The problem of voting

[Eniac]

Should revolutionaries vote, or do you believe voting is submitting to the current system and thus counter productive?
If you vote do you vote in parliamentary and presidential and local elections, or do you vote only in some of those?

I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Also, there is a problem with voting that often you don't vote for, but against e.g. you vote for a democrat, even though you don't agree with him just to make it one vote harder for the republican to obtain political power because they are even worse than the democrats.

[RedWorker]

It obviously changes something. Which does not mean that a revolution can be done by sticking to the limits of the bourgeois state.

Legitimacy, yeah, because there'd be a revolution if turnout was like 5%. Not. Turnout has reached very low levels before in several countries and nothing happened. Several organized electoral boycotts in history have resulted in the unwanted party winning elections.

[Rosa Partizan]

(oh you're from Zagreb, Gotovina - heroj ne zlocinac :laugh:)

I understand the point of view that is in favor of non-voting. It's true that you support and legitimize the existing system by voting.

On the other hand, there are issues that are just too important to me and that I'm too pragmatic about, issues like university fees, abortion/morning-after pill, minimum wage etc and many more that somehow matter for not only my daily life but even more for the lives of many other people. If I talked to a female friend of mine that had a hard time getting an abortion and I said to her "Well, I didn't vote for (pro choice) party xy, because revolution", I really could understand perfectly why she would tell me to fuck off.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

On the other hand, there are issues that are just too important to me and that I'm too pragmatic about, issues like university fees, abortion/morning-after pill, minimum wage etc and many more that somehow matter for not only my daily life but even more for the lives of many other people. If I talked to a female friend of mine that had a hard time getting an abortion and I said to her "Well, I didn't vote for (pro choice) party xy, because revolution", I really could understand perfectly why she would tell me to fuck off.

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights. And even when they are facing such a movement, they adhere, at best, to the moderate, compromising wing. So if you want to maintain and extend abortion rights - as we all do - electoral politics is inconsequential in itself. What is necessary is pressure on the ruling class.

[Loony Le Fist]

Should revolutionaries vote, or do you believe voting is submitting to the current system and thus counter productive?
If you vote do you vote in parliamentary and presidential and local elections, or do you vote only in some of those?
I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Also, there is a problem with voting that often you don't vote for, but against


A large part of the problem is the design of the voting system. First-past-the-post is the worst voting system, and is still the most widely used. This is many millennia after it was probably first used. The reason I say probably, instead of a more specific term is because we don't know exactly how old this voting system is because it pre-dates written history. Given the existence of better options like range voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting) and instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) that both reduce the benefit of strategic voting therefore encouraging honesty (more so with range voting, IMO), using systems outdated by at least several tens of millennia seems ridiculous.



e.g. you vote for a democrat, even though you don't agree with him just to make it one vote harder for the republican to obtain political power because they are even worse than the democrats.

I used to think this actually (not trying to imply that you do either). I've since revised my opinion. Upon further reflection, in the US it seems more like the major parties work together to orchestrate a good cop/bad cop routine on the public. Both parties in the US are neoliberal parties.

[tuwix]

I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing

Then you answered yourself a question: "should revolutionary vote?" :)

[G4b3n]

I vote when I feel relevant amendments are on the ballot, not for representatives. I will vote for the least destructive policy drawn out by the bourgeois, then vote for dead anarchists and Marxists.

[Creative Destruction]

i voted for a lot of muppets in the last election.

[Palmares]

In some places, such as my country, it's illegal not to vote. If you don't vote, you'll receive an unwelcome letter of an economic nature from the Electoral Commission.

But you have to be enrolled to vote for them to fine you. ;)

Voting, or not voting, doesn't really matter to me. There are some affects possible with it, albeit far from revolutionary. In the end, not voting is just a personal ethical decision like your left liberal boycott. Gives you some brownie points maybe, but kinda makes sweet fuck all of a difference. Works for some, doesn't for others.

[Blake's Baby]

It isn't illegal not to vote in the UK. It's illegal not to register to vote.

It is illegal not to vote in some countries however.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Voting, or not voting, doesn't really matter to me. There are some affects possible with it, albeit far from revolutionary. In the end, not voting is just a personal ethical decision like your left liberal boycott. Gives you some brownie points maybe, but kinda makes sweet fuck all of a difference. Works for some, doesn't for others.

No one said people shouldn't vote, though. It's their free time, they can do whatever they want with it. Personally I would spend it on more productive activities like smashing my face into various karst formations, but that's just me. What a lot of people on RL are opposed to is shilling for one bourgeois party - "YOU HAVE TO VOTE OBAMA OTHERWISE THE SHEEPLE ARE GOING TO ELECT ROMNEY AND HE'S GOING TO OUTLAW FREEDOMS" etc. etc.

It should also be noted that not voting is often a sign of deep disgust with bourgeois democracy, which is always a welcome development.

[Palmares]

Honestly, I don't see how we are disagreeing at all. However, the OP does say in the very first sentence, "Should revolutionaries vote[?]...".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have on occasion voted for referendums if they catch my attention, I just leave everything else blank or write in cartoon character names. I'm not very bothered if anti-capitalists vote at an individual level, it's only an issue to me if it's actually a part of the strategy of a group or party because it inevitably becomes the only part of their strategy that ever gets put into practice.

The best part of not voting to me is being free from the pressures of the campaign cycles. I observe them as if I don't actually live here and that makes the parts that manage to get through my filter much more entertaining.

[VCrakeV]

This is a very good point that I never thought about. I was really excited about voting next year, because it'll be the first time I ever had a chance to have even *some* influence on my country. Now, however, I'm considering the question at hand.

I feel that Harper really needs to be kicked out of office. I swear, he's just the Bush of Canada. I planned to vote Liberal, for Trudeau, because he's not Harper... That, and as a bonus, he plans on legalizing pot. I hate having to hide my recreational habit. I almost got busted the other day. Anyway, I feel like looking into more of Trudeau's plans, just to see if he plans on making progress.

Now that I think about it, I think I might just vote for him anyway. I don't see a large revolution happening during 2015, but it will be a big step forward to at least have a better leader. I think a good idea would be to only vote when a leader's plans involving steering the country in a *more* liberal and/or socialist direction.

Thanks for making me think about this. :rolleyes:

[RedWorker]

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights.

Where is the proof that all parties, and not only really crappy ones like the SPD and Democrats, do that?

[Q]

Oh, given the thread title I thought this was going to be about the inherent problems of elections, which are an oligarchic mechanism (Machover (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51148/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Machover,%20M_Machove r_Collective_%20Decision_Making_Machover_Collectiv e_%20Decision_Making.pdf), Cockshott (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/788/democracy-or-oligarchy/)). But instead it's just same old same old. Minor disappointment.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Where is the proof that all parties, and not only really crappy ones like the SPD and Democrats, do that?

How about the fact that abortion has not been not free, safe and available up to the date of birth, in any bourgeois state that exist or that has existed, no matter what party was in power at that point? I do wonder what non-"really crappy" parties you have in mind.


Oh, given the thread title I thought this was going to be about the inherent problems of elections, which are an oligarchic mechanism (Machover (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51148/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Machover,%20M_Machove r_Collective_%20Decision_Making_Machover_Collectiv e_%20Decision_Making.pdf), Cockshott (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/788/democracy-or-oligarchy/)). But instead it's just same old same old. Minor disappointment.

I would hazard a guess that this is because no one accepts the argument that elections are oligarchic because they were seen as oligarchic in Greece, two millennia ago. It's an argument that boggles the mind with the sheer extent to which it is willing to ignore the modern use of words.

[Rosa Partizan]

there's a feminist party in Germany that is for unrestricted abortion rights, but they're TINY, so hardly worth mentioning. I somehow doubt that a party with truly feminist agenda could become part of the mainstream, at least not in Germany.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights. And even when they are facing such a movement, they adhere, at best, to the moderate, compromising wing. So if you want to maintain and extend abortion rights - as we all do - electoral politics is inconsequential in itself. What is necessary is pressure on the ruling class.

As a woman I'll take marginal abortion rights over none. Maybe electoral politics is "inconsequential" for full abortion rights but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what little we can get while we wait until some indefinite point in the future for a revolution. Quit mansplaining

[Rosa Partizan]

As a woman I'll take marginal abortion rights over none. Maybe electoral politics is "inconsequential" for full abortion rights but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what little we can get while we wait until some indefinite point in the future for a revolution. Quit mansplaining

this is exactly what I mean. Also, we got rid of university fees because the Green Party promised that and the minister of the federal state I live in is a Green one. I am just too pragmatic to say, well yeah, I don't care if we pay 700 $ half a year more or not, as long as it's not THE revolution. This is like, take it all or take nothing, and currently, we can't take it all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As a woman I'll take marginal abortion rights over none. Maybe electoral politics is "inconsequential" for full abortion rights but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what little we can get while we wait until some indefinite point in the future for a revolution. Quit mansplaining

The point is that the marginal abortions rights you have are going to be taken away in the absence of extra-electoral pressure on the bourgeois parties (not pressure for one of the bourgeois parties).

As for the charge of "mansplaining", the same goes for gay rights, and I'm definitely not heterosexual. In fact the gay movement here fell into the trap of doing little more than supporting the social-democrats, and then we were hit by a homophobic referendum that the social-democrats ensured would pass.

[Redistribute the Rep]

this is exactly what I mean. Also, we got rid of university fees because the Green Party promised that and the minister of the federal state I live in is a Green one. I am just too pragmatic to say, well yeah, I don't care if we pay 700 $ half a year more or not, as long as it's not THE revolution. This is like, take it all or take nothing, and currently, we can't take it all.

Yea like my friend had cancer a couple years ago, and now with ObamaCare he can stay on his parents insurance until he's 26. Without it his family would have to worry about going bankrupt if he ever got sick again. It does fall short for many people but it still makes a big difference for him.

[Rosa Partizan]

what's the alternative to voting for parties that are moderately pro-choice? Having conservative parties take it all and then aborting with a dirty coat-hanger?

[Redistribute the Rep]

The point is that the marginal abortions rights you have are going to be taken away in the absence of extra-electoral pressure on the bourgeois parties (not pressure for one of the bourgeois parties).

Nowhere did I say extra electoral pressure was not needed. But this won't do much if you don't actually vote in the parties you're putting pressure on. And it's been about 40 years in the US and the marginal abortion rights have yet to have been completely taken away. Even if they were it would still be better to have had 40 years than none, millions of women have been helped by that.

[RedWorker]

there's a feminist party in Germany that is for unrestricted abortion rights, but they're TINY, so hardly worth mentioning. I somehow doubt that a party with truly feminist agenda could become part of the mainstream, at least not in Germany.

If we're merely talking about what parties claim and not do, then I believe Podemos (though, judging by their record so far, they may very well compromise this), United Left, and all the Trotskyist parties in Spain stand for total unrestriction of abortion, as well as for guaranteeing access to it. Basically everything to the left of the mainstream socialdemocratic party.

[VCrakeV]

what's the alternative to voting for parties that are moderately pro-choice? Having conservative parties take it all and then aborting with a dirty coat-hanger?

Precisely! It's almost like voting for the lesser evil, whether your concern is health care, education, or something else important that the government controls.

[DAN E BOY]

I never bother to vote. politicians proved they are untrustworthy like when nick clegg promised he wouldn't he raise tuition fee's for students. I'm convinced none of them care. :(

[Lily Briscoe]

Quit mansplaining
Yes, because principled opposition to electoral politics is obviously only a "man" thing...

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of reforms under capitalism, in the absence of serious "extra-electoral pressure", are either completely toothless or serious double edged swords.

[Creative Destruction]

It's certainly a "dumb" thing.

[Lily Briscoe]

Its a lot 'dumber' to think that the way you defend working class living standards is through atomized individuals casting votes for bourgeois political parties imo

[BIXX]

Oh, given the thread title I thought this was going to be about the inherent problems of elections, which are an oligarchic mechanism (Machover (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51148/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Machover,%20M_Machove r_Collective_%20Decision_Making_Machover_Collectiv e_%20Decision_Making.pdf), Cockshott (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/788/democracy-or-oligarchy/)). But instead it's just same old same old. Minor disappointment.
I feel this way about almost every thread on revleft.

[BIXX]

Its a lot 'dumber' to think that the way you defend working class living standards is through atomized individuals casting votes for bourgeois political parties imo
I was gonna make fun of you by continuing the "dumb-" chain but you actually make a good point.

[Loony Le Fist]

Yea like my friend had cancer a couple years ago, and now with ObamaCare he can stay on his parents insurance until he's 26. Without it his family would have to worry about going bankrupt if he ever got sick again. It does fall short for many people but it still makes a big difference for him.

While pragmatically I think the ACA does benefit people in the short-term, I think it's long term effects are going to be devastating--prices will be driven up, not down. It is effectively a state capitalist handout to private insurance companies. Originally the ACA included a provision for a public option. That was the most important part--that everyone would be able to be covered. Unfortunately, that part was lost. Either way, it would have still been a handout to insurance companies, but at least the public option would have forced prices down.

In any event, I'm glad your friend benefitted. Considering their illness, they definitely needed it more than I do. Unfortunately, the ACA leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. What we needed was fully funded public health care for all. I mean dental, vision, primary care, ER--everything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nowhere did I say extra electoral pressure was not needed. But this won't do much if you don't actually vote in the parties you're putting pressure on.

The point is not to put pressure on one specific party - in that case, you're simply acting as an external pressure group - but on all parties. And yes, conservative parties can and have extended abortion rights (or rights for gay people etc.) if the external pressure for that sort of thing exists.


And it's been about 40 years in the US and the marginal abortion rights have yet to have been completely taken away. Even if they were it would still be better to have had 40 years than none, millions of women have been helped by that.

In some areas, they effectively have been taken away. If the state regulates the only abortion clinic you have effective access to out of existence, your "right" to an abortion is moot. But more importantly, the US used to have an effective, street-level movement for abortion rights. Now this movement has been channeled into electoral support for the Democrats and, lo and behold, abortion rights are being taken away one by one.


Yea like my friend had cancer a couple years ago, and now with ObamaCare he can stay on his parents insurance until he's 26. Without it his family would have to worry about going bankrupt if he ever got sick again. It does fall short for many people but it still makes a big difference for him.

I'm glad for your friend but, overall, ObamaCare was far from a victory for the workers, given that it was used to slash employer-paid health insurance. I think Strix put it very well:


It's also worth pointing out that a lot of reforms under capitalism, in the absence of serious "extra-electoral pressure", are either completely toothless or serious double edged swords.

On that note, remember how there are a lot of crazy bigots protesting in front of abortion clinics? Well, some time ago, the Democrat-controlled legislature passed a law against the practice - that was then used against militant abortion-rights activists and socialists guarding the clinics, while the bigots were left alone.

If you think the bourgeois state is going to help you out of the kindness of its heart, without being forced, you're in for a rude awakening.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

While pragmatically I think the ACA does benefit people in the short-term, I think it's long term effects are going to be devastating--prices will be driven up, not down. It is effectively a state capitalist handout to private insurance companies. Originally the ACA included a provision for a public option. That was the most important part--that everyone would be able to be covered. Unfortunately, that part was lost. Either way, it would have still been a handout to insurance companies, but at least the public option would have forced prices down.

In any event, I'm glad your friend benefitted. Considering their illness, they definitely needed it more than I do. Unfortunately, the ACA leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. What we needed was fully funded public health care for all. I mean dental, vision, primary care, ER--everything.

Yeah the aca is already a double edged sword, my insurance cost jumped 110% this year. Now that's not really a big deal for me since Im still on as a single person, but someone who is a single mother with 3 or 4 kids (which is common in my company) paying a 110% increase? Yikes. And that's not even touching on the way copays work for the plan. The exchange plans all look to be around the same cost as well. Another handout for private interests masquerading as bourgeois pragmatism. Of course saying that before hand in some circles was equivalent to saying you wanted to lynch obama or something, so it's only ok to point out what a fuck up it was now after the fact.

I guess I do have one more problem with leftists voting; if you're convinced that it's gonna to work then sure go for it, but stop trying to get anyone else to join you. Electoral politics is like a religious experience for some people, and its so fucking annoying.

[Lord Testicles]

what's the alternative to voting for parties that are moderately pro-choice? Having conservative parties take it all and then aborting with a dirty coat-hanger?

Perhaps people need to grow a backbone and the medical community should be willing to provide safe abortions for people regardless of what our "elected representatives" have to say on the matter.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Maybe things are different in Germany but I would say the right wing struggle against abortion rights here in the US has been pretty successful considering we've been under a democratic administration, and in spite of a clear majority favoring abortion rights. Are we not supposed to draw any conclusions from this? Perhaps people should be encouraged to take direct action for once instead of being continually told that they should direct their strength and energy into putting someone else on the job to do it for them.

I can understand how this comes off as mansplanning if you aren't familiar with radical opposition to electoral politics or the way this fight has been going for the last decade here in the US, but hopefully you don't feel that I am doing that.

[jullia]

Election is a good publicity for leftist ideas.
Not everyone will take time, in his daily life, to inform himself about politics and the world. When there is some election he get the program and the ideas he should not heard in medias during a normal time.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I would agree if only it would actually happen that way, unfortunately left wing parties seem to always get a taste for politics and end up wanting to take office and implement policy. I don't think it's feasible to want to destroy a political system on one hand and on the other have an interest in maintaining a place in that system while it exists. One is going to take priority over the other and inevitably the one that can be realized faster will be the choice.

[Rudolf]

I don't vote, i don't see much point. I'm also yet to see any compelling argument for voting and this thread hasn't changed that. I think voting is pretty much the weakest thing you could do.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Yes, because principled opposition to electoral politics is obviously only a "man" thing...

I called it mansplaining because he basically told a woman to just wait until some future revolution for abortion rights. Easy for him to say, seeing as he's not directly affected by that.

Also, I hope this comment isn't implying that those of us who find some marginal benefits in voting don't have "principled opposition to electoral politics." Because that would be a pathetic strawman.


It's also worth pointing out that a lot of reforms under capitalism, in the absence of serious "extra-electoral pressure", are either completely toothless or serious double edged swords.

Perhaps, and I never denied such, but like I said I'd rather have some limited access to safe abortions than a coat hanger. Ive noticed that 870s posts are based on this same strawman.

[socialistlawyer]

The petty bourgeoisie votes for his Right wing political party, right or wrong. A presidential candidate admitted to torture but still he commands majority of the electorate. Why would I vote. No wonder Cuba is a one-party system.

[Redistribute the Rep]

But more importantly, the US used to have an effective, street-level movement for abortion rights. Now this movement has been channeled into electoral support for the Democrats and, lo and behold, abortion rights are being taken away one by one.


Most of your post was based on a strawman (especially that last quip... Lol), so I'll just address this one. The abortion movement was very much associated with liberal democrat politics, and unequivocally there was a divide between the liberal and conservative Supreme Court judges. This percieved "channeling" of support didn't really even happen, the movements support for democratic electoral politics was already there.

Also, voter turnout in the US has fluctuated since the civil rights movement and roe v wade, and today is around similar levels to that time period. That the amount of people voting has caused a decline in the street level movements is unsubstantiated. I really don't see why someone should refrain from voting for fear of it having a negative effect on the movement, nor should voting be taken to mean they oppose extra political activism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I called it mansplaining because he basically told a woman to just wait until some future revolution for abortion rights. Easy for him to say, seeing as he's not directly affected by that.

Oh, and where did I say anything resembling that? That's a fairly ridiculous way to characterise my position, particularly since I specifically mentioned action that can be taken now to fight for abortion rights. Either you are incapable of understanding basic English, which I find difficult to believe, or you're using the fact that you're a woman to score cheap political points for, what? The same old "support the lesser evil" crap that the Left has relied on for something close to a century now. Well, sunshine, as I mentioned before, I'm gay. When women's rights take a plunge, do you think gay rights are unaffected? And yeah, it'd be nice if I could make a difference (TM) by circling a number next to the name of some bourgeois toff. It's certainly be preferable than living with constant stress. But hey, guess what? It doesn't work.


Most of your post was based on a strawman (especially that last quip... Lol), so I'll just address this one. The abortion movement was very much associated with liberal democrat politics, and unequivocally there was a divide between the liberal and conservative Supreme Court judges. This percieved "channeling" of support didn't really even happen, the movements support for democratic electoral politics was already there.

The chief author of the Roe v. Wade decision was appointed by one Richard Nixon, not particularly known for being a Democrat, of any type, least of all a "liberal Democrat". Hell, opposition to abortion was widely seen as a Democratic issue at that time, given the prominence of the Catholic vote in the Democratic Party.

[Invader Zim]

Oh, and where did I say anything resembling that?

Actually, I thought your comments have been a little problematic too:

"The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights. And even when they are facing such a movement, they adhere, at best, to the moderate, compromising wing. So if you want to maintain and extend abortion rights - as we all do - electoral politics is inconsequential in itself. What is necessary is pressure on the ruling class."

It kind of reads like you felt the need to 'explain' to a woman that which strategies she should employ to protect her rights to her body. I'm not saying that is what you intended, but it does seem like you feel that Rosa is insufficiently qualified to make up her own mind regarding the utility of various pro-choice strategies. Of course, it's not like we should abide by the dogma of 'no uterus, no opinions', but the way you worded your position could have used more thought. Just sayin'.

[Lily Briscoe]

^This is a political discussion board. The question is about whether revolutionaries should vote, and more specifically, whether voting is an effective means of defending working class living standards (with access to abortion being merely one example). Obviously someone who thinks that voting isn't an effective means of e.g. defending abortion rights is going to explain why they think that. That is not "mansplaining", that is having a political discussion. Women are not such delicate little flowers that they need to be 'protected' from political disagreement, Jesus christ.

[Invader Zim]

^This is a political discussion board. The question is about whether revolutionaries should vote, and more specifically, whether voting is an effective means of defending working class living standards (with access to abortion being merely one example). Obviously someone who thinks that voting isn't an effective means of e.g. defending abortion rights is going to explain why they think that. That is not "mansplaining", that is having a political discussion. Women are not such delicate little flowers that they need to be 'protected' from political disagreement, Jesus christ.

Strawman, nobody said they did. Mansplaining isn't about protecting women from alternative opinions, it is about men feeling the need to condescend to women to explain to them shit that the obviously already know. And manifestly the women of RevLeft are going to be well aware that the results of employing the western democratic process as a means of winning and/or protecting abortion rights is going to be limited. The fact that a male felt the need to explain that to a female, as if she wouldn't know (and she did in fact make it abundantly cleat that she was aware of that), is opening the door for an accusation of mansplaining. It is also about tone and choice of words, not holding a line of 'no uterus, no opinions'.

Of course, there are also major problems with the term, mainly that it is both essentialist and dismissive, its also pretty lazy and often trotted out when someone trots it out as a counter when it is pointed out to them that they have said something stupid or wrong. It also assumes that a man is talking down to a woman because she is a woman and not just because he is conceited in general. So, I don't really like the term, but I can see why people use it.

[Lily Briscoe]

^Ok. I think the accusation is absolutely absurd and patronizing, but I'm not interested in derailing the thread to argue the point.


I called it mansplaining because he basically told a woman to just wait until some future revolution for abortion rights. Easy for him to say, seeing as he's not directly affected by that.
I don't think that was the point. As I understood it, the argument wasn't that women should forego defending abortion rights and instead wait for The Revolution, but that atomized individuals casting votes for ruling class political parties isn't actually an effective means of defending abortion rights in the first place.


Also, I hope this comment isn't implying that those of us who find some marginal benefits in voting don't have "principled opposition to electoral politics." Because that would be a pathetic strawman.
It's not a 'strawman', it's a statement of fact. Having illusions in electoral politics isn't compatible with principled opposition to electoral politics. I have no idea why this should be controversial.


Perhaps, and I never denied such, but like I said I'd rather have some limited access to safe abortions than a coat hanger. Ive noticed that 870s posts are based on this same strawman.
I'd rather have limited access to safe abortions than a coat hanger as well (and as someone who has actually had an abortion, I think I'm safe from charges of "mansplaining" or being 'unaffected' or whatever); that is, quite clearly, not the issue.
The working class defends itself and it's standard of living through collective struggle, not through voting whatever bourgeois party into office and relying on their benevolence (!)