Boycotting National Elections

[MathAndMarx26]

What are the opinions of different perspectives and tendencies regarding working for the boycott of "bourgeois" national elections? Is this a potentially effective means of helping to bring about social change/revolution? The way I see it, it can contribute to the de-legitimization of the state and maybe even the overall capitalist system, but how about supposedly "good" candidates who might actually help change things? And what are the chances of a successful boycott even occurring? (I don't think there has been any recent one) And if a successful boycott does happen, I suppose it will have been because the state would already be de-legitimized in the eyes of the general public...

Thoughts and info regarding this would be well appreciated!

[RedWorker]

If we are to take the standpoint that voting changes little, then it's still hard to make a case for political abstention. Articulating the revolution would not depend on the turnout in the bourgeois elections...

[MathAndMarx26]

If we are to take the standpoint that voting changes little, then it's still hard to make a case for political abstention. Articulating the revolution would not depend on the turnout in the bourgeois elections...
But even if participating in bourgeois national elections, and the success of each election changes little, couldn't it be argued that precisely because of its uselessness in contributing to meaningful changes in society and its inability to decisively be a weapon against capitalism, the opposite situation wherein individuals refuse to participate and a "mass" boycott of elections could have a more revolutionary effect? If a successful bourgeois election means that the status quo is maintained, then maybe an unsuccessful one destabilizes it. I have no idea what happens in the event of a failure of national elections though.

[tuwix]

What are the opinions of different perspectives and tendencies regarding working for the boycott of "bourgeois" national elections?

I just don't participate in activities that are rigged. Whoever you choose, bourgeoisie rules.

[#FF0000]

The US has some of the lowest voter turnout in the country and it doesn't matter much. The government is no less legitimate than any other, regardless of the voter turnout. So no, I don't think an election boycott matters for much or is a useful tactic.

[MathAndMarx26]

hmmm so from what I understand so far, to participate in elections is pretty much pointless, while to boycott and to advocate for a boycott is equally futile when it comes to helping bring about revolutionary change or general destabilization. But at the same time, it is still better not to participate in it because it is useless to do so...

[#FF0000]

I don't know if it's "better" to not participate. Under normal circumstances, I don't think participating in elections with the goal of taking power is feasible.

My opinion is that voting is useless -- so who cares one way or another? I know people who vote for lesser evils without any illusions and I think that's fine, so long as they don't start bothering me if I don't do the same.

[Major K.]

It doesn't make a big difference either way. I think the main value would be symbolically if you are in the process of rejecting the legitimacy of such things, and also it could be an interesting conversation starter. Other than than, yeah, pretty pointless either way. It's more an indicator of how you identify yourself than anything. In objective effectiveness, it's nothing. I see it as more an indicator of the degree of public faith in the spectacle than a tool of undermining it.

[Sar]

I've actually had a question about this. Am I totally misunderstanding the national voting system or is the popular vote actually useless.

Since 4 presidents lost the popular vote and still became president, isn't it not even possible to make a difference voting (assuming the candidates mattered anyway)? How come nobody brings this up? Or am I totally missing something

[blake 3:17]

I've actually had a question about this. Am I totally misunderstanding the national voting system or is the popular vote actually useless.

Since 4 presidents lost the popular vote and still became president, isn't it not even possible to make a difference voting (assuming the candidates mattered anyway)? How come nobody brings this up? Or am I totally missing something

The popular vote can be pretty useless in many places. I'm assuming you're in the US. A good account of this is Piven and Cloward's Why Americans Still Don't Vote. I'm in Canada, and support Fair Vote Canada which is a proponent of proportional representation http://campaign2015.fairvote.ca/

It's stupid that the popular vote matters so little.

[Rafiq]

Abstinence from voting, at the present moment, is a personal matter. You are not "boycotting" anything.

You cannot speak of "boycotting" elections unless you can propose for us a means by which we can mass mobilize the population to abstain from voting. You then must explain how we can do this without ourselves becoming a huge political force.

[WideAwake]

You are right, but I think that millions of people in USA and in other countries vote, because I read in a philosophy book of Goethe, that humans get a sort of evil joy from knowing that they are being decieved, and I think that most people have an ultra-optimist perception of the world, of how things work of the world. And they really do not want to get out of that fake-world in which they live, because the real-world would be too painful, too depressive and would require people to use weapons in order to overthrow most governments of the world. I mean it is a lot easier for people who have children, wife, a stable life etc (to think that most governments of the world are 100% honest, are a little bit socialist) and that most politicians are not so evil and they are well-intentioned. Because like I said, if humans admit and are aware that Marx was right in that the only way to see changes is thru armed revolutions. That would require humans to get out of their comfortable air-conditioned comfortable lives and face the ugly reality of the real-world of needing to overthrow most governments of the world with weapons.

And as a result of religion, morality, education, media and many other reasons, the natural, passions and emotions of anger, rage, the warrior instincts, agressive violent instincts of most humans have been destroyed by civilization, by laws and morality codes. And that's why most humans today are too sedated and too pacified to really support real wars of radical leftists against capitalist governments (Which is according to Marx the only way to see real changes). And so because waging real wars is too dangerous, too bloody, humans prefer to idealize in their own heads, to really believe the lie that elections will turn their own country into communist labor paradises of wealth and luxuries for all

And that's why this world needs a sort of global mental awakening, in order for humans to accept the painful hard truth that the only way to see real changes is like Karl Marx said (with radical leftists fighting with weapons against the armed forces of capitalist governments)





I just don't participate in activities that are rigged. Whoever you choose, bourgeoisie rules.

[Scheveningen]

To be fair, I am neutral on the matter (or 'don't care', if you prefer).

Participating in elections will give us zero meaningful victories (even if I reckon it might be indirectly useful in some circumstances; no tactic should be discounted), but at the same time we shouldn't spend time and energy campaigning for a boycott, as if that would improve conditions or bring down a government.

[Comrade Jacob]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If the left refused to vote the people that do would (The reactionaries) would have more power. And if we do it wouldn't do anything.

[MathAndMarx26]

So to sum up the current dominant thoughts on boycotting national elections, it really is pointless to either vote or campaign for a general boycott. To actually campaign for and succeed in a general boycott would entail becoming a prominent political force and this in itself just creates more questions... In the light of actual revolution and the overthrow of capitalism, participating or not participating in bourgeoisie national elections seem to be a relatively insignificant factor. Is this regardless of who the candidates are and what they might be standing for? (they could be fairly to the left such as Corbyn, or some leaders in South America) Or does the revolutionary struggle against Capitalism really just take place outside of the sphere of bourgeoisie national elections?

[Asero]

So to sum up the current dominant thoughts on boycotting national elections, it really is pointless to either vote or campaign for a general boycott. To actually campaign for and succeed in a general boycott would entail becoming a prominent political force and this in itself just creates more questions... In the light of actual revolution and the overthrow of capitalism, participating or not participating in bourgeoisie national elections seem to be a relatively insignificant factor. Is this regardless of who the candidates are and what they might be standing for? (they could be fairly to the left such as Corbyn, or some leaders in South America) Or does the revolutionary struggle against Capitalism really just take place outside of the sphere of bourgeoisie national elections?

The purpose of election campaigning, as many leftists forget, isn't to just get people into offices. The point is to create the proper institutions and to spread Socialism among the masses for when revolutionary storms begin to brew.

During the snap elections after Marcos was overthrown, the Communist Party boycotted the elections. As a consequence, their political influence in the direct following dissipated. It was perhaps one of the greatest blunders in the history of the Left in the Philippines. Despite the fact that the Communists were the most active and vocal opponents of Martial Law and were fundamental in overthrowing Marcos, their contribution to history has been forgotten. The radicals should use whatever means at their disposal to achieve our ends, within reason.

Also,
"Bourgeois" = singular noun
"Bourgeois" = adjective
"Bourgeoisie" = plural noun

[MathAndMarx26]

The purpose of election campaigning, as many leftists forget, isn't to just get people into offices. The point is to create the proper institutions and to spread Socialism among the masses for when revolutionary storms begin to brew.

During the snap elections after Marcos was overthrown, the Communist Party boycotted the elections. As a consequence, their political influence in the direct following dissipated. It was perhaps one of the greatest blunders in the history of the Left in the Philippines. Despite the fact that the Communists were the most active and vocal opponents of Martial Law and were fundamental in overthrowing Marcos, their contribution to history has been forgotten. The radicals should use whatever means at their disposal to achieve our ends, within reason.

Also,
"Bourgeois" = singular noun
"Bourgeois" = adjective
"Bourgeoisie" = plural noun

How does participating in Bourgeois National Elections "create proper institutions to spread Socialism in the masses"?

Did the CPP really have a good chance at winning significant and influential positions in the national government? Also, why why would their act of boycotting the elections cause them to lose political influence with their direct following, was the boycott enough grounds for the CPP's direct following to dissipate? If the the CPP was influential enough to have a shot at winning government positions, wouldn't it also be in a position to successfully organize a national boycott? And lastly, if "the radicals should use whatever means at their disposal to achieve our ends" is a successful election boycott counted as a "means to an end"?

Thanks for the grammar pointers, ill keep those in mind.

[odysseus]

I've found this interview the best explanation of exactly how undemocratic US elections actually are.
Take TYT as you like, but I still find this interview to be gold standard. tytnetwork.com/2015/10/20/why-is-the-democratic-party-afraid-of-larry-lessig-interview-w-cenk-uygur/

[Asero]

How does participating in Bourgeois National Elections "create proper institutions to spread Socialism in the masses"?

Did the CPP really have a good chance at winning significant and influential positions in the national government? Also, why why would their act of boycotting the elections cause them to lose political influence with their direct following, was the boycott enough grounds for the CPP's direct following to dissipate? If the the CPP was influential enough to have a shot at winning government positions, wouldn't it also be in a position to successfully organize a national boycott? And lastly, if "the radicals should use whatever means at their disposal to achieve our ends" is a successful election boycott counted as a "means to an end"?

The reasoning behind it isn't so that we get people into the government, but that we would gain political influence among the people, so that, when the time comes for revolution, we'll get enough support among the general populous to achieve our ends. If we reject the idea of participation in the political arena because abstract principles, we'll never get to the point of political relevancy to overthrow the government and revolutionize society. Because the CPP boycotted the elections, the fleeting moment in which we had the potential of realizing a social revolution was lost.

By stating that we should use whatever we can, I'm saying that no tactic should become a taboo. We should maximize both legal and illegal means of struggle to appeal to the majority of the people and to create a proper organization of dedicated revolutionaries. It wasn't that participating in elections leads to the creation of proper revolutionary institutions, but that, alongside having the proper institutions, participating in elections contributes to our ability to spread class consciousness and support from the people.

On this subject, I recommend Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder by Lenin, complemented by Rosa Luxemburg's Reform and Revolution.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

[MathAndMarx26]

Hmm the part about spreading class consciousness and winning support seems reasonable. And if the pre-supposition to participating in elections is that a victorious Leftist national government can successfully implement socialist policies (in-spite of a globalized and capitalist context) and eventually be dissolved because the society has become "classless", then I would agree that participating in elections either as a voter supporting left-leaning candidates or as a left-leaning candidate is a viable line of action.