The Socialist Party of France will escalate attacks on the working class

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friends. Francois Hollande the winner of the elections of France by The Socialist Party will probably continue the neoliberal bourgeoise economic model of Sarkozy and will furtherl escalate attacks on The Working Class. According to this analysis there is indeed a vacuum on the left in France.

Tomorrow’s run-off between incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy of the right-wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and Socialist Party (PS) candidate François Hollande sets the stage for escalating attacks on the working class in France. Over his five-year term, Sarkozy has become the object of immense popular anger and derision. His efforts to maintain support despite his social austerity policies—with appeals to chauvinism based on foreign wars and anti-immigrant, law-and-order politics—have failed. Despite this mass opposition, Sarkozy’s policies will be continued, regardless of who wins the election, as Hollande in no way presents an alternative.

A cynical representative of French finance capital, Hollande campaigned on the slogan “Change is now,” while presenting policies indistinguishable from Sarkozy’s. He has announced plans to slash France’s budget deficit to zero by 2017 to respect the reactionary European fiscal pact, which would mean eliminating some 115 billion euros in spending. He also intends to make the French economy competitive with Germany by pushing for cost and efficiency savings—a move that he would carry out by negotiating wage and benefit cuts with the union bureaucracy. He has said he has no criticisms of France’s existing foreign policy, implicitly backing Sarkozy’s 2011 war in Libya and France’s ongoing war drive against Syria and Iran. He has also adopted Sarkozy’s anti-immigrant policies, supporting the burqa ban and denouncing halal meat.
Nonetheless, Hollande enjoys the support of France’s petty-bourgeois “left”—the Left Front of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), and similar forces.

Despite Mélenchon’s phrase-mongering about a “citizens’ revolution,” to which the NPA has adapted itself, the petty-bourgeois parties lined up behind the PS. They are calling for a Hollande vote, knowing full well that his policies will be as right-wing as Sarkozy’s. Their disclaimers that they would support trade-union protests against Hollande are cynical and politically empty, as the union bureaucracy is announcing its willingness to negotiate wage and benefits cuts with Hollande. Relying on unions and parties that support Hollande’s reactionary agenda to “pressure” the next president simply blocks the emergence of working class opposition to his policies. This leaves the workers unprepared for the coming attacks. Under these conditions, it is not difficult to foresee the consequences of such policies. The only political figure who is calculating in terms of how to utilize social opposition is Marine Le Pen, the leader of the neo-fascist National Front (FN). Due to the bankrupt policies of the petty-bourgeois “left,” she has been able to position herself as the sole representative of popular social discontent.

She ran as the “only anti-system candidate,” denouncing the “UMPS” and the “ultra-free-market, permissive, and anarchist left” and promising to halt immigration and cut off immigrants’ access to social benefits. She has called for a blank vote tomorrow. In the event of a Hollande victory, Le Pen vows to make the UMP “implode”, setting the stage for the FN ultimately emerging as France’s leading right-wing party. It is well placed to win seats in next month’s legislative elections. On April 22 it won in 23 of France’s 577 legislative districts, came in second in 93, and received more than the 12.5 percent needed to survive to the second-round legislative races in 353.
The contrast between the petty-bourgeois “left” parties’ endorsement of Hollande and Le Pen’s denunciations of the “UMPS” could not be starker. If Hollande wins and carries out the attacks on workers and small businesses that he has described, the petty-bourgeois “left” parties’ claims to oppose him will have no credibility with broad layers of the population. After his recent TV debate with Sarkozy, Hollande has made the character of his agenda quite clear. There, he made the remarkable statement that he understood Greek Prime Minister Giorgios Papandreou’s decision to react to poor economic conditions left by his predecessor by embarking on devastating social cuts demanded by the banks and the EU. The parties supporting Hollande are no different than petty-bourgeois “left” parties that supported the austerity policies of the PASOK social democrats in Greece, or the PSOE in Spain.

The pretense that these parties are of the left—while they line up with a bourgeois candidate supporting deep attacks on the working class, anti-Muslim chauvinism, and imperialist war—is increasingly reactionary and dangerous. If they succeed in blocking working class opposition to the coming attacks, they will have ceded the mantle of opposition to the most reactionary, anti-working class forces in the political establishment. These are the preconditions for the emergence of the FN as a major political force in France. The political situation in France, as throughout the world, is characterized above all by the crisis of political leadership in the working class, and a political vacuum on the left. There will be great social struggles against the attacks of the ruling class, but these will ultimately end in defeat if the working class does not build a genuine, revolutionary and internationalist opposition to capitalism. This is the struggle waged by the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Alex Lantier

LINK: http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/pers-m05.shtml

[honest john's firing squad]

The Socialist Party of France will escalate attacks on the working class
wow dude you must be some kind of psychic or something :rolleyes:

[Left Leanings]

wow dude you must be some kind of psychic or something :rolleyes:

Well his post does kind of state the obvious. But your sarcastic interjection is worth even less ;)

[REDSOX]

All those cheering people in the Place de bastille and elsewhere are in for a rude awakening because Francois Hollande will serve the interests of capital as do all social democrats

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, my political leader is purity, honesty, love and goodness. I say this, because this world is doomed. Simplistic people in this world, and even many leftists think that just because a person is a member of a leftist marxist political party, that person will automatically be converted into a perfect person with 100% altruism, zero egocentrism, zero immorality and zero selfishness.

What I am trying to state and convey across here is that most humans in this world can get easily tempted by money, by wealth, by fame, glory, attention-seeking, popularity. And the many other egocentrical narcissistical pleasures that comes with being a *leader*, and administrator, a moderator, a head, a director, a chairman, a boss, a president of any movement wether that movement is capitalist or marxist. I say this because some years ago a member of The Socialist Party of USA, told me that he was running for mayor of the city of Panama, Florida, USA, because he had inter-connections and contact with the local government of Panama, Florida, because he was planning to steal 1 million dollars from the local Panama, FL government.

That, and many other examples of recent history of how members of Socialist Workers Parties like Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (Former Spain President), and Michelle Bachellet (Former Chile president) have applied Neoliberalism Economic Model in their respective nations of Spain and Chile. And even Tony Blair who was supposed to be a laborist, leftist, has shown me that there are tons of fake-leftist political parties and fake leftist movements in this world.

This means that we as leftist should push for authentic marxist political parties and United Marxist Fronts composed of real honest people, full of love, humility, 100% altruism, zero egocentrism, with lots of solidarity, compassion, tolerance, and love for all humans and living species. Because if a leftist political movement has good ideology, authentic marxism, Trotskism and well-read people but if their leaders are not full of humility, love, altruism, cooperativism, compassion, servilism, that movement and party won't succeed and would probably evolve into either neoliberal capitalism or burocratic state capitalism, or deformed workers state with elements of concentration of wealth in a few and poverty in the many even they use the logos and slogans and symbols of Che Guevara, Marx, Lenin and most socialist philosophers

Remember love, humility, goodness, cooperativism, compassion, solidarity and altruism are a lot more important than all the knowledge and philosophy of this world !!


Thanks






All those cheering people in the Place de bastille and elsewhere are in for a rude awakening because Francois Hollande will serve the interests of capital as do all social democrats

[Tabarnack]

"The Socialist Party of France will escalate attacks on the working class"

Funny, I thought the problem was capitalism :confused: so now it's the socialist party that's behind all of this, you learn something everyday....

[Prometeo liberado]

If there is any doubt about his intentions just look at what his first act of business will be, a visit to Angela Merkel for his coronation.

[Hit The North]

Dear friend, my political leader is purity, honesty, love and goodness. I say this, because this world is doomed. Simplistic people in this world, and even many leftists think that just because a person is a member of a leftist marxist political party, that person will automatically be converted into a perfect person with 100% altruism, zero egocentrism, zero immorality and zero selfishness.



My mommy drank poison so she could take a ride on a comet.

Yeah. I want what you're smoking. :blink:

[Hit The North]

If there is any doubt about his intentions just look at what his first act of business will be, a visit to Angela Merkel for his coronation.

Nah, it ain't like that.

An interesting question is whether Hollande supports the anti-austerity movement in Greece and their intention to not honour the bailout agreement.

I think his answer to that question will be his first sell-out.

[TrotskistMarx]

what the fuck is your fucking problem? You don't have to read my posts if you don't like them



my mommy drank poison so she could take a ride on a comet.

Yeah. I want what you're smoking. :blink:

[jookyle]

We must, of course, be critical of the party and it's actions. Certainly how the party acts should be under analysis ever step of the way, both in itself and comparatively...but I do not think it wise to simply write off the party so soon. Even when/if the party doesn't deliver more than social-democracy we can't rule out the ground work it can lay for a real socialist change. We can't view revolution the same way we used to, we have to recognize that the world is different from what it used to be, and the shape of revolution has to accommodate that. Only through critical analysis will we be able to assess the situation and know how to move forward. To simply be dismissive is undercutting the intellectual process we must use to facilitate change.

[shaneo]

"The Socialist Party of France will escalate attacks on the working class"

Funny, I thought the problem was capitalism :confused: so now it's the socialist party that's behind all of this, you learn something everyday....


They aren't a socialist party. Just watch their actions over the next 12 months for proof of this.

[shaneo]

We must, of course, be critical of the party and it's actions. Certainly how the party acts should be under analysis ever step of the way, both in itself and comparatively...but I do not think it wise to simply write off the party so soon. Even when/if the party doesn't deliver more than social-democracy we can't rule out the ground work it can lay for a real socialist change. We can't view revolution the same way we used to, we have to recognize that the world is different from what it used to be, and the shape of revolution has to accommodate that. Only through critical analysis will we be able to assess the situation and know how to move forward. To simply be dismissive is undercutting the intellectual process we must use to facilitate change.

We must write the party off now. They are as likely to bring about "change" as Obama was.
Did Spain achieve anything close to socialism by voting in a party that called itself socialist? Of course not. To give them time, or a chance, is to give them a free hand.

We encourage this system by taking part. Don't vote! If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you.

[honest john's firing squad]

We encourage this system by taking part. Don't vote! If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you.
we have a word for people like you in my country. it's called 'shithead'.

[shaneo]

we have a word for people like you in my country. it's called 'shithead'.

Charming...
It is, of course, much easier to throw childish insults than to use our brains.

What incorrect about what I said?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Charming...
It is, of course, much easier to throw childish insults than to use our brains.

What incorrect about what I said?


then you have no right to complain when that system harms you.

Voting is irrelevant to the point where voting is not legitimising anything anyway.

[shaneo]

we have a word for people like you in my country. it's called 'shithead'.

When did Spain achieve socialism?

What did Obama "change" for the better once he got in power? As far as I know American gulags are still operating, and we still control Iraq.

When did you ever wake up the day after an election and notice that anything was better? When did you wake up 3 years after an election and notice anything had changed?

I look forward to your well thought out response. Please try to refrain from the insults, as it only reflects badly on you.

[honest john's firing squad]

When did Spain achieve socialism?

What did Obama "change" for the better once he got in power? As far as I know American gulags are still operating, and we still control Iraq.

When did you ever wake up the day after an election and notice that anything was better? When did you wake up 3 years after an election and notice anything had changed?

I look forward to your well thought out response. Please try to refrain from the insults, as it only reflects badly on you.
I have literally argued none of this. All I'm saying is that voters are hardly to blame for, as an example, the war in Iraq when it was economically necessary for the ruling class to invade Iraq anyway, so...

[shaneo]

Voting is irrelevant to the point where voting is not legitimising anything anyway.

Sorry I might have misunderstood you. Are you saying that voting legitimises the capitalist system? If so, I definitely agree with you.

[honest john's firing squad]

Sorry I might have misunderstood you. Are you saying that voting legitimises the capitalist system? If so, I definitely agree with you.
That is exactly the opposite of what they were arguing.

[shaneo]

I have literally argued none of this. All I'm saying is that voters are hardly to blame for, as an example, the war in Iraq when it was economically necessary for the ruling class to invade Iraq anyway, so...

So... You didn't argue anything. You called me a shithead.

Yes the ruling elite invaded Iraq by their own choice, but we legitimise this by voting because they can say, "well, people voted for us".

In the uk none of the parliamentary parties were against the invasion, despite their rhetoric.

If you vote, you legitimise this system. Capitalists only fear is revolution, so if we stopped legitimising the capitalist political system, we might get somewhere.

What have you got to lose?

[shaneo]

That is exactly the opposite of what they were arguing.

Yes. I thought as much. Never mind....

[shaneo]

I have literally argued none of this. All I'm saying is that voters are hardly to blame for, as an example, the war in Iraq when it was economically necessary for the ruling class to invade Iraq anyway, so...

In the UK, US, Australia, and countless other western countries, none of the established political parties have ever enacted a programme that is in the social interest of the population, without taking from the population elsewhere.

If you take part in the system that protects these parties, then you allow them to claim they have a mandate, while committing atrocities.

In the UK the Lib Dems postured as "anti-war" when there was no chance that they might actually wield some power. When it started looking likely that they would become part of a coalition, on the back of their antiwar stance, they quickly dropped it. So much so, that they even allowed all discussion of the UK's predatory foreign policy to be kept out of the two pre-election debates.

In Australia you are legally required to vote! Surely that says it all?

You are not arguing against my point that the politicians which people can choose from are crooks (so I take that as tacit agreement of these points), but you insult me for suggesting that we should stop supporting the system that keeps them in power.

[honest john's firing squad]

In Australia you are legally required to vote! Surely that says it all?
That you acknowledge this, but then go on to say "If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you", it makes me think you're a fucking moron.

[honest john's firing squad]

hurr durr strayan working people have no right to complain when the system hurts them because they are legally forced to vote

holy shit you are an asswipe

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Aaaaand the original topic is lost as everything veers off again into a ping pong match of insults and corrections and escalating fuckery.

Feel sure that Hollande will be yet another Blair-style seemingly lefty leader (socialist in name only, on the side of capital, scared to face up to the markets / embraces austerity)

[shaneo]

hurr durr strayan working people have no right to complain when the system hurts them because they are legally forced to vote

holy shit you are an asswipe

They could vote for one of the comedy parties to ensure they comply with the law.

In the UK and US, you are not legally required to vote, so you shouldn't. My point is; the fact that they force you to take part in Australia, even if you didn't want to, surely suggests there is something wrong.

It is unfortunate that some people resort to juvenile insults when they are forced to think too hard about what they believe in, but I'm sure you are taking some of this in, despite your aggressive tone.

[shaneo]

Aaaaand the original topic is lost as everything veers off again into a ping pong match of insults and corrections and escalating fuckery.

Feel sure that Hollande will be yet another Blair-style seemingly lefty leader (socialist in name only, on the side of capital, scared to face up to the markets / embraces austerity)

No doubt about it. Nothing he has said so far suggests otherwise, and what these crooks say is usually less worse than what they actually do.

It's just a bit scary that some people still get all excited about elections, and claim some kind of victory for socialism, just because a party that is socialist in name only, gets to sit in the big chair.

Not sure what the insults are all about.... I must have hurt honest johns feelings.

[shaneo]

That you acknowledge this, but then go on to say "If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you", it makes me think you're a fucking moron.

So... what have you got to lose by not voting? Or if you're in Australia, what have you got to lose by not voting for one of the established parties?

[honest john's firing squad]

They could vote for one of the comedy parties to ensure they comply with the law.
Yeah, maybe "they could vote for one of the comedy parties to ensure they comply with the law", if only everyone was oh-so-high-and-mighty like you. I've got this feeling that people don't vote for joke parties this because all the joke parties here are long-defunct and the minor single-issue parties only contest enough seats that you could count them on one hand (and often only on the state level, as well), leaving people with the choice of either Labor or the Coalition. I have a stronger feeling that working people are constantly lied to and consistently fall victim to the grandiose rhetoric of the established parties, leading them to vote for them in elections.

The fact you argue that workers deserve what they get for voting, despite that they only vote because a) they are lied to in order to gain their support, and b) they are legally required to do so by the bourgeois state otherwise they risk punishment, says just about all that needs to be said about your communist credentials, I reckon.

Whether or not workers truly give legitimacy to the system is irrelevant anyway, because the ruling class has always done wildly unpopular shit like wage war or strip away workers' rights regardless of whether or not their policies have been given "legitimacy" by working people. You are a complete fucking bell-end.


My point is; the fact that they force you to take part in Australia, even if you didn't want to, surely suggests there is something wrong.
Why do you keep insisting that I'm denying this when I'm not?

[shaneo]

Yeah, maybe "they could vote for one of the comedy parties to ensure they comply with the law", if only everyone was oh-so-high-and-mighty like you. I've got this feeling that people don't vote for joke parties this because all the joke parties here are long-defunct and the minor single-issue parties only contest enough seats that you could count them on one hand (and often only on the state level, as well), leaving people with the choice of either Labor or the Coalition. I have a stronger feeling that working people are constantly lied to and consistently fall victim to the grandiose rhetoric of the established parties, leading them to vote for them in elections.

The fact you argue that workers deserve what they get for voting, despite that they only vote because a) they are lied to in order to gain their support, and b) they are legally required to do so by the bourgeois state otherwise they risk punishment, says just about all that needs to be said about your communist credentials, I reckon.

Whether or not workers truly give legitimacy to the system is irrelevant anyway, because the ruling class has always done wildly unpopular shit like wage war or strip away workers' rights regardless of whether or not their policies have been given "legitimacy" by working people. You are a complete fucking bell-end.


Why do you keep insisting that I'm denying this when I'm not?

You believe that "people are constantly lied to and consistently fall victim to the grandiose rhetoric of the established parties, leading them to vote for them in elections". That is my view also. Yet when I suggest that people should stop falling for these tricks, you start calling me names.

You need to get your logic straight, cobber.

I never said that "workers deserve what they get for voting", I said that if they encourage the system, by voting, they have no right to complain when that system harms them. Not the same thing at all.

"the ruling class has always done wildly unpopular shit like wage war or strip away workers' rights" because people have always given them legitimacy by voting.

I don't recall insisting that you are denying anything, but your insults suggest you disagree with me.

Does it make you feel better to put an insult at the end of each of your posts? It is a depressing thought that a person, who would speak to a complete stranger in such a way, has a reasonably high rep on Revleft.

Your reference to "state level" and Labour / Coalition suggests you're in Australia (or perhaps the US judging by the way you spell "Labour"), so isn't it a little early in the day to be drinking?

[honest john's firing squad]

You believe that "people are constantly lied to and consistently fall victim to the grandiose rhetoric of the established parties, leading them to vote for them in elections". That is my view also. Yet when I suggest that people should stop falling for these tricks, you start calling me names.
This is not all you do, however. You proceed to make incredibly dumb, anti-worker claims.


I never said that "workers deserve what they get for voting", I said that if they encourage the system, by voting, they have no right to complain when that system harms them. Not the same thing at all.
What's your stance on proletarian revolution in a "democratic" nation, then? I'd expect you to oppose it on the grounds that the workers "have no right to complain" :lol:


"the ruling class has always done wildly unpopular shit like wage war or strip away workers' rights" because people have always given them legitimacy by voting.
So if you think we all abstained from the voting process, the bourgeoisie wouldn't wage any more wars because they don't have "legitimacy" any more?


Does it make you feel better to put an insult at the end of each of your posts? It is a depressing thought that a person, who would speak to a complete stranger in such a way, has a reasonably high rep on Revleft.
I call people out on their bullshit, namely eight-year-old stalinists. Revleft is dying anyway, no doubt due to an incident late last year in which large sections of the membership were apparently banned.


Your reference to "state level" and Labour / Coalition suggests you're in Australia (or perhaps the US judging by the way you spell "Labour"), so isn't it a little early in the day to be drinking?
Sorry I thought it was evident that I was in Australia. As for the spelling, the ALP apparently began to spell their own name as 'Labor' in 1912 as some sort of attempt to modernise the language because they thought US spelling conventions would be adopted in Australia.

[Omsk]

Revleft is dying anyway, no doubt due to an incident late last year in which large sections of the membership were apparently banned.



Yes,you would know that since you were here from the very first moments of the existence of this forum.Oh just a second,you are here from April 2012.Leave such proclamations to those who were here from 2006 or 2007.The forum is not 'dying'.

And the "large sections" of membership that were banned were in fact some 5-8 people that were active.Nothing more.

[ed miliband]

Yes,you would know that since you were here from the very first moments of the existence of this forum.Oh just a second,you are here from April 2012.Leave such proclamations to those who were here from 2006 or 2007.The forum is not 'dying'.

And the "large sections" of membership that were banned were in fact some 5-8 people that were active.Nothing more.

"join date" =/= how long somebody has been looking at a website

[Omsk]

join date" =/= how long somebody has been looking at a website


Looking at at a website =/= knowing a lot about the site and being able to proclaim that the site is "dying".

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You believe that "people are constantly lied to and consistently fall victim to the grandiose rhetoric of the established parties, leading them to vote for them in elections". That is my view also. Yet when I suggest that people should stop falling for these tricks, you start calling me names.


It doesn't matter if they vote or not. If every last person on the planet woke up tomorrow with a magickal epiphany that, damn these politicians, they just lie and cheat, let us no more vote for any of their shit! Would anything change if they only refrained from voting? Do you think it would be above them to just publish voting results anyway, out of thin air, if they really needed to do so to survive? They would.


I never said that "workers deserve what they get for voting", I said that if they encourage the system, by voting, they have no right to complain when that system harms them. Not the same thing at all.

And what a load of absolute rubbish it is, all the same!

[Ocean Seal]

So as the liberals told us we always have to vote for the lesser evil. Yep, lesser evil in name only. The only thing that matters for bourgeois politicians are times of austerity.

[ed miliband]

Looking at at a website =/= knowing a lot about the site and being able to proclaim that the site is "dying".

idk man i lurk some forums and you get a pretty good knowledge of the culture of a board after just a little while of that, to the point that joining up can be a bit daunting 'cos you know too much to be "new" and so look weird.

[Left Leanings]

Ken Livingstone ~ if voting changed anything, they would abolish it.

The 'they' being the ruling class, the bosses.

An odd thing to say, for a career politician, who has consistently stood in elections. But he said it anyway.

I think workers have every right to complain, about the bosses shitty system and how it fucks us over, whether we vote or not.

Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, introduced compulsory electoral registration (with the possibility of a £1000 fine if people do not comply), but not mandatory voting.

Blair was concerned by the number of people failing to register, and the poor turn out in successive elections. It looks 'bad' for bourgeois 'democracy'. How they want their little facade and sham to be maintained.

Salvador Allende was elected in Chile, on a programme that would have meant only mild reforms to the system. Even that was too much for the bosses, and they staged a coup and deposed him. One of the architects behind the coup, was Pinochet. And on a visit to Britain, he was feted and fawned over by then Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

I very rarely go to the polling station. When I do, as much as I do, is to spoil the ballot paper, and write 'vote of no confidence' on it. Trivial, I know. But it's what I do when I can be arsed, which isn't often.

Real democracy, is workers democracy, when we own and control the productives forces in common. The bosses elections are a sham. And the only way we seize control of the means of production is via insurrection.

[shaneo]

This is not all you do, however. You proceed to make incredibly dumb, anti-worker claims.


What's your stance on proletarian revolution in a "democratic" nation, then? I'd expect you to oppose it on the grounds that the workers "have no right to complain" :lol:


So if you think we all abstained from the voting process, the bourgeoisie wouldn't wage any more wars because they don't have "legitimacy" any more?


I call people out on their bullshit, namely eight-year-old stalinists. Revleft is dying anyway, no doubt due to an incident late last year in which large sections of the membership were apparently banned.


Sorry I thought it was evident that I was in Australia. As for the spelling, the ALP apparently began to spell their own name as 'Labor' in 1912 as some sort of attempt to modernise the language because they thought US spelling conventions would be adopted in Australia.

Ah yes. Daring to question the current capitalist system is "ant-worker". Don't worry, you won't hurt my feelings. I've been called all sorts of things for daring to question pseudo-left support for trade unions and the capitalist governance system.

My stance on "proletarian revolution in a democratic nation" is that first we need democracy. At a national level is fine for a start, but it really needs to be international. We can over-analyse it till the cows come home but Socialism, communism, and democracy are the same thing.

You think that calling people names is the same as "calling them out". You need to work on that, mate.

[shaneo]

It doesn't matter if they vote or not. If every last person on the planet woke up tomorrow with a magickal epiphany that, damn these politicians, they just lie and cheat, let us no more vote for any of their shit! Would anything change if they only refrained from voting? Do you think it would be above them to just publish voting results anyway, out of thin air, if they really needed to do so to survive? They would.

And what a load of absolute rubbish it is, all the same!

If you already know that they lie and cheat, and that your vote is worthless anyway, why are you complaining when I suggest that you stop wasting your time by voting? Going to the polls is 30 minutes out of your life that you will never get back! There might be something good on telly instead.

Capitalists only fear is revolution. They could fabricate all the results they wanted, but they would no longer have the sham voting system to protect them from workers.

Calling something "rubbish" isn't really a well thought out response, so if you dispute what I say, then I look forward to your reasoning. If you cannot think of a reasonable response, then perhaps that's a sign to re-think your position?

[shaneo]

Ken Livingstone ~ if voting changed anything, they would abolish it.

The 'they' being the ruling class, the bosses.

An odd thing to say, for a career politician, who has consistently stood in elections. But he said it anyway.

I think workers have every right to complain, about the bosses shitty system and how it fucks us over, whether we vote or not.

Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, introduced compulsory electoral registration (with the possibility of a £1000 fine if people do not comply), but not mandatory voting.

Blair was concerned by the number of people failing to register, and the poor turn out in successive elections. It looks 'bad' for bourgeois 'democracy'. How they want their little facade and sham to be maintained.

Salvador Allende was elected in Chile, on a programme that would have meant only mild reforms to the system. Even that was too much for the bosses, and they staged a coup and deposed him. One of the architects behind the coup, was Pinochet. And on a visit to Britain, he was feted and fawned over by then Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

I very rarely go to the polling station. When I do, as much as I do, is to spoil the ballot paper, and write 'vote of no confidence' on it. Trivial, I know. But it's what I do when I can be arsed, which isn't often.

Real democracy, is workers democracy, when we own and control the productives forces in common. The bosses elections are a sham. And the only way we seize control of the means of production is via insurrection.

True that. The so called "Labour" party allowed the largest upward re-distribution of wealth that the UK has seen in a long time. I don't know how they can give themselves that name and sleep at night.

[honest john's firing squad]

Ah yes. Daring to question the current capitalist system is "ant-worker".
No, claiming workers who vote have no right to complain when the system harms them is.

Besides, voting does not encourage a war here or an anti-strike law there. You still haven't proven how voting "encourages" the system beyond inane ramblings about offering "legitimacy" to the system.


My stance on "proletarian revolution in a democratic nation" is that first we need democracy. At a national level is fine for a start, but it really needs to be international. We can over-analyse it till the cows come home but Socialism, communism, and democracy are the same thing.
How can you support a workers' revolution if you don't believe the majority of workers have the right to complain about their position in society? Are you that pathologically dishonest as to your real political positions, or are you just a complete moron?

[Left Leanings]

True that. The so called "Labour" party allowed the largest upward re-distribution of wealth that the UK has seen in a long time. I don't know how they can give themselves that name and sleep at night.

It's pretty easy, considering most Labour MPs come directly from the bourgeois. And if they don't, the remainder are so richly rewarded with fine salaries, 'expenses' and lucrative directorships, that they just don't give a fuck.

I can think of things that might cause them a few sleepless nights though ;)

[shaneo]

No, claiming workers who vote have no right to complain when the system harms them is.

Besides, voting does not encourage a war here or an anti-strike law there. You still haven't proven how voting "encourages" the system beyond inane ramblings about offering "legitimacy" to the system.


How can you support a workers' revolution if you don't believe the majority of workers have the right to complain about their position in society? Are you that pathologically dishonest as to your real political positions, or are you just a complete moron?

My claim is that supporting a capitalist system, by voting for it ,removes your right to complain when that system harms you. I don't get why you are getting upset over something that is patently true.

Lets say you voted for Tony Abbott, with the full knowledge that he was a coke fiend. And then lets say he became prime minister.... Your logic suggests that you could then go around the next day complaining that Australia shouldnt have a PM with a coke habit. You're all over the shop fella.

To coerce, or force workers to support a capitalist voting system is far more anti-worker; and if you defend the capitalist voting set up, Then surely you are anti-worker.

Depends what you mean by society, but workers cannot complain about the capitalist system or the crimes of the elites, if they have provided a mandate for the elites to commit those crimes. How can you support a workers revolution, if you support the capitalist voting system that prevents revolution?

You might think it "inane rambling", but I'll stick to my position that giving legitimacy to something, encourages it. If you disagree with that fairly simple premise, then I'd be interested in seeing your proof.

Voting gives permission to the rulers to do what they want, and if you already know they want wars and anti strike laws, but vote anyway, then you can't complain when those things happen.
Does giving legitimacy to something discourage it "where you come from"? You know, the place where people who don't agree with you are "shitheads".

My political position is quite clear. As is yours... but sadder still is your need to resort to name calling if you don't like what you hear.

[honest john's firing squad]

Lets say you voted for Tony Abbott, with the full knowledge that he was a coke fiend. And then lets say he became prime minister.... Your logic suggests that you could then go around the next day complaining that Australia shouldnt have a PM with a coke habit. You're all over the shop fella.
So say there were some workers (read: millions) who voted for Rudd in the 2007 election, because to their understanding the Labor party would repeal WorkChoices once elected. Labor did this shortly after their victory, but later went on, as all governments do, to pass anti-labour legislation of its own (often in the form of Fair Work Australia). This kind of situation often presents itself as an opportunity for workers to become radicalised and disillusioned with the electoral system, but since you're a mouthbreathing twat, you don't believe anyone who voted Labor had any right to complain about it at all.

I can only imagine the horror of what might happen if you were in a position of major influence in the labour movement: telling pissed off workers who grew disillusioned with their government and became radicalised that they don't have the right to protest about/revolt against it, because they voted.


To coerce, or force workers to support a capitalist voting system is far more anti-worker; and if you defend the capitalist voting set up, Then surely you are anti-worker.
Good thing I'm not anti-worker then, because I can't find where I have defended bourgeois democracy, even implicitly.


Depends what you mean by society, but workers cannot complain about the capitalist system or the crimes of the elites, if they have provided a mandate for the elites to commit those crimes. How can you support a workers revolution, if you support the capitalist voting system that prevents revolution?
See above. I have not defended or supported elections, only the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation.


Voting gives permission to the rulers to do what they want, and if you already know they want wars and anti strike laws, but vote anyway, then you can't complain when those things happen.
The majority of workers have supported their government at a point in time and probably voted when they had the chance to do so, so does any sizable portion of the working class even have a right to protest/complain, in your eyes?

[shaneo]

So say there were some workers (read: millions) who voted for Rudd in the 2007 election, because to their understanding the Labor party would repeal WorkChoices once elected. Labor did this shortly after their victory, but later went on, as all governments do, to pass anti-labour legislation of its own (often in the form of Fair Work Australia). This kind of situation often presents itself as an opportunity for workers to become radicalised and disillusioned with the electoral system, but since you're a mouthbreathing twat, you don't believe anyone who voted Labor had any right to complain about it at all.

That is correct. They would have even less right to complain if, knowing that this happened, they went and voted again. If you got conscious, and didn't support capitalism (by voting) again; you could complain your little heart out. Your example is especially interesting since Rudd (a "democratically" elected PM) was removed in a coup, because he didnt get on the bandwagon of increased US pressure on China, and dared to suggest that rich mining companies pay some tax. Yet some people will go on out and vote again. They've gotta snap out of it.
It is a perfect opportunity when people become disillusioned with capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalists election system (and sham trade unions) are presented as the only outlet.


I can only imagine the horror of what might happen if you were in a position of major influence in the labour movement: telling pissed off workers who grew disillusioned with their government and became radicalised that they don't have the right to protest about/revolt against it, because they voted.

It wouldn't be a labour movement if any one person had a position of major influence. It would be a trade union.



Good thing I'm not anti-worker then, because I can't find where I have defended bourgeois democracy, even implicitly.

You accused me of being anti-worker. I was simply turning the point around.

I complained about bourgeois "democracy" by saying:
"We must write the party off now. They are as likely to bring about "change" as Obama was.
Did Spain achieve anything close to socialism by voting in a party that called itself socialist? Of course not. To give them time, or a chance, is to give them a free hand. We encourage this system by taking part. Don't vote! If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you."

To which your response was....

"we have a word for people like you in my country. it's called 'shithead'. "

So even though you implicitely defended bourgeois democracy in the first message between us, you have now realised that what I said is true, and that is why you now claim to not defend Bourgeois democracy.
Even more interesting is the fact that user 4514 thanked you for your ability to use your potty mouth in this post. A quick search of 4514's page tells us that 4514 "worked for the union- CFMEU australia". Coincidentally, you are also in Australia. I notice that 4514 has thanked five people for posts..... All five of them were you.

I was surprised that people keep thanking your posts when you speak the way you do. Now I think I know why, and I'm sure other users will make their own mind up on the matter.



See above. I have not defended or supported elections, only the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation.

When have you done this? Please provide the date and time of the post (or posts) where you have mentioned the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation? I have never denied them this right either, but they have no right to complain about capitalism if they have supported capitalism by voting.
If you are involved with trade unions, you certainly cannot claim to support these rights.


The majority of workers have supported their government at a point in time and probably voted when they had the chance to do so, so does any sizable portion of the working class even have a right to protest/complain, in your eyes?

Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has the opportunity to learn. But, as above, if you support capitalism by voting, and bad things happen, you can't complain. If you vote again.... Well, you know the rest. If at the next election you make the conscious decision to not support capitalism, then you can complain about it.

Anyway, I've decided to do something revolutionary by not voting. You can continue to go on Revleft and just talk about revolution, or do something about it as well.

Oh, next time try and send a post where you speak like a normal person and not be abusive. You're giving us Australians a bad name.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes,you would know that since you were here from the very first moments of the existence of this forum.Oh just a second,you are here from April 2012.Leave such proclamations to those who were here from 2006 or 2007.The forum is not 'dying'.

And the "large sections" of membership that were banned were in fact some 5-8 people that were active.Nothing more.

For once at least, I have to agree with Omsk. The characters who got themselves banned by doing stuff like outing Revleft admins we can do very nicely without. And are doing very nicely without, while their alternative forum withers away to well-deserved oblivion.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So say there were some workers (read: millions) who voted for Rudd in the 2007 election, because to their understanding the Labor party would repeal WorkChoices once elected. Labor did this shortly after their victory, but later went on, as all governments do, to pass anti-labour legislation of its own (often in the form of Fair Work Australia). This kind of situation often presents itself as an opportunity for workers to become radicalised and disillusioned with the electoral system, but since you're a mouthbreathing twat, you don't believe anyone who voted Labor had any right to complain about it at all.

I can only imagine the horror of what might happen if you were in a position of major influence in the labour movement: telling pissed off workers who grew disillusioned with their government and became radicalised that they don't have the right to protest about/revolt against it, because they voted.


Good thing I'm not anti-worker then, because I can't find where I have defended bourgeois democracy, even implicitly.


See above. I have not defended or supported elections, only the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation.


The majority of workers have supported their government at a point in time and probably voted when they had the chance to do so, so does any sizable portion of the working class even have a right to protest/complain, in your eyes?

I applaud your perspicacity as to shaneo, especially since, technically speaking, he hasn't said anything in *this* thread to fully justify your critique.

This is the same character who in other threads has come out against unions altogether, saying that workers should not join them. He is a reactionary union-buster in "left wing" disguise.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Hm, I said what he said didn't fully justify him being called a shithead. I hadn't read this post. This guy is definitely an anti-union, anti-worker shithead.

-M.H.-


That is correct. They would have even less right to complain if, knowing that this happened, they went and voted again. If you got conscious, and didn't support capitalism (by voting) again; you could complain your little heart out. Your example is especially interesting since Rudd (a "democratically" elected PM) was removed in a coup, because he didnt get on the bandwagon of increased US pressure on China, and dared to suggest that rich mining companies pay some tax. Yet some people will go on out and vote again. They've gotta snap out of it.
It is a perfect opportunity when people become disillusioned with capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalists election system (and sham trade unions) are presented as the only outlet.



It wouldn't be a labour movement if any one person had a position of major influence. It would be a trade union.




You accused me of being anti-worker. I was simply turning the point around.

I complained about bourgeois "democracy" by saying:
"We must write the party off now. They are as likely to bring about "change" as Obama was.
Did Spain achieve anything close to socialism by voting in a party that called itself socialist? Of course not. To give them time, or a chance, is to give them a free hand. We encourage this system by taking part. Don't vote! If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you."

To which your response was....

"we have a word for people like you in my country. it's called 'shithead'. "

So even though you implicitely defended bourgeois democracy in the first message between us, you have now realised that what I said is true, and that is why you now claim to not defend Bourgeois democracy.
Even more interesting is the fact that user 4514 thanked you for your ability to use your potty mouth in this post. A quick search of 4514's page tells us that 4514 "worked for the union- CFMEU australia". Coincidentally, you are also in Australia. I notice that 4514 has thanked five people for posts..... All five of them were you.

I was surprised that people keep thanking your posts when you speak the way you do. Now I think I know why, and I'm sure other users will make their own mind up on the matter.




When have you done this? Please provide the date and time of the post (or posts) where you have mentioned the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation? I have never denied them this right either, but they have no right to complain about capitalism if they have supported capitalism by voting.
If you are involved with trade unions, you certainly cannot claim to support these rights.



Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has the opportunity to learn. But, as above, if you support capitalism by voting, and bad things happen, you can't complain. If you vote again.... Well, you know the rest. If at the next election you make the conscious decision to not support capitalism, then you can complain about it.

Anyway, I've decided to do something revolutionary by not voting. You can continue to go on Revleft and just talk about revolution, or do something about it as well.

Oh, next time try and send a post where you speak like a normal person and not be abusive. You're giving us Australians a bad name.

[honest john's firing squad]

So even though you implicitely defended bourgeois democracy in the first message between us, you have now realised that what I said is true, and that is why you now claim to not defend Bourgeois democracy.
Not really sure where you get this, since I called you a shithead only in response to your claim that workers who vote shouldn't complain when they get fucked by the system. Nowhere did I discuss any "merits" of the bourgeois electoral process or whatever.


I notice that 4514 has thanked five people for posts..... All five of them were you.
Closer inspection of 4514's profile reveals he joined and was active when the reputation system was not yet in place, so this shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.


When have you done this? Please provide the date and time of the post (or posts) where you have mentioned the "right" of workers to strike, protest, revolt, etc. without reservation?
I thought my implied contention was pretty obvious, unless of course you're a completely inept moron.


Anyway, I've decided to do something revolutionary by not voting. You can continue to go on Revleft and just talk about revolution, or do something about it as well.
Remind me again how it was that refusing to vote was revolutionary? It can indicate the radicalisation of an individual, but it's definitely not going to bring about the end of the capitalist mode of production.

[shaneo]

I applaud your perspicacity as to shaneo, especially since, technically speaking, he hasn't said anything in *this* thread to fully justify your critique.

This is the same character who in other threads has come out against unions altogether, saying that workers should not join them. He is a reactionary union-buster in "left wing" disguise.

-M.H.-

You have only joined in, and called me a shithead as well, because I dared to question bourgeois trade unions and their ongoing crimes against workers. For this you labelled me an "enemy of the working class".

This isn't the place for discussing unions, but you are welcome to return to our previous discussion and actually answer my three simple questions.

No... ? That's what I thought.

[shaneo]

Hm, I said what he said didn't fully justify him being called a shithead. I hadn't read this post. This guy is definitely an anti-union, anti-worker shithead.

-M.H.-

Again, you are just annoyed because you support trade unions, and I have dared to question them. It is rather cowardly of you to come after me in a different thread. If you disagree with my realistic stance on unions, then return to our previous thread.
If you disagree with what I have said on this thread, then provide your reasoning. The fact that you won't, or can't, says it all.

The fact that you, like honest John, resort to offensive language when faced with sound logic, suggests that you both need to take a close look at yourselves.

[shaneo]

Not really sure where you get this, since I called you a shithead only in response to your claim that workers who vote shouldn't complain when they get fucked by the system. Nowhere did I discuss any "merits" of the bourgeois electoral process or whatever.

Please go back and check the post. At the time, you didn't specify which part you were responding to. You just made an offensive comment, covering the entire content, to implicitly back bourgeois politics. Although I suspect you actually back bourgeois politics through trade unions.
You cannot discuss the "merits" of the bourgeois electoral process because it doesn't have any.

You now suggest that your only problem with my comment was the part where people can't complain about something if they have supported it... but that is just common sense. It would be ridiculous to argue this.

Lets get away from phrasing pedantry and stick to the issue.


I thought my implied contention was pretty obvious

Yes it is very obvious. You refuse to openly state your position on bourgeois democracy, and your reasons for this are obvious also... You support it. If you came out and openly said that you were against the bourgeois democracy voting system, then you would be forced to agree with me.


Closer inspection of 4514's profile reveals he joined and was active when the reputation system was not yet in place, so this shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

The rep system has been around long enough, and yet 4514 has only ever thanked you. In the end, anyone who backs you up for being offensive, doesnt deserve to be taken seriously.
You have also previously said:

Revleft is dying anyway, no doubt due to an incident late last year in which large sections of the membership were apparently banned.


Which suggests an unusual amount of knowledge regarding the inner workings of Revleft for someone who has only been an active member for around a month. Of course it is easy to build up your rep by thanking yourself under another alias. Perhaps you were one of the people banned? Possibly for your use of offensive language? We will never know. Although:
4514 has only thanked five people - all of them are you.
4514 has an aversion to capital letters at the start of his/her sentences - just like you.
4514 is an Australian - just like you.
4514 got their vocabulary from a sewerage treatment plant - just like you.

People will make up their own mind regarding the legitimacy of your rep. I certainly don't want to dwell on it, as you will only get excited about having been a bit sneaky.




Remind me again how it was that refusing to vote was revolutionary? It can indicate the radicalisation of an individual, but it's definitely not going to bring about the end of the capitalist mode of production.

If you need reminding, read my previous submissions. Although you say that not voting won't bring about the end of capitalism, at least it is a start.

It's certainly more revolutionary than propping up capitalism by voting, (and supporting unions) and then having the audacity to complain about capitalism.

You keep saying that you have never said that you back the bourgeois voting system, and then you question "how it was that refusing to vote was revolutionary?". Either you struggle to get your logic into some sort of order, or you are just trolling for attention.

I'll anticipate your next response by saying that when I say "you", the context must be taken into consideration, as sometimes it means workers in general.

Anyway, I'm not interested in changing the opinion of someone who just swears at people and then thanks themself for it. But if anyone else is reading this, we really must stop supporting capitalism by taking part in its sham voting system. Don't vote! If you encourage a corrupt political system by taking part, then you have no right to complain when that system harms you.

[honest john's firing squad]

You just made an offensive comment, covering the entire content, to implicitly back bourgeois politics.
oh wow, so you are a child.


Although I suspect you actually back bourgeois politics through trade unions.
all you have to fall back on is a "suspicion"?


Yes it is. You refuse to openly state your position on bourgeois democracy, and your reasons for this are obvious also... You support it. If you came out and openly said that you were against the bourgeois democracy voting system, then you would be forced to agree with me.
you are an idiot, and talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.


Which suggests an unusual amount of knowledge regarding the inner workings of Revleft for someone who has only been an active member for around a month. Of course it is easy to build up your rep by thanking yourself under another alias.
...except when you read some old threads and see that most of the older members who were last active years ago only have the default 10 reputation points, the logical conclusion is that the reputation system is a fairly recent feature. also, there is often small talk here and there of an incident which happened last year in which some longstanding members were banned.


4514 has only thanked five people - all of them are you.
this was pretty easily explained if you paid attention to 4514's history of activity on this site (http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?do=finduser&u=9155): their last post was in 2010, then '08 and '06 before that.


4514 has an aversion to capital letters at the start of his/her sentences - just like you.
4514 is an Australian - just like you.
yes, all this definitely makes 4514 and i the same person. give me a fucking break.


4514 got their vocabulary from a sewerage treatment plant - just like you.
is that where you got your politics from, too?


more words
not voting is not "more revolutionary" than voting; voting and not voting are equally non-revolutionary in that they both do nothing to overthrow the capitalist mode of production.

[shaneo]

oh wow, so you are a child.

I'll take your vapid response as an acknowledgement that you do support the bourgeois voting system and its pliant trade unions.



you are an idiot, and talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Again.... not much of a response.
If all you do is swear at, and abuse people, then it will always feel like you are talking to a brick wall.


all you have to fall back on is a "suspicion"?

No, I also fall back on sound judgement, but yes, lots of suspicion.




yes, all this definitely makes 4514 and i the same person. give me a fucking break.

Like I said... Not really interested. People will make their own decisions based on the known facts:
4514 has only thanked five people - all of them are you.
4514 has an aversion to capital letters at the start of his/her sentences - just like you.
4514 is an Australian - just like you.
4514 got their vocabulary from a sewerage treatment plant - just like you.

You have just stated that 4514's last posting was in 2010, and yet they have found the time to come on the forum just to thank you five times in the last month. Good one!



not voting is not "more revolutionary" than voting; voting and not voting are equally non-revolutionary in that they both do nothing to overthrow the capitalist mode of production.

That's right. Start talking in circles when you run out of swear words.

I'm glad I finally have your acknowledgement that voting is non revolutionary. Please convince others on this forum.

Not voting does a lot more to overthrow capitalism, because it removes support and legitimacy from capitalism. We've already been over this a few times... and you reckon I'm like a brick wall.

[Luís Henrique]

If you vote, you legitimise this system.

What legitimises the (capitalist) system is not "your" vote, but the electoral system as a whole. When turnout is low, people get blamed anyway, because they could have voted for a different option and instead were too lazy, or apathetic, or ignorant, or whatever other adjectives come to the collective hare brains of the bourgeois press, to do it.

Luís Henrique

[honest john's firing squad]

I'll take your vapid response as an acknowledgement that you do support the bourgeois voting system and its pliant trade unions.
i don't actually, and i can't figure out what basis your claim has aside from my "vapid" response. as for my actual positions on the subjects (because you keep jumping to conclusions and you're starting to piss me off), like all communists, i don't support the bourgeois electoral system. i see trade unions as being able to offer workers economic concessions here and there under the capitalist order, but i don't see them as being useful or capable vehicles for political struggle. i have no illusions about them being revolutionary bodies: i see them as being integral to the apparatus of the modern bourgeois state, and call for their destruction during revolutionary situations.


You have just stated that 4514's last posting was in 2010, and yet they have found the time to come on the forum just to thank you five times in the last month. Good one!
4514's random reappearances every two years in '08 and '10 must have seemed unusual at the time as well, but no-one was moronic enough to claim it was the original account of a new member.


Not voting does a lot more to overthrow capitalism, because it removes support and legitimacy from capitalism. We've already been over this a few times... and you reckon I'm like a brick wall.
so, what, if people stopped voting then the capitalist mode of production and all its social relations would implode overnight due to a lack of "legitimacy"?

[shaneo]

What legitimises the (capitalist) system is not "your" vote, but the electoral system as a whole. When turnout is low, people get blamed anyway, because they could have voted for a different option and instead were too lazy, or apathetic, or ignorant, or whatever other adjectives come to the collective hare brains of the bourgeois press, to do it.

Luís Henrique

That is true. How about if we make it clear that it was a conscious mass decision not to vote, rather than apathy. That might work?

Of course the for- profit and state run press will claim apathy anyway, but thankfully we have the Internet to spread the truth.

[shaneo]

i don't actually, and i can't figure out what basis your claim has aside from my "vapid" response. as for my actual positions on the subjects (because you keep jumping to conclusions and you're starting to piss me off), like all communists, i don't support the bourgeois electoral system. i see trade unions as being able to offer workers economic concessions here and there under the capitalist order, but i don't see them as being useful or capable vehicles for political struggle. i have no illusions about them being revolutionary bodies: i see them as being integral to the apparatus of the modern bourgeois state, and call for their destruction during revolutionary situations.


4514's random reappearances every two years in '08 and '10 must have seemed unusual at the time as well, but no-one was moronic enough to claim it was the original account of a new member.


so, what, if people stopped voting then the capitalist mode of production and all its social relations would implode overnight due to a lack of "legitimacy"?
Sorry if I piss you off, but this is the first time you have been clear about your position. We seem to share a lot of the same ideas, although I reckon you'll have a job naming any gain got by unions in the last 30 years. Anyway, that's another matter.

Plenty of psuedo-communists on this forum do support elections.

I've never said that capitalism would implode over night. I just said it's a good start. It's certainly better than supporting capitalism by voting.I stand by my belief that we have no right to complain about the existence of something that we support, an you're the one that called me a shithead for saying it.

[honest john's firing squad]

Plenty of psuedo-communists on this forum do support elections.
who exactly is this referring to, anyway?

[magicme]

"It's certainly better than supporting capitalism by voting.I stand by my belief that we have no right to complain about the existence of something that we support" by Shaneo

But were the French who voted definitely supporting capitalism? Like I don't know much about the differences between the candidates over there but I think the new guy has promised to keep the retirement age down. Surely we can understand workers making an input to the system in order to get a policy like that and not damn them for supporting capitalism.

If this is a sign that someone's reactionary bourgoise or whatever then I should be restricted for voting Labour in 1997, like I knew they were a wing of the exploiting classes but the pay rise that the minimum wage meant for me, and the fact that I lived in a marginal seat, made it a no-brainer for me to vote for them.

These are the kinds of decisions people with financial problems/interests make, I'm not sure how conducive it is to spreading class-consciousness to call people supporters of capitalism just because they have to exist in a capitalist framework and make the best of it they can.

[Luís Henrique]

That is true. How about if we make it clear that it was a conscious mass decision not to vote, rather than apathy. That might work?

Maybe; I doubt you can get the bulk of voters to abstain without in the process getting people to do much more radical things.


Of course the for- profit and state run press will claim apathy anyway, but thankfully we have the Internet to spread the truth.

And what would that truth be? That people don't vote because the consciously reject the capitalist State - while accepting without question the wage system, the market as the distribution mechanism, police authority, property rights, bourgeois raison d'Etat? It seems a weird truth, that much resembles a self-indulgent lie...

Luís Henrique

[shaneo]

who exactly is this referring to, anyway?

Don't get paranoid. I wasn't talking about you, skippy.

[shaneo]

Maybe; I doubt you can get the bulk of voters to abstain without in the process getting people to do much more radical things.



And what would that truth be? That people don't vote because the consciously reject the capitalist State - while accepting without question the wage system, the market as the distribution mechanism, police authority, property rights, bourgeois raison d'Etat? It seems a weird truth, that much resembles a self-indulgent lie...

Luís Henrique

Maybe...

But it's not as self indulgent as pretending to be revolutionary by just talking about it. We need to get rid of the wage system, markets ,etc. but we can all start somewhere, otherwise we'll only ever talk about it.

I can't see what we have to lose. Can you?

[shaneo]

But were the French who voted definitely supporting capitalism? Like I don't know much about the differences between the candidates over there but I think the new guy has promised to keep the retirement age down. Surely we can understand workers making an input to the system in order to get a policy like that and not damn them for supporting capitalism.

Very few people would go out and vote with the explicit aim of keeping the means of production in the hands of an elite few. That is the end result though; and it will be with Hollande. Time will prove this, as it has done in every other so-called democracy.


If this is a sign that someone's reactionary bourgoise or whatever then I should be restricted for voting Labour in 1997, like I knew they were a wing of the exploiting classes but the pay rise that the minimum wage meant for me, and the fact that I lived in a marginal seat, made it a no-brainer for me to vote for them.

I'm not suggesting you be restricted, but let's look at what happened between 97 and 10... Labour watched over the greatest increase in the gap between rich and poor in a very long time. Not to mention its illegal, colonial, oil adventures. So then let's say you think, "Well, Labour are actually anti working class, and I can't vote Tory... So I'll vote Lib Dems.

Well, prior to the last election, any opinion poll around could show that the majority of people didn't want us in Iraq, and yet despite the Lib Dems empty anti-war rhetoric, they agreed to keep the UK foreign policy off limits during the Sky and BBC question time.

So who do you vote next time?

My point is that, by now you know they are all crooks, and even if Labour promise you an increase in the min wage, they'll probably go back on it. Don't forget, an increase in min wage is only an increase if it is above inflation.

You know they are all crooks, and you know that even if you vote for The Serious Party that will count your vote as support for the electoral system.

At this point, if you then go out and vote again, I reckon you can't complain about it when that vote harms you.

Anyway, all this stuff is a matter of record, and your point was about needing a better wage at the time...


These are the kinds of decisions people with financial problems/interests make, I'm not sure how conducive it is to spreading class-consciousness to call people supporters of capitalism just because they have to exist in a capitalist framework and make the best of it they can.

Yeah, I hear ya, and sometimes I've been drinking when I go on here, so some of what I say is to wind people up.

If the Tories were in, I reckon they would have given you a pay rise as well; given that the only thing the elites fear is outright revolution. I reckon that it wouldn't have mattered who was in power. These decisions are made in parliament, but not by parliament. The profit system realising that it needed to "give a little" to workers, to keep them quiet, is the reason for the pay rise.

I see your point though. If it came down to it, I'm not sure what I would do. I still reckon that I wouldn't be able to complain about capitalism if I voted for capitalism though. I definitely wouldn't be able to complain about Labour, if I voted Labour. You got the small, below inflation, wage increase; but surely you lost the right to complain about the other things they've taken from you?

[cheguvera]

is france Hollande a real leftist? is his political party genuine socialist party?
Most of them are disguised capitalist wolves.In UK labour party is a bogus leftist party.They do not represnt working class.They are sheer capitalists.These bogus leftists parties have robbed the confidence of the working class.

[Luís Henrique]

Maybe...

But it's not as self indulgent as pretending to be revolutionary by just talking about it. We need to get rid of the wage system, markets ,etc. but we can all start somewhere, otherwise we'll only ever talk about it.

Well, no.

"Somewhere" cannot mean "anywhere", or else we have place to all kinds of foolery, from veganism to voting social democrat. There are things that come first, and others that are either consequences of the former, or just don't happen at all.

And evidently, as long as "being revolutionary" in the abstract goes, there is little that we can do besides talking about it, isn't it? Unless of course we take actions that are "reformist" in abstract - which are the only that are strictly possible in a non-revolutionary situation - and use them as tools for organising, clarifying, understanding, etc.

For instance, if you make a point of starting by "not voting", then you should be able to actually organise a non-vote movement, in order that people can make clear that they are boycotting the elections, not merely staying at home to see some (actually very pro-capitalist) shit in TV. This would mean, of course, some boring activity, such as writing and printing pamphlets, organising picket lines, discussing with people in the queues, etc.


I can't see what we have to lose. Can you?

I certainly can. But that actually isn't the point; I'm not trying to convince you of the wonders of voting, but merely pointing out that an apolitical, comformist, non-vote isn't any better at all.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

is france Hollande a real leftist? is his political party genuine socialist party?

Well, no. Was there any doubt about this, first place?


Most of them are disguised capitalist wolves.In UK labour party is a bogus leftist party.They do not represnt working class.They are sheer capitalists.These bogus leftists parties have robbed the confidence of the working class.

They aren't "bogus" leftist parties; they are degenerated leftist parties. They aren't inventions of the bourgeoisie to scam us; they are our own instruments of struggle gone awfully wrong.

But, yes, they have the confidence of the working class. Why do you think they have it? How do you think we can change this?

Luís Henrique

[shaneo]

"Somewhere" cannot mean "anywhere", or else we have place to all kinds of foolery, from veganism to voting social democrat. There are things that come first, and others that are either consequences of the former, or just don't happen at all.

And evidently, as long as "being revolutionary" in the abstract goes, there is little that we can do besides talking about it, isn't it? Unless of course we take actions that are "reformist" in abstract - which are the only that are strictly possible in a non-revolutionary situation - and use them as tools for organising, clarifying, understanding, etc.

Well, if all we're ever going to do is talk about it, then there's not much point in talking about it, is there?

"Somewhere" doesn't mean "anywhere". We need to replace capitalism and the place to start is at the start. Surely this means rejecting capitalisms levers of control - such as the sham voting system, but also the state run and corporate media?


For instance, if you make a point of starting by "not voting", then you should be able to actually organise a non-vote movement, in order that people can make clear that they are boycotting the elections, not merely staying at home to see some (actually very pro-capitalist) shit in TV. This would mean, of course, some boring activity, such as writing and printing pamphlets, organising picket lines, discussing with people in the queues, etc.

... and discussing with / converting people on forums. It does mean doing all of these other boring things you mention as well. Not just by one person of course. That wouldn't be a class movement. Pamphlets are a good idea (please send money for printing costs), but if you go for picket lines, the bourgeois unions are likely to turn up with their stupid signs and try to hi-jack the movement. Next thing you know, everyone you'd worked hard to convince would end up voting for the parties that the unions fund... bloody Labour or the Democrats!




I certainly can. But that actually isn't the point; I'm not trying to convince you of the wonders of voting, but merely pointing out that an apolitical, comformist, non-vote isn't any better at all.

Luís Henrique

Well.... I think it was the point. That's why I asked the question. If you can see something that we have to lose by not voting, then I would be interested in hearing your case.

Consciously deciding to not vote cannot be described as "conformist". In fact it is the opposite. In a general election the vast majority either conform and vote, or they conform to stereotypes regarding apathy by not being bothered.

If not voting "isn't any better" than voting, why do you bother to vote? At least if you chose not to vote, you wouldn't have given up your right to complain.

[honest john's firing squad]

Don't get paranoid. I wasn't talking about you, skippy.
I was aware of that.

[cheguvera]

Well, no. Was there any doubt about this, first place?



They aren't "bogus" leftist parties; they are degenerated leftist parties. They aren't inventions of the bourgeoisie to scam us; they are our own instruments of struggle gone awfully wrong.

But, yes, they have the confidence of the working class. Why do you think they have it? How do you think we can change this?

Luís Henrique
was Tony blair belonged to the working class? was Gordon Brown belonged to the working class? Is Ed Miliband belonged to the working class.None of those leaders were from the working class.They have not done any jobs belonged to the working class.They are from the super-rich who robbed the slogans of working calss for capitalists.
Labours was kicked out because they were real shit.Now replaced Conservatives are in the same boat.They have lost the trust of their voters.
Why would they again choose labour as the alternative.people should find new gruop instead.That is the revolutionary politics.

[Luís Henrique]

was Tony blair belonged to the working class? was Gordon Brown belonged to the working class? Is Ed Miliband belonged to the working class.None of those leaders were from the working class.They have not done any jobs belonged to the working class.They are from the super-rich who robbed the slogans of working calss for capitalists.

They are leaders of a party that was always tied to working class organisations, such as, for instance, trade unions.


Labours was kicked out because they were real shit.

If that was true, they would have been replaced by something better, which, as you say yourself, is not the case:


Now replaced Conservatives are in the same boat.

***


They have lost the trust of their voters.

Maybe they are starting to lose such trust. But up to now, what we see is that when the voters get fed up with Labour, they vote Tory, and when they get fed up with Tories, they vote Labour; the system still works very well and smoothly, keeping capital in command and the working class subdued.


Why would they again choose labour as the alternative.

If it depended on my will, they wouldn't. But it doesn't, and it seems to be what they have been doing for the last, well, at least what, 80 years?

Maybe now in the next election, people will have a greek and turn everything upside down. But I am not yet seeing any clouds in the horizon, and the drought shows no signs of relenting.


people should find new gruop instead.That is the revolutionary politics.

Maybe. Why isn't it happening? How do we get it to happen?

Without answering to such questions, "revolutionary politics" is an abstraction.

Luís Henrique

[shaneo]

They are leaders of a party that was always tied to working class organisations, such as, for instance, trade unions.



If that was true, they would have been replaced by something better, which, as you say yourself, is not the case:



***



Maybe they are starting to lose such trust. But up to now, what we see is that when the voters get fed up with Labour, they vote Tory, and when they get fed up with Tories, they vote Labour; the system still works very well and smoothly, keeping capital in command and the working class subdued.



If it depended on my will, they wouldn't. But it doesn't, and it seems to be what they have been doing for the last, well, at least what, 80 years?

Maybe now in the next election, people will have a greek and turn everything upside down. But I am not yet seeing any clouds in the horizon, and the drought shows no signs of relenting.



Maybe. Why isn't it happening? How do we get it to happen?

Without answering to such questions, "revolutionary politics" is an abstraction.

Luís Henrique

Some of the trade unions may have started as workers organisation, but they can no longer be described this way. Trade unions now use members dues and their position to push support behind bourgeois political parties.

"why is it happening?" because we support these parties through a corrupt voting system.

"how do we get it to happen?" A good start would be to stop supporting this system, by not voting. Revolution is only an abstract concept if we continue to do nothing towards it.