are there ever any communists i can vote for in elections?

[Dimitri Molotov]

we have a communist party, is there ever any communists i can vote for? how come i never hear of a communist running for president?:confused:

[Nachie]

Didn't you hear? Obama won.

[Rusty Shackleford]

afaik there are communists/socialists running in CA, Ohio, and Florida.

the PSL and SP-USA are in NYC for sure. i dont know if we or the SP-USA are running any congressional candidates running in NY though.

the CP-USA(Communist Party) blocs with the democrats and tell people to vote democrat. so the CP doesnt run commies ever.

also, you only ever hear about dems or repubs running in national elections because almost all the alternatives are squeezed out of the picture.

[Cyberwave]

I wouldn't bother with voting for any socialist parties who run for president. Maybe for small town jobs. If there ever is a "Communist" running for president, they are most likely a petty-bourgeois reformist socialist rather than anything else [e.g. Eugene Debs]. Unfortunately, you'll almost always wind up with a democratic or republican, so it may be best to just be Independent choosing between those two at times.

[fa2991]

I hear the CPUSA runs candidates on the Democratic ticket. I don't know what it matters, though - Western socialist parties that try to win elections are lame.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I hear the CPUSA runs candidates on the Democratic ticket.

Yes, although the major electoral successes of the Sam Webb have strategy have been the Clinton and Obama victories. When actual CPUSA members are run, it happens on Democratic tickets for positions like councilman (or dog-catcher). It doesn't really succeed: mainstream Democrats prefer not to be associated with the CPUSA. The dog-catcher CPUSA candidates then water down their ideology even more.

Here is an example of what recently happened in Cleveland: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/09/cleveland_council_candidate_ri.html. (And Nagin lost, by the way.)


I don't know what it matters, though - Western socialist parties that try to win elections are lame.

Yeah, not only is the political situation in America bad for the left, but the whole electoral system and all of its procedures are set up in such a way that an advantage for the major parties is practically built into it by a variety of mechanisms.

Gloria La Riva's PSL campaign in 2008 was kind of inspiring, though. Of course, 7,478 votes is a very small total, but she really wasn't trying to get elected: the idea was to bring attention and secure more support for the movement.

The only electable Communist around so far has been Barack Obama.

[28350]

Vote for me.

[Rusty Shackleford]

in my view. elections are only meant to be used as propaganda tools in a way. you cant really do much as a communist in a bourgeois office so the best thing to do is to blast the capitalists where you are loudest.


the best you can get is reform. i want revolution.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Gloria La Riva's PSL campaign in 2008 was kind of inspiring, though. Of course, 7,478 votes is a very small total, but she really wasn't trying to get elected: the idea was to bring attention and secure more support for the movement.
I've been thinking about this. If I remember correctly, she ran for governor of California twice, polling 72,000 and 59,000. The percentage in the overall picture was very small though. However, how did she manage to poll this much compared to her presidential bid? Is it because she got to focus all her time and energy into a certain area and fewer cities, rather then an entire country?

[Sankara1983]

1. The Peace and Freedom Party is a broad left alliance of socialists, Greens, and Marxists that has guaranteed ballot access in California.

2. Third-party candidates don't cover the whole country anyway because it is rare for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican to achieve ballot access in all 50 states.

[maskerade]

This might be a little bit off topic, but is there any discussion about electoral reform in the states?

The whole electoral college system, and the first past the post stuff is really undemocratic, you would think that a country with such heavy emphasis on "democracy" would have some of their own...

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Yeah, that's it people, let the working class see you partaking in the very electoral system that you've criticized, and said doesn't work. Way to go in destroying your credibility, and in continuing the Illusion in the minds of the people that change can be had through electoral politics.Oh, and please, save your "it's a tactic" crap.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Yeah, that's it people, let the working class see you partaking in the very electoral system that you've criticized, and said doesn't work. Way to go in destroying your credibility, and in continuing the Illusion in the minds of the people that change can be had through electoral politics.Oh, and please, save your "it's a tactic" crap.

You get more attention by taking part in the process than you would by staying out of it, and it doesn't destroy any credibility so long as you're not being an imbecile reformist who promises the people to bring about socialism by working with the bourgeoisie. Credibility is lost when taking part in the elections compels you to compromise away your principles or to become opportunistic or dishonest on account of your desire to obtain more votes.

Do I think that real change can come about in America though electoral politics? No; I've already explained why. But aside from your poor "loss of credibility" explanation, you've shown no reason why elections cannot ever be used tactically. ("Oh, and please, save your 'it's a tactic' crap" is not an argument.)

Are you even aware of what the Bolsheviks did in the 1910s?

If so, why do you suppose the Bolsheviks took part in Czar Nicky's Duma elections the one time when they were permitted to? Why did they take part in elections to the soviets between the February Revolution that overthrew the czar and the October Revolution that overthrew Kerensky?

[Uppercut]

Voting for so called "communists" will only bring us reform, if even that. If you're looking for electoral socialism, the SP-USA and the PSL are your best bets, despite my personal beef with them. The CPUSA used to run their own candidates for national office, but they quit doing that in the late 80s, I think.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

You get more attention by taking part in the process than you would by staying out of it, and it doesn't destroy any credibility so long as you're not being an imbecile reformist who promises the people to bring about socialism by working with the bourgeoisie. Credibility is lost when taking part in the elections compels you to compromise away your principles or to become opportunistic or dishonest on account of your desire to obtain more votes.

Do I think that real change can come about in America though electoral politics? No; I've already explained why. But aside from your poor "loss of credibility" explanation, you've shown no reason why elections cannot ever be used tactically. ("Oh, and please, save your 'it's a tactic' crap" is not an argument.)

Are you even aware of what the Bolsheviks did in the 1910s?

If so, why do you suppose the Bolsheviks took part in Czar Nicky's Duma elections the one time when they were permitted to? Why did they take part in elections to the soviets between the February Revolution that overthrew the czar and the October Revolution that overthrew Kerensky?


Here is a great read on elections

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

[Kotze]

This might be a little bit off topic, but is there any discussion about electoral reform in the states?Yes, the biggest org is probably FairVote (the bassist from Nirvana, Krist Novoselic, is a prominent member).

They say they are in favour of Instant Runoff Voting for single-seat elections and also for proportional representation. They don't do much for proportional representation actually, they push more for IRV and try to sell IRV to people who want proportional representation as a "stepping stone" towards proportional representation. You see, there is a method family called Single Transferable Vote for proportional representation which asks the voter to rank candidates, just like IRV does, so the ballots are similar; and the most common STV methods for proportional representation work in the single-seat case like IRV. So there you have the stepping stone.

I think their strategy is problematic for several reasons. There are single-winner methods as well as proportional methods that use ranked ballots, but this is also true for ballots that allow one mark or several marks or ratings. They also often make mathematically incorrect claims about the properties of the methods. From my analysis I expect Approval Voting to make much more of a dent in a party duopoly than IRV. IRV also is a logistical challenge and STV even more so, which would encourage use of voting computers, which would be expensive and make everything less transparent.

I made some better proposals than FairVote here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/getting-closer-real-t138550/index.html?t=138550) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-australians-voting-t140120/index.html?t=140120).

[TwoSevensClash]

we have a communist party, is there ever any communists i can vote for? how come i never hear of a communist running for president?:confused:
Right your name. Thats what I always do.:)

There was a socialist candidate for governor in New Jersey and for the 2008 election for prez.

*Write your name in*

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Here is a great read on elections

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

What better proof of the practicality of Gorter's views than that his strategy has been so much more successful than Lenin's, right?

Gorter's open letter is an entire book addressing Lenin on a variety of things. But if you mean this chapter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/ch03.htm), that's largely a discussion of Lenin's tactics as they were formulated in 1920. And it's a very poor text.

Firstly, I'm not discussing "the advantages of parliamentary propaganda for winning the workers and the petit bourgeois elements to our side" ; I'm not talking about that part in the least, but merely the process of taking part in the elections. Perhaps, however, these two tactics are more-or-less similar and basically amount to the same thing. So I'll bite your bullet and answer Gorter's objection to this.

He writes:



We, however (I often speak in the name of the KAPD), get at them especially through action (in the time of the revolution of which we speak) In all bigger towns and villages they see us act. They see our strikes, our street fights our councils. They hear our watchwords. They see our lead. This is the best propaganda, the most convincing. This action, however, is not in parliament!

The non-communist workers, therefore, the small peasants and bourgeois, can be reached quite well also without parliamentary action.

Here one part in particular from your brochure Infantile Disorder, must be refuted; it shows where opportunism is already leading you, Comrade.

On page 52 you say that the fact of the German workers coming in masses to join the ranks of the Independent Party, and not the Communist Party, is attributable to the parliamentary action of the Independents. The mass of the Berlin workers, therefore, had been as good as converted through the death of our Comrades Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, through the purposeful strikes and the street fights of the Communists. Only a speech of Comrade Levi in parliament was lacking as yet! Had he but delivered this speech, they would have come to us, instead of to the double-minded Independents! No, comrade, this is not true. They have gone to the double-minds first because they were afraid as yet of the single-minded: the revolution. Because the transition from slavery to freedom lies through hesitation.

Look out, Comrade, you see whither opportunism is already leading you.
Your first argument is of no importance.

Gorter structures the first of his objections to "Lenin's Three Arguments" in such a way that it appears in the form of a logical argument, but the logic is inadequate, because the objection is a mere assertion. As logical syllogism, it fails because the rhetoric is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Gorter takes it for granted that non-parliamentary action is more effective than parliamentary action as propaganda. (That is, the workers "see our street fights our councils", "hear our watchwords", and "see our lead", but Gorter thinks that they do not affected in similar ways to parliamentary work; since he is discussing parliamentary work and not the elections, he does not explain why the workers will not see our street fights our councils", "hear our watchwords", and "see our lead" in the course of the campaigns.) He does not go further: if non-parliamentary work really is going to be more effective than parliamentary work in every circumstance, such that non-parliamentary work is a more efficient use of time and resources, then it does follow that investing our energies in non-parliamentary work is a more efficient use of time and resources. But that is what is being taken for granted to begin with.

There are clear advantages to taking part in elections at least some of the time. For example, in many places, every candidate gets some airtime on public television. Media coverage of minor party candidates outside of that mandatory airtime is, of course, minimal and, as a rule, heavily biased -- but this is still better than the also practically non-existent attention that the radicals would receive otherwise.

The rest of Gorter's chapter is devoted to the question of opportunism as far as parties that are already represented in parliament (and discusses the dangers of working alongside petty-bourgeois activists -- who frequently play a significant role as vanguard-party leaders anyway). It has some merits and its has some weaknesses, but it is largely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. My argument is that participation in some electoral campaigns may be tactically advantageous in some circumstances: that is, the possibility of doing so should not and cannot be ruled out a priori.

This view is my own and not Vladimir Lenin's anyway, so you would do better to address them yourself instead of throwing Gorter's 1920 book against Lenin's views on European strategy at the time. (Obviously, Lenin's view that the British workers' movement should support Labour in order to expose its real anti-worker character when it gets into Parliament was a mistake, so there is no point in defending Lenin from every last criticism under the sun.)

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

What better proof of the practicality of Gorter's views than that his strategy has been so much more successful than Lenin's, right?

Gorter's open letter is an entire book addressing Lenin on a variety of things. But if you mean this chapter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/ch03.htm), that's largely a discussion of Lenin's tactics as they were formulated in 1920. And it's a very poor text.

Firstly, I'm not discussing "the advantages of parliamentary propaganda for winning the workers and the petit bourgeois elements to our side" ; I'm not talking about that part in the least, but merely the process of taking part in the elections. Perhaps, however, these two tactics are more-or-less similar and basically amount to the same thing. So I'll bite your bullet and answer Gorter's objection to this.

He writes:



Gorter structures the first of his objections to "Lenin's Three Arguments" in such a way that it appears in the form of a logical argument, but the logic is inadequate, because the objection is a mere assertion. As logical syllogism, it fails because the rhetoric is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Gorter takes it for granted that non-parliamentary action is more effective than parliamentary action as propaganda. (That is, the workers "see our street fights our councils", "hear our watchwords", and "see our lead", but Gorter thinks that they do not affected in similar ways to parliamentary work; since he is discussing parliamentary work and not the elections, he does not explain why the workers will not see our street fights our councils", "hear our watchwords", and "see our lead" in the course of the campaigns.) He does not go further: if non-parliamentary work really is going to be more effective than parliamentary work in every circumstance, such that non-parliamentary work is a more efficient use of time and resources, then it does follow that investing our energies in non-parliamentary work is a more efficient use of time and resources. But that is what is being taken for granted to begin with.

There are clear advantages to taking part in elections at least some of the time. For example, in many places, every candidate gets some airtime on public television. Media coverage of minor party candidates outside of that mandatory airtime is, of course, minimal and, as a rule, heavily biased -- but this is still better than the also practically non-existent attention that the radicals would receive otherwise.

The rest of Gorter's chapter is devoted to the question of opportunism as far as parties that are already represented in parliament (and discusses the dangers of working alongside petty-bourgeois activists -- who frequently play a significant role as vanguard-party leaders anyway). It has some merits and its has some weaknesses, but it is largely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. My argument is that participation in some electoral campaigns may be tactically advantageous in some circumstances: that is, the possibility of doing so should not and cannot be ruled out a priori.

This view is my own and not Vladimir Lenin's anyway, so you would do better to address them yourself instead of throwing Gorter's 1920 book against Lenin's views on European strategy at the time. (Obviously, Lenin's view that the British workers' movement should support Labour in order to expose its real anti-worker character when it gets into Parliament was a mistake, so there is no point in defending Lenin from every last criticism under the sun.)


OK, here we go....Our goal, as Communists, is to have people believe in themselves, as a class, to act collectively, as a class, and to not depend on a parlimentary system that has been proven, every four years to not represent their needs, but the needs of the ruling class.Every four years, the people are lied to, back stabbed, made a fool of and attacked economically and socially.

And we, as communist, whose job it is to expose this system by showing how this system represents the interest of the rulling class, and explain to them how the problems in their life revolve around capitalism, and how their life socially and economically will never, ever, get any better untill this system is overthrown. And it is up to us to explain to them that there is a better way to live, that what they see and experience is not normal, it is not natural and there is an alternative, and it's communism.

Now with that being said, I would look like a complete jackass to explain all the above to people, and ask them to vote for me, vote for me to do what!!!! We tell people that nothing can be done within the existing system. Now I know that it is being used as an opportunity to speak to people. But we can do that outside of the venues where these debates are taking place.

And when socialists are on the ballot, the media will not cover their campaign, if they do, it's a blip. And as far as canadates night, you have to be invited. Just bacause you are on the ballot, it doesn't give you a right to participate in the debates.

It is a huge waste of time, resources and money.Now let me tell you how it could be better spent, and get more credibility with the people.The people know they will, and expect to get screwed by politicians. wouldn't it be more productive, and a better example to set, by having a clothing drive, food drive, a soup kitchen for the poor? doesn't it show, and set the example of people helping people, together, collectively. doesn't it show people, by example, to laterally and not verticallly look for help.
to depend on, and help each other.

As long as we take part in these sham elections, we are bringing ourselves down to the dependence level of the people, and not raising their level to collective dependence on each other.

[Reznov]

we have a communist party, is there ever any communists i can vote for? how come i never hear of a communist running for president?:confused:

:laugh::laugh: Hahahahaha. Sure, just vote democrat buddy.

God dam the Capitalists/Bourgeoisie and their ingenious ways of staying in power

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

OK, here we go....Our goal, as Communists, is to have people believe in themselves, as a class, to act collectively, as a class, and to not depend on a parlimentary system that has been proven, every four years to not represent their needs, but the needs of the ruling class.Every four years, the people are lied to, back stabbed, made a fool of and attacked economically and socially.

And we, as communist, whose job it is to expose this system by showing how this system represents the interest of the rulling class, and explain to them how the problems in their life revolve around capitalism, and how their life socially and economically will never, ever, get any better untill this system is overthrown. And it is up to us to explain to them that there is a better way to live, that what they see and experience is not normal, it is not natural and there is an alternative, and it's communism.

Now with that being said, I would look like a complete jackass to explain all the above to people, and ask them to vote for me, vote for me to do what!!!! We tell people that nothing can be done within the existing system. Now I know that it is being used as an opportunity to speak to people. But we can do that outside of the venues where these debates are taking place.

And when socialists are on the ballot, the media will not cover their campaign, if they do, it's a blip. And as far as canadates night, you have to be invited. Just bacause you are on the ballot, it doesn't give you a right to participate in the debates.

It is a huge waste of time, resources and money.Now let me tell you how it could be better spent, and get more credibility with the people.The people know they will, and expect to get screwed by politicians. wouldn't it be more productive, and a better example to set, by having a clothing drive, food drive, a soup kitchen for the poor? doesn't it show, and set the example of people helping people, together, collectively. doesn't it show people, by example, to laterally and not verticallly look for help.
to depend on, and help each other.

As long as we take part in these sham elections, we are bringing ourselves down to the dependence level of the people, and not raising their level to collective dependence on each other.

Response comrade. Now this is not an insult to the people, but they have been taught to go hat in hand to those parastes for help, instead of looking toward each other collectively.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

OK, here we go....Our goal, as Communists, is to have people believe in themselves, as a class, to act collectively, as a class, and to not depend on a parlimentary system that has been proven, every four years to not represent their needs, but the needs of the ruling class.Every four years, the people are lied to, back stabbed, made a fool of and attacked economically and socially.

I'm not saying that communists should want people to depend on a parliamentary system. I've said that I don't believe that real change will come about through mainstream politics. All I'm saying is that the elections are a time when we can get our voices heard a little more loudly than usual, and that this should not be ruled out as a tactic a priori.


And we, as communist, whose job it is to expose this system by showing how this system represents the interest of the rulling class, and explain to them how the problems in their life revolve around capitalism, and how their life socially and economically will never, ever, get any better untill this system is overthrown. And it is up to us to explain to them that there is a better way to live, that what they see and experience is not normal, it is not natural and there is an alternative, and it's communism.

That's what the candidates could be explaining. There is no reason why they can't tell that people that no fundamental changes are going to occur to drastically improve the lives of the working class, no matter what kind of cosmetic reforms may or may not occur. The candidates can just as easily also tell the people why capitalist democracy is a sham, why the elections are corrupt, how corporate media ignores the major issues for the working class, how the American electoral system is so structured as to favor the major-party incumbents, how they are not permitted to take part in the high-profile debates, and so forth. People in America are more interested in politics during the election season, and telling them truths like these simply helps wake people up.

And so long as the candidates tell these truth and help the people understand the real situation that everybody is in, the elections, like any other tool in the radical left arsenal, can be utilized for just that purpose.


Now with that being said, I would look like a complete jackass to explain all the above to people, and ask them to vote for me, vote for me to do what!!!! We tell people that nothing can be done within the existing system. Now I know that it is being used as an opportunity to speak to people. But we can do that outside of the venues where these debates are taking place.

We can do both. It's not a question of either one or the other at any point in time: perhaps the real point is to not generalize, but to ask which course of action would be more effective for us in a particular situation. If running candidates really does take up too much time and resources, then we should do something else. But I hold that this decision should be framed an empirical question -- and not as a theoretical one.


It is a huge waste of time, resources and money.Now let me tell you how it could be better spent, and get more credibility with the people.The people know they will, and expect to get screwed by politicians. wouldn't it be more productive, and a better example to set, by having a clothing drive, food drive, a soup kitchen for the poor? doesn't it show, and set the example of people helping people, together, collectively. doesn't it show people, by example, to laterally and not verticallly look for help.
to depend on, and help each other.

But pretending that we are something like a radical Salvation Army would be a much worse waste of time, resources, and money. There are two possibilities. One: you could use the resources of your own base of supporters, but this requries a sufficiently large base and uses up resources that could be spent on things like organizing protests and reaching out through party literature. Or, two: you could try relying on donations to your clothing drives / food drives / soup kitchens from the petty-bourgeois and mainstream America? (They aren't knowingly going to donate to a communist front, so you can rule this one out.)

I'm all for charity and other kinds of help from individuals, but why, is it, do you think, that political organizations don't effectively operate as charity institutions under normal circumstances? Charities do not reform capitalism, and were never intended to. You convert people to your ideological perspective by making them understand the political and economic system, and not by handing out soup or mayonnaise sandwiches on account of your ulterior motives.

Charity helps feed the poor; it doesn't demand the answer to the real question: why are there are poor people to begin with? And you don't have to be organizing a charity in order to ask that. You merely pose the question (and explain why) to get the people listening.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

I'm not saying that communists should want people to depend on a parliamentary system. I've said that I don't believe that real change will come about through mainstream politics. All I'm saying is that the elections are a time when we can get our voices heard a little more loudly than usual, and that this should not be ruled out as a tactic a priori.



That's what the candidates could be explaining. There is no reason why they can't tell that people that no fundamental changes are going to occur to drastically improve the lives of the working class, no matter what kind of cosmetic reforms may or may not occur. The candidates can just as easily also tell the people why capitalist democracy is a sham, why the elections are corrupt, how corporate media ignores the major issues for the working class, how the American electoral system is so structured as to favor the major-party incumbents, how they are not permitted to take part in the high-profile debates, and so forth. People in America are more interested in politics during the election season, and telling them truths like these simply helps wake people up.

And so long as the candidates tell these truth and help the people understand the real situation that everybody is in, the elections, like any other tool in the radical left arsenal, can be utilized for just that purpose.



We can do both. It's not a question of either one or the other at any point in time: perhaps the real point is to not generalize, but to ask which course of action would be more effective for us in a particular situation. If running candidates really does take up too much time and resources, then we should do something else. But I hold that this decision should be framed an empirical question -- and not as a theoretical one.



But pretending that we are something like a radical Salvation Army would be a much worse waste of time, resources, and money. There are two possibilities. One: you could use the resources of your own base of supporters, but this requries a sufficiently large base and uses up resources that could be spent on things like organizing protests and reaching out through party literature. Or, two: you could try relying on donations to your clothing drives / food drives / soup kitchens from the petty-bourgeois and mainstream America? (They aren't knowingly going to donate to a communist front, so you can rule this one out.)

I'm all for charity and other kinds of help from individuals, but why, is it, do you think, that political organizations don't effectively operate as charity institutions under normal circumstances? Charities do not reform capitalism, and were never intended to. You convert people to your ideological perspective by making them understand the political and economic system, and not by handing out soup or mayonnaise sandwiches on account of your ulterior motives.

Charity helps feed the poor; it doesn't demand the answer to the real question: why are there are poor people to begin with? And you don't have to be organizing a charity in order to ask that. You merely pose the question (and explain why) to get the people listening.


You do both. This is what the Black Panthers did. While they were helping the people in their community, they also held educationals. They made up literature, fliers, held forums, and through a praxis, built up their ranks and support from the people. I wish there were some people here in Philly I could work with and get something like this started.

[Zeus the Moose]

From the info that I have (being both a communist and an elections nerd, I try to keep myself updates on socialist candidates), there are going to be socialist candidates on the ballot in California (PFP and PSL/PFP), Connecticut (Socialist Action and SP-USA write-in), District of Columbia (SWP), Florida (SP-USA write-in), Iowa (SWP), Michigan (SEP, SP-USA on Green ballot line, Solidarity on Green ballot line*, and possibly WWP on Green ballot line**), New York (SWP), Ohio (SP-USA, PSL on Green ballot line), and Vermont (SP-USA/LUP).

*the Solidarity members running on the Green ballot line in Michigan will probably not run as socialists.

**the candidate I'm thinking of here at least used to be a member of Workers World, but it's possible he's not any more. Also, it's likely he will not run as an open socialist either.

[Chimurenga.]

Voting for so called "communists" will only bring us reform, if even that. If you're looking for electoral socialism, the SP-USA and the PSL are your best bets, despite my personal beef with them.

Lewl.

The PSL doesn't rely on elections to bring about change. Elections are only utilized for exposure to the party and to Socialism.