"revolutionaries" participating in electoral politics.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

When will I stop hearing so called "revolutionaries", the same revolutionaries that are tired of capitalism and it's go nowhere electoral system, when will I stop hearing them encouraging other revolutionaries to encourage the people to participate in the very electoral system that they say doesn't work. It is based on the lesser of two evils theory.This is why I have remained attached from being involved with a party. I will not go out and create Illusions in people by saying that you can create a certain amount of change by voting the "bums out" then confuse them by saying that capitalism doesn't work, voting doesn't work and we need to replace the very system that I'm encouraging you to participate in. What the hell happened to MARXISM-LENINISM? as I have said many times, as long as people maintain Illusions in this system, as long as people continue to hold hope in this system, it's institutions, it's politicians and their offices and this culture, and as long as they see we, the so called revolutionaries participating in it, YOU are further strengthening the very obstacles that are stopping the masses from breaking from this system and transcending it, to rise above it and install a humain economic system that they themselves will control and benefit from. no, I don't want to hear about the "transitional program", no, I don't want to hear about getting involved in popular fronts because that's where the workers are.YOUR JOB IS TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO A REVOLUTIONARY LEVEL, NOT LOWER YOURSELF DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF A DEMOCRAT. where o where are the real marxist-leninist groups?

http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Cool story bro.

This is a pretty worn out topic and this doesn't lend itself to a productive conversation, IMHO.

[chegitz guevara]

I'll try and explain this to you in simple terms.

The vast majority of people still have illusions in the system, so standing at the sidelines and telling them not to vote or to vote a spoiled ballot, will not accomplish anything, other than for them to shut you out.

During an election cycle, people who are otherwise uninterested in hearing your critique of the system, will seek out socialists and communists who are running for office. The capitalist election process, in which we have no illusions, presents us a platform from which to reach a wider audience.

We can be an anarchist, and refuse to talk to the masses on principle, or we can be intelligent, and use all the weapons the bourgeoisie allows us (and then some).

Put another way, chegitz guevara, communist revolutionary and well known swell guy, doesn't have much of an audience to speak to about socialist politics. On the other hand, chegitz guevara for congress (http://www.luzietti.com/) gets sought out by individuals and voters groups and media. The second guy is able to put his politics and ideas before a much wider audience.

That is why we participate in elections. Abstentionism is shooting yourself in the foot on principle. One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW! That would be idiotic. So is refusing to use the platform the capitalists allow us to have.

[Rjevan]

It very much depends on the way you participate in elections and what goals you aim at. If a "communist" party upholds reformism and praises the power of elections then it must be condemned and exposed as what it is: a revisionist party, betraying and fooling the working class. But this doesn't mean that we should reject participation in elections completely and on principle. Speaking of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: An Infertile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)" deals with this question, especially the chapters "Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments?", "No Compromises?" and " 'Left-wing' communism in Great Britain". I highly recommend reading it, clears some basic confusion and common misconceptions about this topic.

[Red Flag]

The vast majority of people still have illusions in the systemFalse.

In the 2008 president election - which had the highest turnout of any election since 1964 and the third highest turnout ever - only 56.8 of those of voting age cast ballots.

The inflated number was due to outrage against Bush and Co and media hype in the way of Obama-mania. 90% of the population said the country was headed in the wrong direction. Still, only 56.8% turned out.

A better picture can be gained looking to previous but recent elections. In the 1996 presidential election 49.1% cast ballots. In the 1988 presidential election 50.5% cast ballots.

The number of voters in the US decline from 1960 to 1985. It picked up a few times, but the "high turnout" elections of 2004 and 2008 are below that of 1960, when 63% cast ballots.

And when we look closer we start to see the breakdown which is after all what (or what should) matter to us. In 1988:

Only 50% of blacks voted.
Only 25% of Latinos voted.
Only 38% with no high schooling voted.
Only 43% of some high school voted.
Only 57% of high school graduated voted.

On the other hand 79% of college grads and 84% of post grads voted.

Workers have long known that this fraudulent democracy has nothing to offer them.

In a poll taken about 2 years ago, a vast majority of people in their late teens and early 20's polled said they would trade their voting rights for an iPod.

So what else do you got to defend your reformist crap?

[Red Flag]

It very much depends on the way you participate in elections and what goals you aim at. If a "communist" party upholds reformism and praises the power of elections then it must be condemned and exposed as what it is: a revisionist party, betraying and fooling the working class. But this doesn't mean that we should reject participation in elections completely and on principle. Speaking of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: An Infertile Disorder (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)" deals with this question, especially the chapters "Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments?", "No Compromises?" and " 'Left-wing' communism in Great Britain". I highly recommend reading it, clears some basic confusion and common misconceptions about this topic.

By all means, let's base our strategy on what a guy from a country with very little history of bourgeois democracy had to say in 1920. After all, following his advice enabled the Communist Party to bring communism to Britain.

:thumbup1:

Of course there's no way to reach people except through elections today so it still rings true. How else could we talk to workers? Other than getting a job and/or using things like the internet, which is just absurd.

[Angry Young Man]

We can be an anarchist, and refuse to talk to the masses on principle, or we can be intelligent, and use all the weapons the bourgeoisie allows us (and then some).

This is primarily why I thanked you

[Jimmie Higgins]

And when we look closer we start to see the breakdown which is after all what (or what should) matter to us. In 1988:

Only 50% of blacks voted.
Only 25% of Latinos voted.
Only 38% with no high schooling voted.
Only 43% of some high school voted.
Only 57% of high school graduated voted.


Yes, and the non-voters are not influenced at all by the ruling-class ideas promoted through the electoral system...


Mr. Obama remains immensely popular with African-Americans, about 86% of whom approve of his job performance, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.OOPS! 86% is, um, slightly higher than the percentage of black people who voted... hmm. Maybe the 2 party system promotes bourgeois ideas among more than just the people who vote.


Workers have long known that this fraudulent democracy has nothing to offer them.

In a poll taken about 2 years ago, a vast majority of people in their late teens and early 20's polled said they would trade their voting rights for an iPod.

So what else do you got to defend your reformist crap?Yes many people are rightly and justifiably disillusioned in electoral voting... but this does not translate into class or revolutionary consciousness. Arguing that people don't vote out of political principle is simply not true.

So while I don't think the radical left should try and win office as a way to try and change or reform the system, I think a radical intervention into this phony circus is a way to gain a platform to denounce the Empire for having no clothes.

Not voting does not tell us much about working class consciousness, but 100,000s of workers making a protest vote for a modern Eugene Debs even though they would receive massive pressure not to from the media, the Democrats and the trade-union liberals, when they knew he couldn't and didn't want to win anyhow... would actually tell us a lot about consciousness.

Again, the main thing would be, like Debs, to emphasize that it's not the elections or the politicians that will lead workers to the promised land, it's the workers who will lead themselves.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually why a revolutionary process is not going on in US? In my opinion, lack of leaders who can show the right direction and can say that "life will be better in a socialist society that that of today" and also can show how.

[¿Que?]

Why don't revolutionary Marxists call for a boycott of elections outright, during election time? Seems like this might clear the ambiguity and confusion with some of the less conscious proletariat.

[Red Flag]

Jimmie, keep searching for a rationale for your reformist organization's back-handed support of Obama. You may find something eventually.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie, keep searching for a rationale for your reformist organization's back-handed support of Obama. You may find something eventually.I'll take that sectarian hackishness as an admission that you don't have a political argument.

I countered your argument, and you came back with that? Grow up.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with Chegitz Guevara to some extent, as long as the illegitimacy of capitalist democracy and centralised authority is stressed. The problem I have with parliamentary participation is that I feel our time and energy can be better put towards agitating within working class organisations. Political campaigns can be time consuming and I feel it is very hard to communicate a message to a lot of people without a lot of money to campaign with.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Cool story bro.

This is a pretty worn out topic and this doesn't lend itself to a productive conversation, IMHO.


OK, so let's avoid the problem and leave the people to the politicians.

[Agnapostate]

In this country?

Violent revolution against the government is unlikely to arise in politically stable first-world liberal democracies, or be successful if it even did. In the United States, almost two and a half centuries of rule by an unmovable federal government that has survived early agitations such as Shay’s Rebellion, the Civil War, participation in two world wars, and an arms race and cold war that many feared would culminate in global nuclear catastrophe has passed without interruption, without the coups or military conquests or outright insurrections that have toppled so many other regimes around the world. Neither the world’s oldest republic nor its elected leaders show any signs that they will fall any time soon. The general population of the United States has grown docile and apathetic, so uncaring about political issues that less than half generally vote in elections, so pacifistic that the idea of shooting a politician is utterly alien and inconceivable to the majority, and so unaccustomed to even casual physical activity that they boast the highest overweight and obesity rates in the world.

The liberal democracy and relative freedom of the domestic United States, as opposed to the authoritarian dictatorship that U.S. governments are often content to export to foreign countries, cannot breed agitation and fervent hostility to the same extent that the monarchical regime did. More importantly for advocates of a socialist revolution, the relatively peaceable and friendly conditions of most workplaces stand in stark contrast to the brutal conditions of indisputable wage slavery that characterize third world labor markets. While many people would insist that their workplaces were anything but peaceable and friendly, the fact that most of these comments are said in jest reveal them as hyperbole, and the minority that are said earnestly and sincerely usually still have nothing on the nineteenth-century industrial hellholes that gave rise to decades of openly socialist labor activism. If there are any breeding grounds for such agitation in first-world countries, they primarily exist in the informal and unregulated labor market, which is often characterized by dangerous and difficult manual labor performed by a poor underclass heavy with racial and ethnic minorities, including many immigrants. While the Leninist might look to this underclass as ideal for the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (which has always manifested itself in a dictatorship of a small professional ruling class), their status as a minority of the population ensure that any violent revolution that they orchestrate will undercut the nature of socialism, specifically its requirements for collective democratic management of the means of production. Socialism must have popular will and demand behind it, and promises of socialist revolution can be corrupted into state capitalist authoritarianism even if this is the case, as the Russian Revolution and its successors illustrated.

Most important is the consolidation of high-grade weaponry by a small portion of the population. A man with an arquebus or musket could be overpowered simply by strength of numbers, considering the horrible accuracy of such weapons. But the development of far more lethal weaponry has complicated matters significantly. The ability of an automatic fire weapon like the machine gun to mow down masses or the auto cannon to damage more fortified targets, of individual helicopter gunships or even unmanned drones to massacre crowds with missile strikes, of carpet bombing to devastate suburban neighborhoods, towns, and cities, of even more massive air raids to shred apart skylines and obliterate similarly massive landscapes, of biological and chemical warfare to spread infectious pathogens and toxins among the civilian population and induce widespread plague, etc., renders whatever "revolutionary" ideas you might have more likely to induce needless bloodshed than overthrow capitalism.

The relevance of civilian ownership of handguns seems distinctly marginal when a B-52 bomber can drop a 35-ton payload on its target.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I'll try and explain this to you in simple terms.

The vast majority of people still have illusions in the system, so standing at the sidelines and telling them not to vote or to vote a spoiled ballot, will not accomplish anything, other than for them to shut you out.

During an election cycle, people who are otherwise uninterested in hearing your critique of the system, will seek out socialists and communists who are running for office. The capitalist election process, in which we have no illusions, presents us a platform from which to reach a wider audience.

We can be an anarchist, and refuse to talk to the masses on principle, or we can be intelligent, and use all the weapons the bourgeoisie allows us (and then some).

Put another way, chegitz guevara, communist revolutionary and well known swell guy, doesn't have much of an audience to speak to about socialist politics. On the other hand, chegitz guevara for congress (http://www.luzietti.com/) gets sought out by individuals and voters groups and media. The second guy is able to put his politics and ideas before a much wider audience.

That is why we participate in elections. Abstentionism is shooting yourself in the foot on principle. One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW! That would be idiotic. So is refusing to use the platform the capitalists allow us to have.



no, shooting yourself in the foot, and, destroying your credibility is taking part in an election, when you know that NO ONE in the media is going to cover you, NO ONE is going to ask you to paticipate in debates, so you will have NO ACCESS to the people. we have it down here in philly with the SWP. they run in these elections. NO ONE asks their candidate to talk part in ANY of the debates, and the media doesn't cover them..HARDLY ANYONE HAS AN IDEA that they exist.a person that is fed up with the system and speaks out against the system doesn't participate in the very system that they are telling people to rebell against. I'm shocked that I have to say this, but, working toward a revolution requires people to get their hands dirty, practicing what they preach. not engaging in electoral politics, not yelling liberal slogans for the purpose of gaining aceptance, getting in the good graces of the people.and yes, you still can talk to the people, it's outreach, handing out literature, holding weekly bi-weekly forums opening a soup kitchen, having a used clothing drive. that's how the black panthers got a huge following. not by trying to be acceptable to the people, but by telling as it really is. I would rather stand with 5 dedicated revolutionaries and be true to myself, marxism and what I stand for, than to lower myself down to a common sellout liberal.you think you would have found marx or lenin in the voting booth?

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

In this country?

Violent revolution against the government is unlikely to arise in politically stable first-world liberal democracies, or be successful if it even did. In the United States, almost two and a half centuries of rule by an unmovable federal government that has survived early agitations such as Shay’s Rebellion, the Civil War, participation in two world wars, and an arms race and cold war that many feared would culminate in global nuclear catastrophe has passed without interruption, without the coups or military conquests or outright insurrections that have toppled so many other regimes around the world. Neither the world’s oldest republic nor its elected leaders show any signs that they will fall any time soon. The general population of the United States has grown docile and apathetic, so uncaring about political issues that less than half generally vote in elections, so pacifistic that the idea of shooting a politician is utterly alien and inconceivable to the majority, and so unaccustomed to even casual physical activity that they boast the highest overweight and obesity rates in the world.

The liberal democracy and relative freedom of the domestic United States, as opposed to the authoritarian dictatorship that U.S. governments are often content to export to foreign countries, cannot breed agitation and fervent hostility to the same extent that the monarchical regime did. More importantly for advocates of a socialist revolution, the relatively peaceable and friendly conditions of most workplaces stand in stark contrast to the brutal conditions of indisputable wage slavery that characterize third world labor markets. While many people would insist that their workplaces were anything but peaceable and friendly, the fact that most of these comments are said in jest reveal them as hyperbole, and the minority that are said earnestly and sincerely usually still have nothing on the nineteenth-century industrial hellholes that gave rise to decades of openly socialist labor activism. If there are any breeding grounds for such agitation in first-world countries, they primarily exist in the informal and unregulated labor market, which is often characterized by dangerous and difficult manual labor performed by a poor underclass heavy with racial and ethnic minorities, including many immigrants. While the Leninist might look to this underclass as ideal for the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (which has always manifested itself in a dictatorship of a small professional ruling class), their status as a minority of the population ensure that any violent revolution that they orchestrate will undercut the nature of socialism, specifically its requirements for collective democratic management of the means of production. Socialism must have popular will and demand behind it, and promises of socialist revolution can be corrupted into state capitalist authoritarianism even if this is the case, as the Russian Revolution and its successors illustrated.

Most important is the consolidation of high-grade weaponry by a small portion of the population. A man with an arquebus or musket could be overpowered simply by strength of numbers, considering the horrible accuracy of such weapons. But the development of far more lethal weaponry has complicated matters significantly. The ability of an automatic fire weapon like the machine gun to mow down masses or the auto cannon to damage more fortified targets, of individual helicopter gunships or even unmanned drones to massacre crowds with missile strikes, of carpet bombing to devastate suburban neighborhoods, towns, and cities, of even more massive air raids to shred apart skylines and obliterate similarly massive landscapes, of biological and chemical warfare to spread infectious pathogens and toxins among the civilian population and induce widespread plague, etc., renders whatever "revolutionary" ideas you might have more likely to induce needless bloodshed than overthrow capitalism.

The relevance of civilian ownership of handguns seems distinctly marginal when a B-52 bomber can drop a 35-ton payload on its target.



so therefore, wave the white flag of surender, do not stand for anything, conform, grow fat and stupid and read the sports page.there was a guy that was walking up and down in front of the white house years ago. every day, walking up and down with a sign, protesting, in the rain and cold. one day the guard came out and said "don't you know your not going to change the world", he said " I know I'm not going to change the world, I'm just trying to keep the world from changing me.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

no, shooting yourself in the foot, and, destroying your credibility is taking part in an election, when you know that NO ONE in the media is going to cover you, NO ONE is going to ask you to paticipate in debates, so you will have NO ACCESS to the people. we have it down here in philly with the SWP. they run in these elections. NO ONE asks their candidate to talk part in ANY of the debates, and the media doesn't cover them..HARDLY ANYONE HAS AN IDEA that they exist.a person that is fed up with the system and speaks out against the system doesn't participate in the very system that they are telling people to rebell against. I'm shocked that I have to say this, but, working toward a revolution requires people to get their hands dirty, practicing what they preach. not engaging in electoral politics, not yelling liberal slogans for the purpose of gaining aceptance, getting in the good graces of the people.and yes, you still can talk to the people, it's outreach, handing out literature, holding weekly bi-weekly forums opening a soup kitchen, having a used clothing drive. that's how the black panthers got a huge following. not by trying to be acceptable to the people, but by telling as it really is. I would rather stand with 5 dedicated revolutionaries and be true to myself, marxism and what I stand for, than to lower myself down to a common sellout liberal.you think you would have found marx or lenin in the voting booth?


and further more,you either live a life being true to youselve, or you live a life trying to be appealing and acceptable to others. choose.

[chegitz guevara]

no, shooting yourself in the foot, and, destroying your credibility is taking part in an election, when you know that NO ONE in the media is going to cover you, NO ONE is going to ask you to paticipate in debates, so you will have NO ACCESS to the people. we have it down here in philly with the SWP.

I wrote from personal experience as a write-in candidate. When Brian Moore ran (we can debate how revolutionary he is), he got quite a bit of media coverage, including a spot on the Colbert Report. In 2006, the peron who was attempting to run for governor in Florida on the SPFL ticket got articles in a major newspaper in Tampa and the Jacksonville alternative newspaper.

If running for Congress enables me to talk to more people, then I'm running for Congress. I don't hide my politics. I don't pretty it up. I'm unambiguous that the system cannot be reformed. But I take advantage of the fact that more people are interested in the opinions of a candidate than of you. :)

[Leo]

Speaking of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism: An Infertile Disorder (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)" deals with this question, especially the chapters "Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments?", "No Compromises?" and " 'Left-wing' communism in Great Britain". I highly recommend reading it, clears some basic confusion and common misconceptions about this topic. And lets not have the polemic without the response it got from the left communists: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

[Rjevan]

By all means, let's base our strategy on what a guy from a country with very little history of bourgeois democracy had to say in 1920. After all, following his advice enabled the Communist Party to bring communism to Britain.
By all means, let's ignore all advice, strategy and experience from the past. I mean, it's completely outdated and who cares what some jerk had to say 100 years ago, the circumstances are entirely different and their tactics are of no use to us! After all, following his advice enabled the Bolsheviks to bring socialism to Russia.

Lenin would be the last one to demand that the CP of the UK had to adapt his strategy one-to-one, the situation and the conditions in each country is different and the strategy which worked in Russia might absolutely fail in the UK. Lenin knew that and wrote about the basic law of the uneven developement of capitalist countries and what results from this for revolutionaries. But we needn't know that, who cares.

" 'Left-Wing' Communism in GB" analyses the situation in GB and outlines misconceptions of the communists there at that time and illustrates on this basis when generally elections and participation in parliament should obviously be rejected and when it can be useful to participate in election, what is important to always keep in mind, if and how alliances with leftist parties should be formed and which way revolutionaries can use the parliament and the electoral process best for their own purposes and gain the most out of it. It is valuable advice for communist parties, can and should be applied today, not because Lenin is the one who said it but because it makes perfectly sense. It's about analysing the experience and theory of past revolutionaries today and learn from them. But right, why should we learn and who needs experience when we can do the same mistakes for ourselves, much more fun and will help the revolution immense!

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

And lets not have the polemic without the response it got from the left communists: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm



the link was FANTASTIC. I have to read more of Gorter's work. thanks for the link.

[Communist]

.
Instead of making threads ridiculing things other socialists from other tendencies/parties are doing, why not make threads about what you and your tendency/party is doing? That would be much more constructive and inspiring and would stand a better chance of winning people over to your viewpoint. I think most of us are doing the best we can under enormously difficult circumstances.

.

[Coggeh]

Cool story bro.

This is a pretty worn out topic and this doesn't lend itself to a productive conversation, IMHO.
Topic is actually an extremely important topic for leftists it is important to discuss tactics and debate to show the depth of difference in some currents and imo the failure of leftists who don't use elections as a platform for workers struggle and for generatering support and spreading your ideas. That being said leftists should realise that elections are no means to an end and to have no faith whatsoever in elections as a vehicle to bring about radical change.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

.
Instead of making threads ridiculing things other socialists from other tendencies/parties are doing, why not make threads about what you and your tendency/party is doing? That would be much more constructive and inspiring and would stand a better chance of winning people over to your viewpoint. I think most of us are doing the best we can under enormously difficult circumstances.

.



Since this issue is not delt with well by others, they become defensive, this is the last time I'll respond on this issue, when you engage in electoral politics, what you are doing, and i've been saying this for yeas and years, that is, you are helping enforce the attitude of relying on politicians/others to do for you instead of the people collectively doing for each other. it enforces this paternalistic system. and as long as it is enforced, the hope, the illusions in this system will continue and the people will not break from it.again, look at what the black panther party did. starting just a few, look what it grew into, soup kitchens, clothing drives, food drives etc. it showed by people doing for each other, it did not need government or politicians, it showed that this government was useless.it did not engage in electoral politics. it show the government what can be done with people working together, collectively. and this pissed off the government, it needs you to want IT, to have hope in IT.do you know what you are doing when you vote? you are divesting yourself of all decision making power and putting it in the hands of one person and hoping they'll do for you, they'll serve your interest. this is what your inforcing in the people, this parternalistic, attitude. we as revolutionaries need to empower people. now I know this is not going to have an impact on some people because they've become slaves to their parties bureacracy, they've carried their slavish mentality over from capitalist politics to socialist politics. the party head said it, now i'll follow.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Look at what the black panther party did. starting just a few, look what it grew into, soup kitchens, clothing drives, food drives etc. it showed by people doing for each other, it did not need government or politicians, it showed that this government was useless.it did not engage in electoral politics.

The Black Panthers engaged in the electoral process. Eldridge Cleaver ran for President!

http://api.ning.com/files/OD-7vsp5z*G1DTXtAOW9mmnQkTl7mkUBg2joLbYx6m9Os7ZFHeKKr B*yQR9jLEDVu-Eeqw7oRL5nqWNT1rQdM5xEM8OI3Ksh/ZZZ006248PO.jpg?width=368&height=480 (http://api.ning.com/files/OD-7vsp5z*G1DTXtAOW9mmnQkTl7mkUBg2joLbYx6m9Os7ZFHeKKr B*yQR9jLEDVu-Eeqw7oRL5nqWNT1rQdM5xEM8OI3Ksh/ZZZ006248PO.jpg?width=368&height=480)


do you know what you are doing when you vote? you are divesting yourself of all decision making power and putting it in the hands of one person and hoping they'll do for you, they'll serve your interest. this is what your inforcing in the people, this parternalistic, attitude. we as revolutionaries need to empower people. now I know this is not going to have an impact on some people because they've become slaves to their parties bureacracy, they've carried their slavish mentality over from capitalist politics to socialist politics. the party head said it, now i'll follow.

This is simply one big straw-man. No one here is talking about running in elections or being involved in order to try and make change through the system! That is reformist and democratic-socialism, not radicalism. But radicals do and have organized opposition campaigns and run protest candidates as a strategy for exposing the flaws and problems with the bourgeois parties as well as the electoral system. This potentially puts radical ideas right up to the liberal and conservative ideas for people to compare.

Additionally no one here is arguing that this should be the only tactic used or even the primary way to reach people. And certainly no one is saying to run candidates INSTEAD of agitating and organizing at the grassroots level.

[Red Flag]

Hey Jimmie, if Obama gets elected to a second term will the ISO hold another celebration in Harlem like they did the first time around?

[Crusade]

Don't be so uniformed about your methods and act according to contextual effectiveness. I think it was Darwin who said survival is less about who's smarter or physically stronger and more about how capable you are of adapting to change. Different techniques for different enemies, different circumstances, and varied terrains.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

The Black Panthers engaged in the electoral process. Eldridge Cleaver ran for President!

http://api.ning.com/files/OD-7vsp5z*G1DTXtAOW9mmnQkTl7mkUBg2joLbYx6m9Os7ZFHeKKr B*yQR9jLEDVu-Eeqw7oRL5nqWNT1rQdM5xEM8OI3Ksh/ZZZ006248PO.jpg?width=368&height=480 (http://api.ning.com/files/OD-7vsp5z*G1DTXtAOW9mmnQkTl7mkUBg2joLbYx6m9Os7ZFHeKKr B*yQR9jLEDVu-Eeqw7oRL5nqWNT1rQdM5xEM8OI3Ksh/ZZZ006248PO.jpg?width=368&height=480)



This is simply one big straw-man. No one here is talking about running in elections or being involved in order to try and make change through the system! That is reformist and democratic-socialism, not radicalism. But radicals do and have organized opposition campaigns and run protest candidates as a strategy for exposing the flaws and problems with the bourgeois parties as well as the electoral system. This potentially puts radical ideas right up to the liberal and conservative ideas for people to compare.

Additionally no one here is arguing that this should be the only tactic used or even the primary way to reach people. And certainly no one is saying to run candidates INSTEAD of agitating and organizing at the grassroots level.



First off, the panther party did not run, HE ran on the peace and freedom party. NOT THE PANTHERS. And as I said, which NO ONE is addressing, and that is: as long as the "left" is trying to use electoral politics as a venue, YOU are setting an example for working people that says there is still hope in the electoral system. you may be using it for one purpose, but the workers are looking, noticing and taking it in another way. it de-legitimises what you have to say. revolutionaries have to set examples. not by participating in something you are criticizing and telling people not to have faith in. this morning I interview the socialist equity party. just go to

http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

[ChrisK]

Hey Jimmie, if Obama gets elected to a second term will the ISO hold another celebration in Harlem like they did the first time around?

What a nice, informative, non-sectarian, thought provoking, well reasoned, on-topic post about capitalist elections.

[chegitz guevara]

First off, the panther party did not run, HE ran on the peace and freedom party. NOT THE PANTHERS. And as I said, which NO ONE is addressing, and that is: as long as the "left" is trying to use electoral politics as a venue, YOU are setting an example for working people that says there is still hope in the electoral system. you may be using it for one purpose, but the workers are looking, noticing and taking it in another way. it de-legitimises what you have to say. revolutionaries have to set examples. not by participating in something you are criticizing and telling people not to have faith in. this morning I interview the socialist equity party. just go to

http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

As long as the IWW continues to try and organize a union, it gives workers the illusion that progress under capitalism is possible.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As long as the IWW continues to try and organize a union, it gives workers the illusion that progress under capitalism is possible.

How is this may I ask?

[zimmerwald1915]

But radicals do and have organized opposition campaigns and run protest candidates as a strategy for exposing the flaws and problems with the bourgeois parties as well as the electoral system. This potentially puts radical ideas right up to the liberal and conservative ideas for people to compare.

Additionally no one here is arguing that this should be the only tactic used or even the primary way to reach people. And certainly no one is saying to run candidates INSTEAD of agitating and organizing at the grassroots level.
And here's where we run into a problem. Nothing in bourgeois society is free. Organizing election campaigns takes time and energy. Printing a sizable number of posters, for example, requires money to hire a printer or purchase and maintain a printing facility. Putting them up requires purchasing adhesive and brushes, not to mention hours of labor, much of it at night. Handbills too, must be printed and distributed, though at least this can be done in the daytime. The candidate, in order to disseminate whatever propaganda the organization's trying to disseminate, requires transportation. Either the organization pays for this transport by someone else, or pays for gas and other expenses associated with transport if it does so itself. And then there's the equipment that goes along with the candidate: at the very least a microphone and sound system, and almost certainly more. And then there's the people to run these apparatuses. They must either be hired by the organization, which costs money, or may come from the organization itself if they're lucky enough to have enough people with experience in such matters. And of course there's food and lodging that must be organized for all these people, everywhere they stop. Logistically, running election campaigns is a huge investment, an investment which is quite simply beyond the means of many small organizations.

In the present period, even those self-styled revolutionaries who do want to participate in elections, and have a couple thousand people to help organize the effort, STILL have to engage in front-building if they want to have any impact at all. And, the present period being what it is, such fronts are almost always built with groups whose politics are wholly bourgeois, and who quite naturally want some say in the campaign's message. So this huge investment stops being about promoting revolutionary politics entirely, and becomes a waste of everyone's valuable time.

[chegitz guevara]

How is this may I ask?

If participating in elections to expose the system is upholding the system, then building unions which fight for better conditions under capitalism is also upholding the system.

In other words, I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of his argument by showing what the logical conclusion of that argument is.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If participating in elections to expose the system is upholding the system, then building unions which fight for better conditions under capitalism is also upholding the system.

In other words, I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of his argument by showing what the logical conclusion of that argument is.

I see, so you don't disagree with the work of the IWW?

I think there are differences between trade union organising and parliamentary participation. I think the former is more conducive to furthering our movement. I'm not discrediting parliamentary participation because I believe as long as you recognise the illegitimacy of capitalist democracy I think it can serve as a good tool. However I feel union organising and agitation is much less consuming in terms of money and will produce better results. Also, I am not saying I believe the IWW to be a revolutionary union however I feel that unions are a means towards revolution unlike parliamentary politics.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

As long as the IWW continues to try and organize a union, it gives workers the illusion that progress under capitalism is possible.



I don't know if YOU know what their goal is, but, they plan to use a nation wide strike as a weapon to take power. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinon on this, but I admire there no nonsence aproach. and they have a fantastic inspirational history.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

If participating in elections to expose the system is upholding the system, then building unions which fight for better conditions under capitalism is also upholding the system.

In other words, I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of his argument by showing what the logical conclusion of that argument is.





wrong!!!!!fighting for day to day demans helps the workers and their standard of living. participating in elections disillusions the workers. nice try.

[x359594]

...fighting for day to day demans helps the workers and their standard of living. participating in elections disillusions the workers...

So far the voting question has centered around candidates for office. What about ballot measures?

For example, I'm a bus rider in Los Angeles where the majority of bus riders are working poor (we have a Bus Riders Union in fact) and a local ballot measure gives power to the Metropolitan Transit Authority to shut down some lines, raise fares and transfer money to light rail that serves the suburbs at the expense of the inner city. It seems to me that it's in the interest of the working class to vote down this measure since it affects our standard of living: fewer lines means it's harder to get to work so you have to start out earlier, higher fares cut into our weekly pay checks.

There are also ballot measures that restrict the activities of unions, cut back funds for public education, reduce MediCal payouts, relax enviormental regulations, etc. It seems to me that we should go to the polls to defeat all such regressive proposals.

But I don't see that anything can be gained by voting for one presidential candidate over another, or voting for a liberal politician over a conservative one. It's clear to me that professional politicians are bought and paid for the capitalist class.

[zimmerwald1915]

So far the voting question has centered around candidates for office. What about ballot measures?
Ballot measures are tricky beasties, and their actual efficacy depends very much on the conditions of the area to which they apply. The thing to remember about ballot measures, however, is that there is almost always a way for the state to get around them if it needs to or wants to enough. I don't know how LA works, but I'm pretty sure that the MTA could probably go to court and make a successful case to divest itself of its obligation to provide transit on certain lines at certain times, thereby getting around the ballot measure.

Visible mass action, if such a thing is feasible, is a far better defense of the class' living conditions than individuals voting a ballot measure. And then there's the organizational perspective to consider. It's better for an organization to try to...well...organize visible mass actions than voter drives, as the organization gets more exposure, and thus more play for its politics, the first way.

In short, ballot measures are okay to vote on, both for workers and even for revolutionaries, but not really something to organize around or devote much energy to promoting.

[The Idler]

What little democracy we have is hard-won from capitalists.

"From the late 60s well into the 80s, Michael Parenti was one of many radicals and socialists who questioned the validity and value of what they called “bourgeois democracy,” seeing it more as a charade to mislead the people into thinking that they were free and self-governing. By the late 80s, however, he noticeably modified his position, arguing that democracy should not be thought of as merely a subterfuge or cloak created by ruling elites, although it certainly can serve that purpose. More often, Parenti claimed, whatever modicum of democracy the people attain in any society is usually the outcome of genuine struggle for a more equitable politico-economic order. Why credit the corporate class with giving people a “bourgeois democracy,” he asks, when in fact the ruling plutocrats furiously opposed most democratic advances in U.S. history, be it the extension of the franchise or the struggle for ethnic and gender equality, more direct forms of representation, more room for dissent and free speech, greater accountability of elected officials, and more equitable socio-economic domestic programs.

According to Parenti, reacting to mainstream commentators who turn every systemic vice and deficiency into a virtue, leftist critics of the status quo, seeing no real victories or progress in the centuries of popular struggle, have felt compelled to turn every virtue into a vice. To counter this trend, he says, people should recognize that real gains have been made, that democracy refuses to die, and both at home and abroad popular forces continue the democratic struggle, even against great odds." - Wikipedia

[x359594]

...ballot measures are okay to vote on, both for workers and even for revolutionaries, but not really something to organize around or devote much energy to promoting.

I agree. It's only when there's an egregiously regressive proposal on the ballot that will get me to the polls.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Perhaps some people are tired of treating Marxism-Leninism, after nearly 100 years, with the slavish, dogmatic obedience that led to the creation of the USSR and GDR - states that, whilst makign some steps towards Socialism, actually failed, and collapsed under their own contradictions and unpopularity.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I think we should respectfully acknowledge your abstentionist line, if that is your personal wish, but as many bona fide Socialists will argue, electoral politics is a means to an end. No Socialist party (true Socialist party) goes into a Capitalist election expecting to win, be praised and live happily ever after in utopia. No, most Socialist parties will simply use elections as a platform to agitate, agitate, agitate, as your beloved Lenin once said, I believe.

[Lyev]

When will I stop hearing so called "revolutionaries", the same revolutionaries that are tired of capitalism and it's go nowhere electoral system when will I stop hearing them encouraging other revolutionaries to encourage the people to participate in the very electoral system that they say doesn't work. It is based on the lesser of two evils theory.This is why I have remained attached from being involved with a party. I will not go out and create Illusions in people by saying that you can create a certain amount of change by voting the "bums out" then confuse them by saying that capitalism doesn't work, voting doesn't work and we need to replace the very system that I'm encouraging you to participate in. What the hell happened to MARXISM-LENINISM? as I have said many times, as long as people maintain Illusions in this system, as long as people continue to hold hope in this system, it's institutions, it's politicians and their offices and this culture, and as long as they see we, the so called revolutionaries participating in it, YOU are further strengthening the very obstacles that are stopping the masses from breaking from this system and transcending it, to rise above it and install a humain economic system that they themselves will control and benefit from. no, I don't want to hear about the "transitional program", no, I don't want to hear about getting involved in popular fronts because that's where the workers are.YOUR JOB IS TO BRING PEOPLE UP TO A REVOLUTIONARY LEVEL, NOT LOWER YOURSELF DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF A DEMOCRAT. where o where are the real marxist-leninist groups?

http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

Actual socialists (look at that one word -- not social-democrats or Blairites) never and won't posit participation in an electoral system -- that's going "nowhere" -- as an end (eventually communist society) to a means (evolution or revolution). That's key to your understanding of a leftist, Marxist, revolutionary politics. Revolutionaries can participate in elections; I believe in reforms- not reformism. If a revolutionary party takes part in an election it does not immediately mean they are now hard-line reformists who have betrayed their key values. In fact, it's the very opposite to this; it's because we want revolution and we think it's the only solution. I don't think reformism, as an end, is a solution at all. as you say, the electoral system has been going nowhere for the past 200 odd years. There's that quote; "if voting changed anything, they'd ban it".

For example, my party participates in elections as part of coalition. However, it's with the fundamental presupposition that we know we're not going to do fantastic, and, no, we're not going to be inaugurated into no. 10 downing street, with a landslide majority. But it does serve as an invaluable platform for engaging working and middle class people, and addressing issues that affect their day to day lives. Do you think you'll gain support for running around, calling for the establishment of a proletarian militia, with an AK-47 above your head? To call for revolution right now is irrational and potentially quite dangerous; we know there's not a wide enough consciousness for socialism>communism yet. We're not authoritarians, i.e. socialism can't be (and ceases to be socialism when/if) forced on those who don't want it, or don't know enough about it.

Would you stand aside, because of your dogmatic aversion to elections, whilst fascists are gaining support? Would you stand aside whilst capitalist parties exploit and mistreat the proletariat for all they've got? Aren't you in favour of improving conditions of the working class right now? Don't you want to use the electoral system as a platform -- that most people pay reasonable attention to -- for debating against capitalist? Don't you want to show people the crooks that capitalists are? Don't you want every single gain that the far left can grab, irrelevant of whether it comes from a gun or a ballot box? The left is in pieces at the moment so we don't have a lot of room for maneuver, or to be picky and dogmatic about our approach to education, agitation and organisation. I don't believe in election participation because I want to half-heartedly patch up some holes in the leaking boat of capitalism. We know the boat is sinking, and we don't want to keep it afloat. We don't want to fix it's growing holes, we want to sink it and build a new one.

Participation in elections gives the left the following;

(1) a platform for debate against the bourgeoisie.
(2) amelioration of the conditions of the working class- in the present.
(3) an immediate way to provide an alternative to demagogic, misleading fascists.
(4) publicity, to air our ideas, providing a socialist alternative.
(5) an opportunity to show that capitalism will only stretch so far, i.e. there's only so much that can be for humanity under capitalism

There's probably loads more reasons, and some of these are slightly overlapping. Anyway, I suggest you at least rethink your ideas slightly.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I think you missed the major reason why reformism doesn't work. You can't create communism from the top down. that's not communism, that's nationalization.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First off, the panther party did not run, HE ran on the peace and freedom party. NOT THE PANTHERS.1. It's says "of the Black Panther Party" on the flier and he was still in the party for another 2 years after that, I think they would have asked him not to put "of the Black Panther Party" on the fliers if they were against it.

2. In 1972 Bobby Seale and Elaine Brown ran for office in Oakland, the Panthers endorsed a (underdog) Democratic Candidate for President, Shirley Chisholm.


you may be using it for one purpose, but the workers are looking, noticing and taking it in another way.Workers are not the idiots you seem to think they are. Like you and me they can hold two ideas in their head at once: short-term strategy and long term goals.

The act of "throwing your vote away" in the US makes more of a concrete statment than not voting. As you pointed out most people who already know that voting doesn't matter simply do not vote. But if thoes who did vote rejected two candidates pushing different degrees of neoliberalism and imperialism, and voted for a anti-war protest candidate, it gives people confidence and demonstrates that there is a solid left that is not willing to buy into the staus-quo.

Again the main thing is how is this means - the election - fitting into your ends - working class self-emancipation. If you are telling people that your election will make you their savior, then you are not working towards the result of self-emancipation, you are working toward some kind of top-down reform at best. If you are campigning in order to organize the opposition and present the radical solutions to the social problems that are discussed in the mainstream, then you are helping to agitate and organize among working class people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And here's where we run into a problem. Nothing in bourgeois society is free. Organizing election campaigns takes time and energy.

So this huge investment stops being about promoting revolutionary politics entirely, and becomes a waste of everyone's valuable time.

Then don't do it. No one is saying that campaigns should be intervened in ON PRINCIPLE and as our main strategy above all else.

Rallies take time and energy but they are great for organizing and giving people confidence. Putting out propaganda takes time and energy and money... in fact any organizing takes time and money.

So you have to set priorities and determine what will get the best results for your efforts. You're right - in the US, I don't think any radical party should be running their own candidates in national elections at this point - maybe in local elections if they have a strong base in a particular area.

I think it's just as mistaken to participate in elections on principle as it is to obtain from them on principle. We should be trying to present a political opposition and pushing for our ideas in every area possible when appropriate - this includes bum rushing the mainstream political arena and putting up an oppositional message.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Actual socialists (look at that one word -- not social-democrats or Blairites) never and won't posit participation in an electoral system -- that's going "nowhere" -- as an end (eventually communist society) to a means (evolution or revolution). That's key to your understanding of a leftist, Marxist, revolutionary politics. Revolutionaries can participate in elections; I believe in reforms- not reformism. If a revolutionary party takes part in an election it does not immediately mean they are now hard-line reformists who have betrayed their key values. In fact, it's the very opposite to this; it's because we want revolution and we think it's the only solution. I don't think reformism, as an end, is a solution at all. as you say, the electoral system has been going nowhere for the past 200 odd years. There's that quote; "if voting changed anything, they'd ban it".

For example, my party participates in elections as part of coalition. However, it's with the fundamental presupposition that we know we're not going to do fantastic, and, no, we're not going to be inaugurated into no. 10 downing street, with a landslide majority. But it does serve as an invaluable platform for engaging working and middle class people, and addressing issues that affect their day to day lives. Do you think you'll gain support for running around, calling for the establishment of a proletarian militia, with an AK-47 above your head? To call for revolution right now is irrational and potentially quite dangerous; we know there's not a wide enough consciousness for socialism>communism yet. We're not authoritarians, i.e. socialism can't be (and ceases to be socialism when/if) forced on those who don't want it, or don't know enough about it.

Would you stand aside, because of your dogmatic aversion to elections, whilst fascists are gaining support? Would you stand aside whilst capitalist parties exploit and mistreat the proletariat for all they've got? Aren't you in favour of improving conditions of the working class right now? Don't you want to use the electoral system as a platform -- that most people pay reasonable attention to -- for debating against capitalist? Don't you want to show people the crooks that capitalists are? Don't you want every single gain that the far left can grab, irrelevant of whether it comes from a gun or a ballot box? The left is in pieces at the moment so we don't have a lot of room for maneuver, or to be picky and dogmatic about our approach to education, agitation and organisation. I don't believe in election participation because I want to half-heartedly patch up some holes in the leaking boat of capitalism. We know the boat is sinking, and we don't want to keep it afloat. We don't want to fix it's growing holes, we want to sink it and build a new one.

Participation in elections gives the left the following;

(1) a platform for debate against the bourgeoisie.
(2) amelioration of the conditions of the working class- in the present.
(3) an immediate way to provide an alternative to demagogic, misleading fascists.
(4) publicity, to air our ideas, providing a socialist alternative.
(5) an opportunity to show that capitalism will only stretch so far, i.e. there's only so much that can be for humanity under capitalism

There's probably loads more reasons, and some of these are slightly overlapping. Anyway, I suggest you at least rethink your ideas slightly.


1-It may have happened in other cities, but here in phila, I have NEVER, EVER SAW a debate between a bourgeois candidate and the SWP who was on the ballot. as a matter of fact, they sued and lost the fight to be part of the debates on TV.

2 everything that people have today had to been fought for and extracted from the compost in government. thats part of struggle. it was acquired not from voting but though protesting and marching and rallies.


3 providing an alternative is letting people know of the existence of your organization through having bi-weekly forums, street corner speaches and rallies.

4 if you are not invited to participate in these debates, on TV or around the city, because they are by invitation ONLY, and if the news media does not cover your candidacy, how can you air your Ideas. Ihave an idea, STAND OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THEY ARE HAVING THESE DEBATES AND LEAFLET!!!!

5 I think that people know the limitations of this system.the problem is restoring their immagination, to investigate other alternatives.

[Wolf Larson]

You should see the so called "revolutionaries" who are moderators on this forum who do not advocate revolution and think capitalism will just fade away on it's own - people who also hold anti democratic views in thinking a hierarchical elite engineer class should dictate what, why, when and how workers create abundance. The revolutionary integrity of this forum is non existent- not so much in the average poster but the moderating staff and their pension towards anti democratic Technocracy or what is in reality a dictatorship of engineers. What would happen to a poster, lets say, a parliamentary liberal, who was standing in opposition to revolution? He would be restricted would he not? Why then do we have moderators who hold the exact same position?

[chegitz guevara]

Refusing to use the vote or to participate in elections is spitting in the faces of those who struggled and died to obtain that right. Workers, women, Black people, struggled, were beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in gain that right.

To those who throw that away I have only two words: fuck you.

[FSL]

What the hell happened to MARXISM-LENINISM?


No idea if it's been pointed out already but if it's said once more, it will do no harm. Neither Marx nor Lenin were against participating in electoral politics.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Refusing to use the vote or to participate in elections is spitting in the faces of those who struggled and died to obtain that right. Workers, women, Black people, struggled, were beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in gain that right.

To those who throw that away I have only two words: fuck you.


your intellectual response says alot. so, just because they struggled for that right, the right that when used, has ABOSOLUTLY NO SUBSTANCE, AND PRODUCES NOTHING , AND IT'S LIMITED TO FLICKING A LITTLE SWICH, and which in the action of voting you are DIVESTING YOURSELF OF ALL DECISION MAKING POWER AND HANDING IT OVER TO ONE PERSON HOPING THAT HE/SHE WILL LOOK OUT FOR YOUR INTEREST. SO, SINCE THE LIFE OF POVERTY, HUNGER, HOMELESSNESS AND EXPLOITATION CONTINUES, AND THE ACT OF VOTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT, BUT JUST CONTINUES THESE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE ILLUSIONS THAT IT WILL CHANGE IT, WE, AS REVOLUTIONARIES SHOULD INCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE THIS SUBSTANCELESS ACTION?

P.S IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER, THEN DON'T RESPOND LIKE A CHILD.


in today's show I will talk about capitalism's crisis gives the lie to Obama's promises, Washington dictates terms to Haiti, part 2 of the psychopathic corporation and the plan to overthrow FDR IN 1933 AND INSTALL A DICTATOR, plus banks have been named in municipal bid rigging. all on http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

[CChocobo]

Why in the world would we want another politician to represent us simply because they're claiming to be a socialist? a politician can slap on any nice label but in the end they're still a politician, they're there to represent their own interests and ideas, not ours. I think everyone should be wary of what a person says, especially a person of power.


Actually why a revolutionary process is not going on in US? In my opinion, lack of leaders who can show the right direction and can say that "life will be better in a socialist society that that of today" and also can show how.

That would be vanguardist and we leave that to the leninists.

[mikelepore]

To oppose the electoral system is misdirected. History shows that the absense of such an electoral system would mean having a emperor or a military dictatorship. It's good for the institution of society to poll the people about what they want. If the democratic process is currently going nowhere because most people have a habit of voting to continue their own enslavement, then the problem is one of finding a new way to enlighten the people, not a defect in the practice of the people being polled. When the temperature is intolerable, don't blame the practice of having a thermometer.

[chegitz guevara]

your intellectual response says alot. so, just because they struggled for that right, the right that when used, has ABOSOLUTLY NO SUBSTANCE, AND PRODUCES NOTHING , AND IT'S LIMITED TO FLICKING A LITTLE SWICH, and which in the action of voting you are DIVESTING YOURSELF OF ALL DECISION MAKING POWER AND HANDING IT OVER TO ONE PERSON HOPING THAT HE/SHE WILL LOOK OUT FOR YOUR INTEREST. SO, SINCE THE LIFE OF POVERTY, HUNGER, HOMELESSNESS AND EXPLOITATION CONTINUES, AND THE ACT OF VOTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT, BUT JUST CONTINUES THESE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE ILLUSIONS THAT IT WILL CHANGE IT, WE, AS REVOLUTIONARIES SHOULD INCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE THIS SUBSTANCELESS ACTION?

P.S IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER, THEN DON'T RESPOND LIKE A CHILD.
Says the person who writes in all caps. :rolleyes: I treated you intelligently and that didn't work, so I just pointed out that you're a racist, sexist, petty-bourgeois dilettante instead.

[Lyev]

What the hell happened to MARXISM-LENINISM?
Wait a minute though comrade... didn't Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks participate in elections? Didn't the Mensheviks and the SRs do so as well? Didn't Daniel De Leon partipate in elections with the SLP? I suppose then, these people aren't Marxists...

And on your post in response to mine, I'll admit the political landscape in the USA (with the media, news, TV etc.) is somewhat different to the UK. The US has a very right-wing history, with a ridiculously insular anti-communist sentiment. In the UK, there has always been a reasonable labour movement, although it diminish quite a lot with Thatcher. Still, the point remains the same: you don't have to be a reformist to participate in elections.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Says the person who writes in all caps. :rolleyes: I treated you intelligently and that didn't work, so I just pointed out that you're a racist, sexist, petty-bourgeois dilettante instead.



now if you are going to make the claim "racist, sexist" how is talking about the usefulness of the electoral system racist and sexist? that is the mark, and tactic of a political coward. and how is calling for a society that works from the ground up, collectively, with the working class benefiting from their labor, petty bourgeois? do you know the definition? if you can't provide and intellectual arguement justifying your position, don't use the cowards way out by accusing someone of being something that are not, simply to take the focus off of your wrong headed position.

[chegitz guevara]

Good lord, to I have to quote all of my posts together for you to add them all up so that you can understand that one builds on another?

So you can't understand how spitting in the faces of the workers, women, and Black people who fought, suffered, and died for the franchise is in anyway, racist, sexist, and petty-bourgeois?

Whatever. It's clear that you've already decided the you and you alone have the only right answers, so why bother pretending to debate. Just be another dogmatic sectarian, start a posting granting your enlightenment to us poor, benighted fools, and then stay above the fray.

You're not interested in learning or discussing. You're only interested in getting your ideas reaffirmed and shouting at those who don't agree with you. That's why I'm playing with you, instead of taking you seriously. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion, and you've proven to be nothing more than some shouting kid who thinks he knows it all.

And it's not just me. More than one person has patiently explained to you want revolutionary Marxists engage in the electoral system. You just shout "You're all wrong!" and ignore everything that has been said. Why should any of us waste serious effort dealing with you?

[Devrim]

Didn't Rosa Luxemburg, along with Karl Liebknecht participate in elections, with the KPD?

Er...in a word, no. The KPD was founded at a congress in Berlin from 30 December 1918 to 1 January 1919. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were killed on 15th January 1919. They didn't participate in any elections in-between.

Nor would they have if there had been any. The position taken at the First KPD congress, which incidentally Rosa voted against was in favour of abstentionism and against elections.


Refusing to use the vote or to participate in elections is spitting in the faces of those who struggled and died to obtain that right. Workers, women, Black people, struggled, were beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in gain that right.

To those who throw that away I have only two words: fuck you.

...I just pointed out that you're a racist, sexist, petty-bourgeois dilettante

I suppose the Communist Party of Germany was set up by 'racist, sexist, petty-bourgeois dilettantes'.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

The Communist Party of Germany was/is in Germany, not the United States, and thus not relevant to the historical struggles in the United States.

[Devrim]

The Communist Party of Germany was/is in Germany, not the United States, and thus not relevant to the historical struggles in the United States.

Where there was also a struggle to win the vote. To say that to argue that abstensionism is spitting in the faces of the people involved in those struggles is little more than moralism. In fact in some cases the same people were involved in campaigning for the vote and later adopted an abstensionist position. Slyvia Pankhurst in England would be just one example.

Also communists believe that the experience of the class is international and not limited to specific national circumstances.

Devrim

[Madvillainy]

The Communist Party of Germany was/is in Germany, not the United States, and thus not relevant to the historical struggles in the United States.

Well German women won the right to vote in 1918, were the KPD 'sexist dilettantes' for voting in favour of abstention?

Do you not see this reasoning as completely retarded?

We shouldn't look at the question of parliamentarism on whether people a hundred years ago struggled for their right to vote or not but on whether voting is progressive today.

[chegitz guevara]

Luxemburg opposed the vote on abstentionism.

The struggle for the right to vote in the U.S. isn't over. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the GOP has a strategy of challenging Black voters right to vote. Among other tactics they: plant police near the polling place to intimidate Black voters who generally have issues with the police, they send notices to Black neighborhoods telling them the wrong day for elections, they require illegal hurdles for Black voters to surmount, such as requiring id to vote when it is not required.

In Florida, in 2000, some 50,000 Black people were prevented from voting when they were illegally and incorrectly identified as felons and stripped of voting rights before the election. In one Florida county, Duval, the voting machines in Black districts were not maintained, and as a result, 27,000 ballots were spoiled. Gore won Florida by 537 votes.

Devrim, the fact that the struggle is international does not mean that the experience of the KPD is relevant to an argument between two American revolutionaries about the situation in America.

And whether or not Sylvia Pankhurst changed her mind or not is irrelevant. After having won the vote, should men have been telling her that her struggle was pointless?

[Madvillainy]

Luxemburg opposed the vote on abstentionism.



Yes, she did. It was a mistake. However it doesn't make your line of argument any less flimsy. If you want to continue down the road of electorism and reformism then fine, but it doesn't make me a sexist or a racist if I disagree.

[chegitz guevara]

It wasn't a mistake. She was right.

And you are a racist and a sexist if you want to dismiss the struggles and suffering of American women, Black people, and workers to obtain the franchise, just because you think it's meaningless.

If you think the vote is meaningless, go live in a dictatorship.

[Palingenisis]

Yes, she did. It was a mistake. However it doesn't make your line of argument any less flimsy. If you want to continue down the road of electorism and reformism then fine, but it doesn't make me a sexist or a racist if I disagree.

People are welcome to accuse me of ad homenin here but the fact is that you have "Northern Ireland" as where you from and given how those who refer to the occupied six counties by that name reacted to demand for one person, one vote its hard to take what you say on this question without a heavy bucket load of salt...But besides that running in elections is a tactic that sometimes maybe useful, sometimes not just the way that urban guerilla tactics are. To dismiss it on principle is un-necessarily limiting.

"By any means necessary".

"By the ballot and the gun our day will come".

[Madvillainy]

People are welcome to accuse me of ad homenin here but the fact is that you have "Northern Ireland" as where you from and given how those who refer to the occupied six counties by that name reacted to demand for one person, one vote.
Its hard to take what you say on this question without a heavy bucket load of salt...But besides that running in elections is a tactic that sometimes maybe useful, sometimes not just the way that urban guerilla tactics are. To dismiss it on principle is un-necessarily limiting.


Northern Ireland is the name of the state I live in, I don't really care if I offend your left nationalist politics. It's much easier to say than 'the occupied six counties' anyway and it avoids a lot of confusion. But to say this has in any way shaped my views regarding electorism or even 'guerilla tactics' is absurd.

I don't see how not participating in elections is 'limiting', in fact I do think it is a matter of principle, voting and participating in parliamentarism means serving capital and the bourgeoisie, we need to be struggling as a class not as individuals through the ballot box.

[chegitz guevara]

So, if you're opposed to serving capital and the bourgeoisie, I assume you also refuse to work.

[Madvillainy]

What a retarded way to argue your point. There's a difference between consciously choosing to function as a part of capital (like when you ran for congress iirc lol) and being forced to 'serve' capital by selling your labour.

[chegitz guevara]

You can choose not to work. Ever hear of freeganism? You choose to be part of the system because you like having clean clothes and a place to call home. If you were really serious, you'd go homeless and eat from dumpsters.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Good lord, to I have to quote all of my posts together for you to add them all up so that you can understand that one builds on another?

So you can't understand how spitting in the faces of the workers, women, and Black people who fought, suffered, and died for the franchise is in anyway, racist, sexist, and petty-bourgeois?

Whatever. It's clear that you've already decided the you and you alone have the only right answers, so why bother pretending to debate. Just be another dogmatic sectarian, start a posting granting your enlightenment to us poor, benighted fools, and then stay above the fray.

You're not interested in learning or discussing. You're only interested in getting your ideas reaffirmed and shouting at those who don't agree with you. That's why I'm playing with you, instead of taking you seriously. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion, and you've proven to be nothing more than some shouting kid who thinks he knows it all.

And it's not just me. More than one person has patiently explained to you want revolutionary Marxists engage in the electoral system. You just shout "You're all wrong!" and ignore everything that has been said. Why should any of us waste serious effort dealing with you?



1-my wrong headed friend, I'm not spitting in the faces of blacks or women,I'm spitting at the institution that made huge promises and never, ever delivered.they died for a franchise of Illusions. it is this government, this economic system and the franchise that never delivered and spit at them, evey 4 years.

2-I'd rather stick to what I believe and go against the fray then to go along to get along. And I sense that you are one of those people that when the majority are against you, Instead of sticking to your guns, standing your ground, and fighting for your position,you fold, give in.that is political cowardice. get a backbone, don't take up a position that you don't believe in, don't let others impose guilt.

3-Your comment about "playing with me and not talking me seriously" if that was so you wouldn't waste your time.You are in the wrong business my friend. if having to fight for your beliefs, your position, your program and your party is seen as being "dogmatic " then every revolutionary through out history was dogmatic also.if you don't have confidence in your position, then don't advance one. and if you will fold when the majority are against you, then get out of revolutionary politics because you don't have the balls for it.

4- and yes, I will shout and say your wrong. that's called researching an issue,getting evidence and historical experience to back it up, and standing up for my position. something you can't do in a rational, intellectual manner.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

You can choose not to work. Ever hear of freeganism? You choose to be part of the system because you like having clean clothes and a place to call home. If you were really serious, you'd go homeless and eat from dumpsters.


man o man you are full of rediculous comments. one works and is exploited not because one loves to do a job they hate, not because one loves to be exploited and robbed, but out of necessity, they have to try and live.One has top explain this to you!!

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

1-my wrong headed friend, I'm not spitting in the faces of blacks or women,I'm spitting at the institution that made huge promises and never, ever delivered.they died for a franchise of Illusions. it is this government, this economic system and the franchise that never delivered and spit at them, evey 4 years.

2-I'd rather stick to what I believe and go against the fray then to go along to get along. And I sense that you are one of those people that when the majority are against you, Instead of sticking to your guns, standing your ground, and fighting for your position,you fold, give in.that is political cowardice. get a backbone, don't take up a position that you don't believe in, don't let others impose guilt.

3-Your comment about "playing with me and not talking me seriously" if that was so you wouldn't waste your time.You are in the wrong business my friend. if having to fight for your beliefs, your position, your program and your party is seen as being "dogmatic " then every revolutionary through out history was dogmatic also.if you don't have confidence in your position, then don't advance one. and if you will fold when the majority are against you, then get out of revolutionary politics because you don't have the balls for it.

4- and yes, I will shout and say your wrong. that's called researching an issue,getting historical experience to back it up, and standing up for my position. something you can't do in a rational, intellectual manner.


chegitz,your last post speaks volumes. your just a social democrat.typical,.

[Leo]

If you think the vote is meaningless, go live in a dictatorship.This phrase by itself sums up the amount of freedom that comes with democracy: "vote or fuck off"!

And this, such a typical argument of typical American anti-communism, coming from someone who is supposedly a "socialist".

Only a very small part of the society rival the leftists when it comes to illusions about electoral politics.

[Devrim]

And you are a racist and a sexist if you want to dismiss the struggles and suffering of American women, Black people, and workers to obtain the franchise, just because you think it's meaningless.

It is not at all about dismissing people's struggles or suffering. It is about understanding the nature of the period, and the role of parlimentarianism.

'let's look at another person who in your definition was also a 'sexist', and 'spat in the faces of those who struggled and died'.


Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee...
You ask for votes for women. What good can votes to when ten-elevenths of the land of Great Britain belongs to 200,000 and only one-eleventh to the rest of the 40,000,000? Have your men with their millions of votes freed themselves from this injustice?

Heller Keller despite having been a suffragette argued later for abstensionism.


Devrim, the fact that the struggle is international does not mean that the experience of the KPD is relevant to an argument between two American revolutionaries about the situation in America.

Of course it is. The class is international and applies the lessons it draws on an international scale. Do you think that the Soviets that sprang up across Europe after the First World War had nothing to do with what had happened previously in 'a foreign country'. Do you think that revolutionaries in Germany sat there and said "the fact that the struggle is international does not mean that the experience of the RSDLP is relevant to an argument between two German revolutionaries about the situation in Germany.


And whether or not Sylvia Pankhurst changed her mind or not is irrelevant. After having won the vote, should men have been telling her that her struggle was pointless?

Yes, if that is what they believed.

At this point you are merely distracting the discussion away from the actually argument by shrilly shouting "racist and sexist".

However, it gets worse:


If you think the vote is meaningless, go live in a dictatorship.

Where have we heard that sort of line before?


So, if you're opposed to serving capital and the bourgeoisie, I assume you also refuse to work.
You can choose not to work. Ever hear of freeganism? You choose to be part of the system because you like having clean clothes and a place to call home. If you were really serious, you'd go homeless and eat from dumpsters.

I had never heard of 'freeganism'. I think these sort of comments say much more about your social environment than they do about the people you are discussing with.

There is a discussion to be had about parliament. I think you position is wrong, and as Leo says "only a very small part of society rival the leftists when it comes to illusions about electoral politics". However, the discussion is valid. Accusing people of being sexists or racists to avoid it is not.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Supposedly i'm spitting in the faces of all the people who won the vote because I don't want to recognise the anti-working class sentiment of all the parties I will have a choice of and the anti-working class nature of bourgeois elections in the first place.

[chegitz guevara]

This phrase by itself sums up the amount of freedom that comes with democracy: "vote or fuck off"!

And this, such a typical argument of typical American anti-communism, coming from someone who is supposedly a "socialist".

Only a very small part of the society rival the leftists when it comes to illusions about electoral politics.

The problem is, when people are full of shit, you cannot convince them through logic or evidence that they are full of shit. They have to experience their shittiness.

My Argentinian anarchist friend once described life under the dictatorship in Argentina: 'it's like a boot on your face that never lifts up.' There is a qualitative difference between societies that have the franchise and those that don't (lumping in to those that don't societies like Iran). I'll never be able to prove it to you or any left commies or anarchists. The only way you'll ever understand it is to experience it directly.

There is also a qualitative difference between what the anti-communist says and what I wrote. The anti-communist says, if you like it so much, go live there. I'm saying, if you think there's no difference, test your assertion.

Even an authoritarian democracy, such as the one under which Devrim lives, is qualitatively different from dictatorship. He is allowed to express his political views, in an international forum, without fear of being arrested, tortured, and killed. That's a qualitative difference the vote makes.

[Devrim]

The problem is, when people are full of shit, you cannot convince them through logic or evidence that they are full of shit. They have to experience their shittiness.

My Argentinian anarchist friend once described life under the dictatorship in Argentina: 'it's like a boot on your face that never lifts up.' There is a qualitative difference between societies that have the franchise and those that don't (lumping in to those that don't societies like Iran). I'll never be able to prove it to you or any left commies or anarchists. The only way you'll ever understand it is to experience it directly.

There is also a qualitative difference between what the anti-communist says and what I wrote. The anti-communist says, if you like it so much, go live there. I'm saying, if you think there's no difference, test your assertion.

Even an authoritarian democracy, such as the one under which Devrim lives, is qualitatively different from dictatorship. He is allowed to express his political views, in an international forum, without fear of being arrested, tortured, and killed. That's a qualitative difference the vote makes.

People do get tortured and murdered by the state here. Recently it has been comparatively 'democractic', but if we go back to the period after the 1980 coup:


The coup rounded up members of both the left and right for trial with military tribunals. Within a very short time, there were 250,000[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#cite_note-AI-6)-650,000 people detained. Among the detainess, 230,000 were tried, 14,000 were stripped of citizenship, and 50 were executed.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#cite_note-14) In addition, hundreds of thousands of people were tortured, and thousands are still missing. A total of 1,683,000 people were blacklisted.

Incidentally, Leo's Mum was somebody who was tortured and, in my personal opinion, still suffers from it psychologically. All in all about 1.5% of the population of the country was arrested in the period.

In fact we also had fascists:


After having taken advantage of the Grey Wolves' activism, General Kenan Evren imprisoned hundreds of them. At the time they were some 1700 Grey Wolves organizations in Turkey, with about 200,000 registered members and a million sympathizers.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#cite_note-hermanpg50-17) In its indictment of the MHP in May 1981, the Turkish military government charged 220 members of the MHP and its affiliates for 694 murders.

I could understand it if people argued that the MHP are fascists. They do share lots of ideological tenets with fascism, which the Tea party doesn't. Also their 'Grey Wolves' really behaved like Nazi storm-troopers. The 694 murders it refers to them being charged with above were committed in a 16 month period, and they are only the was that they were charged with.

There are of course, certain things that we are not allowed to say politically. Although we run a legal theoretical magazine, we would never get our paper past the censor, and so have to publish outside the legal process. Saying certain things is illegal under Turkish law. This is covered by a very ambiguously phrased law called article 301, which refers to 'insulting Turkishness'.

Personally, I have never lived in a 'dictatorship', but I do still have the scars from being tortured in a military prison about 20 years ago.

But then I am sure that we have no idea of the things that we have lived through, and that the region has been through over the past years, and we could all reflect on it in a much more sophisticated manner if we lived in South Florida near you.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

It is not at all about dismissing people's struggles or suffering. It is about understanding the nature of the period, and the role of parlimentarianism.

We weren't arguing about parliamentarism. Not one single person here has argued that we can bring about socialism via parliamentarism or even make substantive changes for the better, such as universal health are, etc. simply by electing the right people.

When I speak in front of an audience on my campaign, I am explicit that voting is not the answer, that even were I elected, I could not deliver, because the system is designed to prevent that. I use my electoral campaign to denounce the system, and I get to speak in front of those audiences because I am running for office. In non-election years that . doesn't . happen.


'let's look at another person who in your definition was also a 'sexist', and 'spat in the faces of those who struggled and died'.

Heller Keller despite having been a suffragette argued later for abstensionism.

Keller was not arguing for abstentionism. She was arguing for revolution. That's a very different kettle of fish.


Of course it is.

Some historical experiences are unique. America is a very strange, very weird country, and most of you left communists really don't seem to get that. You think we're like you, but we aren't. American socialists have tried to explain this to you folks for over one hundreds years, and you've denied it the whole time.


Yes, if that is what they believed.

When it comes to the experiences of women, men need to tread carefully. When it comes to the experiences of Black people, white folks need to be very careful. When it comes to the working class, middle class "revolutionaries" need to shut up and listen.

It's one thing to say that voting won't change anything. It's another to tell people not to vote. The oppressors told women, workers, and Black people they couldn't vote. When you say, "don't vote," you're putting yourself into that historical role.


At this point you are merely distracting the discussion away from the actually argument by shrilly shouting "racist and sexist".

I admitted that. :rolleyes: You and Leo and I can have a serious discussion. LETSFIGHTBACK isn't interested in discussion. He ignores what people say, substitutes a strawman, then screams YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG. Why should I not have some fun poking at him? I've I can't have a civil discussion with him, I should at least be able to amuse myself.


I had never heard of 'freeganism'. I think these sort of comments say much more about your social environment than they do about the people you are discussing with.

Hence the point about quoting Germans at me. :) Freeganism is the logical endpoint of abstentionism. Even working for wages, they argue, is contributing to illusions in capitalism. So, they squat and the dumpster dive for food and necessities.

Why pick an arbitrary line like elections to not participate in because it upholds the system? Why not go all the way and live like cockroaches?

[chegitz guevara]

Personally, I have never lived in a 'dictatorship', but I do still have the scars from being tortured in a military prison about 20 years ago.

So you'd be perfectly happy to going back to living under military rule, as voting makes no difference?


But then I am sure that we have no idea of the things that we have lived through, and that the region has been through over the past years, and we could all reflect on it in a much more sophisticated manner if we lived in South Florida near you.

What was that about internationalism again?

[Lyev]

Er...in a word, no. The KPD was founded at a congress in Berlin from 30 December 1918 to 1 January 1919. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were killed on 15th January 1919. They didn't participate in any elections in-between.
Didn't they? :blushing: well that's a bit embarrassing... anyway, my point was that many theorists who are widely considered "revolutionary" have also participated in elections.

EDIT: Just as an aside, to help ease along the discussion a bit; what kind of democracy would those who are anti-electoral politics posit post-capitalism?

[Zanthorus]

We boast of the age of advancement, of science, and progress. Is it not strange, then, that we still believe in fetish worship? True, our fetishes have different form and substance, yet in their power over the human mind they are still as disastrous as were those of old.

Our modern fetish is universal suffrage. Those who have not yet achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this omnipotent diety. Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!

[...]

The misfortune of woman is not that she is unable to do the work of a man, but that she is wasting her life-force to outdo him, with a tradition of centuries which has left her physically incapable of keeping pace with him. Oh, I know some have succeeded, but at what cost, at what terrific cost! The import is not the kind of work woman does, but rather the quality of the work she furnishes. She can give suffrage or the ballot no new quality, nor can she receive anything from it that will enhance her own quality. Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its complexities, by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women.

I suppose Emma Goldman was also a sexist pig though.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I suppose Emma Goldman was also a sexist pig though.



That is a problem here, voting has become a fetish, they've wrapped this symbolism around the action. and they care more about the action than what is derived from the action itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I suppose Emma Goldman was also a sexist pig though.No, but she did think that lesbians were men-haters and crazy, so even the best radicals can be off on some positions.

If Goldman were alive today would she be at the US border protesting immigrants who want the right to be part of the US empire? Why do they want bourgeois rights in the US? Don't they realize that only revolution will bring lasting liberation?

There are a few conflicting arguments going on here, so to throw my 2 cents in: again the main thing when it comes to RADICALS and elections is, like with any strategy, it must be seen in the context of means and ends.

Bourgeois rights are worth fighting for if they will end divisions in the working class and increase confidence of people in the working class. So women's suffrage and fighting for black voting rights are good for the class struggle - not simply because more people get to vote, but because it is a loss for the ruling class that wants to make people feel disenfranchised and powerless.

So while I do not support Al Gore or really care if he became president over George Bush, I think radicals should have taken up black voter disenfranchisement in some places and made an argument about why the Democrats care so little for black rights that they won't even fight for them when it means that it could even change the election results in their favor.

If there is a progressive democrat running and offering all sorts of reforms, would this be a step forward? No, because these reforms would be done in a liberal context which means ultimately they are bolstering ruling class ideas. If a progressive 3rd party candidate or a democratic-socialist party was taking on the Democrats and exposing how they take trade-union money and then get elected and screw the people supporting them, then this would be a blow against the 2 party system: one of the main ways that the US ruling class imprints its ideas on the rest of society and determines the boundaries of acceptable (or "realistic") political ideas. So in this case, I think these reformist attempts would actually be a step in the right direction.

The problem in this debate is that some radicals are making a common mistake: confusing the theory with the social reality. Some people on the left say "race doesn't matter" and they are right in the abstract, but it is a social reality that radicals have to take up. Postmodernists and some anarchists say that gay people shouldn't demand marriage because it is a heterosexual/ruling class institution. This is correct in the abstract, but denying marriage recognition is one of the ways the ruling class bolsters ideas about the family as well as promotes 2nd class status for LGBT people. Voting doesn't matter in bourgeois democracies - this is correct in the abstract, but incorrect to act like voting is currently irrelevant to most workers. In the US workers have low expectations, the 2 party system reinforces this sense of powerlessness by making politics distant and alienated through these bourgeois parties. The define what is acceptable polls in political thought (basically anything between the left and right of capitalist thought) and prevent class consciousness or higher expectations. When there are two candidates and one is running on a platform of breaking unions and the other is running and saying that they want to protect unions but in order to do so, the rank and file should give up some of its "entitlements" this has an impact on working class confidence beyond just the election.

This is why protest candidates can be effective in counter-programing the stuff that gets put out during the election cycle.

Our most important task in the US right now is building at the grassroots and reconnecting to the working class, but as we are able to build outward in this way, I think running protest candidates will be a legitimate question for the left and a valid tool for exposing the hollowness of bourgeois democracy while arguing to a much larger audience about class issues and winning real rights and democracy under a worker-run society.

[CChocobo]

To oppose the electoral system is misdirected. History shows that the absense of such an electoral system would mean having a emperor or a military dictatorship. It's good for the institution of society to poll the people about what they want. If the democratic process is currently going nowhere because most people have a habit of voting to continue their own enslavement, then the problem is one of finding a new way to enlighten the people, not a defect in the practice of the people being polled. When the temperature is intolerable, don't blame the practice of having a thermometer.

Again that's vanguardist. Why not let the people enlighten themselves as free individuals? Why would we vote for one statist over another? Especially given the way the system is now, you have a 2 puppet party with one ideology. Basically to keep the capitalists happy and subvert any freedoms we have. Although giving us the false illusion of freedom with materialism. To quote emma goldman, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"

[chegitz guevara]

If voting didn't change anything, why do the capitalists go to such great lengths to keep people from voting and spend so much money to dupe people into voting for the two parties? Obviously the ruling class has some fear of what people might do with the vote.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Again that's vanguardist.No, trying to change the system through the electoral process is reformist, not vanguardist.


Why not let the people enlighten themselves as free individuals? Are you a Descartist? Do you believe an individual can lock themselves in seclusion and come up with an understanding of the world simply from their own head? I don't think you are. So in that case, you know that there are many different ideas that working class people must navigate. The strongest of these ideas are ruling class ideas since they have all the institutions and academies and media of modern society at their disposal more or less.

In other words, if revolutionaries do not organize and present our ideas (which I think will make more sense to people because it fits with their lived experience) then the ruling class (since it puts a lot of effort into this) gets a monopoly on ideas.

So the idea of a vanguard is to organize all the people who have enlightened themselves to the point of seeing that capitalism doesn't work and there needs to be a working class revolution. Form this we can then promote our ideas and try to win other people to this position.

So for the reason that the ruling class uses elections to promote ruling class ideas throughout the society, radicals should, when appropriate, intervene in these circuses in order to subvert the ideas that they are trying to promote in this process!

It's more elitist to think that revolutionaries have somehow spontaneously come to these ideas from their own inherent genius while all other workers must be too dumb since they haven't come to the same realization all by themselves. Or that workers are too stupid to know the difference between voting in the positive for a bourgeois candidate and voting against the status-quo in the form of a protest candidate!


Why would we vote for one statist over another? What does this have to do with REVOLUTIONARIES participating in elections to the ends of promoting radical ideas and exposing the deficiencies of the system and bourgeois democracy?

If people are voting to put a self-declared revolutionary into power in a capitalist society, they are voting for a reformist, not a revolutionary. Again, if someone runs for the ends of taking power over a bourgeois democracy in order to "make it work better for working people" then, by definition, their goal is to reform the system. If someone is running in order to have a large platform to promote working class self-emancipation through self-conscious revolution, then they are not a reformist, they are a revolutionary. It's this second option which I think is valid for radicals as one of many different tactics and strategies towards that end.


Especially given the way the system is now, you have a 2 puppet party with one ideology.No one here that I read is arguing to vote for one of the two US bourgeois parties! Man, with all the straw-men arguments in this thread about radicals and elections, you could make bedding for an entire Napoleonic-era cavalry!

[Devrim]

We weren't arguing about parliamentarism. Not one single person here has argued that we can bring about socialism via parliamentarism or even make substantive changes for the better, such as universal health are, etc. simply by electing the right people.

When I speak in front of an audience on my campaign, I am explicit that voting is not the answer, that even were I elected, I could not deliver, because the system is designed to prevent that. I use my electoral campaign to denounce the system, and I get to speak in front of those audiences because I am running for office. In non-election years that . doesn't . happen.

It is still parlimentarianism as a tactic. Lenin argued for what he called 'revolutionary parlimentarianism', and he didn't believe it was possible to change the system through parliment.


Keller was not arguing for abstentionism. She was arguing for revolution. That's a very different kettle of fish.

She argued for abstensionism in elections.


Some historical experiences are unique. America is a very strange, very weird country, and most of you left communists really don't seem to get that. You think we're like you, but we aren't. American socialists have tried to explain this to you folks for over one hundreds years, and you've denied it the whole time.

Strangly enough we do have (very few) comrades in America. Also historically there were left communists in America, for example John Reed.

Historically in the socialist movement, the idea of 'special circumstances' has always been used by opportunists.


I admitted that. :rolleyes: You and Leo and I can have a serious discussion. LETSFIGHTBACK isn't interested in discussion. He ignores what people say, substitutes a strawman, then screams YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG YOUR WRONG. Why should I not have some fun poking at him? I've I can't have a civil discussion with him, I should at least be able to amuse myself.

I don't think it is very nice. Also it is very wrong to try to discredit people's arguments by calling them 'racists' or 'sexists' when obviously they are not.


Hence the point about quoting Germans at me. :) Freeganism is the logical endpoint of abstentionism. Even working for wages, they argue, is contributing to illusions in capitalism. So, they squat and the dumpster dive for food and necessities.

I don't even understand the logic here. Working is necessary to live. People are forced to do it. It is not a voluntary choice. Taking part in elections in a choice of political tactics.


So you'd be perfectly happy to going back to living under military rule, as voting makes no difference?

I didn't live here during the period of military rule. I was living in Northern Ireland at the time. Certainly I don't think it would have been good to live here during the repression, but repression can also be democratic.

I did live here when we had fascists (MHP) in government, three parliaments ago. I didn't really notice any difference.

Also, the military came to power in a Coup. Voting tends not to make any difference to those anyway.


What was that about internationalism again?

It was just a comment about how you seem to think you know everything about repression and we have no idea. Actually I don't think that the political ideas that one defends depend on your individual circumstances in that we have people in the USA who didn't live through such repression as went on here and hold the same politics as us. Your political ideas don't stand or fall on your personal experience. Nevertheless claiming that others don't understand what repression is from a much less repressive state isn't a very strong argument.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No one here that I read is arguing to vote for one of the two US bourgeois parties! Man, with all the straw-men arguments in this thread about radicals and elections, you could make bedding for an entire Napoleonic-era cavalry!

The biggest straw man argument in this thread has been calling people who advocate abstensionism racists and sexists.

It destroyed the possibility of a real discussion, which perhaps now we can get back to.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Didn't they? :blushing: well that's a bit embarrassing...

If I don't 'know' something, I always try to check it before I write. It is easy nowadays on the internet. It doesn't avoid all embarrassing mistakes but reduces them. :)

EDIT: Just as an aside, to help ease along the discussion a bit; what kind of democracy would those who are anti-electoral politics posit post-capitalism?

It isn't about people being anti-democracy, but anti-participation in the bourgeois state. I would imagine that most people who argue for abstensionism would also argue for the power of the workers' councils.

Devrim

[CChocobo]

No, trying to change the system through the electoral process is reformist, not vanguardist.

It is reformist. My point about vanguardist is that we don't need people to go and "indoctrinate the poor peasents, or misguided comrades and guide them by the hand" We can inform them of the ideas against capitalism and the state, but it's their freedom to do with what is told to them. I'm just very weary of vanguards because in history i have seen the vanguard as something that's authoritarian. I'm not trying to bash on anyone or communists, i'm sorry if my previous post came off like that. I just i think there's better ways than relying on the vanguard.

In terms of voting, i don't see voting as something that would change. I mean even if you vote in someone who does want to work towards work self emancipation, it's still another person holding that power. In the end i would rather have someone who's actually striving towards the goal, rather than reactionaries. But in the end i think hierarchy must be done away with, no man should be governed.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

The biggest straw man argument in this thread has been calling people who advocate abstensionism racists and sexists.

It destroyed the possibility of a real discussion, which perhaps now we can get back to.

Devrim



EXACTLY, which is why I had left this thread.When a person responds in this manner,Intellectually, you are dealing with a mental paraplegic. in all my years and battles politically, never has someone resorted to that tactic,heard about it,but experienced it. was quite sad.
If you are not doing anything, log onto http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com

I'll be talking about a discusting article in yesterdays wall street journal :"CEO'S see pay fall again". when you hear their salaries,
even with a fall in pay, don't have any liquid in your mouth while your hearing the show.parasitic bastards.

[Lyev]

If I don't 'know' something, I always try to check it before I write. It is easy nowadays on the internet. It doesn't avoid all embarrassing mistakes but reduces them. :)


It isn't about people being anti-democracy, but anti-participation in the bourgeois state. I would imagine that most people who argue for abstensionism would also argue for the power of the workers' councils.

Devrim
Thanks for getting back to my point. I know it's not about being anti-democracy, of course it's not. Well can we get back to point that really needs addressing; why is capitalism and bourgeois democracy incompatible with real, republican democracy? I suppose we can only conclude that capitalism just isn't democratic at all. How does abstentionism posit getting socialist ideas across to workers? It just doesn't make sense to me* that people would leave elections untouched, as a tool for potentially gaining massive support for the left.

*I'm pro-voting but I'm anti-reformist. I believe that real change comes from workers; not representatives of them. I don't think elections are at all an end to a means. Voting in a party, by itself, that claims to be communist, doesn't mean there's communism in that country absolutely immediately. I believe in reforms not reformism and I think voting under capitalism will not change anything directly and significantly, until we find a new mode of production.

[Chambered Word]

If voting means keeping one candidate out of office who's a particularly malicious arsehole, then you might as well head down to the polling booths and sign up. Otherwise, it won't make much of a difference. Socialism has to be a new system that is created by the workers for the benefit of the workers and it simply will never be built in the confines of a capitalist system.

Then again the parliamentary system could be used as a platform to agitate from, but I'm too tired to think about it properly.


It is reformist. My point about vanguardist is that we don't need people to go and "indoctrinate the poor peasents, or misguided comrades and guide them by the hand" We can inform them of the ideas against capitalism and the state, but it's their freedom to do with what is told to them. I'm just very weary of vanguards because in history i have seen the vanguard as something that's authoritarian. I'm not trying to bash on anyone or communists, i'm sorry if my previous post came off like that. I just i think there's better ways than relying on the vanguard.

Whether the vanguard is a vehicle of power 'for the workers' or simply an organization of the most class conscious members of society to guide revolutions is a point of disagreement between Stalinists and Trotskyists respectively, from what I gather.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The biggest straw man argument in this thread has been calling people who advocate abstensionism racists and sexists.

It destroyed the possibility of a real discussion, which perhaps now we can get back to.

Devrim

I didn't call anyone that. But I have repeatedly made a case only to have moron sectarians say that I'm supporting Obama.

I made several points in my last few posts - if you are so concerned about keeping the discussion on track, why not discuss the points I raised instead of this one line above of all things?

[chegitz guevara]

He was never interested in having a real discussion. He only used the fact that I called him out on being a racist, sexist, petty bourgeois fuck to run away. And I only called him that because he wouldn't engage in actual debate, although if you dismiss the struggles of women, of workers, or people of color, then what I wrote is also accurate.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'll try and explain this to you in simple terms.

The vast majority of people still have illusions in the system, so standing at the sidelines and telling them not to vote or to vote a spoiled ballot, will not accomplish anything, other than for them to shut you out.

During an election cycle, people who are otherwise uninterested in hearing your critique of the system, will seek out socialists and communists who are running for office. The capitalist election process, in which we have no illusions, presents us a platform from which to reach a wider audience.

We can be an anarchist, and refuse to talk to the masses on principle, or we can be intelligent, and use all the weapons the bourgeoisie allows us (and then some).

Put another way, chegitz guevara, communist revolutionary and well known swell guy, doesn't have much of an audience to speak to about socialist politics. On the other hand, chegitz guevara for congress (http://www.luzietti.com/) gets sought out by individuals and voters groups and media. The second guy is able to put his politics and ideas before a much wider audience.

That is why we participate in elections. Abstentionism is shooting yourself in the foot on principle. One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW! That would be idiotic. So is refusing to use the platform the capitalists allow us to have.

Except, the Anarchist point isn't that shouldn't spread our message though elections due to "principle," but that it is ineffective!

And in the intrests of fairness, If your going to bring out analogies like this "One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW!" then I assume you'll be open to activists heading off to spread their message in church groups or fascist organisations?

Note here, I'm not suggesting that partipating in unions is akin to partipating in churches, but that wheter leftists work within X or Y group should be decided on the position of that group alone. So making analogies like this is just irrelavant. Basically, clearly we need to accept some level of non doctrinal purity in the groups that we work within, but we also can't go around joining up with fascists and any other kind of nutters that opposes the current establishment.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Chegitz, if you were not running for congress who would you vote for. I understand your point on you yourself being a candidate and being able to speak to people and the fact that you stress the illegitimacy of capitalist democracy. That is useful to getting a socialist message to a lot of people and I understand that it is because you are running for congress that that is possible. However I still don't understand your position on voting in such elections, you have stated your point on running for congress but when people dispute voting you say they are spitting in the faces, I don't quite understand this position. What does voting in such an election have to offer for the working class?

[zimmerwald1915]

although if you dismiss the struggles of women, of workers, or people of color, then what I wrote is also accurate.
There's a difference between "dismissing the struggles of women...or people of color" and stating that these struggles, even at their most developed, put the communist revolution on the historical agenda. Similarly, it's not simple chauvinism to state that the proletariat's class struggle, at its most developed, does. On the contrary, this analysis comes out of a recognition of capitalism's historic course, and observation of the most developed struggles of workers, women, and people of color over the past couple hundred years. The working class, identifying and organized as a class, makes the revolution. Races and sexes, identifying and organized along those lines...don't.

[chegitz guevara]

Except, the Anarchist point isn't that shouldn't spread our message though elections due to "principle," but that it is ineffective!

The Socialist Party grows 50% during most Presidential election years. Hardly a sign of ineffectiveness. Now, most of them fritter away in the intervening years, but that's largely a function of the ineffectiveness of the SPUSA. The tactic itself, however, works.


And in the intrests of fairness, If your going to bring out analogies like this "One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW!" then I assume you'll be open to activists heading off to spread their message in church groups or fascist organisations?If a church or even a fascist organization opened its doors to me, I'd go, though in the latter case, not without an armed escort, and only if it were the Tea Party and not some Nazi or Klan group. If I can win a single fascist over, that's a win of two, one less fascist and one more socialist. Sometimes they do switch sides.


Note here, I'm not suggesting that partipating in unions is akin to partipating in churches, but that wheter leftists work within X or Y group should be decided on the position of that group alone. So making analogies like this is just irrelavant. Basically, clearly we need to accept some level of non doctrinal purity in the groups that we work within, but we also can't go around joining up with fascists and any other kind of nutters that opposes the current establishment.The point of the analogy, which you have so aptly demonstrated, is that the decision to decide whether or not to support a union, go speak at a group, participate in elections, is a tactical or strategic question, not one of principle alone. Arguing that we should never participate in elections (or, conversely, always do so) is equivalent to arguing we should never participate in unions (some anarchists do this) or even wage labor itself.

As to engaging in wage labor, people continually point out that in capitalism we must do so. Freegans don't. They argue that working, paying rent, etc., is participating in industrial capitalism. Instead, they squat, they steal food and clothes from the garbage, etc. It is, in fact, a rather significant number of anarchists in America fall for this insanity.


Chegitz, if you were not running for congress who would you vote for. I understand your point on you yourself being a candidate and being able to speak to people and the fact that you stress the illegitimacy of capitalist democracy. That is useful to getting a socialist message to a lot of people and I understand that it is because you are running for congress that that is possible. However I still don't understand your position on voting in such elections, you have stated your point on running for congress but when people dispute voting you say they are spitting in the faces, I don't quite understand this position. What does voting in such an election have to offer for the working class?

America has a history of trying to prevent Black people from voting. When you tell people not to vote, you are taking part in that long, despicable practice, even if it's true that their votes will not bring about socialism or get them what they want.

The truth is, in bourgeois democracy, votes do matter. They don't matter for what we want, which is to abolish bourgeois democracy and replace it with proletarian democracy, but they still matter. If they didn't matter, both bourgeois parties wouldn't engage so much in voter suppression efforts, especially the GOP among people of color.

It is imperative that revolutionaries, especially white revolutionaries, not join forces with the bourgeoisie in trying to prevent workers, women, and people of color from voting.


There's a difference between "dismissing the struggles of women...or people of color" and stating that these struggles, even at their most developed, put the communist revolution on the historical agenda. Similarly, it's not simple chauvinism to state that the proletariat's class struggle, at its most developed, does. On the contrary, this analysis comes out of a recognition of capitalism's historic course, and observation of the most developed struggles of workers, women, and people of color over the past couple hundred years. The working class, identifying and organized as a class, makes the revolution. Races and sexes, identifying and organized along those lines...don't.

It may not put socialism on the agenda, but these struggles, in and of themselves, are important, and need to be supported by revolutionaries, especially white, male, petty bourgeois revolutionaries. There is a reason that our movement in the U.S. is overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class. Sometimes, we need to put their struggles before our own. Until we prove, consistently, we're willing to sacrifice ourselves for them, it's unlikely we will be able to attract the masses of women, or workers, of people of color.

[Revy]

Elections are important to the political consciousness of most countries.

The ruling class would be pleased if the revolutionary parties did not take advantage and seize the electoral process as a means of educating, agitating, organizing the working class.

I think that there has always been a segment of the left, called the ultra-left, that merely wants to feel superior and act as if they represented something more revolutionary because they don't do "reformist" things like vote or run in elections.

If you simply have a different opinion about elections, that's okay. But acting all arrogant and egoistic against people who are fighting against the same things as you are, is just wrong. Just because I vote doesn't mean I am doing something to uphold the capitalist system, it means I am expressing my voice in the way possible given to me by this current system.

To remove ourselves from the equation, we take ourselves out of a potential opportunity to engage with the working class in order to further a process that can lead to revolution.

Maybe you should address things like the CP-USA. They don't run in elections........because they support Democrats. But apparently revolutionaries are somehow reformist because they want to present a socialist alternative!

[Revy]

I suppose Emma Goldman was also a sexist pig though.

I see your Emma Goldman and raise you a Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm):



“Why are there no organizations for working women in Germany? Why do we hear so little about the working women’s movement?” With these questions, Emma Ihrer, one of the founders of the proletarian women’s movement of Germany, introduced her 1898 essay, Working Women in the Class Struggle. Hardly fourteen years have passed since, but they have seen a great expansion of the proletarian women’s movement. More than a hundred fifty thousand women are organized in unions and are among the most active troops in the economic struggle of the proletariat. Many thousands of politically organized women have rallied to the banner of Social Democracy: the Social Democratic women’s paper [Die Gleichheit, edited by Clara Zetkin] has more than one hundred thousand subscribers; women’s suffrage is one of the vital issues on the platform of Social Democracy.

Exactly these facts might lead you to underrate the importance of the fight for women’s suffrage. You might think: even without equal political rights for women we have made enormous progress in educating and organizing women. Hence, women’s suffrage is not urgently necessary. If you think so, you are deceived. The political and syndical awakening of the masses of the female proletariat during the last fifteen years has been magnificent. But it has been possible only because working women took a lively interest in the political and parliamentary struggles of their class in spite of being deprived of their rights. So far, proletarian women are sustained by male suffrage, which they indeed take part in, though only indirectly. Large masses of both men and women of the working class already consider the election campaigns a cause they share in common. In all Social Democratic electoral meetings, women make up a large segment, sometimes the majority. They are always interested and passionately involved. In all districts where there is a firm Social Democratic organization, women help with the campaign. And it is women who have done invaluable work distributing leaflets and getting subscribers to the Social Democratic press, this most important weapon in the campaign.

[..]

In truth, our state is interested in keeping the vote from working women and from them alone. It rightly fears they will threaten the traditional institutions of class rule, for instance militarism (of which no thinking proletarian woman can help being a deadly enemy), monarchy, the systematic robbery of duties and taxes on groceries, etc. Women’s suffrage is a horror and abomination for the present capitalist state because behind it stand millions of women who would strengthen the enemy within, i.e., revolutionary Social Democracy.

[...]

The current mass struggle for women’s political rights is only an expression and a part of the proletariat’s general struggle for liberation. In this lies its strength and its future. Because of the female proletariat, general, equal, direct suffrage for women would immensely advance and intensify the proletarian class struggle. This is why bourgeois society abhors and fears women’s suffrage. And this is why we want and will achieve it. Fighting for women’s suffrage, we will also hasten the coming of the hour when the present society falls in ruins under the hammer strokes of the revolutionary proletariat.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Comrades, this issue will go round and round. As I said, revolutionaries need to be an example. voting has NO substance, AT ALL. The people need to see us at these candidates debates, outside leafleting on the issues, putting on bi-weekly forums on various issues, making up flyers on various issues and putting them in mailboxes. there are so many tactics that can be used instead of trying to get thousands and thousands and thousands of signatures to be on a ballot. amounts which are way, way higher for third parties than for one of the two parties.And like I said, when was the last time you saw a communist candidate on a televised debate? the league of women voters NEVER,EVER invited the SWP, who was on the ballot to participate here in philly.The money and time invested in this dead-end could be use more productively.such as a pasta night. bi-weekly. you have a speaker, literature and a meal for poor families and out of work people.action behind words. as I said, there are people that get all mushy and sentimental, they care more about the action than what the action produces itself.it's like having an old car, you don't want to get rid of it because of how hard you worked to get, eventhough it doesn't do a thing for you and it doesn't take you from point a to point b. let's use our man power, our resources productively, wisely.let's show the people that there is an alternative. we do this not by involving ourselves in the same dead-end electoral system that is leading the people down a dead-end road.change happens by looking laterally, not vertically. people looking out for and helping people.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The Socialist Party grows 50% during most Presidential election years. Hardly a sign of ineffectiveness. Now, most of them fritter away in the intervening years, but that's largely a function of the ineffectiveness of the SPUSA. The tactic itself, however, works.

If a church or even a fascist organization opened its doors to me, I'd go, though in the latter case, not without an armed escort, and only if it were the Tea Party and not some Nazi or Klan group. If I can win a single fascist over, that's a win of two, one less fascist and one more socialist. Sometimes they do switch sides.

The point of the analogy, which you have so aptly demonstrated, is that the decision to decide whether or not to support a union, go speak at a group, participate in elections, is a tactical or strategic question, not one of principle alone. Arguing that we should never participate in elections (or, conversely, always do so) is equivalent to arguing we should never participate in unions (some anarchists do this) or even wage labor itself.

As to engaging in wage labor, people continually point out that in capitalism we must do so. Freegans don't. They argue that working, paying rent, etc., is participating in industrial capitalism. Instead, they squat, they steal food and clothes from the garbage, etc. It is, in fact, a rather significant number of anarchists in America fall for this insanity.


Yes, the tactic seems to "work" at growing the Socialist Party in election years.

However, it may not work so well after the election year, where the new recruits are turned off by the fact that they seem to be operating under some grubby bourgeious party, more intrested in getting more votes and selling papers than actual socialism.

Likewise, what damage does their adoption of the tactic do for the movement overall? How many people that could of otherwise been influenced are turned off when they can't see the difference between revolutionaries and lying bastard politicians?

And, just as a guess, but wouldn't the main reason why the SP manages to increase its intake by 50 percent in election year because thats when people are more politically aware? Or when they, like every other party focused on being popular, they start spending the money they've saved up?

You have to consider all these things, and, considering them all myself, it seems like an increase of 50 percent for what is probably a very small party is probably rather bad (considering they must surely spend over 50 percent of their 4 yearly budget in that one year running the campaign?)

Well, the point of me asking wheter you'd go and campaign at a church group or fascist organisation wasn't to suggest that you'd be doing more for socialism by not bothering to campaign at all, rather than go there, but to highlight that there are clearly much more productive ways to spend our time/resources as revolutionaries

Why bother wasting time with a bunch of fascists, when there are masses of recently laid off workers waiting....?

So you seemed to of misunderstood my reversal of your analogy. And if you think that we can't draw an aboslute principle on who to work with..what the hell is the point of drawing an analogy between the refusal to partipate in elections and the refusal to partipate in Unions? :confused: The OP clearly was writing about the ineffectiveness of partipating in elections as a tactic..and you somehow managed to link that as the same as arguing that we shouldn't partipate in unions, despite that they are two differnet organisations? :confused: You've basically been strawmanning anyone who disagrees with you!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

America has a history of trying to prevent Black people from voting. When you tell people not to vote, you are taking part in that long, despicable practice, even if it's true that their votes will not bring about socialism or get them what they want.

How? As people have said before activists have campaigned for the right to vote and then later go on to call for abstention.


The truth is, in bourgeois democracy, votes do matter. They don't matter for what we want, which is to abolish bourgeois democracy and replace it with proletarian democracy, but they still matter. If they didn't matter, both bourgeois parties wouldn't engage so much in voter suppression efforts, especially the GOP among people of color.

Of course they change things. But the whole point about not voting is because they don't change things in the interests of the proletariat.


It is imperative that revolutionaries, especially white revolutionaries, not join forces with the bourgeoisie in trying to prevent workers, women, and people of color from voting.


That is a silly thing to say. Besides no one is trying to prevent people from voting. We just want to make it explicit that bourgeois democracy and voting hold nothing for the working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We all know that freedom of the press is not all that capitalists make it out to be - yet most radical groups publish books and websites and magazines. Are they misleading workers by saying that "spreading knowledge" will bring liberation? No, they are intervening in mass political consciousness in order to reach workers who can then take that information and do something about it. These magazines and books are not for general information, relaxation, or self-improvement/betterment, not for getting interesting trivia as most of the press and publishing in capitalism is all about - they serve a very specific purpose. It can be the same for radicals running protest campaigns.

There's a contradiction in this debate about participating in the election circus. From a working class perspective, voting in bourgeois elections can not deliver meaningful change and isn't even as effective for wining reforms as more direct methods like protest movements, strikes and so on which have the benefit of helping to train workers to fight in their own interests and any hard-fought for reform is going to be hard to take away. So the people saying that the act of voting as an individual has no effect are 100% correct.

But, at the same time, the election process has a huge effect on mass consciousness in bourgeois democracies. In the US at best about 50% of potential voters actually vote - does that mean that the other 50% are not voting out of principle or not voting out of class consciousness? No, and to argue that this is the case is delusional or just wishful thinking.

Here in Oakland, on my way to work today (yes I have to work on Saturdays:() there were 2 middle aged black men talking about politics on the BART - one was wearing a groundskeeper uniform and they were talking about healthcare and how it wouldn't help them - but at the very same time they were saying that they couldn't expect it anyway and Obama was doing his best and they shouldn't criticize him because it would play into the hands of the Republicans.

So what political ideas are shaping the consciousness of the non-voting population? I think it's still the election process, the bourgeois parties and the media and the huge amount of propaganda being pumped out through these institutions - and who are desperate to outline the parameters of what is politically possible in the US. So this means that when you talk to most workers in the US, they will say: "I agree with you on this or that, but Americans in general are too conservative for even social-democracy or liberal reforms. By the numbers this is just not true - there are more people who smoke pot that listen to Glenn Beck, more people who would like a "Socialist" healthcare system, more people who have witnessed racial profiling or racial injustice or been to prison than there are people that go to tea-party protests.

But the function of elections for the ruling class is to create a sense that people are being represented while their real function is to communicate the needs of the ruling class to the rest of the population. Think about how the most public election debates go:

Candidate 1: Why yes, of course we need to do something about crime and so I think we need to fund community policing and hire more local polcie.

Candidate 2: No, we have plenty of paid police, we just need to untie their hands and allow them better weapons to do their job - also we need to make sure criminals can't get off the hook just because they claim they were abused or weren't read their rights.

Candidate 1: Of course I want to end the war, but we have to make sure that the mess we've created is cleaned up first and there is a stable government in the region.

Candidate 2: We don't want to appear weak which will let the terrorists wait us out, so I say we can't promise when we'll pull out.

The media won't call any of them out for this - in fact they'll fill zeppelins with talk of how drastically different the 2 candidates or parties are.

The second function - of the Democrats in particular - is sort of a loyalty test for liberal organizations. Unions, NOW, NAACP, and so on all support Democrats and tell people well, they aren't perfect, but we have to defeat the Republicans - it's the only way we can expect change. So many of the people who DO VOTE are actually politically engaged and anti-war and want more rights and so on, but they don't know how to achieve this so they enter into establishment-friendly defaults like individualist actions like riding a bike in protest of oil companies or voting or signing petitions or writing lawmakers.

Having radical voices intervene in this process can be very helpful in EXPOSING the ineffectiveness of the bourgeois election system. Protest candidates have an opportunity to explain why "throwing your vote away" is actually more political than voting for a liberal who will just take your vote and do the bidding of the capitalists anyway.

In addition, protest candidates expose the 2-faced nature of liberal organizations - they would either have to justify why they are not supporting a candidate who was agitating for liberation of oppressed groups and working class action in favor of one who is offering only token reforms at best.

People who came out to see Debs speak were not "duped" into believing the system works, they were, in a very public way, showing their opposition to WWI or the power of the banks and so on.

It would be a mistake to run or support protest candidates on principle - things like organizational resources and the potential benefits always have to be taken into consideration, so I agree with people who are saying that for most groups, the effort of running a candidate at this point would not be worth the potential benefits of doing so. But not taking advantage of an opportunity to expose in practice - potentially to millions of workers - the hollowness of the election system... on principle would be a mistake.

[Devrim]

I see your Emma Goldman and raise you a Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm):

I will see your Rosa circa 1912, and raise you a Rosa 1918.


[Sparticus wants] The Elimination of all parliaments and municipal councils, and takeover of their functions by workers’ and soldiers’ councils, and of the latter’s committees and organs.

The reason these things were originally quoted was not that somebody in the past having these ideas proved that they were correct, it was because someone was saying those who opposed electorialism were racists and sexists, and to show that people who obviously weren't racists and sexists also opposed parlimentarianism.

Devrim

[ChrisK]

I will see your Rosa circa 1912, and raise you a Rosa 1918.



The reason these things were originally quoted was not that somebody in the past having these ideas proved that they were correct, it was because someone was saying those who opposed electorialism were racists and sexists, and to show that people who obviously weren't racists and sexists also opposed parlimentarianism.

Devrim

I call your Rosa 1918. That statement was in the middle of a highly radical period that we call a, wait I can't remember the word. Re, Rev-, Revolt...no no no...Rev-, revolution! Thats the word. Of course she was saying that, the revolution was already in progress.

[<Insert Username Here>]

Its not time for revolution yet. Democratic proceedings allow us to raise awareness and gather momentum.

[zimmerwald1915]

I call your Rosa 1918. That statement was in the middle of a highly radical period that we call a, wait I can't remember the word. Re, Rev-, Revolt...no no no...Rev-, revolution! Thats the word. Of course she was saying that, the revolution was already in progress.


The grave of the Paris Commune ended the first phase of the European labor movement as well as the First International. Since then there began a new phase. In place of spontaneous revolutions, risings, and barricades, after which the proletariat each time fell back into passivity, there began the systematic daily struggle, the exploitation of bourgeois parliamentarianism, mass organizations, the marriage of the economic with the political struggle, and that of socialist ideals with stubborn defense of immediate daily interests. For the first time the polestar of strict scientific teachings lit the way for the proletariat and for its emancipation. Instead of sects, schools, utopias, and isolated experiments in various countries, there arose a uniform, international theoretical basis which bound countries together like the strands of a rope. Marxist knowledge gave the working class of the entire world a compass by which it can make sense of the welter of daily events and by which it can always plot the right course to take to the fixed and final goal. She who bore, championed, and protected this new method was German Social Democracy. The [Franco-Prussian] War and the defeat of the Paris Commune had shifted the center of gravity for the European workers’ movement to Germany. As France was the classic site of the first phase of proletarian class struggle and Paris the beating, bleeding heart of the European laboring classes of those times, so the German workers became the vanguard of the second phase. By means of countless sacrifices and tireless attention to detail, they have built the strongest organization, the one most worthy of emulation; they created the biggest press, called the most effective means of education and enlightenment into being, gathered the most powerful masses of voters and attained the greatest number of parliamentary mandates. German Social Democracy was considered the purest embodiment of Marxist socialism. She had and laid claim to a special place in the Second International - its instructress and leader...

And what did we in Germany experience when the great historical test came? The most precipitous fall, the most violent collapse. Nowhere has the organization of the proletariat been yoked so completely to the service of imperialism. Nowhere is the state of siege borne so docilely. Nowhere is the press so hobbled, public opinion so stifled, the economic and political class struggle of the working class so totally surrendered as in Germany...

What followed was but the logical sequence. The position of the party and the labour union press, the patriotic frenzy of the masses, the civil peace, the disintegration of the International, all these things were the inevitable consequence of that momentous orientation in the Reichstag.
Sorry for the monster quote, but she was, in fact, saying such things in 1915.

[ChrisK]

Sorry for the monster quote, but she was, in fact, saying such things in 1915.

As I recall, this was from her Junius Pamphlet, which was a response the socialists in parliment voting for WWI. This isn't a critique of a strategy, but a critique of relying on getting into power via election to create socialism. This has nothing to do with voting itself, but reform.

[Devrim]

I call your Rosa 1918. That statement was in the middle of a highly radical period that we call a, wait I can't remember the word. Re, Rev-, Revolt...no no no...Rev-, revolution! Thats the word. Of course she was saying that, the revolution was already in progress.

So does that mean that you are a racist and sexist if you call for abstensionism outside a revolutionary period, but not if you call for it inside one.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

As I recall, this was from her Junius Pamphlet, which was a response the socialists in parliment voting for WWI. This isn't a critique of a strategy, but a critique of relying on getting into power via election to create socialism. This has nothing to do with voting itself, but reform.
As I recall, part of her critique was that you can't separate the two.

[ChrisK]

As I recall, part of her critique was that you can't separate the two.

I'll reread it tomorrow and let you know if i concede or not

[ChrisK]

So does that mean that you are a racist and sexist if you call for abstensionism outside a revolutionary period, but not if you call for it inside one.

Devrim

Where did I talk about racism or sexism?

[Devrim]

Where did I talk about racism or sexism?

You didn't, but that was the point of the quotations. Quoting some famous dead socialist does not prove or disprove the validity of the argument. However, it was suggested that people who advocated abstensionism were sexists and spitting in the face of women who fought for votes. It was just being pointed out that plenty of women who fought for votes later changed their minds. Were they spitting in their own faces?

Devrim

[Lyev]

So do abstentionists deny that the electoral system is a valuable platform for engaging the working class? If we disregard for a second that anyone here is a reformist -- we're all revolutionists -- and if we presuppose that most socialists, anarchists and communists participating in election are still revolutionary then we can proceed with the following: I don't believe in election participation because I think our end goals can be attained via the ballot box, or because I would like to fix up a few holes in the capitalist system. As I have said, participating in bourgeois elections -- we know they're bourgeois and we know our goals are unattainable via them -- is a valuable weapon for the left; a weapon that can be turned against the ruling class. It's a tool for building consciousness, and as people have said it's a way to educate, agitate and organise. Why would someone leave this weapon untouched?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

So do abstentionists deny that the electoral system is a valuable platform for engaging the working class? If we disregard for a second that anyone here is a reformist -- we're all revolutionists -- and if we presuppose that most socialists, anarchists and communists participating in election are still revolutionary then we can proceed with the following: I don't believe in election participation because I think our end goals can be attained via the ballot box, or because I would like to fix up a few holes in the capitalist system. As I have said, participating in bourgeois elections -- we know they're bourgeois and we know our goals are unattainable via them -- is a valuable weapon for the left; a weapon that can be turned against the ruling class. It's a tool for building consciousness, and as people have said it's a way to educate, agitate and organise. Why would someone leave this weapon untouched?

I'd expect you'd get the same answer Marx would of given if you'd told him that the workers should take over the bourgeois state and run it..

"The aim is not to seize the existing state, but to smash it."

Well, my point isn't as clear as I thought it would be :p, but the point is that if you have reservations about fundamentally bourgeois institutions being able to work to working class advantage, the same applies to bourgeois democracy.

[Lyev]

I'd expect you'd get the same answer Marx would of given if you'd told him that the workers should take over the bourgeois state and run it..

"The aim is not to seize the existing state, but to smash it."

Well, my point isn't as clear as I thought it would be :p, but the point is that if you have reservations about fundamentally bourgeois institutions being able to work to working class advantage, the same applies to bourgeois democracy.
You're missing my fundamental point here comrade. I don't want to "seize the existing state"; I believe in revolution just like everyone on this board, of course I want to smash it! However, I think we would all agree that a socialist revolution presupposes a broad socialist consciousness. Furthermore, the electoral system is (and has been) a valuable way for radical leftists to get their viewpoints across, thereby building some sort of consciousness. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread: voting is not an end, but a means, towards this final end. "The end", in this case, obviously being the overthrow of capitalism, where the means is our strategy, i.e. "how do we overthrow capitalism?"

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You're missing my fundamental point here comrade. I don't want to "seize the existing state"; I believe in revolution just like everyone on this board, of course I want to smash it! However, I think we would all agree that a socialist revolution presupposes a broad socialist consciousness. Furthermore, the electoral system is (and has been) a valuable way for radical leftists to get their viewpoints across, thereby building some sort of consciousness. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread: voting is not an end, but a means, towards this final end. "The end", in this case, obviously being the overthrow of capitalism, where the means is our strategy, i.e. "how do we overthrow capitalism?"

Yes, I understood that was what you meant.

However, what I meant to show (obviously not very clearly) that what you are saying amounts of using bourgeois elections as a weapon against the bourgeious, and that those who are against electoral participating are probably like that for the same reasons why Marxists don't believe it is possible to use the bourgeois state against itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, I understood that was what you meant.

However, what I meant to show (obviously not very clearly) that what you are saying amounts of using bourgeois elections as a weapon against the bourgeious, and that those who are against electoral participating are probably like that for the same reasons why Marxists don't believe it is possible to use the bourgeois state against itself.The election process and all the hype surrounding it is not part of the state - no more than than the press in the abstract is part of the state.

Of course the electoral process itself is a sham as is "freedom of the press" in capitalist countries. If elections actually posed a threat to the state then the normal process is subverted to protect ruling class rule. The same is true for freedom of speech - if protests or sections of radical (or non-radical) press are really effective at challenging the status-quo, then they are repressed.

So is it misleading workers when we hold a protest: does it give them the sense that the system and bourgeois rights work fine? Obviously not. Intervening in elections, to agitate and propagandize, not to win, is the same - just a different arena.

[chegitz guevara]

I was just interviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

Does anyone think that would have happened if I weren't running for Congress?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was just interviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

Does anyone think that would have happened if I weren't running for Congress?

That is very interesting, is the interview available to read online yet?

[chegitz guevara]

Not yet.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Not yet.

What did they ask about? Did you get to express your own political position or was it more about the campaign?

[chegitz guevara]

The article was about the ideas various politicians had for fixing Congress, given the very low support Congress currently has. I said the first thing would be to move to public funding of elections, so smaller parties would have more ability to put their ideas before the government. I argued for proportional representation, also.

I clarified, however, that from a socialist perspective, Congress could not be fixed, that it designed to prevent anyone but the owners of wealth to have power, and that only if the workers seize economic and political power could a truly representative government be established.

We also talked about some stuff of minor importance. I probably could have done better, but it was my first real interview this year.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Chegitz guevera

I am sickened by your reformist attempts at collaboration with the ruling class. Any attempt to use the political process to amplify your message is a horris deviation from some phantasmal standard of purity.

I am kidding of course; I think this is a legitimate method to go about promoting socialism and am just reflecting some frustration with the way people are looking at things over in the Stevie Merino thread. Did the interviewer let slip whether the article was going to pertain to you exclusively or if s/he was looking at a larger trend?

[chegitz guevara]

I imagine I will have a sentence or maybe two in a larger piece.

And you almost had me for a second. ;)

[zimmerwald1915]

The article was about the ideas various politicians had for fixing Congress, given the very low support Congress currently has. I said the first thing would be to move to public funding of elections, so smaller parties would have more ability to put their ideas before the government. I argued for proportional representation, also.

I clarified, however, that from a socialist perspective, Congress could not be fixed, that it designed to prevent anyone but the owners of wealth to have power, and that only if the workers seize economic and political power could a truly representative government be established.
I'm glad for the presence of the second paragraph at least, but why even bother with the first paragraph? It isn't our business to tell the capitalist state how to become more popular. That the bourgeoisie is trying and failing to make it so is both worrisome, as it speaks to their loss of control over events*, and an opportunity for revolutionaries to really speak to the working class and expect to be heard. IMHO, your statement would have been much stronger if you had stuck to the second paragraph only.

*this is worrisome not because it is good for the bourgeoisie to have established a firm dictatorship, but because their control is crumbling at a time when the proletariat's forces aren't mobilized to replace it. It thus opens the perspective for barbarism.

P.S. See, TGG, us poor ultra-lefties don't have to speak in caricature :cool:

[chegitz guevara]

The why is because the reporter asked me the questions, and it would be rude not to respond. I haven't yet learned the politician's skill of answering the question I think the reporter should have asked. ;)

[chegitz guevara]

Loathe though I am to toot my own horn:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704830404575200683029142418.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

I get the final two paragraphs.


Socialist Marc Luzietti worries slashing lawmaker pay would make
Congress even less representative of the American people than he feels
it is already. Mr. Luzietti's plan: Replace winner-take-all elections
with a proportional-representation voting system common in Europe,
which in Florida would give the Socialists one or two seats, Mr.
Luzietti reckons.

Mr. Luzietti, 43, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Web designer running for the
House, is pessimistic any of these proposals would do much good—even
in the unlikely event they were to become law. "Socialists," he says,
"do not see the government, including the Congress, as fixable."

And THAT is why we run for elections!:thumbup1:

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Two paragraphs that nobody will read is why you run for elections?


uhhh... congrats then?

[chegitz guevara]

Cuz nobody ever reads the Wall Street Journal?

[Commiechu]

Lenin explains this concept in his work "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder I would link it, but I cannot yet post links.

[Palingenisis]

Cuz nobody ever reads the Wall Street Journal?

Id vote for you...The people of Florida dont know how lucky they are!

[zimmerwald1915]

And THAT is why we run for elections!:thumbup1:
What is meant by "fixable". Now, I know you're sincere, but ordinary readers of the Wall Steet Journal might not know that you mean something along the lines of "conducive to first protecting workers' livelihoods and then giving them power over society."

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Cuz nobody ever reads the Wall Street Journal?

The tiny percentage who might actually read your quotes hardly justifies participation in electoral politics, IMO.

But it is cool that you got that published don't get me wrong. Even if it pushes just 5 people towards exploring leftist ideologies it is a success.

[Martin Blank]

The tiny percentage who might actually read your quotes hardly justifies participation in electoral politics, IMO.

But it is cool that you got that published don't get me wrong. Even if it pushes just 5 people towards exploring leftist ideologies it is a success.

Not that it's my place to speak for chegitz in any way, but I would think that his answer to this would be that it's more about the people who might explore "leftist ideologies" as a result of the article that justifies the participation in electoral politics (after all, without doing that, there would be no quotes to provoke such exploration) than it is about being quoted in the Wall Street Journal or even the participation itself.

He can, of course, correct me if I'm wrong.

[chegitz guevara]

What is meant by "fixable". Now, I know you're sincere, but ordinary readers of the Wall Steet Journal might not know that you mean something along the lines of "conducive to first protecting workers' livelihoods and then giving them power over society."

This is what I said to the reporter:

Socialists do not see the government, including the Congress, as fixable. Even though we run for office and offer solutions to make the system more democratic, as long as the current economic system exists, it will never represent the majority of the people in this country. As Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10, this system is the best system ever design to prevent factions from assuming power and that the biggest and most permanent faction is the divide between those with property and those without. Only when the workers take political and economic power for themselves will Lincoln's promise of a government by, of, and for the people be realized.

[FelixtheCat]

A revolution doesn't necessarily mean deposing the current government. Sometimes change is achieved through the electoral system.

The problem is that the far left is often a minority. We are portrayed as extremist and often dangerous.

Which is why it often comes to violent revolution, further potentiating the idea of far left groups being dangerous.

[Robocommie]

Mr. Luzietti, 43

Did you ever meet Eugene Debbs? :lol:;)

[McCroskey]

It amazes me how some people choose to ignore the historical moment and social circumstances they are living in, and instead try to imagine they are living in some imaginary country where workers are demanding revolution as the only means to end their misery.

The working class in the west nowadays, whether we revolutionaries want to see it or not, is totally immersed in the social practice of parliamentary politics. That´s where the workers look to find the answers to their problems. Partly because the contradiction caused by the threat of the european fascisms of the first half of last century has been exploited by the capitalist rulers to make parliamentary democracy the best option as opposed to dictatorship. But also partly because there isn´s a general revolutionary conciousness right now. The welfare improvements and the basic rights won by working class protests in the last few decades mean that workers in developed countries, or at least the majority of them, can be assured that the basic rights to food, education, healthcare, financial protection from unemployment, etc, can (although not sufficiently) be easyly accessed. Under these circumstances, revolutionary conciousness requires education and agitation, as workers need to realise their role in the chain of production.
To try to "teach" this to the working class in this historical moment is simply patronising in our eyes, as workers´ ideals are not based on a desperate fight for survival, but on a wish to improve our quality of life, to have security, peace, and be able to enjoy life (which is the ultimate aim of socialism). Capitalist indoctrination, which we suffer since we start attending nursery, makes sure we can´t see the flaws of the system, and the social practice we live in presets global economic inequality as inevitable. In these context, workers are prevented from seeing beyond their immediate social envronment, ie their country or society. Thus, calling for revolution in this moment where class conciousness is surpressed and, in the eyes of the majority of workers, not necessary, and not participating in what the working class see as their MAIN source of liberation (parliamentary elections), is seen by workers as futile and alien. A minority of workers may see in revolutionary leaflets, propaganda and rethoric a message worth listening to, but not effective for real change. Despite what we may think about political representation in democratic goverments, this is what the working class is putting their efforts into at the moment, it´s where the working class is looking to in order to progress, and, in this social practice, anything outside it is regarded as not productive. We SHOULD participate in electoral politics. That is where the working class will judge the seriousness of the proposals for a different society. Under marxist analysis, one cannot impose on the working class a theory of revolution which we believe to be the correct one and disregard as anti-working class everything that is not in line with it. We are the working class and there are lots of different views within us, and the purpose is to achieve class conciousness and realise our historical role. If the historic context and the majority of workers decide that the best way to represent our interests and move towards liberation is to start with parliamentary opposition, then so be it. Parliamentary democracy is not a capitalist structure per se, it has a class nature, as everything has. If we can turn it into a really democratic process, controlled and made accountable by the general population, that would be a HUGE move towards creating the conditions of class conciousness necessary to achieve socialist society.
In this historical moment, when class conciousness is not developed in western civilization, revolutionary agitation is detached from the general population´s view, and if a revolutionary organization was trying to convice me to put my son and my family through civil war, I wouldn´t need too many words to tell them where to go.

Just my twopence worth... Good Night! :thumbup1:

[chegitz guevara]

A revolution doesn't necessarily mean deposing the current government. Sometimes change is achieved through the electoral system.

The problem is that the far left is often a minority. We are portrayed as extremist and often dangerous.

Which is why it often comes to violent revolution, further potentiating the idea of far left groups being dangerous.

A revolution, necessarily, means deposing the government. That's the definition of revolution.

Some change can be achieved through the electoral system, but the worker class cannot replace the capitalist class that way. You cannot have a revolution through the ballot.

We may win elections, we might even have a majority in the government, but, unless we're toothless, the state, i.e, the cops, the courts, the military, etc. will, at best, arrest us and set up a government that will make the ruling class happier. More likely, they will torture and kill us as well.

[Zanthorus]

The working class in the west nowadays, whether we revolutionaries want to see it or not, is totally immersed in the social practice of parliamentary politics.

Then why exactly was voter turnout for the UK general election only 65.1%? (Source (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm))

Sure, the intellectual and political classes might be constantly focused on the day to day workings of parliamentary politics. But the chattering classes most certainly don't represent your average worker.

[ed miliband]

Also, look at the amount of people that actually watched those live television debates. In the bourgeois media they were estimating that the debates might get an audience of 25 million or something extravagant. The actual number was something like 9 million, possibly less.

The idea that the working class are all automatons who believe everything they read and see and are thus absorbed by parliamentary politics is bollocks.

[The Red Next Door]

I'll try and explain this to you in simple terms.

The vast majority of people still have illusions in the system, so standing at the sidelines and telling them not to vote or to vote a spoiled ballot, will not accomplish anything, other than for them to shut you out.

During an election cycle, people who are otherwise uninterested in hearing your critique of the system, will seek out socialists and communists who are running for office. The capitalist election process, in which we have no illusions, presents us a platform from which to reach a wider audience.

We can be an anarchist, and refuse to talk to the masses on principle, or we can be intelligent, and use all the weapons the bourgeoisie allows us (and then some).

Put another way, chegitz guevara, communist revolutionary and well known swell guy, doesn't have much of an audience to speak to about socialist politics. On the other hand, chegitz guevara for congress (http://www.luzietti.com/) gets sought out by individuals and voters groups and media. The second guy is able to put his politics and ideas before a much wider audience.

That is why we participate in elections. Abstentionism is shooting yourself in the foot on principle. One could as easily say, no one should participate in unions, because accepting wages is only accepting slavery. Down with the IWW! That would be idiotic. So is refusing to use the platform the capitalists allow us to have.


To add to what chegitz have said, Parties like the PSL, which i am a candidacy member of do not have any illusions of winning an election. Just like chegitz said we just used the election process, to get our name across,

What would make us not revolution is, if we tone down are views to get votes, or taking money from bourgeoisie foundations, or we think we are going to win, in this system, If i am wrong, so one please tell me.

[The Red Next Door]

Jimmie, keep searching for a rationale for your reformist organization's back-handed support of Obama. You may find something eventually.
Back handed? From reading their pieces on Obama, the article contradict your argument.

[The Red Next Door]

no, shooting yourself in the foot, and, destroying your credibility is taking part in an election, when you know that NO ONE in the media is going to cover you, NO ONE is going to ask you to paticipate in debates, so you will have NO ACCESS to the people. we have it down here in philly with the SWP. they run in these elections. NO ONE asks their candidate to talk part in ANY of the debates, and the media doesn't cover them..HARDLY ANYONE HAS AN IDEA that they exist.a person that is fed up with the system and speaks out against the system doesn't participate in the very system that they are telling people to rebell against. I'm shocked that I have to say this, but, working toward a revolution requires people to get their hands dirty, practicing what they preach. not engaging in electoral politics, not yelling liberal slogans for the purpose of gaining aceptance, getting in the good graces of the people.and yes, you still can talk to the people, it's outreach, handing out literature, holding weekly bi-weekly forums opening a soup kitchen, having a used clothing drive. that's how the black panthers got a huge following. not by trying to be acceptable to the people, but by telling as it really is. I would rather stand with 5 dedicated revolutionaries and be true to myself, marxism and what I stand for, than to lower myself down to a common sellout liberal.you think you would have found marx or lenin in the voting booth?


Only Venezuela and cyrpus, you find them, the voting booth. You know what? Fuck the liberal media, we have Russia Today, Al jeeraza, Public Television, Free Speech Tv, Link TV. We can and we do get our voices heard on those stations.

[The Red Next Door]

your intellectual response says alot. so, just because they struggled for that right, the right that when used, has ABOSOLUTLY NO SUBSTANCE, AND PRODUCES NOTHING , AND IT'S LIMITED TO FLICKING A LITTLE SWICH, and which in the action of voting you are DIVESTING YOURSELF OF ALL DECISION MAKING POWER AND HANDING IT OVER TO ONE PERSON HOPING THAT HE/SHE WILL LOOK OUT FOR YOUR INTEREST. SO, SINCE THE LIFE OF POVERTY, HUNGER, HOMELESSNESS AND EXPLOITATION CONTINUES, AND THE ACT OF VOTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT, BUT JUST CONTINUES THESE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE ILLUSIONS THAT IT WILL CHANGE IT, WE, AS REVOLUTIONARIES SHOULD INCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE THIS SUBSTANCELESS ACTION?

P.S IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER, THEN DON'T RESPOND LIKE A CHILD.


in today's show I will talk about capitalism's crisis gives the lie to Obama's promises, Washington dictates terms to Haiti, part 2 of the psychopathic corporation and the plan to overthrow FDR IN 1933 AND INSTALL A DICTATOR, plus banks have been named in municipal bid rigging. all on http://www.letsfightback.podomatic.com


May i ask? What do you do comrade? You spend your time judging others. So that means, You are not doing much. If you are wasting your time, criticizing others on how they fight for change. who made you king on how revolutionary parties fight for change. we are not selling out cuz. Number one: we do not have any aspects of winning 2: we are honest about our views and don't hide the fact that we are as Red as the blood of the workers and we express how revolutionary, we are. If you pay attention to our flyers, you can see, we do not hide who we are.

[Devrim]

Then why exactly was voter turnout for the UK general election only 65.1%? (Source (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm))

Sure, the intellectual and political classes might be constantly focused on the day to day workings of parliamentary politics. But the chattering classes most certainly don't represent your average worker.

The left have far more illusions in parliamentary politics than most workers.

Devrim