Lesser Evilism or Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum?

[Chomskyan]

I've been reading many Left publications, Counter Punch, Dissent Voice, International Socialist Review, and Socialist Worker on the topic of "Lesser Evilism"

That is, whether it's better to vote for "the lesser of two evils" or whether all options are the wrong options (what ISR calls "Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum").

I wonder what the forum thinks of this. In the United States, the two capitalist parties control the whole political process. In certain remote cases, Left-wing parties (or third parties in general, I suppose) can enter the elections but this is an extreme rarity.

There is an upcoming election in my area and I have some fascist Republicans and some milktoast Democrats, but there are a few Green Party candidates.

Is it better to vote for the lesser evil to ensure that society doesn't go down a death spiral, or is it better to vote for social reform even if such reform is unlikely?

This brings to mind Eugene Deb's quote "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it."

What is the view of the forum?

[Sasha]

i would say that there is little lesser evin between dems and repubs in the US as parties, but there is certainly a lesser evil in certain policies, as such you can make the decision (if more leftist candidates stand no change to get elected anyway) to place an tactical vote to save certain rights (abortion, minority voting rights, union laws etc etc) that will affect you or others you care about.

but then again, the argument that any vote in bourgeois elections legitimatizes their rule over us is certainly a valid one as well.

i think its a personal choice everyone should individually make based on their own situation, political ideas and unique circumstances.

[Sasha]

also, the "if you do vote you have no right to complain" of certain radical leftists is obviously as much bull as the "if you dont vote you have no right complain" of the liberals. you can tactically vote for democrats or greens or such and still burn their shit down if they do shit you oppose.

[Futility Personified]

I'm sadly considering voting green whenever the next opportunity arises in the UK. A bit different in that they are a minority party with minimal coverage, but they are quite simply a great deal better than what the other bastards have to offer.

Will they likely keep all these promises they make? Probably not.
Are they likely to make my life slightly less shit? Possibly.
Are they going to make a completely green economy? Of course not.
Are they going to abolish capitalism? Afaik they are quite openly a bourgeois party.

Voting is only a tactic. It might legitimize the system, but it also can provide opportunity for radical ideas to be aired. As ever, anarchists and socialists need to be creating organisations that encourage class consciousness and participation. Educate, agitate and organize, and all that.

I see not voting as an accelerant to the idea that things will reach the stage where class contradictions are completely naked and then perhaps, the revolution will have some fertile ground to grow in. It seems very altruistic for posterity! I don't want my one life that I will live to be absolutely shit. There could be grounds to believe that is the most likely way revolution will occur, but to my mind it basically means taking up arms straight away. As ever, we need to be fighting all aspects of capitalism within the communities we are in, and we need to be spreading class consciousness far and wide.

Voting won't really change anything, but it might keep the wolves at the door for a bit. They're better than bears or combine harvesters.

[motion denied]

One of them is getting elected, right? The independent autonomous blahblahblah working class alternative doesn't exist, does it? If the programs differ enough, and in meaningful issues, I would go for the lesser evil - and hope things don't worsen too much.

Too pragmatic? Maybe.

[Thirsty Crow]

One of them is getting elected, right? The independent autonomous blahblahblah working class alternative doesn't exist, does it? If the programs differ enough, and in meaningful issues, I would go for the lesser evil - and hope things don't worsen too much.

Too pragmatic? Maybe.

The thing is, the real question is if the election platform is any goddamn thing to go by. In other words - is it mere empty words or not.

From my experience and reading, it is almost universally empty words. Meaning, if the programs differ in meaningful way, and if this party is reasonably expected to form the government, then it is also reasonable to assume they will abandon the election platform from day one.

EDIT: this isn't about pragmatism; but about the lack of recognizing how the day-to-day pragmatism of government works actually.

[motion denied]

The thing is, the real question is if the election platform is any goddamn thing to go by. In other words - is it mere empty words or not.

From my experience and reading, it is almost universally empty words. Meaning, if the programs differ in meaningful way, and if this party is reasonably expected to form the government, then it is also reasonable to assume they will abandon the election platform from day one.


When not empty words, items that cannot be put into practice because the way the parliament works, which leads to the never-ending accumulation of forces (some Gramsci inspired claptrap), and co-opting of social movements to parliamentary cretinism. In short, I agree with you.

However, I was thinking about "my" Presidential elections (this Sunday). In which one party is known for en masse layoffs and regular neo-liberal policy; while the other is also crap, somehow neo-liberal, but did implement successful social programs (advised by the World Bank, granted) and, like it or not, has a large working class membership - which, sometimes, prevents more vicious attacks against workers' rights. One of them is getting elected, not that I'm voting for any, and that's nothing we can do to stop it... And of course whoever comes, will be a competent manager of capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A vote these days is an act that has lost much of the historical context within which its importance was once situated.

When people don't have the vote (And this is borne out in various historical episodes of working people in 19th century Britain, and British suffragettes at the turn of the 20th century), it is a big deal. However, the structure of capitalist society, and the domination of power structures by un-accountable bodies such as corporations, means that having and exercising 'the vote' is a pretty meaningless political gesture these days. It requires little other than ticking a box one way or the other and carries little significance for the individual exercising their right to vote.

Voting, like many things in capitalist society, has become devoid of any actual content; it seems to me to fall outside the spectrum of meaningful politics acts for the individual, in most situations.

[Art Vandelay]

Vote from the rooftops.

[consuming negativity]

i voted in the last presidential election because my mom wanted someone to go with her so she could have someone to talk to while she waited in line

there are obviously things where your vote actually does matter, but in the US, 90% of districts are already decided before any ballots are cast

hooray freedom

http://s17.postimg.org/3ngyu18kf/america.jpg

[Martin Luther]

I'll be voting for the Republicans in this election. And in 2016. Why?

Imagine Occupy if George Bush were in office.

[Sabot Cat]

I'll be voting for the Republicans in this election. And in 2016. Why?

Imagine Occupy if George Bush were in office.

...most people pinning their hopes on liberal electoral politics to bail them out of the current crisis when they get into power again?

[Martin Luther]

...most people pinning their hopes on liberal electoral politics to bail them out of the current crisis when they get into power again?

Yes, the democrats will hijack it but imagine the first days of something like Occupy with the Republican party in power actively attacking it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Voting is counterrevolutionary. At best, you're lending undue credibility to the bourgeois electoral system and "representatives" for the sake of reforms that help sustain capitalism. At worst, you're a social democrat or even voting Republican because "things getting worse will piss workers off".

[motion denied]

Voting is counterrevolutionary. At best, you're lending undue credibility to the bourgeois electoral system and "representatives" for the sake of reforms that help sustain capitalism. At worst, you're a social democrat or even voting Republican because "things getting worse will piss workers off".

People give too much importance to voting. Voting is not counter-revolutionary, nor is it revolutionary. Not voting is not undermining the State in any form, even more so if it has an end in itself.

Reforms are no socialism etc, but I'd accept a raise in the minimum wage any day of the week.

[Illegalitarian]

The idea that lesser evilism is still choosing evil and never a valid tactic is ultraleft nonsense that can't be taken seriously if we are to see at least a few decent albeit small gains be made in our lifetime.

That's why I write in Fidel Castro for pretty much every election ever. The chances are one in several million that this vote will ever be taken into consideration, but one day enough people will write Castro in to bring us to full communism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Right, but the question is, how do you win reforms? Because without proletarian militancy the best you can hope for are symbolic or mutilated reforms that will be rescinded whenever the bourgeoisie feel like it. And whether these are granted depends not on the electoral platforms of the various parties but on the balance of forces in society. So you can expect the same economic populism from the conservative parties as from the social-democrats; likewise the same austerity measures.

It's a bit silly to say voting is counterrevolutionary. What is counterrevolutionary is bugging people to vote because OMG if we don't all vote for Obama Romney is going to be elected and legalise corporate donations to drones with Cadillac plans! Because it fosters illusions in the desirability of one or the other bourgeois candidate.

[motion denied]

I had wrote a lengthy post and all went down
fuck this shit

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

if polling stations were in pubs rather than church halls i'd be able to work up a bit more enthusiasm, as it is I don't attach any particular significance to the vote these days, thus for me the lesser evil is staying in and having another cup of coffee rather than just spoiling my ballot which is what i'd do anyway

[Chomskyan]

I had wrote a lengthy post and all went down
fuck this shit

That happens to me all the damn time. I get so fucking pissed when I have a huge 10 point rebuttal and it just goes right out the window.

[PhoenixAsh]

If you look at election programs in the Netherlands this view emerges: what was considered right wing twenty years ago is now the core policy of the left. What was considered nationalist and populist twenty years ago is now the core policy of the right.

bourgeois democratic policy will invariably shift to the right.

[Chomskyan]

I voted, mostly for third parties.

Anyway, I am not proud to be an American right now...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'll be voting for the Republicans in this election. And in 2016. Why?

Imagine Occupy if George Bush were in office.

My comment is more about the thread topic in general, but I just picked this quote :)

I think voting and not voting needs to be seen in a larger social context. In the u.s. Despite the fetish of "your vote counts!" (Which I also don't want to totally dismiss as a sentiment, because of historical voting disenfranchisement of poor and specifically black people in the U.s.) the actual act of voting doesn't mean much.

So from a "revolution from below" perspective, I think the voting question is outside the actual vote itself. What and who is being organized by the vote, does an electoral campaign help increase our ability to further organize workers, to open political possibilities outside the mainstream, and ultimately more political independence for working class politics and forces. In this context, voting for a democrat lesser evil does not accomplish this and in practice leads to politics more tied to ruling class politics, leads anti-war, anti-racist, and labor groups to give the lesser evil "more space" and to mute their own positions in order to not embarrass the electoral figure.

On the other hand, what would occupy have looked like if bush was in office? I don't know but it might have looked like the anti-war movement that focused on bush to the extent that pro-war democracts were given a pass. The political figure in power is less important than the confidence, independence, and organization of those opposed to whoever's in power.

For third parties, it's a maybe imo. It also depends on things outside the campaign. Individually, just putting in a protest vote can make sense just to show disatisfaction with the two parties. But in some places a green or third party effort might be good because it helps organize a more solid opposition to liberals in power. Sawant and occupy/fight for fifteen could help organize eachother and fortify the beginnings of a more confident left opposition. In other places the greens or other third parties are basically working with the democrats, and have no orientation towards building a lasting opposition and so voting for them is still a kind of moral, not political, act that i don't think makes as much sense.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Had Occupy happened under a Republican, in terms of size, the rallies would have been more epic, but in terms of the politics it would have been more ... meh.