Electoral Process

[Vostok17]

There seems to be a disdain in some Revleft forums toward socialist parities in the USA who take part in the electoral process. The SPUSA & CPUSA, for example. Electoral politics on every level are here to stay in America. Isn't there value in running and supporting candidates for public offices to put forth a socialist agenda?

[Red Banana]

I think most people here take up issue with the principles (or lack there of) and actions of the parties you mentioned not the fact that they participate in the electoral process, though I'm sure some object to that too.

As for those people who are opposed to participating in the electoral process all together, I believe it's because they feel (someone who takes this position feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that participation in ruling the bourgeois state gives whatever party in question a vested interest in maintaining said state. Because of this the party leadership, having crossed class lines, will ultimately degenerate into reformism or outright liberalism thus making it defunct as a revolutionary workers party.

[Polaris]

That participation in ruling the bourgeois state gives whatever party in question a vested interest in maintaining said state. Because of this the party leadership, having crossed class lines, will ultimately degenerate into reformism or outright liberalism thus making it defunct as a revolutionary workers party.
Yes, this is very true. And what would a socialist candidate even do if elected? The US state was created in the interests of the bourgeoisie and will not tolerate a President that seeks to seriously work in our interests.

How could a country founded by wealthy, slave-owning, property-owning, white men possibly be turned to work in our favor? The only way to achieve socialism by completely destroying the state and replacing it with one catered to our cause (or abolishing it, for you anarchists out there).

Bottom line: Appointing and supporting "socialist" candidates is a waste of time that would better be spent, I don't know, directly supporting class consciousness by doing something as mundane as handing out cliche brochures. A state made to support the wealthy cannot be turned into a worker's state just by putting a "socialist" at the forefront of it.

[Vostok17]

Yes, this is very true. And what would a socialist candidate even do if elected? The US state was created in the interests of the bourgeoisie and will not tolerate a President that seeks to seriously work in our interests.

Would you support socialist candidates at the state level? Aiming for the "top prize" is a bit of a reach for any socialist party in this country.

I understand what you mean about handing out pamphlets or even selling socialist newspapers. However, if a socialist party could establish itself and present ideas to people wouldn't that do more than pamphlets or cliches?

[Polaris]

Would you support socialist candidates at the state level? Aiming for the "top prize" is a bit of a reach for any socialist party in this country.

I understand what you mean about handing out pamphlets or even selling socialist newspapers. However, if a socialist party could establish itself and present ideas to people wouldn't that do more than pamphlets or cliches?
No, I would not support a candidate at the state level. Besides that I am too young to vote, I again think that our time would be much better spent. The brochure was just an example, there are other things your time would be better spent doing (most of the things that came to mind weren't something I cared to post ;)1). My point was that even something that many consider to be almost useless is more effective than running for office. Unless you got big media publicity for your candidate (which would probably be negative, not that that can't be turned to work in your favor), chances are they will slide by unnoticed just like they do already in elections. Or at least, that's how it is where I live.

If you were supporting a candidate for election, you would not get your fair share in getting your point of view across-- ie, the Repubs and Dems pretty much steal the whole spotlight. If you went the simple route of putting up signs, for example, I do not think that would be very effective because as soon as people see the word 'socialist' or 'communist' they run away screaming.

Bringing people to left is truly the only benefit to having candidates run for election. The problem is that any party that would sell itself out by appointing a candidate is one that I doubt the socialist/ communist/ what-have-you validity of. See what Red Banana said. Simply becoming part of our current government can corrupt even the most pure-hearted organizations.

And! Something I just thought of: where would all that money needed to campaign come from? It's not like a socialist party would have a bunch of billionaires in the wings. And it can't sell itself to companies (or at least if it did, that would certainly be no candidate I would touch with a ten foot pole.)
Sorry for being such a negative nancy *cough*creep*cough* just trying to be real here. A truly socialist party would a) not align itself with a bourgeoisie state in the first place and b) even if it did, would not be able to effectively garner people's attention due to lack of money, being a third party, bad rep, etc. and c) would soon become corrupt/reformist (although it probably already was if it's running for whatever position). And if that party does not advocate revolution, then it is not one I would support. Period.

To RemusBleys: I meant time spent on campaigning, not the act of voting itself.

[Vostok17]

So interesting that someone who is not able to vote has such well-formed opinions on that process.

As I said, I have handed out brochures and sold socialist papers and, I assure you, if you consider the electoral process a waste of time, you will soon find out that brochures or papers espousing a cause that with which you identify is little more than self-serving. However, your experience at that might differ in that regard. I hope so.

Still, I differ with you in regard to ignoring the electoral process. It is one way to develop a socialist presence.

[Remus Bleys]

I again think that our time would be much better spent.d. Voting doesn't take that long though...

[Klaatu]

... Appointing and supporting "socialist" candidates is a waste of time... A state made to support the wealthy cannot be turned into a worker's state just by putting a "socialist" at the forefront of it.

True that.

This is exactly what Hitler and Stalin tried to do (and look how that turned out!)

[Decolonize The Left]

Unfortunately, socialism is incompatible with capitalism. And given that the US government is a tool of the capitalist class, it is hence incompatible with socialism. So running socialist ticket can have immediate and limited strategic merit such as providing a face to a long-since tarnished name, advocating worker's rights, etc... but it has no merit in and of itself. It cannot be successful in any real meaningful sense.

[blake 3:17]

I'd highly recommend Piven and Cloward's Why Americans Don't Vote. I read it when I was first getting active in electoral reform issues in Canada. Really interesting.

I was privy to the internal discussions of an American socialist group that had "No Vote for the Democrats" position and some members were questioning that in exceptional circumstances. I'd support some people running as Democrats under certain conditions. I'd have voted Nader in 2000 and 2004. After that?

There was an election here today & I didn't vote. Couldn't bear it.



There's a new edition http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Americans-Still-Dont-Vote/dp/0807004499

[Remus Bleys]

To RemusBleys: I meant time spent on campaigning, not the act of voting itself. That makes sense. However, I am simply talking about votes.
Take the Green Party of the US. They have my support at the polls, because they are a reminder too the US to not go too right wing, much like the Libertarian party allows us to go more laissez-faire.
They aren't gonna solve anything, but they are around, and social democracy is better than laissez faire, so they have my support at the ballot box.
You see?

[Vostok17]

Unfortunately, socialism is incompatible with capitalism. And given that the US government is a tool of the capitalist class, it is hence incompatible with socialism. So running socialist ticket can have immediate and limited strategic merit such as providing a face to a long-since tarnished name, advocating worker's rights, etc... but it has no merit in and of itself. It cannot be successful in any real meaningful sense.

Then, you do agree that socialist candidates do have the opportunity to put ideas before the masses, right? Trying to attain short-term goals is not new to socialists, as I am sure you know. Socialist candidates on the national ticket is not viable financially, but in congressional elections it might be possible and should be pursued.

[Brutus]

"Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state [...] as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. It is very easy to show one’s "revolutionary" temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments [...]. It is far more difficult to create a really revolutionary parliamentary group in a European parliament [...]. [I]n Western Europe, the backward masses of the workers [...] are [...] imbued with bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices [...], it is only from within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle, undaunted by any difficulties, to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices." (Lenin, 1920)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm


March 1850 address of the Central Committee to the Communist League:

"Here the proletariat must take care... that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates... Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body."
(Karl Marx)

The fulfilment of the minimum program is a prerequisite for proletarian revolution. The arming of the workers and formation of workers' militias, the abolition of the standing army, etc. That is why we must engage in parliamentary struggle- to weaken the bourgeois state and strengthen the proletariat.

[BIXX]

One thing I don't understand is that a lot of people try to claim that the Republicans and the Democrats are just as bad as each other, but unless I'm missing something, wouldn't the republicans (if they had no opposition) try to essentially form a fascist state? I mean, I know for the most part the democrats aren't much better, but at least they (to some degree, I can't say they do a very good job or even do it all the time) support minority (race, sexual, or otherwise) rights.

What am I missing?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

As long as the socialists in question go into it with eyes wide open fully understanding that electoral politics and bourgeois parliament won't bring down capitalism and is only one arena amongst many (and not even the most important arena) within which the working classes struggle against the capitalist class, then I support electoral politics.

Good quotes from Brutus, here's one from Gramsci:

"The revolutionary vanguard does not want these multitudes to be deceived, to make them believe that it possible to overcome the current crisis with parliamentary action, with reformist action. It is necessary to harden the separation of the classes, it is necessary that the bourgeoisie demonstrate its absolute incapacity to satisfy the needs of the multitudes, it is necessary that they be persuaded through experience that there exists a clear and raw dilemma: either death by hunger, the slavery of a foreign heel on the neck which forces the worker and the peasant to crumple on the machine or on the sod of earth, or a heroic effort, a superhuman effort of the Italian workers and peasants to create a proletarian order, to suppress the owning class and eliminate every cause of waste, low productivity, indiscipline, disorder." - Gramsci

[Vostok17]

it is only from within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle, undaunted by any difficulties, to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices." (Lenin, 1920)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm


March 1850 address of the Central Committee to the Communist League:

The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body."
(Karl Marx)

The fulfilment of the minimum program is a prerequisite for proletarian revolution. The arming of the workers and formation of workers' militias, the abolition of the standing army, etc. That is why we must engage in parliamentary struggle- to weaken the bourgeois state and strengthen the proletariat.

Thank you, Brutus for these quotes! Let's vote Socialist!!!

[Brutus]

Thank you, Brutus for these quotes! Let's vote Socialist!!!

There is a problem, though: one cannot just vote for any "socialist". We must vote for those who are clear that they will fight for our objective class interests.
If there was an election in the UK now (assuming I am old enough to vote) I still wouldn't vote due to the fact I don't see any truly proletarian candidates running for election.

[Decolonize The Left]

Then, you do agree that socialist candidates do have the opportunity to put ideas before the masses, right? Trying to attain short-term goals is not new to socialists, as I am sure you know. Socialist candidates on the national ticket is not viable financially, but in congressional elections it might be possible and should be pursued.

I think that running socialist candidates is fine so long as we are all clear that no real change can come of it. This said, I think that socialist candidates do not accept my idea and will believe and encourage others to think that real change can come from it.

So it's a tough situation. Ideas need spreading, sure, but are electoral politics the best way to spread them?

[Vostok17]

Ideas need spreading, sure, but are electoral politics the best way to spread them?

I understand that the electoral process will not lead to the revolution that many on the left desire. However, a vibrant socialist movement should not exclude the electoral process. In fact, it must become a component of socialist awareness.

[Brutus]

Surely we should be aiming to spread our ideas in as many ways as possible, rather than focussing solely on X.