Help from within current system

[革命者]

Hi friends,

Can (elements within) the current democratic system be of aid in a revolution and how? Should these elements speak out for a revolution or is this not necessary or not favourable?

Should we vote right-wing not to let our ideas be neutralised; by the left-wing non-revolutionary parties most prominently, but also be the most repressive, anti-revolutionary centre who neutralise ideas of parties at both wings; to effectively get out of the way of the Left? Or should we vote left-wing to create a relatively better society, but a more deceptive capitalism?

I am most curious what you think.

Best,

Scotty

[Lyev]

I've been thinking about working "within the system" for a while. I don't mean dropping Marxist values and going over to social-democracy or reform (I'm not George Galloway) but I think it would be beneficial for the left, in parts, to address the capitalist on their own terms, and just get in the public eye a bit. We see massive wankers like Nick Griffin, or even Davey Cameron, joining Facebook or YouTube, with smiles, being friendly and winning supporters, whereas the socialist left are nowhere to be seen. There needs to be a visible, tangible and friendly alternative. That's the biggest thing as I see it; educating people and providing a leftist alternative. I see nothing wrong (correct me if I am actually wrong) with improving the lives of working people in the present. I'm fairly sure the Nepali Maoists were/are involved in the bicameral parliament in their own country. I fully realise that the actual, revolutionary change does come from outside of the system, and I think some solutions from within the system have been wholly exhausted a long, long time ago. But, I'm not proposing trying to actually build any sort of socialism from within, but maybe just, you know, getting out and about, and getting some publicity. This is just a vague musing anyway, I could be horribly wrong :)

[革命者]

No, I certainly think you have a point. But doesn't using your active right to vote to make non-revolutionary parties on the Left (at least at present non-revolutionary, though they might support a revolution) bigger, make the alternative less visible? Does this warrant not supporting them or even trying to shift all parties to the Right to make us a more visible alernative, by either voting for right-wing parties or not voting at all? Or should we be represented within the system, which will lead other parties to move to the Left to neutralise/oust us?

[Lyev]

No, I certainly think you have a point. But doesn't using your active right to vote to make non-revolutionary parties on the Left (at least at present non-revolutionary, though they might support a revolution) bigger, make the alternative less visible? Does this warrant not supporting them or even trying to shift all parties to the Right to make us a more visible alernative, by either voting for right-wing parties or not voting at all? Or should we be represented within the system, which will lead other parties to move to the Left to neutralise/oust us?
No, I was getting at an otherwise revolutionary, socialist workers party running for a local election or something. Not getting a non-revolutionary leftist organisation in the mainstream. But I certainly see your point too; the question is: how "revolutionary" and Marxist can an organisation/party truly be if they run for an election in that way? There is also the question of: is not being consistently "revolutionary" all the time necessarily a bad thing? Like I said, if improving the daily plight of the average working person means a little reform here and there, what is wrong with it, in little increments?

[革命者]

I thought this quote from robbo203 is relevant for our discussion here:

If a revolutionary party was not able "gain votes without trying to fight for reforms" then this would tell us that the population was far from ready for communism. So you couldnt have communism anyway. But is quite possible to reject reformism on principle and stand on a revolutionary ticket only despite the fact that you may not attract many votes (at the moment). The WSM is a case in point but there are others. The point is that the degeneration doesnt set in as a result of standing from elections. Rather it happens when political organisations decide to opt for reformism as a way of building up support in the vain hope that this might help the cause of communism. It doesnt. Reformism simply sucks you into supporting , or being coopted by, capitalism and the whole history of the ill fated Second International demonstrates this. The Social Democratic parties comprising the second International had both a maximum (communism) and minimum (capitalist/reformist) goal and we all know with the benefit of hindsight which of these goals won out in the endIf we are voted into parliament, should we abstain from voting for reforms in the current system or should we vote for reforms; risking coming across as hypocritical.

(I hope its fine I dragged this post out of its orginal context/thread; use the arrow next to robbo203's name to go to the orginal thread)

[Joe_Germinal]

I have to disagree with the sentiments from robbo203 you quoted. I think they place too much emphasis on the rather vague and superficial concept of "readiness for communism." Revolutions do not generally occur because people wake up and say "My life is terrible; I'm now ready for a new mode of production." Revolutions happen when a mode of production has exhausted itself and can no longer play a progressive historical role. I think we all agree that capitalism hit this point long ago.

The question then is what subjective elements must be in place for the revolution to triumph. I'd say that these are: (1) the confidence of a subjugated class that they can run society better and (2) the realization that they cannot take power as a class under the current political system. However, these subjective elements don't appear out of nowhere.

For example, the Parisians who marched to the Bastille in 1789 were not chanting "We are ready for the bourgeois mode of production!" They were fighting for some basic reforms (mostly democratic political and civil rights) which they imagined Louis XVI would enact if only he knew how much they wanted them.

Only after three years of failed reformism were the people of France prepared to call for Louis' head. It will be much the same with us. We can enter parliaments and enact reforms, but the resistance they create among the bourgeoisie and their inability to solve the problems which working people face will mean more and more workers will realize that socialist revolution is the only solution. In the meantime, the enacting of some reforms will have increased in the workers the confidence that they can rule politically without the help of their bosses. This is what I take Lenin to have meant when he advised British communists to "Support [the social democrat] Henderson as a rope supports a hanging man."

Of course, it might happen that the workers will give up on bourgeois parliaments before the socialist camp is strong enough to lead a revolution (this could happen in the USA, where dissafection with congress is growing faster than socialist comittment). In such a situation, communists should not pull the proletariat back into parliamentary reformism, but rather refuse to take their seats, using elections only as a tool to gauge their strength.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The system itself can not aid us directly, but we can use elements of the system to aid the struggle against it. Bourgeois rights, for example, should be and are defended and exercised by us (while understanding the limitations of these rights in capitalist society). I also think there is nothing wrong with using Parliament or elections to propagandize and even win positions that we can then use as a platform for exposing the problems with the system and the faux-democracy of parliamentary systems. As a place to fight for reforms - elected office is a bit trickier. I'd say that an elected revolutionary should never fight for reforms within the system (this does not train workers how to fight for their interests and can only result in the belief that change within the system is possible). An elected radical should only fight for reforms by deferring to mass movements or the labor movement and saying that congress/Parliament will pass the reform not because of elected socialists, but because workers forced the non-socialists to compromise and give into the demands.

But we shouldn't be mechanical about elections - there are times when electoral involvement will help our ideas gain exposure and help move our struggle forward while there are other times when it would simply be useless or lead to reformism.

[Joe_Germinal]

An elected radical should only fight for reforms by deferring to mass movements or the labor movement and saying that congress/Parliament will pass the reform not because of elected socialists, but because workers forced the non-socialists to compromise and give into the demands.

I agree with this completely, and I don't think my earlier post articulated it well enough.


But we shouldn't be mechanical about elections - there are times when electoral involvement will help our ideas gain exposure and help move our struggle forward while there are other times when it would simply be useless or lead to reformism.

Well put.

[革命者]

I can see how failed reforms within the system can be the best promotion of our agenda to fundamentally change the system, but I am still doubtful whether we should invest our time running for election if we can expose the failures of reforms as well from within the system as from outside. Would we be more credible if we expose the failure of reforms we have made possible from within government or would we be seen as hypocritical for supporting reforms we know are not sufficient or worse? Aren't we seen as useless or indeed hypocritical, maybe traitors even, if we don't use the seats in parliament we get from the support from of who voted for us?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can see how failed reforms within the system can be the best promotion of our agenda to fundamentally change the system, but I am still doubtful whether we should invest our time running for election if we can expose the failures of reforms as well from within the system as from outside. Would we be more credible if we expose the failure of reforms we have made possible from within government or would we be seen as hypocritical for supporting reforms we know are not sufficient or worse? Aren't we seen as useless or indeed hypocritical, maybe traitors even, if we don't use the seats in parliament we get from the support from those who voted for us?
Well in the US, the Republicans have been portrayed as only obstructionist since Obama's election and this has only endeared them even further with their angry voting base. Joe Wilson (the guy who said that Obama was lieing about preventing immigrants from getting healthcare - if only it had been a lie) has become the darling of crazy right-wingers for being obstructionist against the "socialism" of the US government.

I think elected revolutionaries would need to be doing the same things - when Parliament is actually passing reforms, the radical's job would be to say it's not enough or expose the calculated reasons for Parliament passing reforms. If it's not, the radical elected officer should just be obstructionist and talk about hiow what the government is doing will hurt the working class.

In the US healthcare debate, the one elected (reformist) socialist has used his position to say that we need Universal Healthcare. That sounds fine and I think that's what he should do but then he cuts his position out from under him by collaborating in the current plan that is not liked by most workers regardless of political views and will undoubtedly make things worse for many people while enriching one of the most profitable industries in the US. If he were to be obstructionist and say it's single-payer at minimum or nothing, then at least he could maybe help to create a debate that includes real national healthcare rather than just a debate about a pro-corporate plan vs. keeping a pro-corporate status-quo.