This sure is a blog

I believe in a lot of things but because I’m not gung-ho about murder and the destruction of the system, you’ll always say I don’t believe strongly enough. I know there’s nothing I can do to get you to respect me, I just want an answer to the question: where are these new, lefty voters going to come from, and why is “preventing total collapse into fascism” not a good enough reason for them to vote? To do this really minor thing? Why do you all default to guillotines?

"As far as I can tell, your position is that I should die, everyone I love should die, all the fucking poor and queer and black people who live in this red state hellhole should die, so that you can build the beautiful anarchist future in our ashes and maybe call us “martyrs.”

If that's what you can tell about my political positions then I don't have to respond to anything you're saying because I am *very* vocal about my positions and they are mostly "form parallel structures" and "join unions." (I will respond anyway because I'm a contentious fuck)

@politicalmissdemeanor and @how-to-do-activism are were I store my politics reblogs. You can go check them out. On both of those you will find several reblogs of the essay "against the logic of the guillotine," which I reblog frequently because my OTHER big political stance is prison abolition and prison abolition doesn't exactly sit comfortably alongside the idea of *any* executions; suggesting that I - or most anarchists - default to guillotines suggests that you're not familiar with many anarchists. It is, of course, not your responsibility to be familiar with many anarchists, but if you're going to accuse me of wanting you dead and a utopia built on your ashes then it IS your responsibility to be familiar with *me.*

Also I think that everyone should be clear, when I talk about "fully automated luxury gay space communism" that is a tongue-in-cheek way of discussing a post-scarcity world. I don't think we're actually going to *get* fully automated luxury gay space communism, but I also think that scarcity in the modern era is largely constructed and political, and that is something that should be addressed.

I mention that because utopianism is controversial among anarchists and if you see me talking about "in the future anarchist utopia" you should read that in the same tone that I am using in discussions about "fully automated luxury gay space communism." I don't think we're going to *get* a future anarchist utopia (and I actually think the idea of utopias specifically is harmful) however I do believe a better world is possible and that people should work toward that.

But what it sounds like is you've looked through my blog for the past week only and see me talking about the democratic party attempting to retain white, educated suburban voters instead of reaching out voters on the left or attempting to retain them and have extrapolated my entire political philosophy from a single paragraph and a link to an AP story.

So, point by point:

Then you should probably base your arguments on why you support the system and think it works instead of building an argument out of "well it's better than what republicans want." I clearly exist within this system and I have posts about how it could be improved (postal banking, automatic voter registration, ranked preference voting, universal ID) even though I don't particularly want to perpetuate it.

You don't act like you actually believe what you're saying, you act like you're clinging to it out of desperation. You are not positively arguing for your system, you are holding it up as a shield against something worse. I'd recommend taking some time to sit down and think about what you consider the merits of this system are. "Checks and balances" are one of the things that people seem to like about the American political system; I will agree that it's good that presidents are not kings and can't just will law into existence (it's part of why I'm so critical about the use of executive orders!), and that a legislative system doesn't have to be terrible. However my criticism, as an anarchist, is that these checks and balances don't actually seem to be checking or balancing anything and that presidents *as a concept* are bad and there are probably ways to make this system more democratic while still protecting people from the tyranny of the majority so perhaps if you want to keep the system going you should investigate what ability you have, as a supporter of the system, to change those things. (the thing is, you don't actually have the ability to change those things and it's part of why I don't think the system works).

Friend. Buddy. Pal. I think that all humans are inherently worthy of respect. What I am never going to *agree with* is your political system.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but, as time passes children stop being children and eventually gain rights as individuals, including the right to vote.

And actually, I am arguing that leftists and young voters already ARE voting for you, but they're doing so because - as you have stated - the other choice is fascism.

But "vote to prevent fascism" is not a party platform and it is a concession to let the fascists control the conversation. It enables the ratchet effect. Republicans get into power and drag politics further right and then Democrats run against them on the bare promise to "hold the line." Progressive candidates within the party rarely get support from the party because of the need to keep the centrist voters, to "heal the soul of America," and when progressive democrats DO get elected they are often blamed for falling approval ratings or low voter turnout or people switching parties.

I have been explicit about the fact that I voted for democrats; that was the harm reductionist stance in 2020, right? "Hold your nose, vote like hell, then hold their feet to the fire." You see why this doesn't actually work, right? Because I can't hold their feet to the fire. Because all I can say is "support policies I believe in or you'll lose my vote" but they don't have to worry about losing my vote because my alternative is to vote for the lesser evil or "not voting is a vote for republicans." So either I was going to vote for them anyway or I wasn't going to vote at all, so they don't have to give a shit about my vote, which is why many anarchists see voting at all as harmful.

You are saying "not-fascism is good enough, I have to accept what I'm given and be grateful that it isn't worse" and honestly take a look at what you're saying. That's slop. That's dreck. They are feeding you garbage and that should be more radicalizing than it has been. You deserve better than that. EVERYONE deserves better than that.

Anyway yeah the new voters are going to be young people. Young people have historically participated in elections at a lower rate than the rest of the population and your job as a supporter of electoralism is to convince them that voting for democrats will do more than not voting. That's kind of a hard sell when the democratic party pitch since at least 2017 has been "stop the fascist creep in America" but fascism has kept right on creeping (which I don't think is the democrats' fault, per se, just that they don't actually have the power to do anything to stop it so it's a bad pledge to campaign on).

Well, and also this:

"stop fascism by voting for dems" is also a hard sell when you can't raise the minimum wage but you can increase funding for police.

Here's the thing: you've got your votes. Leftists hold their noses and young people are voting in historically high numbers, and are generally voting for democrats. There you go. You've got the votes. People ARE doing this tiny thing. And democrats are still yelling at leftists and young people to vote harder while courting center votes.

Who are you mad at? Who do *you* think is not voting? How much do you think it's worthwhile to compromise your political goals to get their votes? Clearly the democratic party thinks that centrist suburban white people aren't voting for them and they're willing to compromise enough that "better than the other guy" is a platform.

I've been over this but I don't think that support for execution is a coherent anti-state position. Again, here is Against the Logic of the Guillotine.

Did you *look* at any of my political positions? Or did you make up an anarchist to get mad at?

I've gotten yelled at kind of a lot for "well obviously your politics state that my people don't have value and should die" from people who seem to have never interacted with me or my politics. Do you think that all anarchists are anti-civ? Do you think that doctors and factories won't exist in an anarchist system? Have you ever looked at ANY mutual aid projects? Are you not aware of black anarchism? You know what I'm just going to post a quote from that link on anti-civ views because that seems to be the center of a lot of the belief that anarchists want all queer and disabled and marginalized people dead:

Of all your off-the wall statements in these asks this is the one that makes it the most clear that you don't know who I am or what my political positions are and are just yelling at a stranger.

anyway, back to your asks:

I think there's a broad misapprehension that all anarchists are militant insurrectionist anarchists. I think that this is because most anarchists are operating from the belief that the existing system cannot be reformed, which people often interpret to mean "it must therefore be torn down in a brief and violent revolution and replaced only with the system that I say will work best."

I don't believe in reforming the system (though if you've got it and you want to yell about improving people's lives you might as well make it better but that is not what I'm putting my energy toward because even a united states with universal healthcare, postal banking, and constitutionally protected abortion is still a hierarchical power structure that will serve capital and its interests) but I'm also not a fan of violent revolutions (I am not 100% critical of them either; sometimes revolution is self preservation - the world is complicated and it's hard to model history and regional differences on different places in different times).

What I am a fan of is creating local networks of people to do things in their community for themselves, without anyone's permission or approval. I'm a fan of meal shares, I'm a fan of mutual aid, I'm a fan of libraries and free stores and community gardens set up in empty lots that nobody gave you permission to use.

If you want an example of this with something where a real-world need was not being met by a government and individuals took initiative to address it, look at the FIRST Collective in Columbus. Shelters were not providing adequate housing so a group of people have worked together to create a safe, sheltered environment for people who were not being served by the system. Is the solution ideal (where ideal is 'permanent safe housing with no limitations on residents')? No. Is the solution better than what was being provided by the state (limited-stay shelters with restrictions on possessions, pets, couples staying together, and whether residents would be locked in at night)? For the people in that camp, yes. It was a better solution. Does it replace the shelter system? No. Does it suggest an alternative to what is provided by the state, and by its mere existence illustrate that what the state provides is not enough? Yes.

Is this sort of thing possible on a large scale? And possible to improve on a large scale? Yes. Is it possible to do that *tomorrow*? No. Is it possible to *start* tomorrow so that you have a better place to work from in a week or a month or a year? Yes.

I am tired. I am tired, you are tired, we are all tired. My back hurts and I don't get enough sleep and if shipments of certain medications were stopped for three months my spouse would die. Quickly and inescapably. I don't know who you think I am, but I am not somebody who is shouting about guillotines and advocating for the immediate overthrow of society in all its forms.

I think the world is broken and needs to be fixed. Do I think that burning down everything wrong with the world and picking through the cinders to build something better is a good idea? No. I think it is possible to seek revolution without wholesale destruction, and I don't think that you need to tear the world down to ashes in order to rebuild.

I'm not trying to raise a gallows, I'm trying to grow a garden. If you are looking at one of those things and seeing the other, that is a failure of your understanding, not of my philosophy.

Also if anybody wants to donate to the FIRST Collective this is their GoFundMe.