However, what I was trying to convey is that voting is not inherently something that holds sway over anything. Votes are sort of like the currency of democracy, and like currency they need to be backed by something. U.S dollars are backed by the countries capacity to physically control strategic resources like oil, land, etc. (I.e., the U.S capacity for violently controlling resources), or emit soft-power (swaying other countries to their benefit).
Votes in a similar fashion are also backed by your ability to deny or inflict your personal power on the system you are a a part of. The clearest manifestation of that power being your ability to contribute to the institution as a whole. If we significantly reduced that capacity, or made it unnecessary for the continuation of the current system, then the power of that vote is reduced in-kind.
I would frame "withholding labour as violence" as more as labor flexing its power nonviolently. Violent action is also a way of flexing power, but more extreme.
> I also don't follow the logic that workers must use violence to enact change.
I think they need to use power, which is not necessarily violent.
> Why don't they just vote for change?
At least in the US, democratic institutions are dysfunctional and there are techniques the ruling class can use to neutralize the threat they pose (e.g. propaganda, divide-and-conquer). For instance, I think the combination of "culture war issues," [1] campaign contributions, and well-funded special-interest think tanks means neither US political party will take effective action to answer the threat of AI to the livelihoods of most people. You might see some campaign rhetoric and window-dressing bills, but nothing that will really threaten AI special interests.
[1] I think the practical purpose of "culture war issues" is to fragment the working class by alienating a significant fractions from each other. IMHO, if the Democratic party was serious about representing labor, it would call a truce on them (either significantly compromise or table the issues), but it's not serious, so they continue to divide.
That falls cleanly in the realm of a violent act, unless you disagree with that definition of violence, or my interpretation of the quote. I suppose you could interpret it as only applying to physical violence, but I don’t think anyone would agree that psychological or emotional violence simply don’t exist.
Your interpretation seems like it's overbroad and contradicting typical usage. I don't think "refusing to cooperate" (except in some very narrow circumstances) should ever be considered violence, because that definition is in itself coercive. For instance, if quitting my job will cause my boss's business to fail (causing him "psychological harm... or deprivation", because he won't be able to make payments on his boat anymore), am I committing violence against him? Should I be force to work for him to avoid that "violence"? I don't think so.
My guess is you're interpreting "deprivation" very broadly and literally, when it's probably being used in a narrower technical sense. Either that or the definition you quote is nonsense [1].
[1] Which is entirely possible. Nowadays it seems to be a pretty common manipulative tactic to collapse a spectrum of meaning onto the most extreme term, as if words used to describe something controls what it is.
Being forced to do work is violence yes? Slavery precisely. Why can’t you be forced to work? Because you’re protected against it, only because you have the capacity for violence, or at the very least the benefit of promised violence. Otherwise you could be coerced to do anything as you would have no recourse.
We have laws that protect us from coercion, both physical and otherwise. Those laws only exist because of promises of retaliation if they are not adhered to. So yes, refusing labor is a violent act (or at the very least, violence by proxy).
Perhaps I should say “refusing labor with the expectation of not being assaulted or killed, is a violent act”.