Elections as a tool/forum

[enigma2517]

I think all communists need to confront reformism in all of its forms. By participating in it we are simply giving it more legitimacy.

However, has anybody considered using elections as a public forum?

More people pay attention to elections and candidates than they do to radical newspapers and so forth. Is it possible to use elections to disseminate our message and nothing else?

Would such a move be permitted by authorities? Would it even work without confusing and muddling the message?

I have a suspicion that that it would, but I would just like to know what others think.

Most elections are expensive, whether you win or lose, so maybe it would be more efficient to just spend that money on literature, building community centers, other direct action projects, etc.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I've heard figures that about 50% of the entire voting population in America actually votes. Most people dont care, but it seems to be a big deal from looking at major media sources.

It wouldnt just be shooting ourselves in the foot to participate because it legitimizes the system, but also because it lines us up with thieving bastards (politicians).

[Hegemonicretribution]

The general view is quite anti-reform, especially electoral reform and therefore such a forum may be a little unnecessary. Taking part in bourgeois elections does legitimise them to some extent, although there are varying oppinions on this. Essentially when it comes to such election you are going to be held in a minority without impact on most occassions because the agencies which influence most people are diametrically opposed to the aims of the radical left.

Anything that we tried in an election would be bastardised by the bourgeois, and they have the media control, and a bigger budget. You can see the relatively minor impact Nader had (and that was large considering) imagine what would happen to a serious "communist" candidate.

[Paradox]

However, has anybody considered using elections as a public forum?

More people pay attention to elections and candidates than they do to radical newspapers and so forth. Is it possible to use elections to disseminate our message and nothing else?

I thought that was the reason the SPUSA participated in elections? At least, that's what one member told me.


Anything that we tried in an election would be bastardised by the bourgeois, and they have the media control, and a bigger budget. You can see the relatively minor impact Nader had (and that was large considering) imagine what would happen to a serious "communist" candidate.

Yeah, I agree. I think it is better, necessary rather, to stay out of the bourgeois realm of elections. Even so, we will be attacked as radicals. But, of course, that's the point... we want to replace the system, not become part of it.

[enigma2517]

Sounds good. Thats what I thought too.

Selling out for a little coverage (which will probably end up being distorted anyway) just isn't worth it. We can take the money used for campaigns and spend it on more direct action type of stuff.

[apathy maybe]

Elections are a good platform for getting the revolutionary message across. But rather then participating in them (standing candidates or asking people to vote for someone), we should encourage people to notparticipate. If less then 50% people vote, how can the winner (who gets only about 50% of that first 50% (or 25% of the total population that can vote, less then that of the total population (doesn't include children etc.))), claim legitimacy?

Basically we use the election, and the increased political awareness to explain why voting does not change anything.
Slogans such as "don't vote, a politician will get in" and "if voting changed anything, it would be illegal", can encourage people to think about the futility of voting. It might not lead to revolution, but hopefully it will lead to more people thinking about politics.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 1 2006, 12:24 AM
If less then 50% people vote, how can the winner (who gets only about 50% of that first 50% (or 25% of the total population that can vote, less then that of the total population (doesn't include children etc.))), claim legitimacy?

About 25% of the actual vote, sounds like New Labour <_<.

The fact is that they can&#39;t claim legitimacy, and never will be able to. Even with ideological ideas aside, this non-existent mandate becomes even more existent when you consider the actual support.

[bezdomni]

I&#39;ve considered running for office.

One could make fun of the bourgeois system, which is what I would plan to do should I ever run. A communist running for office would be pretty ridiculous, but it would bring a lot of attention to the fact that red is not dead.

The bourgeois political forum could definitely be used to disseminate information and ideology. For example, if you ran for congress and there was actually a debate between the major contendors - you actually have a chance to speak to all of the people and make sense to the people. Maybe they will wake up and realize that the republicans and democrats are the same thing - that we need revolutionary ideas and revolutionary change&#33;

The bourgeois system can be fun, but it is only a very small part of the battle. If we were somehow able to get revolutionaries in office, they would support the revolutionaries in the streets.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:14 PM
The bourgeois political forum could definitely be used to disseminate information and ideology. For example, if you ran for congress and there was actually a debate between the major contendors - you actually have a chance to speak to all of the people and make sense to the people. Maybe they will wake up and realize that the republicans and democrats are the same thing - that we need revolutionary ideas and revolutionary change&#33;
The problem is that its almost impossible to convince diehard liberals and capitalists, who benefit from and believe in the system, to listen to arguments that seem rational and logical to you and me.

Try arguing anything in the OI forum. It&#39;s like bashing your head against a wall over and over.

Considering that of the ~50% of the population that votes, (and I think that this statistic is much larger than the percentage who actually are politically informed), most of them are middle to upper-middle class and above. They have the most access to resources and education that allow them to be kept up-to-date about the &#39;issues&#39;, and probably have some stake in them.

The problem is that "the people", (the audiences of most political debates and followers of &#39;issues&#39; ), aren&#39;t working class people. They&#39;re people with a vested interest in the perpetuation of society as it is.

The majority of the population who doesn&#39;t vote is poor. They feel they have nothing to gain, regardless of which asshole "represents them" in parliament.

So even if you managed to run as a communist just to &#39;put your argument out there&#39; the majority of the people paying attention to politics in the first place will not be poor or oppressed, and your message will fall onto deaf ears.

Most people who are into politics are because it benefits them, and they want a bigger piece. They think they can &#39;run this shit&#39; better than someone else, and they want to be paid well to do it.

It&#39;s not revolutionary to support bourgeois elections, and it will bring us no closer to the world we really want.

...

All that being said, I vote, and otherwise have participated actively in an election in order to influence the result. This does almost nothing to further communist ideas, but I wouldn&#39;t argue that it did anything to inhibit them either. If the people around you subscribe to capitalism, including bourgeois elections, and they&#39;re going to vote anyway, might as well try to get them to vote "your" way.

For the residents of my community, for me, right now and today, I don&#39;t think that it was/is counter-revolutionary to do that. I feel like it&#39;s just one thing that we can do to influence the world we live in between today, and tomorrow.

I know that "today" is a great day for revolution. All I&#39;m saying is that it&#39;s easier to canvass for a "legitimate candidate" in the eyes of the public (in an attempt to incite some change in the political world), than it is to start a revolution.


If we were somehow able to get revolutionaries in office, they would support the revolutionaries in the streets

Yeah, exactly :) I think it&#39;s okay to have "one more voice in parliament" who IN SOME WAY speaks to your own interests (or rather, something vaguely resembling them, anyway) while we have to be subjected to "parliament" in the first place.

[redstar2000]

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"&#33; (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[bezdomni]

The problem is that its almost impossible to convince diehard liberals and capitalists, who benefit from and believe in the system, to listen to arguments that seem rational and logical to you and me.
Most people don&#39;t hear the rationality. We can at least try.


Try arguing anything in the OI forum. It&#39;s like bashing your head against a wall over and over.
Publius is nice, the rest are wretched bastards...but those are generally the type we attract to the OI forum. Not everybody is a moron...just ignorant. The good news is, ignorance can be reversed.


The problem is that "the people", (the audiences of most political debates and followers of &#39;issues&#39; ), aren&#39;t working class people. They&#39;re people with a vested interest in the perpetuation of society as it is.
The goal is to get the "real" people to pay attention, and the people who already pay attention to change their minds. We need to loosen apathy&#39;s chokehold over the working class.


The majority of the population who doesn&#39;t vote is poor. They feel they have nothing to gain, regardless of which asshole "represents them" in parliament.
Exactly, we need to become those assholes&#33;
Power in the parliament + power in the streets = power to the people&#33;


It&#39;s not revolutionary to support bourgeois elections, and it will bring us no closer to the world we really want.
If anything, it would be a mockery of bourgeois elections. People get all excited when a "rebel" runs for anything. Kinky Friedman has big support in Texas, and the only thing rebellious about him is libertarianism and cigar smoking.

[enigma2517]

If anything, it would be a mockery of bourgeois elections. People get all excited when a "rebel" runs for anything. Kinky Friedman has big support in Texas, and the only thing rebellious about him is libertarianism and cigar smoking.

Thats kind of what I was thinking. I would never SERIOUSLY consider being in an election, but since word about it travels so much in mainstream media, I just figured it would be a fun way to make it what it really is, THEATER.

:)

On the other hand, I&#39;m just not sure if a.) we can do that without mixing up the message b.)can use those funds/time for something better?

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:40 PM
Exactly, we need to become those assholes&#33;

And I think some of us do have what it takes to become those assholes. ;)


Power in the parliament + power in the streets = power to the people&#33;
^&#33;&#33;&#33;

[rouchambeau]

If a candidate ever said something like "I will do nothing to stop working class people from establishing a society for and of themselves" I would definetly vote for that person. However, elections should not and have never been a tool for real change.

[barista.marxista]

Using elections as a "political tool" is succumbing to bourgeois methodology. As has been said, about 50% of the populace doesn&#39;t vote, because it doesn&#39;t matter to them. People who say elections are a good forum to bring a smessage across fall to the liberal bourgeois mindset. What is a better way to bring consciousness to our fellow workers: running alongside of the politicians they hate, or working directly in the community where immediate results can be seen? Organizing autonomous zones, confronting racism and general bigotry in our neighborhoods, running food drives for locals, creating free libraries and book-exchanges, holding forums and infoshops, free concerts of conscious musicians, etc. -- these are all real ways of raising class consciousness in our local areas. Our communities see who is truly on their side, instead of the petty bourgeois Leninist parties who put themselves on the same managerial political platform as the Dems and Greens and all the liberal shit. We need direct action, not politics.

[piet11111]

the chance of even being heared in an election is incredibly small if you dont have the money to buy the "time" on the radio or tv.
the newspapers are hardly read by the working class unfortunatly so the cheapest option is out.

also participating in these scams is legitimising the fraud of democracy under capitalism.
also your inevitable failure to "deliver the goods" will probably turn the poeple that voted for you off from socialist/communist ideology.

the fact you are even allowed to participate in the circus of capitalist democracy should make it clear you can never ever hope to win an election even if you somehow manage to get elected.

[anomaly]

On this issue, I have a better idea than using the elections: let&#39;s oppose the elections. Actively.

If it is at all possible, we should, rather than join in the charade, stage an active protest outside of any voting area, and tell anyone interested why they should not vote. Not only does this seem more &#39;communistic&#39; to me, but it also makes our message extremely clear, and it helps to &#39;spread the word&#39; to atleast a few people. And if we can do that, it&#39;s completely worth trying such a thing.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:17 AM
On this issue, I have a better idea than using the elections: let&#39;s oppose the elections. Actively.

If it is at all possible, we should, rather than join in the charade, stage an active protest outside of any voting area, and tell anyone interested why they should not vote. Not only does this seem more &#39;communistic&#39; to me, but it also makes our message extremely clear, and it helps to &#39;spread the word&#39; to atleast a few people. And if we can do that, it&#39;s completely worth trying such a thing.
very true indeed.
and the sensationalist media would not skip this story either.

and the interest of many poeple would be triggered that could lead to "convertions"
of poeple that normally would never be bothered to look up communism.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:17 AM
On this issue, I have a better idea than using the elections: let&#39;s oppose the elections. Actively.

If it is at all possible, we should, rather than join in the charade, stage an active protest outside of any voting area, and tell anyone interested why they should not vote. Not only does this seem more &#39;communistic&#39; to me, but it also makes our message extremely clear, and it helps to &#39;spread the word&#39; to atleast a few people. And if we can do that, it&#39;s completely worth trying such a thing.
They&#39;ll ignore you, because they want to vote. The people who actively go to vote have an interest in doing so and will not be casually persuaded not to, especially not in the name of communism.

Even if you did convince a few people not to cast a ballot, they&#39;re likely the people who are already the most critical of the political system, so they are probably the most likely to vote for independent candidates, or underrepresented parties. I would argue that this was a negative effect, since it is often underdog parties or candidates who have any integrity at all, and so to have them in parliament is leaps and bounds better than leaving the regular, rich, maintenance-of-the-status-quo parties and candidates to win every riding.


and the sensationalist media would not skip this story either

I have a feeling that they would. I don&#39;t see why the media would be bothered to broadcast a couple of dissident communists outside of a polling station when, on election day, there&#39;s plenty of big news already being made that supports the system. They aren&#39;t going to waste the airtime on a small group of protestors when election day is one of the biggest days for news popularity of the year. They have better things to cover, and they will.

I think protesting outside of polling stations is a rediculous idea. I think that the better way to try to take down the system is from the inside. I believe there is much more value in trying to get inside, rather than sitting out on the lawn with a bunch of placards that will no doubt be ignored.

[piet11111]

well the media loves the poeple they consider nutjobs such an action will be atleast mentioned.

if it was done on a larger scale then just a few poeple at 1 voting location it would be better.

[anomaly]

will not be casually persuaded not to
Nothing wrong with trying. There is no iron law that says people who go out to vote are &#39;die-hard&#39; voters. Hell, like I said, if we get one person to stay away from the polling place, any protest will have been worth it.


I would argue that this was a negative effect, since it is often underdog parties or candidates who have any integrity at all, and so to have them in parliament is leaps and bounds better than leaving the regular, rich, maintenance-of-the-status-quo parties and candidates to win every riding.
Every single bourgeois party can be described as "maintenance-of-the-status-quo." Having &#39;underrepresented parties&#39; in parliament or congress will not help us in the least. However, getting some people to wake up from their bourgeois-election stupor will help us.


I think protesting outside of polling stations is a rediculous idea. I think that the better way to try to take down the system is from the inside. I believe there is much more value in trying to get inside, rather than sitting out on the lawn with a bunch of placards that will no doubt be ignored.
What value is there in engaging in a system we actively condemn?? This will only confuse people as to our stance. Our stance is that bourgeois elections are an utter waste of time, and that only through revolution can real change take place. So, as I see it, &#39;participating&#39; in elections would be an example of us talking the talk, but not walking the walk, if you&#39;ll excuse the expression. And besides, if we can get through to anyone, any protest is worth it.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:54 PM
I think all communists need to confront reformism in all of its forms. By participating in it we are simply giving it more legitimacy.

However, has anybody considered using elections as a public forum?

More people pay attention to elections and candidates than they do to radical newspapers and so forth. Is it possible to use elections to disseminate our message and nothing else?

Would such a move be permitted by authorities? Would it even work without confusing and muddling the message?

I have a suspicion that that it would, but I would just like to know what others think.

Most elections are expensive, whether you win or lose, so maybe it would be more efficient to just spend that money on literature, building community centers, other direct action projects, etc.
On this question, I would rather say it depends on the particular situation of a country where the communists are into. In several countries, the communists get isolated whenever they call for a boycott or non-participation into the elections. This is so specially in the less developed countries where the great majority of the masses of the peoples are participating in the elections. But if the people are already well aware of the inutile process of elections, then it is only proper to boycott the elections and instead call for more radical steps.

It must be made clear to everybody that reformism is the concept of opting for reforms to bring about social change. While revolution is the overthrow of the reactionary ruling class.

However, the idea/concept that participation in the elections is reformism should be clarified.

It will fall into reformism if the participation into the elections is affirmed as the only viable option for social change. But if one would consider participation in the elections as just one more of the many other forms of parliamentary struggle and just being part of the revolutionary struggle, then it is not reformism.

[enigma2517]

I completely agree...and after being on a conservative radio talk show last Saturday I am completely convinced that we cannot, or should not, use elections.

The message gets muddled, if your message gets out at all.

The post about direct action was right, building the movement, starting with your community is the best thing you can do. I used to think that stuff like "food drives" and all that was more of a lifestylist approach of people who thought they could just drop out of capitalism, not destroy it, but then I realized those people aren&#39;t wealthy students like me and that IDEALOGY doesn&#39;t mean shit to them.

I remember Redstar2000 once mentioning that nobody becomes a revolutionary simply after reading a pamphlet, no matter how well-versed it is. Logic often falls on deaf ears on people who have a (seemingly) vested-interest in the system.

To go on the public airwaves and openly call for such a radical, revolutionary change is often, but not always, the most effective route.

It&#39;s like Marx said, material being determines consciousness. In places like America there is still a largely opulent (and ignorant) middle-class. I&#39;ve "converted" people like this before, but only on the grounds of anti-consumerism, capitalism is alienating and unfulfilling type of thing. The people that it speaks to most, however, are the ones that have it resonate with their life experiences. Being a wage slave all of your life certainly gives you an interesting perspective on things, however, not everybody is there yet.

Anti-imperialism and community building are the two most effective things we can do right now, IMHO.

The fall of capitalism is a logical conclusion that will follow later.

[xprol]

What an encouraging thread of debate. For opportunism elections are central, for revolutionaries they can be used tactically But with EXTREME CAUTION and the revolutionary attack on the electoral racket itself is critical. As has been said, there is nothing (usually) to stop a revolutionary intervention in any election Without &#39;formally&#39; standing/running in it. In fact the same or more agitation can be done without losing deposits, being constrained by bureaucratic regulations, etc. The clue is that the capitalists want us to get involved in their bull shit so good sense should tell us to oppose it (usually)

The entire history of the communist movement is sadly littered with &#39;communists&#39; who proved that they were really opportunist traitors once elected. Good revolutionary theory and organiation is needed to keep a grip on any &#39;candidates&#39;.

[piet11111]

well no matter what the circumstances are i would avoid running in bourgeois elections to avoid giving it ligitimacy.
participation = granting ligitimacy and revolutionary&#39;s have to avoid that probably more then a police batton to the head.

[xprol]

Ye, I agree. I have stood in elections and it is not something revolutionaries can go through without feeling like puking, mostly on the careerist shoes of so called comrades. I know that the credibility thing can be overcome, by a no holds bared exposure and denunciation of the electoral gravy-train racket itself.

But the pull on more unstable comrades,(even experienced ones) into personal aggrandisement, as shallow as it all is, is a real eye opener. Even so it would be genuinely ultra left to say never&#33; Although, I never ever want to repeat my experience.

My view since then, is that anyone standing as a communist candidate in a capitalist election should have their entire family held hostage against their good revolutionary conduct, or don&#39;t stand. Harsh? No, just look at the history of traitory and the bloodshed and degradation of literally millions of workers and their families because capitalist bribes or terror was a more potent motivator for the rats than the revolution or our terror was.

[piet11111]

well its not just bribes or the risk of harm when not complying with capitalists.
more often its personal ego boost and the power that corrupts.

it is easy to fight for something when you have nothing (comunist revolution) but when you get into a position of power you suddenly have a lot to lose and that is why communists in bourgeois governments regress in revisionists at best.

[xprol]

"it is easy to fight for something when you have nothing (comunist revolution) but when you get into a position of power you suddenly have a lot to lose and that is why communists in bourgeois governments regress in revisionists at best."


Exactly, that is a bribe.