Do you vote?

[Fairfax]

I wasn't entirely sure where to post this, so change location if need be.

Do you vote in elections, or do you abstain from voting all together?

I'm never sure what to do. The parties you can vote for where I am are Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP & Green.

Would you vote for a 'lesser evil' to avoid getting left potentially worse off or would you abstain from voting all together and just deal with what you get?

I live in an area that has been dominated by the Conservatives for years. Last time I voted Green.

Some of my friends on the left vote for the party with the most 'liberal' ideas and some just don't vote at all.

How about you?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I always vote (which will probably leave me open to some flak here but oh well.) That is to say, I always go in and leave a mark on a ballot. If there's a party who I feel line up well enough with my politics and I believe are genuinely revolutionaries, I will vote for them. That's an incredibly rare occasion, so what I more normally do is spoil my ballot. Sometimes I just cross everything out or write "no suitable candidate" across the paper, occasionally I'll have a bit more fun.

[Fairfax]

I always vote (which will probably leave me open to some flak here but oh well.) That is to say, I always go in and leave a mark on a ballot. If there's a party who I feel line up well enough with my politics and I believe are genuinely revolutionaries, I will vote for them. That's an incredibly rare occasion, so what I more normally do is spoil my ballot. Sometimes I just cross everything out or write "no suitable candidate" across the paper, occasionally I'll have a bit more fun.

I do like the thought of writing something for fun all over the ballot, I must say.

[Sasha]

I in generally vote and vote for an actual party, but thanks to the dutch electoral system we have better options than you do, even if the most left parties on the ballot made it so bad that I can't vote for the party anymore there are always individual candidates I know personally well enough to support (how can you not vote for your own mom for example). I don't vote because I think reformism helps me, but for the people for who the election outcome can mean the difference between just being poor or actually starving, for who it can mean staying or getting deported, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

I didn't vote in the general election, will vote in the municipal election (Socialist Party of course). The more SP-delegates in legislative bodies, the more able grassroots organising activism is to put pressure on municipal councils and push for reforms. It's purely strategic.

[Lokomotive293]

To me, there are three different scenarios

#1: A revolutionary party/in the best case your own party is running: Vote for them, because even if it's an illusion to think they will achieve anything in parliament, being in there, or even just having a high outcome, will make more people notice them (and maybe even listen).

#2: No revolutionary party is running, but a reformist party that has very good demands (e.g. No to war, free healthcare, free education etc.) is: Vote for them, basically for the same reason as above.

#3: Neither a revolutionary party nor a reformist party with good demands are running: Vote for the most liberal (in the American sense) bourgeois party, because one vote more for them will be one vote less for the Nazis.

Of course, there can be very specific cases where it's better to abstain, but in general I would say: Vote

[Red Commissar]

I show up to vote but I don't have illusions of what it will achieve. Unless it's a particularly interesting and bringing up issues that get ignored here, I don't really care about it. Basically all I usually see here is a Republican (who'll win), a Democrat (who has to convince people s/he's not like those other Democrats), or the lolbertarian nut. Everyonce in a while a Green might appear. I suppose this is the same for most people in the states, with only what party heavily controlling the district changing.

What I don't like is that the voting for state and local offices don't allow for write-ins so I can't do my own way of a "none of the above". More often than not I just submit a blank ballot. It's not a waste of time for me though, takes me about five minutes to do on my way home.

The last election that popped up here was for the mayor and the school board. Officially it is non-partisan so their membership isn't stated but for the most part they were Republican. The two mayoral candidates were both Republican Party members, one getting the support of the "establishment" Republicans and the other the party's county chair who courted tea baggers, the former won in the end. School district chairs were even more opaque but basically boiled down to "I'll spend your money the best!" or backhanded ways of saying "those minorities in the eastern part of the city hog our school resources". Eye rolling moment when I saw with one candidate who bragged about his outreach to Israel.

[Brotto Rühle]

I don't participate in the choosing of which managers of the bourgeoisie will rule.

[Red_Banner]

Yes, I do, but I have the impression that 3rd party presidential votes are not properly counted and recorded in the USA.
Nevermind there being the Electorial College as another obsticle.

[Landsharks eat metal]

Last year was the first major election I was eligible to vote in, and I did, but I'm not sure if I'll make it a habit. I voted for Vermin Supreme as president, a third party guy who seemed decently progressive for some sort of local office, and the only one of who I voted for who won, the state's first female attorney general, whom I voted for to spite the people who made annoying attack ads against her. Besides that, I mostly wrote in people's dogs or whatever.

[Red_Banner]

Last year was the first major election I was eligible to vote in, and I did, but I'm not sure if I'll make it a habit. I voted for Vermin Supreme as president, a third party guy who seemed decently progressive for some sort of local office, and the only one of who I voted for who won, the state's first female attorney general, whom I voted for to spite the people who made annoying attack ads against her. Besides that, I mostly wrote in people's dogs or whatever.


The thing I'm not thrilled about Kathleen Kane is how she is handling that assisted sucide case.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't normally bother, but I might in 2015 depending on Labour's position on schools and teachers' pay, just outta self-interest, as it should be. Not that i'm under any illusions about the medium- to long-term under a labour government, but it would just be nice to have a few extra quid in my pocket, the tories will probably have teachers working for minimum wage if they get in again.

[Lobotomy]

I sometimes vote on initiatives and referendums, never for politicians tho.

[Crabbensmasher]

My family is, and have been for generations, hardline liberals of the English variety. Since I was a kid, I can remember the old folks going on about how 'we fought for democracy, and it's a dishonour to take it for granted'. Not showing up at the polls is equated with betraying your country or something. Anyway, for some reason, it's stuck with me.

So, having that ingrained in my head, I always go to the polls,

and I always void my ballot.

[Per Levy]

i say it as it is, i did and i still do but i do know that it is completly useless and pretty much just a waste of time.

[bcbm]

i don't vote, it only encourages them

[Popular Front of Judea]

I live in a state that totally switched to mail-in ballots. So the effort expended is much less. I sit down at the table with a voters guide or two, the ballot and a pencil. Oh and a beer, of course. I am a tactical voter. I choose referendums, candidates that will have the most impact. Or the choice that is most amusing. I live in a safe liberal district (Jim "they fuckin' lost" McDermott's) in a consistently Democratic state. So I have no problem voting third party -- or for Vermin Supreme.

Oh and I am voting for Kshama Sawant for city council. If the Seattle Commune isn't declared the day after her inevitable victory I am going to be very upset.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Voting for me as a completely apolitical act, there is no political goal of anti-capitalism that can be achieved by it. Hence my votes are motivated by pure self interest and whimsy. Chris Christe seems like a good fellow to me, he handled the whole hurricane thing well, talks a good talk and isn't an ideologue and is willing to compromise. Plus the last guy we had was a corrupt sack of shit and since Christe came in the states looking up in the whole not having corrupt sack of shits running the government department. So why not? He's making the state a better place. Not like i really give much of a crap about the electoral circus more than that. Of course this is all based on requirement that I can be bothered to use my day of of work on election day to get off of my ass and vote, which sadly is unlikely because I can think of a billion more productive things to do.

[Lily Briscoe]

Nope.

[DasFapital]

Got my shitty mail in ballot and voters guide today from King County. Ill just mark it for Sawant and be done with it. Petit bourgeois crackers better not start resisting that $15/hr min wage...

[Lily Briscoe]

Petit bourgeois crackers better not start resisting that $15/hr min wage...
There won't be any need. Workers are going to get 15 bucks an hour because somebody gets elected to the city council? Haha. That's a good one...

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I have done, I may again.
If a party or candidate is standing that I agree with then I'll have a punt, otherwise a lil 'pissing in the wind' protest on a spoiled ballot.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, mostly I do.

But heeey isn't it then hypocritical to advocate abstentionism? Not in the least.

[BOZG]

I have generally been lucky enough to have someone to vote for, even if they were a hopeless case. I will have the bizarre experience of being able to vote for my wife next year.

[Quail]

I don't vote for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see much point in voting for the lesser of evils, and secondly, I wouldn't want to advocate voting because I see it as counterproductive to convincing people that they can and should take control over their own lives. It contradicts the idea of the working class organising themselves. Regardless of who wins the election, we're going to get fucked over so it makes more sense to me to put energy elsewhere instead of participating in the election.

[Igor]

ive voted on local elections but not national, especially not presidential or EU

on local elections i feel like i might even marginally improve my quality of life: naturally i don't view this as something that will bring any kind of major social change but it's such a small trouble that i do it anyways, especially because there are usually people i know irl running

e: to give an example of life quality improvement: expansion of public transit network in my city and how much it should cost for passengers is one of the biggest issues atm here. cheaper public transport and a reliable tram system would make my life easier. that's why i vote for people who actively campaign for these issues in my city, even if they're in no manner revolutionary leftists. i don't feel like this is any less constructive than just staying home

[The Feral Underclass]

Voting is reactionary.

[Devrim]

I don't vote for a couple of reasons.

At least there is one real anarchist on here. It is quite refreshing when compared with statements like the following ones from other anarchists on here:


I in generally vote and vote for an actual party, but thanks to the dutch electoral system we have better options than you do, even if the most left parties on the ballot made it so bad that I can't vote for the party anymore there are always individual candidates I know personally well enough to support (how can you not vote for your own mom for example).


I didn't vote in the general election, will vote in the municipal election (Socialist Party of course). The more SP-delegates in legislative bodies, the more able grassroots organising activism is to put pressure on municipal councils and push for reforms. It's purely strategic.

It is one of the things with some anarchists that they are completely devoid of any political principle from the tragedy of anarchists joining the government in Spain to the farce of Class War standing candidates in the modern UK.

Personally I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the nature of capitalism, and social democracy.

Psycho expresses this confusion well here:


I don't vote because I think reformism helps me, but for the people for who the election outcome can mean the difference between just being poor or actually starving, for who it can mean staying or getting deported, etc.

The social democratic parties today are not 'reformist' in the sense of the way the word was used in the late 19th and early 20th century. Then it referred to people who thought socialism could be implimented through peaceful parliamentary means. Today, the social democratic parties manage the state and capital, and there is no pretence of socialism whatsoever. Parties of whatever shade are obliged to manage the system, and people starve, and get deported under both right-wing and social democratic governments.

Even Quail, who at least has principals, falls into the same error:


First, I don't see much point in voting for the lesser of evils, and secondly, I wouldn't want to advocate voting because I see it as counterproductive to convincing people that they can and should take control over their own lives.

What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.


Sometimes I just cross everything out or write "no suitable candidate" across the paper, occasionally I'll have a bit more fun.

You have a very different idea of fun than I do.

Devrim

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

By fun, I mean I occasionally write something silly or draw a little cartoon. I figure it might brighten up the day of the poor sods who have to count the votes

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't vote for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see much point in voting for the lesser of evils, and secondly, I wouldn't want to advocate voting because I see it as counterproductive to convincing people that they can and should take control over their own lives.
Voting and advocating voting are two separate actions.

[Rugged Collectivist]

No, never. I was eligible for the first time in 2012, and I considered voting for Roseanne because I thought it would be funny, but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

[The Feral Underclass]

BOZG is reactionary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd vote for Russell Brand on the "profit is filth" platform.

[Quail]

What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.

I don't think Labour are any better or else maybe I would vote. I was referring to the act of choosing between candidates. Choosing "which of these candidates says they will fuck me over the least" isn't a real choice.


Voting and advocating voting are two separate actions.
Right, perhaps I should have said I would advocate not voting. In which case, voting goes against my own arguments which isn't consistent.

[tachosomoza]

Yes, I vote. Too many people fought and died for my right to do so without having my house burned down, my car windows broken/tires flattened, or me having to take literacy tests (which I'd pass, but they're still obstructionist and not mandated by the constitution) or guess the number of bubbles on a bar of soap/jellybeans in a jar.

[Crabbensmasher]

Voting for me as a completely apolitical act, there is no political goal of anti-capitalism that can be achieved by it. Hence my votes are motivated by pure self interest and whimsy. Chris Christe seems like a good fellow to me, he handled the whole hurricane thing well, talks a good talk and isn't an ideologue and is willing to compromise. Plus the last guy we had was a corrupt sack of shit and since Christe came in the states looking up in the whole not having corrupt sack of shits running the government department. So why not? He's making the state a better place. Not like i really give much of a crap about the electoral circus more than that. Of course this is all based on requirement that I can be bothered to use my day of of work on election day to get off of my ass and vote, which sadly is unlikely because I can think of a billion more productive things to do.

I can understand this sentiment, and contemplated doing so in my first election, but ultimately decided against it.

I figure if you vote for somebody, you reaffirm this fantasy notion that people are actually content with their options. Yes, I think people are content with their options on an apolitical level, as you are, but they're confusing this for political opinions. Like, I'm not going to sit here and say everybody is a closet Marxist, as that would be a load of shit. On the other hand, however, I don't think people are voting for what they really want. They're voting out of self interest, because they know the candidate personally, they are young, they look good etc.

The main thing that reaffirms this is the elections. If 60% of people voted, that's considered a good outcome. People look at that and say "Wow, we really must be doing something right". What they don't understand is that, like you, people vote apolitically. They go for the 'least terrible' or the 'I speak for your very specific group of people' candidates.

That, however, is just as bad as not voting at all. When you do that, people will say "Wow, 40% of people didn't vote. They must be a bunch of lazy bastards".

So in my opinion, the only way to send a message is to either void your ballot, or vote for a protest party. It all comes down to whether you want to send a message or not. In my opinion, it's a great medium to show your discontent. It may not awaken people, but it does leave an impact. People start to think.

Like, what I'm trying to say, is voting may be apolitical to you, but people don't see it that way. You're sending a distorted message.

[Devrim]

I don't think Labour are any better or else maybe I would vote.

That is logical. I would probably ote too if I thought one party could improve conditions for the working class.


I was referring to the act of choosing between candidates. Choosing "which of these candidates says they will fuck me over the least" isn't a real choice.

Of course we know that equally you can't trust what they say anyway. I think that there are some anarchist though, see psycho in this thread, who think that there is a difference between the various parties. To me it seems that the left communist position on abstentionism is marked by the idea that all parties have to manage capitalism, and therefore have to attack the working class. The position of many anarchists, and I am not including yourself here, seems to be a moral one, which has a tendency to evaporate in certain circumstances, for example when a fascist stands a chance of winning an election, they run to vote against him.


Voting and advocating voting are two separate actions.

Yes, they are. I don't vote though because I don't see that there is any difference who wins. Obviously you do. If I thought there was a difference I would advocate voting.

Devrim

[Yuppie Grinder]

I've never been of age for a presidential election but I probably wouldn't.

[synthesis]

I don't understand people who say that if you don't vote it's because you're lazy. I've never voted on anything in my life, and honestly in 2008 it would have been a lot less effort to just vote for Obama than have to explain to people why I wasn't going to do it when they asked me, unless I was going to lie about it or something.

[Thirsty Crow]

Right, perhaps I should have said I would advocate not voting. In which case, voting goes against my own arguments which isn't consistent.
Only if your argument is that people should not vote because of positive developments for the working class arising from this very act of abstention. I don't think there are any signs pointing in that direction when it comes to relevant situation (e.g. small percentages of eligible citizenry actually voting). This is a far cry from a consistent revolutionary abstentionist position, at least in my view. I also don't think that it is the function of revolutionary organizations to tell people not to vote, but to disseminate clear ideas about the present configuration of forces and the character of the political process at play as part of the overall advocacy of class struggle.


Yes, they are. I don't vote though because I don't see that there is any difference who wins. Obviously you do. If I thought there was a difference I would advocate voting.Don't you think this is all too simplistic?
The assumption that I see the difference is in fact not true for some of those instances, if by difference you actually mean prospects for a halt in the deterioration of the conditions for the working class. To be open, I don't see any political relevance in my personal act of this kind. So yeah, it's much more of a personal act and utterly depends on my precise location on the day of the election to be frank.

[Art Vandelay]

Vote from the rooftops.

[Devrim]

By fun, I mean I occasionally write something silly or draw a little cartoon. I figure it might brighten up the day of the poor sods who have to count the votesTo me you sound like one of those lively funny people who try to liven up the postman's day by making some sparklingly witty comment like 'I hope it is not bills again'. I worked in the post office for five years and I heard this about ten times a day, which means I heard people saying this nearly 15,000 times (10 times x 6days a week x 48 weeks a year x 5 years =14,400). Did it brighten up my day. No, it didn't, surprisingly not at all. I imagine that people counting ballots who want to finish it to get home to whatever problems they have in their personal lives, and are quickly counting through them, and when they come across one that is spoiled have to slow down to decide if it actually counts as a spoilt ballot of not really appreciate your little witticisms.

As I said, we have a different idea of fun.

Devrim

[Sasha]

@ devrim, like said, when I vote I vote in general for people, not parties, because i personally know a lot of politicians (i guess I'm somewhat of an celeb autonomist) I can apply some pressure/get inside info on certain topics I'm myself active in if those people get ellected. I totalt admit that people who don't vote are more principled than I am. That said, the SP (who I tend to end up voting for in national elections) are (being ex-maoist) a lot better than labour, both by being actual soc-dems and their activist base (they are a bit like dielinke in Germany).
Locally I vote for the ex-provo's (radical greens that have a lot of ex-autonomists) or like said for my mum (who is a liberal green but yeah, my mum)..
Last its a bit of an personal thing, I grew up in a family where several ppl lost their right to vote (after fighting in Spain, so my family takes is quite badly if I don't vote. I can see myself very well stopping to vote after my mum is not arround anymore

[Sasha]

And last but not least I vote somewhat tactically for the SP to hurt labour (for becoming new-"left" and the center-right (liberal-conservative and Christian democrat) to hopefully prevent them from forming an coalition (again) with wilders. When it comes to the PVV there is such a thing as the somewhat lesser evil.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is one of the things with some anarchists that they are completely devoid of any political principle from the tragedy of anarchists joining the government in Spain to the farce of Class War standing candidates in the modern UK.

Personally I think it comes from a lack of understanding about the nature of capitalism, and social democracy.

Psycho expresses this confusion well here:



The social democratic parties today are not 'reformist' in the sense of the way the word was used in the late 19th and early 20th century. Then it referred to people who thought socialism could be implimented through peaceful parliamentary means. Today, the social democratic parties manage the state and capital, and there is no pretence of socialism whatsoever. Parties of whatever shade are obliged to manage the system, and people starve, and get deported under both right-wing and social democratic governments.

Even Quail, who at least has principals, falls into the same error:



What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.



You have a very different idea of fun than I do.

Devrim


First of all, I'm not an anarchist. Second, of course it hasn't anything to do with principles, it has everything to do with strategy. Which you didn't address. Third, you are delusional if you think that parties manage capital in an identical way. The Dutch Socialist Party will not have the same migration policy as the Dutch Freedom Party.

[Quail]

Only if your argument is that people should not vote because of positive developments for the working class arising from this very act of abstention. I don't think there are any signs pointing in that direction when it comes to relevant situation (e.g. small percentages of eligible citizenry actually voting). This is a far cry from a consistent revolutionary abstentionist position, at least in my view. I also don't think that it is the function of revolutionary organizations to tell people not to vote, but to disseminate clear ideas about the present configuration of forces and the character of the political process at play as part of the overall advocacy of class struggle.

The point is not to tell people not to vote and leave it at that, but rather explain why and show what they could be doing instead to actually improve their conditions. Do improvements in conditions ever come from voting? No, they have to be fought for and people have to organise. We should be arguing for alternatives to electoral politics and break down the illusion that voting actually does anything. Voting encourages people to sign away control of their lives to someone else instead of taking control themselves, which is exactly the opposite of the message we want to send out.

[Le Libérer]

Not voting without direct action is pretty much futile. I vote on a local level, not that it does any good, seeing I live in Tea Party heaven, same as on a national level. I did vote for Stewart Alexander for President. When asked I usually say, "I voted for the other black guy" and I usually get, who was that?? And I tell them to go look it up for themselves.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What is the lesser evil about the UK Labour Party? I don't need to lecture people from the UK about the record of the Labour Party. When in office it, like the Tory party, manages the economy, and protects the 'national interest', both of which are opposed to the working class interest.

Devrim

The 'lesser evilism' comes, sometimes (because there are periods when the Labour Party is just as bad or worse than the Tories) the labour party is forced by the union movement, and by its grassroots, to at least make some concessions towards labour.

This doesn't change their function as a party of capital, but it can sometimes mean that workers are, in individual economic terms, better off to the tune of a few hundred quid a year.

I'm not saying I would advocate a vote for Labour, and I generally don't vote for them, but I think to dismiss the idea of 'lesser evilism' is actually quite out-of-step with reality. We advocate an analysis of society based on classes acting in their own self-interest, and so we shouldn't be hypocrites when it comes to voting: as individuals, if one party is offering something that is slightly less bad in some respects than the other parties, then we shouldn't castigate people for voting for that party. We don't have to do so under any pretences, we don't have to advocate other people voting for that party, or voting at all, but workers shouldn't be harangued for voting for their own self-interest. If the Labour Party being in power can make me £200 or £300 better off per year than if the others were in power, then why shouldn't I vote for them? It doesn't mean I go around supporting the Labour Party in the long-term, it doesn't mean I am wasting any revolutionary energy, it just means i'm acting in my own self-interest. It's just one small, non-committal political act out of the dozens or more political acts I might commit every year.

[Devrim]

First of all, I'm not an anarchist.
Sorry, that is my mistake then. Did you used to be or am I just completely confused?


Second, of course it hasn't anything to do with principles, it has everything to do with strategy. Which you didn't address.

No, I didn't but I was addressing it to anarchists for whom it is a point of principle. Obviously as you are not an anarchist it doesn't apply. I am quite happy to discuss 'strategy' if you would like to explain your view of it.


Third, you are delusional if you think that parties manage capital in an identical way.

There are different approaches to managing capital, but really the approach of parties, which have a chance of winning elections are all pretty similar these days. If you go back to the 70s there were two clear alternatives, monetarist, and Keynesian, in many countries, now all parties that have any chance of winning are pretty similar.


The Dutch Socialist Party will not have the same migration policy as the Dutch Freedom Party.

Neither of them will be in any position to implement that policy though. To become electable they would have to moderate their policies, and if they didn't if they somehow got into office, they would be forced to act in the interests of the state.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Got my shitty mail in ballot and voters guide today from King County. Ill just mark it for Sawant and be done with it. Petit bourgeois crackers better not start resisting that $15/hr min wage...

It is a transitional demand. That means that even Sawant and her party don't think it is possible.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I am a registered voter but have never voted. I'm not necessarily opposed to voting on some issues, like state ballot referendums on certain issues. I'm contemplating voting in favor of raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana when the issues come up for a vote in 2014, for example.

[Sasha]

The PVV was actually defacto in government and it was pretty bad, in the dutch electoral coalition system minority parties have a rather large influence, because its often so that no stable government can be formed without the biggest small party they can often drive an hard bargain. Don't forget that the PVV is in the polls the biggest party at the moment even while only becoming more extremist all the time, the conservative liberals are scared to death to loose even more votes to him so its not beyond the realm of possibilities that they will make them an full coalition partner if their current coalition falls and they can't count on labour as an partner anymore (who are currently 5th ! in the polls)

[Devrim]

The 'lesser evilism' comes, sometimes (because there are periods when the Labour Party is just as bad or worse than the Tories) the labour party is forced by the union movement, and by its grassroots, to at least make some concessions towards labour.

I don't think that this is true. We are both aware of how Labour has governed.


I'm not saying I would advocate a vote for Labour, and I generally don't vote for them, but I think to dismiss the idea of 'lesser evilism' is actually quite out-of-step with reality. We advocate an analysis of society based on classes acting in their own self-interest, and so we shouldn't be hypocrites when it comes to voting: as individuals, if one party is offering something that is slightly less bad in some respects than the other parties, then we shouldn't castigate people for voting for that party. We don't have to do so under any pretences, we don't have to advocate other people voting for that party, or voting at all, but workers shouldn't be harangued for voting for their own self-interest. If the Labour Party being in power can make me £200 or £300 better off per year than if the others were in power, then why shouldn't I vote for them? It doesn't mean I go around supporting the Labour Party in the long-term, it doesn't mean I am wasting any revolutionary energy, it just means i'm acting in my own self-interest. It's just one small, non-committal political act out of the dozens or more political acts I might commit every year.

I don't castigate people who vote. I was only commenting about anarchists with a complete lack of anarchist principles.

Of course though parties will offer lots of things. I think Nick Clegg promised there would be no rise in university tuition fees for example. When elected they will break promises. Generally I think there is more understand of this within the class as a whole than in the left.

I can remember in one general election in Turkey where someone I knew's father was offered a cow to vote AKP. Better than Jam tomorrow.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The PVV was actually defacto in government and it was pretty bad, in the dutch electoral coalition system minority parties have a rather large influence, because its often so that no stable government can be formed without the biggest small party they can often drive an hard bargain. Don't forget that the PVV is in the polls the biggest party at the moment even while only becoming more extremist all the time, the conservative liberals are scared to death to loose even more votes to him so its not beyond the realm of possibilities that they will make them an full coalition partner if their current coalition falls and they can't count on labour as an partner anymore (who are currently 5th ! in the polls)

They were a minor partner in a minority government. I wouldn't say they were in power. I can remember when the MHP (Grey Wolves) was in office (as a junior coalition partner) in Turkey. It wasn't really any different. For all the shouting of the far right parties about immigration none of them have ever taken such harsh measures against immigrants as the mainstream parties have.

Devrim

[Sasha]

Also I'm only an anarchist in the sense that its more or less the easiest label that somehow covers most of my sometimes completely contradictionary positions, I'm completely anti dogmatic when it comes to my "ideology".

[Devrim]

Also I'm only an anarchist in the sense that its more or less the easiest label that somehow covers most of my sometimes completely contradictionary positions, I'm completely anti dogmatic when it comes to my "ideology".

I can't say that I hadn't noticed.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

Sorry, that is my mistake then. Did you used to be or am I just completely confused?

I used to be.


No, I didn't but I was addressing it to anarchists for whom it is a point of principle. Obviously as you are not an anarchist it doesn't apply. I am quite happy to discuss 'strategy' if you would like to explain your view of it.



There are different approaches to managing capital, but really the approach of parties, which have a chance of winning elections are all pretty similar these days. If you go back to the 70s there were two clear alternatives, monetarist, and Keynesian, in many countries, now all parties that have any chance of winning are pretty similar.



Neither of them will be in any position to implement that policy though. To become electable they would have to moderate their policies, and if they didn't if they somehow got into office, they would be forced to act in the interests of the state.

Devrim

True. The Socialist Party would adopt a more 'pragmatic' stance, but even this is to a strategic advantage as it showcases why social policy in the neoliberal epoch has become incredibly difficult, and how it requires social reconstruction. I don't see any disadvantages in voting for the Dutch SP.

[Sasha]

They were a minor partner in a minority government. I wouldn't say they were in power. I can remember when the MHP (Grey Wolves) was in office (as a junior coalition partner) in Turkey. It wasn't really any different. For all the shouting of the far right parties about immigration none of them have ever taken such harsh measures against immigrants as the mainstream parties have.

Devrim

No, they where the "gedoog partner" of (the majority votes needed by an) an minority coalition, their vote could make or break any government proposal or even let the coalition fall without carying any of the responsibilities, they where essentially in the position of hostage taker.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Devrim;2679200]I don't think that this is true. We are both aware of how Labour has governed.

As I said, they sometimes do. I don't think voting for Labour in 2001, 2005 or 2010 was an option, for the reason of as you say, the way Labour had governed.


Of course though parties will offer lots of things. I think Nick Clegg promised there would be no rise in university tuition fees for example. When elected they will break promises. Generally I think there is more understand of this within the class as a whole than in the left.

Within the British context, I think there is a qualitative difference between a specific policy idea offered by a Labour leader/shadow cabinet in response to popular/trades union pressure, and a vague promise by the leader of a party with no formal connection to any sort of popular workers' or union movement.

I wouldn't push it so far as to say that Labour leaders carry through with their promises; as you've said, the way Labour has governed is absolute proof of that. But, thinking for example of the upcoming election in 2015, I would probably be well able enough to believe that Ed Miliband will personally offer me something slightly better than the other two when it comes to prospects of teachers' pay and conditions, when it comes to NHS services and waiting times, and when it comes to tax breaks for the poor/lower prices on energy, at least in the short term.


I can remember in one general election in Turkey where someone I knew's father was offered a cow to vote AKP. Better than Jam tomorrow.

You're right. I'm just saying (and I feel we're not hugely disagreeing here), I don't think there's anything wrong with a worker judging the options on a case-by-base basis; whilst normally i'd not be fucked to vote for any of them, if there is some clear ground, and as I live in a very marginal constituency, I don't see the problem in just ticking the Labour box if it means i'll benefit economically.

[Bardo]

I've been eligible to vote for two presidential elections so far. I didn't vote in 2008, but voted for the PSL in 2012. In the area where I was a registered voter atleast, I didn't find local or municipal ballots anymore broad than the presidential ticket. Many of the races were run by Republican candidates only, with no opposition.

It was a pretty conservative district.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I voted in the last general election for the LibDems; got suckered by all their 'free education' and 'scrap trident' stuff that they didn't follow through on. Probably will vote in the May local elections as well as I know some comrades standing as TUSC candidates.

[Fairfax]

Did anyone see the Russell Brand & Jeremy Paxman interview where Brand talks about not voting? I can't post links at the moment but would like to know what you thought of his take on not voting? You can find the video on youtube.

[BOZG]

Did anyone see the Russell Brand & Jeremy Paxman interview where Brand talks about not voting? I can't post links at the moment but would like to know what you thought of his take on not voting? You can find the video on youtube.

There are two threads about the interview here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russell-brand-revolutionaryi-t184270/index.html) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russell-brands-take-t184229/index.html).

[Ravachol]

Why on earth would anyone even bother to go all the way to the nearest voting station, wait and stand in line and click the button. Talking about a total waste of time...

[Popular Front of Judea]

Why on earth would anyone even bother to go all the way to the nearest voting station, wait and stand in line and click the button. Talking about a total waste of time...

So request a permanent absentee ballot.

[motion denied]

In my country voting is mandatory (you can just make up an excuse and get away with it though), but I usually vote for some communist I know.

You also get lots of cool leaflets.

[synthesis]

So request a permanent absentee ballot.

When I see statistics on the number of people who don't vote, I think, "Look at all these people who don't see the point of voting, because they don't think it will change anything."

When I see the number of people who have submitted absentee ballots or spoiled ballots, I think, "Look at these people who have tried to register their discontent with the system by participating in the system slightly less than everyone else who has voted."

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

it's not like I really have anything better to do

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There's nothing morally wrong with voting for, Ksama Sawant or the Dutch Socialist Party for example, it's just the idea that the act of voting for them will somehow be either a "tactical" or "strategic" step in ending the law of value really isn't palpable. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you're voting for a candiate because you want social democracy, social democracy is pretty nice after all. There is a difference between voting as a political act and voting as a non-political act, and I imagine the majority of the working class votes in the latter manner. Abstentationism is a tactic, not a moral creed.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Voting is always a political act. How can it not be?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why on earth would anyone even bother to go all the way to the nearest voting station, wait and stand in line and click the button. Talking about a total waste of time...It's just on my way to the bar, and yeah I'm not even kidding.


The point is not to tell people not to voteI don't even agree with this, and I don't think it's the role of communists to tell people not to vote.


and leave it at that, but rather explain why and show what they could be doing instead to actually improve their conditions. Do improvements in conditions ever come from voting? No, they have to be fought for and people have to organise.This is another matter, as I said.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I spoil. It's fun to think up silly shit to say. Also, it ruins the percentages for the ever-popular nationalist parties here.

[Blake's Baby]

I have in the past abstained, voted, and spoiled my ballot (both by scribbling on it, and also at different times writing 'world socialism' on it) in different elections.

While I don't think there's any possibility of voting in general elections (to chose a member of parliament) producing any difference to British capitalism, I'm not entirely convinced that voting in local elections (to decide on members of the the city council) is completely pointless; it seems more likely that voting could have an effect at the local level which might mean a slight difference in how policy is administered locally. And some of those differences might be susceptible to a 'lesser evil' analysis. If one party wants to cut funding for service A and one party wants to cut funding for service B, I might try to work out which is more important to me/the community and vote for the party that's prioritising funding to that.

There's a lot of 'might' and 'could be' there. Not enough to build a strategy on.

I've also said that if the SPGB stood candidates locally, I would vote for them, even though I disagree with their parliamentary stance. I do agree with a lot of other things they say.

However, even saying that I might consider voting probably means I'm a 'bad' Left Comm.

What I don't think is that voting has anything to do with workers' self-organisation. In the case of the two parties who might cut different local services, what is better than voting is trying to get involved with the community whose services will be cut to organise against it. Political action not concerned with elections is always much more important.

[Devrim]

I voted in the last general election for the LibDems; got suckered by all their 'free education' and 'scrap trident' stuff that they didn't follow through on. Probably will vote in the May local elections as well as I know some comrades standing as TUSC candidates.

Have you ever heard the idiom 'once bitten twice shy'?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I wouldn't push it so far as to say that Labour leaders carry through with their promises; as you've said, the way Labour has governed is absolute proof of that. But, thinking for example of the upcoming election in 2015, I would probably be well able enough to believe that Ed Miliband will personally offer me something slightly better than the other two when it comes to prospects of teachers' pay and conditions, when it comes to NHS services and waiting times, and when it comes to tax breaks for the poor/lower prices on energy, at least in the short term.

I think that Miliband will probably keep to his promise about energy prices, but don't worry, you are paying for it already in the large increases that were announced last week. Basically the energy companies will get their price rises in early. I don't believe that the Labour Party will offer anything different in education and health. I don't think you will get better pay off them.

Devrim

[Devrim]

True. The Socialist Party would adopt a more 'pragmatic' stance, but even this is to a strategic advantage as it showcases why social policy in the neoliberal epoch has become incredibly difficult, and how it requires social reconstruction. I don't see any disadvantages in voting for the Dutch SP.

I don't see any advantages to it either though. Nor do I understand the 'strategic advantage' you refer to in the previous sentence.

Devrim

[Comrade Jacob]

I think that Miliband will probably keep to his promise about energy prices, but don't worry, you are paying for it already in the large increases that were announced last week. Basically the energy companies will get their price rises in early. I don't believe that the Labour Party will offer anything different in education and health. I don't think you will get better pay off them.

Devr,m

7/10 Brits want to nationalise the energy companies. People think Ed is being to moderate. (But's that what he is...a centrist).

[Devrim]

7/10 Brits want to nationalise the energy companies. People think Ed is being to moderate.

But what does this have to do with the issue at hand?


(But's that what he is...a centrist).

No, he isn't, not at all.

Devrim

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Have you ever heard the idiom 'once bitten twice shy'?

Devrim
Yes and I will never again go into an election ignorant of politics.

[Bardo]

Why on earth would anyone even bother to go all the way to the nearest voting station, wait and stand in line and click the button. Talking about a total waste of time...

Well for me, the voting station was 3 blocks away and there was no waiting in line. Took 10 minutes to fill in a multiple choice quiz.

[synthesis]

No, he isn't, not at all.

Devrim

What would you characterize him as?

[Firebrand]

I vote labour not because I don't think they're total sellouts, because they are. But because the symbolism of having a labour government as opposed to a tory one reassures people that the majority of the population are not right wing tossers. I don't vote for the labour party, i vote for the labour voters. Besides a lot of individual back bench mp's are actually fairly decent old labour politicians. They might not be revolutionaries, but they do genuinely believe in protecting the rights of the working class.

[Devrim]

What would you characterize him as?

I suppose in terms of his position in the present day Labour party, he could be charecterised as being in the centre. In terms of the 1970s Labour Party he would have been on it right-wing.

The term 'centerist' in its use in the workers movement implies somebody who takes a position wavering between revolution and reform. This is not true of Miliband.

Devrim

[Devrim]

However, even saying that I might consider voting probably means I'm a 'bad' Left Comm.

Yes, I'd say so.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I voted in the last general election for the LibDems; got suckered by all their 'free education' and 'scrap trident' stuff that they didn't follow through on. Probably will vote in the May local elections as well as I know some comrades standing as TUSC candidates.
Have you ever heard the idiom 'once bitten twice shy'?Yes and I will never again go into an election ignorant of politics.

Yet you are still going off to vote.

Devrim

[synthesis]

The term 'centerist' in its use in the workers movement implies somebody who takes a position wavering between revolution and reform. This is not true of Miliband.

Oh, okay. I've never heard it used in that way before. Here in the U.S. it just means someone who takes a middle ground between the bourgeois parties.

[A.J.]

In council elections I vote Labour, as at local level in this particular neck of the woods, it can genuinely be claimed they are the "lesser of two evils" in comparison to the fervently neoliberal Scottish National party.(Although I'm aware in different parts of the country its the other way round with Labour being the more neoliberal of the two)

At national level, however, this principal isn't applicable so usually don't bother voting(with the exception of the 2010 election, in which I voted Labour)

[sixdollarchampagne]

I haven't voted in years, but this last time, I did, partly to see what parties made it onto the ballot in the Deep South state I retired to (as I remember, there were several socialist groups that made the cut). TBH, I ended up voting for Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President. In Marxist terms, that's a big mistake, but, there in the voting booth, it seemed to me that a woman, a pacifist, and a physician at that, might opt out of the constant US warfare against Third World populations (that represents the Democratic/Republican consensus), and that possibility rose to the level of a moral issue, in my mind, so I took the leap. (As a result, I may have to give back my copy of State and Revolution and What Is To Be Done [to say nothing of the autographed edition of the Transitional Program], but I am really opposed to our bombing defenseless masses of people.)

[Popular Front of Judea]

I haven't voted in years, but this last time, I did, partly to see what parties made it onto the ballot in the Deep South state I retired to (as I remember, there were several socialist groups that made the cut). TBH, I ended up voting for Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President. In Marxist terms, that's a big mistake, but, there in the voting booth, it seemed to me that a woman, a pacifist, and a physician at that, might opt out of the constant US warfare against Third World populations (that represents the Democratic/Republican consensus), and that possibility rose to the level of a moral issue, in my mind, so I took the leap. (As a result, I may have to give back my copy of State and Revolution and What Is To Be Done [to say nothing of the autographed edition of the Transitional Program], but I am really opposed to our bombing defenseless masses of people.)

I voted for Stein too. Why not? I live in a "safe" state. I wasn't going to inadvertently elect Romney. Since both the legalization of marijuana was going to be on the ballot I was going to voting anyway. :grin:

[sixdollarchampagne]

I voted for Stein too. Why not? I live in a "safe" state. I wasn't going to inadvertently elect Romney. Since both the legalization of marijuana was going to be on the ballot I was going to voting anyway. :grin:

Hi, Pop Front: I was interested to read your post. We differ, in that I am way beyond caring about the fate of any Democratic politician, since, from where I sit, perpetual US war against Third World populations just continues, whether a Democrat or a Republican gets in. I have thought for some decades now, that the beginning of wisdom is understanding that the two major parties are completely interchangeable. To take a random example, the unending US war in Afghanistan (which entails bombing some border regions of Pakistan, as well), started by the Republican President G.W. Bush, under the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" (the unfortunate Afghans have only the "freedom" to die, under US bombing) has been continued by a Democratic President, up to the present, and that's precisely the sort of thing that makes the two parties interchangeable.

[Creative Destruction]

I take local and state referendums fairly seriously, since those items can and do directly impact me aside from the whole circus of it all. The federal elections I take less seriously and usually just vote Green or write-in the Socialist or whatever.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Hi, Pop Front: I was interested to read your post. We differ, in that I am way beyond caring about the fate of any Democratic politician, since, from where I sit, perpetual US war against Third World populations just continues, whether a Democrat or a Republican gets in. I have thought for some decades now, that the beginning of wisdom is understanding that the two major parties are completely interchangeable. To take a random example, the unending US war in Afghanistan (which entails bombing some border regions of Pakistan, as well), started by the Republican President G.W. Bush, under the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" (the unfortunate Afghans have only the "freedom" to die, under US bombing) has been continued by a Democratic President, up to the present, and that's precisely the sort of thing that makes the two parties interchangeable. Alas they are not totally interchangeable. If they were I wouldn't bother checking the ballot totals after the November election. If Gore for example was elected in 2000 we would have inevitably have had the Af-Pak war. Would we have gotten the elective Iraq war as a bonus? Good question.

If I was in your position yeah I would probably abstain on all federal level elections. Unfortunately I and the people I care about are not that secure.

[Sea]

I'm voting for George W. Bush in 2016.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I'm voting for George W. Bush in 2016. Not Ted Cruz? "After Cruz, us" would be such a catchy campaign slogan.

[synthesis]

Hi, Pop Front: I was interested to read your post. We differ, in that I am way beyond caring about the fate of any Democratic politician, since, from where I sit, perpetual US war against Third World populations just continues, whether a Democrat or a Republican gets in. I have thought for some decades now, that the beginning of wisdom is understanding that the two major parties are completely interchangeable. To take a random example, the unending US war in Afghanistan (which entails bombing some border regions of Pakistan, as well), started by the Republican President G.W. Bush, under the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" (the unfortunate Afghans have only the "freedom" to die, under US bombing) has been continued by a Democratic President, up to the present, and that's precisely the sort of thing that makes the two parties interchangeable.

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. You simply can't be president of the United States without continuing its imperialism. To think otherwise is naked idealism. If your favorite political figure got elected President, he or she would do the exact same thing. It doesn't matter how pure of heart you are; the position will warp you to fit its needs.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not even that you would be warped by it, I don't think. You don't get to be president unless you've demonstrated that you're prepared and able* to serve the needs of US capital.


*for any quantity of 'able' anyway. Some presidents are idiots, and the bourgeoisie is sometimes incompetent. Not thinking of anyone in particular.

[synthesis]

It's not even that you would be warped by it, I don't think. You don't get to be president unless you've demonstrated that you're prepared and able* to serve the needs of US capital.

I think they are one and the same. No matter how wide-eyed you are when you start, you eventually realize what you have to do (and be, really) to reach the position you want to get to. That's how it warps you; obviously you have agency and it, as a non-tangible thing, doesn't.

[Blake's Baby]

OK. I'm wary of 'power corrupts'. I think it's 'the pursuit of power' that corrupts, in practice. Just trying to be clear. But I think we're in agreement here.

[synthesis]

OK. I'm wary of 'power corrupts'. I think it's 'the pursuit of power' that corrupts, in practice. Just trying to be clear. But I think we're in agreement here.

More or less. I've seen studies that indicate that being in a position of power actually makes people unconsciously develop aspects of sociopathy, although obviously to a different extent in different people. I can try to dig them up if you're interested.

[Blake's Baby]

Honestly, not that bothered. I've seen similar studies in various fields like economics and business that suggest that taking empathy out of systems means people end up selfish and egomaniacal. I think I can probably extrapolate. But thanks anyway.

[Os Cangaceiros]

More or less. I've seen studies that indicate that being in a position of power actually makes people unconsciously develop aspects of sociopathy, although obviously to a different extent in different people. I can try to dig them up if you're interested.

I saw one particularly interesting study that seemed to indicate that lower mid level bureaucrats (petty officials, basically) tend to abuse their own power very often. Moreso than people in "real power".

[Popular Front of Judea]

Just filled out my mail-in ballot. Duly darkened the oval beside Kshama Sawant's name.

My sell-out to the bourgeoisie is complete. :rolleyes: