Why Shouldnt We Vote?

[nihilust]

In reference to the recent poll that most of us took on voting, im looking to hear some of your personal opinions on why we should or should not. Thanks guys!

[Bawga]

The process is democracy of the bourgeoisie. Ultimately irrelevant to proletariat and common interests and entails no effect to the revolutionary process.

[Ostrinski]

Workers can't win at the ballot box.

[Prometeo liberado]

Absolute power, DOTP, will never be had through "their ballots, their system". It's been said that doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome, is the definition of insanity. Lets not dabble in insanity anymore.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Absolute power, DOTP, will never be had through "their ballots, their system". It's been said that doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome, is the definition of insanity. Lets not dabble in insanity anymore.

That argument doesn't really work when you are explaining not-votng to people who aren't communists.

[JPSartre12]

Because voting will not bring about socialism.

Oh, sure, we could get universal healthcare, better funding for education, a fairer tax system, and so on and so forth ... but that just perpetuates capitalism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Voting is a concession to the bourgeois political system. It also just plain doesn't work. Emma Goldman said "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it" and she was right. The communist party was outlawed during the red scare. The bourgeoisie will do anything to defend it's position. They only leave us alone now because we're weak as a movement. Revolution is the only way. We can't win at their game.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That argument doesn't really work when you are explaining not-votng to people who aren't communists.

There's not really a reason for a liberal not to vote, the system is working as intended from their perspective. The opposition to voting only comes from those not content with the current system.

[CryingWolf]

Because voting will not bring about socialism.

Oh, sure, we could get universal healthcare, better funding for education, a fairer tax system, and so on and so forth ... but that just perpetuates capitalism.

Not by voting. We get these things when the capitalists see it fit to give them.

Things like the 8 hour day and civil rights were won through struggle, not the ballot box.

[#FF0000]

Electoral tactics are next to pointless either way because putting a politician in office isn't a guarantee of anything in the first place. The saying "politics is in the streets" is entirely correct. Much of capitalism's major reforms came not from voting and putting the right people in office, but from, you know. Movements. And stuff.

[Philosophos]

Well there are many things to discuss in this thread...

First of all in Greece (I don't know about other countries) if somebody votes "white" (nothing) or for some reason he made a voting mistake and so his vote is canceled or if someone doesn't vote at all there is going to be trouble. Our voting system (or the idiots that are getting voted) doesn't take in count all these votes.

For example if we have a 100 voters and 10 are blanc ,30 canceled, 30 votes for New Democracy, 20 for PASOK and 10 for KKE these f*cks are going to take as 100% only the 60% that actually voted for the parties. So New Democracy instead of taking 30% now takes 50% because the whole 100% of the votes in now 60%. That's a downside because it's like you can't actually protest with not voting (nice democracy right?)

But at the same time there are some people that believe that voting is totally unnecesairie because the result is already decided or because there is no actual political/ideological identification with any of the parties or they just believe that through voting there is going to be no actual change to the society.

Since we can't create a DotP yet (at least in my country) I think it's better if we go and vote so these idiots can't really rule us with strong forces (because I will go to vote KKE for example).

Hope I helped.

[#FF0000]

Because voting will not bring about socialism.

Oh, sure, we could get universal healthcare, better funding for education, a fairer tax system, and so on and so forth ... but that just perpetuates capitalism.

No dummy you'd more likely get that by organizing people since literally both parties in American politics are all about austerity.

[Prometeo liberado]

That argument doesn't really work when you are explaining not-voting to people who aren't communists.

You don't have to be a communist to see that your vote counts for very little under the electoral college system. Or that year after year, generation after generation, the same issues are debated and the same slogans are made. All to come to not. Same outcome. Insanity knows no political persuasion.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You don't have to be a communist to see that your vote counts for very little under the electoral college system. Or that year after year, generation after generation, the same issues are debated and the same slogans are made. All to come to not. Same outcome. Insanity knows no political persuasion.

Was more talking abiut the DotP part.

[Harrison20]

Looking at the question in the wider context I imagine it's about participation in Parliamentary democracy.

If I was living in the US. No. Pointless.

However, in the UK due to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, and prerogative powers. I feel parliamentary politics could, if handled appropiately, by the right people and vanguard, bring about a socialist country.

*puts on tin hat*

[Peoples' War]

The point of participating in bourgeois democracy is to push for reforms. Now, often these reforms are not achieved, but there could be a big difference in politics. Say electing a Social Democratic Party over that of a Conservative party. So long as capitalism is not in crisis, we can see change occur for the better.

Is voting significant to the total class struggle? No. I would put it very low on the list, and reforms, real reforms, will be achieved through mass action of workers.

It really depends on where you live. In the US, I would suggest voting as mostly useless. In the UK, Canada, and other Parliament systems, it can produce a significant change.

[nihilust]

does anyone know if this is how it is in the US? would be a great debate tactic

[nihilust]

since i am in the US, what would be your argument to render it useless to vote liberal instead of republican? or do you think theres still some validity in a liberals vote?

[Ocean Seal]

We shouldn't have an absolute platform. In most cases we shouldn't vote or encourage voting, because its a fucking let down and a good way to drain away worker's consciousness.

[Prinskaj]

since i am in the US, what would be your argument to render it useless to vote liberal instead of republican? or do you think theres still some validity in a liberals vote?
We are not liberals, so why should we vote for them?
Both parties represent the capitalist class and voting for them only gives them legitimacy.

[Le Socialiste]

Voting for the left must be seen, above all, as a tactic - and less as a real means of acquiring political power and social hegemony over the bourgeoisie. Its worth and return are marginal, at best, but it helps to assess how voting or abstention helps or impedes struggle in relation to existing socioeconomic conditions, including questions of political power. For instance, I support SYRIZA's electoral strategies in light of growing divisions within ruling parties and the interests they represent, as well as the looming question of power (political and economic) which has been a continual point of contention within Greek circles. The state of Greece, coupled with the growing political and organizational maturity of Greek workers (including immigrants and the unemployed), demands one's critical support for an organization like SYRIZA, which is not without faults. That its goals surrounding electoral victories and a "government of the left" are based largely on the given trajectory and course of the anti-austerity movement doesn't make it reformist per se; instead, its gains in the field have galvanized working-class communities and paved the way for a group like SYRIZA - if not SYRIZA itself - to continue its preparatory work for an organization of, by, and for working-class people. Nowhere would I contend SYRIZA was or is a revolutionary grouping. I would, however, support it on the basis of its appeal and popularity amongst Greeks, and view it as a necessary vehicle towards the next phase of struggle surrounding the troika and the deepening social crisis permeating the country.

This isn't to say all left or psuedo-left parties are deemed supportable by sheer popularity alone (that would be a ridiculous - not to mention wrong - assertion). Instead, a combination of social factors and the general platform of the organization - all in relation to the material state of the proletariat and ruling-class interests - should be considered. We mustn't naively suppose any "radical" group or party to be truly radical in any sense, but should always carry a critical viewpoint of the step-by-step, day-by-day actions (and future intentions) of any organization.

In countries like the U.S. however, the situation changes. There are stark differences between Greece and the States, most obviously the lack of a properly organized left alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties. Our task, as leftists, is setting about to help create and build up such an organization capable of rallying to it radicalizing layers of the working-class, while similarly raising the latter's theoretical and organizational capacity to counter an onslaught of austerity and increasingly draconian measures. There will be some on the left who will look at people like Romney or Ryan and say "they will ruin this country - we might not like it, but in order to counter the craziness of the Republicans we need to back and vote for Obama." This is not only wrong (on so many levels), it is also lesser-evilism. What these people fail to realize is that both parties, despite their supposed "differences" (and there are differences), are representatives made up, by, and for ruling-class interests and, as such, are not answerable to or responsible for the needs and demands of the working-class (no matter how much they posture as such). Neither party or candidate(s) should have our support, and we shouldn't waste time trying to campaign for either. During these election cycles, it is the role of the left to try and illustrate the sheer level of hypocrisy of the parties as well as showing how both groups have actively strived to gut and ruin working-class initiatives and gains throughout the years (Clinton signing DOMA, Bush's Patriot Act, Obama's NDAA and anti-protest legislation, etc). And this isn't even to say how ruthlessly both parties have acted in accordance with and carried out the bourgeoisie's interests abroad in plundering foreign resources and backing dictatorial governments, including their support of torture, assassinations, and general disregard for what passes for "international" law.

In short, it (voting) all depends on the given circumstances and developments the working-class - and, by extension, the left - finds itself in. We shouldn't dismiss voting outright, rather we must recognize that situations change, and our adaptivity or flexibility in meeting these changes are necessary to grow and rebuild the left. Of course, as I've highlighted above, electoral strategies and victories are of marginal importance to the left, but they are more or less significant for the people who fought for them. We must be ready to acknowledge that, and to act accordingly. It doesn't help to simply deride someone for supporting bourgeois democracy; we must be capable of explaining plainly and simply how and why such a system is unsustainable and not in the person's interests. Similarly, we should be able to maneuver between periods of manifested "electoral" struggles (and general passivity on the part of the electorate), and those moments in which people have taken to the streets, occupying parks, buildings, and workplaces (as what happened in Greece, N. Africa/the Middle East, and the U.S.), actively resisting (whether consciously or not) the moves and goings on of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. Again, participating in electoral strategies should never be the sole initiative of the left, or any left organization (I keep emphasizing this because I know someone is going to read my post and immediately accuse me of reformism and support for bourgeois power structures - none of which are true). The fight for the self-emancipative struggle of the proletariat is a long and arduous one, and it'll take a flexible and adaptive organizational understanding of social movements and capitalism (amounting to a theoretical sophistication amongst both members and the foundations of the organization as a whole) if it is grow, advance, and eventually win.

[Comrades Unite!]

It's really simple.
It is a Bourgeois government.
Most people on here call for Proletariat government.

Well, thats the crux of most peoples argument.

[Sea]

We should vote.

But not for people, we should not elect. Currently. And in the future there will hopefully be no such elections anyway.

[Magón]

since i am in the US, what would be your argument to render it useless to vote liberal instead of republican? or do you think theres still some validity in a liberals vote?

There's no validity to vote for any side, because no matter what someone votes, the system that oppresses is still in charge and just with a different party mascot at the head.

[Positivist]

since i am in the US, what would be your argument to render it useless to vote liberal instead of republican? or do you think theres still some validity in a liberals vote?

Honestly just read their platforms and explain how there really aren't many differences between them.

[The Idler]

Workers who won't vote for socialism certainly won't strike or fight for socialism.

[Zostrianos]

I've posted this before, but it's especially relevant. George Carlin explains why we shouldn't vote:
xIraCchPDhk

[Igor]

Workers who won't vote for socialism certainly won't strike or fight for socialism.

This is kinda stupid. I don't vote for socialism, because they don't play my game at the booth. It's a bourgeois system, it's designed to keep the bourgeois system intact and if a socialist party is ever to succeed, they will either be politically isolated or forced to cooperate and make compromises with bourgeois party interests. Electoral politics are at the core of bougie class rule, we have nothing to gain there than just slowly transforming into the gaping pointlessness of center-left liberalism.

The streets is where our ideology belong. I won't vote for socialism, but I will strike or fight for it, because only that's how we can ever win.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Socialism is implemented at the point of a bayonet, not in a voting booth.

[The Idler]

A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends. Ballot > bullet

[Igor]

A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends. Ballot > bullet

what exactly you think electoral politics have achieved during the last hundred years or so?

[nihilust]

thanks for all the clarifications! I have a further developed insight to this now

[Le Socialiste]

Socialism is implemented at the point of a bayonet, not in a voting booth.


A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends. Ballot > bullet

Can we avoid pointless one-liners please? They amount to posturing, and it doesn't do much in the way of explaining the how's and why's of one's position. And let's be honest, how many of us have access to bayonets these days? Not saying they aren't around, but c'mon. ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism is implemented at the point of a bayonet, not in a voting booth.

An interesting approach to Socialist democracy.

[Igor]

And let's be honest, how many of us have access to bayonets these days? Not saying they aren't around, but c'mon. ;)

Moving away from early 20th century rhetoric? dude that's revisionist

[The Jay]

Voting may not be a good way to fight for the interests of the proletariat but the decisions made by what little influence voting holds does effect people. You can both vote and work to end the system. There's nothing wrong with wanting to limit your own suffering in the short term.

[The Idler]

what exactly you think electoral politics have achieved during the last hundred years or so?
The enfranchisement is probably the greatest achievement of the western working-class over the last couple of centuries since the dawn of the modern socialist movement. Universal suffrage means the working-class compose the overwhelming electoral majority and thus the basis for the support required to rule any society. Street-fighting is a game for fascists and mobs. Democratic decision-making in a socialist society could not be made by excluding voting.

[Igor]

The enfranchisement is probably the greatest achievement of the western working-class over the last couple of centuries since the dawn of the modern socialist movement. Universal suffrage means the working-class compose the overwhelming electoral majority and thus the basis for the support required to rule any society. Street-fighting is a game for fascists and mobs. Democratic decision-making in a socialist society could not be made by excluding voting.

Enfranchisement was a good thing and involving the working class in politics is a good thing in the way that it forces the ruling class to acknowledge us more. But still, things that have been gained by universal suffrage in terms of welfare can be taken away from us. Free university education and universal healthcare were major victories for working class movements in many European countries once, now they're slowly being crippled - or not so slowly, see the case point of UK.

It's all very nice that working class forms the electoral majority, but what does it tell ya that still in the United States for example there is not a single party that's both represented parliamentarily and is serious in any way about working class politics? Or that such parties in UK and France support austerity measures fully? Yeah, of course there's some smaller party out there which offers the true ideologically correct way to happy place, but hasn't history been through that kind of developments way too many times already? In the end, they'd sell their grandma to increase their influence. And once you've sold too many grandmas, there's not much connection to their original class and supporting base left. That is the very nature how electoral politics work.

Democratic decision-making in socialism requires voting, of course, but then we get to define name of the game It would be a tool of working class control, not capitalist, it's not exactly a continuum from bougie democracy to socialist one, the current system needs to be rooted away entirely for a better one to replace it.

[blake 3:17]

Making a fetish of not voting is just silly.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's very simple: who are you going to vote for?

[ComingUpForAir]

Comrade I can give you a solid historical example of why it is useless to vote. I must credit Professor Richard Wolff for this --

In the 1930's we had powerful Communist and Socialist groups in the U.S. - they were so powerful in fact, that FDR had to force a massive tax on the rich and corporations to stave off a communist revolution.. after FDR passed Social Security, Welfare, and a host of social programs to improve and alleviate the strained economy, he was celebrated by the working class and, with a little additional sabotage by the Stalinists in the Soviet Union, the movement came apart and essentially dissipated, thinking it had won permanent gains. Fast Forward to now, as we near the end of the 50 year roll back of the new deal gains. Corporations, which kept their basic structure in place but merely gave up some of its wealth, have now once again brutalized the working class, breaking up Unions and savaging and threatening virtually all gains of the period, including Civil Rights gains of the 60s (also forced by the USSR and Communism by the way as the question of Civil Rights became an embarrassment to the U.S. during the Cold War).

It could actually be plausibly argued that progressive reform has in most cases been a product of concessions due to Cold War conflict.. in any case that's what will happen again if we vote and try to institute reform. If Obama puts in some New Deal type legislation like a Dodd Frank bill etc. we can expect corporations to roll back those gains, probably even faster than the first time!

During the period of slavery:
"One group of people was appalled at how slaves were treated; they demanded that slaves be treated better. The second group was horrified by the first, insisting that the fundamental problem was that there were slaves at all! The solution is not to make slaves better off, because so long as the slave is a slave, the master has the control to take back whatever the slave can win in the way of better conditions. The issue is slavery itself; no person can be the property of another."

[jookyle]

Because voting will not bring about socialism.

Oh, sure, we could get universal healthcare, better funding for education, a fairer tax system, and so on and so forth ... but that just perpetuates capitalism.

I can't tell if this being said sarcastically or not, but I'm going to take it as a serious statement. In which case, how dare you. Everything the people in this country have gained they've fought for. The end of slavery, woman's rights,desegregation,child labor laws, safety regulations, etc. happened because people took to the streets and sometimes, often times, sacrificed a great deal so that tomorrow would be better. These things weren't decided in some voting booth by a referendum, they happened because the people's might when organized is stronger than the bourgeoisie's will. By saying what you've said, you've insulted all those who gave so much to make today better.

[The Idler]

Enfranchisement was a good thing and involving the working class in politics is a good thing in the way that it forces the ruling class to acknowledge us more. But still, things that have been gained by universal suffrage in terms of welfare can be taken away from us. Free university education and universal healthcare were major victories for working class movements in many European countries once, now they're slowly being crippled - or not so slowly, see the case point of UK.

It's all very nice that working class forms the electoral majority, but what does it tell ya that still in the United States for example there is not a single party that's both represented parliamentarily and is serious in any way about working class politics? Or that such parties in UK and France support austerity measures fully? Yeah, of course there's some smaller party out there which offers the true ideologically correct way to happy place, but hasn't history been through that kind of developments way too many times already? In the end, they'd sell their grandma to increase their influence. And once you've sold too many grandmas, there's not much connection to their original class and supporting base left. That is the very nature how electoral politics work.

Democratic decision-making in socialism requires voting, of course, but then we get to define name of the game It would be a tool of working class control, not capitalist, it's not exactly a continuum from bougie democracy to socialist one, the current system needs to be rooted away entirely for a better one to replace it.
No, there has never been a majority democratically expressing a will for socialism. There have been minorities with bayonets.

Comrade I can give you a solid historical example of why it is useless to vote. I must credit Professor Richard Wolff for this --

In the 1930's we had powerful Communist and Socialist groups in the U.S. - they were so powerful in fact, that FDR had to force a massive tax on the rich and corporations to stave off a communist revolution.. after FDR passed Social Security, Welfare, and a host of social programs to improve and alleviate the strained economy, he was celebrated by the working class and, with a little additional sabotage by the Stalinists in the Soviet Union, the movement came apart and essentially dissipated, thinking it had won permanent gains. Fast Forward to now, as we near the end of the 50 year roll back of the new deal gains. Corporations, which kept their basic structure in place but merely gave up some of its wealth, have now once again brutalized the working class, breaking up Unions and savaging and threatening virtually all gains of the period, including Civil Rights gains of the 60s (also forced by the USSR and Communism by the way as the question of Civil Rights became an embarrassment to the U.S. during the Cold War).

It could actually be plausibly argued that progressive reform has in most cases been a product of concessions due to Cold War conflict.. in any case that's what will happen again if we vote and try to institute reform. If Obama puts in some New Deal type legislation like a Dodd Frank bill etc. we can expect corporations to roll back those gains, probably even faster than the first time!


I can't tell if this being said sarcastically or not, but I'm going to take it as a serious statement. In which case, how dare you. Everything the people in this country have gained they've fought for. The end of slavery, woman's rights,desegregation,child labor laws, safety regulations, etc. happened because people took to the streets and sometimes, often times, sacrificed a great deal so that tomorrow would be better. These things weren't decided in some voting booth by a referendum, they happened because the people's might when organized is stronger than the bourgeoisie's will. By saying what you've said, you've insulted all those who gave so much to make today better.
Temporal gains are why people support reformism, not the act of voting. Every government for over a century in US (bar George W. Bush) and UK was only able to govern by winning a majority electorally.

[ВАЛТЕР]

An interesting approach to Socialist democracy.

Do you really think we can vote socialism in? If you think that we won't have to take what is ours by force then I think that is a quite naive position.

No revolution in history has ever been a peaceful one. The forces of reaction will defend their privileges to the death.



A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends. Ballot > bullet

Yes, I know this. It is in my sig.

However, any "worker" defending the ruling class is no longer a worker in my eyes. Those fighting for the capitalist class are not our comrades and have made their positions clear by taking up arms against us.

[#FF0000]

No, there has never been a majority democratically expressing a will for socialism. There have been minorities with bayonets

oh god don't tell me you're one of those supreme dummies who thinks the russian revolution was a "coup"

[The Idler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
http://forworkerspower.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/25deabril.jpg
Active engaged majority support has always been a better indicator of success than bayoneting workers who don't understand their class interests. The saying is not "a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends (except defenders of the ruling-class)".

As for the Russian Revolution as a coup, well the last electoral results speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=ВАЛТЕР;2502343]Do you really think we can vote socialism in? If you think that we won't have to take what is ours by force then I think that is a quite naive position.

Nope, I advocate not voting. But the revolution is not necessarily violent, from our end. The only violence we should engage in is defensive violence as a reaction to any counter-revolutionary attack. And this is not necessarily inevitable.


No revolution in history has ever been a peaceful one. The forces of reaction will defend their privileges to the death.


The 'Socialist' revolutions hitherto have largely failed, too, or led to states that lack any hint of proletarian democracy. Your second statement may or may be true, but we should not fetishise revolutionary violence or see it as inevitable; if the revolution can be accomplished peacefully (I don't mean this in the pacifist sense, I mean this in the sense of avoiding all out civil war), then it should be so. Only material conditions will determine whether or not this is possible.

[Ostrinski]

Socialism is not a matter of policy, but that's what voting is: a choice between two or more approaches to policy. We don't have a dog in a race for a position so integral to the system of our enemy.

Socialists stand for a fundamental, thorough change to the foundations of our society - that is the difference between radical and progressive change. Liberal progressives like Idler seek to transform the superstructure of society under the guise of a lasting alteration, though the revolutionaries among us know it's just trimming the bush.

[CryingWolf]

No, there has never been a majority democratically expressing a will for socialism. There have been minorities with bayonets.

Temporal gains are why people support reformism, not the act of voting. Every government for over a century in US (bar George W. Bush) and UK was only able to govern by winning a majority electorally.

You are confusing effects for causes.

Bourgeois politicians do not govern because they are successful at the elections. They are successful at the elections because they govern (which is to say, the capitalists allow them to represent them).

[#FF0000]

As for the Russian Revolution as a coup, well the last electoral results speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917

Nah I'd rather look at any sort of serious scholarship that talks about how it was the working class and peasants who, if anything, pushed the socialists to revolution. The Bolsheviks took power because the SRs wouldn't.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Continuing the war was clearly what the masses really wanted.

[Art Vandelay]

Workers who won't vote for socialism certainly won't strike or fight for socialism.


Ballot > bullet

When are you just going to come out as a reformist Idler? It's already blatantly clear to radicals; Chomsky avatar says it all.

[#FF0000]

i don't mind chomsky

[The Idler]

You are confusing effects for causes.

Bourgeois politicians do not govern because they are successful at the elections. They are successful at the elections because they govern (which is to say, the capitalists allow them to represent them).
There are many examples demonstrating this to be other than the case, here is a link to a few of a specific kind
List of prime ministers defeated by votes of no confidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_co nfidence)
but there are also the victories of opposition parties over incumbents etc.
Maybe the flop of a coup in Venezuela by businessman's favorite candidate Pedro Carmona in 2002 due to lack of support.
Probably the best example is the ruling-class' resistance to universal suffrage over history. See The Vote by Paul Foot.

The accusations of reformism, liberal progressivism from users advocating electoral abstentionism (surrender on the electoral democratic field) with Lenin or Trotsky avatars I'm not sure where to start, the New Economic Policy perhaps? Or the aforementioned Constituent Assembly election in 1917, Russia's first free election that the Bolsheviks believe their candidates would win an easy victory. Then when they lost, banned all opposition parties.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Voting may be useful in winning whatever concessions can be won in this way, but even those strides made "within the system," such as the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, have had revolutionary undertones. Dr. King's speeches, while moving, weren't reminding the reactionaries and the ruling class of the potential for violent resistance in the same way that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were, for instance.

[Ostrinski]

It needs to be said again and once again, that gains such as those of the Civil Rights Movement were not made throug the ballot, but through popular demand, resistance, and struggle.

[Ostrinski]

Voting may be useful in winning whatever concessions can be won in this way, but even those strides made "within the system," such as the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, have had revolutionary undertones. Dr. King's speeches, while moving, weren't reminding the reactionaries and the ruling class of the potential for violent resistance in the same way that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were, for instance.Dr. King has been thoroughly whitewashed by ruling class education. The portrayal of Dr. King as some kind of moderate guy is an attempt to circumvent the revolutionary zeal that was drawn from a popular figure.

[Камо́ Зэд]

It needs to be said again and once again, that gains such as those of the Civil Rights Movement were not made throug the ballot, but through popular demand, resistance, and struggle.

Thank you, comrade. It's an important distinction to make in that the concessions in question were enacted into policy without necessarily being put to popular vote. I ought to have been more clear that I was using the Movement as an example of profound gains won while operating under a bourgeois system, that is, without the seizure of political power by the proletariat.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Dr. King has been thoroughly whitewashed by ruling class education. The portrayal of Dr. King as some kind of moderate guy is an attempt to circumvent the revolutionary zeal that was drawn from a popular figure.
It was my understanding that Dr. King was a pacifist. I'm beginning to wonder whether that's accurate, though.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why would you actively participate in such an activity when you want to overthrow the very system it perpetuates?

[Ostrinski]

It was my understanding that Dr. King was a pacifist. I'm beginning to wonder whether that's accurate, though.It might be accurate, maybe not. But simply advocating violence against the establishment is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they give a damn about you. Many of of these leftist groups are glanced over without a second glance, orgs that might even have positions endorsing violence.

What made someone like King dangerous, or percieved as so, is because he inspired a great number of people to desire social change and to struggle for it. So of course it would be natural to dilute such a figure of their radical content. For example, the last couple years of his life were dedicated to activism of a more radical sort (anti war, labor) and younever hear about those years.

[Камо́ Зэд]

It might be accurate, maybe not. But simply advocating violence against the establishment is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they give a damn about you. Many of of these leftist groups are glanced over without a second glance, orgs that might even have positions endorsing violence.

What made someone like King dangerous, or percieved as so, is because he inspired a great number of people to desire social change and to struggle for it. So of course it would be natural to dilute such a figure of their radical content. For example, the last couple years of his life were dedicated to activism of a more radical sort (anti war, labor) and younever hear about those years.

Interesting! Thank you, comrade. I was only vaguely aware before that King had been involved in some labor activism. As for pacifism, you're right that many organizations that endorse its use don't make much of a difference to the ruling class. The Black Panthers were fairly prominent, though, and, beyond violence, it's my understanding that they encouraged people to follow police officers around to create witnesses to instances of police corruption and violence.

[p0is0n]

Many Americans, from what I have heard, vote democrat to keep the republican crazies and their anti-female, anti-immigrant (do I really need to go on?) rhetoric and policies out, whilst still recognizing that both the democratic and republican parties are inherently defending the economic and social order of the hegemonious class, and recognizing that voting for the democrats because of the various "reforms" lowers the class conciousness of the proletariat. The Democratic and Republican parties have political differences which do not necessarily affect the hegemonious class, and as such are irrelevant for them to control, and if anything is just positive for them as it keeps the working class divided and busy fighting amongst eachother.

So, my question is, how do we respond to this?

[ComingUpForAir]

Though it can be said of every election cycle since FDR and before that, and though I realize that voting truly is ultimately pointless because the whole charade is basically a soap opera designed to think you have a choice, etc., would it be fair to say that Obama would at least move towards legalizing gay marriage and perhaps reforming a lot of social issues? It's obvious he's buckled to the conservatives (because he's one of them, not because he's tried to withstand the pressure)... but despite what Libertarians like to say, I feel that if Social Issues were truly pushed more to the left (Free Contraception, Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.), then Economic issues would follow.
Capitalism is predicated on sexism, racism, etc as we all know, and it seems to me that if we could get acceptance of abortion gay marriage et al, then Capitalism would be under threat.. Romney's platform is definitely farther to the right, though I suppose one could argue that he would simply moderate one he's actually in office so once again voting is pointless.

I wonder how the social dynamic would be affected if Romney loses -- would we experience an economic recovery in Obama's second term? If Romney was voted in, would Corporations finally start hiring.. are corporations simply waiting for Romney to be voted in so that they can finally hire people and thus claim that Capitalism has emerged unscarred by its critics??

Clearly its a game... so how is this game going to play out? Your thoughts comrades?

[Regicollis]

I vote and I do it for two reasons.

I have a socialist party to vote for. A party I trust not to degenerate into another neo-liberal social democracy. I know that they have very little power in parliament but the little power they have is used to push the legislation a little more towards workers' interests. A lot of the time the result is the lesser evil but that is at least better than the greater evil of bourgeois parties.

I don't share the masochistic idea that the only way to the revolution is by letting the bourgeoisie run their own society to the ground. That will lead to mass suffering and probably fascism. Instead I think a socialist revolution can only come when people realises the power they have collectively.

There is also a practical reason to vote. If revolutionary parties win places in parliament they get a platform for spreading socialist thought, easier access to the media etc. There is also the question of party funding. In Denmark parties get funding from the state according to their number of votes, so more votes for a socialist party means this party gets more funds for its work.

I would say vote but do it without any illusions.

[The Idler]

The vote was won through working class struggle. A society governed by democracy was won through working class struggle.

Protest movements, resistance and struggle such as the Tea Party or English Defence League (who sometimes use class rhetoric and often use anti-establishment rhetoric) need to make no such commitment to a democratic society or winning anything approaching the majority support of the population. Rather they feed the system that the social contract of society is an involuntary one between rulers and ruled who obey through oppression. This is key characteristic of the system to oppose rather than its limited democratic component.

[Igor]

The vote was won through working class struggle. A society governed by democracy was won through working class struggle.

Do you consider the current society "a society governed by democracy", seriously?


Protest movements, resistance and struggle such as the Tea Party or English Defence League (who sometimes use class rhetoric and often use anti-establishment rhetoric) need to make no such commitment to a democratic society or winning anything approaching the majority support of the population. Rather they feed the system that the social contract of society is an involuntary one between rulers and ruled who obey through oppression. This is key characteristic of the system to oppose rather than its limited democratic component.

Neither do we, because the "democratic society" is bourgeoisie through and through. We need to get rid of it, not play by its rulebook, it's not our ally. There is no "democratic society", there is bourgeoisie class rule and as communists we should realize this. Let's not pretend the parliament is anything else than what it really is.

[Raúl Duke]

There are a few reasons:

Voting changes little; unlikely to bring positive change.
The election of Obama and LBJ are examples. Obama was suppose to be a "grand reformist" and assumed (incorrectly) to end the war; didn't end the war and the "reforms" where kinda half-ass. LBJ was voted in to explicitly end the war.

There's a caveat, some people now seem like they're voting for the purpose of "keeping the bigger evil" out of power. I don't exactly see anything wrong with this per se, but the fact that voting has been reduced to just that in many cases demonstrate the undemocratic nature of this system (particularly in America).

This is perhaps the only main reason you can use to convince a non-leftist that it's a waste of time. Even then, they might proceed to vote for the purpose I mentioned above ('choosing the lesser of 2 evils') but if that's the reason then you can point out the undemocratic nature of it all.

For leftists, the reasons for not voting rest upon practical and symbolic reasons, plus the fact that what they want (radical change) will most likely not come through the ballot box. Personally, I don't think it should be a task for leftists to actively discourage (tell people "NO" explicitly; instead it's better to just explain why the system is rotten and let people decide for themselves) voting nor do I care if some leftists on here engage in a bit of "lesser of 2 evil" voting but a principled revolutionary leftist should not actively ("hold illusions about them, actually think they're going to do good, etc") endorse any bourgeois candidate much less so a revolutionary leftist organization. Plus, I think leftists should if the opportune, appropriate moment arise point out the undemocratic nature of the system and demonstrate the true nature: it's a democracy for the bourgeois only. we need to breed certain distrust in the status-quo, from there we can then discuss "what can be done"

[The Idler]

Current society is limited to the extent that is democratic, but its undeniable that workers form the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Obama and LBJ are examples which mainly demonstrate the folly of lesser evilism (irrespective of illusions or their absence) and other reasons for reformism rather than examples for abstentionism.

The Wikipedia article on Michael Parenti puts it best;


From the late 60s well into the 80s, Parenti was one of many radicals and socialists who questioned the validity and value of what they called “ bourgeois democracy,” seeing it more as a charade to mislead the people into thinking that they were free and self-governing.

By the late 80s, however, he noticeably modified his position, arguing that democracy should not be thought of as merely a subterfuge or cloak created by ruling elites, although it certainly can serve that purpose. More often, Parenti claimed, whatever modicum of democracy the people attain in any society is usually the outcome of genuine struggle for a more equitable politico-economic order. He asks why the corporate class should be credited with giving people a “bourgeois democracy,” when in fact the ruling plutocrats furiously opposed most democratic advances in U.S. history, such as the extension of the franchise or the struggle for ethnic and gender equality, more direct forms of representation, more room for dissent and free speech, greater accountability of elected officials, and more equitable socio-economic domestic programs.

According to Parenti, reacting to mainstream commentators who turn every systemic vice and deficiency into a virtue, leftist critics of the status quo, seeing no real victories or progress in the centuries of popular struggle, have felt compelled to turn every virtue into a vice. To counter this trend, he says, people should recognize that real gains have been made, democracy refuses to die, and both at home and abroad popular forces continue the democratic struggle, even against great odds.

A lot of workplaces are bourgeois through and through, but I don't remember many of them getting a say in who the CEO is.

[MarxSchmarx]

One pernicious meme on the left is taking Emma Goldman's "If voting ever changed anything, they'd make it illegal" at face value.

It's important to understand that voting was indeed illegal (and still is for young people and often non-citizens) for a very long time. Only gradually and through (as other posters ahve pointed out) concerted struggle of people risking their lives has it been made legal for a huge fraction of the human race. And the right to bourgeois votes, it remains a very deeply entrenched struggle everywhere from Mexico to Malawi.

Goldman's quote is therefore incredibly misleading historically, and I have reluctantlhy come to the conclusion that leftists who uncritically repeat it (admittedly out of context) betry an utterly shallow understanding of the history of working class struggle.

[Misanthrope]

Because participation is maintaining the oppressive system

[MaximMK]

Voting sustains the system. By voting you support the government and its rule and justify it.

[GPDP]

I personally cannot vote, and even if I could I wouldn't because I find it a waste of time. That said, I've come to the conclusion that whether people vote or not is ultimately irrelevant, so if they want to vote, they can go ahead. I find little wrong with it, I just don't see the point.

However, what I DO have a problem with is people actively campaigning for others to vote, especially for a bourgeois party on the premise that it's to keep the "lesser evil" in office. At that point, you may as well be a card-carrying member of said party, promoting it and helping it extend its hold on people's consciousness.

In short, I basically see the issue akin to religion and proselytizing. Believe whatever you want to believe, but keep it to yourself. Go pray if you wish, but I'd much rather you not preach the "good news" because you believe the alternative is damnation in Hell.

[Blackbird123]

I don't vote cause no major candidate for office expresses my views.........which probably because it is just bourgeois democracy....not real democracy.

[Raskolnikov]

Because in the end both parties will not offer you real solutions, just taking a gander at the 2012 election.

Has any of the candidates presented a solution that not only solves the problems of the people but does not either restrict them, give more power to the Corporate Monopolies or distract the people with petty issues that are rather simple when one gets down to it?

[Thirsty Crow]

Because participation is maintaining the oppressive system This is the kind of a moralist aspect of this issue that I have a problem with.
In the exact same way you could argue lifestylism - since, after all, working for a wage is maintaing the system of exploitation. Too bad I have to eat.

On the other hand, there is of course a political aspect.
But the problem is posed in a wrong way. The point isn't that people should be persuaded not to vote, but that they should organize themselves and pursue the goal of emancipation of the working class.

In this sense, abstenteeism is political. And it comes down to revolutionary organizations to a) facilitate working class organizing b) tirelessly expose the mechanism of the bourgeois state for what it is - a system of class domination.
But this isn't achieved by naive and non-chalant screams of "fraud!" and "don't vote". Such sloganeering is hopelessly empty in that it fails to account for the current balance of political forces and conditions.

[Rocky Rococo]

A lot of workplaces are bourgeois through and through, but I don't remember many of them getting a say in who the CEO is.

You get a paycheck every week for voting, or just making a disingenuously misleading analogy on behalf of bourgeois politics?

[Misanthrope]

This is the kind of a moralist aspect of this issue that I have a problem with.
In the exact same way you could argue lifestylism - since, after all, working for a wage is maintaing the system of exploitation. Too bad I have to eat.


I don't see the connection between wage slavery and bourgeois voting systems as far as participation, like you said you have to eat but don't have to vote. That's neither here nor there though.

anyway

Forgive me for I wasn't aware of the political importance of my vague, short statement on an internet board. I agree with your sentiment though, I'll elaborate my post tonight.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see the connection between wage slavery and bourgeois voting systems as far as participation, like you said you have to eat but don't have to vote. That's neither here nor there though.The point to the analogy is that both participation/dropping out (voting/not voting) leave class domination intact. That is why I don't think it is useful or correct to claim that voting amounts to participation in the maintenance of the structure of domination, since by itself abstention does not differ from it.



Forgive me for I wasn't aware of the political importance of my vague, short statement on an internet board. I agree with your sentiment though, I'll elaborate my post tonight.Well, its dubious that the statement carried a whole lot of political importance. It's just that, as I said, I don't think as it stood on its own offered enough of clarity.

[The Idler]

I don't see the connection between wage slavery and bourgeois voting systems as far as participation, like you said you have to eat but don't have to vote. That's neither here nor there though.

But if you advocate abstentionism from voting because it props up government, then why pay for your food and welfare?

[#FF0000]

The "VOTING PERPETUATES THE SYSTEM" argument is absolutely stupid please stop using it.

(My position now is that voting is pretty much nothing. idc if people do it but for the love of god don't try to act like the democrats are remotely left wing.

i dont vote)

[GPDP]

The "VOTING PERPETUATES THE SYSTEM" argument is absolutely stupid please stop using it.

(My position now is that voting is pretty much nothing. idc if people do it but for the love of god don't try to act like the democrats are remotely left wing.

i dont vote)

I agree. What perpetuates the system (among other things, of course) is the act of campaigning on behalf of bourgeois parties, not the act of voting itself.

[fug]

In the late USSR they gave you free drinks after you voted for your local party deputee and so on. Maybe the ruling classes could learn from that...