spent on "don't vote" campaigning would be saved.
2. Electioneering has systemic corrupting effects. [See anarchist FAQ J.2.6 for full details and examples]
Again, very true, and every organisation should always strive to guard against this. Although electioneering is particularly bad in this respect, it is a more general issue. Individuals in positions of influence inside even tiny campaign groups can, and often do, become obsessed and corrupted by power. This, power corruption, simply has to be accepted, and dealt with, as a fact of life. Corruption is not an inevitability, even when subjected to the influence of electioneering.
3. Voting ratifies and legitimises the current system.
This is only true to the extent that those voting allow it to be so. The above example of the "Libertarians Against Nice" press statement shows how voting can be done without supporting any systems of elected government.
4. If voting changed anything, they would abolish it.
Again, absolutely true, and history and current events are littered with examples of voting being abolished the moment people vote in a way their rulers did not like. This is a very good argument for making electioneering a more minor part of your overall campaign, since you can be virtually certain that other methods will need to come into play in the event of serious popular support for revolutionary changes developing. However, it is not such a good argument for avoiding voting altogether.
On whether or not principles should outweigh tactical considerations, I will leave the last word to Noam Chomsky. In an article about options for peace between Israel and Palestine, but relevant here, he said:
"Attention to feasible programs of action is sometimes dismissed as “realism” or “pragmatism,” and is placed in opposition to “acting on principle.” That is a serious delusion. There is nothing “principled” about refusal to pay attention to the real world and the options that exist within it – including, of course, the option of making changes, if a feasible course of action can be developed .... Those who ignore or deride such “realism” and “pragmatism,” however well-intentioned they may be, are simply choosing to ignore the consequences of their actions. The delusion is not only a serious intellectual error, but also a harmful one, with severe human consequences. That should be clear without further elaboration.I will keep here to advocacy in the serious sense: accompanied by some kind of feasible program of action, free from delusions about “acting on principle” without regard to “realism” -- that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people. ....
Those who do not want to undertake that responsibility are choosing, in effect, to take part in an academic seminar among disengaged intellectuals on Mars." [15]
Don't Just Vote -- Kill Yourself Saturday1. Noam Chomsky, Voting 2004, Turning the Tide weblog, 2004, online at blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000026.htmlThis is dedicated to Numb Chumpsky, Piss Crass, Starbuck, and Utah Phillips...
A celebration of how we can get in touch with Wild Nature, just like real lemmings do...
POISON KOOL-AID PARTY FOR ANARCHIST VOTERS!
A celebration of San Francisco Bay Area anarchists' powerful embrace of the electoral process
ANARCHISTS ARE AGAINST VOTING -- EXCEPT IN NOVEMBER...
This November 2nd, the overwhelming majority of the Bay Area's anarchist and anti-authoritarian community will park their erstwhile convictions at the curb and run lemming-like into that Porta-Potty called the voting booth. Our dogma allows us to pose as the most intransigent of rebels. None of us has anything to gain in a contest between George Bush and John Kerry. But, on November 2nd, without the slightest hint of external coercion, we'll go out of our way to show our loyalty to the political process of capitalist America, and specifically to that faction of the elite that nuked Hiroshima, founded the CIA, accelerated US involvement in the Vietnam War, gutted the social welfare apparatus, and killed more than 600,000 children in Bill Clinton's starvation blockade of Iraq in the 1990's.
ANARCHISTS ARE AGAINST LEADERS -- BECAUSE ANARCHISTS ARE FOLLOWERS...
As anarchists, our votes for John Kerry will mean that we have effectively committed political suicide -- so why not commit physical suicide as well? Unlike the majority of the populace, who have wised up and won't be voting, we are virtual lemmings in the face of one of the most transparently bogus ideological hustles that the system has to offer. So let's get in touch with Wild Nature, like real lemmings do, and follow our democratic impulses to their logical conclusion!
Albert Camus said that the only remaining question in philosophy is the question of suicide -- this November we'll be getting way-helluv-philosophical!
REMEMBER, REMEMBER, THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER!
POISON KOOL-AID PARTY FOR ANARCHIST VOTERS!
at the Long Haul
3124 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, California
(510) 540-0751This will be a tobacco-free, alcohol-free, scent-free, and drug-free event -- except for cyanide.
Wheelchair-accessible. Extremely long-term childcare provided.
For any questions, contact us at http://www.dontjustvote.com
Thank you. For peace, work, and democracy!
2. Interview of Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian, 11th June 2004, online at www.isreview.org/issues/37/chomsky.shtml
3. Interview of Ralph Nader by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, 4th October 2004, online at democracynow.org/static/nader.shtml
4. Emma Goldman, Anarchists and Elections, Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19, Quoted in Anarchist FAQ J.2.2.
5. Daniel Guerin, Anarchism from theory to Practice, Chapter 1, online at
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/guerin/basic.html#democracy
6. Letter from Errico Malatesta to Nestor Makhno, December 1929, online at
struggle.ws/platform/malatesta_reply.html
7. Workers Solidarity Movement, Irish anarchists say there is no choice, online at struggle.ws/once/peace_ref.html
8. Workers Solidarity Movement, Hobsons choice: The "Good Friday Agreement" & the Irish Left, online at struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_hobson.html
9. Opinion polls, online at
www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/polls.html#changing_support
10. Workers Solidarity Movement, Abortion Vote, Workers Solidarity 37, online at struggle.ws/ws92/abortion37.html
11. Workers Solidarity Movement, Vote No to Maastricht, Workers Solidarity 35, online at struggle.ws/ws92/maas35.html
12. Libertarians Against Nice, Libertarians Against Nice launched , press release, online at
struggle.ws/ireland/nice/pr/LANlaunch18sept.html
13. Workers Solidarity Movement, Election Fever, Workers Solidarity 37, online at struggle.ws/ws92/election37.html
14. Workers Solidarity Movement, Anarchism, elections and power, Workers Solidarity 61, November 2000, online at struggle.ws/ws/61/thinking.html
15. Noam Chomsky, Advocacy and Realism: A reply to Noah Cohen, 26 August 2004, online at
www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6110