Working In/With Political Parties

[PoliticalNightmare]

So this thread is directed at anarchists, mainly.

Now I think that the best way forward is to form collectives, worker's syndicates and general organisations which could replace the necessity for the state, so I don't advocate seizing the state or whatever and I advocate revolution as a transition phase rather than slow gradual reforms to the political system.

However one cannot deny the importance that reformist parties such as old labour have had:these measures include a welfare state, a national health service, etc., etc.

So my question is this: should we really outright oppose any reformist parties working in the state. If we spoil our vote, then sure it sends out a powerful message but if everyone who was leftist did this for the sake of being an anarchist would it not be fairly dangerous to our own cause if the Tories/Liberals got in with a huge majority and started criminalising strikes, privatising the health service, things like that?

I'm not saying its a bad thing to send of a blank ballot, by the way, I'm just not sure whether we should be discouraging everyone on the left from voting.

Cheers.

[mikelepore]

So my question is this: should we really outright oppose any reformist parties working in the state.

I just wonder why you didn't also ask about non-reformist, that is, revolutionary, parties working within the state.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I just wonder why you didn't also ask about non-reformist, that is, revolutionary, parties working within the state.

Ah because the thread was directed at anarchists, not Marxists and I know for certain that I oppose the working class seizure of the state.

Revolution must come from the bottom up, so to speak, namely through workers' syndicates. That said social democrats such as Clement Attlee have made life semi-bearable under capitalism, so whilst I advocate revolution totally alien to the state I can't say that I am completely opposed to a reformist state raising taxes for the rich and things like that.

Or is this just a silly opinion?

[mikelepore]

I understand that, if you feel that a Marxist party isn't a part of the bottom-up strategy, then you wouldn't want that. But then why would you include reformist parties? Is there something special about improving the present class-ruled system, rather than calling for the end of the system, that partially closes the gap with a bottom-up strategy? What overlap does the first have with the anarchist position, which the second doesn't have?

[PoliticalNightmare]

I understand that, if you feel that a Marxist party isn't a part of the bottom-up strategy, then you wouldn't want that. But then why would you include reformist parties? Is there something special about improving the present class-ruled system, rather than calling for the end of the system, that partially closes the gap with a bottom-up strategy? What overlap does the first have with the anarchist position, which the second doesn't have?

First off consider for a moment if there were no reformist parties in the state. We would lose benefits, the NHS, all of that. I am not a reformist, though: I am a revolutionary and I would advocate a revolution similar to that of Spain in 1936.

If, however, we have a revolutionary party seize the state, I personally think it would be dangerous as do most anarchists. I know that the USSR was agricultural and all the rest of it and that a Marxist style revolution was supposed to happen in an industrial country but I just think that party vanguardism is damaging to the working class because they don't have control and doesn't force the workers to learn how to/develop the means to provide for themselves (namely through workers' syndicates, collectives, etc.)

So I think that it is possible that social democratic parties may have a place in the state but that revolution should happen outside the state but my ideas haven't fully matured. I was wondering what others think.

[Magón]

I see most "worker" oriented parties as sort of just in name only. Not really anything more than what they show. Sure they do help workers, but not in the way a Anarchist oriented workers party would. (Course, not all of them can be Anarchists, or say they are, but most of them I'd say that call or identify aren't. Here in the US anyways.)

[Sosa]

I think they can help pave the way to revolution

[Revolution starts with U]

I support social democrats, and other reformist parties in the short-term. It's much more practical than waiting for the revolution. But bread and carnival is not the goal, it is a means. And when socialists accept reformists and let them do their thing, reform becomes the goal. It is up to revolutionaries to always bring the threat of rebellion to keep worker/class consciousness strong.
The welfare state is revolution insurance. If we can show them that there is still a threat of revolt, the ownership class will continue having to make concessions. They can't make money if no one works for them.:thumbup1:

[Ocean Seal]

So this thread is directed at anarchists, mainly.

Now I think that the best way forward is to form collectives, worker's syndicates and general organisations which could replace the necessity for the state, so I don't advocate seizing the state or whatever and I advocate revolution as a transition phase rather than slow gradual reforms to the political system.

However one cannot deny the importance that reformist parties such as old labour have had:these measures include a welfare state, a national health service, etc., etc.

So my question is this: should we really outright oppose any reformist parties working in the state. If we spoil our vote, then sure it sends out a powerful message but if everyone who was leftist did this for the sake of being an anarchist would it not be fairly dangerous to our own cause if the Tories/Liberals got in with a huge majority and started criminalising strikes, privatising the health service, things like that?

I'm not saying its a bad thing to send of a blank ballot, by the way, I'm just not sure whether we should be discouraging everyone on the left from voting.

Cheers.
What you should try to do is to vote labour when there is a risk of one of the other parties doing something like criminalising strikes and when it looks like labour will lose. I think leftists should never vote for a reactionary candidate when he is winning and when the otherside isn't something much worse like Adolf Hitler. Leftists should support a unified revolutionary party otherwise. Anarchists and Stalinists should be voting on the same ballot for the reason that their differences mainly exist in the post-revolutionary state. But voting is a very small part of the leftist agenda. The government is rigged to support the interests of the bourgeoisie.
Leftists should be mobilizing unions, asking for union democracy, community organizing, educating, and agitating, hopefully culminating in strikes which wear away at the bourgeois government.

[Sosa]

When it comes to voting for candidates I will abstain from that. I voted for Obama (I was swept into the Obama hype) and have become very disillusioned with the idea that change (at least significant change) can come from above. It rarely, if ever, does. If I vote it would be for third party candidates

I do engage in referendum votes...like legalizing medical marijianua, stem cell research, etc.

[WeAreReborn]

First off consider for a moment if there were no reformist parties in the state. We would lose benefits, the NHS, all of that. I am not a reformist, though: I am a revolutionary and I would advocate a revolution similar to that of Spain in 1936.


So I think that it is possible that social democratic parties may have a place in the state but that revolution should happen outside the state but my ideas haven't fully matured. I was wondering what others think.
I am for better work rights etc, but you also realize these reforms take the minds of people AWAY from the revolution. They use the reforms to say, "Look guys we are making change!" When in all reality it is nothing but a distraction. Sure it is slowly pushing for better conditions but it makes people lose their sight of the ultimate goal. This is what I think at least and violent revolution is the only means necessary to take control of a nation now a days.

[ed miliband]

This is worth reading if you have a romanticised view of the Labour party making thing 'a little bit better' under capitalism:

http://libcom.org/library/labouring-vain

[Black Sheep]

So my question is this: should we really outright oppose any reformist parties working in the state. If we spoil our vote, then sure it sends out a powerful message but if everyone who was leftist did this for the sake of being an anarchist would it not be fairly dangerous to our own cause if the Tories/Liberals got in with a huge majority and started criminalising strikes, privatising the health service, things like that?
It many times depends on the specific situation in each country.Generally, i'd say oppose reformist parties (and parties in general), spoil your vote, and instead of voting act alternatively.Not voting and staying home is worthless.Make demonstrations in election centers, promote and support self-management activities (in the same day, too), work towards building decentralized structures of decision making.
Anarchists in general try to construct the roots of the society they strive for, in the present one.The structrure of a parliament is opposite of what they seek, and that alone, is why they reject participating in the parliament, and thus, losing this "bonus" of propaganda means.

Many things can happen if the parliamentary left is crushed, yes, and that shows the artificial character of parliamentary democracy.If you have a strong workers' movement, welfare state disaster will be prevented by workers' struggle, regardless if the bills are passed or not.


I'm not saying its a bad thing to send of a blank ballot, by the way, I'm just not sure whether we should be discouraging everyone on the left from voting.
We should do that, only if we can mobilize people to act and protest in a different way.

[mikelepore]

First off consider for a moment if there were no reformist parties in the state. We would lose benefits, the NHS, all of that. I am not a reformist, though: I am a revolutionary and I would advocate a revolution similar to that of Spain in 1936.

But if less than one person in a thousand is a revolutionary today, the assistance that you could give any reform cause will be negligibly small and unnoticable, producing almost no difference compared to if you were absent from that purpose. At the same time, by helping a reform organization, you would remove a very considerable amount of time and energy from what you might have done for your favorite revolutionary cause.

[PoliticalNightmare]

But if less than one person in a thousand is a revolutionary today, the assistance that you could give any reform cause will be negligibly small and unnoticable, producing almost no difference compared to if you were absent from that purpose. At the same time, by helping a reform organization, you would remove a very considerable amount of time and energy from what you might have done for your favorite revolutionary cause.

Woah, I'm not talking about helping them out here, I'm just saying they're not all that bad a thing and I'd vote for them if there was worry that someone like Hitler was going to get in or anything.

[mikelepore]

Sorry - I misunderstood you. I can see now that you didn't say perform-actions-to-support. What you actually said was not-oppose, and you limited your meaning of not-oppose to the idea of voting.