Asking anarcho-communists "you're leftists so you support [party self-labeling as 'left'] right?" is so history-less.
Yes, in conflict anarchists tend to cooperate with any less imminent authoritarian threat,
but does not mean we support parliamentary shenanigans.
We choose whom we cooperate with, when and why on individual basis.
Even cooperate with authoritarian "communists" (albeit an oxymoron) sometimes because some see a greater strategic threat elsewhere, but know as they cooperate with Trotskyites it means expecting a dagger in the back, as with Stalinists means ice-pick in your neck and we joke about it until those that fight FOR power instead of against sense it graspable.
That's when anarchists know treachery becomes party dogma, or should've in the past, when "allies" came at us red not of commune but of us slaughtered at the front with stabs in the backs.
@b9AcE Another frustrating thing that people do along these lines: "They call themselves an anarchist, and you call yourself an anarchist, so you have to extend your solidarity/support to them"
No, thanks, fuck off.
Anarchy means I decide for myself who I want to work with. I'm not going to tell anyone else that they're "not a true anarchist" because they don't do XYZ properly. I will however keep the choice for myself of who I will extend solidarity and support for.
@Anarkat Well, heh, if you break it to the argument properly, I find there are two arguments that tend to be convincing:
Words that just do not work together in any linguistically meaningful sense, but there are some (extremely few) that do put them together to describe themselves and therefore they do exist as words (while I don't have the right to say they can't, just to say that I reject them as legitimate theories and as anyone I'd have anything to do with).
"Why do anarchists hate voting?", some ask.
They must have had teachers intent on teaching opposite of truth.
Anarchists want you to, in a form or other, vote on everything in your life, always, by vote or act, just... not only every 3/4/5 years and then be violently blocked from ruling your own life, unless they happened to be one of the few already empowered enough to be able to run for mandates that wasn't for them to take nor for any other of the parliamentarism voters to give away, just existed because some dead white dudes said long ago it's the only way to self-govern, while part of the ruling-class.
Or, you know, you COULD have representatives too in some forms of anarchism, but only if their representation was immediately revocable, as otherwise it's not representative at all, just as "representative democracy" is not representative but is directly anti-democratic.
@b9AcE if your ethics are virtue based, maybe it is just "the wrong thing to do"..
Given that i am more of a consequentialist... i wonder, is voting "support" for the system.. People can say "you deserve what you get" both when you say you voted, and when you didn't.(Facts have difficulty in mattering) And for instance the US has really low turnout, is this much of a topic in discussion? Not really.
To be honest i don't really think it supports the status quo.
@b9AcE consequentialists often come to similar conclusions as virtue-based ethics, because of limitations of knowing what is going on, knowing the consequences of actions are, and the dependability others might have if you act by certain rules. But also the effect on your psychology..
To be honest, though i don't really think any of these particularly apply.
@jasper I don't know what those categories mean,
but I know from other boycotts that those affected will tend to at first pretend they don't exist, then loudly claim they have no effect or even reverse effect, until the effect is so large that they have to give up and then the boycott's intent is achieved.
The important thing then of course is to not give up during the first two phases.
The most publicly visible debate on this specific topic will of course be held, or ignored, by people in the parliamentary political system that depend on maintaining it, or the major media that are dependent on maintaining friendly relations with the parliamentary politics people and organizations so that they will keep getting access to debate participants, etc.
It's only natural then that the topic is more or less avoided for as long as they don't start losing credibility from doing that.