Do you vote in governmental elections?

[Fulanito de Tal]

There seems to be a divide in whether we should participate in governmental elections. Let's gets some data on how we behave when it comes to voting.


Do you vote in governmental elections?

Why?

Why not?

If depends/sometimes, provide instances of when you have voted.

[Robespierre Richard]

I did last year, just wrote my friends in. Also a friend guilt-tripped me into voting for our senator (Democrat) because it means we will get more pork-barrel funds for our state thanks to seniority.

[Sadena Meti]

First of all, I can't vote, I'm a felon.

Second, even when I did vote, legally or illegally, it was without passion.

I might vote in local elections, but in big elections it's just a choice of lesser evils who aren't going to do anything anyway. Nothing useful at least.

[☭The Revolution☭]

When I move to Russia, I will register to vote once I am a citizen. However, while I am in the United States, I see no point. Democrat or Republican, they all want us dead.

[Comrade J]

Don't vote. It's an endorsement of an exploitative system, and whether or not Person A is better than Person B is irrelevant.

The sooner more people stop voting, the sooner the argument for an alternative raises itself in public circles, and the far left will have many more open ears.

[Gorilla]

I voted for n00bama. It's turned out more or less as I expected and I don't regret it.

[Agent Ducky]

No, because I'm not old enough =P

[Gorilla]

The sooner more people stop voting, the sooner the argument for an alternative raises itself in public circles, and the far left will have many more open ears.

If that's true then the US should be revolutionary as fuck right now. Voter turnout in the last elections was only 42%, and that was high for a midterm.

[Comrade J]

If that's true then the US should be revolutionary as fuck right now. Voter turnout in the last elections was only 42%, and that was high for a midterm.

You missed the point entirely. Well done.

42% is too high. But as that number dwindles, more people will come to realise that there needs to be an alternative as people have no confidence in the voting system.

I'm not saying everyone is gonna take to the streets championing the cause of the proletariat, nothing like that; no doubt the ruling class will replace it with some other reactionary pseudo-democratic process, but my point was that at least the notion that there could be an alternative will be implanted in public discourse, and it may well encourage more leftist supporters and activists.

[Ostrinski]

I'll be able to vote in the next presidential election. I'm only going to vote so that when I criticize the state of things, and people pull the "well did YOU vote?" card, I'll be able say "Indeed, fuck you."

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Of course I vote, and you all should. Knowing that the Dems and Reps will never fix the big problems is no reason to make cancer patients suffer excruciating pain because weed is illegal, for example. And if the right wing parties get their way long enough the planet will get too fucked up for socialism to exist.

Googling the options and candidates takes about fifteen minutes, and voting takes about as long (if you get a ballot in the mail). If you go about your counter-work for half an hour it will be less productive than voting.

[psgchisolm]

You missed the point entirely. Well done.

42% is too high. But as that number dwindles, more people will come to realise that there needs to be an alternative as people have no confidence in the voting system.

I'm not saying everyone is gonna take to the streets championing the cause of the proletariat, nothing like that; no doubt the ruling class will replace it with some other reactionary pseudo-democratic process, but my point was that at least the notion that there could be an alternative will be implanted in public discourse, and it may well encourage more leftist supporters and activists.Because this HAS worked in the last 300 or so years right?:rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

You missed the point entirely. Well done.

42% is too high. But as that number dwindles, more people will come to realise that there needs to be an alternative as people have no confidence in the voting system.

I'm not saying everyone is gonna take to the streets championing the cause of the proletariat, nothing like that; no doubt the ruling class will replace it with some other reactionary pseudo-democratic process, but my point was that at least the notion that there could be an alternative will be implanted in public discourse, and it may well encourage more leftist supporters and activists.
Yeah, but no. The fact that the voting count is low means that nobody gives a fuck. Not the contrary. People don't care about an alternative system, or the current system, that's why they're not voting.

[Raightning]

I do vote, but I wouldn't encourage other people to vote, which is an odd sort of hypocrisy I suppose.

I think everyone here knows that socialism won't be achieved through the ballot box, and I don't feel that electoralism is a good use of resources on the whole; it's if anything a poison to socialist movements, as electoral results become the objective, which is a deadly mindset with regards to genuinely advancing class consciousness.

I don't agree with Comrade J's point about lowered turnout opening doors for (socialist) alternatives in the public sphere, but he has a point in the inverse. By voting, do we just strengthen the current system? It's a question I honestly don't have an answer for, and it's an important one to consider.

It's not a matter of "is it worth bothering voting?", it's a matter of "is voting counter-productive?", and more and more I'm thinking that one of the biggest issues for Western socialism is that with the likes of Obama, the abyss tends to stare back.

[Kamos]

Last time I wasn't old enough to vote, but next time, I think I will vote. After all, anything to prevent the right wing from gaining even more power. Less voting won't mean that people want communism, it will mean that people will have stopped caring. Think about it - during your stay on RevLeft, have you read one introduction where the member claimed to have become a communist because he saw how few people voted? Because I'd be pretty amazed.

[Olentzero]

I have voted, twice, in the US presidential election. Both times (2000 and 2004) for Ralph Nader. In 2000 (more than 2004, but still both times) his candidacy represented a possibility for opening the national political arena to a third party, which the US desperately needs. Given how hard and fast Obama's been capitulating to the Republicans for the past 2 years since he took office, the argument about keeping the right wing out of power just doesn't hold water any longer. Nader may not have had a chance in hell of taking the Presidency but he did have a chance to get the Green Party on the ballots for 2004 or even 2008.

"I would," as Eugene Debs said, "rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it." Here in Sweden the RS can get on local and county ballots, and next time around when I am able to vote I'll do just that. Should the Republicans and Democrats ever have their stranglehold on national politics broken (and this isn't all voter apathy - who do you think put together the restrictive rules governing federal election funding?) and a party like the ISO gets on the ballot, I'll start voting in US elections as well. Not because getting into office will make the changes I want to see in the world, but because the campaign to get there is an excellent platform - just one of many - for promoting and advancing a revolutionary political alternative.

[Comrade J]

Because this HAS worked in the last 300 or so years right?:rolleyes:

Whilst I commend you for your excellent, info-packed retort, may I also point out the hypocrisy? You think voting helps with anything? I think it was Emma Goldman who said that if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

And Kamos, no I have never seen anyone join because of how little voting there is, what a ridiculous thing to say. You either have no idea what point I was making, or you're a prick. My point was that as the number drops drastically then don't you think political television shows, radio shows etc. are going to bring up the topic of the unfair voting system and it will in general become more a part of the cultural zeitgeist and thus an opportunity for the left to put forth our views.

Also, voting is an endorsement, regardless of whatever inane reason you've managed to concoct.

[Tablo]

I refuse to treat bourgeois elections as legitimate by voting. Who the fuck would I vote for anyway? :confused:

[The Man]

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
- Emma Goldman

[Comrade J]

Thanks, The Man. I did just say that but it totally works better when it's huge and bold...

[DDR]

Yes, I do and in every election, municipals, state, goverment, europeans, etc.

[maskerade]

I voted for the left party in the Swedish elections last year. I might not support the system, but I still think it is useful to have a party in the parliament which somewhat represents workers interests.

If I lived in the states i'd see absolutely no point in voting in congressional or presidential elections though

[Kamos]

And Kamos, no I have never seen anyone join because of how little voting there is, what a ridiculous thing to say. You either have no idea what point I was making,

Apparently. What was your point again?


My point was that as the number drops drastically then don't you think political television shows, radio shows etc. are going to bring up the topic of the unfair voting system and it will in general become more a part of the cultural zeitgeist and thus an opportunity for the left to put forth our views.

Oh. This. But wait...


political television shows, radio shows etc. are going to bring up the topic of the unfair voting system

Oh really? And why is that? I don't think it would have any effect, really, that couldn't be swept under the rug by the ruling classes. Remember who controls the media. You know what would have an effect? If the economy collapsed, or if there were more activists, or whatever. Because as long as the capitalist system keeps its citizens happy enough, voicing leftist views won't cut it.



Also, voting is an endorsement, regardless of whatever inane reason you've managed to concoct.

What exactly does it endorse? More voting? Oh please. People are gonna see when they need a revolution, and at that point it won't be about voting statistics.

Your whole mentality boils down to "ignore the problem and hope it goes away", what with you thinking you can somehow "boycott" the system by not participating. That's just stupid, plain and simple.

[psgchisolm]

Whilst I commend you for your excellent, info-packed retort, may I also point out the hypocrisy? You think voting helps with anything? I think it was Emma Goldman who said that if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Ah a good old quote. So much information packed into using what someone else said right:rolleyes:. To answer your question, does voting help with anything? Well if it didn't then how do you expect to have democracy in the workplace? Voting goes both ways, it helps and hinders. mainly because people don't believe in the same thing and have opinions. While you may not vote or encourage voting there are people who do vote and how they vote does affect you.

[Ele'ill]

No, I don't vote.

[#FF0000]

No and you're stupid if you think it's useful. Sorry.

[#FF0000]

Ah a good old quote. So much information packed into using what someone else said right:rolleyes:. To answer your question, does voting help with anything? Well if it didn't then how do you expect to have democracy in the workplace? Voting goes both ways, it helps and hinders. mainly because people don't believe in the same thing and have opinions. While you may not vote or encourage voting there are people who do vote and how they vote does affect you.

It's not voting that's the problem. It's participating in the state while under this delusion that one can fight the ruling class on their terms, in their arena. We can't do that. Taking part in elections and government in this day and age, can definitely get you reforms and crusts of bread and maybe even a nice welfare state if you're lucky, but we shouldn't value reforms like these in and of themselves. We don't want to reform capitalism. We want to get rid of it.

The means and the tactics and all that are way more important than the ends. It's better to have a well organized and militant working class that defends itself than it is to have a voting bloc and bread and circuses.

[psgchisolm]

But voting doesn't help. Voting can definitely get you reforms and crusts of bread and maybe even a nice welfare state if you're lucky, but we shouldn't value reforms like these in and of themselves. We don't want to reform capitalism. We want to get rid of it.

The means and the tactics and all that are way more important than the ends. It's better to have a well organized and militant working class that defends itself than it is to have a voting bloc and bread and circuses.probably one of the more obvious posts I've read. No offense to you but i didn't bother finish reading the first sentence as I already know what it is. I know that reforming capitalism isn't what we are trying to do. I'm just trying to hold off reactionary politics while waiting for a revolution. Voting isn't the best thing for the working class. Although under socialism there would be a little workers democracy in the workplace which is what I was getting at.

[Comrade J]

Oh really? And why is that? I don't think it would have any effect, really, that couldn't be swept under the rug by the ruling classes. Remember who controls the media. You know what would have an effect?

Oh you don't think it will have any effect? My apologies then, because your thoughts are so intrinsically valuable.

I know who controls the media, and I have even said in this thread that no doubt the ruling class would replace the system with some other form of pseudo-democratic process, but it would at the very least raise a question that not enough people are asking, regarding the legitimacy of government.


If the economy collapsed, or if there were more activists, or whatever. Because as long as the capitalist system keeps its citizens happy enough, voicing leftist views won't cut it.Yes we need more activists. How could we get more activists? Hmm. Perhaps if there was more political discourse and most people weren't either content with the existing system or apolitical. How could we discourage contentedness and apoliticism? I'm sure even you can see where this is going...


What exactly does it endorse? More voting? Oh please. People are gonna see when they need a revolution, and at that point it won't be about voting statistics.

It's hard to explain what it endorses to someone who doesn't understand the meaning of endorse. Perhaps you're thinking of the word 'encourage'? Here, check this site (http://www.google.com) out and you shouldn't have any more problems with definition. Tell you what, cause I'm a nice guy I will save you the effort this one time.:)

Endorse: to support, to back, to give one's approval to, especially officially or by signature.


Your whole mentality boils down to "ignore the problem and hope it goes away", what with you thinking you can somehow "boycott" the system by not participating. That's just stupid, plain and simple.
So you're taking a moral high ground in the fact that you take part in a sickeningly exploitative ruling class system and I don't? As for deducing my "whole mentality" from several paragraphs on one topic, that's pretty fucking commendable. Shit, maybe the admins could even rustle up some sort of prize or unique status for you, what with your phenomenal powers of deduction.

My mentality is that voting is completely and utterly pointless, and by doing so you're basically demonstrating your support (I simplified 'endorse' for you here btw, just in case the definition hasn't entirely sunk in yet :)) for a corrupt, unfair system.

Imagine if you will, a man coming up to you against your will and offering to either kick you in the leg, or punch you in the face, which would you choose?

Your answer was probably (a)get kicked in the leg, but that's cause you're a ****. The real answer is in fact hidden option (c) Neither, because you will not take part in, or legitimise in any way a set of options that you had forced upon you.

[Comrade J]

Ah a good old quote. So much information packed into using what someone else said right:rolleyes:. To answer your question, does voting help with anything? Well if it didn't then how do you expect to have democracy in the workplace? Voting goes both ways, it helps and hinders. mainly because people don't believe in the same thing and have opinions. While you may not vote or encourage voting there are people who do vote and how they vote does affect you.

Yeah, a "good old quote". Y'know. That thing that you have 3 examples of in your sig? :huh:

And I'm not against the actual concept of voting itself, you absolute fucking moron, but voting in an illegitimate bourgeois illusion of democracy. Oh dear, too many stupid people ITT :(

[#FF0000]

probably one of the more obvious posts I've read. No offense to you but i didn't bother finish reading the first sentence as I already know what it is. I know that reforming capitalism isn't what we are trying to do. I'm just trying to hold off reactionary politics while waiting for a revolution. Voting isn't the best thing for the working class. Although under socialism there would be a little workers democracy in the workplace which is what I was getting at.

But I don't think voting is even useful for that. I mean, in America, we elected Barack Obama and a Democratic supermajority, and here we are now in another war, with higher rates of deportations than in any year under Bush, with things going broke, and with all-out assaults against the working class being carried out while the wealthiest get more free money.

So, in this case, I think the best defence is a good offence.

[psgchisolm]

But I don't think voting is even useful for that. I mean, in America, we elected Barack Obama and a Democratic supermajority, and here we are now in another war, with higher rates of deportations than in any year under Bush, with things going broke, and with all-out assaults against the working class being carried out while the wealthiest get more free money.

So, in this case, I think the best defence is a good offence.
Yeah I was thinking about putting that in my post. Had Obama lived up to the hype he set we might actually be out of the wars and things might actually have move in a right direction. Democracy are not in all cases or most the best way to anything. It is reliant on a person living up to what standards they set. We still live in a capitalist society that is reliant on voting. So you are still affected by who is put in. offtopic but Anthony Weiner is baddass.:thumbup1: I wish he was in for my state.

[the last donut of the night]

i'm just too swagged out to vote

[Kamos]

Oh you don't think it will have any effect? My apologies then, because your thoughts are so intrinsically valuable.

Ah, veiled insults and smartassery. The first signs of me winning. Well, in this case, not the first, since your arguments are such trainwrecks already. But I digress.


I know who controls the media, and I have even said in this thread that no doubt the ruling class would replace the system with some other form of pseudo-democratic process, but it would at the very least raise a question that not enough people are asking, regarding the legitimacy of government.

Some other form of pseudo-democratic process? Such as? Can you name me one of the many other "pseudo-democratic processes" in the world? Please put the number "247" into your response if you've read this part - I'm beginning to think you're just posting your pre-planned responses without even reading anything I say.


It's hard to explain what it endorses to someone who doesn't understand the meaning of endorse. Perhaps you're thinking of the word 'encourage'? Here, check this site out and you shouldn't have any more problems with definition. Tell you what, cause I'm a nice guy I will save you the effort this one time.:)

Endorse:
to support, to back, to give one's approval to, especially officially or by signature.Skipping because you had no point, once again. Notice how you conveniently didn't answer the one question I had in that paragraph that mattered. Also, while I'm not native English, I'm pretty sure that my usage of 'endorse' here was good enough, for the above reason if nothing else.


So you're taking a moral high ground in the fact that you take part in a sickeningly exploitative ruling class system and I don't? As for deducing my "whole mentality" from several paragraphs on one topic, that's pretty fucking commendable. Shit, maybe the admins could even rustle up some sort of prize or unique status for you, what with your phenomenal powers of deduction.

Oh, forgive me for being the cause of social inequality worldwide by trying to prevent the radical right wing from gaining even more power in favor of a lesser evil. By the way, did you notice that more than 50% of your response is insults, sarcastic smartassery, and filler text? Because I certainly did, and it's not doing you much good.


My mentality is that voting is completely and utterly pointless, and by doing so you're basically demonstrating your support (I simplified 'endorse' for you here btw, just in case the definition hasn't entirely sunk in yet :)) for a corrupt, unfair system.

No, I'm not. After all, I'm here, I'm voicing revolutionary leftist principles, and I'm not restricted. I'm not endorsing any capitalism. Besides, why is voting pointless? In the USA, I understand that the choice does not matter, but over here, there is a real difference between whether the socialist party gets elected (which does not entirely ruin the country and millions of people's lives along with that) or the party we currently have in charge (which does).


Imagine if you will, a man coming up to you against your will and offering to either kick you in the leg, or punch you in the face, which would you choose?

I'd run the hell away if possible.


Your answer was probably (a)get kicked in the leg, but that's cause you're a ****. The real answer is in fact hidden option (c) Neither, because you will not take part in, or legitimise in any way a set of options that you had forced upon you.

Well, yeah, I'm a "****" then (notice how your maturity is showcased by yet another insult here, further ruining this terrible analogy). I think that's still better than you, who will proceed to get his face punched in, his leg kicked, and his testicles crushed because he was moronic enough to react in an irresponsible way, unnecessarily causing further damage. What exactly is your tendency anyway? Because you appear to be one of those so-called "anarchists" who do have the idea of "fuck the system" in their mind but do not (yet) possess enough knowledge and maturity to get anything serious done.

I know you consider me a subhuman or something, but please, by the time I come back, at least dignify my wretched self with a response that actually addresses the points I made.

[#FF0000]

We still live in a capitalist society that is reliant on voting.

Sure sure, but who's put in, or whose interests they end up serving, aren't really up to working class people. I mean, historically speaking it never really is.

[#FF0000]

No, I'm not. After all, I'm here, I'm voicing revolutionary leftist principles, and I'm not restricted. I'm not endorsing any capitalism. Besides, why is voting pointless? In the USA, I understand that the choice does not matter, but over here, there is a real difference between whether the socialist party gets elected (which does not entirely ruin the country and millions of people's lives along with that) or the party we currently have in charge (which does).

Whether or not a socialist party is in power doesn't really have much to do with whether or not it's a socialist society.

[psgchisolm]

Sure sure, but who's put in, or whose interests they end up serving, aren't really up to working class people. I mean, historically speaking it never really is.Fair enough. most people we vote for aren't working class so it would be in their interest to help them and their friends. Voting is probably one of the biggest scams that is pulled off today. Voting for representatives who don't live in your conditions and work a regular job while paying them with your taxes. man it must rock to be a representative :thumbup1:.

[Le Socialiste]

I've only been able to vote for three(?) years now, and in that time I've gone from bourgeios liberal to radicalized libertarian socialist. Yes, I've voted, but with each passing election I see the point less and less. Capitalist 'democracy' is little more than the voting in of certain interests favorable to capital and the ruling-class.

[psgchisolm]

Yeah, a "good old quote". Y'know. That thing that you have 3 examples of in your sig? :huh:

And I'm not against the actual concept of voting itself, you absolute fucking moron, but voting in an illegitimate bourgeois illusion of democracy. Oh dear, too many stupid people ITT :(I also don't use quotes to support arguments. So "Fuck your opinion."

[Jose Gracchus]

It depends.

I don't really believe in pure abstentionism. It strikes me as more resembling a kind of ascetic moralistic devotion to self-denial in the vein of a monk's vow of poverty, than anything like a personal expression of principled mass politics which functionally makes anything like a difference. The idea that Lesser Of Two Evils is anything like in the top 500 causes of the low intensity of class struggle in the U.S. is so stupid I don't know how to dignify it in words.

In the U.S., a real working class electoral alternative is impossible without Constitutional change.

[human strike]

I've voted before, but never again. Politics is in the streets.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

It takes half an hour. You don't have to think reform works, or "legitimate a bourgeois democracy" or whatever you think you're doing, to care about issues that have very real and immediate effects. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about mainstream politics or campaigning or anything, but when I see obvious things like strengthening environmental regulations or taxing the rich to cure cancer, I'm gonna take the time to check a box. There's no reason to assume that the bourgeoisie isn't neutral towards some issues, or that the working majority doesn't disagree with them at times.

[Dumb]

I confess that I do vote on occasion. If I'm eligible to vote in a close race where one major party candidate (usually the GOPer) is extraordinarily insane and the other major party candidate (usually the Democrat) isn't an extraordinary sell-out, then I will vote to keep the Republican out of office. I abstained from the 2008 presidential election, for instance, but voted in the House election to keep Tom McClintock out. (Hey, it almost worked!)

At this point, I'm not sure if I'd bother to pick between Obama and Palin. Palin's crazy enough to get me to vote against her, but Obama's enough of a sellout to keep me home on election day 2012. If we're going to get right-wing policies anyway, might as well let the right wing take credit for them.

EDIT: And the reason I ever bother at all is thus - when capitalism does fall, when it is time for the workers' revolution, we want a working class that operates from as strong a position as possible. While parties like Labour, the Democratic Party, etc. are not our allies, they tend not to set the working class back with the rapidity of their Tory and GOP counterparts. We all saw what Reagan and Thatcher did to organised labour and the working class - both have yet to recover decades later.

[wunderbar]

I've only been able to vote for a few years now, but when there are elections, I do vote. I have no illusions about my third-party choices winning, but it's just something I do and have no problem with it. I have no problem with people not voting either, voting for political candidates is probably the least significant way of participating in a democracy.

Voters in my state recently passed a terrible proposition that makes statewide primary elections a party-less free-for-all with the top two vote-getters advancing to a November runoff. This essentially means that all general elections for statewide offices will be strictly Democrat-Republican races (or Republican-Republican and Democrat-Democrat in certain parts of the state) with no independent or third party options. The two parties to the left of the Democratic Party (Peace and Freedom & Green) will almost certainly never get enough votes to advance to the general election. When this inevitably happens, I won't bother voting in these elections.

Peace and Freedom Party, a ballot-listed socialist party in California often used as a shell party for other socialist groups to run their candidates (most notably PSL and SP-USA) will likely wither away unless the new law is struck down, which is a possibility.

[Dumb]

On the plus-side, the new law will give major-party voters a chance to vote Green, Peace & Freedom, etc. without feeling like they've "wasted" their votes. To what degree that will help, I don't know; it might only be a percent as important as the effect you outlined just now, but it remains a somewhat mitigating factor regardless. Reason to hope?

[#FF0000]

this thread is depressing.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, because I'm not one of those hypocrites who feels justified in whinging about the election of a Tory government while not deigning to take even the most trifling, incidental part in its prevention.

[#FF0000]

Yes, because I'm not one of those hypocrites who feels justified in whinging about the election of a Tory government while taking not take even the most trifling, incidental part in its prevention.

No. Because you're an idiot who thinks Labor is any better.

actually, before I insult you, lemme clear something up.

When you vote, do you think "this will help get rid of capitalism"?

[Tim Finnegan]

No. Because you're an idiot who thinks Labor is any better.

actually, before I insult you, lemme clear something up.

When you vote, do you think "this will help get rid of capitalism"?No, but I don't think that making myself a cup of tea will get rid of capitalism. I still do it, though, because the world's a less miserable place for it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The first time I voted, I was about 5 years away from being radicalized so I went in and I hated Bill Clinton so I voted for Nader on a lark even though I didn't really know much about him other than he wasn't a conservative and I was still a registered Democrat. So yeah, like the cat said earlier, I did, but not with much passion.

Now I vote "no" on most local election initiatives - especially shit like the anti-LGBT prop 8 in California. I'll vote if its connected to some kind of activist push or a protest vote - like the no on 8 campaign and Nader in 2000. If I'm voting then I will usually also go ahead and vote for Peace and Freedom or Greens as a protest vote since I'm there already.

I don't know what it's like in other areas but some of the local positions are "non-partisan" and so instead of listing party affiliation, it lists their occupation. It's sickly hilarious because you see a list of all these names and they are all petty bourgoise fucks with obvious economic interests who run. It's always like: Sally Soandso - Real Estate Developer, Mike Whateves - Local Business Owner, Jack Lawyery - Attorney etc. If I went to vote and someone running had an occupation like "Hotel Maid" or "Dairy Queen Clerk" then they'd totally get my vote.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes, because I'm not one of those hypocrites who feels justified in whinging about the election of a Tory government while not deigning to take even the most trifling, incidental part in its prevention.

What would I be preventing? Labour were going to cut as well. Labour are cutting in their councils at the moment.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What would I be preventing? Labour were going to cut as well. Labour are cutting in their councils at the moment.

While both sides represent capitalism, and we shouldn't equate the Democrats as working class leaders like the CPUSA does, one side does represent a lesser of two evils and although we don't want capitalism, we must ensure that while our struggle continues our people are being taken care of. We can't ensure that through the Republicans. I'd rather have a "healthcare reform" where some things are a little better than no reform at all and leave healthcare back in the Bush era.

I hope you understand what I mean. By no means should we endorse capitalism, but for the sake of those living in the States, voting won't hurt, it'll just either calm down the pain or increase it - depending on who you vote that is.

[Thirsty Crow]

I hope you understand what I mean. By no means should we endorse capitalism, but for the sake of those living in the States, voting won't hurt, it'll just either calm down the pain or increase it - depending on who you vote that is.
Yeah, individual voting won't hurt, that's for sure.
But what about organized support when it comes to elections (in the form of official statements of support and calling on all members of an org, let's say a union, to vote XXX)?
That's one tactic of either undermining the potential for direct militant action on behalf of the workers or co-optation of existing struggles which channels it into the electoral arena.
I think this distinction is important. While voting as interested individuals, if deemed necessary/desirable, communists and anarchists also have something more to do: foster militancy and intervene in current struggles. Endorsing a bourgeois party is out of the question, IMO.

[Tim Finnegan]

What would I be preventing? Labour were going to cut as well. Labour are cutting in their councils at the moment.And if you can refrain from making any comments as to the particular undesirability of a Tory government, then that's fine, but it would make you something of an oddity among the leftists with whom I've had contact.

[mosfeld]

I think we from the west should consider electoral boycotts as valid revolutionary strategies. All of the major MLM parties, when engaged in PPW, organize/d boycotts with tremendous success.

Currently, in Canada, the RCP is organizing a boycott. Comrade JMP, a Maoist from Canada, has written extensively on the viability of boycotting as a revolutionary strategy. Take a look:

Vote With Your Feet pt. 1 (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/03/vote-with-your-feet-boycotting-federal.html)
Vote With Your Feet pt. 2 (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/03/vote-with-your-feet-part-2.html)
Vote With Your Feet pt. 3 (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/03/vote-with-your-feet-part-3.html)
Vote With Your Feet pt. 4 (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/03/vote-with-your-feet-part-4-guest-post.html)
Vote With Your Feet pt. 5 (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/03/vote-with-your-feet-part-five.html)

Also, I encourage all of you to read PCP's document "People's War, Yes! Elections, No!" (http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/docs_en/elec-e.htm)

[#FF0000]

we must ensure that while our struggle continues our people are being taken care of.

What exactly does our struggle entail? What are we doing right now?

[#FF0000]

And if you can refrain from making any comments as to the particular undesirability of a Tory government, then that's fine, but it would make you something of an oddity among the leftists with whom I've had contact.

Leftists are probably gonna be making comments as to the particular undesirability of any government.

[Ele'ill]

No, but I don't think that making myself a cup of tea will get rid of capitalism. I still do it, though, because the world's a less miserable place for it.

I have yet to see an example of voting someone into power yielding a less miserable place to live. With that said- we don't need anti capitalist islands being run by elected officials in the world- that won't last very long at all unless it all happened at the same time everywhere. I see that route of 'make things better for some while we can' (through participation of current systems) being a farce and nothing but another obstacle both physical and ideological standing in the way of working class people. We're gonna need work place organizing and revolution. Fuck their bureaucracy.

[#FF0000]

I have yet to see an example of voting someone into power yielding a less miserable place to live.

I've also never seen someone deride other people for not making tea.

[Tim Finnegan]

Leftists are probably gonna be making comments as to the particular undesirability of any government.
And as long as those comments remain generic, then, as I said, that's fine. It's when people mouth off about the results of election which they didn't even try to influence that it gets tedious. There's a lot on the far-left who refuse to vote for centre-left parties while still hoping for their victory; that the working class soil themselves with the association so that they are able remain pristine in their revolutionary exceptionalism. It's hypocrisy, and, as they say in my country, ahm haein nain o it.


I have yet to see an example of voting someone into power yielding a less miserable place to live.
So you've never heard of, for example, the British NHS?


With that said- we don't need anti capitalist islands being run by elected officials in the world- that won't last very long at all unless it all happened at the same time everywhere. I see that route of 'make things better for some while we can' (through participation of current systems) being a farce and nothing but another obstacle both physical and ideological standing in the way of working class people. We're gonna need work place organizing and revolution. Fuck their bureaucracy.You don't think it's possible to entertain both a belief in the need for revolution in the future and a belief in the need for favourable reforms in the present? Or have so many historical revolutionary movements, from the Bolsheviks to the CNT-FIA, been barking up the wrong tree?

[#FF0000]

You don't think it's possible to entertain both a belief in the need for revolution in the future and a belief in the need for favourable reforms in the present? Or have so many historical revolutionary movements, from the Bolsheviks to the CNT-FIA, been barking up the wrong tree?

But they weren't interested in the reforms themselves. They were interested in how the reforms were fought for, because it was a good way to figure out how to organize and get people militant and used to fighting for their interests. They were more interested in the means than the ends.

And this is why voting is so fucking stupid.

[Tim Finnegan]

But they weren't interested in the reforms themselves. They were interested in how the reforms were fought for, because it was a good way to figure out how to organize and get people militant and used to fighting for their interests. They were more interested in the means than the ends.

And this is why voting is so fucking stupid.
I'm not sure that this entirely the case. As far as I know, revolutionary organisations in the UK were generally in favour of, for example, the introduction of state pensions as much because the genuine alleviation of misery it provided as for any strategic end.

[#FF0000]

I'm not sure that this entirely the case. As far as I know, revolutionary organisations in the UK were generally in favour of, for example, the introduction of state pensions as much because the genuine alleviation of misery it provided as for any strategic end.

No, it's entirely the case actually and has been pretty much forever sorry.

I don't really understand what your post has to do with anything anyway.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't really understand what your post has to do with anything anyway.It span off Mari3ls comments. Off-topic, not really worth carrying on.

[Bardo]

I've never voted in a presidential election, but I think I'm going to start. If the lesser of two evils is still evil I will gladly take the lesser of the two. I'll never vote Democrat or Republican though. I'll just vote green or social democrat so I can get my nifty "I Voted" bumper sticker because I'm a smug douchebag.

[Ele'ill]

The organizing and educating involved in getting people to 'vote far enough left' is better spent on something other than a 'well maybe' surprise at the end- fully relying on the (same old) power structures over the population. None of that is necessary at all. The point is that we don't need government to grant our communities life- we only need ourselves.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've also never seen someone deride other people for not making tea.
Wait, hold on, I missed this: you call me an idiot, and then complain of being "derided"? What? :confused:

[PhoenixAsh]

We do not have a two party system in Holland. So voting can make a huge difference in the government setup and the outcome of austerity measures...or ethnic laws being enacted or not.

In the end its the other side of the same circle...but the differences are bigger than a two party system.


So...I vote when I think its worth the trouble.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, individual voting won't hurt, that's for sure.
But what about organized support when it comes to elections (in the form of official statements of support and calling on all members of an org, let's say a union, to vote XXX)?
That's one tactic of either undermining the potential for direct militant action on behalf of the workers or co-optation of existing struggles which channels it into the electoral arena.
I think this distinction is important. While voting as interested individuals, if deemed necessary/desirable, communists and anarchists also have something more to do: foster militancy and intervene in current struggles. Endorsing a bourgeois party is out of the question, IMO.

Individual LOTE votes [especially in extreme Duverger electoral environments like the U.S.] are one thing. Organized support or stumping for the Democrats is unacceptable, in my mind. That's where I draw a line. Any cent spent, every calorie exerted in mind or body, every exhalation spent on the Democrats would be ten times better spent in organizing in communities, workplaces, hell even working in/among/with the AFL-CIO labor bureaucracy is better than direct assistance to the Democratic Party. Where radicals need to work is in providing substantive alternatives in dedicating time, energy, and resources elsewhere but the Democratic Party and its campaigning.

[chegitz guevara]

I vote, cuz it doesn't mean anything either way, and it shoots down a way some people like to try and dismiss your arguments.

[HEAD ICE]

The Democrats got probably the most power they are going to get in a long time (the lesser of the two evils, even said in this thread by a 'Marxist') and Obama and the Democrat regime have been objectively worse than Bush. I may vote for a prank campaign but it I do not take elections seriously and I don't vote.

[southernmissfan]

Like a lot of things in life, the answer is it depends. First off, the presidential elections are really a non-issue. Because of the electoral college and the current electoral system, chances are you will have zero impact unless you live in a handful of swing states. And there's some evidence that even if it is close enough for your vote to count, they might disregard it anyway! In national elections, voting for Democrats is not productive. Voting for the most part is not productive. However, in certain circumstances, there are things where voting as an individual may be progressive. A state vote on legalizing medical marijuana. Or a local school board election, with an extreme creationist running against a sane human being. In such situations, not voting out of some "more revolutionary than you!!1!" principle is just silly. Disregarding voting completely out of some principle is not rational. It's requires very little effort, why not? At worst, it was futile and wasted twenty minutes of your life. However, anyone enganging in bourgeois politics and reformism should rethink their core beliefs.

[Martin Blank]

I'm actually in the minority in my organization on this question. The majority view holds that there are still reasons to participate in the voting process, mainly revolving around ballot initiatives (e.g., medical marijuana, foreclosure moratorium, etc.), since these can provide a measure of relief for working people under the current conditions. The majority also holds that, under very specific conditions (and I mean very specific), the running of working-class communist candidates in elections can be principled and advantageous to the movement.

Personally, though, I don't see much of a point in either instance. For example, in Michigan, we have a medical marijuana law written into the state's constitution, but the cops are still busting growers and possessors, because federal law supersedes state law. It would be a similar case with a foreclosure moratorium, since most banks that give mortgages do so across state lines, meaning that U.S. Marshals can evict upside-down homeowners. As well, if local and state governments want their federal funding, they have to comply with Washington's rules, even if local and state laws to the contrary are passed.

And as for candidates, even under the specific conditions the majority has outlined (basically, when doing so would significantly destabilize capitalist rule in a given area and bolster the revolutionary movement), I don't really see much of a point. I could go along with it, if I thought it might do what the comrades in the majority think it will, but I would fear it becoming not merely a waste of time and resources, but even a diversion from other political action that might be more effective.

In any event, both the majority and minority in the WPA agree that, right now, there's no value in running our own candidates and no principled basis for voting for candidates from other parties, and we agree to take ballot initiatives on a case-by-case basis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I try to vote where there is a left candidate on the slate - often in the GLA Assembly and Mayoral elections for London.

Didn't vote in the general election last year. Will probably vote Labour in the next council elections as we are stuck with the notorious 'easyCouncil' Tories where I live.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I only vote in local elections and on ballot initiatives, like the possibility of buying alcohol on Sundays in Georgia! I guarantee every damn one of you would vote if that was what was at stake! :lol:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"I know that a little later on this year you're going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You'll enjoy yourselves. It'll be a lot of fun. I'm sure as soon as the election over your country will improve immediately. As for me, I'll be home on that day doing essentially the same thing as you. The only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I'm going to have a little something to show for it folks." - George Carlin


I'm only going to vote so that when I criticize the state of things, and people pull the "well did YOU vote?" card, I'll be able say "Indeed, fuck you." "I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin


First of all, I can't vote, I'm a felon.Felons can vote in some states.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

Getting a job is a lot more difficult.

[syndicat]

Voting among the working class in the USA is lower than in other "advanced" capitalist societies...for fairly clear reasons: both parties are in the pocket of the dominating classes. they are perceived as not representing their interests. but not voting won't change anything. if the working class doesn't vote, it just makes it easier for the more overtly reactionary types to gain control of government. the capitalist elite are just fine with that.

sometimes it does make a difference in regard to something of interest to working class people. So i do vote....out of self-defense. To prevent something worse, usually. In California mainly i vote for the ballot propositions. I only vote for Dems on rare occasion. I don't vote for M-Ls (e.g. in Peace & Freedom) because I see the bureaucratic mode of production as just as bad as capitalism.

[black magick hustla]

probably more than half the working class in the us doesnt vote and i was calling myself a communist when i was like 14 so i never voted ever

[Devrim]

No, I am a communist.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

.

sometimes it does make a difference in regard to something of interest to working class people. So i do vote....out of self-defense. To prevent something worse, usually. In California mainly i vote for the ballot propositions. I only vote for Dems on rare occasion. I don't vote for M-Ls (e.g. in Peace & Freedom) because I see the bureaucratic mode of production as just as bad as capitalism.
so you vote for dems but not MLs? what the heck. why are dems better than MLS also arent you an anarchist i thought anarchists didnt vote

[Tim Finnegan]

No, I am a communist.
Funny, that's why I said "yes"... :p

[Magón]

No.

Except for when Prop 8 (Legalization of Gay Marriage in Cali) and Prop 19 (Legalization of Weed in Cali), came to the table. Too bad I was on the loosing side of both. I guess what they say about voting, really is true.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

[chegitz guevara]

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

They're trying to make it illegal in Floriduh

http://www.revleft.com/vb/if-voting-changed-t153318/index.html

[Rss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Finnish_parliamentary_election

No. Flood of european far-right populism has finally arrived here. True Finns are probably going to screw around, talk big and get nothing done in these four years. After that, perhaps, they fall again to obscurity. I'm kinda amused that Jussi "Race Doktor" Halla-aho got through with so many votes. I mean, check out this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho

Reformist Communist Party of Finland lost roughly 50 % of their votes, Communist Workers' Party lost third of its votes and social democrats/Left Alliance also lost some. Communists should be working on electoral boycott and put their resources on other things.

[apawllo]

Yeah, I vote. Not really sure why to be completely honest...it's just something I do. I'll probably be restricted for this or something, lol, but I also sat on a jury once.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Of course I vote. The workers of the past have given their lives in the struggle, so that we may vote. It would be disrespectful towards them not to vote.

[black magick hustla]

Of course I vote. The workers of the past have given their lives in the struggle, so that we may vote. It would be disrespectful towards them not to vote.
our ancestors died for nothing this is still hell

[DrStrangelove]

I don't see the point in choosing between a punch in the balls and a kick in the balls. Both are painful.

[Tim Finnegan]

our ancestors died for nothing this is still hell
Oh, stop feeling sorry for yourself. Go read a book, get some bloody perspective.

[Gorilla]

The train I take to work breaks down more when a Republican is the president. I vote.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRscavenger2.JPG
Pictured: typical scene from maldoror's childhood.

[Vendetta]

Nope.

I live in SC. Not really much point.

[black magick hustla]

Oh, stop feeling sorry for yourself. Go read a book, get some bloody perspective.
i am not feeling sorry "about myself". if you want to make a cult of the dead go for it. you cant disrespect bones

[Permanent Revolutionary]

You can't say those who died died for nothing, when the goal hasn't been reached 100% yet. If this was the way we thought, there would be no socialists at all.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

no.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Great comeback. Really! You wouldn't be a member of the Harvard Debate Team by any chance? :rolleyes:

[HEAD ICE]

You can't say those who died died for nothing, when the goal hasn't been reached 100% yet. If this was the way we thought, there would be no socialists at all.

The most progress that has been done to advance communism has been thrashing the beliefs and actions of communists before us. If all we did was pay respect to the idols of the deceased, there would be no socialists at all.

[No_Leaders]

No because voting doesn't change anything, and even if you do vote your perpetuating this system of reshuffling the same ol deck of kings and queens and "democracies" and capitalist interests. Voting is merely a spectator sport that is all.

[Tim Finnegan]

No because voting doesn't change anything..
So you're saying that the British NHS simply popped into being? Or are you suggestion some sort of gradual congealing? :confused:

Really, it's possible to be anti-reformist without being ahistorical, and it's not particularly difficult.

[Public Domain]

There's an election coming up in Canada...

1. Landslide victory riding for the Conservatives
2. No communist party candidate of any sort

guess I'm not voting :)

everyone is so PUMPED about the NDP.
Who campaign on being 'like the Liberals' like that's a good thing

Lots of cynicism in the air, it's nice, :lol:

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The most progress that has been done to advance communism has been thrashing the beliefs and actions of communists before us. If all we did was pay respect to the idols of the deceased, there would be no socialists at all.

I'm not talking about idolizing anything. Voting is a right, that the workers hve won for themselves. Therefore we should vote.

And if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to critizise the politics that are being done, in my opinion.

[chegitz guevara]

State of Florida is now trying to make it harder for Third party presidential candidates to get on the ballot.

[#FF0000]

I'm not talking about idolizing anything. Voting is a right, that the workers hve won for themselves. Therefore we should vote.

Why? What use is it?


And if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to critizise the politics that are being done, in my opinion.

Wrong.

[#FF0000]

so when did this site become a discussion board for the Young Democrats

[Tim Finnegan]

Why? What use is it?
I keep mentioning the NHS, but nobody seems to notice. Pity, because it's a pretty weighty example in the favour of at least limited participation that I've never really seen overturned yet.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Anyway, I've been debating in my mind whether or not to take part in the farce of an election coming up here in Canada on May 2nd. It seems:

You can't truly democratize politics without democratizing the economy, whatever reforms you might get for now.

Aren't we, as Communists, Anarchists, whatever most of us here consider ourselves, here to present a real alternative? Shouldn't we be emphaisizing that there's no choice among bourgeois parties that really represents workers---that workers need to take power into their own hands for genuine democracy?

Falling in line with the many who are voting for a "lesser evil" is promoting a false alternative to Conservative governments, as reactionary as they are. We will not move any closer to real change this way, since it legitimizes the farce instead of calling attention to the true nature of bourgeois democracy or calling for/taking action instead of the occasional marking of a ballot.

Disaffected non-voters are also a significant part of society, and it seems more sensible from a revolutionary point of view and even more likely to work to appeal to alternative actions toward an end of genuine democracy, rather than to expect them to decide to vote for the Communist or Marxist-Leninist party.

I realize that a revolution on May 2nd this year is unlikely to happen, but I don't see how that means Communists should sacrifice a principled call for revolution and join the reformist choir.

[Tim Finnegan]

AI realize that a revolution on May 2nd this year is unlikely to happen, but I don't see how that means Communists should sacrifice a principled call for revolution and join the reformist choir.
You realise that Marx advocated proletarian participation in bourgeois elections, right? This impossibilism that seems so popular is a later, somewhat hysterical innovation, not some purer breed of communism.