Strategic voting - your view?

[Islamosocialist]

I'm curious if you have ever engaged in strategic voting... if so, why? Did it work?

I have, every time. I always watch the polls to see what the Croats and Serbs plan to do and vote accordingly. If they go nationalist, it's hard to justify voting for a moderate because you don't want to be the group with the weak leader. You want to be the group with the pushy one.

By the way, almost all of our dozens of political parties fall into extreme left wing by American standards. And, a lot of the time, the nationalist parties aren't even that nationalist--they're just supported by one group more than the others. SDP, for example... it's as left-wing as it gets--but because it enjoys mainly urban and Muslim support, rural Christians rarely choose it.

Anyhow, in my experience, strategic voting leads nowhere. It accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I haven't been proud of the period before an election yet. I've always been disappointed by the last months, years, whatever.

[Kotze]

Aren't we all idealists in some way, I mean what's the probability that your individual act of voting influences the assignment of seats?

[NGNM85]

Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot. If you're old enough to vote; then you have to take advantage of it. Who, or what, to vote for is a tactical decision that involves a multitude of variables. Occasionally, it may not make sense to vote, in a particular election, but boycotting the entire political process is just counterproductive, and stupid.

[Rafiq]

Because the state is a neutral force in the class war, and the bourgeoisie will totally allow us to just "Out-vote them" :laugh: :rolleyes:

Yup, we can just out vote them, then, rainbows and sunshine will appear across the globe, without violence, hoooraaayyy! We will shout! The bourgeoisie will just toss their hat down and say "Ohp, you got us! I guess we have to quit!".

:rolleyes: Typical NGNM85 Liberalism.

[Art Vandelay]

Boycotting the elections is in itself a political decision so I do not understand why anyone would say it is stupid. It sends the message that the system is corrupt and you want no part in it. Why go out and support a system that oppresses you. Come election the only thing I care to see is the percentage of the population that votes and when that number slips below 50%, I think we`ll begin to see a surge in revolutionary beliefs among the working class.

[#FF0000]

Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot. If you're old enough to vote; then you have to take advantage of it. Who, or what, to vote for is a tactical decision that involves a multitude of variables. Occasionally, it may not make sense to vote, in a particular election, but boycotting the entire political process is just counterproductive, and stupid.

no


Boycotting the elections is in itself a political decision so I do not understand why anyone would say it is stupid. It sends the message that the system is corrupt and you want no part in it. Why go out and support a system that oppresses you. Come election the only thing I care to see is the percentage of the population that votes and when that number slips below 50%, I think we`ll begin to see a surge in revolutionary beliefs among the working class.


Isn't it something like 30% of the population that votes in the US?

no to this too.

[Ocean Seal]

Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot. If you're old enough to vote; then you have to take advantage of it. Who, or what, to vote for is a tactical decision that involves a multitude of variables. Occasionally, it may not make sense to vote, in a particular election, but boycotting the entire political process is just counterproductive, and stupid.
Strategically voting for bourgeois leaders doesn't end up working to our advantage but merely continues to perpetrate an illusion that we choose our leaders. What we have to do is start giving people new alternatives and organizing organs of working class power.

[Tifosi]

The only reason why anyone should be on the voting register is to stop employers and banks getting a reason to start digging dirt on you. The only reason.

[#FF0000]

The only reason why anyone should be on the voting register is to stop employers and banks getting a reason to start digging dirt on you. The only reason.

I also find it useful to drop a spoiled ballot in the box to give people one less reason to ignore you when they can't argue.

[Bronco]

Isn't it something like 30% of the population that votes in the US?

no to this too.

The 08 election voter turnout was 57%

So to quote yourself: no

[#FF0000]

The 08 election voter turnout was 57%

So to quote yourself: no

63 PERCENT ACTUALLY, NERD.

In any case I was thinking of some lower house election or something. Point is voter turnout is just around 50% and it is hella dumb to think that lack of faith in government/the efficacy of voting = people are revolutionary.

[Bronco]

63 PERCENT ACTUALLY, NERD.

In any case I was thinking of some lower house election or something. Point is voter turnout is just around 50% and it is hella dumb to think that lack of faith in government/the efficacy of voting = people are revolutionary.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

I was just quoting from here, maybe it was wrong

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It probably makes sense to do so, but quite frankly I just can't be fucked.

Last time I had the chance to vote tactically to keep Labour and Lib Dems out by voting Green, I wrote some obscene shit on the card, just because the Green candidate was a knob.

In the grand scheme of things, it's something that for our movement, is harmless on an individual level, but not worth the time and attention of a significant group.

[DinodudeEpic]

Vote for your ideals. That is the basis for democracy.

[Sasha]

i dont vote strategic in the sense that the o.p probably meant but since this is a small country and i am of a age and a long time enough activist to be on direct familiarity with some of the up and coming socialist and green party politicians in both local and national politics i tend to vote on them, not because i have much or any faith in these partys or in parliamentary politics in general but in the experience that when an issue comes up thats important to me i can contact them and rub t under their noses, call it lobbying if you will.
its a bit like writing to your congressman but these congressmen actually know me too.

[#FF0000]

Vote for your ideals. That is the basis for democracy.

oh this is just precious

[NGNM85]

Because the state is a neutral force in the class war, and the bourgeoisie will totally allow us to just "Out-vote them"
Yup, we can just out vote them, then, rainbows and sunshine will appear across the globe, without violence, hoooraaayyy! We will shout! The bourgeoisie will just toss their hat down and say "Ohp, you got us! I guess we have to quit!". Typical NGNM85 Liberalism.

This has almost no relationship, whatsoever, to what I said. Although, this mischaracterization is revealing. I’ll at least give you the benefit of the doubt in that I don’t think is deliberate dishonesty, but merely the result of personal deficiencies which render you incapable of understanding what I actually said. You’re proving my point, incidentally.

I’m not stimulated by the crack about ‘Liberalism.’ You couldn’t define the word if your life depended on it. Of course, that’s irrelevant because you didn’t mean it literally. This is just in-group vernacular, the radical equivalent of; ‘buttface.’

[NGNM85]

Boycotting the elections is in itself a political decision so I do not understand why anyone would say it is stupid. It sends the message that the system is corrupt and you want no part in it. Why go out and support a system that oppresses you. Come election the only thing I care to see is the percentage of the population that votes and when that number slips below 50%, I think we`ll begin to see a surge in revolutionary beliefs among the working class.

Calling it 'stupid' is generous. I'd also add 'hypocrite', and a couple of more colorful phrases, but I don't want to get sidetracked. This is an example of the simplistic, one-dimensional thinking that is so toxic to the Radical Left. The Right simply could not do better.
What you’re missing is that voting, and supporting the state are two fundamentally different things. As an Anarchist, I consider Nation-States to be fundamentally illegitimate institutions, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions. Voting is simply acknowledging that the state exists, and acting accordingly. It doesn’t in any way, shape, or form preclude or undermine other forms of action. You can vote on Tuesday, hold a protest on Wednesday, stage a sit-in on Thursday, and smash a Starbucks on Friday, if you’re into that sort of thing.
In fact, it can even be useful. Sometimes it’s obligatory, provided you’re ethically consistent. For example; there is a very minimal welfare state in this country that’s being attacked. A consistent Anarchist would defend that, because; A: It’s empowering, keeping it in the public sphere, where it can be expanded, because the state is, to some degree, accountable to the public, as opposed to the private dictatorships-in-miniature which are accountable to no-one. And, more importantly; B: Because it increases the likelihood that poor children will eat. If that means jack shit to you; you should find a new hobby. No true Libertarian could ever take such a position.

When the public stops voting what we’ll get is a police state. I don’t see that as an improvement.

[RichardAWilson]

In 2008, I voted Green where I could (I.e. Cynthia McKinney) and Democratic elsewhere.

In our recent state and local elections, I voted Democratic (Alex Sink for Governor). - I hate Rick Scott.

It's hard to find alternative candidates in the Florida Panhandle.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Participating in bourgeois elections is quite useless in terms of working class struggle. However, for the improvement of living standards of the working class, it can be useful. I, for instance, vote NDP. They will not win in my riding, but I vote for them nonetheless on the principle of the NDP being the best party electable in bourgeois elections.

So, I don't vote strategically. I vote on principle. If we vote strategically, rather than principle, we see the bi-party system of the USA, and the duopoly of the political system (until recently -- due to an end of Bloc Quebecois support) in Canada by Liberals and Conservatives.

[RGacky3]

Participating in bourgeois elections is quite useless in terms of working class struggle. However, for the improvement of living standards of the working class, it can be useful. I, for instance, vote NDP.

improving living standards for working people IS usefull in terms of class struggle, the workers get hungry and realize what they can do.

[eyeheartlenin]

Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot. If you're old enough to vote; then you have to take advantage of it. Who, or what, to vote for is a tactical decision that involves a multitude of variables. Occasionally, it may not make sense to vote, in a particular election, but boycotting the entire political process is just counterproductive, and stupid.

So, given your attitude to voting, and to strategic voting, which, in the US, sounds like it means backing the "lesser evil" of two interchangeable pro-imperialist parties of, and for, the bourgeoisie, and your repudiation of "boycotting the entire political process," may one conclude that your self-designation as an "anarchist" is ironic?

I have for years been interested in anarchists who vote: every four years, Chomsky, the famous "anarchist" millionaire (and IWW member) who inhabits upscale Lexington, Mass., publicly urges the US electorate to back whatever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running that year. The "anarchist" Chomsky had no difficulty supporting pro-war politicians John Kerry and Obama.

[RGacky3]

I have for years been interested in anarchists who vote: every four years, Chomsky, the famous "anarchist" millionaire (and IWW member) who inhabits upscale Lexington, Mass., publicly urges the US electorate to back whatever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running that year. The "anarchist" Chomsky had no difficulty supporting pro-war politicians John Kerry and Obama.

Do you read what chomsky rights?

BTW, if I was a progessor at MIT I would live in an upscale place as well. ... would'nt you?

[Die Rote Fahne]

improving living standards for working people IS usefull in terms of class struggle, the workers get hungry and realize what they can do.
What do you say to the idea that the election of a party that ups living standards makes the worker complacent, by appeasing them, or is attempting to do so.

How exactly is improving living standards directly useful to class struggle?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Do you read what chomsky rights?

BTW, if I was a progessor at MIT I would live in an upscale place as well. ... would'nt you?

I'd live in a home that is comfortable. If I were single, an apartment would be fine. With a family of 5, a two story house would be fine. With a spouse only, a small house would do fine. In terms of area, I'd live wherever is convenient for my exploits or the accommodations I need.

The same way I wouldn't buy a Lamborghini if I could afford it, nor a Ferrari. A Honda Civic or a Toyota would do me fine.

Why waste money? I could start a homeless shelter, or maybe I could bring some individual families out of poverty Or provide funding for youth and community centers.

[RGacky3]

What do you say to the idea that the election of a party that ups living standards makes the worker complacent, by appeasing them, or is attempting to do so.

How exactly is improving living standards directly useful to class struggle?

I say that it does'nt make them complacent, infact many times it empowers them to fight to get more and more. Thats why the capitalist willl fight tooth and nail over EVERY concession, even token ones, because they don't want the working class to think they can fight for something.

The whole POINT of class strugle is to improve living standards of working people and to empower them.


Why waste money? I could start a homeless shelter, or maybe I could bring some individual families out of poverty Or provide funding for youth and community centers.

I don't know, but Chomsky does a lot to help the struggle, so juts because he lives in a nice area does'nt say anything about him.

BTW, he NEVER advocates or campaigns for democrats, mostly its in response to a question, and he says I personally vote strategically sometimes, he never put forward voting as the solution, nor does he advocate for democrats.

[Rafiq]

Vote for your ideals. That is the basis for democracy.

No, don't vote at all.

[NGNM85]

What do you say to the idea that the election of a party that ups living standards makes the worker complacent, by appeasing them, or is attempting to do so.

How exactly is improving living standards directly useful to class struggle?

You haven't considered the implications of this position. I don't think it's necessarily true that improved conditions automatically lead to complacency, but that's secondary. The underlying message in rhetoric like that is; 'The suffering of the working class only matters to the extent we can politically capitalize on it.' Ok. Anyone who says that doesn't give a shit about the working class. They hate the working class.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

[reprinted from WOID: a journal of visual language (http://theorangepress.com)]

WOID XVIII-38. February 14, 2008.


In the waning weeks of the German Occupation, Jean-Paul Sartre was approached after a performance of his play No Exit. The man explained that the Gestapo was looking for Sartre, and he should meet him the next day in front of Saint-Germain-des-Prés at a quarter to noon, because at noon the next day the clock would strike and angels would appear and Peace would descend on Earth. Sartre, who was curious about people and their experiences, walked over to Saint-Germain the next day, where the man was waiting for him. At noon the clock struck, and nothing happened. “I must have made a mistake,“ the man said, and shrugged, and walked away.

I expect to feel the same in November when I walk over to my polling place. I’m sure there’ll be plenty of people telling me that if I vote for X the heavens will open up, and I’m pretty dubious about that, but I’m going anyhow. There will be many, too, who tell me what’s the use, but anyhow, I’m going. Sartre would have reminded himself of Pascal’s Bet, the great French mathematician’s argument that, yes, the chances of the heavens opening up are a zillion in one, but when you consider the amount of the wager (a short walk to the church or polling place and voilà! No more Gestapo!), it’s worth a try.

Sartre must have been delighted by the man’s attitude, an act of pure engagement at odds with those calculations of motive so common in periods of trouble, which usually backfire. My friend Zane’s planning to vote for Obama because he’s sure Obama’s only saying he doesn’t support gay marriage because he has to say so to get elected, which is basically saying that Zane prefers Obama to Clinton because Obama’s the greater liar and that strikes me as a valid reason: Obama lies because he has to, Clinton doesn’t lie (relatively speaking), because she thinks she doesn’t need to, which means Obama’s playing the dangerous game of empowering voters who may eventually feel empowered to call him on the promises he made in their dreams. Maybe he doesn’t really mean it when he says he doesn’t rule out nuclear energy, and maybe he really means it when he doesn’t go haywire and order all the kids to take down their Che Guevara posters because some aging Cuban with more rings on his aorta than his pinky got upset when someone put up a Che poster in the Obama campaign office somewhere.

[...]

Now some would say, since voting is better than not voting in a Pascalian way, why not vote for, say, the People’s Workers Party, whose chances are not even one in a zillion? Sartre would have answered that he hadn’t turned up at Saint-Germain-des-Prés to see miracles happen but in solidarity with the man, and with his hopes. Just as Sartre had more in common with his philosopher friends than some crazy guy off the street, so, too, I may have more goals in common with the People’s Workers Party; but we’re not talking about shared goals, we’re talking about shared expectations. A few years after this, when André Gide complained that he didn’t vote because it put him on the same level as the cleaning lady, Sartre’s old friend Merleau-Ponty told him that, precisely, was why a man should vote: because it puts us all on the same level of credulity.

Who knows? It’s time to roll the dice. And after all, when the clock struck twelve at Saint-Germain-des-Prés, did the man look up and curse the heavens? Did he complain that he was never going to stand in front of Saint-Germain again, or that God was a liar? Only moonbats do that. Instead he shrugged, and thought, “I was wrong this time, but at least I have hope still, and that’s the thing that matters.” Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'll vote for propositions and I'll vote for socialists. You're not going to see me voting Democrats or anything like that to "strategically" get them in office because they're the "lesser evil".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot. If you're old enough to vote; then you have to take advantage of it. Who, or what, to vote for is a tactical decision that involves a multitude of variables. Occasionally, it may not make sense to vote, in a particular election, but boycotting the entire political process is just counterproductive, and stupid.

Why? Socialists/anarchists, radical leftists are not "boycotting the entire political process". Basically our entire society is completely undemocratic. "Voting" for pre-selected candidates of the only two officially sanctioned political parties (its extremely difficult to get a third party candidate on the ballot in most places) is the only political input allowed most of the US population.There are other, usually more productive ways of participating in the political process than penciling in pre-selected candidates most people don't like anyway. Union organizing, anti-war work, even talking to people can (and usually is) vastly more productive than voting.

Bourgeois democracy is a sham. The system is completely stage managed. The fact that much of the working class and "progressives" are tied to the Democratic Party is one of our main problems. Its not that people's "faith in the democratic process should be renewed" its more than every last shred of faith in bourgeois democracy should be removed.

There are two anarchists slogans which are useful

"If voting could change the system, it would be illegal"
and "Don't vote, it only encourages them"

I don't care about "strategic voting". I voted for Nader the last couple of elections. (I know I will shit from leftists for this, Nader is pathetic in many ways) The idea wasn't that Nader would win, or even come remotely close to winning. The purpose was educative.Liberals amnd "progressives" I talked with were shocked that I didn't vote for Obama.

Well, Gentlemen Liberals, who do you feel about your hero now? Obama's failure was utterly predictable. Revolutionaries are trying to build a different politics outside of bourgeois control and limitations.

The politics of lesser evilism is a powerful tool of the ruling class.Now we are supposed to be terrified that a lunatic like Perry or Bachman will become the next POTUS.Sorry, but does to really make any fucking difference which clown gets to play prez for 4 years?Yes Rick Perry is a dangerous nutjob. The politics of lesser evolism is presicely what creates and enables these monstyers.

[NGNM85]

So, given your attitude to voting, and to strategic voting, which, in the US, sounds like it means backing the "lesser evil" of two interchangeable pro-imperialist parties of, and for, the bourgeoisie, and your repudiation of "boycotting the entire political process," may one conclude that your self-designation as an "anarchist" is ironic?

If you want to know what I think; read my posts, or ask me. Don't tell me what I think.

Forgive me if I don't put a great deal of stock in a Leninist's perspective on Anarchism. In the spectrum of Anarchist thought, I'm actually rather orthodox, and mainstream, to the extent those words can be applied.


I have for years been interested in anarchists who vote: every four years, Chomsky, the famous "anarchist" millionaire (and IWW member) who inhabits upscale Lexington, Mass., publicly urges the US electorate to back whatever pro-war multi-millionaire the Democrats are running that year. The "anarchist" Chomsky had no difficulty supporting pro-war politicians John Kerry and Obama.

You heard what he said, (And that isn't what he said, incidentally.) you just didn't understand it.

This attempt to paint Noam Chomsky, who has done more for 'the cause' than you (or I) have, and, probably ever will, as some capitalist fatcat living like a rockstar is just total bullshit.

[NGNM85]

Why? Socialists/anarchists, radical leftists are not "boycotting the entire political process".
I think there are plenty of examples floating about, several of them, in this thread, in fact.

Basically our entire society is completely undemocratic.
Democracy is an ideal, not a system. North Korea is completely undemocratic. The United States has a severe democratic deficit, it also seems to be getting worse.

"Voting" for pre-selected candidates of the only two officially sanctioned political parties (its extremely difficult to get a third party candidate on the ballot in most places) is the only political input allowed most of the US population.There are other, usually more productive ways of participating in the political process than penciling in pre-selected candidates most people don't like anyway. Union organizing, anti-war work, even talking to people can (and usually is) vastly more productive than voting.
　
Ok, this is just straw-man bullshit. Like I said, before; voting ‘doesn’t in any way, shape, or form preclude or undermine other forms of action. You can vote on Tuesday, hold a protest on Wednesday, stage a sit-in on Thursday, and smash a Starbucks on Friday, if you’re into that sort of thing.’ I specifically emphasized the importance of other forms of activism.

Bourgeois democracy is a sham. The system is completely stage managed. The fact that much of the working class and "progressives" are tied to the Democratic Party is one of our main problems. Its not that people's "faith in the democratic process should be renewed" its more than every last shred of faith in bourgeois democracy should be removed.
Rhetoric aside, for the second time; voting does not require one to accept the State is legitimate, only that it exists.

There are two anarchists slogans which are useful
"If voting could change the system, it would be illegal"
and "Don't vote, it only encourages them"
This is one of those pathological tendencies that are so destructive to the Radical Left; to latch on to any half-baked slogan, and turn it into doctrinal law.

I don't care about "strategic voting". I voted for Nader the last couple of elections. (I know I will shit from leftists for this, Nader is pathetic in many ways) The idea wasn't that Nader would win, or even come remotely close to winning. The purpose was educative.Liberals amnd "progressives" I talked with were shocked that I didn't vote for Obama.
There’s a complex series of variables. It depends on what kind of election it is, who is favored in the polls, the demographics of the state, or district you live in, etc., etc. In some cases there might not be any point in showing up. However; categorically rejecting the political process is just stupid.

Well, Gentlemen Liberals, who do you feel about your hero now? Obama's failure was utterly predictable.
Who are you talking to? What ‘failure’ are you speaking of?

Revolutionaries are trying to build a different politics outside of bourgeois control and limitations.
Again; participating in the political process does not preclude other forms of activism. You can keep saying it, but there isn’t a shred of truth to it.

The politics of lesser evilism is a powerful tool of the ruling class.
First of all; you, clearly, don’t understand what I was saying. Second; there’s no crime in choosing the lesser evil, when it makes sense. Sometimes it’s the only responsible thing to do. If you care; you do what you can, you do everything you can. You don’t worry about your street cred.

Now we are supposed to be terrified that a lunatic like Perry or Bachman will become the next POTUS.Sorry, but does to really make any fucking difference which clown gets to play prez for 4 years?Yes Rick Perry is a dangerous nutjob. The politics of lesser evolism is presicely what creates and enables these monstyers.
Actually; it matters a lot. Our political process is dominated by the two wings of the business party, however, they are slightly different, as they represent different elite constituencies. As you’ve just pointed out, a vocal, and influential segment of the Republican Party is the Religious Right. Thanks to their sweeping victories in the last congressional elections; they’ve introduced more than 80 new bills restricting access to abortion. I would say that matters. Also, on the national scale; small differences have big impacts. A relatively minor policy difference could be the difference between whether or not a couple hundred thousand people can feed their kids. There’s also the Supreme Court. Having another Scalia, another Thomas on the bench would be universally bad. There are other reasons.

No, what the elites are hoping for is an apathetic public, which only minimally participates. They've been very clear about this. For example; Samuel Huntington, in his report to the Trilateral Commission; 'The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups.'

[Ele'ill]

I cannot bring myself to vote for a group of people who may, with one hand, better my and my co-worker's position, while simultaneously killing my friends and their families with the other. When it is this way every single time- I don't see progress. I don't see validity in voting. What I see is a wack-a-mole game of 'taking care of issues that are important to me now while ignoring the regression elsewhere'. Every person and group of people voted into a position of power represent a regressive slide- one that loses ground- one that becomes the talking point of the next person or group of people to step up to be potentially voted. It never ends and that's what keeps the power UP.

[RGacky3]

I cannot bring myself to vote for a group of people who may, with one hand, better my and my co-worker's position, while simultaneously killing my friends and their families with the other.

Sure, but some might reason its better than the guy that will lessen your and your co-workers position and still kill your friends and their families.

Personally I don't see voting as something that people should or should not do, its the least important action of change, but there can sometimes be value in it.

[eyeheartlenin]

...

I don't know, but Chomsky does a lot to help the struggle, so juts because he lives in a nice area does'nt say anything about him.

BTW, he NEVER advocates or campaigns for democrats, mostly its in response to a question, and he says I personally vote strategically sometimes, he never put forward voting as the solution, nor does he advocate for democrats.

Dear RGacky3: This is a factual question. What follows is part of an article from the Guardian, by Matthew Tempest, published on March 20, 2004, in which Chomsky does endorse the pro-war Democrat Kerry, publicly.


Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry

Matthew Tempest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/matthewtempest)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), Saturday 20 March 2004 02.34 GMT
Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival. Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
... END

=========

So that's a public endorsement of an imperialist politician who has only "small differences" with George W. Bush. And that shows the biggest problem with the US "left" in general. Every four years, the US "left" manages to find a way to back the pro-war Democrats in the presidential election. And Chomsky, in doing just that, as the article relates, is a part of the problem.

All those learned tomes Chomsky wrote, all that erudition, all that "anarchism" he has espoused -- the bottom line of all that is, vote for what Chomsky himself describes above as one "faction of the business party." THAT is no solution at all, for working people.

[RGacky3]

Wait ... So is that not true what he wrote? Factually?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

63 PERCENT ACTUALLY, NERD.63 percent of eligible voters. Since huge numbers of people are excluded from eligibility in the U.S., that means a lot. It was around 42% of the total population.

And that was one of the largest elections in terms of turnout.


Come election the only thing I care to see is the percentage of the population that votes and when that number slips below 50%, I think we`ll begin to see a surge in revolutionary beliefs among the working class. I think the majority of working people know there is no real benefit for them that can come out of voting.

Around 24.5% of the population voted in the 2010 election, which was essentially a battle over which party would control the Senate. Shows how interested most people were.

There was a poll done on college campuses a few years ago and the majority said they'd trade their voting rights for the rest of their lives for an ipod.

Bourgeois democracy: Fuck yea!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

America's "lesser evil".. the party that brought you:

- Participation in WWI
- Participation in WWII
- Military exploits in the Dominican Republic, Sudan, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya, Viet Nam, Korea, etc., etc., etc., etc.
- The end of "welfare as we know it"

... And more!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i dont vote strategic in the sense that the o.p probably meant but since this is a small country and i am of a age and a long time enough activist to be on direct familiarity with some of the up and coming socialist and green party politicians in both local and national politics i tend to vote on them, not because i have much or any faith in these partys or in parliamentary politics in general but in the experience that when an issue comes up thats important to me i can contact them and rub t under their noses, call it lobbying if you will.
its a bit like writing to your congressman but these congressmen actually know me too.

Is that what autonomism means nowadays?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

However, for the improvement of living standards of the working class, it can be useful. I, for instance, vote NDP.

That supposes a reformable capitalism, when in fact I think we've seen the opposite for some time. Things are being "reformed" in the interests of capital, and not the other way around. How did that long Blair/Brown Labour term work out for the working class in England? How about PASOK now in Greece? Making a lot of "improvements in the living standards of the working class?"

Can you point to an election in recent history anywhere in the world that lead to read improvements for the working class?

[NGNM85]

Dear RGacky3: This is a factual question. What follows is part of an article from the Guardian, by Matthew Tempest, published on March 20, 2004, in which Chomsky does endorse the pro-war Democrat Kerry, publicly.
Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry
Matthew Tempest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/matthewtempest)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), Saturday 20 March 2004 02.34 GMT

Here’s the first thing you are doing wrong; you are linking to the author, and the publication, but not the article, itself.

The article, itself, is pathetic. It consists of four paragraphs, although, it’s more like two, with a series of truncated statements, with no context, elaboration, or analysis. There’s also a comprehension problem, but that’s another story.


Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival. Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

That’s true. Like I said; a minor policy difference could determine whether or not a hundred thousand kids get to eat. Do you give a shit about that? It isn’t at all clear, but you should. All else being equal; the working class generally fares better under Democratic administrations. You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s a short rundown with graphs from the Liscio Report measuring economic trends going back about fifty or sixty years.

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

I’d also recommend the longer, Bartels study which, essentially, goes over the same material in greater detail.


He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

Again; this is so banal, innocuous, and painfully obvious that the fact it should arouse controversy is asinine.


He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
... END
=========

There’s a couple quotes the Guardian left out, which you never would’ve bothered to find, for example;

"Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist." (My italics.)

Of course; this something anybody with the slightest amount of sense (Which is in short supply around these parts.) already knows.

Also, Chomsky specified that only individuals who live in Red States should vote for Kerry;

“Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”

That’s what a lot of you people (Although, not you, personally.) did; effectively voted for Bush. Brilliant.

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040526.htm


So that's a public endorsement

It isn’t any kind of endorsement. That’s one of the many things you fail to grasp.


...of an imperialist politician who has only "small differences" with George W. Bush.

See above.


And that shows the biggest problem with the US "left" in general. Every four years, the US "left" manages to find a way to back the pro-war Democrats in the presidential election. And Chomsky, in doing just that, as the article relates, is a part of the problem.

The Left is not a unified entity; it’s a very broad spectrum. Each strata, or faction, has it’s own quirks and peculiarities. You are exemplifying some of the worst and most destructive elements of the Radical Left. Categorically rejecting the political process is counterproductive, self-marginalizing, hypocritical, and stupid.


All those learned tomes Chomsky wrote, all that erudition, all that "anarchism"

Again; there’s good reason to be highly skeptical of a Leninist's take on Anarchism.


he has espoused -- the bottom line of all that is, vote for what Chomsky himself describes above as one "faction of the business party." THAT is no solution at all, for working people.


Nobody said it was ‘the solution.’ First of all, and I hate to break this to you, but the world isn’t that simple. There isn’t one magic bullet, or an enchanted sword which will slay the monsters and make the world all beer and skittles. Creating lasting, substantive social change is a complicated process, on a multitude of levels, utilizing a multitude of tools and tactics. However; again, no-one has suggested that this is ‘the solution.’ What he said, and what I’m saying, is that it’s ethically, and philosophically consistent.

[NGNM85]

That supposes a reformable capitalism, when in fact I think we've seen the opposite for some time.

First of all; Capitalism doesn't really exist. What's being practiced in the United States would be much more appropriately described as; 'Corporate Mercantilism.'

Second, voting does not preclude or undermine other forms of activism, and no-one is saying that it should. Again; you can keep saying it, but that isn't going to make it true.


Things are being "reformed" in the interests of capital, and not the other way around. How did that long Blair/Brown Labour term work out for the working class in England? How about PASOK now in Greece? Making a lot of "improvements in the living standards of the working class?"

Tactics vary from country to country. The circumstances on-the-ground in Beijing are not the circumstances on-the-ground in New Jersey.


Can you point to an election in recent history anywhere in the world that lead to read improvements for the working class?

As I've said, and as sixty-some-odd-years of hard economic data verifies; all else being equal, the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. That's something you should care about. There are also other reasons, some of which, I've already mentioned.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

Right. Except:

"Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.” - "Don't Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy," Wall Street Journal. June 2, 2008.

And that's exactly what's happened.

And foreign policy is nothing but an extension of domestic politics on a larger scale.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In the US the only purpose of voting is educative, to help build a movement. A main job of revolutionaries in the US today is destroying people's faith in the Democratic Party. Sometimes this means voting for Greens, sometimes this means voting or working for "progressives" like Nader or McKinney.Anything to open up the debate to the left.

Voting cannot change the system. Most leftists know this but the US population as a whole does not. A major part of our role is educative, to build a worker's movement. How does voting for Dems accomplish this?

The system in the US is very tightly controlled. Alternative candidates or ideas are marginalized and crushed. People know this and feel that nothing can be done. We have to build a working class based politics and create some alternative. Change is not possible though the system. Voting can only be helpful if it helps increase class consciousness.Voting for Dems diminishes class consciousness.

I disagree with Chomsky's politics of lesser evilism. Bush is horrible, let's vote for Kerry, "Bush lite".this is not the way forward.

"Dump the elephant
Dump the ass
Build a party
For the working class"

[Lenina Rosenweg]

First of all; Capitalism doesn't really exist. What's being practiced in the United States would be much more appropriately described as; 'Corporate Mercantilism.'


I don't understand. If the US isn't capitalist then I don't know what capitalism is, I guess. There is and cannot be such a thing as pure capitalism. Whatever elements of this may have existed where long gone by the late 19th century. Capitalism has evolved. This is due to the laws of motion implicit in capitalism. Ernest Mandel discussed this in his book, "Late Capital".


As I've said, and as sixty-some-odd-years of hard economic data verifies; all else being equal, the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. That's something you should care about. There are also other reasons, some of which, I've already mentioned.Not these days. Obama is a great example of a fine GOP president (as was Clinton). His "jobs program" consists of tax breaks on the wealthy. Compared to Obama, the rightfully reviled Richard Nixon is a leftcom.

Its extrem;y important to break away from the Dems and build an alternative.Maybe, just maybe on the local level there might be a few good Democratic poliyicians. Its important above all though to break from the framework of bourgeois politics.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In the US the only purpose of voting is educative, to help build a movement. A main job of revolutionaries in the US today is destroying people's faith in the Democratic Party.

A majority of people in the U.S. don't vote. Their faith in the twin parties of capitalism has been destroyed by the parties themselves.

[Thirsty Crow]

First of all; Capitalism doesn't really exist. What's being practiced in the United States would be much more appropriately described as; 'Corporate Mercantilism.' How is this corporate mercantilism different from capitalism?
Also, what does determine what we should understand by "capitalism"?


Tactics vary from country to country. The circumstances on-the-ground in Beijing are not the circumstances on-the-ground in New Jersey. This expanded tautology does not refute the original point, which is precise with respect to concrete phenomena (the supposed pro-labour political parties presiding over, and directing, the slashing of the working class standards).
You have to show how "circumstances on the ground" in fact prove that after the beginning of the Recession reformist parties fought for and won positive concessions for the working class resulting in tangible improvement of their living standards and the not-so-tnagible improvement of the balance of class forces in favour of labour (but that can also be shown, so you should have no problem here).


As I've said, and as sixty-some-odd-years of hard economic data verifies; all else being equal, the working class fares better under Democratic administrations. That's something you should care about. There are also other reasons, some of which, I've already mentioned.
Can you post this data and its explanation again?

Also, I'm afraid that the proviso that all else being equal in fact does not hold since the dynamics of the contemporary...capitalism rarely leave all else being equal between two mandates.

But okay, yeah, I'd like a link or something.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A majority of people in the U.S. don't vote. Their faith in the twin parties of capitalism has been destroyed by the parties themselves.

Well, its not that people have faith in the Democrats, its that the Democrats still have hegemony over and control over political expressions of working class discontent and disillusionment. This has to be broken.The very existence of the Democratic Party inhibits the development of independent working class politics, even though fewer and fewer people vote.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Kerry might have been marginally better than Bush, Obama may be somewhat better than Bachman or Perry. So what? This is missing the point.Its gonna be a race to the bottom either way.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know how they are "better." That's like saying it's better to be stabbed in the back then shot in the thigh.

Contrary to the liberal hogwash posted by our resident "Anarchist for Kerry," workers' conditions in the United States have been fucked for 4 decades straight, under Democratic, Republican and bi-partisan governments.

So you get "improvements" that look like this:

http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg?w=490&h=313

That's because living standards aren't determined by which asshole sits in the oval office. They issue out of the real underlying conditions, class relations, and the like.

[jake williams]

I would say "tactical" voting is warranted in a way "strategic" voting doesn't. There really are cases where voting matters, but it's not going to give us a revolution.

There's a tricky conversation you have to have about it. I think the most obvious case where voting might matter is if we're talking about, say, school board type elections where who gets elected might have a substantial effect on local policy; and where it's relatively easy for a handful of leftists to exert some influence. In a school board election district in my hometown there are maybe 20 000 eligible voters, give or take. That's a difficult group of people to reach, but it's about five thousand times fewer than eligible voters in a US presidential election. That difference matters.

The thing that makes things really difficult is that how one or a few people vote virtually always means nothing. Voting or not voting as an individual is about as serious a political act as putting a Che poster in your bedroom. When it's actually possible for the left to influence elections, it's because you have mass organizations that can get a lot of people out. But the process of doing that requires a substantial investment of material resources and political commitment, which can cause real problems for long term strategy. This point shouldn't be understated, but nor should we be careless about it. There really are cases where what you get from voting, as a community and not as an individual, matters more than what you have to put into it.


It sends the message that the system is corrupt and you want no part in it.
How the shit does it send that message? The message most people get from non-voters, if they support voting, is that a large part of the population is lazy and doesn't care about politics; the main message that most non-voters get from other non-voters is that politics really is hopeless and they can't actually change things.

Almost no one who claims that they're not voting to send a message is actually sending a message to anyone. RevLeft doesn't count. I might still disagree, but the idea that if we simply don't vote, then everyone is going to become a revolutionary, would be a lot more credible if there were ever a real mass campaign around it that delivered an effective message to a broad audience. I haven't seen one.

[NGNM85]

How is this corporate mercantilism different from capitalism?
Also, what does determine what we should understand by "capitalism"?

I would be happy to discuss that in another venue. That's really beside the point, and I'd rather not derail the thread on a debate over terminology that is, largely, irrelevent to the subject at hand.


This expanded tautology does not refute the original point, which is precise with respect to concrete phenomena (the supposed pro-labour political parties presiding over, and directing, the slashing of the working class standards).
You have to show how "circumstances on the ground" in fact prove that after the beginning of the Recession reformist parties fought for and won positive concessions for the working class resulting in tangible improvement of their living standards and the not-so-tnagible improvement of the balance of class forces in favour of labour (but that can also be shown, so you should have no problem here).

This is largely irrelevent, as well, but the point that I was trying to make with regards to facts-on-the-ground is that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that applies to all circumstances. Activists in China face different challenges than activists in the US, and, therefore, require different strategies.

I disagree. What I have to prove, what I have proven, and what I will prove, yet again, is that, all else being equal, the American working class fares slightly better under Democratic administrations.


Can you post this data and its explanation again?

Any perusal of the data will reveal the same conclusion, because it is a matter of empirical fact. I chose two reputable studies; one from Princeton, the 2004 Bartels study, and the shorter Liscio report from 2008. Both of these cover a variety of economic measurements going back, roughly, sixty years.

The Liscio report, which I linked to, earlier, can be found here;
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

Here is the Princeton study; (FYI: It's in PDF format.)
http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.perfspot.com/docs/doc.asp?id=696)


Also, I'm afraid that the proviso that all else being equal in fact does not hold since the dynamics of the contemporary...capitalism rarely leave all else being equal between two mandates.

Administrations don't exist in a vacuum. They are subject to larger historical forces. In specific terms; income inequality, etc. have been on the increase, as a trend, over the past few decades, but the rate and severity of those changes tended to be more muted under Democratic administrations, in part, reflecting the policy differences between the business parties.


But okay, yeah, I'd like a link or something.

See above.

[NGNM85]

I don't know how they are "better." That's like saying it's better to be stabbed in the back then shot in the thigh.

If it was your child, and there was no third option; you'd choose the thigh. It's the same thing. If you care; you make the choice. You have to. Otherwise; you don't care. You seem to think because you dislike your options, because you refuse to participate, that you absolve yourself of responsibility. That's bullshit. You're just as responsible for what you don't do.


Contrary to the liberal hogwash posted by our resident "Anarchist for Kerry," workers' conditions in the United States have been fucked for 4 decades straight, under Democratic, Republican and bi-partisan governments.

You're still not comprehending the fact that voting for a candidate does not require you to endorse them, or to subscribe to any illusions of the legitimacy of the state. I can't possibly make it simpler.

Yes, but the rate, and severity at which the working class got, quote; 'fucked', varied under different administrations. A minor policy difference might determine whether or not a hundred thousand kids get food to eat. You have to decide if that matters to you. However; if it doesn't, I'd say you should get a new hobby.


So you get "improvements" that look like this:

See above.


That's because living standards aren't determined by which asshole sits in the oval office. They issue out of the real underlying conditions, class relations, and the like.

There are a multitude of factors, but 'which asshole is in the office' is absolutely one of them. Look at Reagan, or Bush 43, etc., etc.

[#FF0000]

Tactics vary from country to country. The circumstances on-the-ground in Beijing are not the circumstances on-the-ground in New Jersey.

So can you point to an election anywhere in recent history that has lead to real improvements for the working class?

(I notice this question still wasn't answered)

[NGNM85]

So can you point to an election anywhere in recent history that has lead to real improvements for the working class?
(I notice this question still wasn't answered)

The goal posts appear to be in perpetual motion. First; we’d have to have a consensus on what constitutes a ‘real’ improvement. Second; this is really the wrong question. The right question is; ‘Which choice is better for the working class?’ Sometimes you get two bad choices. Life sometimes sucks that way. You can sit on your ass, and pretend that somehow absolves you of responsibility, or you can make the better of the bad choices. There are no shortage of examples of recent elections that have been quite harmful to the working class; Bush 43, certainly, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, I mentioned the 80 new anti-abortion bills introduced by the Republican/Tea Party freshmen, etc., etc.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Because the state is a neutral force in the class war, and the bourgeoisie will totally allow us to just "Out-vote them" :laugh: :rolleyes:

Yup, we can just out vote them, then, rainbows and sunshine will appear across the globe, without violence, hoooraaayyy! We will shout! The bourgeoisie will just toss their hat down and say "Ohp, you got us! I guess we have to quit!".

:rolleyes: Typical NGNM85 Liberalism.

:lol:

Oh my god this was such a fucking funny comment ahaha

[Perikles]

So can you point to an election anywhere in recent history that has lead to real improvements for the working class?

(I notice this question still wasn't answered)

Australian 2007 election where voting in the ALP allowed for the abolishment of the Coalition's 'Work Choices' legislation.

[Kotze]

Sounds contradictory to say that voting doesn't matter, but if you abstain it somehow sends a strong message. If voting could change the system, it would be illegal. — Abstaining isn't illegal in most places either.

Do people who vote become passive? I'd like to see empirical evidence, eg. whether workers who are active in unions vote less often than other workers.
So can you point to an election anywhere in recent history that has lead to real improvements for the working class?Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, though I don't know whether that counts as real and recent enough for you.