Why Every Leftist Should Vote Kucinich

[RedComrade]

Free Trade:
Withdraw completely from the W.T.O and N.A.F.T.A

Iraq:
Has a plan to get the U.S out in 90 days, supports rapid restoration of self determination for the Iraqi people

Drug War
Decriminalize marijuana, end the costly, uneffective "War on Drugs"

Workers Rights
Workers have a right to: Have a job, Have a safe workplace, Get decent wages and benefits, Organize and be represented, Grieve about working conditions, Strike, Fair compensation for injuries on the job, Sue if injured by negligent employers, Have secure pension and retirement benefits, Participate in the political process, REPEAL TAFT HARTLEY!

Military Spending
Immediately cut the military budget by 15% and use it to fund a strong program for Universal Healthcare

This is just a sample of the many great ideas of Dennis Kucinich, for more go to: http://www.denniskucinich.us, remember its very important to not only remove Bush but actually elect a viable alternative- not just Republican Light. Im confident the Kucinich is the right choice in 04' but because he refuses to bow to corporate interests his chances arent looking to hot, it will take the dedication of grassroots organisers, in short of the politically active working class, to get this good man elected in 2004, please visit the site and tell your friends.

[Morpheus]

The Dead End of Electoralism

As the campaign for the Democratic Party primary begins to gear up democrats are encouraging activists to campaign and vote for the Democratic Party. Doing so is a mistake. Electing a democrat will not substantially improve policy; whomever is elected will do largely the same thing Bush would do in the same situation. Electoralism weakens the development of a genuine opposition movement and strengthens the state and ruling class. Real power lies with the corporate elite and state bureaucracy, not with the people through elections.

It's unlikely that electing someone other than Bush would lead to a significant improvement. If Kucinich (or Nader or another genuine left-wing reformer) got elected and actually implemented everything he says he'd implement (withdrawing from the WTO, etc.) there would be massive capital flight. He would then be faced with three choices - let the economy die, nationalize industry, or undue the reforms he passed. If he does the first option everyone will hate him, his program will collapse, and the Republicans will win the next election. He's probably not stupid enough to do that. He's openly opposed to nationalizing the economy and if he tried it (assuming congress cooperated and the supreme court didn't just strike it down) there would probably be a coup like Allende. The most likely course of action, especially given the spineless nature of Democrats, is the third option. It is likely that he would scrap the reforms before they were even implemented once he realized the position it would put him in.

The CIA has manipulated many elections and launched coups against elected governments in many other countries; they could easily do the same in the US if necessary. Whoever is elected cannot defy the capitalist class & state bureaucracy. If a genuinely left-wing government were elected it would either have to move to the right, becoming just like the other parties, or be forced out of power. It does not matter who you elect or what their platform is pre-election, the system is set up so that they must implement largely the same policies (what the ruling class wants). We have seen numerous elected leftists move to the right as a result of being elected over and over again - the Social Democrats, Lula, the Labor Parties, the German Greens, etc all abandoned their leftist ideas once elected because of the way the system is set up. If Kucinich were elected he'd do the same. As such, whomever we elect won't be significantly better than Bush; he will implement largely the same policies Bush would in the same circumstances.

During his campaign Bush claimed he would implement a less aggressive foreign policy - he would not engage in "nation-building" (which is a euphemism for taking other countries over). One need only look at Iraq to see how bogus this claim was. Once elected there is no way to insure that the person elected actually does what he said he would do. They are isolated from the masses but subjected to intense pressure from the corporate elite and state bureaucracy. In practice, once in power, they implement the policies the elite desires regardless of what their pre-election platform was. Just as electing Bush did not result in a less aggressive foreign policy (even though he claimed he would implement one) electing a left-wing democrat will not result in a less aggressive foreign policy (even if that candidate opposed the Iraq war). Once in power he would be forced to moderate his programs so that he does basically the same thing Bush would have done in the same situation. This is inherent in the system.

Had Gore been elected it is likely that we would have ended up with mostly the same policies that Bush has implemented - look at the right-wing policies democrats implemented last time they were in power. The Clinton-Gore team murdered approximately 1.5 million innocent Iraqis through sanctions & bombings. They were quite aggressive against Iraq. Had they not laid siege to Iraq for nearly a decade the situation may have been different so that it would have been much more difficult for Bush to go after Iraq. The patriot act is a continuation of the trend to restrict our civil liberties that predates Bush but was accelerated by 9-11. Clinton passed "anti-terrorism" bills to restrict civil liberties too; Bush is just following his footsteps. 9-11 is the main reason why the US has gotten more conservative lately. This would have happened even if Gore had been in office. Bush's pre-election platform was in favor of less interventionism than Gore's. If the system can force Bush to go after Iraq then it could certainly have forced a democrat to do so.

Many democrats have this naive view that everything that is wrong with society started with Bush and that we must push Bush out at all costs, regardless of who replaces him. Our goal should be to change policy for the better, getting Bush out is only good if it helps achieve that goal. Replacing Bush with Adolf Hitler would obviously be self-defeating. Which particular person happens to be the figurehead of the oligarchy is less important than the particular things that oligarchy does. Our problems predate Bush by quite a bit and are systemic. Bush is merely the latest in a long line of genocidal imperialist American leaders. There were plenty of problems before he came to power.

Voting strengthen the state & ruling elite and potentially weakens revolutionary movements against them. Elections do not facilitate citizen control over the state; they facilitate state control over the citizens. Elections create the illusion that 'the people' are in charge when actual power lies with a tiny elite. They pacify the population. This is why there were elections in countries like the USSR and Saddam's Iraq where even the democrats admit that voting doesn't change anything. They also control the population by getting potentially dangerous (to the status quo) malcontents involved in 'safe' activity that does not threaten the status quo. Better to have potential Lenins getting out the vote for the Democrats than sitting around plotting revolution. They also bribe potential troublemakers into being more conservative by giving them paid positions where they have to defend the status quo. Let the most rebellious attend endless dull committee meetings. This is also why corporations and the state usually encourage people to vote, even running ads exhorting the populace to vote and denouncing anyone who doesn't. It is a means of state control and maintaining the system.

This function of elections as state control is acknowledged by many non-anarchists outside of the US. In Algeria, for example, when the military dictatorship last held elections many opposition groups called for a boycott. Most of these groups weren't radical anti-capitalists - they were either Islamists or advocates of ordinary bourgeois representative "democracy." They recognized that the election was just a means of rubber-stamping the system; real power would stay with the military regardless of who was elected. Elections are a means of rubber-stamping the system in the US as well; real power stays with the corporate elite (and state bureaucracy) regardless of who is elected. Of course, the American system of thought control is so advanced & effective that merely the thought of doing the same thing as the Algerian democracy & Islamist movements is heresy and automatically rejected.

As part of this system of thought control those who don't vote are demonized by corporate media and other groups as "apathetic" or "lazy." Polls show that a large percentage of those who do not vote don't do so because they "don't think it will make a difference" or "all the canidates are the same" or other similar reasons. This is not apathy, it is a refusal to go along with a broken system. The ideas behind it may be more crude than my arguement, but they are there. The stereotype of the apathetic non-voter is just that - a stereotype. It's not like pulling a lever every four years is any kind of meaningfull participation or major effort, either. The promotion of this stereotype keeps the system functioning by making it seem that low voter turnout reflects something other than widespread disgust with the system.

Chaining us to the Democratic Party hurts the building of a genuine opposition movement. Support and subordination to the Democratic Party effectively means support and subordination to the ruling class, since the dems are part of the ruling class. Any party that wins the election must become the servant of the ruling class; if the movement supports that party then it ends up supporting the ruling class. Obviously a movement that supports the ruling class is not going to overthrow that class.

Whomever is elected will have to do basically the same thing Bush would do given the same situation. We can bring about social change by altering the situation. If certain actions result in large amounts of unrest or radicalization of large numbers of people the ruling class is less likely to undertake those actions because it will negatively affect their interests. By raising the social costs we force the elite to take different positions. A movement subordinated to the Democratic Party, and thus to the ruling class, isn't much of a threat to the elites so they can basically ignore it. It will be less effective than a revolutionary movement that is independent of the ruling class and seeks to overthrow it. Such a movement threatens to overthrow them, thus driving elites to implement reforms so as to prevent it from growing.

An example of this is Britain in the late '40s. The British working class was extremely militant and there was lots of unrest after WW2. As a result the ruling class came to the conclusion that if it did not want to be overthrown (or put up with massive unrest that would seriously undercut their profit) they would have to implement a welfare state in order to placate the masses. This was implemented. A few decades later the British working class was less militant and less rebellious so the ruling class came to the conclusion that they didn't want a welfare state anymore. In the '70s the Labor party again won the elections on a leftist platform. Most of the capitalist class, however, didn't want that and so Britain experienced large-scale capital flight - crippling the economy. The labor government was forced out, and the Thatcherites took power. The welfare state was dismantled. The labor party, after being forced out, realized that it wouldn't be able to win on it's old leftist platform (even if the majority of the population supported it) and so moved to the right - leading to the rise of Tony Blair and New Labor.

Electoral campaigns cannot even achieve the goal reformists desire, movement to the left within the present system, even if all revolutionaries suddenly converted to their cause. Whomever we elect will, once in power, do largely the same thing Bush would do given the same situation. Thus electoral campaigns are, at best, completely wasted. Actually, they're worse because they help solidify the strength of the inevitable right-wing regime and undercut the development of a revolutionary movement that can force the government/ruling class to the left. The ruling class isn't going to grant concessions unless your movement threatens them and a movement thoroughly loyal to the democrats does not. A radical revolutionary movement, however, does. Thus, electoralism not only undercuts revolutionary movements but it also undercuts the reformist goal of moving the country to the left within the present system.

Electoral politics disempowers the grassroots. The aim of electoral campaigns is to elect someone else into office who will then (hopefully) implement the things we want them to. Instead of acting for ourselves we try to get someone else to act for us. Power is centralized into the hands of a few, the rest are disempowered. Elections empower the politician, not the voter. Energy put into election campaigns is energy that is not put into direct action. Once elected politicians do what the corporate elite wants, not what ordinary people want, resulting in the demoralization and defeat of the movement that had backed it.

This has ruined more than a few movements. The election of Bill Clinton had a major negative impact on radical activism in the mid-nineties. In the 1992 election liberals were running around saying how we all had to do everything we could to elect Bill Clinton and get the "Fascist" Bush the first out at all costs. When Clinton got into power he was no different from his predecessor. He failed to deliver on the progressive reforms he promised (health care, etc.), assisted many reactionary attacks and murdered more people than Pol Pot. Activists, however, were disempowered while giving power to politicians. People were discouraged and activists started dropping out. The mid-nineties saw a dearth of activism which allowed the right to advance even further. Putting faith in elected politicians is just a set-up for failure. The last thing we need is more illusions in the status quo.

Instead of election campaigning we should be using propaganda (in the positive sense of the term) to change public opinion and direct action to directly make changes in policy. Direct action means acting for ourselves to directly change things, instead of relying on someone else to act for you (such as a politician) act for yourself. Direct action is any action which people themselves decides upon and organizes themselves that is based on their own collective strength and does not rely on getting intermediates to act for them. Examples include civil disobedience, strikes, and work slowdowns. This can be contrasted with indirect action in which you hope someone else will fix the problem for you. Electoral campaigns are the classic example of indirect action - trying to elect someone else in the hopes that he'll solve those problems for you.

Election campaigns and voting does not alter the direction of the state. It does the opposite - it strengthens state power. The belief that citizens exercise control over the state by voting is like the belief that Iraq had Al-Qaeda links - quite common and quite false. It makes no difference who you elect; they will do largely the same thing once in power. Whatever damage Bush inflicts is roughly the same damage a democrat would inflict in the same situation. Thus, voting doesn't lessen the "damage Bush would do" because basically the same damage would occur even if someone else were elected.

[Alejandro C]

wow, very well said Morpheus. as i read your post i wondered if you think things would be different if the US had a multi party system instead of the two(one) party system that we have now. then if there was an economic slide the opposition party would not automatically win the next election another leftist party could take control and with time reforms and progress could be made.
possibly if the US had a representative congress in which seats are assigned by percentage of the national vote instead of the winner take all single member plurality districts that we have now. that might allow for one small party to have more determination because the two so-called main parties are split pretty evenly -a small party could step in and take control of the 'swing' vote.

[RedComrade]

Your article brings up several interesting points. While I do not think Kucinich is the answer to every single problem Americans- and workers around the world for that matter, are facing he is without a doubt a step in the right direction. One major difference between Kucinich or Nader and Bush- and the the claim that like Bush they would fail to follow through on pre-election promises, is that neither of the two are dependant upon the corporate backing to attain and maintain there positions in electoral politics. Because they both rely on the grassroots support of the working class they can circumvent the corporate vetoes which prevented Bush from following through on his own personal ideals. I do not necessarily take issue with your articles opinion that direct action is key to the working class- however i beleive that the most efficient policy is one that fuses both direct and indirect action. As we have seen throughout history one exclusive path is not enough, be it the defeatist embrace of Gore in 2000 or the exclusively direct action of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. The best path is one that embraces both types of action- direct and indirect, and uses them to pursue the class interests of the proletariat.

[Red Louisiana]

The best practice is to realize the Bourgeois political system exists to preserve itself, not foster and create socialism. With this, the political system should be USED to relay our message, but that CAN'T be don't with the Democratic top dogs smashing your voice.

The answer? Visit the third world, help out there.

[commie pig]

Yeah, that's real fucking smart. Throw your vote away on some dweeb who's lucky to get 10% of the national vote if everyone else fucking drops dead and he sucks enough cock to get the nomination. No wonder you democrats are such a bunch of losers.

[(*]

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 26 2003, 12:24 AM
No wonder you democrats are such a bunch of losers.
:lol:

Good one! You really nailed them sons of *****es, right pa

[commie pig]

You're a little sarcastic son-of-a-*****, aren't you, you ragheaded motherfucker. I hope Allah pisses on your head while you're out in the backyard fucking your camel.

[(*]

Ignorance, another unfortunate side effect of inbreeding

[truthaddict11]

Voting is utterly useless in the capitalist system no matter how "progressive" a canidate sounds. Relying on elections to free the working class is reformist.

[SonofRage]

I hate when people paste entire articles like that. Either post a link or an excerpt plus a link.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 07:08 AM
Voting is utterly useless in the capitalist system no matter how "progressive" a canidate sounds. Relying on elections to free the working class is reformist.
Really then how do you explain the fact that the very fact that you are able to post this material, have holiday, sick leave, work 5 days a week, etc etc. Which is all down to reformists, who fought to gain you the vote. The vote being important because it is what allowed the working citizen to gain such liberal reforms.

Not to mention that for regime change, voting is not ineffective, how do you think that Hitler caim to power in Germany? Do you think that any class would want Fascist groups in charge...? In this case voting worked for the fascists, there is no reason it should not work for socialists.

Voting works, history proves this.

[SonofRage]

Just to expand on Enigma's last post, reformers are not the enemy or the problem. The problem is when people win reforms they have fought for and then stop there. If a mass movement of people wins reforms and keeps fighting they will eventually realize they have the power in their hands to change the whole system. Social Revolution leads to Political Revolution.

[Saint-Just]

We want to fundamentally change the nature of the system, in this respect voting achieved nothing and moreover gives people the illusion of class peace because they have received some consessions. We could have achieved worker's power a hundred years ago had the capitalists been more resistant in allowing us the vote. In the late 19th Century the capitalists saw the danger of revolution and started to appease the worker's. If they had never done that we would be in a far better position today. Ultimately a more aggressive, reactionary and guarded ruling class benefit the masses because in those circumstances revolution is inevitable.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 10:46 AM
We want to fundamentally change the nature of the system, in this respect voting achieved nothing and moreover gives people the illusion of class peace because they have received some consessions. We could have achieved worker's power a hundred years ago had the capitalists been more resistant in allowing us the vote. In the late 19th Century the capitalists saw the danger of revolution and started to appease the worker's. If they had never done that we would be in a far better position today. Ultimately a more aggressive, reactionary and guarded ruling class benefit the masses because in those circumstances revolution is inevitable.
As a historystudent you should be well aware that a vast differance exists between workers conditions in the early 19th century, from today. A socialist revolution could not have taken place, because until the Marxists no actual major socialist was in favour of revolution. In fact Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Owen were all pacafists (sp). Marxism also did not get considered a major possibility until the early 20th Century.

If a revolution had occured, it would have likley been a Chartist revolution which was a highly pro-worker movment, but did not actualy intend the complete removal of the capitalist canser.

[Kez]

Originally posted by Enigma+Nov 26 2003, 09:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Nov 26 2003, 09:14 AM)
[email protected] 26 2003, 07:08 AM
Voting is utterly useless in the capitalist system no matter how "progressive" a canidate sounds. Relying on elections to free the working class is reformist.
Really then how do you explain the fact that the very fact that you are able to post this material, have holiday, sick leave, work 5 days a week, etc etc. Which is all down to reformists, who fought to gain you the vote. The vote being important because it is what allowed the working citizen to gain such liberal reforms.

Not to mention that for regime change, voting is not ineffective, how do you think that Hitler caim to power in Germany? Do you think that any class would want Fascist groups in charge...? In this case voting worked for the fascists, there is no reason it should not work for socialists.

Voting works, history proves this. [/b]
REformism didnt bring us these benefits comrade, only pressure from below, had these benefits not been given the whole system would have been overthrown, so it was better to throw down a few crumbs than to forfeit the whole fucking cake, no comrade?

The fascists only got in due to the ineffective socialists and ultra-left opportunist stalinists. Capitalism was in a crisis, Hitler did not WIN the eleection, it was GIVEN to him

[redstar2000]

"Voting works, history proves this."

:lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bolshevika]

This Kucinich is a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside). I&#39;d vote for him.

I think it&#39;s silly not to vote. I think everyone should vote in order to get Bush out of office. The reason Bush and his imperialist lackeys are in power is because a large percentage of Leftists do not vote.

Hell, I&#39;d even vote for Dean over Bush.

[YKTMX]

I certainly think socialists should vote in elections and this guy Kucinich is as good a choice as any as far as the American presidency goes. Anyone who says it&#39;s "pointless" voting is being ignorant of the facts and doing a dis-service to great movements during history which has struggled for the vote.

[Scottish_Militant]

If Bush wasn&#39;t voted in, how the hell could you vote him out?? :unsure:

[Bolshevika]

Hehehe, yes CR. You are right, reminds me of a joke: "What&#39;s the difference between Hitler and Bush? Hitler was voted into power."

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 05:06 PM
Hehehe, yes CR. You are right, reminds me of a joke: "What&#39;s the difference between Hitler and Bush? Hitler was voted into power."
Slightly unfair. Bush actually won more of the votes as a percentage than Hitler, who only ever won about a third to 40 percent of the vote.

[Edelweiss]

Here are my two cents about reforms and elections in western bourgois states: Rosa Luxemburg said that reformism is a mean of class struggle, and I think that summs it up pretty well. To refuse reforms of the capitalist system which will actually improve the conditions of the working class, just because only the revolution is our final goal, would be reactionary IMO. If there wouldn&#39;t have been workers successfully fighting for reforms of the capitalist system, we still would have a 15h day in the factories, no health insurance, etc., the exploitation still would be much more direct, and perceptible for the worker (although that direct exploitation has of course to the 3rd would countries...). However, in the current situation it&#39;s of course just to defend the accomplished reforms, a struggle which have been already lost in the UK during the 80s by the Left, and which is just beginning now in countries like Germany, and here even under a social democratic government. If there would have been a stronger and more effective leftist opposition against Thatcherism during the 80s in the UK, an opposition which could have debunked the populism and true intentions of Thaterism, many of the "reforms" of Thatcher probaply could have been prevented, and Thatcher would have been deselected soon, and neo-liberalism wouldn&#39;t be the new paradigm of almost all western states. So although our final goal only can be the subversion of capitalism, to totally deny any participation in bourgois politics, and to completely ignore it because of ideological reasons, would be the wrong way.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by TavareeshKamo+Nov 26 2003, 03:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TavareeshKamo @ Nov 26 2003, 03:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 09:14 AM

[email protected] 26 2003, 07:08 AM
Voting is utterly useless in the capitalist system no matter how "progressive" a canidate sounds. Relying on elections to free the working class is reformist.
Really then how do you explain the fact that the very fact that you are able to post this material, have holiday, sick leave, work 5 days a week, etc etc. Which is all down to reformists, who fought to gain you the vote. The vote being important because it is what allowed the working citizen to gain such liberal reforms.

Not to mention that for regime change, voting is not ineffective, how do you think that Hitler caim to power in Germany? Do you think that any class would want Fascist groups in charge...? In this case voting worked for the fascists, there is no reason it should not work for socialists.

Voting works, history proves this.
REformism didnt bring us these benefits comrade, only pressure from below, had these benefits not been given the whole system would have been overthrown, so it was better to throw down a few crumbs than to forfeit the whole fucking cake, no comrade?

The fascists only got in due to the ineffective socialists and ultra-left opportunist stalinists. Capitalism was in a crisis, Hitler did not WIN the eleection, it was GIVEN to him [/b]
As I said to CM, the system would not have changed, the only major leftwing political group at the time was the chartists, they believed in achiving political reform such as universal sufferage, etc. If they had started a revolution this would have been implemented. In about 70 years all of their main demands were met through reform.

Redstar the only joke in this forum is you, unless you have can actually disprove my comment, and show that not one single good thing has been achieved by voting... bugger off.

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:46 PM
Free Trade:
Withdraw completely from the W.T.O and N.A.F.T.A

Iraq:
Has a plan to get the U.S out in 90 days, supports rapid restoration of self determination for the Iraqi people

Drug War
Decriminalize marijuana, end the costly, uneffective "War on Drugs"

Workers Rights
Workers have a right to: Have a job, Have a safe workplace, Get decent wages and benefits, Organize and be represented, Grieve about working conditions, Strike, Fair compensation for injuries on the job, Sue if injured by negligent employers, Have secure pension and retirement benefits, Participate in the political process, REPEAL TAFT HARTLEY&#33;

Military Spending
Immediately cut the military budget by 15% and use it to fund a strong program for Universal Healthcare

This is just a sample of the many great ideas of Dennis Kucinich, for more go to: http://www.denniskucinich.us, remember its very important to not only remove Bush but actually elect a viable alternative- not just Republican Light. Im confident the Kucinich is the right choice in 04&#39; but because he refuses to bow to corporate interests his chances arent looking to hot, it will take the dedication of grassroots organisers, in short of the politically active working class, to get this good man elected in 2004, please visit the site and tell your friends.

Free Trade:
Withdraw completely from the W.T.O and N.A.F.T.A

I agree with this, I HATE NAFTA. It&#39;s done nothing but rape Canadian business with a blitzkrieg of American Evil Corporations.


Drug War
Decriminalize marijuana, end the costly, uneffective "War on Drugs"

Marijuana charges are just a waste of time. It&#39;s a victimless crime to possess pot.


Workers Rights
Workers have a right to: Have a job, Have a safe workplace, Get decent wages and benefits, Organize and be represented, Grieve about working conditions, Strike, Fair compensation for injuries on the job, Sue if injured by negligent employers, Have secure pension and retirement benefits, Participate in the political process, REPEAL TAFT HARTLEY&#33;

I like this. I like this alot.


Military Spending
Immediately cut the military budget by 15% and use it to fund a strong program for Universal Healthcare

I&#39;ve never understood why the "Most powerful nation of earth" never had Medicare. I like this.

Kucinich has always been one facvourite of mine in this race. I wish him luck and hope he does win it all, in the end.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Fantastic thread. A big thank you to RedComrade for starting this discussion.

I agree with RedComrade in his support for Dennis Kucinich. I, too, would vote enthusiastically for Kucinich. I would vote for some of the other Dems, but I do not think I could be enthusaistic about any of the others.

It does seem unlikely that Kucinich would be able to implement all of the progressive measures in his platform. I think a Kucinich administration would be positive, whether he was a success or a failure. If successful, he would improve the quality of life for many people who really need it. If he fails, it will be due to tremendous pressure from the ruling class. His failure would expose the fraud of electoral politics being capable of real and needed change. I think it would be a great example that we could propagandize in our fight against "electionism."

There is this opinion that radicals should boycott all elections. I personally do not understand it. First of all, how does voting strengthen the state? If this is the case, should not low voter turnout be the mark of a society on the verge of revolution. The latter part is clearly not true, since in the United States only 40% vote and the imperial state is alive and well. A majority of Americans boycott the elections, and it does not matter.

The boycotting of elections seems only to make people passive and invisible. Oddly enough, that is the same argument used by those backing the boycott of elections. To an extent, the "electionism" promoted by the U.S. ruling class is indeed intended to blunt progressive and revolutionary movements. Electoral reforms can make people complacent. Clearly, we do need more direct action and a revolutionary focus. Does that really mean we should abandon elections and all methods of reform? I think electoral politics and reform can be part of a revolutionary program, but they must not be the main thrust (let alone the only thrust).

And by the way, someone mentioned Bush&#39;s isolationist rhetoric when he was a candidate for president, and used it as evidence that the ruling class manipulates and overrules the intentions of politicians. Personally, I think Bush was just lying the whole time. He was and still is marketed as a "compassionate conservative." If he had promised that, if elected (or installed by the Supreme Court, whichever), he would wage imperial wars for his oil buddies that would not have appeared compassionate.

[Saint-Just]

If there would have been a stronger and more effective leftist opposition against Thatcherism during the 80s in the UK, an opposition which could have debunked the populism and true intentions of Thaterism, many of the "reforms" of Thatcher probaply could have been prevented, and Thatcher would have been deselected soon, and neo-liberalism wouldn&#39;t be the new paradigm of almost all western states.

I would concede that where there is no chance of revolution we should vote. However, in the past when capitalist exploitation has been at its greatest people have chosen to vote when they should have not done so.

I would certainly agree that the world would be a better place without the rise of neo-liberalism, it would have been beneficial to have never had Thatcher, she rearranged politics in Britain and Europe.

[Morpheus]

Alejandro C: I don&#39;t think a true multi-party system with proportional representation or whatever would make much of a difference. The way the system is set up capital flight, CIA interference, etc. will make any elected government do largely the same thing (obey the elite) as I explained in the first part of my essay. Europe has had many multi-party systems yet everytime a radical party gets into power they sell out. The Social Democrats were originally revolutionary Marxists but as they gained more and more power they became more and more conservative. Today they are dismantling the welfare state they helped build. Such events can be seen over and over throughout history - the German Greens, Lula, etc. It&#39;s practically an Iron Law of Electoralism. It&#39;s a moot point anyway, since the onlyway we&#39;d get a true multi-party system is by revolution and if we manage to launch a revolution we should take it a lot farther then a mere multi-party state.

RedComrade: It doesn&#39;t matter if a politician is dependant on corporate funding. Capital flight, CIA, etc. will insure that any elected politician will have to follow the will of the elite as I explained in the first part of my article.

Enigma: The gains you refer to were brought about through direct action, not electoralism. Every radical party that has won power has either become more & more conservative or been deposed by coup. Voting doesn&#39;t work, history proves this.


how do you think that Hitler caim to power in Germany? Do you think that any class would want Fascist groups in charge...?

Yes, the capitalists wanted Fascists in power so they would annhiliate the workers&#39; movement, so they did. Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and others were all enthusiastic supporters of fascism because it was crushing socialism. Hitler did not win a majority of popular votes, he got into power through parliamentary manuevering. See Big Business and Fascism by Daniel Guerin.

You are also incorrect about the history of revolutionary socialist movements. The Chartists were most definately not the only revolutionary movement in the 19th century. There were strong communist, socialist & anarchist movements in the French Revolution - the Enrages, Sans-Coullotes, conspiracy of equals, etc. The middle of the 19th century saw the development of a mutualist anarchist movement in France, including a major rebellion in Lyons. There was also Blanqui and LaSalle. During the 1848 revolutions there were workers&#39; insurrections calling for socialism, including the famous June Days in France. There was already a Communist movement by the time Marx & Engels wrote the &#39;Communist Manifesto.&#39; The 1870s saw the development of a powerfull anarchist movement, the 1880s a Marxist movement, and the 1890s a syndicalist movement. One of the ways capitalists responded to this was by increasing suffrage - they found that doing so decreased unrest.

Bolshevika: What&#39;s the point of getting Bush out if the next guy is just as bad?

YouKnowTheyMurderedX: You didn&#39;t actually respond to any of my arguements. Calling people ignorant or other names does not refute their ideas.

Marxist in Nebraska:

I think a Kucinich administration would be positive, whether he was a success or a failure. If successful, he would improve the quality of life for many people who really need it. If he fails, it will be due to tremendous pressure from the ruling class. His failure would expose the fraud of electoral politics being capable of real and needed change.

We have over a century of people like Kucinich getting into power and failing to implement their programs yet there are still people like you who continue to believe in electoralism. So obviously that strategy doesn&#39;t work. The belief in electoralism is more result of a niave faith instilled by capitalist schools & media than an actual examination of the history of electoralism. This can be seen here where, with a couple exceptions most supporters of voting (including you) have not really responded to the arguements put forth but instead just chant the same stuff over and over. In one ear and out the other.


First of all, how does voting strengthen the state?

I already explained this in my essay earlier in the thread. Please read it and if you disagree explain the errors in reasons in that article instead of just saying the samething over and over like most voters do.

If this is the case, should not low voter turnout be the mark of a society on the verge of revolution.

Historically almost all revolutions have occured in countries where there were no free elections. France, Russia, China, etc. There are very few countries where a revolution has occured when it had free elections. The only cases where I can recall an election happening in a country with elections are where the revolutionary movement boycotted the elections in favor of revolution. The recent rebellion in Argentina was preceded by a major boycott of the election, it declined with a Presidiential election that was not vigorously boycotted. If a revolution were brought about in a country with elections it would most likely be preceded by low turnout. Low turnout doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to a revolution, though. One of the main purpose of elections is to fool people into thinking they live in a &#39;democratic&#39; society which isn&#39;t ruled by an exploitative elite, so long as this belief continues revolution will not happen. Electoral campaigns help further these illusions by portraying the state as "democratic" which we extert control over by voting when the reality is that it&#39;s controlled by a tiny elite. Not voting isn&#39;t doing nothing, it&#39;s not doing something stupid. Voting means taking a step away from revolution.


The boycotting of elections seems only to make people passive and invisible.

Now your&#39;e repeating CNN&#39;s line. There&#39;s a long tradition of opponets of undemocratic regimes boycotting sham elections, it was recently done in Algeria. Doing it in the US is no different.


by the way, someone mentioned Bush&#39;s isolationist rhetoric when he was a candidate for president, and used it as evidence that the ruling class manipulates and overrules the intentions of politicians. Personally, I think Bush was just lying the whole time.

Even if this were the case how do you know Kucinich isn&#39;t doing the same thing?

[redstar2000]

Rosa Luxemburg said that reformism is a mean[s] of class struggle...

Indeed she did...and so did nearly everyone else in those "optimistic" years before World War I.

It really did seem "possible", back then, that the working class could win a majority in a bourgeois parliament and "by degrees" wrest economic power from the capitalist class.

Best of all, it would be relatively "peaceful" and "lawful"...no "messy" revolutions. The "lower orders" would receive "socialism" from "on high", as a "gift", and would be "grateful" to the "givers".

Life was so much "simpler" then. *sighs*

Well, we&#39;ve had almost a century of bourgeois electoral politics since then. Lots and lots of experience.

Lots of reforms were enacted in Europe (1919-1939), the United States (1933-1939), and even the U.K. (1945-1955).

No socialism. Of course, no communism. Some nationalizations here and there...now being privatized. Some fairly generous welfare schemes...now being "cut back" or eliminated.

Even a few advances in civil liberties...now being withdrawn as a "response" to "terrorism".

It strikes me that no matter how you want to measure it, the "golden age" of bourgeois "democracy" is over.

What seemed like the sensible, rational strategy in Luxemburg&#39;s time has become folly.

There aren&#39;t going to be any more "reforms" in the sense that you folks use that word...in fact the word itself now means further attacks on the working class.

I recall an interview with a woman factory worker some years ago. She said that now whenever she hears the word "reform", she cringes. She knows it&#39;s going to make things worse.

As this matter has come up before, I will only repeat myself: vote or not as it pleases you...it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Here are some further thoughts on the matter...

Voting for Socialism? or Anything? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060131865&archive=1062413506&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Vulgar Reformism (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1053395982&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Edelweiss]

redstar: As I already stated in my earlier post, I&#39;m fully aware that it isn&#39;t anymore about fighting for more reforms, workers rights, and improvements of the working conditiotions, as sad it is, but now it&#39;s just about defend the accomplished. Sorry, but I can&#39;t just sit back and wait for the revolution to come, while progressive elements in our social system, like solid health and unemployment insurance, strong dismissal protections, nation wide wage agreements etc. etc. are cut back or abolished entirely. All those things meant actually improvements in the social security and social justice, I&#39;m not willing to just let it happen that "my country" is turning into a turbo capitalist system like the USA or the UK, I think the radical left have to involve in that political process within bourgois politics now, and fight back, counter and debunk the neo-liberal preachers. Again, a good example how the radical left failed during just that political process was the UK under Thatcher during the 80s and early 90s. So I think that Luxemburg&#39;s statement about reformism as a means of class struggle is still fully valid, to defend the accomplished workers rights and social benefits IS without question part of today&#39;s class struggle. Furthermore I&#39;m shure that Luxemburg never had the illusion to reach socialism by gaining the majority in the paliaments, that would make her a social democrat, but she was fully aware the the ruling class never would allow that, and would prevent that by any means, she always advocated a violent revolution, and she always rejected the bougois democracy of the Weimar republic.

[SonofRage]

well said Malte

[Blackberry]

With all of this talk about reforms and reformism, it is necessary to clear the terms...

Reformism: Achieving Communism through winning power in bourgeois elections and making a series of reforms.

Reforms: The individual reforms made to slightly relieve the working class (ie. th 40 hour week). Reforms do not have to come through socialists or "socialists" with political power -- they can be forced through via general strikes, attempted revolutions, etc. that pressure the ruling class.

Carry on...

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m not willing to just let it happen that "my country" is turning into a turbo capitalist system like the USA or the UK...

Well, here we get into the question of fighting against the "natural" course of events. It looks to me like late capitalism is becoming "turbo-capitalism" everywhere. (By the way, I like the term "slash and burn capitalism" myself...it reflects the destructive content better.)

Of course, one can and should wage "defensive" struggles against it...but in my view, strikes and demonstrations are the only strategies that show any signs of slowing down the process--naturally, the more militant and persistent such activities are, the better the prognosis.

Today, I think anyone elected to office from any party will quickly find themselves faced with an ultimatum from capital: do what we tell you to do or your political career is over.

Capitalists are still willing to put up with (some) verbal criticism...but they demand fealty in deeds.


...that would make her a social democrat.

But she was a social democrat...every Marxist (yes, even Lenin) was a social democrat in those days. Some were further to the left than others (she was certainly one of them)...but no one outside of anarchist circles thought that there was anything standing in the way of the parliamentary road to socialism except time.

If you and I had been there, I can&#39;t think of any reason why we would have disagreed...it looked like the right way to go, it was "winning" more votes in more countries with every passing year (and doing this inspite of the fact that most bourgeois "democracies" in Europe had voting systems that were rigged against workers). No one knew then what was going to happen in 1914...and what it would reveal about social democracy. (A few Marxists--including one F. Engels--did anticipate a major European war...but no one anticipated the utter collapse of social democracy. When Lenin in Switzerland first saw news reports of German social-democrats supporting the war in the Reichstag, he thought they were "fakes"..."dis-information" planted in the Swiss newspapers by the Imperial German Government.)


...she always rejected the bourgeois democracy of the Weimar republic.

Actually, I believe she was murdered prior to the actual founding of the Weimar Republic. But I agree with you that she certainly would have cast a cynical eye on "the freest republic in the world".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I thought I&#39;d toss this one in "just for fun"...


MOSCOW - The Communist Party has always billed itself as the worker&#39;s party. Alexei Kondaurov, who is running for parliament on the Communist ticket, is no exception. He works five days a week as an executive of Yukos Oil Co., earning &#036;629,556 a year.

Sergei Muravlenko also aspires to represent the Communists in parliament. Board chairman of Yukos until June, Muravlenko earns &#036;10 million a year and owns a Porsche, a BMW and two Mercedes.

The Russian Communist Party is undergoing a face lift, to put it mildly. Faced with the prospect of winning fewer seats than at any time in its history, the party has made a major push to attract younger voters and recruit potentially lucrative support in the business community.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...l=la-home-world (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-commies27nov27,1,3507074.story?coll=la-home-world)

There&#39;s a lesson there...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Edelweiss]

ctually, I believe she was murdered prior to the actual founding of the Weimar Republic. But I agree with you that she certainly would have cast a cynical eye on "the freest republic in the world".

I think Rosa Luxemburg was murdered in the same year as the Weimar Republic was founded, so you could be right. However, she founded the KPD along with others, just because of the reactionary, anti-revolutionary developents within the SPD, and the KPD always was opposed to the Weimar republic.
BTW: I actually counted direct actions like strikes and demonstations in, and also militant actions, when I said we should take part in bougois politics and defend the accomblished reforms, I&#39;m not calling everyone to vote or to join a party, although I do support "old school" social democrats like Oskar Lafontaine here in Germany, who are defending the welfare state in the parliamants.

[Saint-Just]

Redstar2000, that link you used requires an account with LATIMES to see the article. The KPRF is one Communist party among many in Russia, and indeed the world. Although you would be correct that their electoral support would likely be far smaller if they advocated Marxist ideas such as &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39;.

[redstar2000]

CM, for what it&#39;s worth, I think the Los Angeles Times is worth registering for (it&#39;s free). It&#39;s actually a superior newspaper to The New York Times and they don&#39;t charge you to look at past issues...

You know from my other posts that I rely a lot on the BBC site; but for American bourgeois coverage, I think the LA Times is probably the best available.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[KickMcCann]

I think the major point about elections in the US and elsewhere is missing. You and 200 million other Americans could all vote for Dennis Kucinich, but he still wouldn&#39;t be elected; in fact, the elections are already decided .Voting for a presdent is pointless. The United States is an authoritarian republic built on the apparatus of corporate feudalism. The US is not different than the kingdom of Kim Jong Il, except that they oppress people not with violent aggression, but with active pacification. You can kill someone by kicking them in the head with steel-toed boots just as easily as you can by smothering them with a pillow, But a pillow is alot softer.

The American public could easily be turned into an aggressive revolutionary mass, but only by denying them what they want, and making there lives uncomfortable. The parasite of corporate feudalism supplies the people with jobs, products, and a relentless thirst of materialism. What would cause your average joe American to revolt against the government and big buisness if he has a job, house, food, and relative safety? Political freedom isn&#39;t his big concern, he can still say what he wants and pretty much do what he wants, so why should he threaten the stability of his life with a conflict against a benevolent system?

If a government oppresses a people by restricting and denying their human rights, it gives the people a strong feeling of resentment, and their oppression becomes a reason to retaliate against the powers to be. Any aspiring fascist of the 21st century will quickly realize that the successful route to power does not include stirring up conflict with the masses. Any dictatorship which still practices the classic form of oppression is quite obsolete and will be exctinct in the forseeable future.

Is anyone here familiar with Taoism? it is an ancient Chinese philosophy and sort of a religion. It&#39;s funding ideal is to act without acting. To act in a way that creates no resistance by the rest of the world. I like it and follow it. But you must realize that its ideas, just like all ideas, can be used for good and bad. I think its safe to say that whatever group or individual really controls America have taken a few pages out of the Tao Te Ching to create this 21st century dictatorship we call America.

The oppress the American people, and people all over the "1st world", not by crushing them, but by putting them into a happy coma. The people can still think and say whatever they want without the threat of violence. They can form political movements, write essays, and organize protests. Your average American doesn&#39;t do those things, they are to busy working, raising children, and living their private lives. But they know that if they wanted to, they could, so they believe they are free.

Lets look at the system. Who controls the mainstream media? A few enormous corporations with ties to every industry imaginable, their news, be it on tv, in the paper, or the net, is just propaganda for everything they are involved in. Lets look at the only viable political parties in the US. When we get our ballots every 4th november, there are usually only 2 people to choose from, a democrat or republican. How do these people get on the ballot? They are choosen by their respective political parties. Who controls the political parties? The same big corporations that control the media. If GE donates thousands of dollars equally to both parties, it is obvious that they influence and partly control both of them. So companies like GE decide who will be on the ballot. The idea of choice is just an illusion, if both parties and canidates are the puppets of the same organisation. So you see Tom Brokaw doing his interviews with democrat canidates, laughing and joking with them. Its all a facade. Tom and the politicans on stage are all puppets, and you can already tell who they&#39;ve hired as their puppets. I was watching these debates and noticed that Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt got more air time than anybody else on stage. So your next president will either be Howard, Dick, or George. It is already decided for you. So go ahead and pick door number 1,2, or 3; they all lead to the same room.

Why do they want power? for the sake of self-survival of course. If they control every aspct of society, they will never fade away or die. They can always stay on top, selling their products to the people, making money by forcing the government to go to war and getting nice defense contracts. Asassinating those who oppose them in secret acts. These are the people behind 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Behind the murders of Malcom X, Che, JFK, RLK, and MLK. Behind the war in Iraq, and every future war that will happen.

And it is so incredibly hard to fight such an enemy, as they do not act or look like we excpect the enemy to. They are the NBS, CBS, ABC, CNN and Fox news, the presidents who are smiling and kissing babies, The people who make your cars, airplanes, and tanks. Who speak of American pride and patriotism, all the while lying to you and hijacking your country. How do you convince average people to give up their stable lives in the system for an uncertain future fighting a friendly enemy to take back freedom?

All in all, they are not scary super-monsters, just people like you and I. As tangled as the web of deception is, it is still man-made, and can be destroyed by man as well. So I&#39;m not sure what to do now. They&#39;ve slipped up many times before, and they will again, we just have to be ready to catch them in their own bull shit. But all in all, presidential elections are parlor tricks best to be ignored.

[redstar2000]

The people can still think and say whatever they want without the threat of violence. They can form political movements, write essays, and organize protests.

There&#39;s some evidence--recent events in Miami, for example--that suggest they are turning towards a more vigorous strategy of violent repression.

This is possible because their media is increasingly silent about the police violence directed against dissidents.


So go ahead and pick door number 1,2, or 3; they all lead to the same room.

Quite right&#33; And the room is a really attractively furnished and fairly comfortable jail cell.

Enjoy your stay.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Alejandro C]

perhaps a more relevant indictement of the US electoral process will be that no one will be given the opportunity to vote for kucinich. with the possible excpetion of lefty but i don&#39;t think he&#39;s old enough. kucinich will be off the democratic ticket by new hamshire. only those in Iowa will be able to vote for him and there is no way he is going to come out ahead. kucinich will come in last on near last in the first several primaries and will drop out of the race SEVERAL months before the presidential election.

for those reformists of you this must beg the question- will nader run. my instincts tell me that he wont. he has said as far back as this summer that he wouldn&#39;t be running because the democrats have some progressive candidates running, namely kucinich and sharpton. nader is no fool, he must have known that theses would not get the dem. nomination. so it seems to me he was giving up knowing full well that we&#39;re all fucked.

this means that reform is impossible. dean will run against bush. bush will win. those results are fairly obvious to most of us who study politics in the US. perhaps most effective now would be to look at some supposed &#39;checks&#39; the system has. in our 2 party system the only so-called check is the threat of losing votes. either party will try to have the ideas that will gain the most support of the masses. in this system if kucinich was to recieve a large support in the primaries and then a large write in vote after he lost the nomination the democrats would be forced to notice. a better situation would be if kucinich split off from the dem after losing the bid to form his own party, much like teddy roosevelt did with the bull moose party. this would essentially split the part vote losing the election for the democrats. this would force a re-evalutation in the democratic party possibly opening the door for more progressive candidates to run at the state level, essentially this would be a long term fix. however this long term fix would be based on the idea that kucinich could get enough support to fuck dean. i think that he could. there are enough hard core democrats out there that would love to see something like this happen so that they could vote for kucinich and really express their dissproval for those spineless bastards calling themselves democrats.

possibly kucinich could run on the green ticket when he loses the dem vote. that would be something, i might vote for him then. i&#39;ve said over and over to people who ask me- &#39;id vote for kucinich if he wasnt a democrat&#39;. maybe that&#39;ll happen, but probably not.

one other thing- kucinich is mostly an anti-democrat. he shames himself by being associated with them. in fact most of his platform is to repeal those things clinton started. if by some weird fuck of fate kucininch was to become president, congress would trash every single one of his ideas. the democrats would hate kucinich who is setting them back a couple decades and obviously the republicans hate anyone with good ideas so his laws would never get passed. one more mechanism that proves the election system in the US is completely fucked with no hope of correcting itself.

[Invader Zim]

LOL, I never noticed this before, better late than never though: -

The gains you refer to were brought about through direct action, not electoralism.

You seem to be behind in the conversation, the conversation had moved on rather from electoral socialism, to reforms in general. In that post I was discussing the early-mid 19th century&#39;s prominent leftwing movements in the UK. Considering that universal suffrage was granted in 1918 I believe, how could we have been talking about the drawbacks of election? The gains were brought about by parliamentary reforms. Direct action (with the exception of the abolition of the Corn Laws) had very little effect in this period. Though some of the largest demonstrations held in UK&#39;s history were seen, very little actually came of it. The real reform in favour of workers came from pro-worker elements of the House of Commons.

The point was that if the chartists had an election all of what they would have achieved was later achieved anyway by parliamentary reform, thus rendering revolution in that situation null.

Yes, the capitalists wanted Fascists in power so they would annhiliate the workers&#39; movement, so they did.

The capitalists NEVER wanted the Fascists in power, but after a highly decisive vote they were left with no choise in the matter. The fascists were elected by the workers of Germany because they promised economic security and stability. Hindenburg, was left with little choice other than to hope that he would be able to control Hitler. Before Hitler was made chancellor, Schleicher and Hindenburg formed a coalition government against the nazi/Von Papen threat, which was entering the Reichstag. Von Papen, Hitler&#39;s political ally, who supported his rise to power, even said: -

"Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he&#39;ll squeak."

Though I do concede the nazi party did have some support from industrialists, and small businesses, the vast majority of his support came from the unemployed, the poor and the farmers. Where as the majority of the middle/upper classes, were not in favour of hitler, as they disagreed with his proposed methods of lifting the depression, which was considered by them to be damaging, to their interests.

If the nazi&#39;s had largely middle class support they would not have faced the financial problems they did in November 1932.

Henry Ford, Prescott Bush and others were all enthusiastic supporters of fascism because it was crushing socialism.

Perhaps the American capitalists thought that, but the German middle classes clearly didn&#39;t.

Hitler did not win a majority of popular votes, he got into power through parliamentary manuevering.

That is a complete inaccuracy. Hitler got into power because he won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag in 1932, and in March 1933 247, making them its largest party. Not a Majority, but still the largest party, winning more seats than the opposition is hardly "parliamentary manoeuvring".

The Chartists were most definately not the only revolutionary movement in the 19th century.

Your right, they weren&#39;t, but if you go back and read what I said, you will see I said early 19th century. I also you will note never called them a revolutionary group, because they weren&#39;t, the Majority of the chartists favoured "Moral force".

socialist & anarchist movements in the French Revolution - the Enrages, Sans-Coullotes, conspiracy of equals, etc. The middle of the 19th century saw the development of a mutualist anarchist movement in France, including a major rebellion in Lyons.

Like I also said, Major groups, not insignificant movements. Also which French revolution would you be referring to? The 18th century major French Revolution...? (not 19th) which was lead by the capitalists&#33; The one that occurred in 1830 (also capitalist) or the one in 1848? (Shockingly capitalist again)

During the 1848 revolutions there were workers&#39; insurrections calling for socialism, including the famous June Days in France. There was already a Communist movement by the time Marx & Engels wrote the &#39;Communist Manifesto.&#39; The 1870s saw the development of a powerfull anarchist movement, the 1880s a Marxist movement, and the 1890s a syndicalist movement. One of the ways capitalists responded to this was by increasing suffrage - they found that doing so decreased unrest.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of the movements you mentioned were small insignificant movements, mostly part of a larger capitalist movement, and those, which weren&#39;t, were most certainly not early 19th century.

I think that in future, you should try reading what people say, not what you want them to say.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I like what one article from the Revolutionary Worker newspaper said concerning the 2000 elections:

Sometimes people convince themselves that they are serving some larger purpose by supporting the "lesser evil"--that supporting Gore makes him "indebted to the left." Nothing in the sad history of "voting for the lesser evil" has ever shown that lesser evil working for you.

And people sometimes say that they are gathering forces, through electoral strategies, for a day when something new and better can be formed. But working inside the electoral process is not a way to change the political climate or build new alliances for serious change.

Look at the millions of people who are alienated or excluded from this election process--especially the masses of proletarian people in the ghettos, barrios, reservations and prisons of this country. How will it help radical change in this country if they are dragged into the voting booth and trained to put their hopes in a representative of the ruling class? And when people enter the electoral arena--which is so tightly controlled by their oppressors--even if they are determined to fight for change and progressive policies, they find themselves coopted, demoralized and paralyzed. It is a waste of their energy and a betrayal of their hopes.

In Democracy: Can&#39;t We Do Better Than That?, Bob Avakian writes: "The very acceptance of the electoral process as the quintessential political act reinforces acceptance of the established order and works against any radical rupture with, to say nothing of the actual overthrowing of that order."

What ultimately does your vote really count for? Can you use it to do away with poverty? To find homeless people housing fit for human beings? Can you vote to break up the Marines and the CIA? To get poor kids decent schools and a future that matters? Can you vote to free women from inequality--or even secure the basic right to safe abortion on demand without apology?

No.

Liberation is never on the ballot. It can only be seized by the people, through determined, revolutionary struggle.

more on bourgeois electoral politics at http://rwor.org/a/v22/1080-89/1080/editor.htm and at http://rwor.org/s/elect.htm

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 06:05 PM
We have over a century of people like Kucinich getting into power and failing to implement their programs yet there are still people like you who continue to believe in electoralism. So obviously that strategy doesn&#39;t work. The belief in electoralism is more result of a niave faith instilled by capitalist schools & media than an actual examination of the history of electoralism.

[...] One of the main purpose of elections is to fool people into thinking they live in a &#39;democratic&#39; society which isn&#39;t ruled by an exploitative elite, so long as this belief continues revolution will not happen. Electoral campaigns help further these illusions by portraying the state as "democratic" which we extert control over by voting when the reality is that it&#39;s controlled by a tiny elite. Not voting isn&#39;t doing nothing, it&#39;s not doing something stupid. Voting means taking a step away from revolution.

[...] Now your&#39;e repeating CNN&#39;s line. There&#39;s a long tradition of opponets of undemocratic regimes boycotting sham elections, it was recently done in Algeria. Doing it in the US is no different.

[...] how do you know Kucinich isn&#39;t [lying to get elected]?

We have over a century of people like Kucinich getting into power and failing to implement their programs

Really? First of all, what are "people like Kucinich"? How many of them have become president, or even U.S. senator? Not that many.


people like you who continue to believe in electoralism

I was unaware that I "believe[d] in electoralism." Thanks for reminding me. Seriously, just because I refuse to boycott elections does not mean that I really think the revolution will happen via ballot box. I view elections, at their best, as simply a way to maintain the reforms we already have and as a means of publicity to agitate for more radical change. Such benefits make the idea of boycotting elections absurd.


The belief in electoralism is more result of a niave faith instilled by capitalist schools & media than an actual examination of the history of electoralism.

I agree. Elections are designed as a way to make us passive. The voters are expected to rely on their hearts and minds, and fall in behind a would-be savior from one of the officially-accepted political parties. It is foolish to expect revolutionary change from an official organ of the government, but that does not mean that we cannot advance revolutionary designs by properly exploiting the election system.


Not voting isn&#39;t doing nothing, it&#39;s not doing something stupid. Voting means taking a step away from revolution.

Wow... overpowering logic there... with such assertion of will without evidence, I must be an idiot to hold a different opinion&#33; Seriously, you just keep repeating some cliches... "a step away from revolution"... if you are going to say such a thing, then tell me in clear English, what the Hell does that mean?&#33;

If I can step away from my uncharacteristic flaming for a minute... I do not think it reflects well if we make no effort at trying to take power via elections. The red-baiters, those great champions of "freedom" and "democracy", are quick to assert that the radical left is a fringe group seeking dictatorship. The message one can get from running from elections is that we do not have the popular support to win an election. That makes for a powerful piece of rightist propaganda. Why should we give it to them for free, when we could put some effort into defending reforms, fighting for new ones, and raising consciousness about a radical alternative to capitalism?


Now your&#39;e repeating CNN&#39;s line.

I do not get my political analysis from any corporate American network. I am disappointed with your form, as you have repeatedly preferred to attack me personally or lump me in with malicious or naive capitalists, rather than actually debate the points I am making.


There&#39;s a long tradition of opponets of undemocratic regimes boycotting sham elections, it was recently done in Algeria. Doing it in the US is no different.

I disagree. The U.S. is quite different, in that the U.S. makes a much stronger attempt to appear democratic. Dictators like Saddam Hussein seek to be elected with 100%. First of all, a non-vote is a vote against a dictator seeking unanimous support. Second of all, people living under a dictatorship do not consider themselves part of a democratic process. An Iraqi who voted for Saddam simply did so to avoid being shot. Many Americans are subject to far stronger delusions. The 60% of Americans who already boycott elections are not prompting a revolution, so I do not see how the tactic is useful.

[quote]how do you know Kucinich isn&#39;t [lying to get elected]?[/quoted]

A fair question. It addresses the lack of accountability of elected officials once they win election or survive election. They do not have to honor their promises. I guess Kucinich seems believable to me because of his political record. As mayor of Cleveland, he refused to privatize the city&#39;s electrical company, even though the city was in tremendous debt. In the House of Representatives he has voted the right way on all kinds of progressive issues.

[redstar2000]

The gains were brought about by parliamentary reforms...The real reform in favour of workers came from pro-worker elements of the House of Commons.

This is typical of your bourgeois formalism.

Technically speaking, a legal "reform" in bourgeois democracy comes into existence by act of parliament.

To say or imply that the reason this reform is enacted is because parliament "just decided to do that" is a howling absurdity...as is also, by the way, the idea of a "pro-worker" member of parliament...especially in the 19th century.

I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to find any reform of the period 1850-1950 that was not a response to massive unrest of one kind or another, or, at least, the perceived threat of massive unrest.

To suggest that the way to "get reforms" is to elect "good guys" to parliament is completely ass-backwards. Without massive unrest or the threat of same, the "good guys" you elect won&#39;t deliver on their promises.

But if there is massive unrest, even the "bad guys" will offer reforms.

It is the unrest and general rebelliousness that produces reforms...and parliaments act to reduce that unrest by granting temporary concessions.


The capitalists NEVER wanted the Fascists in power, but after a highly decisive vote they were left with no choice in the matter. The fascists were elected by the workers of Germany because they promised economic security and stability.

Once again, your gross ignorance of history is simply staggering.

Political scientists have done actual studies of voting patterns in the elections leading up to the Nazi regime. (The one thing those particular academics can do is count.)

In predominately working class precincts, the Nazis rarely or never achieved even 10-15 percent of the vote. Such working class support that they did receive came primarily from state employees (civil servants)...who, in Germany, considered themselves "above" ordinary workers.

The Nazis enjoyed overwhelming majorities in precincts dominated by independent peasant farmers in the Protestant north and east and in precincts where independent small shopkeepers and landlords were an important part of the electorate. Recall that one of the main promises of the Nazis was to "break up" the big "Jewish" department stores and allow "room" for the middle class businessman, while suspending or abolishing peasant debts to "Jewish" lenders.

Two other categories of voters were heavily in support of the Nazis: 1. war veterans were much more likely to vote Nazi than the electorate as a whole; and 2. first-time voters (the unemployed youth as well as university students) also provided a great many votes for the Nazis.

As to the capitalists "never wanting the Nazis in power", it was the leading (non-Jewish) capitalists who financed the Nazi electoral campaigns of 1932. Strange behavior for people who "didn&#39;t want the Nazis to win". Goebbels, in his diaries for that year, admits that the Nazi campaigns would have come to a halt without that money.

Also, it was the major capitalists that directly brought Hitler to power as a replacement for von Schleicher. Why? Because von Schleicher was making "too many economic concessions to the working class".

The aristocratic von Hindenburg actually despised Hitler; it was his son--a man close to many leading capitalists--who talked his semi-senile father into appointing Hitler.

Studies have also been done on the "class nature" of the Nazi party itself...thanks to the habit of the Nazis of actually keeping a record of the occupations of its members. Again, no more than 10 or 15 percent of Nazi party members came from the working class...it was small businessmen, college students, independent peasants, and civil servants who flocked to the Nazi banners. Many unemployed war veterans and youth joined the SA...but the "hard-core" of the party itself came from, loosely speaking, "the middle class".


If the Nazis had largely middle class support, they would not have faced the financial problems they did in November 1932.

Why ever not? Business was rotten in the winter of 1932 for just about everyone...however much support the middle class could offer at the polls, they could hardly afford the massive costs of Nazi-style electoral campaigns. Hitler chartered a plane for the campaigns of 1932, the first bourgeois politician to do so. He was also the first (in Germany) to make extensive "radio-buys" for campaign commercials.

In fact, the big money came from the highest levels of the capitalist class...and this has been public knowledge since the late 1930s&#33; There was a steel baron by the name of Fritz Thyssen (who later aroused Hitler&#39;s ire)...after he fled, he wrote a book called something like I Financed Hitler, in which he details how the Nazi electoral campaigns were really funded.

I think it was published around 1937.


. Hitler got into power because he won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag in 1932...

Actually, there were two Reichstag elections in 1932; if I&#39;m not mistaken, the 230 seat total was for the first one. In the second one--November 1932--the Nazi seat total dropped to around 190 or so. This still made them the largest single party in the Reichstag, but not by all that much.

It was the Catholic Center Party (surprise, right?) that added the necessary votes to put Hitler into power--Hitler promised them a special treaty with the Vatican...one of the few promises that the Nazis actually kept.

I think "parliamentary maneuver" is a reasonable description of the process.

.......................

I will let someone else respond to your caricature of "insignificant" 19th century revolutionary movements in Europe.

Since you have expressed an interest in "reading history" at the university level, I can only encourage you to do so. I know of no one who would receive more benefit&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[praxis1966]

There are quite a few things I&#39;ve heard while reading all of this that I feel necessary to mention.

1) Demonstrations and strikes never got anyone anything except a trip to the local penitentiary or a bullet in the head. The fact of the matter is, Taft-Hartley still exists, and so do the FBI, CIA, NSA, and a whole host of other initials we&#39;ll probably never hear about.

2) The historical analysis of election boycotts I&#39;ve read here is way off. The boycotts weren&#39;t either tantamount to or indirectly responsible for the ousting of brutal dictatorships. These were symptons of revolutionary desire. Any suggestion of a causal relationship is folly.

3) Militancy doesn&#39;t work either. That only strengthens the socio-economic and political power of revolutionary hardliners. Just look at how all of those so-called proletariat construction workers beat the stew (literally) out of the anti-Vietnam war protestors in NY back in the late 60s (forgive me if I can&#39;t remember exactly when). Or, when the Panthers marched into the state legislature in California armed with shotguns, all they did was sign a bunch of gun control laws. All of which were promptly signed into law by then governor Ronald Reagan.

When all of this is considered, the only viable options are elections. The best grassroots movements I can think of are voter registration programs and dialogue based political education schools. These could be modeled after the Panther schools out west. EneMe tells me that some of them still exist. I understand that voting may seem futile, but that&#39;s because the great sleaping mass of the 75% of Americans who do not vote on a regular basis have yet to be heard.

[lifetrnal]

There is no friggen&#39; way, that I am voting in a Liberal election for a Capitalist party. No matter how, "progressive," the candidate.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:12 AM

The gains were brought about by parliamentary reforms...The real reform in favour of workers came from pro-worker elements of the House of Commons.

This is typical of your bourgeois formalism.

Technically speaking, a legal "reform" in bourgeois democracy comes into existence by act of parliament.

To say or imply that the reason this reform is enacted is because parliament "just decided to do that" is a howling absurdity...as is also, by the way, the idea of a "pro-worker" member of parliament...especially in the 19th century.

I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to find any reform of the period 1850-1950 that was not a response to massive unrest of one kind or another, or, at least, the perceived threat of massive unrest.

To suggest that the way to "get reforms" is to elect "good guys" to parliament is completely ass-backwards. Without massive unrest or the threat of same, the "good guys" you elect won&#39;t deliver on their promises.

But if there is massive unrest, even the "bad guys" will offer reforms.

It is the unrest and general rebelliousness that produces reforms...and parliaments act to reduce that unrest by granting temporary concessions.


The capitalists NEVER wanted the Fascists in power, but after a highly decisive vote they were left with no choice in the matter. The fascists were elected by the workers of Germany because they promised economic security and stability.

Once again, your gross ignorance of history is simply staggering.

Political scientists have done actual studies of voting patterns in the elections leading up to the Nazi regime. (The one thing those particular academics can do is count.)

In predominately working class precincts, the Nazis rarely or never achieved even 10-15 percent of the vote. Such working class support that they did receive came primarily from state employees (civil servants)...who, in Germany, considered themselves "above" ordinary workers.

The Nazis enjoyed overwhelming majorities in precincts dominated by independent peasant farmers in the Protestant north and east and in precincts where independent small shopkeepers and landlords were an important part of the electorate. Recall that one of the main promises of the Nazis was to "break up" the big "Jewish" department stores and allow "room" for the middle class businessman, while suspending or abolishing peasant debts to "Jewish" lenders.

Two other categories of voters were heavily in support of the Nazis: 1. war veterans were much more likely to vote Nazi than the electorate as a whole; and 2. first-time voters (the unemployed youth as well as university students) also provided a great many votes for the Nazis.

As to the capitalists "never wanting the Nazis in power", it was the leading (non-Jewish) capitalists who financed the Nazi electoral campaigns of 1932. Strange behavior for people who "didn&#39;t want the Nazis to win". Goebbels, in his diaries for that year, admits that the Nazi campaigns would have come to a halt without that money.

Also, it was the major capitalists that directly brought Hitler to power as a replacement for von Schleicher. Why? Because von Schleicher was making "too many economic concessions to the working class".

The aristocratic von Hindenburg actually despised Hitler; it was his son--a man close to many leading capitalists--who talked his semi-senile father into appointing Hitler.

Studies have also been done on the "class nature" of the Nazi party itself...thanks to the habit of the Nazis of actually keeping a record of the occupations of its members. Again, no more than 10 or 15 percent of Nazi party members came from the working class...it was small businessmen, college students, independent peasants, and civil servants who flocked to the Nazi banners. Many unemployed war veterans and youth joined the SA...but the "hard-core" of the party itself came from, loosely speaking, "the middle class".


If the Nazis had largely middle class support, they would not have faced the financial problems they did in November 1932.

Why ever not? Business was rotten in the winter of 1932 for just about everyone...however much support the middle class could offer at the polls, they could hardly afford the massive costs of Nazi-style electoral campaigns. Hitler chartered a plane for the campaigns of 1932, the first bourgeois politician to do so. He was also the first (in Germany) to make extensive "radio-buys" for campaign commercials.

In fact, the big money came from the highest levels of the capitalist class...and this has been public knowledge since the late 1930s&#33; There was a steel baron by the name of Fritz Thyssen (who later aroused Hitler&#39;s ire)...after he fled, he wrote a book called something like I Financed Hitler, in which he details how the Nazi electoral campaigns were really funded.

I think it was published around 1937.


. Hitler got into power because he won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag in 1932...

Actually, there were two Reichstag elections in 1932; if I&#39;m not mistaken, the 230 seat total was for the first one. In the second one--November 1932--the Nazi seat total dropped to around 190 or so. This still made them the largest single party in the Reichstag, but not by all that much.

It was the Catholic Center Party (surprise, right?) that added the necessary votes to put Hitler into power--Hitler promised them a special treaty with the Vatican...one of the few promises that the Nazis actually kept.

I think "parliamentary maneuver" is a reasonable description of the process.

.......................

I will let someone else respond to your caricature of "insignificant" 19th century revolutionary movements in Europe.

Since you have expressed an interest in "reading history" at the university level, I can only encourage you to do so. I know of no one who would receive more benefit&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
This is typical of your bourgeois formalism.

What stating history is now "bourgeois formalism", as if their is any such thing. just another made up phrase to defame those who would disagree with you. If you choose to disagree with what I say, come out and say whay its wrong, dont hide behind your insults like a coward.

Technically speaking, a legal "reform" in bourgeois democracy comes into existence by act of parliament.

Well done, you have grasped a basic principal, more than I ever gave you credit for.

To say or imply that the reason this reform is enacted is because parliament "just decided to do that" is a howling absurdity...

Actually no its not, members of the HoC (house of commons) in the early 18th century, were often Anglican evangelicals, and believed it was morally corrupting to live in poor conditions, and believed it was their duty to help the poor.

as is also, by the way, the idea of a "pro-worker" member of parliament...especially in the 19th century.


Your historical ignorance is shocking, you are just 100% wrong. I refer you to Lord Shaftesbury, a very major figure, with vast support in the Tory party, an evangelical who didicated his life to helping the poor, and with great success and support from many in the HoC.

Another example is Michael Sadler, a social reformer and political economist. Headed the 10 hour bill before Shaftesbury, another major figure.

Just two examples off the top of my head, if I were to research I could find dozens of such examples. Chartists even had MP&#39;s in their ranks, not to mention many of the liberal Whigs.

I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to find any reform of the period 1850-1950

Well as you just claimed that it was "howling absurdity" to find a pro-worker MP in the 1800&#39;s, what you say on this subject, can automatically be ignored because you dont have a clue.

Not to mention there are several examples which prove you wrong (as usual), such as 1872 secret ballot act.

Also as we have been talking about the early 19th Century for the majority of this discussion, the second half and beginning of the next century is completely irrelevant.

Without massive unrest or the threat of same, the "good guys" you elect won&#39;t deliver on their promises.


Well I&#39;m sure that if I tried I could disprove that comment as well, as I have with two of your previous attempts to sound as if you actually know what your talking about, but judging by your now soiled record in this thread I dont see the need.


Once again, your gross ignorance of history is simply staggering.


Well as every thing you have said in this thread has been wrong so far... maybe its not me who has a "gross ignorance of history".

I will say it again, the vast majority of Hitlers support came from the unemployed, who were largley working class. Many of the Middle classes, were not in favour because they belived that Hitlers stated objectives and idea&#39;s to lift the depression would be unprofitable for them.

Strange behavior for people who "didn&#39;t want the Nazis to win".

Less strange behavior was the formation of a cohilition between the capitalist parties of germany, deliberatly to slow the growth of the nazi party, and to keep them out of government, extreamly strange behaviour for a group of parties who relied on the support of the upper and middle classes, if as you say all the German buisness men were in favour of the nazi party. Kind of alienate their main supporters, hardly good tactics.

Two other categories of voters were heavily in support of the Nazis: 1. war veterans were much more likely to vote Nazi than the electorate as a whole; and 2. first-time voters (the unemployed youth as well as university students) also provided a great many votes for the Nazis.


The Majority of war veterans were unemployed, you idiot, under the treaty of Versilles (sp) the German Army was cut to 100,000.

Why? Because von Schleicher was making "too many economic concessions to the working class".


Actually it was because Schleicher&#39;s policys were a disaster, and Hindenburg forced his resignation, not germanys buisness men, another example of how you have taken a historical fact and twisted it. Fortunatly anyone who actually has studied German history in any depth, would know this.

In fact, the big money came from the highest levels of the capitalist class...and this has been public knowledge since the late 1930s&#33; There was a steel baron by the name of Fritz Thyssen (who later aroused Hitler&#39;s ire)...after he fled, he wrote a book called something like I Financed Hitler, in which he details how the Nazi electoral campaigns were really funded.

You find an example of a Buisness man who supported Hitler, so what? How many buisness men did not support Hitler? They just didn&#39;t write a book about it.

Actually, there were two Reichstag elections in 1932; if I&#39;m not mistaken, the 230 seat total was for the first one

I&#39;m not 100% sure, but Hitler got his 230 in June of 1932, then in the winter election lost some of his support, but won it back in 1933. However the point is that Hitler had gained his 230, before his alliance with Von Papen, and had the Majority vote.

It was the Catholic Center Party (surprise, right?) that added the necessary votes to put Hitler into power

Actually it was a political alliance with Von Papen, who was angered by the betrayal of Hindenburg and Schleicher.



You still haven&#39;t actually disproved anything I have said, in fact you have confirmed much of what I said.

[redstar2000]

Demonstrations and strikes never got anyone anything except a trip to the local penitentiary or a bullet in the head. The fact of the matter is, Taft-Hartley still exists, and so do the FBI, CIA, NSA, and a whole host of other initials we&#39;ll probably never hear about.

The February 1917 Russian Revolution was basically one of strikes and demonstrations (in the cities). Police attempts to crush those uprisings resulted in the Petrograd military garrisons joining the revolution.

In the U.S., militant strikes and factory occupations caused the adoption of the "Wagner Act"...the federal "charter" conferring the "legal right" to organize unions.

The reason "Taft-Hartley" still exists is that the unions have refused to openly defy it. If and when they do, the act will be repealed.

Many, many other examples could be cited.


Militancy doesn&#39;t work either. That only strengthens the socio-economic and political power of revolutionary hardliners.

I think you meant to say reactionary hardliners, right?

Well, the record is actually rather mixed. Whenever open class struggle begins to polarize capitalist societies, the right-wingers also gain some support. That&#39;s to be expected.

How it "plays out" is a consequence of material strength, material conditions, radical class consciousness on both sides, etc.


When all of this is considered, the only viable options are elections. The best grassroots movements I can think of are voter registration programs and dialogue based political education schools. These could be modeled after the Panther schools out west. EneMe tells me that some of them still exist. I understand that voting may seem futile, but that&#39;s because the great sleeping mass of the 75% of Americans who do not vote on a regular basis have yet to be heard.

They are not "sleeping"...they have better things to do with their time than waste it on meaningless electoral rituals.

If you want to play in that sandbox, go right ahead. Experience will teach you more than argument can.

........................

I hope it will not be held against me if I decline to respond to Enema&#39;s incoherent pastiche of historical ignorance and misunderstanding. His efforts to pin the responsibility for Nazism on the German working class--in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--is simply testimony of his own pro-capitalist bias.

Like most of his posts, he himself belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[praxis1966]

Yeah, sorry about that. Quite possibly the most embarassing typo I&#39;ve ever had.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 01:56 AM
I hope it will not be held against me if I decline to respond to Enema&#39;s incoherent pastiche of historical ignorance and misunderstanding. His efforts to pin the responsibility for Nazism on the German working class--in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--is simply testimony of his own pro-capitalist bias.

Like most of his posts, he himself belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I hope it will not be held against me if I decline to respond to Enema&#39;s incoherent pastiche of historical ignorance and misunderstanding.

It seems every time that someone proves you wrong, you always ignore it... why? I really want to see you respond to the proof that pro-worker MP&#39;s did exist in the early 1800&#39;s.

His efforts to pin the responsibility for Nazism on the German working class--in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

I havent tried to pin responsibility on anyone, I have mearly pointed out the majority of his support came fromn the unemployed, who largley were workers... you thats what happens in a depression, or is your political and economic knolwedge as rusty as your historical knowledge?

is simply testimony of his own pro-capitalist bias.

You wish.

Like most of his posts, he himself belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

So you keep saying, but as nobody takes any notice of your ranting bullshit, I think that common sense will provale.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not all capitalists are stupid... some of them pass &#39;progressive&#39; laws to shut the masses up for a bit.

&#39;good&#39; capitalists are still capitalists... wolves in sheep&#39;s clothing that will turn against us in a real revolutionary situation.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Amen to that, NoXion.

[RedCeltic]

Why I&#39;m Not Voting For Dennis Kucinich

I&#39;M NOT A BLASTED DEMOCRAT&#33;&#33;&#33; lol... and never will be&#33;

Al Sharpton is a pretty well spoken candidate for the Democratic nomination too, but both men don&#39;t have a shot in hell of getting the nomination&#33;&#33;

So, my little left wing friends... why is Dennis running for a nomination he knows he can&#39;t get?

Two reasons really...

1) The first and major reason is that he&#39;s a congressman who plans on running for Senate&#33;

2) To fool lame leftists who still think the system has some redeeming qualities&#33;

Right now in American politics, the only third party that has any hope of putting pressure on the two ruling capitalist parties is the GREEN PARTY... Sadly, the Greens are seeing a mass exodus of people who are switching to the Democrats, many of them rethinking their political affiliation because of Dennis Kucinich, who as proven to be more like a Green party poster boy than their beloved Ralph Nader. Dennis is even a Vegan for pete&#39;s sake&#33;

Personally, I started working with the Greens when I first read that Stanly Aronowitz, a well known Marxist in New York City had plans on running for New York State Governor. Him, and fellow Socialist Party member, and personal comrade Howie Hawkins (who ran for comptroller in NYS as a Green) convinced me whole heartedly that there was a place for us reds in the green party.

However, now I feel as if I have stepped back in time a bit into an era where Socialists were leaving the Socialist Party USA in large numbers for the Democrats with the formation of the Democratic Socialists of America, which today is the largest and most recognized Socialist contingent in America... and lost all possible respect from me when the supported the Democratic candidate for NYS Governor Carl McCall, over a Marxist, union organizer, and long time agitator Stanly Aronowitz&#33;

It has been a long time strategy for the Greens, and other third parties on the left to ruin major elections for the democrats while gaining ground in local elections. The greens have made significant gains in small local elections across the United States.

However today in America we are facing one of the most dangerous threats we have had to face in decades... not just a threat to the world but a threat to hard working Americans&#33; The right wing administration and the majority in the congress are systematically dismantling many of the most important gains made by the left in the twentieth century, and I feel for all who have to make the choice of voting for what they believe in, or the "lesser of two evils."

For most borderline leftist today I&#39;m sure a "lesser of two evils" option would be satisfactory, if there was one what a clear chance of ousting George W. Bush. Howard Deen seems to be the front runner in most people&#39;s eyes, but doesn&#39;t seem to have a chance of winning.

Perhaps with another four years of the country being run by lunatics, morons, in imbeciles... the country will be ripe for revolution....

... One can only hope....

[praxis1966]

I wish I were so cynical. Must be pretty convenient.

[truthaddict11]

you are correct RC workers rights are going backwards most recently the attempt to wipe out overtime. as it has been said on this board and what my dad also commented on we are pretty much moving backwards into the 19th as for workers rights. even if a socialist got into the senate what chance would they have in implementing anything helpful to the working class? i think it is better to rely on direct action and revolution to accomplish real goals such as eliminating wage slavery.

[RedCeltic]

There&#39;s a Socialist in Congress... Bernie Sanders from Vermont. Alot of good that does in a congress controled by a majority that recently destroyed Medicaid&#33;

If I seem synical it&#39;s only because I once actually believed that the system could be reformed, and now find myself nodding my head in agreement as I read RedStar&#39;s posts here... The politcal system is in the trash, congress is wiping their asses with the constitution, nothing short of a revolution will turn things around... meanwhile America is fast asleap&#33;

Some people thing that writing letters helps.... lol... let me tell you, I&#39;ve been writing to my congressman, and senators for awile on some of these reactionary measures, all of which pretty much agree with me (except on the war on Iraq) but are powerless against the right wing majority in the government.

Personally, I rather think it would be kind of funny if Lieberman won the democatic primary, he&#39;s kind of like the Jewish carbon copy of George W. Bush... (except somewhat more of a war-monger)

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Bernie Sanders actually decided to give up Socialism I here, he&#39;s a Republican now.

[RedCeltic]

I have no idea where you have heard that, but he&#39;s an independant as (as always) and as far as I know is still a socialist. It doesn&#39;t matter anyway.. that really wasn&#39;t my point.

[Se7en]

Kucinich is the only democratic candidate that I would vote for on the basis of genuine support. I can only justify voting for any of the others as a means of getting Bush out of the green house. Gotta love the two party oligarchy that is the USA.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Andrei [email protected] 5 2003, 04:49 AM
Bernie Sanders actually decided to give up Socialism I here, he&#39;s a Republican now.
I call bullshit.

[praxis1966]

I hear you Se7en. It always makes me laugh when I here the elites talking about how great the Amerikkkan system is, especially when they compare it to the old Soviet Union. Gee, aren&#39;t we lucky. One more party.

Anyhow, don&#39;t get me wrong. I&#39;m not opposed to direct action. After all, as the old cliche goes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I suppose I understated my point. What I should have argued was that we should be using all of the available avenues in order to modify, manipulate, and ultimately defeat the current system.

As a matter of fact, I think what I did today and am doing again on Monday was quite revolutionary and a small piece of the puzzle of what we&#39;re talking about. Today I went in my mother&#39;s sixth grade classroom and appeared as a guest speaker. The kids interviewed me for about an hour on the subject of Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers for a research project on the history of the civil rights movement. Monday I&#39;m going back for two more classes for another teacher.

[RedCeltic]

Anyhow, don&#39;t get me wrong. I&#39;m not opposed to direct action.

In my opinion, being opposed to direct action is being opposed to any real change. After all, without direct action, the loggers of the great north who won the 8 hour work day with sit down strikes, would still have been working 16 hour days.... the civil rights movement would never have gotten off the ground, and the free speach fight at Burkley California in the 1960&#39;s never would have taken place. We have gained alot through direct action that we never would have been able to gain through politics.


http://flag.blackened.net/anarpics/iww2.gif

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I absolutely agree that reforms will never successfuly achieve communism and revolution is necessary. In fact, I think that the sort of major refoms many of you are looking for are downright impossible to achieve today in America, such as more socialization and more civil rights. I don&#39;t know about the rest of the first world, but in America politicians are not only submerged in the corporate world and its interests, but the few legitimate ones have become completely powerless. The least worst that I think can be achieved in American politics today is a slowing down or prevention of certain imperialist actions and often minority, workers&#39; and womens&#39; rights will be catered to... for their votes of course..... and if it happens to not infringe directly on the growth and power of corporate America.

Capitalist politics will never yield to the common interests at the expense of the bourgeoisie.... never. For the perpetuation of a capitalist society under a capitalist government, not only is subjugation to the capitalists inevitable, it&#39;s also necessary. Capitalism cannot survive without oligarchal economic power. People know that and therefore accept the stagering power disparity. The only solution is a workers&#39; revolution.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 02:44 PM
It always makes me laugh when I here the elites talking about how great the Amerikkkan system is, especially when they compare it to the old Soviet Union. Gee, aren&#39;t we lucky. One more party.
Yeah.

Here in the U.S. our two parties like to reach what they call "bipartisan consensus", which means that they work together on a lot of major questions. Howard Zinn has noted that "bipartisan consensus [...] is the equivalent of the one party system in a totalitarian system."