leftists voting republican?

[edwad]

would it be crazy to vote republican in order to bring about a revolution sooner? conservatives today are extremely ignorant and openly oppressive, so should we be giving them power in order to spark a revolution sooner? it's pretty obvious that democrats are only giving the people what they want bite by bite, and all that's doing is subduing the revolutionary tendencies by giving people the illusion of "progress". so, on that same note, should we be supporting oppressors so that the people will finally stand up and revolt? i know it's essentially welcoming oppression and it could negatively affect the lives of many people in the short term before the people stand up, but i think a good analogy would be that a short period of struggle to finally overthrow capitalism, as opposed to a long and drawn out capitalism in the name of "progress", would be similar to ripping the band-aid off instead of slowly peeling it. yeah it would hurt, but it's a quick way of bringing about a revolution.

i know it's a flawed plan, but it occurred to me awhile back, and i thought i'd bounce it off of a few other leftists just to get some feedback.

[synthesis]

I've seen this question asked many times; it is flawed, as you acknowledge, but it is flawed in large part because it assumes that there is any place whatsoever for Marxist politics in bourgeois democracy.

But the other half of the answer to this question lies in class politics. You can't have an agenda that promotes the interests of the working class by promoting the interests of the class which exploits it.

It's kind of like giving an out-of-control cokehead more blow because you think they'll eventually wind up in rehab because of it; even if you're right in the long term - which you're not - you'll still most likely come out of it looking and feeling like an asshole.

[#FF0000]

There's also a problem in thinking that more pain = more "consciousness". It doesn't work like that, and a battered and thoroughly immeserated working class cannot fight to liberate itself. American workers have it far worse than workers in almost any other developed, western nation, and yet how militant, conscious, active are American workers compared to European workers?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some Republicans may be batshit insane, and many of them do come across as incompetent, god-loving, gun-toting, war-mongering, low intelligence fools, but the line of thinking (which is surprisingly common amongst new leftists) is flawed. Think of it this way:

capitalism is a social system, predicated mostly on who holds political, and therefore economic, power. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie holds political power not by holding political office themselves (though of course many politicians are capitalists, too), but by having huge - almost indefatigable - sway over the political process as a whole (encompassing, but not limited to, individual political actors and parties) by their economic might.

CEOs, shareholders, investors, banks etc., can very easily effect huge changes in the political process to suit their needs, and to maintain their position as chief exploiter in the current social system (capitalism).

So, even if this tactic were somehow adopted, and working people somehow went along with it (which they wouldn't, because turkeys don't vote for christmas, especially if someone tells them what christmas is) and voted republican after republican after republican into office, it's likely that the bourgeoisie wouldn't just sit back and allow the social system to be mis-managed into oblivion. Even if the figurehead for the US bourgeoisie, for example, is someone like George W. Bush, who comes across like a less than intelligent, less than competent guy, the capitalists are the ones who hold real sway over the political process and, if they thought that as President, a Bush-type character posed any threat to their continued exploiter position in society (by posing a threat to the continued existence of the current social system), then they would undoubtedly put pressure on the overall political process to neutralise that threat.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

capitalism is a social system and, whilst socialists/communists generally don't get to hold genuine political power (Allende, for example), that doesn't mean that the freer the market, the more capitalism there is. It is likely that much of the bourgeoisie is opposed to both the far-left, but also the libertarian, free-market right, because that poses a danger to their continued iron grip on current social relations under capitalism.

[synthesis]

capitalism is a social system, predicated mostly on who holds political, and therefore economic, power.

I know I'm nitpicking here, because I think this is reflected correctly in the rest of your post, but you should reverse "political" and "economic" in this sentence. Political strength is based on economic power, not vice versa. I actually think that this is a succinct definition of one of the main divisors between the "left" and the "right," inasmuch as such distinctions are relevant to class politics. By this I just mean that right-wingers generally believe that the government is more powerful than economic forces - which is why some of the dumber ones conflate fascism and socialism - whereas the left posits that it's the other way around.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Perhaps my grammar was wrong. That's what I meant - that by having economic strength, capitalists can hold huge power over the political process.

And yes, you are nitpicking:)

[G4b3n]

I have pondered this question before.
However, I can't stand to see people, especially our so called leaders, openly argue for the oppression of the working class, or to assert that poverty is a result of their own actions.

I also don't think it will spark a revolution, just a cry for a return to liberalism, as history has shown.

Socialism comes from strong labor movements and class conscious agitation, which works just as well under liberalism as capitalism will stagnate regardless of who is pictured as holding the reins.

[helot]

It's organising not misery and destitution that are necessary. Besides, advocating worsening conditions is a terrible idea. I don't want to go without healthcare, i don't want to starve to death due to unemployment. Fuck your grand visions of a post-revolutionary society. We want better conditions not worse in the hopes that we get to have heaven on earth.

[Slavic]

Democrat or Republican, both parties are still beholden to their respective power bases which are more often then not bourgeoisie in nature. The Democrats may seem to ease some of the hardship of the working class, but they only come up with such programs if it advances the shareholders of their power bases.

The affordable healthcare act may contain beneficial programs for the poor and working class, but what it essentially doing is mandating every citizen purchase a commodity that is controlled by a for profit entity, insurance companies. The mandated insurance coverage also theoretically provides more profits for the hospital industries because they will have more customers who can pay their bills as opposed to walking out on the majority of the costs.

If the Republicans and their power base could make money off of some kind of altruistic-seeming program then they would do so in a heartbeat. Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same party, they just have slightly different financial backers.

[Decolonize The Left]

would it be crazy to vote republican in order to bring about a revolution sooner? conservatives today are extremely ignorant and openly oppressive, so should we be giving them power in order to spark a revolution sooner? it's pretty obvious that democrats are only giving the people what they want bite by bite, and all that's doing is subduing the revolutionary tendencies by giving people the illusion of "progress". so, on that same note, should we be supporting oppressors so that the people will finally stand up and revolt? i know it's essentially welcoming oppression and it could negatively affect the lives of many people in the short term before the people stand up, but i think a good analogy would be that a short period of struggle to finally overthrow capitalism, as opposed to a long and drawn out capitalism in the name of "progress", would be similar to ripping the band-aid off instead of slowly peeling it. yeah it would hurt, but it's a quick way of bringing about a revolution.

i know it's a flawed plan, but it occurred to me awhile back, and i thought i'd bounce it off of a few other leftists just to get some feedback.

It's not a flawed plan, it's a terrible plan.

You are obviously not a woman, an immigrant, a person of color, a non-heterosexual, a child, a very old person, or someone who is not white, male, and straight.

[tachosomoza]

No, agitating against your own class interest is not a good strategy.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There was a website during the 2012 election"Revolutionaries for Romney". Their motto was "its got to get worse before it gets better". The idea was that Romney would make things so bad that it would spark a communist revolution. While somewhat humourous, this is based on erroneous thinking. You can't base a revolutionary strategy and a workers movement around something which will make things worse for the working class.

In many developing countries everyday life for the working class is a virtual civil war. A "revolutionary for Romney" can only be, to be blunt, come froma preiveleged petit bourgoise layer who themselves won't be directly by a Romney victory.

Of course I despise Obama but a Romney victory would have been seen as a direct defeat for the working class. With Obama the situation is a bit more complicated. Barry lost the luster he had in 2008 but many people still voted for him out of fear that Romney, "Mr 1 %" himself, was far more scary. The class would have been defeated in one fell swoop.

A writer for the North Star blog, one "Abraham Marx" seriously proposed leftists should work w/in the Republican party.Working with either party will only serve to retard the development of class consciousness.

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=8255

[MarxSchmarx]

I guess I ask: what historical precedent supports this idea that things need to get a lot worse before they get better? Is there even one example of this being the case? Where and when? If not, why would we give it any credence?

[Rafiq]

If one thing history has proven, it is that there needs to exist space for proletarian consciousness to develop. Crises and awful living conditions do not spawn proletarian consciousness, it usually opens the door for fascism, and they usually lower the standards for demands. The only exceptions are when the proletariat is in the earliest stage of developing as a class, I.e. during industrialisation, which is why there is a lot of potential for India and China today.

[Blake's Baby]

Why of course there's a precedent - 'First Hitler, then us', and that turned out really well, didn't it?

[The Idler]

would it be crazy to vote socialist in order to bring about a revolution sooner?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Why of course there's a precedent - 'First Hitler, then us', and that turned out really well, didn't it?

I was just going to mention this!

As Blake and others have already mentioned, this weird logic has been tried and failed - most famously when the 'pragmatic' left of Germany starting backing the brownshirts because they were a 'historical stage of capitalism'. Reactionary bullshit draped in revolutionary promises.

[Brotto Rühle]

would it be crazy to vote socialist in order to bring about a revolution sooner?

Yeah, because you can't vote in socialism.

[The Idler]

Yeah, because you can't vote in socialism.
No-ones saying it is sufficient but why restrict socialists to abstaining from electoral activity when it could raise consciousness and be among strategies that bring about revolution sooner?

[Brotto Rühle]

No-ones saying it is sufficient but why restrict socialists to abstaining from electoral activity when it could raise consciousness and be among strategies that bring about revolution sooner?

I would argue that it doesn't "raise consciousness", nor bring about revolution any sooner

[Comrade Jacob]

Well...we all know that famous line by Che.

[Brotto Rühle]

Well...we all know that famous line by Che.

I can't say I'm too concerned with a quote from a petty bourgeois state capitalist

[Comrade Jacob]

I can't say I'm too concerned with a quote from a petty bourgeois state capitalist

YOU aren't concerned? It get's me right there bro.

[The Idler]

I would argue that it doesn't "raise consciousness", nor bring about revolution any sooner
It seems to be one of the least worst strategies for raising consciousness. There is no easy way, forget about shortcuts. Long and persistent work is required as Engels once observed.

[helot]

It seems to be one of the least worst strategies for raising consciousness. There is no easy way, forget about shortcuts. Long and persistent work is required as Engels once observed.


Really? I think it's comparable to trying to sell newspapers to raise consciousness.

[Consistent.Surprise]

This was tried by Dems in MI during the primary last year; there was no need for a Dem primary, so they went & voted to screw with the GOP.

Bringing in the outwardly oppressive party does not diminish the oppression of the Dems, nor does it seem to really cause upset, as most in my state have demonstrated. The Tea Party governor still is rocking out his oppressive regime & the only ones angry & speaking up are the same that would speak up under Dem oppression minus the Libertarians.

It doesn't seem like a viable act to create dissatisfaction from what I've experienced (this also follows with Detroit's current mayor, or the possible successors)

[skitty]

No-ones saying it is sufficient but why restrict socialists to abstaining from electoral activity when it could raise consciousness and be among strategies that bring about revolution sooner?At the moment I have to agree with Idler here; and believe that everyone insisting on 'all or nothing' is probably ensuring that they end up with nothing.

[Brotto Rühle]

It seems to be one of the least worst strategies for raising consciousness. There is no easy way, forget about shortcuts. Long and persistent work is required as Engels once observed.

Again, back to the notion that the working class need there consciousness raised from the outside. As opposed to consciousness coming about via the angonisms between employer and worker.

[The Idler]

Who is outside the working-class? By standing for election, do you become part of the ruling-class?

[Red Commissar]

There's been good points made about consciousness, but I want to touch upon another point.

Looking back at anti-communist rantings when I posted my spheel about the roots of cultural marxism conspiracies, there is something that stuck out to me. A common accusation that came up was that Marxists were more interested in furthering their own power by feeding off the misery of the workers they claimed to represent. Suggestions like this thread seem to go off that.

Honestly these kinds of stunts one may think it to be easier for us to achieve our goals makes us look like total assholes to others when we give it the time of day. We are supposed to be looking for ways to improve our lot in the world, not make it worse for those upset that they haven't seen the way of our politics, hoping they will "see the light" and everything will work wonderfully for us. That's the problem there, seeing ourselves as above the rest, rather than an organic extension of the movement.

[MarxSchmarx]

There's been good points made about consciousness, but I want to touch upon another point.

Looking back at anti-communist rantings when I posted my spheel about the roots of cultural marxism conspiracies, there is something that stuck out to me. A common accusation that came up was that Marxists were more interested in furthering their own power by feeding off the misery of the workers they claimed to represent. Suggestions like this thread seem to go off that.

Honestly these kinds of stunts one may think it to be easier for us to achieve our goals makes us look like total assholes to others when we give it the time of day. We are supposed to be looking for ways to improve our lot in the world, not make it worse for those upset that they haven't seen the way of our politics, hoping they will "see the light" and everything will work wonderfully for us. That's the problem there, seeing ourselves as above the rest, rather than an organic extension of the movement.

However, most Marxists who prioritize power feel that way because they see the ends as justifying the means.

For example, most Bolshevist groups will concede that it's very possible their ascension to power will ignite a vicious civil war. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions may die just as they did in France, Russia, Spain, China, Vietnam etc... But all that, these people see as acceptable, because they see this suffering as a means to an end. So they wax and wane about how to organize their armies, how to secure military industries, etc...

Is it such a crazy jump from the abject misery inflicted by their vision of a "revolution" to the sacrifices that would be endured under the American Republicans? I mean, working in a capitalist sweatshop sucks, but compared to living in a war-zone, maybe fore those who believe their ends to be distinct from their means, this strategy isn't as inconsistent with the rest of their scheming.

[Rafiq]

To prioritize ones "own power" is antithetical to Marxism, because power represents classes and their interests. A single, independent force of power, to Marxists, is impossible. Maybe it would hold more ground if we were utopians or populists, but even then, it's bullshit in the end.

[blake 3:17]

No-ones saying it is sufficient but why restrict socialists to abstaining from electoral activity when it could raise consciousness and be among strategies that bring about revolution sooner?

It depends on your situation, but for ANYBODY in a relatively liberal democracy, and you think you're going to make a revolution, but you can't elect anyone or get a meaningful portion of the popular vote, you're in big trouble. It might take 10 years of prep work, of getting movements together, dealing with electoral issues, figuring out this stuff,

but it is crazy to try to pretend to represent the new social order in waiting, and not run some friggin election campaigns and win some. It can be tricky what you do after, but that's the same problem as winning power other ways

I'll probably work on a left socialist's campaign for municipal office this year. Even working on social democratic campaigns I learnt a lot -- might have learnt more working on the centre right ones...

Also been interested in running some serious protest candidates. 0% chance of winning, but have enough legitimacy and media savvy and principles, that they could use the campaign as an educational tool, not just a bit of weird propaganda.


And as much as one can be focussed on winning an election, it can be pretty interesting to see how elections are lost. And some of the habits of the far left are ones which are very good at losing elections.

Up til this past year, with the Martin Smith scuzz, I think my biggest beef with the British SWP was that they didn't run candidates. It's like why the fuck not? You're doing well in places -- you've got some base -- run some, lose most of them, maybe get somebody in and try to use that somehow.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Revolutions are the by-product of the material conditions of a given nation state not the ideas of individuals or the bizarre balloting rituals of bourgeois society.

Needless to say, any "Leftist," voting Republican is insane.

[blake 3:17]

Revolutions are the by-product of the material conditions of a given nation state not the ideas of individuals or the bizarre balloting rituals of bourgeois society.

Needless to say, any "Leftist," voting Republican is insane.


Not necessarily. 99.9% yes. But there could be odd exceptions. I'd never vote for the right candidate to Bring On the Apocalypse -- it just makes the lesser scum bag look less scummy.

There can be times -- and I'm in Canada where we have several parties, so it's very fancy -- but in my current riding I might have voted Conservative (I didn't live here at the time) to keep Michael Ignatieff out. The Conservative was a jerk, but Ignatieff was one of the major legitimizers of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Last time I saw him, I was thinking that poor bugger looks just like Michael Ignatieff, poor devil, til I realized it was him.

[argeiphontes]

Revolutions are the by-product of the material conditions of a given nation state not the ideas of individuals or the bizarre balloting rituals of bourgeois society.

Not a retorical question, but isn't this a type of messianic thinking? (With the coming of proper conditions in some indeterminate future time being the messianic element.) Doesn't it absolve us of responsibility for the revolution?

It seems to me that if an ideology became popular enough, it could be voted in. It happened in Venezuela, didn't it? (Just saw the 2004 documentary, very cool btw.)

[Klaatu]

The OP brings about an interesting thought. But in my opinion, Republicans lick the boots of Capitalists even more so than do Democrats.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Republicans lick the boots of capitalists in public, Democrats do it behind closed doors.


The OP brings about an interesting thought. But in my opinion, Republicans lick the boots of Capitalists even more so than do Democrats.

[synthesis]

Who is outside the working-class? By standing for election, do you become part of the ruling-class?

Pretty much bro.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Whilst i'm sceptical about the use of parliament as a vehicle for revolution I really don't see the harm in voting for a party you actually agree with. Think of it as a more productive way of spoiling your ballot. It's not like it takes very long. Even if it doesn't serve to put the working class in power, votes for genuinely socialist organisations must at least serve as a barometer of public opinion to some extent.

Liberal democracy is the tool of the ruling class yes - but what do you do with your enemies' tools? You learn how to use those tools against them. Any arena in which the class struggle can be advanced is an arena where it should be advanced. Brook them no quarter, the working class is far more able to wage war on multiple fronts than the ruling class for the simple reason that there are more of us. Using the vote does not preclude you from any other revolutionary activity, it takes like ten minutes max.

[synthesis]

You're still, consciously or not, buying into and promoting the narrative that electoral politics are actually capable of implementing revolutionary change.

[blake 3:17]

I've been a member of Fair Vote Canada and probably should be still.

http://www.fairvote.ca/

www.facebook.com/FairVoteCanada

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

You're still, consciously or not, buying into and promoting the narrative that electoral politics are actually capable of implementing revolutionary change.

Can we say conclusively that they are not capable? I just don't see the harm in it tbh. Like I said, I'm personally not sold on the idea, but I do think it's a good idea to push them where they can be pushed, and like I also said, it doesn't preclude you doing anything else. I'm well aware that electoral politics has very little potential other than showing us which shiny-faced career polititician we're going to be griping about for the next five years is, bugh I dunno, I just like to use every way I have of registering my discontent, I suppose. Spoiling the ballot is one way, voting for some sandal-wearing leftie is another. Surely it can't hurt?

[Thirsty Crow]

would it be crazy to vote republican in order to bring about a revolution sooner? conservatives today are extremely ignorant and openly oppressive, so should we be giving them power in order to spark a revolution sooner?
So, this proposition could be described as follows:

1) communist organizations calling for electoral support for the right wing (since we are a ridiculous demographic minority, and even if you combine all members of all vaguely left parties, "we" would still be)

2) address the working class with this justification: you need to have it abnormally bad since this is the way for revolution. Vote right wing.

It's not that this is a flawed plan. It's no plan at all and based on some serious misunderstanding about a whole lot of things. The importance of struggle for immediate relief (social wage, economic wage etc.), the relationship between the class and the organization, the importance of class autonomy, to name a few. And of course, the idea that the right wing is inherently irrational and not capable of implementing policies which could not utterly destroy working class social reproduction.

[The Idler]

Pretty much bro.
Standing for election sounds like a pretty cheap way to join the ruling-class.

[TruProl]

The point of Communism is to create a classes society for the Proletariat to live in happiness and contentment. I think that some may just be missing the point by having anybody believe that we should actively be making the life for Proletariats everywhere actively worse by voting in abysmal politicians.

I think it's been proven that Marxists everywhere need to start winning back the hearts and minds of the people rather than hoping that by making conditions so terrible, disenfranchised workers of nations will randomly come together, in fact Mark was largely critical of this kind of thinking in several pieces of writing.

To make things truly better unity is needed, not assistance in making the Bourgeois even better off.