Potency of Voting/bourgeois politics

[Ritzy Cat]

A few questions here.

I understand that a democratic system that truly exemplifies the interests of the workers is impossible under capitalism.

I believe there was a Eugene Debs quote that said "the differences between the republicans and democrats are of no matter to the working class". (I'm talking USA here). Though despite common consensus among the two to maintain capitalism, US imperialism and aggression, worker exploitation etc. the democratic party is a proponent of abortion, gay marriage, etc. social issues that liberal millenials like. Are those differences enough to merit a preference--not pledged allegiance--for the democratic party?

I don't plan to vote, not even for socdem Hillary puppet Bernie Sanders, but I am having trouble in explaining my viewpoint to others. I've been told if Bernie Sanders it the least of all evils, shouldn't I just vote for him, if only to keep someone like Trump/Ted Cruz/any crazy nutjob republican out of office. How should I respond to such criticism in a coherent argument that isn't based on socialist ideological purity?

[tuwix]

Explanation is very simple: Voting makes no sense because under capitalism you can vote for whatever but there only ruler always is bourgeoisie.

[#FF0000]

I don't plan to vote, not even for socdem Hillary puppet Bernie Sanders, but I am having trouble in explaining my viewpoint to others. I've been told if Bernie Sanders it the least of all evils, shouldn't I just vote for him, if only to keep someone like Trump/Ted Cruz/any crazy nutjob republican out of office. How should I respond to such criticism in a coherent argument that isn't based on socialist ideological purity?

1) These parties have been drifting rightward for decades. People who vote for the Democrats out of fear of the Republicans are feeding a cycle in which the "liberal" party takes on more and more egregiously repressive and conservative positions because they know they have "lesser evil" voters who refuse to punish them

2) What does anyone expect Bernie Sanders to do when he's going to be going into a Republican controlled legislature? And even if it were a Democratic controlled legislature, Sanders is still entirely isolated within his own party. Obama, an arch-centrist at best, was totally incapable of getting his party behind him when they had a super-majority.

3) In a nominally democratic society, voting represents the absolute least one can do to participate, and anyone who votes but isn't working to build the movement has no right to complain. The working class in North America and Europe won the gains it did in the 20th century not by voting in the right people, but because of pressure from militant working class movements that disrupted the status quo enough to win concessions. For example: liberal God-Emperor Franklin Delano Roosevelt's biggest campaign promise before his first presidential election was to balance the budget before being faced with the growing and disruptive power of trade unions.

[ComradeAllende]

I think a good start to overcoming this "lesser-evilism" (which is of more importance within, yet not restricted to, American politics) is to illustrate the peculiarities of the American electoral system, particularly how both the Dems and the GOP are more like political coalitions (albeit permanent ones) rather than traditional parliamentary parties. There are three main factions (if my liberal political science teacher is to be believed) that form the modern Republican "coalition": economic conservatives, social conservatives, and hawkish neoconservatives (the isolationist/libertarian wing is virtually nonexistent).

The Democrats, on the other hand, have many small factions and is gradually becoming an ideological "big tent," absorbing the "centrists" and "moderate conservatives" who were cast aside by the GOP. The Democrats pride themselves on being "tolerant" and "diverse"; many neoliberals and neoconservatives have found a home in a party usually associated with the working-class trade unions, causing periodic crises between the two groups that fracture the party.

In other words, the Democrats cannot be "the lesser evil" because they are enabling the growth of the destructive GOP (making them an accessory, at best, yet no less dangerous). They tend to eschew concrete ideologies and ideological screening, which prevents them from forming an effective buffer against the nihilistic Tea Party, and the ensuing success of the GOP (which is unified under a single ideological stance of neoliberalism) forces the more reactionary Democrats (neoliberals, "law and order" moderates, etc) to adopt more conservative/conciliatory positions. If I led the GOP, all I'd have to do to succeed policy-wise is to continue moving rightward, forcing the Democrats to adopt increasingly diluted/conservative positions. Barring some internal inflection and reform, I think the GOP will soon mutate into a demagogic para-fascist party, while the Democrats will embrace (some, not all) of the policies of the current GOP.

Of course, the Democrats will not totally devolve into Republicans; as a whole, they are too socially liberal and too opposed to the "personal responsibility" cult as a matter of principal. Doesn't make the situation that much better, though.

[Ritzy Cat]

Thanks for the responses friends

[RedWorker]

My point of view:

Voting changes nothing -> so there should be no problem with voting as long as you are concious it changes nothing
Voting changes something -> so why not vote?
Voting changes something, but "left" parties will delay revolution -> so why not vote for the right-wing?
Voting gives legitimacy to bourgeois system -> a revolution doesn't get more likely the more bourgeois elections turnout approaches 0%, it's more likely that it's just a symbol of public lack of interest. Mass abstention advocated by a revolutionary party may be considered as a tactic, but still is not required

The question of voting oneself is also different from what a revolutionary party may advocate about voting. One may also vote with a conciousness of exactly what one is doing: choosing what party will rule over the bourgeois state.

[The Idler]

A few questions here.

I understand that a democratic system that truly exemplifies the interests of the workers is impossible under capitalism.

I believe there was a Eugene Debs quote that said "the differences between the republicans and democrats are of no matter to the working class". (I'm talking USA here). Though despite common consensus among the two to maintain capitalism, US imperialism and aggression, worker exploitation etc. the democratic party is a proponent of abortion, gay marriage, etc. social issues that liberal millenials like. Are those differences enough to merit a preference--not pledged allegiance--for the democratic party?

I don't plan to vote, not even for socdem Hillary puppet Bernie Sanders, but I am having trouble in explaining my viewpoint to others. I've been told if Bernie Sanders it the least of all evils, shouldn't I just vote for him, if only to keep someone like Trump/Ted Cruz/any crazy nutjob republican out of office. How should I respond to such criticism in a coherent argument that isn't based on socialist ideological purity?
There's also a Eugene Debs quote "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
Don't listen to the abstentionists.

[RedWorker]

There may be some debate to be held on what a revolutionary party should advocate in regards to voting, but the declaration that "voting oneself is always bad" usually goes through the same negligence of thinking as claiming that voting will solve everything.

If it's bad, that's because it must have some effect, and if it can have a bad effect then it can also have a positive effect, unless the bad effect consists merely of giving legitimacy to the bourgeois system (but revolutions are not a question of "legitimacy" and especially not turnout).

The only other possible case in which you could argue it is exclusively bad is that it would lower a person's conciousness or confuse his ability to think clearly.

[Ritzy Cat]

Is the desire to vote more "fluid"? I can say I won't vote because none of these politicians agree with me on anything. I can say I will because I want a less lethal candidate in charge.

Also, is my vote even worth anything in America? I'm not entirely too sure how it all works, but AFAIK it's up to the electoral college. Is the electoral college required by law to reflect the popular vote? So I feel fundamentally, my vote, one in a pool of millions, has degrees of worthlessness because of the sheer sample size and the notion that the popular vote is coercive hogwash. But I may be wrong.


There's also a Eugene Debs quote "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

But there is no candidate I particularly "want", so I'm not sure where to go from here. The only candidate I would particularly care for is Jill Stein, but her chance of winning is magnitudes lower than Bernie's, whose is magnitudes lower than Hillary's.

I feel like if I am voting for something that I "want", I need to also express other ways of support for them, which may include volunteering, campaigning etc. I would vote with the intention of having that candidate win, and I would thus be required to campaign for such a candidate to help make that dream true. Then I would feel guilty for abandoning fighting for socialism (I am a member of SPUSA). I feel like voting without doing anything else for a candidate does so little to actually realize my purpose in voting ( to have them win), that unless I recruit other voters it's basically a lost cause due to the small effect of one vote. It's all so confusing to me. I'm also only 18, so this would be the first election I'd participate in.

[RedWorker]

Also, is my vote even worth anything in America? I'm not entirely too sure how it all works, but AFAIK it's up to the electoral college. Is the electoral college required by law to reflect the popular vote?

Little details about whether electoral college is forced to represent popular vote are irrelevant. It could be changed, and it'd change little.


So I feel fundamentally, my vote, one in a pool of millions, has degrees of worthlessness because of the sheer sample size and the notion that the popular vote is coercive hogwash. But I may be wrong.

And won't votes under the proletarian state or communist society also have such a sample size, or even higher?

[Ritzy Cat]

Little details about whether electoral college is forced to represent popular vote are irrelevant. It could be changed, and it'd change little.

Right, but unless the votes do not directly correlate to the winning candidate/referendum/whatever, is it really a fair practice? Why would I vote if the collective vote of the people does not actually determine the winner, but a state institution? It would make sense if the EC reflected exactly the collective vote, but then that would make it redundant I guess.


And won't votes under the proletarian state or communist society also have such a sample size, or even higher?

Touche. But it's more of the combination of that factor with the flagrantly undemocratic institution of the electoral college that really takes the cake for me. I think I'd be more inclined to vote if it were the actual vote of the people determining the outcome, but at least now it does not seem so.

(I'm not trying to challenge your points, just trying to learn more)