Local Elections

[Paradox]

I asked this question on another forum and wanted to know what you think. I don't see a point to it, but what do you think of Socialists running in local elections? For example, in the mayoral election here there was a Socialist candidate. I was puzzled by this because even he he had actually won, what would he have been able to accomplish? If Socialists were to win control of the country on a true Socialist platform, that would be different, but local elections? :huh: Other than possibly catching people's attention and educating them on what Socialism and Communism really are, what's the point?

[RedLenin]

I agree with you. Participating in Bourgeois elections only lead to reformism. Once a candidate is in, he or she will begin to enjoy their power and soon abandon any revolutionary ideas they may have held. They will soon be capitalist pawns. This is the same local and national. We should stay out of Bourgeois politics all together and focus our strenth on other tactics.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:46 AM
This is the same local and national. We should stay out of Bourgeois politics all together and focus our strenth on other tactics.
What like posting on message boards? Is that the way to reach out to people who have no idea there is an alternative to the mainstream parties?
What better a way to prove that Socialism can work and what better way to show people that there is an alternative than putting yourself up there get elected and the organisation you are part of will be there to keep your feet on the ground and ensure you do it for the people not yourself, we have many such people in these postions within the SP(uk) and they have not, as yet, become corrupt Capitalist scum. *Here comes the "they will" remarks* yeah, yeah I heard it all before all I know is our Councillors make a difference in the areas they are in and raise the ideas of Socialism and revolution whilst they're at it.

Does it not make sense that if people see Socialist ideas in action they are more likely to come to the same conclusions we have? Is it possible that people want to see the proof behind what we tell them before they commit to a revolution? Standing in bourgeois elections also have the added bonus that you can tell people how bad the other parties are running the country! Suprisingly few people realise till you point it out then it seems obvious to them.

[RedAnarchist]

Maybe starting off in the bourgoise system will help create the revolution in some countries - people might become more knowledgeable about Communism without there having to be a great change in the way the country is run, then a revolution could be more welcomed by the masses.

[VukBZ2005]

1

In fact - for someone who possesses revolutionary ideas to even participate; in
a system specifically set up to trick the working masses into believing that they
have a voice; is lying to the working masses because they are saying that
revolutionaries can participate in "elections" that occur every four to five years;
eventually you will lose those revolutionary ideas and end up being a reformer.
Real Communists do not partcipate in fake capitalist elections.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I can't see the problem in socialists standing in elections. Even if they do become 'corrupted' and such like they can't be worse that a corrupt Tory or other right winger...and if they don't become corrupted then they can only be benificial...

[antieverything]

In fact - for someone who possesses revolutionary ideas to even participate; in
a system specifically set up to trick the working masses into believing that they
have a voice; is lying to the working masses because they are saying that
revolutionaries can participate in "elections" that occur every four to five years;
eventually you will lose those revolutionary ideas and end up being a reformer.
Real Communists do not partcipate in fake capitalist elections.

Socialism is more than an idealized political and economic system, it is the politicalization of survival tactics--and in capitalism, of resistance. Socialism is more than the "siezing of state power"--it is an all-transforming, revolutionary social and cultural process aimed at extending the scope and transforming the meaning of democracy (or of affirming this meaning which has been subverted).

Socialism isn't an ideal that "the masses" will one day open up to, it is the emobodiment of the human struggle for individual liberation given collective character and mass consciousness.

If we as commited radicals refuse out of our arrogance to participate in the politicalization of survival by any and all means necessary we become hypocrites in the eyes of "normal" people struggling against the negative effects of capitalism in their communities...and rightfully so.

While I believe that radicals should participate in and encourage participation in the political process it should be made clear to us and to others that using existing political channels (that exist in their present form only as the result of centuries of class struggle, not because of "trickery") is not an acceptance of the present socioeconomic order or of "bourgeious" liberal democracy. Rather, political activity should be based on local, community-based mobilization intended to provide a buffer between anti-democratic state institutions and newly emerging radically and genuinely democratic, non-state, popular institutions based around the politicalization of survival and thus of resistance. I therefore support local political machines based out of locally-based, radical social movements and intended to protect and even support these movements. Future radical social movements will ideally focus on the radical democratic alternative to the failed welfare state model--democratic control as opposed to bureaucratic management. For example, urban sustainability and autonomy by means of health-insurance cooperatives (community-funded emergency funds), community gardens, and community-based money and non-money economies existing outside of the capitalist market. Such movements would merge with existing and emerging middle-class and rural movements based on regional sustainability--the organic movement, alternative energy cooperatives, the Greens and GP--as well as appeal to a long-standing Jeffersonian libertarian idealism.

Socialism is collective self-determination, not nerds sitting around complaining about reformism on message boards.

Out.