Demonstrate Against Fake Elections!

[redstar2000]

Demonstrate Against Fake Elections!

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

This is an idea that came to me the other day; please modify it as you consider appropriate.

-------------------------------

We all know, or should know, that capitalist "elections" are fake! The standard response of serious lefties is to simply ignore them.

Perhaps it is time to attack them.

This proposal is designed for a small local group (or group of groups); it should not be attempted without at least 25-50 committed people.

Begin by finding the locations of polling places in a working-class neighborhood. The demonstration will be a march from one polling place to another, continually moving until the demonstration ends. It will be a "sidewalk" demo; thus avoiding "permits", etc.

The demo will take place from the time the polls open until 8:00 am and/or from 6:00 pm until the polls close.

Sample Signs...

Kush or Berry -- WHO CARES?

No Votes for Rich Bastards!

Which Thief Are You For?

They're All Crooks!

Fake "Elections" -- REAL CRAP!

Four More Years...of WAR!

All Politicians Belong in PRISON!
.................................................. .....

Sample Leaflet...

Are You Voting Today? WHY???

Has your vote ever changed your life for the better? Has it ever increased your paycheck or reduced your rent? Saved you money at the grocery or the hospital? Cut your electric bill or reduced your bus fare?

Or kept your kid from being killed in some damn hellhole you never heard of?

Look, it's obvious. "Elections" in America are A BIG FRAUD.

They are popularity contests among rich people who are tired of just being businessmen or heirs to great fortunes, who want "fame" and to get their names into the history books.

They have NEVER done anything for us; but they've done plenty of things TO US! And plenty of things FOR THEMSELVES!

When you vote for one of those rich bastards, all you've accomplished is to allow them to claim that they represent YOU...which is nothing but A BIG LIE!

They represent ONLY THEMSELVES...their greed, their swollen egos, their lust for power and fame.

If you want a better life, the only way that will ever happen is if you ORGANIZE AND FIGHT FOR IT.

Voting in America's fake "elections" is a sucker's game that will change NOTHING!

Don't be suckered!

DON'T VOTE!
---------------------------------

Modify this leaflet according to taste; but stay away from "lefty terminology" like bourgeoisie, proletariat, etc.

It wouldn't hurt to give a plug to Che-Lives at the end either.

If demos like this happened in a number of cities, I think it would have a very positive effect...breaking down the illusion that "real politics" consists of capitalist electoral charades every few years.

Comments...

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

this is assuming leftists dont use elections as a platform to get to the masses...something you do not seem to appreciate.

[redstar2000]

This is assuming leftists dont use elections as a platform to get to the masses...something you do not seem to appreciate.

Quite so, I have no appreciation for political foolishness.

This is not a proposal directed towards those who hand out leaflets for Kerry...or for "Labour".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[monkeydust]

No Votes for Rich Bastards!


All Politicians Belong in PRISON!


Fake "Elections" -- REAL CRAP!

These three were great.

Unfortunately I'm not in the U.S so can't do all this stuff.

But rest assured, next year when the Brit elections start coming I'll be at it.

For those Brits who know of her:

Anne Widdecombe (conservative MP) is currently my constituencies eleceted representative.

She likes to do a tour in the 'widdecombe-mobile' yelling "vote conservative".

During the 2001 election campaign I managed to hit her with an egg.

Next year, maybe we can make it a brick.

We can always hope.........

[Guest]

Good idea redstar. I have a few I would like to add:

Don’t Help the Pigs
<span style='font-family:Courier'>Help Your Class&#33;

Stop the Vote
Voting supports Capitalists&#33;

My only president is the Proletariat&#33;

Don’t Vote&#33;
The Political Machine
Must Be Destroyed

Revolution not Prostitution</span>

[DaCuBaN]

Redstar is right: we need to keep well clear of leftist slogans.
It&#39;s so obvious how much it hurts the cause to segregate langauge in this way. Not to mention if you say proletariat, revolution or any such the first word that comes to the mind of most in the UK/US would be Stalin

Which doesn&#39;t sit well with most people.

[Salvador Allende]

I agree completely red star&#33; No good change has ever come from the voting booth, Chile more than any other country proved that&#33; Mao said it time and time again, true political change comes from the gun. Yet at the same time, "the party must control the gun, the gun should never be allowed to control the party."

BTW, red star, if you ever need anyone to write anything for your site from the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist perspective, please contact me.

[scrap metal]

FOR SALE:
DEMOCRACY

YOUR BALLOT BUYS A BULLET

WWCD
What Would Che Do (just to piss off the religious right)

WAR FOR KERRY
OR THE SON OF A DRUG LORD?

[peaccenicked]

"This is assuming leftists dont use elections as a platform to get to the masses...something you do not seem to appreciate. "



Quite so, I have no appreciation for political foolishness.

I am sorry I cant see it. A campaign against fake elections is rather pointless if it is conducted outside polling stations. After making the journey most people, if not all will go in. They will probably agree that voting makes little difference(Ken Livingstone says that if voting changed anything they d abolish it.
However, internationally it is generally seen as a test of public consciousness.
The abstinence vote signyfies many things apathy, defiance, disillisionment but nothing in particular is expressed. The Republican Vote signifies Might is right apathy. The democratic vote is hypocritical.
I think the Nader vote is the best way to sygnify the desperate need to smash the present day electoral system.
The fake electoral system should be attacked everyday as a matter of habit.
We should make it clear that Murdoch is corruting the electoral process and should be dispossessed and his media empire given to (at least for a half way measure) to third world charities.
Socialists of all hues, those outside and those inside the electoral process have to
make the information war more consistent.
Ironically, in the present context, it was Chomsky that the State or the Goverment that can deal with one demostration but they cant handle persistence.

Here are two links to describing Murdoch&#39;s dictatorial influence on both US and UK governments.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0322-07.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../13/ixhome.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/13/nbrown13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/13/ixhome.html)

This link is to a project I am getting interested in.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/e.oriordan/gap/index.html

[Kez]

why should we keep clear of leftist slogans?
surely thats just dishonesty?

Its gonna be hard, but if we fight in a correct manner we will win, and this means the correct theory and methodology.

im not for one to cower behind a non-socialist smokescreen.

[redstar2000]

Why should we keep clear of leftist slogans?

The slogans may be as left in content as you think appropriate. It is leftist jargon that should be avoided at this time...people are often "put off" by terminology and specialized usage that they are not familiar with.


A campaign against fake elections is rather pointless if it is conducted outside polling stations. After making the journey most people, if not all, will go in.

True. The purpose of these demonstrations is not to "cause" a sudden drop in the turn-out; it is to raise the idea publicly that bourgeois elections are fakes...in a context where people might be open to the idea.

They may go ahead and vote this time...but next time they may not.

And it&#39;s also to raise, of course, the idea that bourgeois "democracy" is, in fact, the dictatorship of the capitalist class...also in a context where the message has "immediate relevance".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

A number of these slogans would work fine as rightist slogans. Perot ran on a basically similar set of sentiments (except for the "rich bastards" part of course). It would work even better as rightist opposition to the whole parliamentary system...

The leaflet&#39;s better...but still is limited only to what you&#39;re against, not what you&#39;re for....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In this case I have to agree with Redstar. (ugh)

Encouraging people to not vote is essential in creating a shamefully low voter turnout, which is the most effective thing we can do to illegitimatize capitalist "democracy".

[redstar2000]

A number of these slogans would work fine as rightist slogans.

Which ones?


It would work even better as rightist opposition to the whole parliamentary system...

Are you suggesting that we should not oppose bourgeois "democracy" because some elements of the right may also be opposed to it?


The leaflet&#39;s better...but still is limited only to what you&#39;re against, not what you&#39;re for....

There&#39;s no requirement in this context to make "positive suggestions"...and it&#39;s a little early to call for proletarian revolution, don&#39;t you think?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:52 AM
why should we keep clear of leftist slogans?
surely thats just dishonesty?

Its gonna be hard, but if we fight in a correct manner we will win, and this means the correct theory and methodology.

im not for one to cower behind a non-socialist smokescreen.

Its not dishonesty. The burgeoisie was dishonest.

We have to say things that reach out to people. There is plenty of other ways to say things and we have to put it in a way that speaks to every one.

[Severian]

I&#39;m suggesting that if your propaganda is indistinguishable from rightist, even fascist, propaganda, there&#39;s a problem that needs to be corrected. Ultrarightists are often against all the same things communists are - including "crooked politicians" and even "rich bastards" - and the difference is in what we&#39;re for. If you really don&#39;t get this, you have even bigger political problems than I realized.

"There&#39;s no requirement in this context to make "positive suggestions""

There&#39;s always a need to put forward a positive program. If voting is a waste of time - and it is - what should people do then?

"...and it&#39;s a little early to call for proletarian revolution, don&#39;t you think?"

Why? You don&#39;t have to use those words, but it is necessary to say that working people need to take power away from the rich. We need a government of workers and farmers, not a government of big business. Heck, why not say that it&#39;ll take a revolution to accomplish this.

Candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (in the U.S.) routinely say all of that, and reach a larger audience by participating in the election campaign to boot. They also point out the fake nature of big-business "democracy", and that elections wouldn&#39;t really change anything even if a socialist candidate was elected. Everything you&#39;re trying to say by "attacking" the elections, in other words, but to people who won&#39;t ever see your demonstration.

Yur "attack on the election" sounds super-revolutionary, but it actually puts forward a less revolutionary program than SWP election campaigns do.

But OK then, not time to call for revolution, then what is it time for?

You do say, organize and fight for it. Good. Fight for what? What kind of demands? Jobs for all or get rid of those damn welfare cheats? Stop the deportations or get rid of all those damn wetbacks who are stealing our jobs? Jail killer and brutal cops, or get tough on crime? Etc. Only by putting forward some kind of demands or program along these lines can you distinguish yourself from ultrarightists. Otherwise, your actions may not be in the interests of working people any more than theirs are...

[FatFreeMilk]

They may go ahead and vote this time...but next time they may not.

But what about the people who do go vote next time, won&#39;t that just make it easier for them to have whomever they want to win? I really don&#39;t understand the whole concept of encouraging people not to vote. Well, I do but I don&#39;t. This is the Americans&#39; chance to pick who they want to make their lives more or less miserable, sad but true. Not voting will only make it easier for the bigger prick to win. I&#39;m missing something here...

You&#39;re ideas&#39;s good but why wait till elections? Why not start anti campaigning now so voters see that there&#39;s an "alternative"?

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m suggesting that if your propaganda is indistinguishable from rightist, even fascist, propaganda, there&#39;s a problem that needs to be corrected. Ultrarightists are often against all the same things communists are - including "crooked politicians" and even "rich bastards" - and the difference is in what we&#39;re for.

That doesn&#39;t make sense. If we were to carry American flags, defend the war criminals in Iraq, say something nasty about immigrants, etc., then your criticism would be justified.

Only the most myopic ultra-rightist could read any support for his position into the slogans that I suggested.

In addition to which, of course, ultra-rightists do support candidates and even run for office themselves. That is a sensible perspective for them...they all remember that Hitler came to power because the Nazis outpolled their opposition in a bourgeois election.


There&#39;s always a need to put forward a positive program.

That just re-stating an old cliché in different words; no criticism is "legitimate" unless you have a positive alternative to offer.

At this time, the truth of the matter is that we don&#39;t have such an alternative. There&#39;s no way to "reform" the bourgeois electoral process within the overall context of bourgeois society itself...the money and the media will determine the outcome period.

The working class must disengage itself from the whole rotten process as a first step in its self-emancipation.

My proposal is a first step in that direction.


...it is necessary to say that working people need to take power away from the rich. We need a government of workers and farmers, not a government of big business. Heck, why not say that it&#39;ll take a revolution to accomplish this.

One pretty important reason I don&#39;t suggest that is that I don&#39;t think we "need" a government, in the sense that you are using the word. I&#39;m not a Leninist.

But more important, I think the call for revolution (no matter how you worded it) would be "noise" to most people at the present time and for a considerable period to come. At this stage, I think the reasonable goal is to make their disenchantment with bourgeois elections more conscious...and to get them acquainted with the idea that "if they want a better life, they&#39;ll have to fight for it".

I don&#39;t recommend, by the way, that people append a list of "worthy causes" to this demonstration or its leaflets. Everyone in the U.S. is pounded with appeals to support "worthy causes". I think people will find a leaflet that doesn&#39;t do that to be downright refreshing.


Candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (in the U.S.) routinely say all of that, and reach a larger audience by participating in the election campaign to boot. They also point out the fake nature of big-business "democracy", and that elections wouldn&#39;t really change anything even if a socialist candidate was elected. Everything you&#39;re trying to say by "attacking" the elections, in other words, but to people who won&#39;t ever see your demonstration.

Yes, you say that bourgeois elections are "fake" and you demonstrate that you "really mean that" by...running candidates for office.

I have no way of telling how many people you "reach" with this self-contradictory "message" (and neither do you)...but I don&#39;t imagine you fool very many of them.

Confuse, perhaps. But fool, no.


Your "attack on the election" sounds super-revolutionary, but it actually puts forward a less revolutionary program than SWP election campaigns do.

It&#39;s not intended to be either "revolutionary" or "super-revolutionary"...the point is not to see who can sound the "most revolutionary" in words.

The point is to begin the process of educating our class in what is needed...to begin with, what is needed is to disengage from illusions about reformism and bourgeois democracy.

It&#39;s not the end; it&#39;s the beginning that concerns me here.


Fight for what? What kind of demands?

Ten years from now it might be possible to offer a tentative answer to that question.

The idea that right now the left has anything to offer in this regard is, for the most part, illusory.

Once you&#39;ve "demanded" that the U.S. should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, you&#39;ve said about all that anyone is prepared to listen to...at least for the time being.

I&#39;m well aware that Leninist-Trotskyists "pride" themselves on their "skills" in formulating "transitional demands" -- demands that are supposed to infer the "need" for proletarian revolution without actually saying that.

That perspective has been employed for what, 70 years or so, without measurable success. I&#39;m not interested in replicating failure...thus my proposal takes a different direction altogether.


Only by putting forward some kind of demands or program along these lines can you distinguish yourself from ultrarightists. Otherwise, your actions may not be in the interests of working people any more than theirs are...

By the very fact of demonstrating against the fake electoral process, we will have already shown that we "are something different" from all that&#39;s gone before.

I think people will notice that.


I really don&#39;t understand the whole concept of encouraging people not to vote.

Because it doesn&#39;t matter "who wins". They are all "pricks".


Why not start anti campaigning now so voters see that there&#39;s an "alternative"?

No reason why not, really. It&#39;s a matter of context more than anything else. "Election Day" is a de facto patriotic holiday when we "celebrate" our "freedom". But one could easily have preliminary demonstrations along the same lines...Labor Day would be a good choice--set up a "vote no" booth at locations where working class families go to picnic, watch fireworks, etc.

If people press you for an "alternative", all you really need say is "organize&#33;" -- that no one in American ever got crap from the politicians unless they raised hell in the streets, the workplaces, the schools, wherever.

This is not a proposal intended to create "instant socialists" or "instant communists" or "instant anarchists".

It&#39;s much more modest than that...it is to plant some seeds of rebellion.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Fidelbrand]

Liberal democracy is a plaything for exploited citizens to make them feel empowered as "free people with autonomy".

ELect people who can&#39;t do shits for them to improve their physiological conditions under capitalism is a bloody joke.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:08 AM
That doesn&#39;t make sense. If we were to carry American flags, defend the war criminals in Iraq, say something nasty about immigrants, etc., then your criticism would be justified.

Only the most myopic ultra-rightist could read any support for his position into the slogans that I suggested.
I&#39;ve met plenty of ultrarightists who say all of those things. In all of those words.

They&#39;re against the government, too, especially the corrupt politicians, and, especially, the bourgeois-democratic political setup.

And they&#39;re even against the rich. Subjectively. Verbally.



In addition to which, of course, ultra-rightists do support candidates and even run for office themselves. That is a sensible perspective for them...they all remember that Hitler came to power because the Nazis outpolled their opposition in a bourgeois election.

No, in fact, they didn&#39;t. Hindenburg was elected as a lesser-evil alternative to Hitler, then appointed Hitler chancellor. He was confirmed with the support of "democratic" Reichstag delegates, after setting his thugs loose in the streets and arresting Communist Party delegates in a police-state fashion. The Nazis never won a majority in any multiparty election.

But they certainly did spread their ideas, and build their movement, by participating in elections they openly derided. A tactic they borrowed from the communist movement, as they borrowed their anticapitalist rhetoric and a number of other things.

The whole time the Nazis were running in multiparty elections, they were denouncing bourgeois democracy (sometimes using those words) and its corrupt, degenerate politicians, and even its rich (Jewish) bastards. In terms fairly similar to yours.


At this time, the truth of the matter is that we don&#39;t have such an alternative. There&#39;s no way to "reform" the bourgeois electoral process within the overall context of bourgeois society itself...the money and the media will determine the outcome period.

No shit, the process can&#39;t be reformed. So don&#39;t we have an revolutionary alternative? I know I do.



The working class must disengage itself from the whole rotten process as a first step in its self-emancipation.

My proposal is a first step in that direction.


It&#39;s not a step in any definite direction, that&#39;s the problem.


One pretty important reason I don&#39;t suggest that is that I don&#39;t think we "need" a government, in the sense that you are using the word. I&#39;m not a Leninist.

Heh. To whatever degree you&#39;re an anarchist - I tend to think that&#39;s a fairly phony veneer over a Stalinist core - that just confirms the old point, that anarchists can&#39;t really oppose the big-business state because they oppose its replacement with workers&#39; power.



But more important, I think the call for revolution (no matter how you worded it) would be "noise" to most people at the present time and for a considerable period to come. At this stage, I think the reasonable goal is to make their disenchantment with bourgeois elections more conscious...and to get them acquainted with the idea that "if they want a better life, they&#39;ll have to fight for it".

So you&#39;re unwilling to say anything you think most people won&#39;t agree with? So much for the super-revolutionary stance.

I&#39;d say most people are pretty conscious of that disenchantment...most don&#39;t vote, and those who do, hold their noses. What&#39;s missing, is precisely to show that a better alternative is realistic. That&#39;s not easy.



I don&#39;t recommend, by the way, that people append a list of "worthy causes" to this demonstration or its leaflets. Everyone in the U.S. is pounded with appeals to support "worthy causes". I think people will find a leaflet that doesn&#39;t do that to be downright refreshing.


Oh, it may well appeal to widespread cynicism and hopelessness. It&#39;s far easier to say everything is rotten than to suggest something is worthwhile - precisely because everyone knows already that everything&#39;s rotten. It&#39;s easy and for the same reason somewhat pointless, in a "no shit, sherlock" kinda way.




Candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (in the U.S.) routinely say all of that, and reach a larger audience by participating in the election campaign to boot. They also point out the fake nature of big-business "democracy", and that elections wouldn&#39;t really change anything even if a socialist candidate was elected. Everything you&#39;re trying to say by "attacking" the elections, in other words, but to people who won&#39;t ever see your demonstration.

Yes, you say that bourgeois elections are "fake" and you demonstrate that you "really mean that" by...running candidates for office.

I have no way of telling how many people you "reach" with this self-contradictory "message" (and neither do you)...but I don&#39;t imagine you fool very many of them.

Confuse, perhaps. But fool, no.

Uh, actually, there are measurable ways to know about the people reached - media coverage of SWP candidates, the number of signatures on ballot-access petitions (each of those represents a political discussion with somebody on the street), etc.

And I&#39;ve never known anyone to be either confused or fooled - because unlike you, the SWP is consistently upfront about its whole program.




Your "attack on the election" sounds super-revolutionary, but it actually puts forward a less revolutionary program than SWP election campaigns do.

It&#39;s not intended to be either "revolutionary" or "super-revolutionary"...the point is not to see who can sound the "most revolutionary" in words.

Really? Because that&#39;s the ONLY way your proposal is revolutionary. "We&#39;re attacking the elections" ooh that&#39;s so radical.



I&#39;m well aware that Leninist-Trotskyists "pride" themselves on their "skills" in formulating "transitional demands" -- demands that are supposed to infer the "need" for proletarian revolution without actually saying that.

Uh, Bubba, you&#39;re the one who doesn&#39;t want to say there&#39;s a need for revolution. You said so earlier in this very post. Christ, you&#39;re dishonest. Sane people only lie when there&#39;s a chance they won&#39;t get caught - you&#39;ve slipped into the pathological variety of lying here.



That perspective has been employed for what, 70 years or so, without measurable success. I&#39;m not interested in replicating failure...thus my proposal takes a different direction altogether.

Uh, actually, proposals like yours, to boycott elections, are a lot older than 70 years. None of the ultraleft tendencies pushing these proposals have ever done anything worthwhile, led any mass struggle, never mind a revolution. It&#39;s not just because they refuse to participate in elections, but because that&#39;s a symptom of a general lack of tactics and tendency to sit on the sidelines spouting rhetoric instead of participating in the real class struggle.

Communists, on the other hand, who recognize that it&#39;s a tactical question whether or not to participate in elections, have done all of those things...




Fight for what? What kind of demands?
Ten years from now it might be possible to offer a tentative answer to that question.


Ten years from now, it wouldn&#39;t surprise me to learn that you&#39;ve followed the path of LaRouche, Newman&Fulani, and others, and gone from the ultraleft to the ultraright. When you&#39;ve got no actual roots or relationship to the living class struggle, it&#39;s easy.

[percept¡on]

I&#39;m glad someone else had this idea. I was thinking about this the other day, an &#39;election protest&#39;. Just not voting makes people attribute your non-vote as apathy, marching in the streets speaks to your disgust with the whole rotten process.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;ve met plenty of ultrarightists who say all of those things. In all of those words.

Since I don&#39;t know any ultra-rightists at all, I suppose I must defer to your superior experience.

But we do have an Opposing Ideologies Forum here which I have read from time to time and I do not recall any sentiments even remotely approaching the slogans I recommended. Perhaps we lack the "right kind" of ultra-rightists.


The whole time the Nazis were running in multiparty elections, they were denouncing bourgeois democracy (sometimes using those words) and its corrupt, degenerate politicians, and even its rich (Jewish) bastards. In terms fairly similar to yours.

Well, I&#39;m not running in multi-party "elections". I am denouncing bourgeois elections but not using those words. I am denouncing corrupt politicians but do not refer to their "degeneracy". And I&#39;m denouncing rich bastards without regard to their nominal ethnic/religious affiliation.

If you want to "pull" what I advocate into the "right-wing", you have a lot more pulling to do...perhaps you should rent a tractor.


So don&#39;t we have an revolutionary alternative? I know I do.

Yeah, you sure do. Vote for your wretched little party&#33;

How "r-r-revolutionary".


It&#39;s not a step in any definite direction, that&#39;s the problem.

Meaning it&#39;s not a step towards the "Trotsky-ization" of the working class.

True, it&#39;s not.


...anarchists can&#39;t really oppose the big-business state because they oppose its replacement with workers&#39; power.

Workers&#39; power? :lol:

You mean, as Leninists always do, state power for your own pathetic sect "in the name of the workers".


So you&#39;re unwilling to say anything you think most people won&#39;t agree with?

It is pointless to say things to people that they don&#39;t understand.

Speaking to you, of course, that is unavoidable. But other considerations apply when speaking to the working class as it is now.

Your party only sees working people as "potential recruits", so it is in your interest to hit people over the head with "the full package".

I&#39;m not trying to recruit anybody to anything; I want to raise an issue with the masses -- the "elections" are fake -- and let them begin to think for themselves what that means.


What&#39;s missing, is precisely to show that a better alternative is realistic. That&#39;s not easy.

It&#39;s not even possible at this point. If anyone is so deluded as to think that voting for your party will make any difference at all...I can only hope they will come to their senses before they hurt themselves.


It&#39;s far easier to say everything is rotten than to suggest something is worthwhile - precisely because everyone knows already that everything&#39;s rotten.

Yes, that&#39;s true. But if "everything is rotten", why is that?

That is what a great many people do not know and that is what my proposal addresses.

If the political process is fake and rich bastards run it while everything gets worse, what&#39;s the implication of that?


None of the ultraleft tendencies pushing these proposals have ever done anything worthwhile, led any mass struggle, never mind a revolution.

Didn&#39;t those "ultraleftist" Situationists have...um, something to do with the French General Strike of May 1968?

Or was that not really "worthwhile"?


It&#39;s not just because they refuse to participate in elections, but because that&#39;s a symptom of a general lack of tactics and [a] tendency to sit on the sidelines spouting rhetoric instead of participating in the real class struggle.

"Participate in Class Struggle&#33; Vote SWP&#33;" :lol:


Communists [sic], on the other hand, who recognize that it&#39;s a tactical question whether or not to participate in elections, have done all of those things...

And the signs of their successes are all around us, clear for everyone to see. :lol:


Ten years from now, it wouldn&#39;t surprise me to learn that you&#39;ve followed the path of LaRouche, Newman & Fulani, and others, and gone from the ultraleft to the ultraright.

Thanks for the vote of confidence&#33;

As it happens, I probably won&#39;t be alive in ten years myself...thus I will decline to speculate on your probable political destination. Besides, once an apparatchnik, always an apparatchnik, right?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas