Do you vote?

[Schumpeter]

Simple question, do you vote and why/why not? Also where do you live (for context).

Me, UK, Yes, Labour reason I like their policies on relaxing austerity.

[Sinister Intents]

No, voting does nothing in the United States. Your vote often goes nowhere and the national bourgeoisie already has decided upon their candidate to be their cheerleader. Voting is a sham, and an illusion of freedom and democracy in the United States. Your vote goes nowhere pretty much in every bourgeois democracy.

[Marxaveli]

Why would any class conscious proletarian vote for their bourgeois rulers, when their agenda is all the same? Voting is for suckers.

[motion denied]

Yes, to support some comrades and to get cool leaflets. Not necessarily in that order.

EDIT: and, of course, voting is mandatory here. So unless I'm willing to pay a small bill, I'd better vote.

[Schumpeter]

Don't you guys have far left wing parties, or is it democracy itself that you contest, many on this website seem comfortable with democratic socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

Don't you guys have far left wing parties, or is it democracy itself that you contest, many on this website seem comfortable with democratic socialism.

There are no far left wing parties, the CPUSA sucks, the Green Party is anticommunist, and other parties are way too small or are revisionist, or aren't even communist. Direct democracy is the only kind of democracy that can exist and socialism is an extension of democracy. Democracy is not what you're thinking it is, also bourgeois democracy is the democracy that prevails in the large capitalist dictatorships. It's democracy for the capitalists and corporations, not the proletariat.

[Marxaveli]

Don't you guys have far left wing parties

Nope.



or is it democracy itself that you contest, many on this website seem comfortable with democratic socialismbourgeois democracy, yes we contest it. Because it is nothing but a sham. The state is an organ of class oppression.

Also, the term democratic socialism, is a bit redundant. Democracy needs socialism, and socialism must be democratic or isn't socialism at all.

[Schumpeter]

There are no far left wing parties, the CPUSA sucks, the Green Party is anticommunist, and other parties are way too small or are revisionist, or aren't even communist. Direct democracy is the only kind of democracy that can exist and socialism is an extension of democracy. Democracy is not what you're thinking it is, also bourgeois democracy is the democracy that prevails in the large capitalist dictatorships. It's democracy for the capitalists and corporations, not the proletariat.

Why don't you set up a communist party? That way you'd have a party to rally around and build support for your movement, I'd be a Marxist if I thought I could be at the head of the proletariat dictatorship but if you refuse to engage in democracy you will never get there in your life time, I can almost guarantee that, I think that the left shoots itself in the foot and if you really believe in your ideology you should consider backtracking a bit so you can move closer to realizing it.

[Quail]

I don't vote because it is pointless, and because I don't want to give legitimacy to the government and/or representative democracy. Regardless of who I vote for, the very act of voting gives legitimacy to whoever wins the election. When leftists advocate voting, they are implicitly arguing that people should give control over their lives to a representative (who of course doesn't share their interests) which is exactly the opposite of what we want to advocate. Energy would be better spent organising in the workplace and the community, encouraging and empowering people.

[Per Levy]

yeah out of habbit, but i know its useless and unimportent.


Why don't you set up a communist party? That way you'd have a party to rally around and build support for your movement, I'd be a Marxist if I thought I could be at the head of the proletariat dictatorship but if you refuse to engage in democracy you will never get there in your life time, I can almost guarantee that, I think that the left shoots itself in the foot and if you really believe in your ideology you should consider backtracking a bit so you can move closer to realizing it.

there are tons of "far-left" partys all over the world who participate in elections, yet the point is that a revolution will destroy the state and not just put another useless party in power. cause the state is a tool of class opression and stays that way even if "far-left" partys are in power.

also you couldnt be the head of a proletarian dictatorhsip, cause its a class dictatorship and not a party dictatorship

[Sinister Intents]

Why don't you set up a communist party? That way you'd have a party to rally around and build support for your movement, I'd be a Marxist if I thought I could be at the head of the proletariat dictatorship but if you refuse to engage in democracy you will never get there in your life time, I can almost guarantee that, I think that the left shoots itself in the foot and if you really believe in your ideology you should consider backtracking a bit so you can move closer to realizing it.

Setting up a communist party in my area would draw no one. It would do nothing because there are way too many conservatives and I do not want to draw attention to myself like that. Having a party would be good, but you cannot have leaders of a party, the socialist party will be a party of the people and the people do not need bosses, they can lead themselves. Proletariat dictatorship? You do realize we wish to get rid of dictatorships and when socialism is achieved there will be no hierarchies, right? Having a party I will not be the leader, and no one else will because socialists do not wish to rule nor do they wish to be ruled. I don't think you know what socialism is, and what a real socialist party would be like. Also fuck parties tbh, that's a bourgeois thing. Often parties are very hierarchal.

[WilliamGreen]

I don't vote because it is pointless, and because I don't want to give legitimacy to the government and/or representative democracy. Regardless of who I vote for, the very act of voting gives legitimacy to whoever wins the election. When leftists advocate voting, they are implicitly arguing that people should give control over their lives to a representative (who of course doesn't share their interests) which is exactly the opposite of what we want to advocate. Energy would be better spent organising in the workplace and the community, encouraging and empowering people.

I think this post is a good sum-up

but there is something to be said about getting this message out to the people. Most people aren't aware of this reason to abstain. Imagine if there was a campaign to write on the ballot "This is a sham" if millions or even hundreds of thousands partook. It would be a huge media event and could raise a lot of energy in the right directions.

There is something to be said that the revolutionary left is not the best at publicity or getting our message across. And it's such a ridiciliously good one lol

[Marxaveli]

Setting up a communist party in my area would draw no one. It would do nothing because there are way too many conservatives and I do not want to draw attention to myself like that. Having a party would be good, but you cannot have leaders of a party, the socialist party will be a party of the people and the people do not need bosses, they can lead themselves. Proletariat dictatorship? You do realize we wish to get rid of dictatorships and when socialism is achieved there will be no hierarchies, right? Having a party I will not be the leader, and no one else will because socialists do not wish to rule nor do they wish to be ruled. I don't think you know what socialism is, and what a real socialist party would be like. Also fuck parties tbh, that's a bourgeois thing. Often parties are very hierarchal.

He doesn't even understand capitalism, the system he advocates for, much less communism.

[NGNM85]

I vote, on occasion, however, I only vote for candidates in races that are too close to call, which means I don't do it very often. I'm mostly interested in ballot initiatives, for example, over the past few years, we decriminalized cannabis, then, recently, legalized medicinal cannabis, here, in Massachusetts, and now there's an effort underway to introduce another ballot initiative to legalize recreational consumption of cannabis, which, I expect, will happen in the not-too-distant future.

Personally, I think categorically abstaining from elections is pretty dumb. There's really no way an ideologically consistent socialist could be neutral on something that directly affects the working class.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I vote. Liberal democray is a sham and I don't agree with the idea that electing officials to run the government for us is a good way of going about things. Indeed, direct democracy is the only way to go in my opinion.

However, In my country voting is mandatory so honestly even an anarchist has no reason not to participate because the system makes it so that his vote will go to the party with the highest number of votes if they don't take part. In practice that means you're vote will go to either the nationalists or the christian democrats in my country. Neither of those are an option for me.

I'm not an anarchist though (even though I sympathize with their ideals) so even if this wasn't the case I'd still vote. We've got a few good radical left parties here who could use some MP seats as a platform to spread their ideas. Having said that, reformism shouldn't be an end in itself. Making changes to a capitalist system from a position in the government to eventually make it socialist (the original goal of social democrats) isn't realistic. I do support reforms if they can help people, that's why I became a socialist after all but I don't think it will get us where we want to go.

[BITW434]

Living in the area I do, the furthest party to the left who run in elections are Labour. And for numerous, obvious reasons I would never vote for them.

What was that quote again... 'if voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal'.... or something along those lines

[Sinister Intents]

Living in the area I do, the furthest party to the left who run in elections are Labour. And for numerous, obvious reasons I would never vote for them.

What was that quote again... 'if voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal'.... or something along those lines

Exactly, voting is a sham. That's a good quote btw.

[Schumpeter]

Living in the area I do, the furthest party to the left who run in elections are Labour. And for numerous, obvious reasons I would never vote for them.

What was that quote again... 'if voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal'.... or something along those lines

Vote for Labour. Remember new labour, new Britain, the poor are suffering under the coalition government.

[#FF0000]

A lot of folks don't think parliamentary politics are an effective route to get where we need to be (the overthrow of capitalism). And I agree with that to an extent -- we aim to smash the state (even us Marxists), not just have a nominally socialist or communist party at the head of it.

At the same time I feel like ignoring that aspect of the political struggle there is a bad idea and would probably support a communist party that was playing the long game, refused municipal positions and coalitions, and recognized that the political struggle goes way, way beyond the success of the party in an election.

But no such party exists. So no, I don't vote.

[motion denied]

Personally, I think categorically abstaining from elections is pretty dumb. There's really no way an ideologically consistent socialist could be neutral on something that directly affects the working class.

It bugs me every time.

But presently, the two parties that dominate my country's politics are so alike that I doubt it would make such a difference (if any).

[NGNM85]

I don't vote because it is pointless, and because I don't want to give legitimacy to the government and/or representative democracy. Regardless of who I vote for, the very act of voting gives legitimacy to whoever wins the election.

Incorrect. The nation-state, and the hegemony of the ruling class creates the illusion of legitimacy via an incredibly complex propaganda system. The western nations actually have the most sophisticated propaganda systems in the world. Anyhow, that's what creates the illusion of legitimacy. If you don't recignize the prevailing power structures as legitimate, and openly, consistently challenge the legitimacy of these instititutions, then you are not, in any sense, reinforcing them. There is fundamental difference between recognizing the status quo as legitimate, and recognizing that it exists, at all.



When leftists advocate voting, they are implicitly arguing that people should give control over their lives to a representative (who of course doesn't share their interests) which is exactly the opposite of what we want to advocate. Energy would be better spent organising in the workplace and the community, encouraging and empowering people.

There is nothing inherently wrong with representative democracy, per se. It's impossible to, democratically, govern a large, complex society without it. The problem is twofold; first, we have very minimal democracy, people basically choose between wings of the business party, and that's it, second; more fundamentally, the root of the problem is that we live in a capitalist society, and, therefore, nomatter who governs, the capitalist class rules. That isn't to say that politics is irrelevent, quite the contrary, but as long as the class system exists, as long as exploitation exists, the possibilities for improvement, and advancement, are significantly limited.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I vote, on occasion, however, I only vote for candidates in races that are too close to call, which means I don't do it very often.

Did you vote for Elizabeth Warren?

I don't think anybody could hold a vote for her against you.


I'm mostly interested in ballot initiatives, for example, over the past few years, we decriminalized cannabis, then, recently, legalized medicinal cannabis, here, in Massachusetts, and now there's an effort underway to introduce another ballot initiative to legalize recreational consumption of cannabis, which, I expect, will happen in the not-too-distant future.

Personally, I think categorically abstaining from elections is pretty dumb. There's really no way an ideologically consistent socialist could be neutral on something that directly affects the working class.

This essentially sums up how I vote as well. I'm not going to vote in the Presidential election, but I will vote for things I care about and believe in, as well as politicians I like, generally at the local level.

In the US, if you're looking for a workers movement don't look at far-left political parties, you need to seek out the groups trying to organize labor in the dining, retail, and service industries. Or those trying to push legislation to combat anti-union practices many states have that have eroded workers rights in the traditional union strongholds of manufacturing and heavy industry. Or by trying to curb the rampant expansion of fracking everywhere there is shale. There are even Democrats I support for these things at the local level, though at the national level that party is essentially as much in the throes of High Finance, AIPAC, and NSA expansion as even the most outspoken Republicans.

[BITW434]

Vote for Labour. Remember new labour, new Britain, the poor are suffering under the coalition government.
Is that the same 'Labour' that during their 13 years in office invaded Iraq, part-privatised the London Underground, introduced tuition fees and oversaw a rise in inequality? I think I will pass on that one, thanks..

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

For instance:


As fast-food workers plan yet another round of one-day strikes on Thursday in cities around the country, labor leaders, economists and industry officials continue to debate the potential effects of raising wages at companies that often assert that such increases would raise consumer prices and shrink the work force.

Organizers of the fast-food workers' nascent movement are clamoring for a $15 an hour wage, which would mean a 67 percent pay increase in an industry where wages average around $9 an hour.

Restaurant industry officials have balked at so high a wage, saying it would sharply raise fast-food prices and reduce employment, in part by fueling automation of some jobs. They call the demand of $15 an hour a nonstarter as far as initiating negotiations.

"When you start by insisting on $15 an hour, that's not conducive to substantive dialogue," said Scott DeFife, an executive vice president with the National Restaurant Association.

But Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent several million dollars to underwrite the fast-food strikes around the country that began a year ago, said it was only a matter of time before the worker protests became so great that McDonald's (http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/MCD), Burger King (http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BKW) and other companies agreed to negotiate.

"I think there's growing recognition that a nerve has been touched," Ms. Henry said. "The industry had better start to take this seriously, because this isn't going to blow over."http://www.cnbc.com/id/101250114

[liberlict]

Simple question, do you vote and why/why not? Also where do you live (for context).

Me, UK, Yes, Labour reason I like their policies on relaxing austerity.

Where I live, you have to vote. You get fined if you don't. I never want to vote for any of the parties so usually I just vote for some whacky independent.

[NGNM85]

Did you vote for Elizabeth Warren?

I don't think anybody could hold a vote for her against you.

Yes.

Your naivete is almost charming. Of course they could, (and, no doubt, soon will) this is Rev(Ultra)Left. Did you see the Kshama Sawant thread? Page, after page of venom, and bile. What's really funny is that people don't hate her for running, they hate her for winning.


This essentially sums up how I vote as well. I'm not going to vote in the Presidential election, but I will vote for things I care about and believe in, as well as politicians I like, generally at the local level.

Again, I'm not philosophically opposed to voting for presidential candidates, even from the bourgeois parties, it's just that I live in Massachusetts, so my vote doesn't count. It would be a pointless exercise.


In the US, if you're looking for a workers movement don't look at far-left political parties, you need to seek out the groups trying to organize labor in the dining, retail, and service industries. Or those trying to push legislation to combat anti-union practices many states have that have eroded workers rights in the traditional union strongholds of manufacturing and heavy industry. Or by trying to curb the rampant expansion of fracking everywhere there is shale.

Yeah, there's really no major disagreement, there.


There are even Democrats I support for these things at the local level, though at the national level that party is essentially as much in the throes of High Finance, AIPAC, and NSA expansion as even the most outspoken Republicans.

This is, unfortunately, true, particularly after the Democratic party's turn to the right, towards big business, especially the financial sector, after taking a number of electoral losses twenty-some-odd years ago. However, I think there are signs of a possible internal conflict, (albiet; nothing as intense as the fratricidal, internecine warfare, currently taking place in the Republican party.) between the Democratic Leadership Council, and their ideological allies, and Elizabeth Warren, and the Progressive Caucus, on the left. Depending on how that plays out, it could have positive implications. It depends, it's too early to say.

[Sabot Cat]

I vote in almost every conceivable election and referendum I can involve myself in, because there is a qualitative difference between liberals and conservatives even if they're both not reflective of my political beliefs, and if I can do at least a little something to help make things not as bad as they could be, through something as easy as voting, I don't see why not.

Although I agree with everyone else that it's a scam.

Re-elections are almost totally assured for the incumbents: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2012

Because they have such have an advantage:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2012

It usually takes a few million dollars to unseat them if you can:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php?cycle=2012

Which is not helped by campaigners pumping money into their party when they have left over money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/wealth.php?cycle=2012

Which is probably why national elections are such a high-dollar racket in the first place:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php?cycle=2012

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I've spoilt my ballot at every election I've voted at - distrust of "representative democracy" aside, I am yet to find a candidate standing for what I think to be in my interests and of the interests of the working class at large. "Tactical voting" as it is called makes an even greater sham of our supposedly free and fair elections than they already were - i.e I would never vote Labour or Lib Dem to keep a Conservative or UKIP canditate out. As far as I am concerned (and this is before we get into their policies proper) all of them simply wish to administer capitalism rather than overthrow it (and these days there seems to be precious little difference in how they want to administer it.)

In regards to far-left parties with candidates up for election - I have serious doubts about the utility of using the ruling class' own machinery to overthrow it (deliciously ironic as that would be) and I suspect that if push came to shove the powers that be would simply move to further exclude any anticapitalist elements from government. That said, if I found one I agreed with I might vote for them - it's (hopefully) not the end of the world if I do so.

[IBleedRed]

I don't vote in national elections since it comes down to D vs R and there's no real difference between the two.

That being said, I occasionally vote in city elections. I'd be ecstatic if we had a socialist run for mayor or city council and win, and I'd be willing to vote in that case (e.g. Kshama Sawant).

It's not because I think voting for socialists will lead to socialism, but to spread the message about socialism/bring it into the political mainstream.


I vote in almost every conceivable election and referendum I can involve myself in, because there is a qualitative difference between liberals and conservatives even if they're both not reflective of my political beliefs

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In regards to far-left parties with candidates up for election - I have serious doubts about the utility of using the ruling class' own machinery to overthrow it (deliciously ironic as that would be) and I suspect that if push came to shove the powers that be would simply move to further exclude any anticapitalist elements from government. That said, if I found one I agreed with I might vote for them - it's (hopefully) not the end of the world if I do so.

This reminds me of the fight going on in the California city of Richmond, where they are trying to use the power of eminent domain in favor of homeowners, against the banks.



Richmond could invoke eminent domain for underwater mortgages by uniting with another city in a Joint Powers Authority (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=realestate&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Joint+Powers+Authority%22) - even without getting a supermajority of the City Council to approve the controversial idea.
That revelation emerged at a crowded council meeting Tuesday night, at which council members voted 4-2 to set guidelines for using eminent domain to seize and restructure underwater mortgages to prevent foreclosures.
The deeply divided council remains one vote short of the five-vote supermajority it needs to invoke its municipal authority to seize mortgages. However, city attorney Bruce Goodmiller (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=realestate&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Bruce+Goodmiller%22) told the council that it could set up a Joint Powers Authority with a majority vote. Once that body was in place, its board - composed of members appointed by the councils of the involved cities - could exercise eminent domain with its own supermajority vote.
"That's an end run around the supermajority requirement," said Councilman Jim Rogers (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=realestate&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Jim+Rogers%22), who opposes the idea because he fears it could leave Richmond vulnerable to potentially crippling legal liabilities.
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Richmond-pushes-forward-with-eminent-domain-plan-5073950.php

For those who don't know, eminent domain in the US is the power of the government to buy private land for what is deemed fair market value. Usually, this power has been used by politicians to bulldoze poorer neighborhoods and build freeways over them to the suburbs, or tear down historic buildings to build football stadiums or oil refineries.

What Richmond is trying to do is something quite novel. If a home owner in Richmond bought a house prior to the bubble bursting, they probably owe a lot more on it than it is actually worth. So, Richmond will step in, purchase it at fair market value from the bank holding the mortgage, and sell it back to the home owner for far less. This could potentially save hundreds of foreclosures in the city.

I would be shocked if it did anything more than a couple token properties before the program is shut down and those responsible sent to the gulag. Banks are already threatening everything from flight of all capital from the city to just short of funding mercenaries to retake the city.


The council agreed to prioritize neighborhoods hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis and clarify that only homeowners who "opt in" and have mortgages below the $729,750 conforming loan limit would qualify. It instructed city staff members to ask banks holding targeted loans to voluntarily cut principal in line with current home values. It reiterated a call to set up a Joint Powers Authority to cooperate with other towns on eminent domain for mortgages. While other cities are exploring the idea, none has committed to it.

Seeking stability

"The focus of this program is to stabilize neighborhoods, to fight blight, to keep homeowners in their homes," McLaughlin said. "This will move us another step forward."
The resolution also said eminent domain for mortgages would only be used in "exceptional circumstances when large numbers of households are underwater," McLaughlin said....

Foes gear up for fight

Banks and Realtors oppose the concept, saying it is unconstitutional and would drive up lending costs in the city. They've run a well-financed campaign attacking the plan, and are poised to launch a fierce court battle against it.
About 40 people, mainly supporters of the plan, weighed in during the meeting's public comment period. Audience members clapped, cheered and waved signs such as "Save our homes."
Richmond is the furthest along of any city in exploring the untested idea of using eminent domain to prevent foreclosures. In July, it sent letters to banks and other entities seeking to buy 624 underwater mortgages at deep discounts to their face value. The letters threatened to invoke eminent domain to forcibly acquire the home loans, if the offers were spurned - as they have been. Under the plan, the city and its partner, private investment firm Mortgage Resolution Partners (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=realestate&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Mortgage+Resolution+Partners%22), would help homeowners refinance into smaller, more affordable mortgages.
The fact is using eminent domain to adjust one mortgage to reflect actual value would set a precedent which the banks simply could not let stand.

[Future]

I do not vote for the reasons stated here by the others.


I don't vote because it is pointless, and because I don't want to give legitimacy to the government and/or representative democracy. Regardless of who I vote for, the very act of voting gives legitimacy to whoever wins the election. When leftists advocate voting, they are implicitly arguing that people should give control over their lives to a representative (who of course doesn't share their interests) which is exactly the opposite of what we want to advocate. Energy would be better spent organising in the workplace and the community, encouraging and empowering people.

This, a thousand times over.

[Sabot Cat]

[lolwut]

Yeah, there is a definite difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals favor or at least allow union shops, labor rights, minimum wage, progressive taxation, healthcare, right to chose, and not as much military spending. Conservatives are pretty much opposed to all of that, while they hope to give even more of a free hand to capitalists and clergy. Yes yes, neither of them want to liberate the proletariat, neither one is desirable, etc. etc. You could even point to conservative Democrats breaking pretty much all of that basic platform at some point. But there is a difference between them, and what they do. I would think that conservatives would be much happier to outright ban communist organizations and make it even harder to build a movement. For at least one illustrative example, the 80th U.S. Congress would not have passed Taft–Hartley Act or overridden the veto against it if not for the Republican majorities in both houses. Contrast that with the Norris–La Guardia Act and the Wagner Act, created and passed by a majority of liberals.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, there is a definite difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals favor or at least allow union shops, labor rights, minimum wage, progressive taxation, healthcare, right to chose, and not as much military spending. Conservatives are pretty much opposed to all of that, while they hope to give even more of a free hand to capitalists and clergy.

Well, yeah that's supposed to be the idea, but if we actually look at what the supposed "liberals" in power have actually been doing since the Clinton years...

[NGNM85]

Well, yeah that's supposed to be the idea, but if we actually look at what the supposed "liberals" in power have actually been doing since the Clinton years...

There are a couple of problems with this. First; you're implying that the Democratic party is a homogeneous mass, denying the ideological differences among Democrats. There is most certainly a difference between Joe Manchin, and Elizabeth Warren. Second, you start the clock with the election of President Clinton, which, as I was explaining earlier, coincided with, and was a component of, a rightward pivot, led by the Democratic Leadership Council, of which President Clinton was the chairman. This is like when Republicans say; `Bush kept us safe for seven years.' You're fudging the data to fit your thesis. Your statement lacks all context because while it recognises the aforementioned rightward pivot by the Democrats, it ignores that, during the exact same period, the Republican party, which was already the rightist party, of the ruling bourgeois parties, even further to the right, relative to it's original position. Finally, this is incoherent because if you feel that the Democratic party, for the last 20+ years has not been sufficiently worker friendly, then it doesn't follow that you would be indifferent to, or even welcome Republican rule, particularly in their current, ultra-reactionary incarnation. That makes no sense, at all.

[NGNM85]

I don't vote in national elections since it comes down to D vs R and there's no real difference between the two.

This is objectively false. Wherever you come down on parliamentary politics, revolutionary praxis, those are matters of opinion. This is an empirical fact. I'm not going to interrupt the thread to give you a crash course in American politics, but here's a (very) basic introduction;

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

If you have any further questions, you, or anyone else, can send me a polite inquiry via private message.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I remember President Clinton's 8 years in office quite fondly, but it is undeniable that he was the "New Democrat" who traded in the Great Society for unfettered market growth. Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers did their work to "save the world," endlessly extolling the virtues of Milton Friedman throughout the Clinton years.

The current administration allowed Elizabeth Warren to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but at the slightest sound of complaint from the financial sector (If Warren is in charge she might actually investigate wrongdoing by the banks!!!), relayed through their boy, Tim Geithner, Obama threw Warren under the bus and out of the agency she'd created. Out of the agency where, had she stayed on as the bureaucrat running it, nobody would have ever heard of the future Senator.

It's been said more and more in the MSM, but in my opinion Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are perfect representations of the major differing ideological view within the Democratic Party.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

On the national scene, I believe it's important to observe the "vertical" political axis as well. I've been thinking about it a lot since Snowden blew the lid off the NSA and I find myself agreeing with people like Rand Paul, for instance, when it comes to surveillance much moreso than Dianne Feinstein. There are several tea party house members who one day will craft legislation to end food stamps, and the next day will work with very liberal congressmen to draft bills for greater oversight of the NSA and ending the use of drone strikes.

Unfortunately, the GOP on the whole finds it much easier to cut those food stamps or try and repeal Obamacare than to protect our privacy.

[NGNM85]

I remember President Clinton's 8 years in office quite fondly, but it is undeniable that he was the "New Democrat" who traded in the Great Society for unfettered market growth. Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers did their work to "save the world," endlessly extolling the virtues of Milton Friedman throughout the Clinton years.

Precisely. Clinton also enthusiastically passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which, in fairness, had almost unanimous, bipartisan support) which smashed Glass-Steagall, and led directly to the 2008 crash.


The current administration allowed Elizabeth Warren to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but at the slightest sound of complaint from the financial sector (If Warren is in charge she might actually investigate wrongdoing by the banks!!!), relayed through their boy, Tim Geithner, Obama threw Warren under the bus and out of the agency she'd created. Out of the agency where, had she stayed on as the bureaucrat running it, nobody would have ever heard of the future Senator.

It's been said more and more in the MSM, but in my opinion Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are perfect representations of the major differing ideological view within the Democratic Party.

What would be really interesting is if, or, perhaps, more accurately; when Hillary Clinton runs for president, in 2016, if Senator Warren runs against her. The only way someone could touch her in the primary is by attacking from the left, and they would also have to be a woman, and Elizabeth Warren is the logical choice, if somebody was going to do that. Senator Warren has said she will serve her full term, but one never knows. On the upside, it looks like Governor Chris Christie is toast. Some people were writing his political obituary as soon as `bridgegate' began, and I, initially, dismissed it as wishful thinking. After everything that has come out, particularly the recent allegations by the Mayor of Hoboken, I changed my mind. I think his presidential prospects are nonexistent, at this point. If that's the case, I think the 2016 election will look a lot like 2012, if not 2008. However, I digress, this is all besides the point.

[#FF0000]

There are a couple of problems with this. First; you're implying that the Democratic party is a homogeneous mass, denying the ideological differences among Democrats.

Nope, I'm just acknowledging that the Democrats as a whole are hardly "liberal" if we're talking about even just tacit acceptance of left-of-center politics. Of course there's left-liberals out there -- but the party is majority center or center-right.


Second, you start the clock with the election of President Clinton, which, as I was explaining earlier, coincided with, and was a component of, a rightward pivotUhhhh, yes that's why I specifically said "since Clinton". My point was that the supposed "Liberals" haven't acted or legislated like "liberals" supposedly should be acting or legislating for some time.


This is like when Republicans say; `Bush kept us safe for seven years.' You're fudging the data to fit your thesis.Yo I'm not sure if you understand what my "thesis" is here.

[Sabot Cat]

Nope, I'm just acknowledging that the Democrats as a whole are hardly "liberal" if we're talking about even just tacit acceptance of left-of-center politics. Of course there's left-liberals out there -- but the party is majority center or center-right.

Uhhhh, yes that's why I specifically said "since Clinton". My point was that the supposed "Liberals" haven't acted or legislated like "liberals" supposedly should be acting or legislating for some time.

Yo I'm not sure if you understand what my "thesis" is here.

Your thesis is that Democrats aren't liberals, in reply to a post where I distinguished between liberals and conservatives while noting the existence of conservative Democrats. If I would've said it as if I thought Democrats and Liberals were one and the same, I would understand this response, but I don't because I didn't.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I vote for the Portuguese Communist Party.

Sure it's reformist, but it's better than nothing.

[#FF0000]

Your thesis is that Democrats aren't liberals, in reply to a post where I distinguished between liberals and conservatives while noting the existence of conservative Democrats. If I would've said it as if I thought Democrats and Liberals were one and the same, I would understand this response, but I don't because I didn't.

Yeah, fair enough, and I see what you're saying, but I think that's a little silly since these people are Liberals today. I think it's silly to define American Liberalism by what it meant back in the New Deal/Great Society days. I mean, if we did that with American conservatism, we'd be calling them pro-labor, pro-minimum wage too. Modern liberalism and modern liberals aren't, for the most part, center left anymore.

Holy fucking shit American politics are boring.

[Sabot Cat]

Yeah, fair enough, and I see what you're saying, but I think that's a little silly since these people are Liberals today. I think it's silly to define American Liberalism by what it meant back in the New Deal/Great Society days.

I can at least rely on the fact that several brown unions have millions of dollars tied up with the Democratic Party, and so they're probably going to remain pro-labor for the most part if they want to be re-elected. They're also able to be criticized from the left, which is a nifty asset.


I mean, if we did that with American conservatism, we'd be talking calling them pro-labor, pro-minimum wage too. Modern liberalism and modern liberals aren't, for the most part, center left anymore.

I'm not aware of a historical era where Americans who described themselves as conservatives were pro-labor or pro-minimum wage.

[Tenka]

I got registered to vote when I got my picture I.D. but the information on the I.D. used an old form I had filled out so it says I am not registered to vote. I think I have misplaced the actual document showing I'm registered... but I'd wager this feck-up would disenable me to vote even if I had the will and the means to do so (neither of which I have; voting in bourgeois elections is useless and I can't drive). I live in Texas, btw.

[tallguy]

I used to vote when I still harboured the delusion it made a difference and that I was doing anything more than merely taking part in and facilitating the perpetuation of a charade. I now realise it makes no difference whatsoever and so I don't vote anymore.

[#FF0000]

I'm not aware of a historical era where Americans who described themselves as conservatives were pro-labor or pro-minimum wage.

D'aw c'mon now. Conservatives from the Depression until Reagan (maybe Goldwater, kinda) always had to work with their politics under the shadow of Roosevelt and the New Deal. That's why you had bizarro nonsense like this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/11537/large/Republican_labor.jpg?1354811978

[consuming negativity]

I voted in the last election; someone was going to the poll and asked me if I wanted a ride over to vote with them, and I said "okay" and went to go vote. I probably won't be voting in the next election, although that's more out of laziness than any moral or political ideal. I could end up at the polls, who knows?

I think that if you want to vote and find something you think you could make a difference on (particularly in regards to local elections), go ahead and do it. And if you think you'd be better off at home masturbating or something, that's fine too. I don't really hold a strong opinion on it. Although a lot of people have to work that day anyway..

I do think, though, that not voting because "it gives the bourgeois legitimacy" is kind of silly, for two reasons. First and foremost, nobody is going to look at election turnouts and ever go "wow, the US government is illegitimate, better get rid of them". But equally as important, participating in the system and voting doesn't at all legitimize the theft of labor value and general extortion that we are subject to on a daily basis. Slavery was not somehow a more legitimate system because Americans voted 150 years ago, so why would this situation be any different?

[Manic Impressive]

Simple question, do you vote and why/why not? Also where do you live (for context).

Me, UK, Yes, Labour reason I like their policies on relaxing austerity.
Most of the Trotskyite parties will vote Labour as well. They at least call for a vote for labour. I believe the Communist party of Britain also vote Labour. Anarchists will almost always never vote, except for people like Ian Bone who is possibly Britain's most well known anarchist and who is standing in the upcoming elections. Left Communists side with anarchists and won't vote.

My party, the SPGB, will be standing candidates in both the euro and local elections. In fact I've been organizing our party political broadcast which will be being shown on the bbc. The reason we stand is for purposes of propaganda. We have never told people to vote Labour like the Leninist parties do. In fact we tell people not to vote for us if they don't fully understand what we stand for and agree with it.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It bugs me every time.

But presently, the two parties that dominate my country's politics are so alike that I doubt it would make such a difference (if any).

So it bugs you that people think it's useless to vote, but you think it's useless to vote?

[Quail]

Incorrect. The nation-state, and the hegemony of the ruling class creates the illusion of legitimacy via an incredibly complex propaganda system. The western nations actually have the most sophisticated propaganda systems in the world. Anyhow, that's what creates the illusion of legitimacy. If you don't recignize the prevailing power structures as legitimate, and openly, consistently challenge the legitimacy of these instititutions, then you are not, in any sense, reinforcing them. There is fundamental difference between recognizing the status quo as legitimate, and recognizing that it exists, at all.

You can recognise that the status quo exists without voting, and if you were "openly, consistently challenging the legitimacy of these institutions" why would you participate in them? It would be hypocritical to reject the authority of the government, to argue that bourgeois democracy is a sham... and then go and vote in elections anyway.


There is nothing inherently wrong with representative democracy, per se. It's impossible to, democratically, govern a large, complex society without it. The problem is twofold; first, we have very minimal democracy, people basically choose between wings of the business party, and that's it, second; more fundamentally, the root of the problem is that we live in a capitalist society, and, therefore, nomatter who governs, the capitalist class rules. That isn't to say that politics is irrelevent, quite the contrary, but as long as the class system exists, as long as exploitation exists, the possibilities for improvement, and advancement, are significantly limited.
I have no problem with electing recallable and accountable delegates, but that isn't the same as electing a representative.

Secondly, the purpose of organising within workplaces and communities isn't just to improve our lives in the short term, within the confines of a capitalist society. Showing that organising ourselves works and is possible is an effective way of spreading our ideas. Words alone aren't going to win people over, but we can show the benefits of solidarity and mutual aid through our actions.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I did once, don't feel good about my choice (even though it had no real impact; I live in Merseyside, Labour stronghold). I might be persuaded to again if there was a party / candidate that I found reflected my thoughts and ideas. Not happened yet, so I only go to spoil the ballots now.

[Regicollis]

I vote but I do it without any illusions. The chance of getting a somewhat decent majority in parliament is near zero and even if genuine socialist parties by some freak accident got the majority they would become corrupted by the system too.

I vote for and I am a member of the Red-Green Alliance which started as a Syriza-like amalgamation of small communist and socialist parties. Today the membership include a large spectrum of leftist thought including social democrats. The party is by no means an ideal construction and over the last years it has become too focused on parliamentary work and social democratic in its public communication but it is the best alternative unless I want to join some obscure secterian party with absolutely no membership base and no potential.

I vote because one more half-decent social democrat in parliament means one seat less for corrupted. Also having socialist members of parliament gives them a platform for disseminating their views to a broader population. Furthermore in some countries - at least in Denmark - the government provides financial aid to political parties according to the number of votes they receive.

[dodger]

They are all Thatcher's bastards. Each one that followed is exponentially worse than its predecessor. Since the 760,000 Iraqi War Widows have been ignored much less given a vote, I will decline. The complete lack of any meaningful democracy within any of the parties, leads me to suspect it is not high on their agenda. If a tool does not do the job you want of it--then discard it . Pick up another. Labour simply does not do what one wants it to do. My days of walking to a dilapidated run down school every 5 years are long gone. They know where the trough is, get there without my assistance.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I vote for and I am a member of the Red-Green Alliance which started as a Syriza-like amalgamation of small communist and socialist parties. Today the membership include a large spectrum of leftist thought including social democrats. The party is by no means an ideal construction and over the last years it has become too focused on parliamentary work and social democratic in its public communication but it is the best alternative unless I want to join some obscure secterian party with absolutely no membership base and no potential.

But what is the real potential for broad leftist (however "radical") coalitions?

Also, although my proof for this is entirely anecdotal, hasn't Enhedslisten/Red-Green Alliance voted for austerity measures?

[motion denied]

So it bugs you that people think it's useless to vote, but you think it's useless to vote?

No. What bugs me is that the result may or may not worsen the lives of the working class more directly.

[Wonton Carter]

I haven't voted since coming into Marxism, because there's not been an election yet. There's one in November this year in the US, and I haven't decided whether to vote or not.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Most of the Trotskyite parties will vote Labour as well. They at least call for a vote for labour. I believe the Communist party of Britain also vote Labour. Anarchists will almost always never vote, except for people like Ian Bone who is possibly Britain's most well known anarchist and who is standing in the upcoming elections. Left Communists side with anarchists and won't vote.

My party, the SPGB, will be standing candidates in both the euro and local elections. In fact I've been organizing our party political broadcast which will be being shown on the bbc. The reason we stand is for purposes of propaganda. We have never told people to vote Labour like the Leninist parties do. In fact we tell people not to vote for us if they don't fully understand what we stand for and agree with it.
i think some trotskyists will be standing under the trade unions and socialist coalition (TUSC) in the next election. pretty sure the main trot parties are a part of the coalition.

in fact, i don't actually know any proper trots who would call for a labour vote - spew, for example, gave up on entryism and militant were purged out of the labour party. say what u will about them but at least the learned the lesson that labour is a bourgeois party and nothing else.

part of me is thinking of voting for labour just so i don't have to see david cameron's face-like-a-slapped-arse anymore but obviously miliband and he are two peas in the same pod and we can't expect to vote away the ruling class.

so sick of this bourgeois dictatorship, its literally adversely affecting my physical health :(.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I live in the US. I don't vote for bourgeois politicians, but I do very occasionally vote for a ballot referendum or initiative.

[Manic Impressive]

i think some trotskyists will be standing under the trade unions and socialist coalition (TUSC) in the next election. pretty sure the main trot parties are a part of the coalition.

in fact, i don't actually know any proper trots who would call for a labour vote - spew, for example, gave up on entryism and militant were purged out of the labour party. say what u will about them but at least the learned the lesson that labour is a bourgeois party and nothing else.
From a while back


http://www.revleft.com/vb/london-mayoral-election-t170934/index.html?t=170934




so sick of this bourgeois dictatorship, its literally adversely affecting my physical health :(.
Sorry to hear that brosky :(

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

0f course not, then I'd have no right to complain.

[Comrade Jacob]

I will vote on the Scottish independence issue (no) because it's useless splitting the British proletariat for petty nationalism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have voted once or twice for friends running as members of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), almost solely as a gesture of friendship and goodwill. Though, also, the government provides some funding to registered political party according to the number of votes they receive, which, in the case of the CPC(ML) means supporting local organizing.
In general, I tend not to vote. A member of the libertarian communist organization of which I am part has written two v. good essays on the topic, posted here (http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/antoni-wysocki/19060) and here (http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/antoni-wysocki/20920).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I will vote on the Scottish independence issue (no) because it's useless splitting the British proletariat for petty nationalism.


Tendency: Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=10)

May I ask how come you are actually against this particular national liberation struggle?

[Comrade Jacob]

May I ask how come you are actually against this particular national liberation struggle?

It is in no way a liberation struggle. It's trading one capitalist flag for another and dividing the workers of the British Island.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It is in no way a liberation struggle. It's trading one flag for another and dividing the workers of the British Island.

I would say that this is always the case of a national liberation struggle. But I have seen some Maoists be favourable to Scottish independence, and this was why I was curious as to why you were opposed to this one (on this issue, you are right.)

[NGNM85]

You can recognise that the status quo exists without voting,

Holy crap, an actual response...

That's true, but it isn't simply that you aren't voting, but that you categorically abstain from the ballot, and advocate that everyone else should do the same, as if enough of us, pretending real hard, will make the state, capitalism, etc., disappear. This is backasswards.


...and if you were "openly, consistently challenging the legitimacy of these institutions" why would you participate in them? It would be hypocritical to reject the authority of the government, to argue that bourgeois democracy is a sham... and then go and vote in elections anyway.

Only if one thinks in exceedingly simple terms. For example, by this logic, Anarchists should be joining Republican efforts to gut the welfare state, regulatory agencies, etc. That would substantially reduce the government, it would also have brutal consequences for the working class. Any consistent Anarchist can't categorically abstain from the political process because that would be neglecting their most fundamental imperative; to advance the interests of the working class, to defend the working class. When elections decide whether or not homosexuals have equal rights, whether the abortion clinics are open, or closed, whether anti-union. `right to work' legislation gets passed, etc., one cannot be neutral. You cannot say we don't have a dog in those fights.


I have no problem with electing recallable and accountable delegates, but that isn't the same as electing a representative.

Only in the literal sense.


Secondly, the purpose of organising within workplaces and communities isn't just to improve our lives in the short term, within the confines of a capitalist society. Showing that organising ourselves works and is possible is an effective way of spreading our ideas. Words alone aren't going to win people over, but we can show the benefits of solidarity and mutual aid through our actions.

Sure. Of course, I never suggested otherwise.

[Quail]

That's true, but it isn't simply that you aren't voting, but that you categorically abstain from the ballot, and advocate that everyone else should do the same, as if enough of us, pretending real hard, will make the state, capitalism, etc., disappear. This is backasswards.
I never suggested that abstaining from voting will make capitalism disappear. But if you recognise the existence of bourgeois politics and acknowledge that your vote is essentially pointless, what is the value in voting? I don't advocate abstaining from the vote and doing nothing else - I advocate not voting in favour of dedicating your time to more worthwhile methods of organising.


Only if one thinks in exceedingly simple terms. For example, by this logic, Anarchists should be joining Republican efforts to gut the welfare state, regulatory agencies, etc. That would substantially reduce the government, it would also have brutal consequences for the working class.
I don't really see how this follows from what I said, though I guess it fits in with your strawman.


Any consistent Anarchist can't categorically abstain from the political process because that would be neglecting their most fundamental imperative; to advance the interests of the working class, to defend the working class.
Okay, now this is a little ridiculous coming from an anarchist. Obviously as a class-struggle anarchist I think it is important to defend the working class. But does choosing between two or three very similar parties really do anything for the working class? The working class in this country have suffered regardless of which party has been in power at the time, and I see no reason why they won't continue to suffer regardless of which party comes into power after the next election.


When elections decide whether or not homosexuals have equal rights, whether the abortion clinics are open, or closed, whether anti-union. `right to work' legislation gets passed, etc., one cannot be neutral. You cannot say we don't have a dog in those fights.

The thing is though, elections don't really decide these things. It's only through years of organising and action that issues that affect the working class even get a look in. Laws only change in our favour when we fight to change them, not because we vote in benevolent politicians.

[anarhokomunjaravtc]

Nope :D at least not any more becouse there is no point at least where i come from they are all the same. Elections come blah blah blah blah numrous ammounts of money are spend for nothing,so that can fill our heads with the empty promises,and all sorts of manipulation.Every time we fell for it we should all just boicot the elections and let the bastards vote for them self:):star:

[#FF0000]

The thing is though, elections don't really decide these things. It's only through years of organising and action that issues that affect the working class even get a look in. Laws only change in our favour when we fight to change them, not because we vote in benevolent politicians.

Yo this needs to be said again and again and again. The battle's practically over by the time a reform like this becomes a ballot initiative.

[Regicollis]

But what is the real potential for broad leftist (however "radical") coalitions?

Also, although my proof for this is entirely anecdotal, hasn't Enhedslisten/Red-Green Alliance voted for austerity measures?

I think you are confusing the Red-Green Alliance with the Socialist People's Party (SF). The latter started out as a eurocommunist party that wanted a socialist revolution through democratic means. Now it has degenerated into just another bourgeois party, has joined the Social Democrats in a government coalition with a libertarian party and has voted for one attack after another on working people. SF has voted for tax cuts to the rich and corporations, for reductions in unemployment insurance, reductions in student grants, reductions in disability pensions, for busting the teacher's union, for increased use of "workfare" (i.e. commanding unemployed workers to pick up dog shit for less than half the union wage with no rights to earn unemployment insurance, pensions or anything). They are class traitors of the worst kind.

The Red-Green Alliance has not taken part in any of these nasty schemes. However they are pursuing a stillborn strategy of trying to draw the Social Democratic-led government to the left. They have made a few agreements, like investing in railways, but most of the time and in all major economic decisions the government has made agreements with the openly bourgeois parties.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I will vote on the Scottish independence issue (no) because it's useless splitting the British proletariat for petty nationalism.
"Let's keep Britain united" is just as nationalistic, really. Maybe even more so.

[Sabot Cat]

All political officials in the national legislature are bourgeois; indeed, the modern republic is a way of preserving and maintaining the legitimacy of their oligarchy. Nonetheless, I maintain that some politicians are objectively worse for us than others.


The thing is though, elections don't really decide these things. It's only through years of organising and action that issues that affect the working class even get a look in. Laws only change in our favour when we fight to change them, not because we vote in benevolent politicians.

Even so, laws only get passed when we, or the politicians we elect, vote. The oligarchical system is not perfect. Neither of the bourgeois parties wants the other party to win, so the elections aren't completely computerized. The bourgeois is not all powerful, and the electoral system has a "defect" in that it does rely upon humans. Humans that you can talk to, appeal to, try to convince of your ideals. Even though the media-campaign complex is strong, capitalism is not good for the majority of people subjugated by it. If we can't convince the rest of the proletariat to do something as simple as voting for people that won't screw them over, how can we rally them for a general strike, or a war?

[Ele'ill]

Simple question, do you vote and why/why not? Also where do you live (for context).

US, I have never voted and never will. Reform is a compromise with an already illegitimate authority and it is usually completely inadequate and comes with baggage that usually adequately makes things worse if not for me then for other poor working folks around the world. It is a part of a system and structure that exists and functions in direct opposition to my needs and desires.

[Ele'ill]

not really

[Sinister Intents]

If I could vote I'd probably vote for the Green Party or CPUSA. Sure they're not real socialists but it's worth it in order to keep nazi and far-right groups like the Constitution Party and Third Position at bay.

I don't vote period. If it was forcefully mandated or you get fined for not voting I would vote CPUSA, but not the Green Party since they show themselves to be anticommunist

[NGNM85]

I never suggested that abstaining from voting will make capitalism disappear. But if you recognise the existence of bourgeois politics and acknowledge that your vote is essentially pointless, what is the value in voting?

I didn't say that my vote was pointless. (Quite the contrary, in fact.) I said voting for a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate would be pointless, for me, because it is, because I live in Massachusetts. I also fully acknowledge that it is astronomically unlikely that the hegemony of the capitalist class could be overthrown by parliamentary proceedings. However, this (also) does not mean that voting is pointless. Far from it. As Rosa Luxemburg explained; `The practical daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Socialist Democracy, there is an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal.' The success of the struggle for the `amelioration of the condition of the workers' is, largely contingent upon, and determined by the ballot .


I don't advocate abstaining from the vote and doing nothing else - I advocate not voting in favour of dedicating your time to more worthwhile methods of organising.

Granted. Nor am I advocating voting, and doing nothing else.

Incidentally, the last time I went to the polls; I was out of there in less than 20 minutes.



I don't really see how this follows from what I said, though I guess it fits in with your strawman.

If one accepts the (bogus) premise that voting, either for legislation, or for a candidate, even from workers parties, reinforces the nation-state, and, therefore, one must not ever do it, then one cannot possibly protect (literally reinforcing the state) any branch of government, or government program, and, thus; one absolutely could not endeavor to expand any departments of the government, or government programs.


Okay, now this is a little ridiculous coming from an anarchist. Obviously as a class-struggle anarchist I think it is important to defend the working class. But does choosing between two or three very similar parties really do anything for the working class?

Absolutely. Well, it can be helpful, or harmful, it depends on how it turns out. Also, I'm not just talking about voting for candidates, either from bourgeois parties, or workers' parties, but also voting for particular pieces of legislation, via ballot initiatives, and referenda.


The working class in this country have suffered regardless of which party has been in power at the time, and I see no reason why they won't continue to suffer regardless of which party comes into power after the next election.

The working class will suffer as long as capitalism exists, this is a function of the fundamental nature of capitalism, itself. That's one of the primary reasons why I am philosophically opposed to it. The degree of suffering, however, is, relative. Furthermore, it is (usually) possible to use the mechanism of the state to reduce that suffering. In fact, it's impossible to do so without it. While the struggles begin in the streets, and on the shop floor, if they are successful, they must, inevitably, end in congress, the courts, the state legislatures, etc. As a socialist, I want to do everything I can do to make that happen.


The thing is though, elections don't really decide these things. It's only through years of organising and action that issues that affect the working class even get a look in. Laws only change in our favour when we fight to change them, not because we vote in benevolent politicians.

First of all, benevolence has nothing to do with it. We don't have to date these people, we don't even have to like them, no-one should ever vote for a candidate on the basis of such superficial, and irrelevant details. The decision to cast a vote for a candidate should come down to one thing, and one thing only; policy. Second, fighting for change is exactly what I am suggesting. If you're serious about doing that, you take the most direct route, and you use all of the means at your disposal.

That's not accurate. First of all, elections, among other things, serve to ratify a set of policy prescriptions. It is for this reason that voting is the most immediate, and direct way that any of us has to interact with the state, specifically, the most direct, and immediate way of influencing what policies will be enacted. It determines what range if policy prescriptions are introduced, and which ones have the possibility of passing. A perfect example of the power of the ballot is the Supreme Court, which, in addition to being, domestically, at least, (arguably) the most powerful branch of government, is also the most immunized from public opinion. Just look at the last few years; Citizens' United, gutting the Voting Rights Act, both massive blows to the working class. Both decided on straight, party-line votes. All they need to overturn Roe is to get one more reactionary with a law degree on that bench. Personally, I'd rather not see that happen.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In 2010, the US state of Minnesota elected a Democrat (technically DFL in Minnesota) governor. Since then gay marriage has been legalized, Medicaid has been expanded to cover and additional 35,000 people, health insurance premiums have been reduced to being the lowest in the country, $174 mil has been invested to implement all-day kindergarten, state universities have been allowed to freeze tuition hikes, and the Obamacare insurance exchange is up and running. These were covered by raising taxes on smokers, car rentals, and, mainly, by raising income taxes on the top 2%. Of the new taxes, which were also used to balance a substantial budget deficit, 62% is paid by the top 1%. Voters also went to the polls to shoot down a ban on gay marriage and a voter ID law.

2010 was a great year for the Republicans, and Mr Dayton won the governorship by 9,000 votes in an election in which 2 million Minnesotans voted. In an election, and subsequent recall attempt, across state lines which was about as close, Scott Walker, a Republican, was elected and inaugurated in 2011. After that he stripped civil service unions of their collective bargaining powers, cut state funding for education by 15%, a rigid voter ID law has been passed, abortion clinics have been forced to close, and the governorship has been used to sell off Wisconsin's publicly owned power plants to the Koch brothers.

It should be noted Minnesota ranks 5th among states for economic growth, tied with California, while Wisconsin ranks 34th.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, I don't vote because from a scientific ultra-realist analysis of reality, voting doesn't cure poverty. Maybe social-democratic governments can indeed lower poverty levels, but they cannot reduce poverty to zero, reduce pain, depression, boredom, existential vacuum, lack of self-realization in the majority of people to zero percent. Because of something Karl Marx said in my signature, that it is impossible to see any change in this world without real wars between the oppressors and the oppressors, in all countries of the world


.



Simple question, do you vote and why/why not? Also where do you live (for context).

Me, UK, Yes, Labour reason I like their policies on relaxing austerity.

[NGNM85]

Yo this needs to be said again and again and again. The battle's practically over by the time a reform like this becomes a ballot initiative.

First of all, I'm not just talking about ballot initiatives. Second, the battle, on many vital issues that directly affect the working class, are far from over. Abortion is a particularly stark example. Since Roe, in 1973, the pro-choice movement has only expanded access to abortion. once, meanwhile hundreds of pieces of legislation restricting access to abortion have been passed. Even more, it's actually getting worse. From Bloomberg;

`After Republican gains in statehouses in the 2010 midterm elections, lawmakers in 24 states passed a record 92 provisions that restrict access to abortion services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and compiles data on reproductive health. That's nearly triple the old record set in 2005 and a sixfold increase over 1985.'

So, that fight is far from over.

Getting back to where we started, this takes us back to a very similar debate, quite some time ago, where you were making the same argument you've made here, and now I will say what I did not get around to saying to you then.

We both share many of the same principles, and priorities, we both support LGBT rights, we're both pro-choice, etc. There's no argument, there. I also acknowledge that, ultimately, these battles will be won in the hearts and minds of the workers. Ultimately, we need to get workers past their homophobia, to see gay workers as their comrades in arms, as sharing their class interests, etc. The difference is that I prioritize changing the legal, and, therefore, economic circumstances of homosexuals, etc., ahead of this philosophical struggle. First, because this is the specific end that I seek, and, second, because I believe nothing succeeds like success; that it's better to come from a position of strength than a position of weakness, and because I believe that progressive change is the best form of propaganda, for lack of a better term. I think, for example, the experience of living alongside homosexuals as legal, if not (yet) social equals has a more immediate, wide-ranging, and powerful effect on people's views than placards, or intellectual arguments. Now, if we change enough people's minds, which, admittedly, is the ultimate objective, we'll eventually get to the point where right-wing politicians will stop running on homophobic platforms, on pro-life platforms. The problem is that will probably take a lot longer, first; because we have to convince a substantially larger fraction of the electorate, and because iy deprives us of the most powerful form of persuasion; actual, lived experience.

[Ele'ill]

First of all, I'm not just talking about ballot initiatives. Second, the battle, on many vital issues that directly affect the working class, are far from over. Abortion is a particularly stark example. Since Roe, in 1973, the pro-choice movement has only expanded access to abortion. once, meanwhile hundreds of pieces of legislation restricting access to abortion have been passed. Even more, it's actually getting worse. From Bloomberg;

`After Republican gains in statehouses in the 2010 midterm elections, lawmakers in 24 states passed a record 92 provisions that restrict access to abortion services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and compiles data on reproductive health. That's nearly triple the old record set in 2005 and a sixfold increase over 1985.'

So, that fight is far from over.

Getting back to where we started, this takes us back to a very similar debate, quite some time ago, where you were making the same argument you've made here, and now I will say what I did not get around to saying to you then.

We both share many of the same principles, and priorities, we both support LGBT rights, we're both pro-choice, etc. There's no argument, there. I also acknowledge that, ultimately, these battles will be won in the hearts and minds of the workers. Ultimately, we need to get workers past their homophobia, to see gay workers as their comrades in arms, as sharing their class interests, etc. The difference is that I prioritize changing the legal, and, therefore, economic circumstances of homosexuals, etc., ahead of this philosophical struggle. First, because this is the specific end that I seek, and, second, because I believe nothing succeeds like success; that it's better to come from a position of strength than a position of weakness, and because I believe that progressive change is the best form of propaganda, for lack of a better term. I think, for example, the experience of living alongside homosexuals as legal, if not (yet) social equals has a more immediate, wide-ranging, and powerful effect on people's views than placards, or intellectual arguments. Now, if we change enough people's minds, which, admittedly, is the ultimate objective, we'll eventually get to the point where right-wing politicians will stop running on homophobic platforms, on pro-life platforms. The problem is that will probably take a lot longer, first; because we have to convince a substantially larger fraction of the electorate, and because iy deprives us of the most powerful form of persuasion; actual, lived experience.

Our interests, the interests of our poor communities, are sold in crumb-format, here and there, in exchange for their power and our continued misery. Hey, why do we need reforms. Why are we gaining (rarely) a thing and losing sixty other things? They are saying to you, 'we'll let you win a battle, look just vote' and you take that and run and celebrate (rarely) and whatever but every election you've lost the war. All that shit 'won' through electoral politics and reform is bunk cause it can and will all get completely erased in less than a year. I am not interested in letting an enemy set the terms for war. That is a losing strategy.

[G4b3n]

I show up, vote for Emma Goldman, grab my free sticker and leave.

[fgilbert2]

I don't want to be a drama queen about this, but I am a drama queen, so here goes:
Heck yes, I vote, In fact, I spent one of my five vacation days a year back in 2012 getting out the vote for Barack Obama, and I'll burn a couple vacation days this election cycle too.
Why? Because lives matter. People die when Republicans when. Lots more people. Tens of thousands of people.
Do any of you who didn't vote in Florida in 2000, or threw away your votes by voting for Nader, honestly think you're helping Bush Cheney into the White House was a good choice for the thousands of innocent Iraqis that would not have died if Al Gore had been elected? Was your ideological purity worth it? I don't care if you're some better than me elite sitting there with your fair trade coffee in some f***ing Starbucks, or whether you are a lifelong activist with far more battle scars than me, if you can live with yourself, you are a complete f***ing idiot.
i work at a hotel across the river from Benton Harbor, Michigan. Thanks to the lame-ass worthless piece of legislation called the Affordable Care Act, one of the women at work has health insurance for the first time in her life. Now she'll probably go to a doctor if she needs to. The bs thing is it will cost her hundreds of dollars, but she'll go. She won't have her paycheck garnished for years and years from a visit to the ER. She guzzles and energy drinks and eats her pork rinds with lots of hot sauce on them, so she's on a fast track toward the funeral home anyway, but she'll live longer thanks to Obamacare.
Obama's been a complete disaster for the environment, but his feeble efforts have bought us a little time, maybe only a couple years, but still some time.
Far too many people have died under Obama and Clinton, but, far far fewer than under Bush Cheney and far fewer than would have under Romney.

Folks, you've got a simple choice here. Lives or ideological purity.

[G4b3n]

I don't want to be a drama queen about this, but I am a drama queen, so here goes:
Heck yes, I vote, In fact, I spent one of my five vacation days a year back in 2012 getting out the vote for Barack Obama, and I'll burn a couple vacation days this election cycle too.
Why? Because lives matter. People die when Republicans when. Lots more people. Tens of thousands of people.
Do any of you who didn't vote in Florida in 2000, or threw away your votes by voting for Nader, honestly think you're helping Bush Cheney into the White House was a good choice for the thousands of innocent Iraqis that would not have died if Al Gore had been elected? Was your ideological purity worth it? I don't care if you're some better than me elite sitting there with your fair trade coffee in some f***ing Starbucks, or whether you are a lifelong activist with far more battle scars than me, if you can live with yourself, you are a complete f***ing idiot.
i work at a hotel across the river from Benton Harbor, Michigan. Thanks to the lame-ass worthless piece of legislation called the Affordable Care Act, one of the women at work has health insurance for the first time in her life. Now she'll probably go to a doctor if she needs to. The bs thing is it will cost her hundreds of dollars, but she'll go. She won't have her paycheck garnished for years and years from a visit to the ER. She guzzles and energy drinks and eats her pork rinds with lots of hot sauce on them, so she's on a fast track toward the funeral home anyway, but she'll live longer thanks to Obamacare.
Obama's been a complete disaster for the environment, but his feeble efforts have bought us a little time, maybe only a couple years, but still some time.
Far too many people have died under Obama and Clinton, but, far far fewer than under Bush Cheney and far fewer than would have under Romney.

Folks, you've got a simple choice here. Lives or ideological purity.

Yes, had Al Gore been elected, there would have been no war! Only Liberal utopia!

Wait, whats that? All of the democrats in congress except for 1 voted to go to war? Ah shit, ya don't say.
Obama is a fucking War criminal at best, just like all the other bourgeois heads of state who have overseen vast imperialist slaughter regardless of their benevolent liberalism.

[human strike]

Next time there's an election I'm tempted to seriously suggest picketing of polling stations. I doubt I'll get many people on board for this idea, but I think it needs proposing all the same.

[AmilcarCabral]

NGN: You are right, very right, about the 2 options leftists have to defend the gay community, and other oppressed sectors of the society. One option is forcing people to accept homosexuality by the rule of law, and introducting into the law system harder punishment against any form of of hatred (even hatred against obese people)

And the other option is destroying racism, hatred and oppression thru evolution (thru people evolving from barbarian obsolete people who live in Medieval Age toward people who are more evolved). And just like you said evolution of people physically, mentally spiritually and emotionally requires a lot of time, a lot of patience. And not only that, I think that for most americans to evolve from homophobic, family-narcissists, group-narcissists, racists, xenophobic people toward rational humanists, one requirement is for the radical left to be in the White House (To be in power, because right now it is impossible to fight racism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia while the media, the law and the education sector is in the control of the capitalist class





if we change enough people's minds, which, admittedly, is the ultimate objective, we'll eventually get to the point where right-wing politicians will stop running on homophobic platforms, on pro-life platforms. The problem is that will probably take a lot longer, first; because we have to convince a substantially larger fraction of the electorate, and because iy deprives us of the most powerful form of persuasion; actual, lived experience.

[fgilbert2]

Yes, had Al Gore been elected, there would have been no war! Only Liberal utopia!



Wait, whats that? All of the democrats in congress except for 1 voted to go to war? Ah shit, ya don't say.
Obama is a fucking War criminal at best, just like all the other bourgeois heads of state who have overseen vast imperialist slaughter regardless of their benevolent liberalism.
Well, give any orphan or widow of the Iraq debacle a choice between your wet dream and Al Gore's liberal utopia versus the actually existing Bush Cheney Ultra Right Hell, and I'm guessing most of them would choose Al Gore's liberal utopia.

And how would we be better off if Romney had been elected? How much closer to revolution? Or maybe how much closer to a quagmire in Iran? How many working class lives is your ideological purity worth? Answer that, comrade.

[AnaRchic]

No, I do not vote. Given that I do not accept that governments should exist, and given that I wish to see their existence swiftly ended, I have absolutely no reason or motivation to vote.

Voting does nothing but lend legitimacy to the state, while I seek to undermine its legitimacy. The state ought to be destroyed, not given a make over. I will rather focus my energies on living free of its control, in as much as that is possible, and hastening its revolutionary annihilation.

[G4b3n]

Well, give any orphan or widow of the Iraq debacle a choice between your wet dream and Al Gore's liberal utopia versus the actually existing Bush Cheney Ultra Right Hell, and I'm guessing most of them would choose Al Gore's liberal utopia.

And how would we be better off if Romney had been elected? How much closer to revolution? Or maybe how much closer to a quagmire in Iran? How many working class lives is your ideological purity worth? Answer that, comrade.

Voting doesn't make for "ideological impurity", it doesn't make for anything! That is kind of the point, well lack of a point really.

The overwhelming support for the imperialist war from the democratic party ought to tell you something. I have no idea how I went from arguing that voting is worthless to "Romney is better than Obama".

If it makes you feel better, vote democrat, I guess that is a function but it really doesn't go beyond that. However, I can not feel better about it knowing that I still voted for an imperialist party that profits from the bloodshed that they only occasionally oppose in rhetoric.

[NGNM85]

I got registered to vote when I got my picture I.D. but the information on the I.D. used an old form I had filled out so it says I am not registered to vote. I think I have misplaced the actual document showing I'm registered... but I'd wager this feck-up would disenable me to vote even if I had the will and the means to do so (neither of which I have; voting in bourgeois elections is useless and I can't drive). I live in Texas, btw.

Actually, as you may, or may not be aware, State Senator Wendy Davis is running for governor. Davis, who acheived national recogition for an 11- hour filibuster to block an anti- abortion bill. (Thanks to Davis, the bill was defeated, at that time, but it was later reintroduced, and passed by the overwhelmingly Republican state legislature, and signed by asshat extraordinaire Gov. Rick Perry.) Davis has continued to be outspoken on this issue, and has made it one of the central planks of her campaign. The odds are against her, but the possibility of a woman winning the race, running on an explicitly pro-choice platform, in a reactionary backwater (no offense) like Texas would be a very big deal.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Actually, as you may, or may not be aware, State Senator Wendy Davis is running for governor. Davis, who acheived national recogition for an 11- hour filibuster to block an anti- abortion bill. (Thanks to Davis, the bill was defeated, at that time, but it was later reintroduced, and passed by the overwhelmingly Republican state legislature, and signed by asshat extraordinaire Gov. Rick Perry.) Davis has continued to be outspoken on this issue, and has made it one of the central planks of her campaign. The odds are against her, but the possibility of a woman winning the race, running on an explicitly pro-choice platform, in a reactionary backwater (no offense) like Texas would be a very big deal.

Kind of how life changed for women everywhere when Hilary Clinton was made vice-president, no?

[NGNM85]

Kind of how life changed for women everywhere when Hilary Clinton was made vice-president, no?

Hillary Clinton has held a number of public offices, she was in the Senate, she was Secretary of State, but she has never held the office of the vice president. The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes as to your qualifications to analyze American politics.

[Igor]

Kind of how life changed for women everywhere when Hilary Clinton was made vice-president, no?its not that i disagree with your point or anything but hilary clinton has never been vp so its not the best of examples

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

its not that i disagree with your point or anything but hilary clinton has never been vp so its not the best of examples

Yeah, I meant secretary of state - I'm not exactly sober (which is why I dropped one of the l's in her name also) - it's the same thing, really, having one token "progressive" member of an oppressed group in charge of something doesn't change the nature of the bourgeois state.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, I meant secretary of state - I'm not exactly sober (which is why I dropped one of the l's in her name also) - it's the same thing, really, having one token "progressive" member of an oppressed group in charge of something doesn't change the nature of the bourgeois state.

Hillary Clinton was never a `progressive' anything. Both she, and her husband represent the right end of the Democratic party.

Second, the only way the nature of the bourgeois state can be changed is by ending it, by transforming the relations of production upon which it is based. In a word; revolution. However, that's quite a ways off.

While the odds are, admittedly, against Ms. Davis, her election would be a very big deal. In addition to being one of the hardest states to get an abortion in, Texas is the second most populous state in the union, with a population of around 26 million people, about half of which has a uterus. So, whether or not Ms. Davis pulls this one off, among other things, will go a long way to determining whether millions of people, most of them workers, have access to abortion. Depending on the result, that could be massively empowering, or disempowering, as the case may be, for the working class. I mean, I'd support it, regardless, because I'm pro-choice, I believe the precedent set in Roe was the right decision, and, as such, I want to protect that, but it absolutely has an effect on working class power.

[Ele'ill]

Talking about 'the working class' as some force identity gets completely shit on when in the same paragraph you acknowledge (and for some strange reason repeatedly support) dependence on a temporary power passing some temporary reform. That is the winning strategy of the ruling class. It isn't a benign facet it is a system of control.

[NGNM85]

Talking about 'the working class' as some force identity gets completely shit on when in the same paragraph you acknowledge (and for some strange reason repeatedly support) dependence on a temporary power passing some temporary reform. That is the winning strategy of the ruling class. It isn't a benign facet it is a system of control.


No offense, but this is almost entirely wrong.

First, no action is completely passive, total passivity would consist of doing nothing.

Second, that's not what I said. I said people should try to use ballot initiatives, and referenda, whenever possible. However, these procedures only exist in something like 22 states, and there are limitations to what can be done, in this manner, not to mention there are a number of othet reasons why one should be concerned with electoral politics, primarily, again, because the result has a substantial effect on the range of policies that get proposed, and whether or not they can be passed.

Third, this claim that all reforms are overturned shortly afyer they are enacted is objectively false. There are a substantial number of reforms that have survived 20, 40, 60 years, etc. (Some of which, incidentally, the radical left played a big part in.) Some reforms will simply never be overturned. It depends. Honestly, it really doesn't make any difference. Socialism, by definition, means total, unwavering support for the working class, that means everything that is humanly possible, for as long as humanly possible. That's consistent. That's the only consistent approach.

Fourth, this whole thing seems to suggest some misunderstanding of the function of government, particularly in, at least, nominally democratic societies. All societies require governance, there are many different kinds of government, but in order for society to exist, so must government. One of the reasons for this is that governments can do things that are too complicated, or too difficult for isolated individuals, or small groups, or even not-so-small groups. For example, under any system of government, you, and your friends couldn't just create an interstate highway network, or a national healthcare system. Again, this is one of the reasons governments exist, to do those sorts of things. As I said earlier, there are many forms of government. If you want to govern a large, complex society, and you want to do it democratically, that requires political representation. It simply isn't possible to govern a city, much less a country, by consensus. That said, of course, there are any number of gradiations, my ideal form of government would be something similar to Stephen Shalom's; `Parpolity.' In any event, even in a fully- realized Anarchist society, fundamentally, there wouldn't be that much difference. Wherever the struggle starts, in the streets, on the factory floor, if successful, they must end in the courts, in congress, in the state legislatures, etc. That will be true until it isn't. Even then, new courts, new legislature will have to be created.

[tallguy]

I vote in almost every conceivable election and referendum I can involve myself in, because there is a qualitative difference between liberals and conservatives even if they're both not reflective of my political beliefs

One shafts you and smiles while he tells you it's good for you

The other shafts you while simultaneously informing you he feels your pain.

Yeah right...big difference

[Sinister Intents]

One shafts you and smiles while he tells you it's good for you

The other shafts you while simultaneously informing you he feels your pain.

Yeah right...big difference

There is a difference in how people who call themselves democrats and rapeublicans act though. The politicians and capitalists espouse and promote the same shit, but the people themselves who hold onto liberal and conservative positions hold different views. The liberals in my area seem to be smug, obnoxious petit bourgeois assholes, but they hold onto better beliefs than the smug, backwards Christian conservative assholes in my area. The conservatives are almost entirely racist, sexist, rape apologists, while I've had luck sharing communist beliefs with the liberals. The conservatives are the worst.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

While the odds are, admittedly, against Ms. Davis, her election would be a very big deal. In addition to being one of the hardest states to get an abortion in, Texas is the second most populous state in the union, with a population of around 26 million people, about half of which has a uterus. So, whether or not Ms. Davis pulls this one off, among other things, will go a long way to determining whether millions of people, most of them workers, have access to abortion. Depending on the result, that could be massively empowering, or disempowering, as the case may be, for the working class. I mean, I'd support it, regardless, because I'm pro-choice, I believe the precedent set in Roe was the right decision, and, as such, I want to protect that, but it absolutely has an effect on working class power.

I would say that it is worth voting for a left leaning President if only for the reason that this person will nominate the next supreme court justices. Though hardly remarked upon after the nomination, the choice of justice is one of the most important and lasting decisions made by the president. If McCain had beaten Obama in 2008, it is entirely possible, even probable, that instead of Sotomayor and Kagan we'd have another Scalia and Thomas. For those of you who would like to pretend that would have not have tremendous effect upon the living conditions of millions of Americans simply don't understand how the US works.

On a side note, I'm going to admit that I like Justice Roberts. He's very conservative, and I disagree with many of his decisions, but I appreciate the mans integrity. I feel like, as was evidenced by his decision on the health care bill, that if he can't justify a ruling based on the constitution he won't make it. Unlike all the other conservative justices.

[Blake's Baby]

I would say that it is worth voting for a left leaning President if only for the reason that this person will nominate the next supreme court justices...

Wow! You voted for Eugene Debs? I applaud your ability to still grapple with politics and the world, given that you must be at least 112, to have voted in 1920.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I say left leaning in the most broad, mainstream American sense of the phrase.

"Democrat" would have been a better label.

[Blake's Baby]

Years ago a political commentator asked (I think it was the Reagan/Mondale election, probably 1984) "what's the choice, between a conservative and an ultra-conservative?"

So, what's the choice between a capitalist, and an ultra-capitalist?

[Mather]

I don't vote in elections. The last time I did vote was back in the 2005 general election, pretty soon after that I came round to reject bourgeois democracy and participation in elections altogether. I also disagree with the tactic that some on the revolutionary left advocate, where they stand in elections and use the bourgeois parliament for agitational and propaganda purposes.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Years ago a political commentator asked (I think it was the Reagan/Mondale election, probably 1984) "what's the choice, between a conservative and an ultra-conservative?"

So, what's the choice between a capitalist, and an ultra-capitalist?

Separation of Church and State, the ability of women to control their own bodies, minors under the age of 18 cannot be given the death penalty, and, from the 2013 supreme court session, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional (the implications of this ruling are only beginning to be felt). This represents a very small sample of whats at stake in the race between a conservative and ultra conservative, due to supreme court nominations done by the President.

[Rosa Partizan]

Last year I voted for the first time, since prior to that, I hadn't hold German citizenship. I voted for "The Left", they were the most left party on the ballot paper. Actually, I was going to vote for the Feminist Party, but they didn't run in my federal state.

While I don't think that voting can overthrow thoroughly unfair conditions of power and possession, I do believe that some issues can be addressed and changed, i.e. minimum wage, some women's rights etc.

[liberlict]

I vote in almost every conceivable election and referendum I can involve myself in, because there is a qualitative difference between liberals and conservatives even if they're both not reflective of my political beliefs, and if I can do at least a little something to help make things not as bad as they could be, through something as easy as voting, I don't see why not.

Although I agree with everyone else that it's a scam.

Re-elections are almost totally assured for the incumbents: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2012

Because they have such have an advantage:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/incumbs.php?cycle=2012

It usually takes a few million dollars to unseat them if you can:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php?cycle=2012

Which is not helped by campaigners pumping money into their party when they have left over money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/wealth.php?cycle=2012

Which is probably why national elections are such a high-dollar racket in the first place:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php?cycle=2012

Good for you. This post has actually inspired me to be more proactive in some things that I'm into. Cheers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I vote in almost every conceivable election and referendum I can involve myself in, because there is a qualitative difference between liberals and conservatives even if they're both not reflective of my political beliefs, and if I can do at least a little something to help make things not as bad as they could be, through something as easy as voting, I don't see why not.

Although I agree with everyone else that it's a scam.

Knowing that it's a scam and yet participating anyway only serves to make you look foolish, and benefits the scammers.

If some huckster is running a pyramid scheme, the smart option is to not take part (or ruin his operation), instead of knowingly buying into a fraud.

[Igor]

i've voted for people i like on a personal level in the past but i dont condone it as a political strategy and for example am not going to vote in this years euros with near 100% probability

voting doesnt work, but its kinda stupid to assume abstentionism as a strategy has much of an effect either, we've already seen voting rates climb ridic low in some western countries but this is barely considered a concern most of the time

[Sabot Cat]

Knowing that it's a scam and yet participating anyway only serves to make you look foolish, and benefits the scammers.

If some huckster is running a pyramid scheme, the smart option is to not take part (or ruin his operation), instead of knowingly buying into a fraud.

I have nothing to lose by my time in the context of an election, however. I don't care if I look foolish or sacrifice my peace of mind just to fight the worse reactionaries from attaining office.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have nothing to lose by my time in the context of an election, however.

Sure, casting a vote in a bourgeois election is easy. Too easy, in fact.


I don't care if I look foolish or sacrifice my peace of mind just to fight the worse reactionaries from attaining office.

Voting does nothing to prevent the vested interests of capital from lobbying politicians to do what they want, no matter the colour of their rosette or whether they have a D or an R in their title.

Money talks, and the capitalists can "talk" many orders of magnitude more loudly than you can, as you admit yourself when you mention it taking millions to unseat a politician. And even if you succeed, bourgeois politicians are in no way bound to keep their election promises.

[Sabot Cat]

Sure, casting a vote in a bourgeois election is easy. Too easy, in fact.

Voting does nothing to prevent the vested interests of capital from lobbying politicians to do what they want, no matter the colour of their rosette or whether they have a D or an R in their title.

Money talks, and the capitalists can "talk" many orders of magnitude more loudly than you can, as you admit yourself when you mention it taking millions to unseat a politician. And even if you succeed, bourgeois politicians are in no way bound to keep their election promises.

Indeed, no matter who wins, they'll be capitalist and look after the class interests of the bourgeois. Nonetheless, as I've argued in a thread much like this one, there's a difference between how Democrats and Republicans typically vote that's important to me.

[The Jay]

Indeed, no matter who wins, they'll be capitalist and look after the class interests of the bourgeois. Nonetheless, as I've argued in a thread much like this one, there's a difference between how Democrats and Republicans typically vote that's important to me.

If it means that much to you then go ahead. Like people are arguing, it won't make a difference. Have fun.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Indeed, no matter who wins, they'll be capitalist and look after the class interests of the bourgeois. Nonetheless, as I've argued in a thread much like this one, there's a difference between how Democrats and Republicans typically vote that's important to me.

In terms of what an induvidual does, I don't think it matters that much one way or another. In terms of tactics though, I think it is an important question. Voting itself is not really the question IMO, but what a movement's relationship to the electoral side of things is the tactical question. For the most part, there's nothing for movements in most current situations to gain from Presidential type elections - also not too much of a difference in terms of loss either which I think makes people sort of soft on this question: "It doesn't matter, so I'll just vote for the liberal out of habit, or because they seem slightly less-worse". Again for an individual, maybe it doesn't mean much one way or another, but for anti-racists in the US or militant workers to advocate a Democratic Party candidate is a problem because it ends up being counter-posed to actually building something that could advance anti-racist organization and politics, labor struggles/movements etc.

I'd also argue that Democrats and Republicans are part of a bi-partisan block on major questions of austerity, US imperialism, maintaining and increasing the domestic repressive policies of the US state, etc. Where they have any disagreements, it's usually over how to accomplish the same tasks. There are sometimes brief moments where there are more meaningful splits among our rulers over the particular path of capitalism (like post-vietnam when there was a crisis over how the US could continue to push it's imperialist agenda, or when Keynsianism began to falter due to the end of the post-war boom). Here a movement could potentially have greater influence because of indecision and confusion among our rulers -- but it requires an independent movement not tied to the bourgeois parties to take advantage of that... otherwise they are likely to get swept back along with the major parties once the capitalists regain their direction.

Republican or Democrat - their policies will be more different if there is outside pressure and movements that can make their own demands, have their own organizations and goals, than who is in office. This is why more "progressive" things were passed under Nixon than Clinton. One was President during the height of black power and the start of the women's lib movements while the other was President at a time when groups like NOW rejected street protests and any hint of independence. The lack of independent worker's movements is why Obama is more like Hoover than FDR (even within that narrow spectrum).

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and boldly state: i vote.

What? An anarchist voting?

Yeah i know, anti-parliamentarism and such.

Just hear me out. I am opposed to parliamentarism and i believe voting gets you nowhere. The electorysystem in the Netherlands however is not a two party system. We have multiple parties with widely differing agenda's.
Now i can do two things:

1) Don't vote. By not voting i keep my ideological views upright, but i also passively support the status quo. My vote combined with those of other non-voting leftists might mean the Socialist Party might lose multiple seats in favour of a Dutch Nationalist party.

2) Vote. My vote will not help getting rid of capitalism (not by far), but it will help Dutch society to get the best life possible until then.

Therefor being a Dutch voter, elections matter somewhat. It may not mean the world, but it might mean the difference between good and almost non-existing healthcare, open borders to those in need of a safe haven and closed borders, etc.
And don't forget the police (nationalists and the policestate anyone?)

[VinnieUK]

Tony Blair is a war criminal. I would never use his con-man face as avatar. 'New Labour' = more exploitation.

[Blake's Baby]

Next time there's an election I'm tempted to seriously suggest picketing of polling stations. I doubt I'll get many people on board for this idea, but I think it needs proposing all the same.

How would you think that would work, WS? Isn't there some sort of public order law that would mean that you'd be in jail in about 9 minutes?

I'm not knocking the idea, I quite like 'Fuck the Vote' as an alternative to 'Rock the Vote' but I think the state would probably come down on you very heavily if you tried it.

So if you are going to try it, finding out what you might be up against would probably be quite a good idea.

[Sea]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and boldly state: i vote.

What? An anarchist voting?

Yeah i know, anti-parliamentarism and such.

Just hear me out. I am opposed to parliamentarism and i believe voting gets you nowhere. The electorysystem in the Netherlands however is not a two party system. We have multiple parties with widely differing agenda's.
Now i can do two things:

1) Don't vote. By not voting i keep my ideological views upright, but i also passively support the status quo. My vote combined with those of other non-voting leftists might mean the Socialist Party might lose multiple seats in favour of a Dutch Nationalist party.

2) Vote. My vote will not help getting rid of capitalism (not by far), but it will help Dutch society to get the best life possible until then.

Therefor being a Dutch voter, elections matter somewhat. It may not mean the world, but it might mean the difference between good and almost non-existing healthcare, open borders to those in need of a safe haven and closed borders, etc.
And don't forget the police (nationalists and the policestate anyone?)So, your reasoning is that "It's not gonna change anything BUT IT'S GONNA CHANGE SOMETHING!"?

Grow up. None of the things you speak of are brought in or taken out by voting. Elections are highly passive things and are completely subordinated to broader social forces. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with elections. People do not vote based on what would benefit them, they vote exclusively as conditions require.

The very existence of rightists in office confirms this. The entire history of neoliberalism confirms this. You realize that voting, as an act, cannot do anything towards abolishing capitalism. It is time for you to grow up and to realize that the agency of each voter also cannot do anything towards changing the specifics (eg, healthcare, border policy) of a capitalist dictatorship.

Before anyone attempts to call me out for contradicting the necessity of parliamentary work alongside illegal work, note that in fact this does not contradict that thesis at all, and that what I am saying follows directly from Lenin's thesis of the objective and subjective factors which influence a revolutionary movement.

[rylasasin]

I always vote...

... For Vermin Supreme. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE)

He WILL fix our nation's teeth! And I will get my free pony!

[Alexios]

Indeed, no matter who wins, they'll be capitalist and look after the class interests of the bourgeois. Nonetheless, as I've argued in a thread much like this one, there's a difference between how Democrats and Republicans typically vote that's important to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_emanuel

[Sea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_emanuelCool beans, but what does ol' Rahmmy have to do with this thread?

[NGNM85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_emanuel

You're cherry picking. Rahm Emmanuel is from the right wing of the Democratic party, he's affiliated with the DLC, just like the Clintons, etc. In terms of his, admittedly, deplorable treatment of the Chicago teachers union, he's an extreme outlier. This is like using Dick Cheney as evidence that Republicans support gay rights. The NEA is one of the pillars of the Democratic party. This is one of the reasons why Republicans are so hot for charter schools,it fits with their ideology, and reflects the priorities of the elite constituency they represent, but it's also naked self interest, same thing with tort `reform.' Again, this is a disingenuous form of argument, and I think you know that.

[Sabot Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_emanuel

It's a good thing I said this then:


Indeed, no matter who wins, they'll be capitalist and look after the class interests of the bourgeois. Nonetheless, as I've argued in a thread much like this one, there's a difference between how Democrats and Republicans typically vote that's important to me.

[boiler]

I destroy my vote for local elections and parliament elections.

[Remus Bleys]

Cool beans, but what does ol' Rahmmy have to do with this thread?
well if you are going to argue that Democrats are good for unions then Rahm is proof this isn't true.
Of course thats not a very convincing argument, a better one would be a critique of unions altogether.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

So, your reasoning is that "It's not gonna change anything BUT IT'S GONNA CHANGE SOMETHING!"?

Grow up. None of the things you speak of are brought in or taken out by voting. Elections are highly passive things and are completely subordinated to broader social forces. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with elections. People do not vote based on what would benefit them, they vote exclusively as conditions require.

The very existence of rightists in office confirms this. The entire history of neoliberalism confirms this. You realize that voting, as an act, cannot do anything towards abolishing capitalism. It is time for you to grow up and to realize that the agency of each voter also cannot do anything towards changing the specifics (eg, healthcare, border policy) of a capitalist dictatorship.

Before anyone attempts to call me out for contradicting the necessity of parliamentary work alongside illegal work, note that in fact this does not contradict that thesis at all, and that what I am saying follows directly from Lenin's thesis of the objective and subjective factors which influence a revolutionary movement.

Oh wow! Thanks for reminding me of my immaturity! (total sarcasm btw)

Have you actually read a word i wrote?

Voting won't help to abolish capitalism. Not even close. It will, however, help in short term changes (albeit minor ones). It's a choice between bad living and even worse. I'd go with the bad for now, thank you very much.
It's not that by not voting capitalism will vanish magically.

But hey, why read what i write? I'll quote myself:


...
My vote will not help getting rid of capitalism (not by far), but it will help Dutch society to get the best life possible until then.
...

...It may not mean the world, but it might mean the difference between good and almost non-existing healthcare, open borders to those in need of a safe haven and closed borders, etc.
And don't forget the police (nationalists and the policestate anyone?)

So to sum it up for you:
Long-term vision: fuck voting against capitalism.
Short-term vision: voting for minor changes.

[liberlict]

I think the best thing to do would be to set up a stall, on voting day, and give pamphlets out, telling people why voting is useless. Hand out a how-to-vote cards that tell people they are being used by capital. In nicer language than that, of course. Polling day is good for networking if nothing else.

[NGNM85]

I think the best thing to do would be to set up a stall, on voting day, and give pamphlets out, telling people why voting is useless. Hand out a how-to-vote cards that tell people they are being used by capital. In nicer language than that, of course. Polling day is good for networking if nothing else.

For starters, your premise is bogus. Second, and, more importantly, this sort of thing will never yield any substantial result. We're not going to arouse the masses to revolution by going door to door, `spreading the good news' like Jehovah's Witnesses. To be clear, I'm not arguing for some kind of vulgar economic determinism, far from it. However, intellectual arguments, by themselves, are not sufficient. What is necessary is for radicals to throw themselves into the struggles of the working class, to be at the forefront of the class war, as the most class conscious faction of the working class, and building a movement. It is the process of thousands, more likely, millions of workers, fighting for their class interests that will, theoretically, I would argue, raise their level of class consciousness to where they can emancipate themselves. I mean, if it was just an issue of printing enough pamphlets this whole thing would've been wrapped up by now.

[Blake's Baby]

Sometimes I disagree with you NGNM85 but that's pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Certainly some people are persuaded by political propaganda and intellectual argument but I think the number is tiny. And you're quite right, if x-quantity of pamphlets = y-amount of conciousness = z-scope of revolution, all we have to do is weigh our propaganda and wait for the day with the presses running at full speed. Hell, in the days of the internet, you could probably download the revolution as a pdf.

There are also some practical problems about this as a tactic. Someone suggested it as a tactic recently and that got me thinking. I believe that in the UK you can be arrested for disrupting the process of an election, if conducting political agitation you're withing 500 yards of a polling station. Something like that.

[fear of a red planet]

Sometimes I've voted for the Labour party and that is it. I don't really think it makes much difference but sometimes in a marginal seat if it keeps the Conservatives or Liberals or far-right out I'll do it.

[liberlict]

For starters, your premise is bogus. Second, and, more importantly, this sort of thing will never yield any substantial result. We're not going to arouse the masses to revolution by going door to door, `spreading the good news' like Jehovah's Witnesses. To be clear, I'm not arguing for some kind of vulgar economic determinism, far from it. However, intellectual arguments, by themselves, are not sufficient. What is necessary is for radicals to throw themselves into the struggles of the working class, to be at the forefront of the class war, as the most class conscious faction of the working class, and building a movement. It is the process of thousands, more likely, millions of workers, fighting for their class interests that will, theoretically, I would argue, raise their level of class consciousness to where they can emancipate themselves. I mean, if it was just an issue of printing enough pamphlets this whole thing would've been wrapped up by now.

Yeah but why can't you do both? You're not actually losing anything by trying to engage with people, are you? What's the problem with trying?

Militant activities surely have to be timed carefully.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is still going on? Really???

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're cherry picking. Rahm Emmanuel is from the right wing of the Democratic party, he's affiliated with the DLC, just like the Clintons, etc. In terms of his, admittedly, deplorable treatment of the Chicago teachers union, he's an extreme outlier. This is like using Dick Cheney as evidence that Republicans support gay rights. The NEA is one of the pillars of the Democratic party. This is one of the reasons why Republicans are so hot for charter schools,it fits with their ideology, and reflects the priorities of the elite constituency they represent, but it's also naked self interest, same thing with tort `reform.' Again, this is a disingenuous form of argument, and I think you know that.

Well the DLC pretty much is the mainstream of the party and has been since Dukakis (sp?) lost or at least that internal debate was settled in the Democrats when Clinton won the nomination and then the election.

I wouldn't say he's an outlier in terms of the party at all - he was part of the Obama administration like other absurd right-wingers like Larry "women just aren't as smart as men" Summers.

It's actually the liberals and Kensians who are the outliers now and I doubt that this would change on its own - maybe if there was a threat from left-populism or working class militancy de-legitimizing their positions among their traditional voting bases.

But if that's not enough - true Rahmm is probably more explicitly and openly conservative than most urban Democratic politicians - then there's people like my own Mayor, Jean Quan, an ex-Maoist and on paper probably one of the most liberal politicians in the country: her actual policies... more cops on the streets, attempts to introduce Stop-and-frisk, giveaways to developers while thousands of low income folks have been forced out of town due to forclosures at the same time as massive increases in rent and home prices, and of course sending 14 police departments to crush our Occupy camp. And she's not a fake liberal - I think she's sincere and less of a position hopper than Dellums or Jerry Brown - but that's what liberalism in our era is.

[NGNM85]

In terms of what an induvidual does, I don't think it matters that much one way or another. In terms of tactics though, I think it is an important question. Voting itself is not really the question IMO, but what a movement's relationship to the electoral side of things is the tactical question. For the most part, there's nothing for movements in most current situations to gain from Presidential type elections - also not too much of a difference in terms of loss either..

You're wrong. Again, look at the Supreme Court. The Robert's court has given us Citizens' United, and gutted the Voting Rights Act, and there's going to be more where that came from. Also, again, the consistent erision of reproductive freedom. (Which, incidentally, is accelerating.) Etc., etc. These developments, which were the direct result of national, and state elections, were major losses for the working class. There's no other way to see it.


...which I think makes people sort of soft on this question: "It doesn't matter, so I'll just vote for the liberal out of habit, or because they seem slightly less-worse".

Nonsense. First of all, something that does not matter, at least in terms of political activity, is, by definition, a complete waste of time. For example, this is why I don't vote for presidential candidates. This state's electoral votes are going to go to the Democratic candidate, there is no other conceivable outcome, therefore; I don't bother. I just leave that box blank. Second, as I just explained, elections can, in fact, have real consequences.
Third, this isn't quantum physics. There are two ruling parties. One that promotes legal equality for homosexuals, and one that wants to amend the Constitution to permanently outlaw gay marriage, one that supports legalized abortion, and one that wants to outlaw it, one party that occasionally throws organized labor a bone, and the one that wants to wipe unions out of existence. They both royally suck, royally, but there is a difference. Given the choice between capitalisms, which is the only choice we have, I prefer a capitalism where gays have legal rights, where the clinics are open, instead of closed, etc.


Again for an individual, maybe it doesn't mean much one way or another, but for anti-racists in the US or militant workers to advocate a Democratic Party candidate is a problem because it ends up being counter-posed to actually building something that could advance anti-racist organization and politics, labor struggles/movements etc.

That's only true if those individuals, or organizations subordinate themselves to a bourgeois party. I've never suggested that. I think that's a terrible idea.


I'd also argue that Democrats and Republicans are part of a bi-partisan block on major questions of austerity, US imperialism, maintaining and increasing the domestic repressive policies of the US state, etc. Where they have any disagreements, it's usually over how to accomplish the same tasks. There are sometimes brief moments where there are more meaningful splits among our rulers over the particular path of capitalism (like post-vietnam when there was a crisis over how the US could continue to push it's imperialist agenda, or when Keynsianism began to falter due to the end of the post-war boom). Here a movement could potentially have greater influence because of indecision and confusion among our rulers -- but it requires an independent movement not tied to the bourgeois parties to take advantage of that... otherwise they are likely to get swept back along with the major parties once the capitalists regain their direction.


You are confusing cause with effect.

Again, I've never suggested, or evem implied, that radicals should subordinate themselves to bourgeois politicians.


Republican or Democrat - their policies will be more different if there is outside pressure and movements that can make their own demands, have their own organizations and goals, than who is in office. This is why more "progressive" things were passed under Nixon than Clinton. One was President during the height of black power and the start of the women's lib movements while the other was President at a time when groups like NOW rejected street protests and any hint of independence. The lack of independent worker's movements is why Obama is more like Hoover than FDR (even within that narrow spectrum).

There are a couple of problems with that. First, unfortunately, no such movement exists, and isn't likely to arise anytime soon. The radical left, in the United States, in addition to being numerically insignificant, is more of a subculture, than anything else.

Next, you're making the common mistake of overestimating Nixon's `progressiveness.' While it's true, he was significantly less reactionary, relative to his time period, than many Republicans currently serving in the House, most of the examples people cite weren't passed out of deep conviction, but the opposite. Nixon didn't much care about domestic politics insofar as it didn't disturb his global ambitions. He, famously, mused the country could run itself just fine without an executive. He really didn't give a crap.

[NGNM85]

Well the DLC pretty much is the mainstream of the party and has been since Dukakis (sp?) lost or at least that internal debate was settled in the Democrats when Clinton won the nomination and then the election.

The DLC isn't that well represented in Congress. However, there are many, like the President, who, while unaffiliated, are ideologically similar. Actually, the Progressive Caucus is the largest faction among Congressional Democrats. However, they represent just slightly more than a third of the whole.

You spelled his name correctly.


I wouldn't say he's an outlier in terms of the party at all - he was part of the Obama administration like other absurd right-wingers like Larry "women just aren't as smart as men" Summers.

I was specifically referring to his conflict with the Chicago teachers. In that respect, he's out of step.


It's actually the liberals and Kensians who are the outliers now and I doubt that this would change on its own - maybe if there was a threat from left-populism or working class militancy de-legitimizing their positions among their traditional voting bases.

That last part is true, but it also directly contradicts your thesis. The primary concern of politicians is winning elections. Therefore, they will, generally, avoid things that will cost them elections. This is why the Democratic party went through the aforementioned soul searching, again, unfortunately following the DLC's lead. Ergo; politicians will stop running on pro-life, or race-baiting, or explicitly homophobic, etc., platforms if it stops working. Now, you will probably say that that will happen when we change enough people's minds. I concede that, and it's a worthy goal that must be pursued. However, in most cases, it is logistically easier, it takes fewer people to defeat those politicians, than to change the public mind, the most effective means of doing which is, as I was saying, experience. Beyond that, it just makes no sense not to do so, anyways. There's no consistency in demonstrating, etc., for gay rights, abortion, etc., and passively allowing reactionaries to win elections when they could be defeated. That makes no sense.


But if that's not enough - true Rahmm is probably more explicitly and openly conservative than most urban Democratic politicians - then there's people like my own Mayor, Jean Quan, an ex-Maoist and on paper probably one of the most liberal politicians in the country: her actual policies... more cops on the streets, attempts to introduce Stop-and-frisk, giveaways to developers while thousands of low income folks have been forced out of town due to forclosures at the same time as massive increases in rent and home prices, and of course sending 14 police departments to crush our Occupy camp. And she's not a fake liberal - I think she's sincere and less of a position hopper than Dellums or Jerry Brown - but that's what liberalism in our era is.

I don't think that's entirely accurate, but, more importantly, it's devoid of context. Look at what the Republican party has morphed into.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're wrong. Again, look at the Supreme Court. The Robert's court has given us Citizens' United, and gutted the Voting Rights Act, and there's going to be more where that came from. Also, again, the consistent erision of reproductive freedom. (Which, incidentally, is accelerating.) Etc., etc. These developments, which were the direct result of national, and state elections, were major losses for the working class. There's no other way to see it.It does not follow at all that US Presidential elections make a difference in these cases. The monarchs of the Supreme Court could have been blocked by Democrats, liberal courts have moved conservative in the absence of movements, conservative courts have made liberal and progressive rulings when confronted by movements. Democrats like Hilary Clinton accommodate to pro-life politics by calling abortion a tragedy that should be avoided when possible... in fact without women's liberation organizations and a general movement, the Democratic party as a whole has moved to the right-wing framing of the debate while dropping all pretense of it being an issue of reproductive rights and women's rights. Bill Clinton carried out Regan's agenda in many ways more successfully than Reagan -- he ended welfare as we knew it! He vastly expanded racist policing and incarceration measures. In much the same way Obama has gotten away with things associated with George W. Bush: he has quieted dissent against bombings and domestic spying and made bailing out the banks a bi-partisan position after being elected on a wave of anger at finance and Republican giveaways to the rich!

In addition, things like citizens united and increased restrictions on basic access to the electoral system can't be seen in isolation or as the policies of particular parties or administrations. There's a larger continuity and these are just examples of a general trend in neoliberalism in the context of practically no opposition from below in the US.


Nonsense. First of all, something that does not matter, at least in terms of political activity, is, by definition, a complete waste of time. For example, this is why I don't vote for presidential candidates. This state's electoral votes are going to go to the Democratic candidate, there is no other conceivable outcome, therefore; I don't bother. I just leave that box blank. Second, as I just explained, elections can, in fact, have real consequences.I don't understand your point -- elections don't matter but they have consequences?


Third, this isn't quantum physics. There are two ruling parties. One that promotes legal equality for homosexuals, and one that wants to amend the Constitution to permanently outlaw gay marriage, one that supports legalized abortion, and one that wants to outlaw it, one party that occasionally throws organized labor a bone, and the one that wants to wipe unions out of existence. They both royally suck, royally, but there is a difference. Given the choice between capitalisms, which is the only choice we have, I prefer a capitalism where gays have legal rights, where the clinics are open, instead of closed, etc.First, Gays don't have legal rights because of the ideology or benevolence of a party that in 2004 were blaming gay people for scaring middle America into voting to re-elect Bush.

The actual records of the two parties show little difference. Their attempts at popular appeals are different and appeal to different parts of the population: the Democrats present themselves as the party of workers and the oppressed, but as you say they are actually a party of capitalism. Because of this it might be possible for movements to cause the Democrats to offer concessions more readily, but in the big picture there is no substantial difference for the fundamental issues that impact people. The Democrats support the "war on crime" and mass-incarceration, they have been collaborators in reducing basic democratic access to the electoral system through gerrymandering deals, they are fully supportive of working class austerity as a way to recover profitability, they fully support US imperialism and Democratic administrations have gotten more peace-votes while waging more wars than the Republicans. It's a choice between being thrown under the bus of capital or being afforded the curtsey to gently lay down before it rolls over you. It's a choice between throwing out the old bum or re-electing the "devil you know".


That's only true if those individuals, or organizations subordinate themselves to a bourgeois party. I've never suggested that. I think that's a terrible idea.But you have been making a lesser-evil argument this whole time - let's support the Democrats because Jerry Brown tells us the unions have no choice but to make concessions whereas a Republican governor might just pass a law telling unions to make concessions. If Obama really is less-worse on his own than Bush, then organizations will and do subordinate themselves too the bourgeois party... we can't criticize him on the war because Romney might win!


There are a couple of problems with that. First, unfortunately, no such movement exists, and isn't likely to arise anytime soon. The radical left, in the United States, in addition to being numerically insignificant, is more of a subculture, than anything else. Yes, no mass militant let alone revolutionary movement exists at the moment... I thought trying to alter that was the whole point of being a working class revolutionary!

Supporting the Democratic party, voting for people like Obama, is counter-posed to building an independent working class movement, reformist let alone revolutionary. Historically it's one of the main reasons (next to repression) that both the 30s union movement and the civil rights movements plateaued and didn't create the kinds of social-democratic reforms that exist in other countries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was specifically referring to his conflict with the Chicago teachers. In that respect, he's out of step.How is someone who was made Education Tsar under Obama is "out of step"?


That last part is true, but it also directly contradicts your thesis. The primary concern of politicians is winning elections. Therefore, they will, generally, avoid things that will cost them elections. It doesn't contradict my thesis because I was suggesting that an independent movement from below might create the pressure that would result in a shift in the Party. There is historical precidence for this and based on that I'd argue that voting for Democrats is not an effective tactic, but building independent movements is.

I think elections can provide tactical opportunities; revolutionaries can use them as an arena for making wider propagandistic arguments and acting as kind of a troll to the bourgeois parties; movements can use them as a means to propose an alternative to what the main parties have to offer; they can be a way for working class politics to compete directly against the ideology and policies of the capitalist parties and thereby help legitimize independent politics and rally more people. But my underlying consideration of these tactics is not based on what might be immediate gains or losses for workers in the terms offered by, for example, Democrats or Republicans, but what the tactical gains or losses of actual working class movements or organization are. Because a union contract can be signed, a reform can be written into the books, but they are only paper without a social force able to ensure that these are actually maintained by bosses and the ruling class generally.

This might be a bit silly, but I just read the game of thrones books and one of the people counseling a young queen said something about how what makes someone a leader is when they are confronted with a dillema of two different but bad options, a true leader is someone who doesn't decide between bad option A and worse option B, but forges option C. Ok, it's a silly book, but that stuck with me because I think that applies to working class leadership, working class movements are always going to be stuck with a choice of bad options until we are able to organize our own independent alternative based on our mutual class interests and immediate needs. There will always be a worse and less worse option, and voting Democrats just puts us in the last car on the train to austerity as opposed to the Republican's first car. We need our own train, different tracks. Sorry, I just wanted to see how many metaphors I could make today and how far I could stretch them.


Now, you will probably say that that will happen when we change enough people's minds. I concede that, and it's a worthy goal that must be pursued. However, in most cases, it is logistically easier, it takes fewer people to defeat those politicians, than to change the public mind, the most effective means of doing which is, as I was saying, experience. Beyond that, it just makes no sense not to do so, anyways. There's no consistency in demonstrating, etc., for gay rights, abortion, etc., and passively allowing reactionaries to win elections when they could be defeated. That makes no sense.Apples and organges. One demonstration, one strike action, a few of them, whatever these alone are not what make the difference. Again, these are tactics and what matters is the movement context in which these happen.

"Defeating politicians" in the easiest way possible does nothing to increase our own class organization, power or politics. That's the strategy in which in some contexts independent electoral efforts can play a role. But as a strategy, voting is a dead end and voting for the lesser-evil has only enabled evil. The Republicans have been defeated in multiple National elections now and yet their agenda is as strong as ever. This is because whatever rhetorical opposition the Democrats take, their long-term vision is the same; whatever actual opposition the Democratic base wishes to see is just piss in the wind when people vote for Democrats because the Democratic party is an unbashful supporter of the exploitation and imperialism that is the root cause of all the specific issues of the day.