Don't protest by not voting

[FidelCastro]

Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office because there are some who have decided that they're vote doesn't matter or something along those lines, should reconsider their point of view. Even if you know the person you want in office will most likely not get it, vote still. When you don't vote, you lose the right to complain and you did nothing to help the people you wanted in power to get in power. We can defeat the Fascists that rule our society by electing them out of office.

[Le People]

I agree with you. And futher more, I think we should be ready for main streamism when it is a in a leftist form. Socail democrats and the such are better than Conservities.

[justice]

Wonderful point. Not voting in protest is like not eating to eradicate hunger....well sort of. ;)

Democracy is in fact a wonderful way of changing things....look at how well the neo conservative movement has used democracy to revolutionize the world? I ask now, why cant the left undo these changes, and outdo them?

No reason at all....

[Xvall]

Democracy is indeed a great way of changing things. Too bad it doesn't exist. I do think that things would be better if Kerry had won but in the great scheme of things it would make a minimal difference, and with the electoral college, your vote means absolutely nothing. I live in Illinois, it doesn't matter who I voted for - all electoral votes go to Kerry. The same applies in Texas for Bush.

[bombeverything]

Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office because there are some who have decided that they're vote doesn't matter or something along those lines, should reconsider their point of view.

Our vote doesn't matter.


Not voting in protest is like not eating to eradicate hunger....well sort of.

Refusing to vote will not eliminate capitalism, neither will voting.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:55 AM
Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office
What a shit analysis. Ok, so imagine I could vote in the US elections, I can vote to put George in power? Kerry? Nader? aren't these all capitalist bastards?? why the hell would I want any of them to be in power?

If I vote for Kerry, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for George, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for Nader, and he wins, im partly responsible

Why would I want to be responsible for anyone getting into power?? Not voting, doesn't mean your letting bush win, it just means you realise that the voting system wont change anything. Apathy however is unacceptable, action, not ballots is what is needed. Im not going to back one capitalist bastard because he opposes a slightly different capitalist bastard.

Taking part in elections, ultimately, is showing support for a capitalist. You're a capitalist activist.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:47 AM
Wonderful point.


Why the hell are you on revolutionary left?


Not voting in protest is like not eating to eradicate hunger....well sort of. ;)

It's nothing like the metaphor you provided. Voting, in anyway and for anyone is active support of capitalism, of hierarchy, of all the evils we should be fighting. Putting some other twat on the throne because s/he makes capitalism nicer is not something you should even think of doing. It's pathetic reactionary shit, if you vote your as bad as any other capitalist tard.


Democracy is in fact a wonderful way of changing things....look at how well the neo conservative movement has used democracy to revolutionize the world? I ask now, why cant the left undo these changes, and outdo them?



It can, but only if people like you drop their pro-capitalist ideas and get with the programme. The ruling class will not relinquish power without the use of armed force, and so we must fight them out of power. The elections we are referring to are an accepted part of the capitalist system, this democracy will not allow anything to pass through it that will destroy itself.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:55 AM
When you don't vote, you lose the right to complain
Why the fuck do I loose the right to complain????? I have every reason to complain and take action. Capitalism is a sick system, I hate it, and will not support it by voting.


and you did nothing to help the people you wanted in power to get in power. We can defeat the Fascists that rule our society by electing them out of office.

Why the fuck would I want to help some horrific Capitalist shitbag get into power!!!??!!? what the fuck will that do for the working class?

We need to organise resistance, and we need to organise internationally, we need to revolt and overthrow the society, not support it by voting dictators into power.

[eyedrop]

When you don't vote, you lose the right to complain and you did nothing to help the people you wanted in power to get in power.

When you vote you lose the right to complain that some bastard got power. What you are saying to everyone is that representative elections are legit.

What we wont is a better kind of democrazy, not the same shit with our people on the top.

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Nov 29 2005, 03:15 PM--> (Additives Free @ Nov 29 2005, 03:15 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 03:55 AM
Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office
What a shit analysis. Ok, so imagine I could vote in the US elections, I can vote to put George in power? Kerry? Nader? aren't these all capitalist bastards?? why the hell would I want any of them to be in power?

If I vote for Kerry, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for George, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for Nader, and he wins, im partly responsible

Why would I want to be responsible for anyone getting into power?? Not voting, doesn't mean your letting bush win, it just means you realise that the voting system wont change anything. Apathy however is unacceptable, action, not ballots is what is needed. Im not going to back one capitalist bastard because he opposes a slightly different capitalist bastard.

Taking part in elections, ultimately, is showing support for a capitalist. You're a capitalist activist. [/b]
My opinion comes from the fact that I live in Canada. I have option for voting Green, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Marxist-Leninist, Marijuanna party, Bloc Quebecqois. I don't have to vote for Capitalists I can vote for Green or M-L or NDP

[RedAnarchist]

I voted for the Lib Dems in the last UK election. Next time its the Greens (my area is a safe Labour seat so only the major parties stand around here).

I only vote to show my dislike of the Government. Should i instead just draw an hammer and sickle on the voting paper?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by eyedrop+Nov 30 2005, 05:48 AM--> (eyedrop @ Nov 30 2005, 05:48 AM) what you are saying to everyone is that representative elections are legit.

What we wont is a better kind of democrazy, not the same shit with our people on the top. [/b]
exactly


xphile2868
I only vote to show my dislike of the Government. Should i instead just draw an hammer and sickle on the voting paper?

i'm planning on drawing an anarchy is order symbol :) [i havent been allowed to vote in any elections before, next year will be my first]

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think we should dispel the myth that a Kerry election would have made any difference to what matter for workers.

Would the war be over and Iraq have sovernty? NO!

Would gays be less harasses? NO! (Kerry said let the states decide gay marriage - well, that's what's happened anyway and Texas banned it!)

Can we change the system by voting for it? NO!

But I think elections can be platforms; this is especially true in the US at a time like this where revolution isn't "on the table" and most workers view voting as their only means for expressing politics.

So I actually voted for Nader even though he is a capitalist (reformist). Did I really want him to win. Not really, although if he won it would have thrown the Dem and Repub establishment into absolute chaos which would be a hoot to watch unfold.

But Nader would have split open US politics if he had gotten more support and more votes. First the Democrats wouldn't be able to get away with out-bushing bush (as Hilary is trying to position herself to do in 2008) and it would force mainstream politics and media to discuss the opposition to the war that Nader would represent electorally.

[KC]

My opinion comes from the fact that I live in Canada. I have option for voting Green, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Marxist-Leninist, Marijuanna party, Bloc Quebecqois. I don't have to vote for Capitalists I can vote for Green or M-L or NDP

They are all bourgeois puppets. You can't vote your way to communism. Wake up.

I'm voting for Karl Marx.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:37 PM
My opinion comes from the fact that I live in Canada. I have option for voting Green, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Marxist-Leninist, Marijuanna party, Bloc Quebecqois. I don't have to vote for Capitalists I can vote for Green or M-L or NDP
The bloc can't ever gain power in parliament anyways, they don't run enough candidates.

The NDP aren't even a social democratic party anymore, that much is obvious. If they did get into power, we can expect them to act in the same way as any other party in parliament. Look at the BC NDP's labour track record, it's just as horrible as any other party.

The green party is even more right wing than the NDP, their platform is based on corporate tax credits.

As far as the CPC and CPC-ML go, if they ever were to be elected into parliament, you could expect them to act in the same way as every other capitalist party.

Capitalist elections are a FRAUD.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:28 PM


My opinion comes from the fact that I live in Canada. I have option for voting Green, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Marxist-Leninist, Marijuanna party, Bloc Quebecqois. I don't have to vote for Capitalists I can vote for Green or M-L or NDP

They are all bourgeois puppets. You can't vote your way to communism. Wake up.

I'm voting for Karl Marx.
I agree that we should never look to elections to "vote into communism". But boycotting all elections not matter what in a non-revolutionary time could also be counter-productive.

If people think that their only choice is voting for a Democrat or Republican and that voting is their only form of political expression, then it makes it much harder for us to break through the "Republican-Democrat" consensus and bring up alternatives to cutting welfare programs and blaming "welfare-queens" or cutting healthcare and blaming immigrents or blowing up Iraq and blaming Iraqis.

It would be a progressive step in the US if the Democrats' hold over the left was broken.

[bezdomni]

We should vote our own people into the capitalist government. That way, we can overthrow the system from the inside and the outside. Having just one revolutionary in congress or senate would be a great achievement for the movement. When the revolution comes and the house has to vote on military budget, those sympathetic to the revolution could fillibuster, thereby making the government impotent to solve any problems according to its own bylaws. Of course, the power structures do anything they can to preserve their own power, but having some sympathy and help from the government would not hurt our cause at all.

The more revolutionaries we can get into government the easier it will be to topple their regime. Of course, change doesn't come from the above, but when the above is weakened, it is easier to make change.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:24 PM
We should vote our own people into the capitalist government. That way, we can overthrow the system from the inside and the outside.
Not a good idea, CPUSA is not communist in anything besides it's name. Why would you even try to instill Communism in a rotten "Democratic" government? If, by a freak chance, the CPUSA did win the elections, what would happen then? The capitalist senators and representatives would stand in the way of everything we would want to change anyways. Remember that capitalism funds the senators and representatives, why would they want to see it taken away? As for a critique on Democracy,



I believe that American Democracy fuels capitalism because capitalism works as long as the common worker is ignorant to the world around them. If you pay attention to the past two elections, both of the major parties; Democratic and Republican, basically supported the same things. There is really no clear difference in ideals between them, which makes sense, since our politicians are naturally pragmatic as to stay in power longer.

To prove my belief that the common voter/person is somewhat ignorant, let's look at the typical young 20 year old who is plugged into pop culture. He or she probably listens to celebrities talk about politics, the most infamous of them being Green Day. Now, if any of you have heard Green Day's latest album "American Idiot", it is possibly the most hypocritical, lying piece of politcally-charged "punk-rock" bullshit I have ever heard. Truth is, you don't even have to listen to the album to see and hear their lies. During the last election, they were parading around their "left-wing" beliefs and letting one and all know how they voted for Kerry.

The true, educated, left winger would have researched both candidates' ideals and plans for the country. They would have seen that Kerry would have raised taxes in order to heal the deficit the Bush caused in his years in office when we were already in an economic slump, thereby hurting the common worker even more. On the downside, let's bring up the hot-button issue of Iraq; Kerry actually wanted to ship two more divisions of troops to Iraq to "finish the war". Now, I'm not much of a supporter of the troops, but I don't want to see anybody die for some dumbshit war that was started on false terms, and sending more troops to Iraq would hardly seem to help the situation and might even make it worse, since most Islamic countries might see it as a American colonization if more American troops went over.

Back to the common 20 or so year old voter, they probably wouldn't research that much, and just look at the surface. They would see all the celebrities' opinions, and that in turn, would influence their own personal opinions. They would see that Bush started the war and is a bad leader, which is true, but in a blind rage to get Bush out of office, they are willing to take any other substitute, on the basis that "They are not Bush." Which is undoubtably ignorant and very dangerous, since a fascist posing as a good substitute to the current leader could easily take power. Look how close the last election was.

Capitalists love to argue with me that "Communism only works on paper." But I say that Democracy only works on paper. "Government for the people, by the people" probably sounded good to our founding fathers, but they probably didn't take into account the ignorance, laziness, and total lack of interest in political matters that the person blinded by pop culture would have in the next two hundred or so years.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:39 PM
It would be a progressive step in the US if the Democrats' hold over the left was broken.
Idealistic, but how do you propose this happen? What should replace the Democrats? If this party should win, what should they do with the capitalist Congress and such?

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 12:31 PM

Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office because there are some who have decided that they're vote doesn't matter or something along those lines, should reconsider their point of view.

Our vote doesn't matter.


Not voting in protest is like not eating to eradicate hunger....well sort of.

Refusing to vote will not eliminate capitalism, neither will voting.
Your a Trotskist, right? I disagree with the point that if we let Capitalism degrade into Fascism there will be a popular revolt, this simpally will not happen....

We need to do anything we can to keep people like Bush out of office, even if that means putting someone like Kerry into office....... he'd have been slightly better than Bush, you can't deny that.

[KC]

We need to do anything we can to keep people like Bush out of office, even if that means putting someone like Kerry into office....... he'd have been slightly better than Bush, you can't deny that.

Yes (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/demscum.html) I can. Tell me how much greater your democrats are now.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/republicrats.gif

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:37 PM
My opinion comes from the fact that I live in Canada. I have option for voting Green, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Marxist-Leninist, Marijuanna party, Bloc Quebecqois. I don't have to vote for Capitalists I can vote for Green or M-L or NDP
Green party are capitalist, Marxist-Leninists can never win due to the bourguise nature of Representative Democracy and the same for the NDP.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:18 AM
We need to do anything we can to keep people like Bush out of office, even if that means putting someone like Kerry into office....... he'd have been slightly better than Bush, you can't deny that.
Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that kerry is a capitalist bastard isn't he comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes he is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Republican!!!

Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that Republican party is a capitalist piece of shit isn't it comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes it is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Democrat!

Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that democrat party is a capitalist piece of shit isn't it comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes it is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Republic
Revolutionary2: We're so revolutionary!!

[KGB5097]

You know what I mean: we wouldn't have the religious right so firmly imbedded into the US government now if things had been different....

I know it sucks, but we have to deturmine who the lesser of 2 evils is and do what we can to ensure that is who is elected. To not do so is irresponceable....

I'm not saying that i'm in support of the Democrats, what I am saying is that I support whichever side stinks the least.... Its a 2 party dictatorship, what else can we do (Besides call for "REVOLUTION NOW!")?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by DisIllusion+Dec 6 2005, 03:31 AM--> (DisIllusion @ Dec 6 2005, 03:31 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 03:39 PM
It would be a progressive step in the US if the Democrats' hold over the left was broken.
Idealistic, but how do you propose this happen? What should replace the Democrats? If this party should win, what should they do with the capitalist Congress and such? [/b]
I don't think our goal should be to necissarily get them into office. Rather, it is more about opening up the political landscape. For example:

At a hypothetical debate.
Republican candidate: We can't cut and run in Iraq, we need to stay the corse.
Dem Candidate: We can't cut and run so I will try and win the war faster than Bush and then we can concentrate on real threats like Iran and N. Korea.
Progressive 3rd party canditate: We need to bring troops out now because this war dosn't benifit Iraqis or Regular people in the US.

R candidate: We have a budget problem, so I will cut corporate taxes to stimulate the economy and cut social spending by 7%.
D candidate: We have a budget problem so we will have to make sacrifices but I will not have tax cuts so we will only need to cut social spending by 3%
P candidate: There is a budget problem when corporations are making record profits? Easy solution: tax the rich and we will have money to pay the debts and provide more social programs.

So having someone left run for office would open up the political landscape even if that candidate or party is reformist and not revolutionary. THis applies to the US or maybe Mexico, but not most European countries where there already are Labour or Social-democratic parties (most of these countries also have a much stronger left too).

As long as many workers see electoralism as the only option for expressing political views, it would be a mistake to boycott elections in general. We should support left candidates outside the democrats while maintaining that revolution is the only real way for workers to change the system. But running these candidates would strenghten and embolden the left and labor in the same ways that Bush's election emboldened christian conservatives.

As for radicals in political office, if they should win they should use their position to expose the parlementary system and basically as a soapbox.

Again, you can't change the system through the mechanisms of the system, Allende the German Social Democrats in the Weimar republic have (among many other examples) taught us this.

[Rockfan]

Voteing according to Bill Hicks (and me)
"Yeah I think the puppet on the right expresses my veiws. I think the one one left is more like me. Hey wait a sec those 2 puppets are controlled by the same guy!?!"

Thats my opinion on voting.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:00 PM
I know it sucks, but we have to deturmine who the lesser of 2 evils is and do what we can to ensure that is who is elected. To not do so is irresponceable....


Why? It's not like they are the only two options in the whole world. I can also not vote, and fight for the emancipatin of the workers.

Whats all this, 'pick the nicer opressor' nonsence? why should I pick a nicer opressor? I don't want any and wont vote for any, I will fight them all.

[bed_of_nails]

I believe the people that are arguing against voting are one thing: fucking idiots.

The Democratic party supported gay rights, yet apparently it is frowned upon by the "extreme left" to vote for them.

Lets look at what seems to be going on with politics.

Extreme Left: "Lets sit around, protest very rarely to influence people to vote a certain way on an issue or write pieces of literature that very few people read or seem to care about and think then claim we are being revolutionary and fighting the bourgeoisie!"

Voting left: "Lets actually begin trying to get a change done instead of sitting around, suggesting and 'demanding' it from people that dont necessarily give a shit."

[Jimmie Higgins]

When did the Democratic party support gay rights in a meaningful way?!

All I saw was that in the last election when Kerry was asked about gay marriage he said it should be up to the states to decide to ban it or not (all the while looking like he was sucking a lemon by having to answer such a question)!

All I saw was that after Kerry lost and the democrats were on all the talk shows the next day saying that Bush won because of "values" and because AMericans are inherently conservative. Then they blamed Gavin Neusom, mayor of San Fransisco for allowing gay marriage!!!!!!!!!!

How the hell do you call that supporting gay rights! That's like saying Switzerland was at the forefront of fighting Nazis!

[bed_of_nails]

Because giving more chances for gay marriage to be legalized is much more of a step than sitting around on a message board getting your ego stroked and sitting around what you will do "when the revolution comes".

[Jimmie Higgins]

What the hell are you talking about?

I just came back from an anti-death penalty rally this weekend becuase they're going to exaccute someone in California. So what are these great lesser evils doing about it? Positioning themselves as being tough on crime!


The court's decision also exposed a rift within the Democratic Party over the issue of gay marriage. Gay rights groups and some liberal Democrats celebrated the court's decision as a triumph for civil rights, but others viewed it as ill-timed and hurtful to Kerry's cause. Kerry tried to finesse it, saying he believed marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. He said it was up to the states to decide.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...kerrys_undoing/ (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/04/was_gay_marriage_kerrys_undoing/)

Oh yeah, that party is really full of principles.

Voting for a democrat that dosn't promise and fight for gay rights is no where in the same plantary system as organizing and fighting for gay rights. Democrats are a ball-and-chain on the left in the US and once we cut them off we will have a much more strong and fighting left in this country.

[bed_of_nails]

We will see if he dies and use that as testament of the effectiveness of going to a rally where you just stand around for a few hours and scream things at people that are trying to just ignore you.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:22 PM
We will see if he dies and use that as testament of the effectiveness of going to a rally where you just stand around for a few hours and scream things at people that are trying to just ignore you.
Perhaps our ideals aren't everybody's ideals, but why should we compromise with this corrupt system? The definition of a successful resistance is no compromise. Where would we be if Che had decided to stop after the Battle of Santa Clara and decided to let Batista keep part of Cuba? What would Europe be like if the French resistance decided to lie docile under the Nazi jackboot? Even if we might not be the popular group, we should still make ourselves heard and protest in our own way.

[KC]

I believe the people that are arguing against voting are one thing: fucking idiots.

Hey, BON!!! First post in a political thread in a while, eh? See my post on page one. Go to the link. Then proceed to shut up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:22 AM
We will see if he dies and use that as testament of the effectiveness of going to a rally where you just stand around for a few hours and scream things at people that are trying to just ignore you.
No wonder you don't think organizing is effective if you think it about standing around and chanting for a few hours. How old are you? Have you gotten to the part in your history textbook where they talk about the civil rights movement? Yeah, all thoes people voted to get voting rights.

Are you fucking with me? Can you even be a revolutionary if you think that voting for democrats is more effective than grassroots political activism? Are you from planet bizzaro where up is down and voting is the highest form of political expression instead of the lowest as it is in the real world?

Go read some f-in' history and see just how effective the CP was when it followed Stalin's dictates and attached itself to the Democratic party. The huge sucsess it had in organizing black revolutionaries in Harlem was totally lost because they ditched civil rights in order to not scare off southern democrats! The same thing happns now when gay rights activists loose their independance: they are told by democrats or even self-sensor themselves so they won't embarrass the weak-ass candidate that the Dems throw out there by demanding rights and things the candidate won't promise openly for fear of alienating the mythical "swing voters".

Yeah, attaching themselves to the democrats worked out real good for the CP, I mean if you consider McCarthyism real good!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:22 AM
We will see if he dies and use that as testament of the effectiveness of going to a rally where you just stand around for a few hours and scream things at people that are trying to just ignore you.
Yeah, how effective is it to vote for people who are for the death penalty if you are trying to end it? Do you know how many people Grey Davis (Last Democrat Gov) saved from death row off hand?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:52 AM
I believe the people that are arguing against voting are one thing: fucking idiots.

And saying that I think your a fucking idiot is getting anywhere?


The Democratic party supported gay rights, yet apparently it is frowned upon by the "extreme left" to vote for them.

Yes, because they are capitalist, hierarchical, oppressive murderers that would impose a neo-liberal agenda on the world. You should know that real change comes from below. Just because the ysupport gay rights, dosn;t mean I support them.


Extreme Left: "Lets sit around, protest very rarely to influence people to vote a certain way on an issue or write pieces of literature that very few people read or seem to care about and think then claim we are being revolutionary and fighting the bourgeoisie!"

If that's your opinion on the Extreme left, then you are gravely mistaken. I don't know any comrades that are guilty of 'sitting around' if anything I would say that compared to reformist marxists, they are hyperactive. Most Extreme leftists I know are attempting to from stronger federative networks for the effective continuation of the assault on Capitalism. Protesting is involved, sometimes, but our goal is the consciousness of the working people.

It's ironic how you accuse the confrontational left of being lazy, and yet you advocate active support of capitalism, by backing one of the oppressing parties?


Voting left: "Lets actually begin trying to get a change done instead of sitting around, suggesting and 'demanding' it from people that don't necessarily give a shit."

"Trying to change things from below is so childish, I hate capitalism and will try and bring it down by voting for capitalist parties!! Despite the fact that, in every historical attempt, history teaches us that parities who try to change capitalism from within, end up failing"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:22 AM
We will see if he dies and use that as testament of the effectiveness of going to a rally where you just stand around for a few hours and scream things at people that are trying to just ignore you.
What about the organising of the working class to actively overthrow the capitalist system? what about attempts to, during strikes, take over the company? what about the Reclaim the streets parties? What about during cold winters, illegally hooking up gas supplies to old or poor peoples houses so they won't die in the cold? Or with air-conditioning in the summer. What about the shipment of medical and food supplies to various armed movements around the world? What about the thousands of other direct attacks against capitalism?

Your right, rather than fighting capitalism, we should vote for capitalist officials to rule and oppress us. As Marx said "choosing your master does not make you free"

I fail to see, how putting Kerry in power brings us any closer to the destruction of Capitalism? can you please explain how this is the case? Can you at least tell me how you can justify the backing of capitalism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
As long as many workers see electoralism as the only option for expressing political views, it would be a mistake to boycott elections in general.

Oh?

As long as many workers are members of churches, it would be a mistake for us not to join a church.

As long as many workers are homophobic, it would be a mistake for us not to support anti-gay political initiatives.

As long as many workers are hostile to immigration, it would be a mistake for us not to join initiatives for persecuting immigrants.

And so on.

What we should do is directly attack bourgeois "elections" as total fakes.

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 29 2005, 03:21 PM

It can, but only if people like you drop their pro-capitalist ideas and get with the programme. The ruling class will not relinquish power without the use of armed force, and so we must fight them out of power. The elections we are referring to are an accepted part of the capitalist system, this democracy will not allow anything to pass through it that will destroy itself.
here herehttp://69.93.183.37/2326/53/emo/yes.gifhttp://69.93.183.37/2326/53/emo/clapping.gif

[Simotix]

Originally posted by FidelCastro+Nov 27 2005, 03:44 AM--> (FidelCastro @ Nov 27 2005, 03:44 AM)Those who don't vote during elections are stupid, people like George Bush get elected into office [/b]
I believe it was something like 40+ something percent that didn't vote. Imagen that going to someone that could make a good difference?


Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:44 AM
When you don't vote, you lose the right to complain

What a rediculous statement to make, you always have the right to complain.


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:52 AM
I do think that things would be better if Kerry had won but in the great scheme of things it would make a minimal difference
Well if Kerry won do you think we would be in the same position with Iraq?


Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:52 AM
I do think that things would be better if Kerry had won but in the great scheme of things it would make a minimal difference, and with the electoral college, your vote means absolutely nothing. I live in Illinois, it doesn't matter who I voted for - all electoral votes go to Kerry. The same applies in Texas for Bush.
I thought it was who won the popular vote got the electorial votes (through some stupid system) except in two states?


Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 29 2005, 03:04 PM
If I vote for Kerry, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for George, and he wins, im partly responsible
If I vote for Nader, and he wins, im partly responsible
Well the sad things of things whether we like it or not, somebody is going to win. We can not vote in protest or vote for a minority party that is not of the big two that might help farther our cause to a better tomorrow. I have not yet turned 18 (17) but when I do, I will more then likely vote - just not for a Democrat/Republican. I know in the recent Jersey elections a socialist ran, would probably have voted for him. Better to help in a little way, then not at all because as I said before - whethere we like it or not, someone will win. Nothing sort of a Revolution can help us there.

I would rather have someone with some leftist values (as long as he is not a full on Capitalist bastard) then a Republican running the show.


Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 29 2005, 03:10 PM
Putting some other twat on the throne because s/he makes capitalism nicer is not something you should even think of doing.
Ouch, very good point. What about if a Socialist ran?


Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:57 AM


We need to do anything we can to keep people like Bush out of office, even if that means putting someone like Kerry into office....... he'd have been slightly better than Bush, you can't deny that.

Yes (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/demscum.html) I can. Tell me how much greater your democrats are now.
While I do not support Kerry (or Bush for that matter) I do believe we would not be in Iraq right now if Kerry was president and I do believe that Kerry would not have said "I am not really the concered over him" over regards to Bin Laden.

Once again, do not support either - was just adding some thought.


Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 6 2005, 09:41 PM
Whats all this, 'pick the nicer opressor' nonsence? why should I pick a nicer opressor? I don't want any and wont vote for any, I will fight them all.
Completely agree, I do not understand why some people on this board still vote for either a democrat or republican. I mean if you are going to vote, do not vote for some capitalist puppet because it is the better of the evils.


[email protected] 7 2005, 03:01 AM
I just came back from an anti-death penalty rally this weekend becuase they're going to exaccute someone in California. So what are these great lesser evils doing about it? Positioning themselves as being tough on crime!
The ''Tookie' Williams rally?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 7 2005, 09:06 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 7 2005, 09:06 PM)
Gravedigger
As long as many workers see electoralism as the only option for expressing political views, it would be a mistake to boycott elections in general.

Oh?

As long as many workers are members of churches, it would be a mistake for us not to join a church.

As long as many workers are homophobic, it would be a mistake for us not to support anti-gay political initiatives.

As long as many workers are hostile to immigration, it would be a mistake for us not to join initiatives for persecuting immigrants.

And so on.

What we should do is directly attack bourgeois "elections" as total fakes.

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Aww Red, that you know that wasn't what I was argueing at all.

So you suggest that being even critically involved in elections, is catering to backwards ideas in the working class? What bunk. Workers wanting to change things is backward? Their current methods may be naieve, but their desires for change are not; and they are definately not backwards like anti-imigrent thugs or religious zelots. You and I know that no lasting change can come from bourgie elections, but I see breaking worker's illusions about the Democratic party would be a progressive step forward!

I would love to see the day when workers in the US stand up and yell at the politicians, "Our dreams do not fit on your ballots!". The question is, how do we get there?

You want to stand there saying elections don't matter, well you will be drown-out in a chorus of Democrats screeming "this is the most important election of our lives!". I say we start winning people to fighting for what they really want by telling them that they don't have to choose between Pro-war candidate A and pro-war candidate B.

We want to meet consiousness where it is at and argue for a way forward. If the election is a Democrat and Republican then I think it would be wise for us to boycott elections. But in a country with two electoral parties and party left of the democrats would be a major boost for the left in general in the US. It is not an end it's a means to helping revive the left. The Green party has many many problems; the biggest can be boiled down to the fact that they are a reformist party.

Elections do not happen in avaccume. As corrupt as they are in capitalism they effect people's confidence in what is possible. Even a modest showing by a candidate left of the democrats would inspire people to ask for more the next time around; wins create more demands!

Bush's win demoralized all the left movements in the US and liberals were crying and urgeing people to move to Canada - or worse, they were blaming gays for getting married and saying that the Democrats would have to be moreconservative in order to "win" the next time around.

If Kerry had won, then the effect would have eventually been just as demoralizing as he would have continued the war and the left would have cried and said, it's all hopeless because we tried and its still as bad as Bush - or worse, they would have said, well we have to support Kerry's war and win it otherwise they Republicans will win the next election!

If millions of people had voted to the left of the democrats, no worker would buy the arguemnt that US people are "too conservative" and will be scared off if you talk about unions or gay-rights or pulling the troops out now.

If you have other strategies for rebuiling a left in the US, I would love to hear it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

exoity,

Yes, it was the "tookie" rally.

As far as Kerry not saying, "I don't care about Bin Lauden", you are correct according to his performance in the debates where it sounded like Kerry thought the US should invade everywhere but Iraq. Of corse he conceeded that since we are "already in Iraq" we'd have to "stay the corse"... before invading Iran and N. Korea that is.

I don't think anything would be different re: Iraq if Kerry won. Look back at the elections during the Vietnam war. Anti-war activists had the slogan "1/2 the way with LBJ"... well he was elected and anti-war activists got 10x the war in vietnam. Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan for peace" and actually duped some to vote for him but his secret plan involved bombing Cambodia.

Wars are not the result of induvidual presidents decisions or grudges against one country or another. They are policy, systemic and necisary to the ruling class's ability to rule.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
So you suggest that being even critically involved in elections, is catering to backwards ideas in the working class?

Absolutely!

At least half, if not more, of the working class has already rejected the "electoral" circus as completely irrelevant to their real lives.

That's the right decision! :)


Workers wanting to change things is backward?

Any worker who still thinks that electing this or that politician -- no matter what he calls himself -- is actually going to "change things" has simply demonstrated his/her gross ignorance of current realities.

Indeed, a contemporary worker who "believes in elections" is like a Russian worker who "believed in petitions to the Czar" after 1905.

The only thing that we could legitimately say to such a worker is quit doing that dumbass shit!


If you have other strategies for rebuilding a left in the US, I would love to hear them.

You can't "rebuild a left" with right-wing ideas...like "critical participation in bourgeois elections".

The political trajectory of the German Green Party shows what would happen if the American Green Party became a "mass left party".

The same old shit!

History has likewise demonstrated the direction that any strategy to "rebuild the left" must take.

Only direct action by the masses -- in the streets, the workplaces, the neighborhoods, the schools, etc. -- has any potential for effecting progressive change in late capitalist societies.

As a matter of fact, I don't think that late capitalism is even able to grant substantive reforms any more...suggesting that some "reform struggles" may be forced by events in a revolutionary direction.

But that can happen only when those struggles consist of large numbers of people "in the streets".

Bourgeois "elections" are a diversion from real struggle...like the Superbowl or any other spectacle.

As I noted in my previous post, we should be publicly attacking this charade...not participating in it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:32 AM
As far as Kerry not saying, "I don't care about Bin Lauden", you are correct according to his performance in the debates where it sounded like Kerry thought the US should invade everywhere but Iraq. Of corse he conceeded that since we are "already in Iraq" we'd have to "stay the corse"... before invading Iran and N. Korea that is.
Maybe so, but if we are to back tract one election before and look at if Gore would have won, I doubt we would have ended up in Iraq to begin with.

[Leif]

National elections, yes, easily fraudulent, however if you agree with one of the canidates I see nothing wrong with voting for her/him. If Walter F Brown were in an election I would vote for him, from what I know of his beliefs I would vote for him. However, voting isn't a substitute for action, helping unions organize, fighting corperate giants, smashing fascism. Unless I am grossly mistaken, Hugo Chavez was voted in democratically.

Do I believe that elections in Amerika are fair right now? No. The electoral system is bullshit and most of the canidates have their thumbs up their asses, if not are completely fascist. If we can be sure that the elections are fair, I have no problem in voting. The problem is, that nationwide they arn't.

If we are denied change through democracy then change through revolution is bound to come.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by exoity+Dec 9 2005, 05:08 PM--> (exoity @ Dec 9 2005, 05:08 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 06:32 AM
As far as Kerry not saying, "I don't care about Bin Lauden", you are correct according to his performance in the debates where it sounded like Kerry thought the US should invade everywhere but Iraq. Of corse he conceeded that since we are "already in Iraq" we'd have to "stay the corse"... before invading Iran and N. Korea that is.
Maybe so, but if we are to back tract one election before and look at if Gore would have won, I doubt we would have ended up in Iraq to begin with. [/b]
Well it's speculation of what might have happened otherwise, but here it goes. Considering CLinton enacted such things as "The anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act" and continued the sanctions on Iraq and sent US forces more to countries than Bush has been able to suggests that his vice-president would have carried on in a similar fasion.

Considering Gore's ties to oil compaines I think we'd probably be in Iraq right now anyway. The only difference would be that different companies would be recieveing lucrative contracts because of the Iraq invasion.

THere is no such thing as a "peacful transition of power" and US elections simply represent a changing of the gaurd, not changeing who's in power in this country. The only difference if a Democrat had been in office would have been that they would use more rhetoric like "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian" to gain support for an Iraqi invasion. THe Dems might have also been more willing to let the UN have a piece of the action as well, but I don't think an Iraqi cares if his family is being bombed or strip-searched by someone waveing a blue flag or a red-white-and-blue one.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Redstar,

Breaking the stranglhold that the Democrats have on the US left, in my view, is one of the left's biggest short-term challenges. Having two parties constrains and frames popular consiousness into a narrow band of thought. Breaking this would open up mass consiousness to a whole new set of things which would be seen as "possible".

If someone like a Green were to get even 10% of the vote in an election, it would accomplish 2 things. 1) It would cause panic in the leadership of the 2 parties because it would be proof of an opposition to the washington consensus on neo-liberalism, the war, and social program "(de)reforms". 2) Workers would not feel that it is hopless to fight for other things they believe in but thought were too "fringe" to win. It would give confidence to rank-and-file union workers sick of their leaderships ball-and-chain attachment to the Democratic party. It would give the anti-war movement confidence to make stronger demands rather than trying to win the approval of liberal Democrats.

If the US was in a situation where there were already mass movements of labor and the left, then you would be correct; electoral strategies would be acting as a restraint on the more radical demands of workers.

You are correct that most workers already do not vote in the US, but you are mistaken if you think it is because they have drawn radical conclusions. Workers don't vote in the US because they feel demoralized and that it dosn't matter; not becuase capitalist elections are a fraud, but because they don't feel that any change can actually happen. Again, if the 40% of workers who don't vote did so because they were active and making more radical demands then you would be correct.

It would be a mistake to get involved with electoralism for the ends of getting people into office, but I believe it is correct (at this point in the US) to get involved with the ends of shifting the framework of debates on issues such as labor and health care and so on to the left. The specific end would become the means for building a independant and confident left in the US.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
You are correct that most workers already do not vote in the US, but you are mistaken if you think it is because they have drawn radical conclusions. Workers don't vote in the US because they feel demoralized and that it doesn't matter; not because capitalist elections are a fraud, but because they don't feel that any change can actually happen.

Well, this trend of abandoning bourgeois elections is taking place in all the bourgeois "democracies". Participation and even interest continues to decline.

I would not contest that, generally speaking, the working class is very demoralized in the present era. Not only does any kind of "positive social change" appear to be "impossible" but things are actually getting worse.

But your thesis that getting them "interested" in electoral politics again will "raise their hopes" and "inspire more action" does not make any sense to me at all.

Indeed, were you actually able to do that, the consequence would be even further demoralization...since there is no conceivable way to "deliver on your promise" (implied or explicit) of "positive change".

Fortunately, you can't "do that"...because no one will listen.

To be precise, almost no one will listen. There may be a few minority communities where "the vote" still has something of an iconic image...and it may be possible to con an increased number of people to the polls for a little while longer.

But not much longer.

A "confident left" must actually organize people to resist the despotism of capital. If it can't do that, then there is no reason for it to be "confident".

How best to accomplish the goal of organizing resistance to capitalist despotism is highly controversial...and debated here and throughout the left. We are much in need of "new ideas" in that regard.

But to advise people that what we need to do is "organize" a new version of social democracy -- a course of action proposed by many Leninist parties -- is a counsel of utter futility.

Not only will that not work...but things would be even worse if it "could work".

Imagine having to listen to all that old 2nd International crap again! :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[STI]

Originally posted by exoity+Dec 9 2005, 05:08 PM--> (exoity @ Dec 9 2005, 05:08 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 06:32 AM
As far as Kerry not saying, "I don't care about Bin Lauden", you are correct according to his performance in the debates where it sounded like Kerry thought the US should invade everywhere but Iraq. Of corse he conceeded that since we are "already in Iraq" we'd have to "stay the corse"... before invading Iran and N. Korea that is.
Maybe so, but if we are to back tract one election before and look at if Gore would have won, I doubt we would have ended up in Iraq to begin with. [/b]
Well, when Gore was VP, Clinton was known to conduct air raids against Iraq whenever he wanted. In fact, during "Operation Desert Fox", he had a hotel attacked because he thought Saddam was in it. He wasn't.

So, would Gore have invaded Iraq? Neither of us will ever know

But Democrats aren't any better than Republicans. Watching how they actually act should make that clear.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:31 AM
I believe it was something like 40+ something percent that didn't vote. Imagen that going to someone that could make a good difference?

I hope most of that 40% are actually politically involved in the fight against capitalism, but it's not true.


Well if Kerry won do you think we would be in the same position with Iraq?

It's highly likely.



Well the sad things of things whether we like it or not, somebody is going to win.

So? There's little or no difference between them. I will fight the ruling class, I don't care if that's a Liberal Democrat Ruling class, Labour, Conservative. (these are british parties)


We can not vote in protest or vote for a minority party that is not of the big two that might help farther our cause to a better tomorrow.

No capitalist hierarchy will help 'farther our cause to a better tomorrow' not even the democrats!!!


I have not yet turned 18 (17) but when I do, I will more then likely vote - just not for a Democrat/Republican. I know in the recent Jersey elections a socialist ran, would probably have voted for him. Better to help in a little way, then not at all because as I said before - whethere we like it or not, someone will win. Nothing sort of a Revolution can help us there.

Why don't you, instead of showing your support for capitalism every 4 years, get involved in its destruction?


I would rather have someone with some leftist values (as long as he is not a full on Capitalist bastard) then a Republican running the show.

Technically, even republicans have "some" leftist values.


Ouch, very good point. What about if a Socialist ran?

Well, ok, sum all of my points up to that one. And Socialist parties that have taken part in electoral systems have always failed and become capitalist. Did you know the party that Tony Blair is in charge of used to be radically Socialist?


Completely agree, I do not understand why some people on this board still vote for either a democrat or republican. I mean if you are going to vote, do not vote for some capitalist puppet because it is the better of the evils.

Exactly.

[Guest]

The rich are our enemy, why the fuck should we vote for them? Do you think either Bush or Kerry slaved in a crap job for bull-shit wages like the vast majority of the people they are suppose to repersent? Do you think Nader would lead the workers to rise up aginst the parasitic owning class?

[Simotix]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 11 2005, 05:33 PM

We can not vote in protest or vote for a minority party that is not of the big two that might help farther our cause to a better tomorrow.
Not even a Socialist party? (if it stayed true)


Why don't you, instead of showing your support for capitalism every 4 years, get involved in its destruction?
I am trying to, however, by not voting I am feel like I am doing all that I can. If I find a representable socialist of sorts I feel should be voted for then I will vote for him. There is no way I would fight for a Democrat/Republican.

[Spark]

I think not voting is a dumb idea. Even should all parties seem to far to the right, I'd still rather have the lesser of evils. And even if you don't like government, would you rather not still have more leftist economic policies? If you don't vote, its certain not much will happen. My vote may mean little to nothing, but I'll exercise whatever "power" I have in any way I can within the system. By refusing to participate in the system you are affording the right that much more power.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:48 AM
If you don't vote, its certain not much will happen. My vote may mean little to nothing, but I'll exercise whatever "power" I have in any way I can within the system. By refusing to participate in the system you are affording the right that much more power.
Not much will happen even if you vote.

The voting system is not designed for people to have a voice; it's designed to give the system of capitalism and ruling class power a side of legitimacy. No political party in Parliament or in the US senate and House of Representatives is really that opposed to each other or that different.

Political parties around the world who take control through this system of voting are not even that dissimilar. All the do is impose the same set of rules slightly differently, while those that vote for them still have no control.

You talk about economic policies being more left wing, but all that really means is that my exploitation may or may not be slightly more bearable.

And when you vote, you are saying that the political system in which that exploitation is maintained is legitimate, regardless of whether you think it is.

Voting will still exist, and the political power structures will remain the same if you keep voting.


My vote may mean little to nothing, but I'll exercise whatever "power" I have in any way I can within the system.

But it isn't power.

It may seem like you have some power. It may seem that you are being able to replace a set of baddies with a set of goodies but in reality they're all the same.

They eat at the same restaurants, drink in the same bars, are apart of the same secret cults and dress at the same tailors; they drive the same cars, they live in the same houses on the street and when they aren't shouting at each other in Parliaments around the world, they're shaking each others hands and laughing over a glass of cognac.


By refusing to participate in the system you are affording the right that much more power.

Surely not voting and finding other ways to create power for ourselves is much more effective than participating in a system that they designed and which they control.

Why not form an affinity group and do direct action around your city. Build a social centre, regenerate your community and organise in your workplaces and schools.

These things are what threaten the system and it is these things that build towards forcing that system to collapse.

By voting, all you are doing is affirming your right to be governed. Governed by a bunch of warmongering, violent, exploitative, greedy plutocrats who would rather not have the system of voting in the first place.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:02 PM
Not even a Socialist party? (if it stayed true)

Well, I would argue that it couldn't possibly stay true. But IF it did, im nota socialist, so probably not.


I am trying to, however, by not voting I am feel like I am doing all that I can. If I find a representable socialist of sorts I feel should be voted for then I will vote for him. There is no way I would fight for a Democrat/Republican.

Well get involved in direct action, though im not sure many socialist groups know those two words can be used together.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 12 2005, 06:13 PM

I am trying to, however, by not voting I am feel like I am doing all that I can. If I find a representable socialist of sorts I feel should be voted for then I will vote for him. There is no way I would fight for a Democrat/Republican.

Well get involved in direct action, though im not sure many socialist groups know those two words can be used together.
I am in getting involved thrugh direct action at my school, challenging some seperation of church/state problems the school is currently forcing and a "leftist" newspaper I am writing.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I definately support voting. Revolutionary values often dismiss reformism, but reformists and revolutionaries should work together. After all, different situatiosn call for different measures. Depending on where you live, voting can make things better for individuals if a certain candidate is elected. Revolutionary tactics that target the institution of capitalism are great, but helping individuals should also be a priority. Society has to be reformed, whether through socialism or social democracy, with the former being preferred. Again, I definately support voting. Voting will play a pivotal role in a leftist society, so people should feel it's important.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:57 AM
Yes (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/demscum.html) I can. Tell me how much greater your democrats are now.

That's a GREAT link! 13 million people killed by the "Democratic" Party. Incredible. Add the Republican count, and you'll at least have the triple, no doubt about that. I especially found the fact that Clinton killed more people than Pol Pot very revealing!


Marxist-Leninists can never win due to the bourguise nature of Representative Democracy and the same for the NDP.
Quoted for truth. If I'm going to vote for anything at all, it'll be for an ML party. Not because I think them getting elected will improve the system, or that they will be allowed into power at all. The NCPN is the biggest party in the municipal elections of Reiderland, yet that place is still a shithole. Why? Because even though the people clearly wish to see socialism in Reiderland, the NCPN simply cannot use municipal power to get around the neo-liberal ideas of the provincial, national and EU governments.

No, the reason I vote for the ML party, and help out with their electoral campaign, is that it's a way to represent your party, to show the people what you have to offer. Plus, elections are basically a survey: when you notice you get a lot of votes from certain areas, you can decide which areas to work on. However, I won't have any illusions that voting for the ML party will directly change the municipality, the province, the country, Europe, or the world. Overthrowing the system by using it to gain support is one part, but at the same time we must work outside of it and be ready to finally put it out of its misery when it is cracked open by the disappearance of imperialism.

Otherwise, I refuse to vote for or support any "social-democratic", "social-liberal" or "green" parties. Quite simply, if you cannot give your vote to a credible revolutionary socialist party, don't vote at all.



Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that kerry is a capitalist bastard isn't he comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes he is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Republican!!!

Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that Republican party is a capitalist piece of shit isn't it comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes it is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Democrat!

Four years later...

Revolutionary1: wow that democrat party is a capitalist piece of shit isn't it comrade
Revolutionary2: Yes it is, we must throw of the shackles of oppression!
Revolutionary1: Lets vote Republic
Revolutionary2: We're so revolutionary!!
Quoted for truth. Here we have some more parties, the biggest "leftist" party right now is the Labour Party(PvdA, in the Netherlands). Its leader has already announced that he is willing to again try governing with the Christian Democratic Appeal(CDA). The CDA is currently in a coalition with the liberal VVD and the "social liberal" D66. This government has constantly pushed through neo-liberal reforms, but this is no different from when the PvdA governed along with VVD and D66, and the CDA was left out of the boat for the first time since its formation in 1980; same shit, just a different party leading the coalition.

The last time the PvdA tried making "socialist" reforms was back in the 70s, when it formed a government with D66, the Political Party of Radicals(christian left), PPR and the Catholic People's Party, KVP(conservative party, the PvdA included them not because they wanted to, but because they needed the majority). However, the nine "leading industrials", rich CEOs, wrote a letter of complaint to the prime minister, and NONE of the four main points of the government, including workers' councils, were pushed through. The government also had to deal with the Oil Crisis.

Still, in the next elections, the PvdA won a lot of votes. However, the KVP and the two other main christian parties, the Christian Historical Union(CHU) and the Anti-Revolutionary Party(ARP) formed the CDA list for the first time. During the coalition negotiations, the PvdA again needed the CDA to have the majority. However, the now very big CDA refused to accept the socialist reforms, and instead governed with the VVD and the Democratic Socialists 1970(DS'70, a breakaway from the "too leftist" PvdA).

Note that during that time, the Communist Party had at least as much votes as D66 and DS'70, and more votes than the PPR, yet it was still left out of the loop. Which shouldn't come as a surprise. Also note that the government never even thought of leaving the NATO, get rid of American missiles or take any other action against yankee imperialism. Anyway, I hope this little episode of Dutch history shows the failings of social-democracy and attempting to transform the capitalist society. Whether it's angry CEOs and charismatic liberals in Holland, or fascist army officers in Chile, a "parliamentary revolution" does not stand a chance.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Revolutionary values often dismiss reformism

thats why its called REVOLUTIONARY


but reformists and revolutionaries should work together

why? we have nothing in common. reformists goal is to get elected and be majorities in legislatures, that is not our goal.


Depending on where you live, voting can make things better for individuals if a certain candidate is elected.

not really. why is it still rich vs poor?

we dont need politicians to help people. if your referring to assistance such as food, health care etc, we have means to do that. follow the black panthers model and provide free childrens breakfasts, health clinics etc, they did this without being involved in electoral politics. AND IT ACTUALLY CHANGED SHIT.


Voting will play a pivotal role in a leftist society

of course because in leftist society voting actually MEANS something. we dont live in a leftist society so right now voteing in elections means NOTHING.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Revolutionaries and reformists still have similiar end goals. Some reformists want to see communism acheived. Reformism, in some cases, allows a better society to emerge democratically. Dismissing multiple ways to accomplish a goal is foolish. Whether or not one method is better is irrelevant. You can't deny that reformism has positive and negative affects, just like revolution. When acting properly, reformists can make a difference.

Perhaps not in America, but, in some places, democracy isn't corrupt to the point that it does not have its uses. A different party getting elected can make the difference between tax breaks for the poor or tax breaks for the rich.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Some reformists want to see communism acheived

im sure they do but we will NEVER see it if we waste our time voteing for them. secondly it seems kind of contradictory to be voting for representatives when we want power to be in the peoples hands.



Reformism, in some cases, allows a better society to emerge democratically.

what soceity are you referring to? nothing communist has been achieved through reformism.


Dismissing multiple ways to accomplish a goal is foolish.

your right im flexible. so if the marxists and their "state" can actually achieve communism then i will become a marxist. but for now i think anarchism is the best way to achieve communism.

bourgeois elections DONT accomplish our goals


Whether or not one method is better is irrelevant.

that seems kind of self defeating. "hey we have an idea that works here, lets waste our time on something that doesnt work at all!" :lol:


When acting properly, reformists can make a difference.

what difference? can you point it out to me? reformists have not ended capitalism, therfore they havent made a difference.


A different party getting elected can make the difference between tax breaks for the poor or tax breaks for the rich.

this is where you get lost. its no longer a revolution we are fighting for its "tax breaks" or more "welfare". for this specific example it might work in our interests in the poors taxes WENT UP, it would really piss them off making them look around for something better. but thats not the point, the point is tax breaks are not what we are fighting for. they arent relevant to us.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Representatives who have the people's interests in mind may be willing to give up some of their power. Not everyone turns capitalist because of power.

Nothing communist has been achieved through democracy, but a better society has been. Sweden is becoming more leftist through democracy. Bourgeoisie elections do not accomplish the end result, but they help things. Making a difference does not mean eliminating capitalism entirely as you can make a difference simply by weakening it. Obviously, some people aren't accepting a revolutionary stance. We should still work with those people and help with some reformist efforts.

The proletariat are the victims. Making them suffer for a revolutionary agenda is the opposite of communism, anarchy, and all leftist ideology. Such machiavellian philosophy is inappropriate. Worsening the conditions of the poor as a way to improve the chance of a revolution is not legitimate. It can cause the unnecessary death of innocent victims. The idea of punishing the poor is capitalist, not leftist.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Representatives who have the people's interests in mind may be willing to give up some of their power.

we dont have any room for "may" or "might". we dont need some dumbass to be our president, we give the power to the workers and people, they can make their own decisions.


Not everyone turns capitalist because of power.

your right, they already are capitalist, how else can they afford to campaign?


Sweden is becoming more leftist through democracy.

prove it. what sweden is, IS NOT OUR GOAL. im pretty sure the proletariat is not willing to sit around for a few centuries to get communism from voteing for a candidate. probably because IT WONT HAPPEN.


but they help things

...have any of these "things" brought us closer to communism?


Making a difference does not mean eliminating capitalism entirely as you can make a difference simply by weakening it

show me where these leftist candidates have "weakened capitalism"


and help with some reformist efforts.

NO! you have not given a good reason as to why we should waste our time with this bullshit if it isnt our goal.


Making them suffer for a revolutionary agenda is the opposite of communism, anarchy, and all leftist ideology.

im not making anyone suffer. im not some "vanguard". we dont need your bourgeois politician to help our communities as ive already said. i dont think its practical to try and fight a legislative article when we want to scrap the whole system. say you get the poor a "Tax break" knowing history, they are still FUCKED. thats why i say we should work to the real goal of liberation from the entire system.


Worsening the conditions of the poor as a way to improve the chance of a revolution is not legitimate.

how am i worstening the conditions? :lol: what have your politicans done to make them significantly better?

if it is essential that action must be taken for a specific problem such as hunger, the community can act collectivly to help this.


It can cause the unnecessary death of innocent victims.

:lol: lets compare that to the number of deaths politicans are responsible for.


The idea of punishing the poor is capitalist, not leftist.

:lol: where have i said to do this? your politicans WANT prisons, they want the poor to stay in their place. they are the punishers. im being realistic, the reformist dream is not reality.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am advocating using reformist efforts while the revolution isn't happening. If we can't get someone to be a revolutionary, we should support their efforts if they have the right intent. Isolating potential allies does no one good. The reformists might help us after the revolution is working. They feel it is unrealistic, so they don't participate in revolutionary activities. This is a shame. The same can be said for the opposite, revolutionaries who totally dismiss people who have a different approach to the same destination.

Having wealth does not mean you support capitalism. Some people think reformism is the way to change things, and, in order to reform, you have to embrace certain aspects of capitalism.

I thought the goal of communism was to have better conditions for all people. Democratic action has, in some cases, worked towards that.

You should know that democracy has weakened capitalism in some aspects. Minimum wage, althought low, is increased by the government. Increasing minimum wage is hardly capitalist. Again, I say you should respect and, in some cases, help reformists because they share the same "end goal". They just differ in how to get there.

Politicians cause death, but that does not justify sacrificing the proletariat by forcing them into revolt. You suggested that we should make the conditions of the poor worse to inspire them to revolt. Exploiting the proletariat is not how revolutionary tactics should work.

Comrade, I read your posts. Perhaps you know more about this than me, and, as a result, you become frustrated by my responses. However, there is no need for caps and harsh language. I read your posts carefully, you can be assured.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Isolating potential allies does no one good.

they arent my allie if they arent willing to advocate revolution.


we should support their efforts if they have the right intent.

lots of people who do shitty things think they have the "right intent". does that mean we should support them? HELL NO


revolutionaries who totally dismiss people who have a different approach to the same destination.

no. we really dont have the same destination. their destination is to have a bourgeois elected "socialist" government. thats not my goal and it never will be.


Some people think reformism is the way to change things, and, in order to reform, you have to embrace certain aspects of capitalism.

i dont want to "reform". and what i was saying by them being rich is that you have to be rich to get elected. therfore they would need support from the bourgeoisie which is the exact opposite of what we are going for.


I thought the goal of communism was to have better conditions for all people.

thats not the only goal of communism. if that were the case you could call a $4 dollar raise in minimum wage communism. but it isnt.

what im saying is that we should not get hampered down focusing on things that a revolution would take care of. it might help a few people out in the short run but everyone looses because revolutionary action takes the back seat.


You should know that democracy has weakened capitalism in some aspects.

what democracy? prove to me that bourgeois elections are "democratic"


Minimum wage, althought low, is increased by the government. Increasing minimum wage is hardly capitalist.

if we are talking about pure capitalism there would be no such thing as minimum wage. if we are talking about our economies today than the minimum wage is "capitalist" because its a function in an economy that uses capital. if highering minimum wage is more profitable in the long run, how is that not capitalistic?


Again, I say you should respect and, in some cases, help reformists

well i say thats a stupid idea which i will not except. :)
their end goals wont happen because there will never be and end to them. to be a politican you have to be a professional liar in the first place, so why should we trust them?


sacrificing the proletariat by forcing them into revolt.

i dont control the proles, i dont force anyone to do anything, its their decision. and as others have mentioned 50% of the american population that can vote has decided that elections arent worthwhile.


Exploiting the proletariat is not how revolutionary tactics should work.

says the one who votes for politicans.


However, there is no need for caps and harsh language.

caps arent me yelling at you, im just emphasising a point. harsh language is a part of my everday life. its not directed at you specifically its just how i talk :P

[KC]

Sweden is becoming more leftist through democracy.

No, it's not. Maybe more left on the bourgeois political scale! :lol:


Bourgeoisie elections do not accomplish the end result, but they help things.

No they don't.


Making a difference does not mean eliminating capitalism entirely as you can make a difference simply by weakening it.

Unfortunately voting does the exact opposite, as by voting you are showing your approval of the system.


Obviously, some people aren't accepting a revolutionary stance. We should still work with those people and help with some reformist efforts.

No we shouldn't. Why not? Because they're wrong.



The proletariat are the victims. Making them suffer for a revolutionary agenda is the opposite of communism, anarchy, and all leftist ideology. Such machiavellian philosophy is inappropriate. Worsening the conditions of the poor as a way to improve the chance of a revolution is not legitimate. It can cause the unnecessary death of innocent victims. The idea of punishing the poor is capitalist, not leftist.

If you were educated in capitalist economics you would realize that everything that happens economically (such as the exploiting of third world citizens) is going to happen eventually. I'd rather have that happen sooner than later. You know, save some lives.


I am advocating using reformist efforts while the revolution isn't happening.

Well you are advocating some bullshit, to put it simply. Reform does nothing at all. You must look at this in terms of class. If you did that, and if you knew some economics, you would realize that bourgeois politics didn't improve the living conditions of the people; the people taking action did.


f we can't get someone to be a revolutionary, we should support their efforts if they have the right intent.

What would the point in that be? Supporting someone simply because they have good intentions? A lot of people have good intentions. That doesn't mean you should support them. Especially not if they're wrong.



Having wealth does not mean you support capitalism.

Being determines consciousness.



I thought the goal of communism was to have better conditions for all people. Democratic action has, in some cases, worked towards that.


No it hasn't. Mass action by the people against the "democratic" government has made all these changes. Class action has made these changes. Class warfare has made these changes. Not your little bourgeois elections.



You should know that democracy has weakened capitalism in some aspects. Minimum wage, althought low, is increased by the government. Increasing minimum wage is hardly capitalist.

Do you know what happens when you increase the minimum wage? Did you know that it's nearly impossible to live off of minimum wage? Not to mention the fact that minimum wage wasn't earned in the voting booth. It was earned by thousands of people taking matters into their own hands.



Politicians cause death, but that does not justify sacrificing the proletariat by forcing them into revolt. You suggested that we should make the conditions of the poor worse to inspire them to revolt. Exploiting the proletariat is not how revolutionary tactics should work.

The proletarian condition is going to get worse no matter what!!! Regardless of who you vote for, this is still going to happen.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Diebold=fix

Kerry is pro-corporate and pro-war. The choice between two whores is no choice.

[bed_of_nails]

No wonder you don't think organizing is effective if you think it about standing around and chanting for a few hours. How old are you? Have you gotten to the part in your history textbook where they talk about the civil rights movement? Yeah, all thoes people voted to get voting rights.


The last time I checked in a history book, the Civil Rights movement had more support from the people.

To the people talking about the death penalty: Part of the fucking CC supports the death penalty for murderers and rapists. You cannot claim that the death penatly is something all leftists are against.

The problem here is the lack of involvement of the people. They dont give a shit most of the time it seems. If most did, I believe reformism might actually end up working. If the majority of a democratic region supported something like Communism, I do believe it would be possible to worm someone into a local position and slowly vote them up into power.


Perhaps our ideals aren't everybody's ideals, but why should we compromise with this corrupt system? The definition of a successful resistance is no compromise. Where would we be if Che had decided to stop after the Battle of Santa Clara and decided to let Batista keep part of Cuba? What would Europe be like if the French resistance decided to lie docile under the Nazi jackboot? Even if we might not be the popular group, we should still make ourselves heard and protest in our own way.

There is a difference between just protesting, and protesting and voting to make a change. I dont disagree with protesting at all. I support it. I also support people trying to change the system from the inside- even if it is a minor amount. Just about every movement in the US has been a concession of the government, so the only accomplishments we have made are reformist.

Reform until you can revolt.

[bed_of_nails]

Hey, BON!!! First post in a political thread in a while, eh? See my post on page one. Go to the link. Then proceed to shut up.


Wow, I will ignore the feeble personal attack about how I have a life instead of just sitting around arguing with people I will probably never see!

I read your little link now that I have come back to this thread. The Democrats may kill people and commit crimes, but the question is as follows:

Will you support Candidate A, who wants to ensure gays can never get married, believes the US is the single greatest entity ever and wants to continously expand it and assassinate opposition leaders (Go read up on some Pat Robertson and find me a democratic equivelent), voted against civil right concessions, openly supports combining the church and state?

Or will you support Candidate B, who commits imperialistic crimes, wants fifty seperate entities to decide on gay marriage, supported the civil rights movement, and does not wish for the combination of church and state.

Or you can sit around with a thumb in your ass while things continuosly get worse while telling yourself and a group of internet buddies "We are really fighting imperialism by encouraging people to not vote."

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:52 PM
Will you support Candidate A, who wants to ensure gays can never get married, believes the US is the single greatest entity ever and wants to continously expand it and assassinate opposition leaders (Go read up on some Pat Robertson and find me a democratic equivelent), voted against civil right concessions, openly supports combining the church and state?
No I wouldn't support them...


Or will you support Candidate B, who commits imperialistic crimes, wants fifty seperate entities to decide on gay marriage, supported the civil rights movement, and does not wish for the combination of church and state.

Hmm, nope not voting for them either. Essentially my choice is between, a Capitalist bastard, and another apitalist bastard that supports gay rights? What's stopping candidate A reversing B's decisions next time they get into office? All that voting would have been for nothing! It's happened before. Clearly, we cannot achieve communism through voting for the democrats. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you can get off your ass and actually try and do something that will achieve communism. I apollogise for my blunt language, I don't want to alienate you, im just hoping you'll see my point by using your terminology.

[Arendra]

I don't agree. Democrats may still be capitalists, but they're better to have in the white house than democrats. For now, the best we can do is to vote for the democrats, who are hardly any better, but still they are better. Doing nothing won't help.

[cormacobear]

So if you think voting is only a vote for capitalism, then I guess US propaghanda has succeded in brainwashing you to the point that you think capitalism and democracy are synonyms. The NDP are social democrats as there platform suggests. the BC NDP may have a different platform.

Voting for left wing parties helps improve the national enviornment for left wing organizing. If you don't vote you helped conservatives win. If you did you provided funding for and press coverage for leftwing ideals, which can only succede if people know about them.

Sitting on your hands and complaining will accomplish nothing. Electing social democrats may only temporarily or slight improve the lives of the proletariat but tha is better than leaving a left wing vote at home which is the same as helping the conservatives ruin the lives of millions of workers. Which makes non voters class traitors.

and americans with atwo party system should stop telling themselves government is the same everywher just becaue your proletariat were too weak or lazy to keep a left wing party in power doesn't mean every country is the same. If you can't find a party you would vote for start one and run yourself. Lazy leftists suck.

[cormacobear]

There will never be a revolution or class revolt if we do nothing, all class violence has been devoted at changing legislation. no parties, no legislation, no change.
When you can organize a revolution we'll join in the mean time stop helping conservatives prevent the spread of the message of communism by handing them all the seats in government.

yah right Redstar as if convincing the R-L members to stop voting will trigger an election that's naive. besides if you let democracy die there is no logical reason to suspect the winners of a bloody civil war, coup or military overthrow will benevolently restore power to the people after a revolution.

Che didn't always agree with Castro but he was mature enough to compromise to make his goals a reality where would be if Che had sat at home complaining on his computer and doing nothing?

what are revolutionary activities protests, all the leftwing voters I know also do that. Name something else that you do that is "revolutionary" that will trigger change? ;)

[cormacobear]

Why not form an affinity group and do direct action around your city. Build a social centre, regenerate your community and organise in your workplaces and schools.
so far these are the only suggestions from the do nothing but croos your fingers crowd, and they are all things the voters do. and things only possible as long as we continue to vote and prevent them from arresting you for doing these things.

Using America as an example of democracy is repugnant it's like hearing Micheal Jackson talk about children. I fail to see how helping the Neo-cons spread the message that capitalism and democracy are synonyms, is going to help convince people to reveolt. because the oppositte of democracy is dictatorship and the majority haven't generally rose up with the intention of installing dictators.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:05 PM
Doing nothing won't help.
And who's doing the least? the Revolutionary grassroots activists trying to achieve some from of consciousness amongst the workers, or you, doing nothing but tick a box every four years.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:49 PM
Why not form an affinity group and do direct action around your city. Build a social centre, regenerate your community and organise in your workplaces and schools.
Because that might achieve something? I'd rather vote for capitalist overlords to rule me every four years.


so far these are the only suggestions from the do nothing but croos your fingers crowd, and they are all things the voters do. and things only possible as long as we continue to vote and prevent them from arresting you for doing these things.

Are you saying that voters are watching out for the Grassroots activists? or are you saying that if people don't vote, we'll all get arrested? :lol:



Using America as an example of democracy is repugnant it's like hearing Micheal Jackson talk about children. I fail to see how helping the Neo-cons spread the message that capitalism and democracy are synonyms, is going to help convince people to reveolt. because the oppositte of democracy is dictatorship and the majority haven't generally rose up with the intention of installing dictators.

And yet there you are, advocating that we install dictators.

[cormacobear]

Yes that might help win over more leftwing voters which is why we participate in elections. our ancestors fought a hard won class conflict to get us the vote, your refusal to use it too your full advantage is lazy and spitting on their memory.

Yes left wing organizers do get arrested everyday in countries without democratic checks on the wealthy's powers.

Name a dictator I have endorsed. If you can't argue against my comments without perverting their meaning you merely perpetuate everyones understanding of the week moral position you're taking.

We organize, write and spread propaghanda, protest, donate, and more we vote...hmmm seems like more than those who do nothing.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:09 PM
Yes that might help win over more leftwing voters which is why we participate in elections.
I thought people voted because they agreed with the aims and principals of the party in question, and wanted to be ruled by them.


our ancestors fought a hard won class conflict to get us the vote, your refusal to use it too your full advantage is lazy and spitting on their memory.

Im sure they'd be more offended if I was to show my support for capitalism by voting.


Yes left wing organizers do get arrested everyday in countries without democratic checks on the wealthy's powers.

They also get arrested in countries with democratic checks.


Name a dictator I have endorsed. If you can't argue against my comments without perverting their meaning you merely perpetuate everyones understanding of the week moral position you're taking.

John Kerry? or maybe that was some other cappie.


We organize, write and spread propaghanda, protest, donate, and more we vote...hmmm seems like more than those who do nothing.

Voting's not really 'doing anything' because it achieves nothing progressive, well, I suppose it is some from of pro-capitalist activism.

[bed_of_nails]

Hmm, nope not voting for them either. Essentially my choice is between, a Capitalist bastard, and another apitalist bastard that supports gay rights? What's stopping candidate A reversing B's decisions next time they get into office? All that voting would have been for nothing! It's happened before. Clearly, we cannot achieve communism through voting for the democrats. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you can get off your ass and actually try and do something that will achieve communism. I apollogise for my blunt language, I don't want to alienate you, im just hoping you'll see my point by using your terminology.

Can you tell me what in the US revolution has accomplished? All movements for equality were made by reformist actions to stop a revolution from ever forming. Show what you want, and they will give it to you eventually to keep you from doing anything.

I severely doubt you can stand up and scream at people "Ignore the civil rights movement! They didnt do enough for people! Lets revolt instead".

More than likely most of the group will be shouting out things like "Shut the fuck up."


And who's doing the least? the Revolutionary grassroots activists trying to achieve some from of consciousness amongst the workers, or you, doing nothing but tick a box every four years.

I should let you know the grassroots effort doesnt seem to be working very well- before I came to this site neither I nor anyone I knew had ever heard of your movement.


What's stopping candidate A reversing B's decisions next time they get into office?

There isnt. What is stopping workers of race A from deciding they hate race B after the revolution, so they crusade to kill off race B? Nothing. If a revolution can be fought for good, it can be fought for evil also. Nothing is garunteed, so take what you can while you can.

[cormacobear]

I never suggested anyone vote for the democrats. and said several times I don't consider the US very democratic and with the two parties both working to undermine not bolster workers rights, there, I see note point in Voting. You could start your own party but that's alot more work than even going dow to see if there is a leftist party running a candidate. then spoiling your ballot because there isn't.


The sooner you realise that, the sooner you can get off your ass and actually try and do something that will achieve communism. I apollogise for my blunt language, I don't want to alienate you, im just hoping you'll see my point by using your terminology.

We already do the same as the non-voting members and more.

the advances we've gained in the last 200 years of class war are being driven back in places like the United states, and Australia where even huge National stikes acheived nothing. while similair attacks on Canadian Labour rights have failed because of left wing members in the house intervening.

Losing ground is not a good thing in any war. and losing our right to organize will make it much harder too well.....organize.

[redstar2000]

It is indeed depressing to read the dreary parade of posts in this thread that take bourgeois "democracy" seriously...and think that some form of participation in it will really "get us somewhere".

We have the whole 20th century history of reformist parties to look it...and all of it never amounted to a warm puddle of piss!

It might be interesting to speculate why we've had a flood of such posts recently. A lot of "new kids" coming to the board...bringing all the crap they learned in high school with them?

If that's the explanation, then I have bad news for you. Everything they taught you about capitalist "democracy" there is a LIE!

It is "democracy" in words and despotism in practice!

The sooner you learn this, the less time and energy you will waste in pursuit of reformist mirages.

Revolutionaries cannot "stop" people from making sucker bets...but we can at least warn you that capitalist "democracy" is a sucker bet.

And we also have to concede the fact that some people here really don't want a revolution at all...it's "too extreme" and "goes too far".

Those of you who really want "capitalism with a human face" are going to find yourselves in an increasingly untenable position on this board. As more and more people here grasp the folly of reformism, your views will meet with an increasingly hostile response.

It's even been suggested that reformists should be restricted to Opposing Ideologies...and while that's not going to happen any time "soon", I expect that eventually it will happen.

We try as best we can to be "patient" with people who are "new to the left"...but our patience is not infinite.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I still don't see the problem with voting for someone that you know isn't going to win. I wouldn't vote for any democrat or any republican but I might vote for a socialist or a communist; what's wrong with that? And if there is no leftist then just don't vote or write something in.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 14 2005, 10:52 PM
I wouldn't vote for any democrat or any republican but I might vote for a socialist or a communist; what's wrong with that?
Anyone found "running for office" in a bourgeois "election" and claiming to be a "socialist" or a "communist" is lying.

What they would do, if elected, is just what every politician always does...do I have to spell that out?

Our task as revolutionaries is not to grant, even indirectly, any legitimacy to the institutional forms of capitalist despotism.

On the contrary, we need to be relentlessly hostile to them on every public occasion.

They are not something "we can use"...they exist for the purpose of using us.

They were invented for the purpose of conferring "democratic" legitimacy to what is, in fact, despotism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guerrilla22]

Democracy is an illusion it does not and never has existed. Republics yes, democracies no. I didn't get to vote on whether or not to go to invade Iraq, did anyone else get to do this?

[cormacobear]

Canadians did with 80% against it believing it to be illegal, and the evidence sketchy. the liberals were forced to back away from their original position and refuse to be a member of Bush's coalition. They were already a minority government non-compliance with the wishes of the left meant losing power and being forced to try and get re-elected.

If we had not had so many NDP there Canada would have participated and slaughtered innocent people, and helped ligitimize Bush's illegal war. but left wing votes prevented that. So you don't believe Democratic Socialists are socialists. That you can't be a socialist unless you lust for blood? That's sad.

that means you dissapprove of virtually every leftist in the world, since even Marxist Lenninist parties run candidates. Is it only Maoists you approve of? It must get lonely there being so few people YOU consider socialists.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:07 PM
left wing votes prevented that.
Imagine if the "voters" were revolutionaries.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear
That means you disapprove of virtually every leftist in the world, since even Marxist Leninist parties run candidates.

Yes!


Is it only Maoists you approve of?

Only in the "third" world and only when they actually take up arms against imperialism.

In the "west" they are irrelevant.


It must get lonely there being so few people YOU consider socialists.

Well, somebody has to be the first to point out that the emperor is naked...and if the task has fallen to me, then I'm willing to shoulder it.

I am not afraid of "being in a minority"...I only fear being wrong.

About the fraud of bourgeois "democracy", I am not wrong.

And I have 40% to 50% or even more of the working class in every advanced capitalist country who, at least in practice, agree with me.

They don't vote or even pay any attention to bourgeois "elections" at all.

Thus demonstrating a good deal more "common sense" than all those "socialists" who imagine that they can use a car to go sailing. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:08 PM

It must get lonely there being so few people YOU consider socialists.
So? the entire anarchist movement agrees with that stance, and a lot of Communists. Socialism, in practical terms, has gone to pot, and is in my opinion a practically dead ideology. Think about it, an ideal that once inspired uprisings now does little more than take enthusiastic young people, and make them sell papers until they either forget politics altogether, or join Anarchist groups. This is my personal observation, and as far as I can tell it's an accurate one, at least in the UK.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What social democratic parties have papers? In the US it's the IWW and the Panthers and so on that have papers.

I think we need to be clear that the problem with groups like the CPUSA or the Peace and Freedom party is that they see elections as the way to achieve socialism or reforms of capitalism. This is top-down socialsim and tells people discorages working class activity in favor of supporting a leader.

On the other hand, in places like the US where the lack of political activity catipults the "lowest form of political action" (i.e. voting*) to one of the highest into the minds of many people, elections can be used as a platfrom for radicals. The presidential election in 2004 had a devistating effect on the US anti-war movement and the stranglehold the democrats have over the left can be seen in the fact that even anarchists (aside from a dedicated core) didn't protest the Democratic convention, but protested Bush's convention. In fact, the left was silent when the photos of US soldiers tortureing Iraqi prisoners were released.

A prominent left wing campaign as a protest would have a huge effect on what it considered possible, politically, by people in the US. Just look at the effect Kanye West had with a brief statement about the obvious racism in the Katrina disaster. So do I think pop singers and rappers are the key to changing society, of corse not, and neither are elections. But in the US simply having someone exposing the narrowness of the mainstram political debate would give confidence to workers that we could change our lives.

For a counterexample, look at Iraq. Here, argeuing for a left candidate would be a restraint on worker's actions. Most people there who are not voting are doing so because they see the government and elections as illegitamate.

Elections should be seen by radicals as one tactic that may be useful under some conditions for propaganda purposes, not as our goal or a solution to capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
...look at Iraq. Here, arguing for a left candidate would be a restraint on worker's actions. Most people there who are not voting are doing so because they see the government and elections as illegitimate.

Isn't that what we want working people in the advanced capitalist countries to think?

If it is, then how do we encourage that sentiment by acting otherwise?

People notice what we do much more than what we say.

If we act as if capitalist "elections" are legitimate, then our "revolutionary words" will fall on deaf ears.

As they should. We would be showing that we were no different than any other group of political hustlers.

Worthy only of contempt.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cormacobear]

If we don't act in elections in the public eye, then there will be no one listening to tell what we believe. It's difficult enough convincing people our ideas are in there best interest; by not opposing elements seeking to weaken their lives they will never believe we have there best interests in mind when they lose their right to collect pensions when a company goes bankrupt. When there was a party who with a few thousand more votes could have prevented iot, a party you didn't vote for.

The revolution isn't going to happen in here on this board it's going to happen out there with real people who believe all sorts of things you won't. But nothing will happen if your strategy includes only the few thousand you can convince of your particulair brand, and nothing will happen if they lose the beleif that things can be changed period. When leftists acheive good things it makes the left look better the entire left not just social democrats, or democratic socialists. If they acheive successes even small victories in the battlefeild of bourgios politics. It inspires more people to learn about what they never realized could be an option.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 08:38 PM
If we don't act in elections in the public eye, then there will be no one listening to tell what we believe. It's difficult enough convincing people our ideas are in there best interest; by not opposing elements seeking to weaken their lives they will never believe we have there best interests in mind when they lose their right to collect pensions when a company goes bankrupt. When there was a party who with a few thousand more votes could have prevented iot, a party you didn't vote for.

Think of the example i mentioend earlier. Because the elderly are on a tight budget, many of them avoid turning the heating on during the winter. As a result many die from the cold. Political parties, say they have sympathy, and discuss pensions, but such suffering has always existed. And no parties will pay for the OAPs heating. However, rather than voting, which historically achieves nothing, many have taken it upon themselves to illegally hook gas up to peoples homes, and created syndicates to pay for their bills, this anarchist direct action approach has done more for the cause than voting for a capitalist oppressor ever did.


The revolution isn't going to happen in here on this board it's going to happen out there with real people who believe all sorts of things you won't. But nothing will happen if....

blablabla, I've heard this "The forum wont change anything, we need to get out there" shit enough times. Just because all you do is post on this forum, doesn't mean it's all I do, im already out there, acting, fighting the oppressors your helping elect.


and nothing will happen if they lose the beleif that things can be changed period.

Why do you think so many don't bother voting? they realise it doesn't change anything.


When leftists acheive good things it makes the left look better the entire left not just social democrats, or democratic socialists. If they acheive successes even small victories in the battlefeild of bourgios politics. It inspires more people to learn about what they never realized could be an option.

You talk about doing good things and inspiring people, I totally agree, so stop voting for which brute you want to whip you while you work and help us fight the fucking system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 15 2005, 07:40 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 15 2005, 07:40 PM)
Gravedigger
...look at Iraq. Here, arguing for a left candidate would be a restraint on worker's actions. Most people there who are not voting are doing so because they see the government and elections as illegitimate.

Isn't that what we want working people in the advanced capitalist countries to think? [/b]
Yes. But what you and Additives Free are suggesting is that people in the US or UK who don't vote are voting for similar reasons. If they were not voting but also joining unions or the anti-war movement or forming grassroots organizations, then we would want to boycott all elections for the valid reasons you both point to.

However, the people who are not voting are doing so because they don't think anything not just voting can change they system; it is cynacism and demoralization, not radicalization and class consiousness.

I am not suggesting we stop grassroots organizing in favor of creating some kind of labor party out of thin air, but supporting left-wing non-democrats in order to break thoes on the left who are already voting for Kerry (or whatever other right-wing clown who passes himself off as "left opposition" in this country) from the democratic party.

If the presidential debates had a someone who even softly represented the ideas and demands of the anti-war movement, it would give confidence to people on our side that we have other options besides "staying the corse" and "inviting the UN to help the US stay the corse".

There was a year-long lull after the election of liberal demoralization. ANd even now when activity is increasing, liberals want to rejoin and tell us our demands will scare off people because Bush's election prooves how conservative this country is. If an anti-war candidate had recieved even 10% of the votes, then the calls for self-sensorship and retreat by democrats and liberals in the movement would fall on deaf ears.

I don't believe getting people elected will help our movements, however using elections as platforms for protest votes, exposes all the criticisms of elections you have correctly cited as well as opens up the mainstream debate forcing the Dems and Republicans to have to respond to questions and issues in public that they would rather leave to discussions with industry heads in smoky back rooms.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
...however using elections as platforms for protest votes exposes all the criticisms of elections you have correctly cited...

This makes no more sense than going into a bar to preach total abstention from alcohol...while having a few beers because "preaching is thirsty work". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Wanted Man]

I love how redstar, who is against the eeeeeevil vanguardists, states that youths new to the movement should be ditched if they don't "catch on" quickly enough. Guess he actually quite likes the idea of an elite of "enlightened" workers directing the revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Matthijs
I love how redstar, who is against the eeeeeevil vanguardists, states that youths new to the movement should be ditched if they don't "catch on" quickly enough.

Well, the demands of history are sometimes "harsh"...and if you don't "catch on quickly enough", you find yourself "in the shit".

In the long run, revolutionaries are intolerant of reformists...that's just the way things go.

If that distresses you, then you might find another board more "to your tastes".

Even "virtual communities" do not "stand still"...they develop over time.

There's no "stopping that"...though sometimes people are successful in "slowing it down".

People here are becoming more hostile to reformism...and, in my opinion, that's a good thing.

You may, of course, feel otherwise. But what would that reveal about your own views?


Guess he actually quite likes the idea of an elite of "enlightened" workers directing the revolution.

If intolerance of reformism is a measure of "enlightenment" -- which I think it is -- then I am indeed "guilty" of your charge.

And without any sign of remorse whatsoever. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cormacobear]

All Hail Ceasar, A "my politics or no-ones" leader.

The RedStar 2000 organizational speach.

'Sorry you can't join the party you're all the wrong kind of communists, but don't worry we'll run things while you're gone now off to the gulag with you."
"Allow workers into the party? Never, some of them don't even want to participate in wealthy neighborhood pogroms.......which means they're not leftists ar all."


(sarcasm)You're right there are too many leftists in the world we should work harder at offending and excludiong the proletariat from participating in their fututre(Sarcasm)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:45 AM
I love how redstar, who is against the eeeeeevil vanguardists, states that youths new to the movement should be ditched if they don't "catch on" quickly enough.
Why do you think this thread is still open?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:51 PM
'Sorry you can't join the party you're the wrong kind of communist, but don't worry we'll run things while your gone now off to the gulag with you." :unsure:
huh?


You're right there are too many leftists in the world we should work harder at offending and excludiong the proletariat from participating in their fututre.[FONT=Courier] Sarcasm[FONT=Arial]

Yes, we should exclude reformists, they contribute nothing to "the radical left"

[joey]

why doesnt someone who is a well known communist activist practice what they preach and organize a massive revolt against our capitalist oppressors. Violence is the only way im afraid. Its the only way communism has ever been brought into effect and the only way it will in America. I dont know enough to lead an organized revolt but i sure as hell would follow any person who has the balls to stand up to the Americans. We need to stop fighting amongst each other and start directing our anger through weapons.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:44 PM
why doesnt someone who is a well known communist activist practice what they preach and organize a massive revolt against our capitalist oppressors.
Well, although it's quiet, this is what a lot of Anarchist-Communists are trying to do right now.


Violence is the only way im afraid. Its the only way communism has ever been brought into effect and the only way it will in America. I dont know enough to lead an organized revolt but i sure as hell would follow any person who has the balls to stand up to the Americans. We need to stop fighting amongst each other and start directing our anger through weapons.

Although I disagree that we need a leader in order to start a revolution, and that communism has ever been brought into effect, I do agree with you that we need to take action. Your certainly right there.

[cormacobear]

and when do you expect to have enough support for a revolt? Next week 5 years, 50 years, 100 years. and in the meantime you'll turn down oppertunities to improve the lives of many millions of poor.

That doesn't seem to follow the notion of solidarity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 16 2005, 08:14 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 16 2005, 08:14 AM)
Gravedigger
...however using elections as platforms for protest votes exposes all the criticisms of elections you have correctly cited...

This makes no more sense than going into a bar to preach total abstention from alcohol...while having a few beers because "preaching is thirsty work". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Your comparison would work if then the preacher puked up all the alcohol onto the bartender. :D

Again, I am not argueing that electing people into office should be our goal in the US. Our goal should be to break the left and trade unions from their illusions in the Democratic party. You are totally correct that winning elections is a dead end.

A left candidate independant of the Democrats would have a good opportunity to expose the similarities between the Dems and Republicans. If, in the last US election, you had debates between Bush and Kerry and a Left-wing non-Democrat candidate, then you would have had two people argueing to stay the corse and one person saying end the occupation or bring the troops home or whatever and then it would be much harder for the liberals and Democrats to argue to the anti-war movement that we have to go 1/2 the way with Kerry and must quiet some of our demands in order to allow him to defeat Bush.

But returning to your analogy how is the preecher going to tell people not to drink if he only goes to the monistary to propagandize about the evils of alcohol. He must go down to the bar where the people he wants to convince already are!

[Raisa]

Just cause you believe a bunch of liberal bullshit doesnt mean someone is stupid for not voting. Dont call names now.

Your vote doesnt really matter cuase either way youre man isnt getting far in the government as nothing but a mouth peice to capitalism.
Dont hate on people who know damn well their votes dont matter. Its good the Bush won , cause he is no different then any other US president, hes just more open about it.

Go BUSH! Expose your system and make the people mad. Thats what WE should be doing, comrades. Thats all that can be done for hte time being anyway. Excellent job.

[AK47]

Yes, the elections are rigged, the candidates are bought off by K. Street, and no real change will happen under the current political climate. But, to not vote is to let those who would repress the masses one less front to put their resources. This would be a victory for the moguls of capitalism, and their pseudo Christian right wing lunatic fringe puppet masters. One less front to have to fight on! I understand the frustration, but the decision to not vote is counter productive. More than voting, how about running. There has got to be some local elections that some radical left could sneak in. Now here in Delaware County Pa, (The Republican Heaven of South East Pa) it might be harder than most, but I am sure some town counsel seat is up for grabs some where .
The conclusion; "Be the change you want to see in the world." Ghandi. :hammer: :redstar2000: :hammer:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:08 PM
and when do you expect to have enough support for a revolt? Next week 5 years, 50 years, 100 years. and in the meantime you'll turn down oppertunities to improve the lives of many millions of poor.

That doesn't seem to follow the notion of solidarity.
100 years of work starting now might get one "socialist" running on a socialist party ticket in the government. its unlikely though. what i wonder is why the poor dont vote themselves? are we supposed to vote for them? they have realized it doesnt fucking work.

[kurt]

Again, I am not argueing that electing people into office should be our goal in the US. Our goal should be to break the left and trade unions from their illusions in the Democratic party. You are totally correct that winning elections is a dead end.
If it's crap, don't hesitate to call it crap. Don't tiptoe around the issue, trying to "manuever" and "trick" workers into formulating radical demands. When they found out you were lying in the first place they won't believe you later.


A left candidate independant of the Democrats would have a
But returning to your analogy how is the preecher going to tell people not to drink if he only goes to the monistary to propagandize about the evils of alcohol. He must go down to the bar where the people he wants to convince already are!
I think redstar already proposed something that would reach out to all the people who still vote, by actually protesting elections at the polling stations. You wouldn't have to lie like in your approach, and you'd still reach those still under the illusion that their vote matters.

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"! (http://http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Led Zeppelin]

"In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.

The correctness of this statement is perhaps most clearly confirmed by Germany, because constitutional legality steadily endured there for a remarkably long time--nearly half a century (1871-1914)--and during this period the Social-Democrats were able to achieve far more than in other countries in the way of "utilizing legality", and organized a larger proportion of the workers into a political party than anywhere else in the world.

What is this largest proportion of politically conscious and active wage slaves that has so far been recorded in capitalist society? One million members of the Social-Democratic Party - out of 15,000,000 wage-workers! Three million organized in trade unions--out of 15,000,000!

Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the "petty"--supposedly petty--details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for "paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,--we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.

Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!

But from this capitalist democracy--that is inevitably narrow and stealthily pushes aside the poor, and is therefore hypocritical and false through and through--forward development does not proceed simply, directly and smoothly, towards "greater and greater democracy", as the liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists would have us believe. No, forward development, i.e., development towards communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way." Lenin

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:03 PM

Again, I am not argueing that electing people into office should be our goal in the US. Our goal should be to break the left and trade unions from their illusions in the Democratic party. You are totally correct that winning elections is a dead end.
If it's crap, don't hesitate to call it crap. Don't tiptoe around the issue, trying to "manuever" and "trick" workers into formulating radical demands. When they found out you were lying in the first place they won't believe you later.


A left candidate independant of the Democrats would have a
But returning to your analogy how is the preecher going to tell people not to drink if he only goes to the monistary to propagandize about the evils of alcohol. He must go down to the bar where the people he wants to convince already are!
I think redstar already proposed something that would reach out to all the people who still vote, by actually protesting elections at the polling stations. You wouldn't have to lie like in your approach, and you'd still reach those still under the illusion that their vote matters.

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"! (http://http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
Who said anything about tricking workers. Where have I said: electing socialists will reform capitalism into some kind of utopia?! You are either making a straw man argument or didn't read any of my posts.

All the reasons I have put forth here are the same as I would tell a worker who is planning to vote for the democrat:

1) Change will only come from workers themselves not some elected official
2) The democrats restrain our movements by talking left and governing pro-capitalist, pro-war and anti-worker!
3) A protest vote will show the politicians that we will not give into "lesser-evilism" and support democrats simply because we have no other option. More importantly millions of votes for an anti-war non-democrat will show other people who don't vote that a sizable portion of the population is against the war, against corporate domination and against neoliberalism and so on! It will give confidence to workers that we can make stronger demands, we can strike and people will support us, we can demand an end to the war and challenge the cops.

As long as people think that everyone in the US thinks like either a republican or a democrat, people will be too demoralized and disenfranchized to try any grassroots action.

This strategy should not stop with elections alone, but be part of the more important grassroots work we do.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:22 PM






3) A protest vote will show the politicians that we will not give into "lesser-evilism" and support democrats simply because we have no other option. More importantly millions of votes for an anti-war non-democrat will show other people who don't vote that a sizable portion of the population is against the war, against corporate domination and against neoliberalism and so on! It will give confidence to workers that we can make stronger demands, we can strike and people will support us, we can demand an end to the war and challenge the cops.

idk if you live in america or not, but if you do this will never happen. the electoral system is two party for a reason, first past the post. since only half the able voting population actually votes you are promoting a reactionary policy. you will have to convince the other half of the voting population to not only vote but vote for specific candidate. this is absolutely unrealistic and completely not practical. we are talking about a couple centuries work here.

explain to me how voting for these people will promote strikes and the fighting of cops? it seems to me that if you got a bourgeois "lefty" politician in office it would convince people that he would "help us out". so we better leave the government alone to do its "good work".

if you want to strike and challenge the cops then STRIKE and throw bricks and the police. you dont need to vote in anyone to do this.


As long as people think that everyone in the US thinks like either a republican or a democrat, people will be too demoralized and disenfranchized to try any grassroots action.

the voting population in the US does think that. thats why most people DONT VOTE. for good reason too.


This strategy should not stop with elections alone, but be part of the more important grassroots work we do.

or concentrate on everything important except elections. if your trying to focus on winning elections and other work, the other work will be almost nothing. it takes millions to win any large seat. you have to have teams and teams of supporters. you have to hire consultants to help you win because i dont anyone on this board has the knowledge of the electoral system to help win a large election.

so we come to the conclusion that voting in a bourgeois "lefty" is very unrealistic and a BIG waste of time.

[comradesteele]

did you hear what happend when the venzulan right , in protest against chavez didn't stand for election. they relised afterwards that now they had no people left in the govt.

so for them not voting turn otu to be a mistake

[Jimmie Higgins]

Nate, like I said in the majority of my posts, the goal should not be to get leftists into office, rather use an election as a platform to expose the narrowness of the differences between republicans and democrats. I'm talking about protest votes.

Part of the brillient evilness of the two-parties in the US is being able to convince people that anything left of the democrats is "not practical"... this dosn't just mean left-candidates or 3rd parties are not "practical" but also strikes and so on. Union burocrats constantly argue to the rank and file that strikes are a bad thing and compromises are victories and getting democrats elected is the best bet for protecting worker's rights. I don't think we should try and convince workers that a Green or Peace and Freedomer would be any better. Instead, we should support them in that their candiacy would expose how truley pro-corporate the democrats really are.

We should involve ourselves in elections while also argueing with workers that ultimately no real or lasting change can come from within the system, however a protest vote to the left of the democrats would have a big impact even if the candidate didn't win.

This is not true in all circumstances. In Bolivia, for example, voting for MAS would be trailing workers consiousness and would not lead to anything more radical.

In Iraq, supporting the ICP would not be moving consiousness to the left, it would be colaboration in the occupation and illegitamate government the US is trying to establish.

In the US in the 1930s, trying to form a labor party probably wouldn't have been effective because people were already out on the streets and having wildcat strikes and so on.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Nate, like I said in the majority of my posts, the goal should not be to get leftists into office, rather use an election as a platform to expose the narrowness of the differences between republicans and democrats. I'm talking about protest votes.

why would you do this by voting? what a waste of resources.


Union burocrats constantly argue to the rank and file that strikes are a bad thing and compromises are victories and getting democrats elected is the best bet for protecting worker's rights.

then promote worker run unions!


I don't think we should try and convince workers that a Green or Peace and Freedomer would be any better. Instead, we should support them in that their candiacy would expose how truley pro-corporate the democrats really are.

voting for a green or peace and freedom party candidate doesnt do that. what does do that is to get out on the street with the information. phamplets, fliers, books, whatever. it would take you a century to do that if it means getting a certain candidate in office. but what you havent realized is that half of the voteing population realises its THE SAME OLD SHIT.


We should involve ourselves in elections while also argueing with workers that ultimately no real or lasting change can come from within the system

can you not see the contradiction in this?


however a protest vote to the left of the democrats would have a big impact even if the candidate didn't win.

no it wouldnt. there are protest votes today against democrats and they, DO NOTHING.


In the US in the 1930s, trying to form a labor party probably wouldn't have been effective because people were already out on the streets and having wildcat strikes and so on.

and thats the time when leftist groups should be the most organized and effective.

[ketchupstan]

There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, or the Labors and Conservatives, etc. A more leftist government will be more tolerant of leftist ideas, just as a right government will be more tolerant of right ideas. For instance, in the Republican Ohio, there is state legislation restricting leftist expression of college professors. The closer a candidate is to your ideals, the less likely it is that that politician will suppress your ideals. Under a Democratic president/Congress, America is more likely to experience a flourish of radicalism, which would make it more likely for more leftist politicians to be elected. Of course, massive demostrations/protests/etc. imcrease the pace of radicalization, as the presidency of Nixon shows. A gradual revolution is slower, yes, but has the benefits of being nonviolent, makes counterrevolution less likely, is more likely to gain the absolutely necessary approval of the international audience, and history has shown that violent revolutionary armys have the capability to commit the worst crimes against humanity ever conceived.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:08 PM
and when do you expect to have enough support for a revolt? Next week 5 years, 50 years, 100 years.


"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always"


and in the meantime you'll turn down oppertunities to improve the lives of many millions of poor.

Not voting democrat isn't turning down any opportunities :lol:


That doesn't seem to follow the notion of solidarity.

And picking the oppressor is acting in solidarity?

[violencia.Proletariat]

There is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans

not to us.


A more leftist government will be more tolerant of leftist ideas, just as a right government will be more tolerant of right ideas.

no "government" will ever be tolerant of ideas that want to abolish it


closer a candidate is to your ideals, the less likely it is that that politician will suppress your ideals

there is no such thing as a revolutionary politician.


Under a Democratic president/Congress, America is more likely to experience a flourish of radicalism, which would make it more likely for more leftist politicians to be elected.

:lol: :lol: seriously, try again.


but has the benefits of being nonviolent

how is being non violent a benefit? gives our enemies more time to gather weapons to kill us.


and history has shown that violent revolutionary armys have the capability to commit the worst crimes against humanity ever conceived.

oh bs. you cant blame that on them being "violent", its their leadership and the material conditions they are in. i would really like to see someone show an example of this "holy" non violent revolution that pacifists think is possible. i would also like to see someone use an example other than that little bastard gandhi.

[ketchupstan]

not to us.
They are to us. That's what I'm arguing.


no "government" will ever be tolerant of ideas that want to abolish it
In America, at least, this is completely wrong. Most of the people here, regardless of their country, have been able to acquire Marxist literature. Many of us are in Marxist organizations. Public universities, like mine, often times aid Marxist student organizations. Revolutionary publications are allowed.


there is no such thing as a revolutionary politician.
Jefferson? de Valera? Chávez? Mandela? Mussolini?


how is being non violent a benefit? gives our enemies more time to gather weapons to kill us.
I think that killing people is morally wrong, but that's me. Being nonviolent means that the revolutionaries are less likely to be fought violently. It's far easier and safer to argue in the halls of Parliament than on the battlefield.


oh bs. you cant blame that on them being "violent", its their leadership and the material conditions they are in. i would really like to see someone show an example of this "holy" non violent revolution that pacifists think is possible. i would also like to see someone use an example other than that little bastard gandhi.
While there hasn't been a truly communist society, we all seem to think that it's possible. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, and the like have been nonviolent. If you want more, you're going to have to do your own research.

[Sabocat]

It's laughable that anyone would be fooled into thinking that the democrats offer any substantive difference within the ruling class parties. I could go on and on about wars (U.S) started by Democrats, the Clinton ravaging of social programs etc, etc, ad nauseum, but the reformists here will still advocate for a kinder gentler slave master.

If there is any doubt about the complicity of the Democrats with regards to the Iraq war, here is a good article about the collusion between parties. Enjoy.

Bush, Democrats back protracted war in Iraq
Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board
1 December 2005


With a substantial majority of the population supporting a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the Bush administration and its Democratic allies have joined forces in an attempt to intimidate the American people into accepting a protracted and bloody colonial war.

The bipartisan campaign in support of the war was summed up by back-to-back statements from Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and President Bush, both of them proclaiming a “strategy for victory” in Iraq.

Lieberman’s comments appeared in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, while Bush delivered his in a speech to a captive audience of Naval Academy midshipmen the following day. Both made claims of success for US policy that are wildly at odds with the grim realities in Iraq.

The Democrats, no less than the Republicans, have been thrown into political crisis by the growing realization among broad layers of the American population that the government deliberately dragged the country into a war of aggression based on lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction and bogus links between Baghdad and terrorism.

The sea-change in attitudes towards the war has been fueled by the mounting death toll of American troops—now standing at 2,110—as well as the exposure of the Bush administration’s criminality, from its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina to the CIA leak case and the expanding web of corruption scandals engulfing the Republican Party.

Opposition to the war has grown as well within the officer corps, which fears that the occupation and counterinsurgency campaign are threatening the US military with disintegration.

This dissension within the top ranks of the military gave rise to the call earlier this month by Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a retired Marine colonel and longtime supporter of the Pentagon, for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq within six months. The proposal, coming from someone who had supported every US military action since Vietnam, threw the White House into crisis and prompted the latest public relations campaign.

The great advantage that the administration still enjoys is the support for the war from its ostensible opposition—the Democratic Party. The basic unity of the Democrats and Republicans in support of the US occupation reflects the broad pro-war consensus within the financial oligarchy, whose essential interests are defended by both parties.

Those in the political establishment and the top ranks of the US financial and corporate world understood from the outset that the purpose of the war was not to counter a terrorist threat, much less promote “democracy,” but rather to utilize overwhelming American military power to impose US hegemony over a region that contains much of the world’s oil resources. The predominant sections of this ruling elite still see the vast profits and strategic advantages over America’s economic rivals that such control would yield as worth the price being paid in blood—both American and Iraqi—as well as the $6 billion in monthly war spending.

This is what underlies the bipartisan alliance between the Democrats and Bush in support of continuing what is, in the most profound sense, a criminal war. It also accounts for the indifference of both parties to the antiwar sentiments of the majority of the American people.

This alliance found its most noxious expression in the column written by Lieberman for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, the most consistent voice of the Republican right. Lieberman claimed that “real progress” is being made in Iraq as a result of the US occupation and that the US neo-colonial operation is somehow giving the Iraqi people a “modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood.”

He repeated the ridiculous refrain that the struggle in Iraq “is a war between... 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists.”

If, indeed, the odds are 27 million to 10,000—that is, 2,700 to 1—why are 160,000 US troops needed in Iraq, and why are they incapable of suppressing the resistance, or even securing the center of Baghdad? Lieberman doesn’t bother to explain this incongruity. Nor does he explain how the “10,000” continue not only to fight, after the US occupation forces have killed or imprisoned many times that number of Iraqis, but have escalated their actions—with insurgent attacks increasing from 150 to over 700 a week in the last year.

He cites opinion polls that supposedly show 82 percent of Iraqis “are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now.” No doubt many Iraqis cannot imagine how things could get any worse.

Lieberman does not mention the polls showing 80 percent of Iraqis wanting US troops to leave the country, nor the recent meeting in Cairo of rival Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders, who drafted a consensus statement demanding the “timetable” for a US withdrawal that both he and Bush claim is unthinkable.

Instead, he chides the American people for giving in to “pessimism” about the war. He attacks some members of his own party in Congress for being “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago... than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.”

How the Bush administration dragged America into the war three years ago is hardly a matter of irrelevant ancient history. The invasion of 2003 was a war crime in the strictest sense of the term—an unprovoked war of aggression, the basic crime on which the leaders of Nazi Germany were convicted and executed. The administration lied about the reasons for the war, attempting to terrorize the American people into accepting it by claiming that Iraq was threatening US cities with a nuclear terrorist attack.

The fact that a war could be launched on this basis, with no real opposition from the Democrats, demonstrates the degree to which the ruling elite is utterly contemptuous of the democratic rights of the American people. No “progress” in any sense of the word can come out of such a criminal and predatory venture, only new and greater crimes.

Lieberman boasted that during his recent visit to Iraq he saw the strategy of “clear, hold and build” at work. “Progress in ‘clearing’ and ‘holding’ is being made,” he said.

The word “clearing” is the English equivalent of the word used by the Nazis, “ausrotten,” to describe their “clearing” of Eastern Europe of Jews and all others who opposed their military occupation. It is a policy of mass expulsions of civilian populations and murderous repression, as seen in Fallujah and elsewhere.

As for “building,” the Democratic senator was compelled to acknowledge that little has taken place as “too much money has been wasted or stolen.” He delicately avoided specifying by whom, as he would have been compelled to name politically connected contractors upon whom both he and the administration rely for support.

Lieberman’s column amounted to a preview of Bush’s speech the following day, and the president reciprocated by quoting the Connecticut senator approvingly for his rejection of any timetable for withdrawing US troops. He neglected to include Lieberman’s somewhat franker assessment that the US military presence “will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.”

Bush reprised the same scare-mongering that was used to justify the war in the first place, equating those resisting the US occupation in Iraq with Al Qaeda terrorists blamed for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington.

“If we’re not fighting and destroying the enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle,” Bush declared. “They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.”

This is a boldfaced lie. “Fighting and destroying the enemy in Iraq”—the bombing of cities, the killing of families at checkpoints, the detention and torture of the thousands rounded up and imprisoned at Abu Ghraib and other prison camps—has created an inexhaustible supply of recruits for the resistance. Washington’s claims that those fighting the US occupation are Al Qaeda members who have migrated to Iraq are belied by the failure to capture or kill any significant number of such “foreign fighters.”

Bush spelled out that even if significant numbers of US troops are withdrawn, the war against the Iraqi people will continue. “While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize,” he said.

The nature of such a presence was spelled out in detail this week in an article by Seymour Hersh published by the New Yorker. Quoting current and former Pentagon and intelligence officials, Hersh writes that plans for a reduction in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq have been coupled with proposals for a more intensive use of American airpower against Iraqi resistance—in other words, a campaign to bomb the Iraqi people into submission.

Already, US warplanes have dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives on Iraqi cities and towns in attacks that are responsible for a large share of the more than 100,000 civilian deaths since the March 2003 invasion.

“The danger, military experts have told me,” Hersh writes, “is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what.”

The proposal to provide US air support for Iraqi army units raises the disturbing prospect of ethnic-based Iraqi units calling in air strikes against political rivals. This is already happening on the ground, as Hersh’s article makes clear.

In his speech at the Naval Academy Wednesday, Bush cited the recent siege of Tal Afar in northern Iraq as a vindication of the use of US-trained Iraqi military forces. “Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations... hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods, block by block,” Bush declared. He quoted an Iraqi soldier as saying, “All we feel is motivated to kill the terrorists.”

Hersh quotes an American Army officer who took part in the assault as saying the predominantly Shiite Iraqi forces were “rounding up any Sunnis on the basis of whatever a Shiite said to them. They were killing Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites.” The officer noted that those doing the killing included a Shiite militia unit led by a retired US Special Forces soldier. “People like me have gotten so downhearted,” the officer told Hersh.

This is the sickening reality of the “strategy for victory” that is advanced by both Bush and the Democrats. It amounts to support for death squads, retaliatory bombing and ethnic cleansing. What is being prepared against the Iraqi people is a mass slaughter aimed at bleeding the country white. Whether this involves the killing of half a million Iraqis, a million or two million, the American ruling elite is prepared to pursue its war crime in Iraq to whatever level is required to suppress opposition to US domination of the country and its oil wealth.

In an attempt to intimidate opposition to the war, Bush told his audience of Navy midshipmen, “When you’re risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation’s capital.” He continued, “I want you to know that, while there may be a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington, DC, one thing is not in dispute: The American people stand behind you.”

The reality is that the debate in Washington is the palest reflection of the mass opposition to the war among the population as a whole. The Democratic leadership, while raising for its own opportunist and cynical reasons questions about the administration’s conduct of the war, has rejected demands for an end to the occupation.

What passed for Democratic opposition to Bush’s speech came from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who chided the president for having “once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq.”

But for a majority of Americans, as repeated polls have demonstrated, the issue is not a strategy for “victory” or “success.” The issue is bringing the troops home from Iraq. Many millions of people recognize that this war is a crime and are morally outraged by the way it was launched, the continued violence against civilians in Iraq, and the killing and maiming of American soldiers to secure the profit interests of the oil monopolies and the US financial elite.

This vast segment of the American population is politically disenfranchised. Its views and aspirations find no serious reflection within the US two-party system.

The “strategy for victory” promoted by both parties means not only a continuation of the carnage in Iraq, but new wars of aggression to establish the global hegemony of US imperialism. The struggle against the war in Iraq and the new wars that are being prepared can be carried forward only through a decisive break with the Democrats and the building of a new, socialist party that fights for the independent political mobilization of the working class, both in the US and internationally, against imperialism.

This is the burning issue posed in the upcoming 2006 midterm elections. Once again, as in 2002, the Democrats will seek to prevent the vote from becoming a referendum on the war in Iraq. Those who wish to build a genuine movement against the war—one that will force the withdrawal of troops from Iraq—must draw the appropriate political conclusions from the bipartisan alliance of the Democratic and Republican parties

Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d01.shtml)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:38 PM
They are to us. That's what I'm arguing.

Your wrong.


In America, at least, this is completely wrong. Most of the people here, regardless of their country, have been able to acquire Marxist literature. Many of us are in Marxist organizations. Public universities, like mine, often times aid Marxist student organizations. Revolutionary publications are allowed.

There's a far stretch between reading revolutionary books, and actually being revolutionary. The government will never tolerate action towards abolishing it. "Democracy" is a way for the ruling class to appear to be legitimate. This bourgeois hierarchy will never allow itself to be destroyed from within. Groups that try to radicalise society through parliament find themselves absolved in it.


Jefferson? de Valera? Chávez? Mandela? Mussolini?
And have any of them helped our cause to overthrow the Government or Capitalism?


I think that killing people is morally wrong, but that's me. Being nonviolent means that the revolutionaries are less likely to be fought violently. It's far easier and safer to argue in the halls of Parliament than on the battlefield.

Who want to argue in the halls of parliament? I'd like to burn it down.


While there hasn't been a truly communist society, we all seem to think that it's possible. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, and the like have been nonviolent. If you want more, you're going to have to do your own research

And? do you support the Orange Revolution or something?