Voting

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I've come to the conclusion that I will not be voting in any Canadian elections. I feel that voting perpetuates a capitalist system that allows corruption to occur. However, can voting have positive benefits? Are there communists here that believe so? If that's the case, why?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Voting is pointless and reformist. We cannont reform the system. We want to overthrow the capitalist system which requires going outside the bounds of bourgeois politics.

If say a wage increase were absolutely necessary for workers, mass demonstrations/strikes (such as the French Anti-CPE demonstrations) will be sufficient.

[DaRk-OnE]

"If voting change anything they would make it ilegal "
Emma Goldman

[OneBrickOneVoice]

You lose both ways. If you vote for let's say the socialist candidate, it won't matter because he doesn't have a huge billion dollar party beind him like the major two parties and thus is unknown to most voters because he can't campaign and get his message out. Even if third parties try to raise money, no one donates since they think the third party is going to lose anyways. If you don't vote, they ignore you completly and just make due with whoever votes. In American elections only about 50% of the voting population vote.

[RedAnarchist]

Who cares if they ignore you? We are not trying to help them, we are trying to help the people they repress.

[Pawn Power]

While refuse to vote in a state that is corrupt and imbedded in capitalism,
I know some comrades that believe voting on a local scale can be beneficial. Clearly these changes will be temporary and still be mealy reforms. However sometime it means the difference between heat in the winter or freezing. It is difficult to argue against voting for an immediate change that can reduce the suffering of people living in the slums.

Obviously real change need to occur, revolutionary change. These reforms made by, at times benevolent local representatives must be seen not as an end to the problems. How do we attack this issue when people desire and need things like heat, which seems and sometimes is, obtainable through more local elections?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Who cares if they ignore you? We are not trying to help them, we are trying to help the people they repress.

No they just pretend like you don't exsist. By not voting you make no difference whatsoever was all I was saying. However voting also is pointless.

[Janus]

Elections (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764&hl=voting+elections)

Here was the last discussion over elections.

You won't think many communists here who would agree with it. The disillusionment with the voting process is easily revealed by the low voter turnouts. We vote in one person after another who makes some rheotorical speeches but does nothing. Furthermore, direct democracy does not exist as we simply vote for people who we hope will do what we want them to do but this system has always let us down in the end. We don't need the politicians, we have more experience with local things than they do and we are the ones who can manage it the best.

[AnarchoCommieAviator]

I live in Canada and I absolutely vote. I vote for the NDP simply because they are the most progressive party that actually holds a chance in winning.

However, I agree completely that the elections are useless and run by corrupt polititions, but in my opinion, you really dont have any right to complain about the system unless you actually try and change it. And to me the most effective and by far the easiest way is by using the means that they give you, in this case elections.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:46 PM
I live in Canada and I absolutely vote. I vote for the NDP simply because they are the most progressive party that actually holds a chance in winning.

However, I agree completely that the elections are useless and run by corrupt polititions, but in my opinion, you really dont have any right to complain about the system unless you actually try and change it. And to me the most effective and by far the easiest way is by using the means that they give you, in this case elections.
That whole post was a contradiction.

[RebelDog]

I vote all the time. I'm aware of all the arguments against voting and that bourgeois politics are essentially farcical. I vote because; 1, The establishment don't want me to vote. 2, It can actually sometimes change things. 3, It gets me out of the house.

[AnarchoCommieAviator]

That whole post was a contradiction.

Not really. I vote for the party that is both left wing and has a shot at winning, even though im against the whole concept of elections in the first place. Its not a contradiction, its just the way our government is set up right now, that the easiest way to change it is thorough thier own elections. It isnt harming anybody. I would rather see a capitalist idiot win the election who at least puts more emphasis on social services and freedoms, then a capitalist idiot who takes way freedoms and puts more emphasis on corporate tax cuts and the like.

[MurderInc]

There are things on a tangent that are not supporting capitalism per se, or at least are so antenulated from the support of capitalism that voting would not be against the scheme of revolutionary means.

Your city may have local elections for a library program for after school from 3 to 6 p.m. Candidate A is for it, candidate B opposed. While any voting of any kind technically encourages our enemies, this particular vote may outweigh the long term socialist cause. One may be a socialist w/ 2 kids and want the library program and the only way to have it is to campaign for Candidate A.

Many people, like the state legislators, "rule us" by writing law. Others, like my example, have to do less with ruling us and more with a decision of the day.

The vote might have merit and not be so closly linked to supporting those who exploit us.

Some purist out there would disagree with me, and I understand that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I vote for the party that is both left wing and has a shot at winning, even though im against the whole concept of elections in the first place. Its not a contradiction, its just the way our government is set up right now

How is voting in a election which you are theoretically against not a contradiction? :lol:


that the easiest way to change it is thorough thier own elections.

You can't change shit through an election. Any reformist bills passed will eventually be eroded.


It isnt harming anybody

Debateable. I would say supporting frauds (elections) is harmful, it's pulling proles into a trap. We don't need people voting in elections, we wan't them to work outside bourgeois bounds and overthrow the system.


I would rather see a capitalist idiot win the election who at least puts more emphasis on social services and freedoms then a capitalist idiot who takes way freedoms and puts more emphasis on corporate tax cuts and the like

Why? What good is it doing at all? You are legitimizing a system you want to overthrow. That is a direct contradiction with your goals. You are defeating yourself and won't even wake up to realize it.

You can work for enternity for your shitty reforms and they will all be challenged and broken when you lose your elections. You will perpetually take place in these scams and never break from them because you think you are actually changing things permanently.

[Brekisonphilous]

Don't listen to the people on here that tell you not to vote unless thats what you believe. Decide for yourself. I typically wouldn't vote unless the election was going to be very close between 2 canidates and one of them is significantly better than the other and has plans to fix things. But almost 100% of the time, at least in north america, this is not the case, because the canidates, at least the ones with a chance, are so similar that it is really like voting for the same person. So you decide if you really support a canidate enough to cast a vote. and living in canada, which is nowhere near a revolution, I would want to vote for the canidates that I found would be more tolerable to live under.

[STI]

Originally posted by AnarchoCommieAviator
I live in Canada and I absolutely vote. I vote for the NDP simply because they are the most progressive party that actually holds a chance in winning.

The NDP is hardly "progressive". Jack & co. might talk a big (lame) game around and between elections, but their actual track record while in power requires that they be written off with all the other bourgeois politicians out there.

Certainly you've heard of Bob Rae?



However, I agree completely that the elections are useless and run by corrupt polititions

Then why legitimize them?


in my opinion, you really dont have any right to complain about the system unless you actually try and change it.

That would only make sense if any of us were complaining about how one bourgeois politician would be "so much better" than the others... which we aren't. No votable option will ever bring about fundamental change, so those with fundamental criticisms have no reason to participate in the whole electoral proces (which is a sham to begin with).


And to me the most effective and by far the easiest way is by using the means that they give you, in this case elections.

Voting is hardly "effective", as the track record of reformists demonstrates.

[apathy maybe]

I do not see the point in voting in government elections (except sometimes local government).

You can vote for the least worst case or the least worst who might get elected (first past the post is so not "democratic"). But ultimately, so still have capitalism.

I don't agree with the argument put forward by Socialist Alliance members where I live that if elected they can show that the system is flawed. We all ready know the system is flawed. And if the population is going to vote in Socialist Alliance they will see the system is flawed too!

Voting does legitimise the system to a limited extent (not nearly the extent that some people who claim however), except in places such as Australia where there is the threat of violence if you do not vote. In such cases I would still say not to vote in governmental elections. Unless you are not actually an anarchist and you do not have a problem with government.

But I do, so I do not vote for government elections (except for local).

[STI]

Why on Earth would you vote in municipal elections?

[apathy maybe]

Because I think that local elections are not about governing. They are more about the administration of things. As such I do not see a conflict with my beliefs.

[Palmares]

As revolutionaries, we cannot say with any legitimacy that voting is part of our agenda, but rather the tool by which the ruling class recreate a justification for the renewing of their power, and as such, the oppression neccessary to propagate it.

However, the point is, even though voting is not revolutionary, in some contexts, it is legitimate to vote if their is a chance of relative change. It isn't like, if I vote for labour rather than conservative, we will be saved! Not at all, no revolutionary should be so deluded.

It is more the point if by having your vote, a vaguely more progressive person can get in to make things not so bad - so maybe a member of the Greens over a conservative member.

[apathy maybe]

But the Greens are still capitalists ...
I don't think we should be voting for any government. I don't think we should legitimise them more then what we cannot help.

Smash the state.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

what about socialist candidates like Walt Brown and Socialist Equality candidates like Bill Van Aukan?

[apathy maybe]

What are they going to do if elected? Abolish capitalism? Bullshit they would. Elections are tools for reformists, they can't be used to make fundamental change.

[STI]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Because I think that local elections are not about governing. They are more about the administration of things. As such I do not see a conflict with my beliefs.


...The administration of things by whom and for whom?


Smash the state.

...By voting in elections for its local branch?

[STI]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+--> (Apathy Maybe)Because I think that local elections are not about governing. They are more about the administration of things. As such I do not see a conflict with my beliefs.
[/b]

...The administration of things by whom and for whom?


Smash the state.

...By voting in elections for its local branch?


Cthenthar
it is legitimate to vote if their is a chance of relative change.

No it isn't, because you know as well as I or anybody else who's on the ball that those "relative changes" are absolutely temporary!. By voting, it sends a clear message: I think this can be used effectively. When people see or hear of those with fundamental oppositions to capitalism participating in elections, they'll be more likely to follow suit when they conclude that they're sick of class society.

And, since voting won't fundamentally change anything, we'll just be wasting peoples' time and worse, we may be turning them off from revolutionary leftism altogether.

Great.


so maybe a member of the Greens over a conservative member.

Why? Do they really act so much differently? Sure about that?

[Palmares]

At the same time, not voting doesn't actually do anything either. :P

The point is, not that voting actually has much chance of doing anything, becuase yes, all the candidates are capitalists, well, definately reformists anyway.

But saying that in no circumstances whatsoever should someone vote, kind of ignores the complexity of the contexts in which people are put when dealing with oppressive regimes.

Sometimes (but rarely) short term wins are a legitimate choice in political matters, for example, if there was a close poll between a conservative who was to cut down one of the most important forests in the world, and then a progressive who would protect it, I would seriously consider voting. Notice, I said consider. It may well be that I wouldn't vote, but in circumstances inwhich there is something at stake, and if I don't support a side (not by "joining" them of course!), that of which is at stake cannot ever be replaced...

The idea of temporary wins is simply to keep the world livable.

Someone might well say that someone shouldn't try to save a forest, because it's not revolutionary. Well, if the revolution doesn't come, then there's no forest left.

The key to the movement is to be creative, dynamic, diverse and multi-faceted. And sometimes things like temporary wins are required for an overall better future.

So in a nutshell, there are circumstances inwhich I see it as legitimate to vote, but that's as common as a nazi bonehead and a punk being in the same car*.

*Joke = There's a nazi bonehead and a punk in the back of a car. Who's in the front?

A cop. ;)

[Edit: I worded a key sentence badly, hope you guys can understand it noe :)]

[EwokUtopia]

Voting is pretty pointless, but it is more pointless in some places than others. America has probably got yhemost pointless strain of democracy out there. You have the choice between neoliberals and neoconservatives, and if there is a third party that gets significant votes, its usually paleoconservatives. its basically a sham, but lets also remember that voting only really matters en masse, and the american masses are kept dulled by the mass media. FOX news can vote. CNN can vote. the people cant.

[Hit The North]

Voting is a tactic (albeit rarely effective). To proclaim that one will never use it is ultra-left posturing.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 8 2006, 10:44 AM
Voting is a tactic (albeit rarely effective). To proclaim that one will never use it is ultra-left posturing.
Why would you use a tactic that doesn't work? Oh and a lot of memebers here would fit the description of "ultra left." ;)

[Ander]

While some may think voting doesn't do anything...neither does not voting.

I believe that voting can be useful in some cases and it can bring about some change. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Salvador Allende were elected democratically.

[Janus]

I believe that voting can be useful in some cases and it can bring about some change
Yes, but we should focus on long-term change and the future as well. Simply satisfying short-term goals will block this from happening. Yes, we need to relieve the conditions of the oppressed as much as possible but this does not necessarily have to cause us to sacrifice our principles.

Morales and Chavez may fix some problems but they will never lead us to our final goal.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by STI+--> ( STI)...The administration of things by whom and for whom?[/b]By local politicians for local people.

Originally posted by [email protected]
...By voting in elections for its local branch?
I don't see it as the "local branch" at least where I am.

The local council makes sure that there are working street lights and that the pot holes are filled in, I think this is legitimate, thus I vote (or have done once anyway) for the local council.


Janus
Morales and Chavez may fix some problems but they will never lead us to our final goal. I agree.


Using elections as a platform to encourage people to think about the state is one tool that leftists could use rather then voting. I believe there is a thread about this somewhere.
Get out there and not vote! Hand out how to not vote cards!

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 7 2006, 09:24 PM
I've come to the conclusion that I will not be voting in any Canadian elections. I feel that voting perpetuates a capitalist system that allows corruption to occur. However, can voting have positive benefits? Are there communists here that believe so? If that's the case, why?
If you think you got it bad, try America. Both major parties here are right of center, with the GOP being far right. America is universally a right-wing country, and its authoritarian at the same time.

[STI]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
By local politicians for local people.

:lol:

Putting the adjective "local" in front of the noun "politician" doesn't suddenly make the noun any less bastardly.

And honestly, do you think it's "regular ol' local folks" that decisions are being made in the interests of? Not around here it isn't.



The local council makes sure that there are working street lights and that the pot holes are filled in, I think this is legitimate, thus I vote (or have done once anyway) for the local council.


When a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning runs on a platform of "getting rid of streetlights", I'll reconsider.

Those things are taken care of by the public administration bureaucracy, and would happen regardless of what local asshole happend to sit on city council.



Using elections as a platform to encourage people to think about the state is one tool that leftists could use rather then voting.

What do you mean by "use as a platform"? Like, run as a candidate and just slag on the state the entire time?

[Messiah]

As much as we all advocate for revolution we do have to make a choice sometimes. If the threat posed by a certain possible election is so large, it makes no sense to shoot ourselves in the foot by not voting. If we have the ability to make sure a George Bush or Stephen Harper or Ronald Reagan is not elected, why not do so?

Certainly, we can hope things get so bad people flock to the revolutionary cause, but how likely is that? And do reformist governments, as much as some of you hate them, not provide more funding to the arts and schools, both of which serve to recruit people to the radical left, far more so, that a 4-8 year stint by any one administration?

Consecutive progressive governments lay the foundations of free, radical thought. It's why radical leftist thought is still very active in almost every country that has provided for its people a vast social security net, even under the capitalist system.

[RebelDog]

I will continue to vote. We could in the not to distant future see the break up of the British state with Scottish independance. This is a nightmare senario for the British establishment and a very real possibility through voting for the pro-independance parties in Scotland. If Scotland did achieve independance it would be a huge talking point on these forums and equally around the world. It would signify a huge change of direction for politics in Britain. It would be a political earthquake caused by voting.

[EwokUtopia]

Voting has its powers, but they are limited to areas where people want change. Its pretty much pointless to vote if you live in Texas, but voting still brought Chavez and Morales to power, but that is because the people in those countries are sick of being exploited by neoliberalism. In Texas, the people by and large do not understand the concepts and consequences of said capitalism, therefore they vote for Bush and his cronies (bush being but a cronie himself of course) en masse. I voted for the furthest left party that had a concievable chance of getting seats in the Canadian Parliament, the NDP, but my vote was made useless by all the old conservatives in my county who voted for the Car-salesman turned fatass politician of the Conservative party, so I might as well have stayed home that day. On the other hand, the fact that I voted does give me more leverage when arguing with conservatives, a hobby which i am quite fond of, so perhaps it isnt quite useless for me yet. Of course if we want change we must see to it that the masses are educated to the system that exploits them, because the consumer class is being made more ignorant year after year. that is step one.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Messiah+Jun 9 2006, 05:20 AM--> (Messiah @ Jun 9 2006, 05:20 AM)... we have the ability to make sure a George Bush or Stephen Harper or Ronald Reagan is not elected, why not do so?[/b]
But we don't. These assholes still got elected, regardless of how 'the people' voted.


EwokUtopia
masses are kept dulled by the mass media. FOX news can vote. CNN can vote. the people cant.
I think this is all too vividly illustrated by Bush's second term. I think most of us remember the Florida situation, and/or saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

In that last thread, and many others regarding voting and elections, I was a supporter of trying to influence the system by participation in elections. Now though, I think I'd much prefer to canvass people about why voting is in fact pointless. The candidate I supported in the last election got elected, but nothing has been done, even on key issues that apparently they stand for. It's all a facade, a PR campaign, and I'm sick of it.

They (the NDP) enlist the support of thousands of leftists, but are essentially traitors to the things that we support, believe in, and want to happen. Olivia Chow and Jack Layton may be 'avid cyclists', and certainly to the public, put up that face, and make sure that they are seen around, but they drive around all winter long in nice cars, meanwhile the bike lanes that the rest of us all want will never come to be (it seems), because the commercial sector has more money to throw at council than cyclists do.

Their solution? A multi-thousand dollar ad-campaign (yes, more PR!!! What a surprise) to encourage people to cycle, posted on billboards and bus shelters. Meanwhile conditions for cyclsits continue to deteriorate as traffic and congestion gets worse, air quality decreases, potholes get bigger, and more and more of the people who decide to take a bike out that day end up killed or injured becuase they don't have any space on the roads. What has Chow, or Mayor Miller, (both 'left wing' candidates, both that I voted for) done to reconcile any of these things? Fuck all. They put up billboards. They plaster the city with pro-council and government advertisements, probably paid for out of the pockets of the public. Fuck that shit. That money could be better spent a million other ways, primarily (IF they want to encourage people to cycle) the reservation of bike lanes, and improvements to road quality. But that's more expensive and controversial than just making it look like they're doing something when they ask in their ads: "Toronto cycles, Why don't you?"

Because people don't want to DIE!!!

Anyway, rant over. I'll probably never vote again.

[rioters bloc]

i've never had to vote yet, but i'm not sure what i'll do come the next state or federal election. on one hand, i recognise that voting can't change anything. on the other, when the greens have gotten more seats they've made things just a little bit better for activists. like letting us use their photocopier to print thousands of leaflets for actions etc - for free. and keeping us clued in to what was going on in the senate the day they passed vsu so we were able to organise a snap action within 45 minutes.

they're quite trivial things, but considering that either way i'm not going any damage OR good by not voting, i think it's worth it just to get that bit of extra help.

not to mention that i&#39;ll be given a big fuck off fine if i don&#39;t vote <_<

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by STI+--> (STI)What do you mean by "use as a platform"? Like, run as a candidate and just slag on the state the entire time?[/b]

apathy maybe
Using elections as a platform to encourage people to think about the state is one tool that leftists could use rather then voting. I believe there is a thread about this somewhere.
Get out there and not vote&#33; Hand out how to not vote cards&#33;
What I meant by "use as a platform" is that us as leftists could use the heightened political awareness of people to show them what is wrong with the system. We could hand out propaganda saying how voting does not change anything, or something.

In this, thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764) there are a few posts that have examples. One by me, some by anomaly and of course redstar2000 (he links to this (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).) For some reason I cannot link to the posts.

As to the rest, OK fine, I agree that politicians are bad even if they are "local". I still think that local elections are worth participating in. At least where I am. So agree to disagree?

rioters bloc: The Greens will get in regardless of if you vote or not. Besides, they are capitalist all the same. They are better then the others; but I recommend choose none.
As to your fine, I got a letter in the mail the other day asking me if I had voted ("appears to have failed to vote"). I can "Pay a penalty of &#036;20" or provide a "valid and sufficient" reason why I did not. That is under Tasmanian law. (Maximum fine &#036;100 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/con...4103/s181.html) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/ea2004103/s181.html)). The Commonwealth Law (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s245.html) is similar.

It is up to the Official to determine if the reason is "valid and sufficient" (though religion is expressly made a reason in both Tasmania and Commonwealth Law).

[bayano]

damn, i just fucking responded to this and then the computer deleted my response. well, here are the basic thoughts:

lenin viewed election boycotts as a tactic, not a strategy

some working class folks wont listen if you dont vote since they believe if you didnt vote you cant complain

some local politicians can cause an impact- from porto allegre to kerala, examples exist. even a city council member can reduce privatization, police brutality and other problems

most people in the usa and many in canada dont vote anyway. not voting has no impact on deligitamizing the system until most people are voting and there is an organized effort for a big election boycott.

there were some more, but im still so mad i lost my post

[Political_Game_XIII]

The way i see it is that if you don&#39;t vote you don&#39;t have the right to complain about the goverment. voting "while not perfect" is how we tell the government how we the people feel. Because in a democracy no matter the party politions what to get votes. and they will do what ever it takes to get those votes. so if 90% of people age 45-60 vote and 20% of people age 18-30 vote. tell me who do you think the government will spend money on and help out the people? governments go were the votes are that why we call it a DEMOCRACY. not voting and a lack of political intrest is what go people like hitler into power "and we all know how that turned out"

[apathy maybe]

Hey Political_Game_XIII, I see you are new. Hope you hang around.

Originally posted by Political_Game_XIII+--> ( Political_Game_XIII)The way i see it is that if you don&#39;t vote you don&#39;t have the right to complain about the goverment.[/b]I disagree. My vote has never made a difference, so what is the difference between not voting and complaining and voting and complaining? Besides, the voting system is part of the whole system, and I want to scrap it all.

Originally posted by Political_Game_XIII+--> ( Political_Game_XIII)voting "while not perfect" is how we tell the government how we the people feel.[/b] It is one way. Letters to the editor, opinion polls and letters to the politicians are more likely to be noticed and taken into account.

Originally posted by Political_Game_XIII
Because in a democracy no matter the party politions what to get votes. and they will do what ever it takes to get those votes. Yes ... to a limited extent, and this is part of the problem.

[email protected]
so if 90% of people age 45-60 vote and 20% of people age 18-30 vote. tell me who do you think the government will spend money on and help out the people? governments go were the votes are that why we call it a DEMOCRACY.I noticed you changed the meaning of the word democracy. It used to mean rule by the people. This is part of the problem with the electoral system. The party in power (and it is worse in first past the post places (e.g. the UK)), can get a small amount of the vote or just a majority and they will ignore the people who did not vote for them.

Political_Game_XIII
not voting and a lack of political intrest is what go people like hitler into power "and we all know how that turned out" Hitler got voted in. What a wonderful thing that electoral system is.


Basically, the electoral system is flawed, and voting will not change it. The people in power have a vested interest in keeping it flawed. If it was even remotely fair, a party that received 10% of the vote would have 10% of the seats in a parliament. How many places have that? Not many if any.

[bayano]

theres an old saying:

if voting changed anything, they would have made it illegal. if not voting changed anything, they would have made that illegal.

theres no reason not too. i repeat, election boycotting is a tactic, not as strategy. and frankly, people died for the right to vote, regardless if it was worth the sacrifice. when the usa was created, as we know, the vote was limited to rich (propertied) white men. women, Blacks and others died for their enfranchisement, it doesnt hurt to vote if it means a tiny bit of change at the ward or district level.

[STI]

I&#39;ll get the quick stuff out of the way first...


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+--> (Apathy Maybe)I still think that local elections are worth participating in.[/b]

Why?


So agree to disagree?


That&#39;s not exactly the point of a message board now, is it? :P



What I meant by "use as a platform" is that us as leftists could use the heightened political awareness of people to show them what is wrong with the system. We could hand out propaganda saying how voting does not change anything, or something.


Aright then. That sounds agreeable enough.


Originally posted by bayano+--> (bayano)
lenin viewed election boycotts as a tactic, not a strategy[/b]

Was he correct in that position? That&#39;s what we should be concerned with.



some working class folks wont listen if you dont vote since they believe if you didnt vote you cant complain

And the sharp working class folks will recognize that, if you attack capitalism .and make it very clear that it won&#39;t be changed by voting, then go ahead and vote then you&#39;re either confused or a liar.

The number of people who do not vote is growing and is disproportionately made up of working class folks.

So I know where I&#39;m putting my ass.


some local politicians can cause an impact- from porto allegre to kerala, examples exist. even a city council member can reduce privatization, police brutality and other problems

Any specifically pro-worker "impact" made by a politician (a "reform") is entirely temporary. This is because, as capitalism gets "older", it can no longer afford the reforms it used to concede (you&#39;ll note that both Brazil and India are young and developing capitalist societies, not advanced capitalist societies like those in North America and Europe). It&#39;s no accident that in Ontario, for example, the governments of from 1991 onward - yes, even the NDP - have gotten themselves involved in some pretty anti-worker activity (even explicitly so).


not voting has no impact on deligitamizing the system until most people are voting and there is an organized effort for a big election boycott.

It does have an impact - the electoral system is already quite delegitimized in the eyes of a huge chunk of people. By participating in it, we wouldn ot only be counter-acting this trend but also serving to associate our radical leftist intentions with electoral participation - an inadequate and unproductive method of creating fundamental change&#33;


[email protected]
The way i see it is that if you don&#39;t vote you don&#39;t have the right to complain about the goverment.

Gee, did you hear that from your parents? Or maybe your social studies teacher?

I already responded to that exact phrase earlier in the thread. It helps to read.


. voting "while not perfect" is how we tell the government how we the people feel

The government (hell, the whole ruling class) doesn&#39;t care "how we the people" feel.

"We the people who own the means of production", though, is a different story.


Because in a democracy no matter the party politions what to get votes. and they will do what ever it takes to get those votes.

Correction: they will say whatever it takes to get those votes.

What they actually do and who they actually serve is another issue altogether.


so if 90% of people age 45-60 vote and 20% of people age 18-30 vote. tell me who do you think the government will spend money on and help out the people?

The "age gap" isn&#39;t the issue. The government will act in the interests of the ruling elite whether they&#39;re 25 or 75.

Luckily, we live in an epoch where we&#39;re divided first by class, not age.


governments go were the votes are that why we call it a DEMOCRACY. not voting and a lack of political intrest is what go people like hitler into power "and we all know how that turned out"

No, what "got hitler into power" was a combination of factors - including but not limited to the failure of the KPD to keep the brownshirts from taking over the streets, as well as the signing of the Reichskonkordat which ordered the disbandment of the Catholic Centre Party and legitimized the Nazi Party in the eyes of Catholics.

There was no epidemic of "voter apathy" in Germany.


bayano
if not voting changed anything, they would have made that illegal.

"Not voting" doesn&#39;t change anything in and of itself, true.

It&#39;s what it doesn&#39;t do that I dig.


i repeat, election boycotting is a tactic, not as strategy.

Well, so long as ***LENIN*** said so.


. women, Blacks and others died for their enfranchisement

So? Does that make it any more effective or any less counter-productive to our goals?


it doesnt hurt to vote if it means a tiny bit of change at the ward or district level.

Any "tiny bit of change" at any level will only be temporary, and even then voting does "hurt" in the long run.

[Janus]

Why?
This is not my view but some think that local elections are meaningful because those elected can actually do some stuff, sometimes. Whereas with larger officials, the inefficiences become larger and more apparent.


Was he correct in that position? That&#39;s what we should be concerned with.
I agree. The Bolsheviks ditched that strategy anyways when they thought it opportune.


people died for the right to vote, regardless if it was worth the sacrifice. when the usa was created, as we know, the vote was limited to rich (propertied) white men. women, Blacks and others died for their enfranchisement, it doesnt hurt to vote if it means a tiny bit of change at the ward or district level.
If that&#39;s how you feel. But the point is that we should not sacrifice our long term goals for our short term ones. That is what occurs when we participate in bourgeois elections.

[STI]

Originally posted by Janus

This is not my view but some think that local elections are meaningful because those elected can actually do some stuff, sometimes. Whereas with larger officials, the inefficiences become larger and more apparent.


What "stuff" can they do?

More importantly, what stuff do they do?

The answer usually isn&#39;t very good.

[Janus]

What "stuff" can they do?

More importantly, what stuff do they do?

The answer usually isn&#39;t very good.
Not much, mainly local actions but it is a bit closer than the national government for instance. But it is evident that people haven&#39;t become totally disillusioned with local elections yet.

[STI]

it is a bit closer than the national government for instance.

Does that really matter? It&#39;s still the bourgeois state, it just deals more with actual administration and operates at a smaller level.


But it is evident that people haven&#39;t become totally disillusioned with local elections yet.

Give it time :P

[Janus]

Does that really matter?
Nope

It&#39;s still the bourgeois state, it just deals more with actual administration and operates at a smaller level.
I agree with you. I was simply stating one reason why people take a bit more kindly to local elections.

[STI]

I agree with you. I was simply stating one reason why people take a bit more kindly to local elections.

I agree with you too. I was simply stating one reason why I hate you. :P

[Janus]

I was simply stating one reason why I hate you.
:lol:


I do not agree with parliamentary elections but I do see where some of the supporters are coming from. However, the fact is that this has been shown to be a failure as it requires us to sacrifice our long-term goals for the short term ones.

[STI]

I do not agree with parliamentary elections

I do not agree with you posting in this thread anymore. :lol:

[bayano]

a vote doesnt take that much tho. im not advocating working on a campaign or registering people to vote wholesale, tho i dont oppose those any more than i oppose property destruction or setting up leftist messageboards. but doesnt the tactical use of election boycotts make so much more sense? and as for the argument that voter turnout is going down, i dont know about up there in canada, but in the usa its going up

[Ali.Cat]

but doesnt the tactical use of election boycotts make so much more sense? and as for the argument that voter turnout is going down, i dont know about up there in canada, but in the usa its going up

I would have to agree. If you see voting as a problem - then do something about it&#33; Boycotting makes sense to me, here in Canada the number of registered voters who actually voted this January went up almost 5% from last time. And if we follow the line of trends that number is only going to increase.

However, I voted this year and am proud of it. I don&#39;t think people have any right to complain about how a country is run if they don&#39;t want to positively participate in how that is done.

I&#39;m NOT saying voting is the only way to positively participate, but I am saying that it doesn&#39;t help to just sit around and complain. So get out there and boycott if that&#39;s what you think will help&#33; Make the biggest impact you can because that is the only way change happens.

[STI]

Originally posted by bayano+--> (bayano) a vote doesnt take that much tho[/b]

The effort required to vote was never at issue. What was at issue was the fact that voting is counter-productive toward the goal of achieving a classless society.


but doesnt the tactical use of election boycotts make so much more sense?

You&#39;ve said this three times already but havn&#39;t actually backed it up with any argument...

... barring the fact that Lenin said it, of course.


and as for the argument that voter turnout is going down, i dont know about up there in canada, but in the usa its going up

Not when you compare current levels of voter turnout to the levels of say, 60 or 70 years ago. There&#39;s been a minor bounce-back over the last decade, but don&#39;t expect it to continue perpetually.


Ali.Cat

I would have to agree. If you see voting as a problem - then do something about it&#33; Boycotting makes sense to me, here in Canada the number of registered voters who actually voted this January went up almost 5% from last time. And if we follow the line of trends that number is only going to increase.

Thing is, that number is likely to be the exception and not the "rule".

That is, if the trends of the last century are any indication.


However, I voted this year and am proud of it. I don&#39;t think people have any right to complain about how a country is run if they don&#39;t want to positively participate in how that is done.

The more times I hear this, the less sense it makes.

Our opposition to capitalism is based on fundamental grounds - no party would ever be satisfactory, so it would be pointless and even counter-productive for us to do it.


but I am saying that it doesn&#39;t help to just sit around and complain

It helps more than voting ever will :lol:

[bayano]

my arguments on the point is simple- looking at where election boycotts were used tactically in history versus where they were the norm (for instance, against totally fake elections during a corrupt dictatorship). and that in the usa especially, voter turnout is so low that some radicals not voting as well doesnt mean anything politically or symbolically. it doesnt deligitamize the system. it isnt more productive than not-voting. during the last two elections, i worked with the dontjustvote/dontjustnotvote campaigns.

[STI]

Originally posted by bayano
n the usa especially, voter turnout is so low that some radicals not voting as well doesnt mean anything politically or symbolically

Voting, though, especially by radicals, produces a negative effect - namely, it legitimizes the electoral system, which is, quite simply, useless as a means of producing a classless society.


it doesnt deligitamize the system.

...And if you say it, it is so.

The system does a fine job of delegitimizing itself, and "not voting" won&#39;t do it on its own.

But that was never the point.

The point was that voting is counter-productive toward this end. When a person votes, it sends a message - "This system is useful and is capable of creating change" - and that&#39;s a message revolutionaries can&#39;t be out sending.


during the last two elections, i worked with the dontjustvote/dontjustnotvote campaigns.

You wasted your time.

Don&#39;t feel too bad about it though. I myself wasted plenty of time with the New Democratic Party (I was even on the executive committee of my Riding Council). The point isn&#39;t to throw anger into the past, but to quit doing the same stupid crap over and over again&#33;

[bayano]

how did i waste my time? they were anarchist-led campaigns to tell people that whichever they chose to do, neither is meaningful political activity. they werent wastes of time.

and there is nothing counter-productive about self-proclaimed revolutionaries who vote. if we were actively campaigning, trying to stir up some sentiment that real change is made thru voting, thats one thing. but voting doesnt legitamize the system unless its voting during a popularly declared election boycott.

and honestly, people are dying. people are being tortured. children cant eat. 30,000 children die every day of preventable health causes, and when there is so much horror in the world, im willing to vote and do anything and everything i can to change things. in chicago, hundreds have died in single summers because of the combination of heat and poverty. im sorry i have to explain this, but some local elected officials can change that, and as much as i spend most of my time organizing and working for revolutionary change, if my tiny speck of labor to vote and others&#39; votes can help stop the deaths of immigrants at the border, people of color in prison, poor people, homeless people, then i will do it, without an illusion that it is doing much of anything but with the understanding that occasionally, voting for a city council member or a referendum can actually change things a little bit to make things more liveable. we dont need more misery in order to make revolution, we have enough.

[violencia.Proletariat]

but voting doesnt legitamize the system unless its voting during a popularly declared election boycott.

Of course it does&#33; By voting you are saying there is something in the act that can really change things.


im willing to vote and do anything and everything i can to change things

The idea that voting for a bourgeois politician will change any of this is completely laughable. These are problems of CAPITALISM not the way certain politicians are acting under it.


in chicago, hundreds have died in single summers because of the combination of heat and poverty.

Then get out on the streets and start taking air conditioners from stores. Have mass marches and massive infrastructure disruption until the state hands over the appropriate services. Help show people that they are the power, they can change it all.


if my tiny speck of labor to vote and others&#39; votes can help stop the deaths of immigrants at the border, people of color in prison, poor people, homeless people, then i will do it, without an illusion that it is doing much of anything but with the understanding that occasionally, voting for a city council member or a referendum can actually change things a little bit to make things more liveable.

Why take the time and money to organize a vote when you can take the time to organize unconventional proletarian action? If a small reform is needed by necessity then lets get it through action, which promotes further action by not compromising and sucking up to the state.

[Ol' Dirty]

Personaly, I think that voting does count. If revolution ain&#39;t a commin soon, might as well make evolution. :(

Rome wasn&#39;t built in a day, so I say: "what&#39;s wrong with reform?" reform is all we&#39;ll get for now, so we mgiht as well prevent the end of the world for as long as we can.

Either that, or blow somewthing up. :lol:

[Rawthentic]

Ill assume you&#39;ve never read Marx before. Reform will never change anything, it never has. Reform is simply making the capitalist system a tad bit less shitty to live in. The idea of evolution seems utopian, and if Rome wasnt built in a day, its because they didnt have the materials to do so, and Im sure that it was built as soon as they did. As soon as capitalism starts on a severe decline, then the material and objective conditions for revolution will be possible, and revolution will be done. Toss out that idea of reform for it legitmizes the power that the bourgeios system has and the idea that people can live better lives under reform. No, it cant happen, for they will continue being exploited, simply because it will continue being capitalism.

[Ol' Dirty]

I&#39;ve read marx and loved it. That doesn&#39;t mean that I accept his works as accepted dogma.

People aren&#39;t suddenly going to say, "hey, socialism&#33; Why didn&#39;t I think of that before. It&#39;s an evolutionary proccewss. Of course I believe in revolution, but don&#39;t think any major revolutions are going to come soon.

I disagree with pie in the sky revolutionary processes. Instead, I believe in gradual evolution leading up to revolution. Revolution everyday, man.

[violencia.Proletariat]

If revolution ain&#39;t a commin soon, might as well make evolution. :(

Thats the dumbest thing I&#39;ve ever heard. Instead of working towards the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism you propose we do something inherently impossible. You cannot be a reformist and a revolutionary. By saying we will work for reforms until revolution you are in reality giving up on revolution. You will now be devoting full time the use of the bourgeois system to make changes that the system will not allow to be made.

[Craig]

Someone mentioned this, but I&#39;ll expand on it. Deciding whether or not to vote is a tactical issue.

My anarcho-socialist-libertarian perspective is that real revolutionary change cannot be achieved via the ballot box. But, on certain occasions, I have been known to hold my nose and cast my vote. In California, for example, we have these insane ballot propositions. Some rich guys get together, draft a law, then finance a multi-million-dollar petition drive and get it put on the ballot. Over the past few years, they have been taking on a chauvanist and racist character. I vote against those and make no apologies.

I saw a few people here talking about how "participation" in the electoral process legitimizes it. If you define "participation" as something more than walking to the corner and casting your vote, then I would be inclined to agree. The argument that voting, by itself, somehow props up or legitimizes the system seems dubious to me. Overall voting rates in the US have been on a steady decline for the past few decades (with a few minor exceptions). The system should be totally illegitimate and ready to collapse by now. It&#39;s not.

[Ol' Dirty]

You misinterperated what I said (yet again).

I think that supra-nationalistic, capitalistic, and nationalistic (I dare say imperialistic) states such as the U.S. or Japan cannot be reformed. However, evolutionary process may take place slowly in world society. This means voting (when necessary (e.g. local school budgets, social welfare, etc.))


If revolution ain&#39;t a commin soon, might as well make evolution. :(


Thats the dumbest thing I&#39;ve ever heard. Instead of working towards the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism you propose we do something inherently impossible. You cannot be a reformist and a revolutionary. By saying we will work for reforms until revolution you are in reality giving up on revolution. You will now be devoting full time the use of the bourgeois system to make changes that the system will not allow to be made.

Methinks the man doth assume too much.

[bayano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:22 PM
I saw a few people here talking about how "participation" in the electoral process legitimizes it. If you define "participation" as something more than walking to the corner and casting your vote, then I would be inclined to agree. The argument that voting, by itself, somehow props up or legitimizes the system seems dubious to me. Overall voting rates in the US have been on a steady decline for the past few decades (with a few minor exceptions). The system should be totally illegitimate and ready to collapse by now. It&#39;s not.
exactly the point im trying to get across. im not a reformist, and i dont have illusory hopes in the system, but im also not ignorant and naive enough to think that our leftist activity is going to culminate in a revolution tomorrow. as i work towards a revolution as soon as possible, i also work towards making peoples lives easier today. and it so often comes from a place of privilege to say that there is no benefit out of the menial task of voter participation. a referendum that will reduce the number of men being sent to prison for drugs, or on the other hand one that could illegalize abortion- these are about peoples lives. a vote wont change the system, but it can help save lives today.


Then get out on the streets and start taking air conditioners from stores. Have mass marches and massive infrastructure disruption until the state hands over the appropriate services. Help show people that they are the power, they can change it all.

Why take the time and money to organize a vote when you can take the time to organize unconventional proletarian action? If a small reform is needed by necessity then lets get it through action, which promotes further action by not compromising and sucking up to the state.

firstly, i have said time and again that this is not about expending time and money to organize a vote campaign. read my comments on the thread, dont just kneejerk thru it.

as for your proposals, thats just silly. while i condone and sometimes even organize for such actions, they dont contradict with my choice to vote, and theyre perhaps even less likely to occur as soon as a vote can make a minor change. im all about direct action, but where good da takes weeks, months, year to organize for, voting takes one or two days per year, if that. doesnt sound like &#39;sucking up&#39; to me.

[Lenin's Law]

some working class folks wont listen if you dont vote since they believe if you didnt vote you cant complain

Then tell them you did vote. Our goal is the revolutionary overthrow of captitalism, not to achieve Sainthood.

Besides, I seriously doubt many working class people say these things - most of whom probably don&#39;t vote that much in your country anyway - sounds like a mainstream cliche told over and over again by the bourgeois media.


The way i see it is that if you don&#39;t vote you don&#39;t have the right to complain about the goverment.

Really? It&#39;s the way YOU see it? I must say, I am just speechless at the amazing originality of your profound statement&#33; Can&#39;t imagine where you get these novel ideas from&#33;


I don&#39;t think people have any right to complain about how a country is run if they don&#39;t want to positively participate in how that is done.

*THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY &#39;REVOLUTIONARY LEFTISTS&#39; FOR BOURGEOIS PROPAGANDA. HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE SHOW&#33;

*Next Week: Why Communism is good in theory, but bad in practice.*

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I&#39;m too lazy to check, but did anyone comment whoever said "if not voting changed anything, they&#39;d make it illegal?"

It&#39;s because because voting is mandatory (aka not voting is illegal) in some countries. The things people aren&#39;t aware of sometimes.