Reformism and Voting

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Once in awhile I find the need to bring up reformisim. I used to be a democratic socialist, and I have not been fully convinced that reformism has no benefits. No, it cannot achieve the end result - a communist state - but can it achieve benefits for working people? I have a great difficulty convincing individuals that voting is pointless. Obviously countries (at least some countries) head in different political directions depending on the party elected. I prefer what happens in the country under certain political parties as opposed to others. By this logic, should I not vote? It is a small, indirect way of achieving change, but it seems to do so. Is there an explanation for why better bills and laws are passed under one party than another - one that is not linked to this system?

Also, what are the reasons against voting. Sure, doing so gives support to the system and can be harmful towards workers. However, the revolution cannot is not a guarantee, at least in my lifetime, and it seems that not voting can only harm the working class.

In short, better things happen under certain political parties. Is this because of the political party itself or is the political party being elected the reflection of a population more inclined to certain views?

Does communism suggest we let things get worse to get the proletariat mad? That hardly seems fair, and, to me at least, it insults the intellectual capability of the proletariat. They can realize we need change even when those around them are in Western countries, I think.

Anyway, I will close saying that I am not a reformist, but I have difficulty coming up with counterarguments when I argue with them.

Looking forward to your response.

[Comrade-Z]

I think that the capitalist class only responds to the threat of revolt, so if you want them to accomplish anything in our interests, you must present a sizable threat to their very existence. In general, elections cannot do this. I suppose if 5 million people voted for the CPUSA, then that might threaten the capitalist class somewhat, just because that would indicate the sheer influence of the communist idea, although I can think of a lot better ways for 5 million people to expend their energies: direct action. Five million people going on strike all at once would do a lot more to achieve reform. Either way, if you vote communist or participate in a large strike, you are facing the same types of risks. So I would say, even if you are looking for reformism, direct action is still the most "cost-effective" way to go.

[Delta]

Yes, you are correct in that certain political parties will give better outcomes for workers than others, and thus it makes sense to vote. However, voting should always be done on the side, and should not be the main focus. If you are part of a union, you should not spend the union's activist energy on helping some politican in a campaign, but instead should focus on direct action. Direct action is much more effective. But as an individual, sure vote, but again, I wouldn't waste my time helping a politician get elected. I'd much rather spend my time trying to arouse class conciousness in the people around me :)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:30 AM
Yes, you are correct in that certain political parties will give better outcomes for workers than others, and thus it makes sense to vote.
If that is the case, why do many radical leftists advocate encourgaging people not to vote?

[Leo]

There was an old saying among the situationists, it was something like "Reform is chloroform". The problem with reforms and change through voting is that it is impossible to actually change anything with them. When you are elected by voting, there is only one thing you can do: serve the best interests of capital. It doesn't matter who institutes the state, it is the nature of the state that institutes people who had been voted into the office. If they try to resist it, they will fail and they will fail by destroying themselves.

[Comrade-Z]

Yes, you are correct in that certain political parties will give better outcomes for workers than others

Well, it's not so much the political parties themselves that will bring about anything better for workers. They won't. It's simply the widespread unrest that a large number of unconventional votes might demonstrate to the capitalist class. Then again, voting at all reinforces the appearance that workers are willing to work within the framework of capitalist legality, so that there by itself makes the capitalist class feel much less threatened. That's partly why many people don't vote at all. It confers legitimacy and power to the capitalist system. I'm probably along that line of thought. Also, I see reformism as pretty much a huge waste of effort at this point, so that settles the voting issue right there.

[Janus]

This is quite a popular subject and we have had many debates over it

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...78&hl=elections (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878&hl=elections)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=46764&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764&hl=)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=43998&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&hl=)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=38940&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38940&hl=)

[Whitten]

I've got nothing against a two front system, one revolutionary, the other reformist. The reformists cant do this thing for us, but they can sure as hell help us along if done properly.

[apathy maybe]

By voting you are effectively saying that you support the system and the result of the vote. So don't vote, shoot the bastards instead.

Sure the system might produce a government that is not the worst alternative, but the lesser evil is still evil.

Put your efforts into trying to get something that you want, a better world for all, national governments won't do that.

Fuck the state.

[RevMARKSman]

You could vote for the third party candidate--or anyone who has no chance of actually winning the election. In the US, if enough people voted for Nader, we wouldn't have a majority voting for one person and someone up in the bureaucracy maze would have to work that out. It would probably keep someone out of office for a week or two, but no real benefits.

[More Fire for the People]

Voting can ameliorate the condition of the working class but actively supporting reformism is a waste of time that could have better been spent on supporting revolutionary action.

[Okocim]

spoil the ballot

when counters are counting them they have to put all the spoiled ballots to the side - what you write on it will be seen by "higher people". ;)



(find out first if this is illegal in your country - can't encourage illegal activities)

[Delta]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 12 2006, 12:55 PM
Well, it's not so much the political parties themselves that will bring about anything better for workers. They won't. It's simply the widespread unrest that a large number of unconventional votes might demonstrate to the capitalist class.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all about the message that it sends, not about the actual politicians who act essentially the same anyways. When people vote Republican (in the US) then it shows the ruling class that people are more than eager to support their own exploitation. Voting Democrat shows you might be upset about some issues but you don't know what the hell to do about it. That is why voting for parties like the Greens or Peace and Freedom (in CA) can sometimes help send a message to the capitalist class, namely that you are upset with the current situation and no longer fall for the bullshit 2-party system.

But again, like others have said, no don't want to base a social movement around it. Although it would be interesting to see a Green party candidate win the Presidency. That would really shake things up. Either he would change a lot of things, thus provoking a perhaps violent reaction from the capitalist class, or he would act as all politicians do and serve his capitalist masters, in which the sham that is bourgeouis democracy would be very obviously revealed to all.

[Orange Juche]

I've decided that I am willing to vote.

Although it is not in the hopes of changing anything, or even supporting the idea that I think voting could ever do so. I suppose I do it in some level of a symbolic gesture.

I am not willing to vote Democrat - ever. I will vote Green (or any other leftist non-douche corporate bought party) as a symbolic gesture, as another number in a bullshit ideological poll to basically make the statement that there is one more person who attempts to think at least somewhere outside of the box of blatant "the people-getting-fucked"ery.

I know it won't make any notible change, I don't intend that to happen by voting.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Aug 13 2006, 04:35 AM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Aug 13 2006, 04:35 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:30 AM
Yes, you are correct in that certain political parties will give better outcomes for workers than others, and thus it makes sense to vote.
If that is the case, why do many radical leftists advocate encourgaging people not to vote? [/b]
Because it lends legitimacy to the idea that 'the system' works - the capitalist system, the bourgeois electoral system etc.

I agree with KRS-One,


KRS-One - Higher Level
You either vote for the mumps or the measels
Whether you vote for the lesser of two evils, you vote for evil

There's no such thing as a 'good' result for working class people in bourgeois politics, sure there are 'better' and 'worse' candidates, but there are no communist revolutionaries in parliament (and nor should there be), only reps of the ruling class - our oppressors.

Voting... only reinforces the idea that voting will make a difference, it sustains the legitimacy of the present social order. As long as working class people can be duped by politicans, reformists parties, 'community leaders' and so forth, into thinking that they have a say in the system, that we have a stake, that our voice matters, that the system can be improved simply by casting a vote every three or four years, as long as we play along with ritual democracy, the ruling class will sleep soundly, knowing their wealth, power and control will be maintained.

The mumps might be slightly 'better' for us than the measels - but voting is no cure - participating in the system keeps us perpetually sick, the politicians, the ruling class do not have the cure for what afflicts us, because they are the ones who benefit from the system and so can never represent us or our interests,.

From that POV, encouraging working class people to vote is straight up class betrayal.

[Guest1]

There are labour parties, which are an imperfect reflection of the labour movement.

In times of intensified struggle, sweeping away the bureaucrats of the workers' unions leads to a proper leadership within these parties as well.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In the US, if enough people voted for Nader, we wouldn't have a majority voting for one person and someone up in the bureaucracy maze would have to work that out.

If enough people voted for Nader, there would be an anti-immigrant Nationalist who serves the interests of the capitalist class in the White House... oh wait, that's not any different than what's going on now. Same with the Greens. It's not workers' party, and Nader isn't a workers' candidate.

[Delta]

I'll probably vote for Peace and Freedom candidates this year, as a symbolic gesture. Their platform is here. (http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/summary.htm)

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2006, 02:25 PM
There are labour parties, which are an imperfect reflection of the labour movement.

In times of intensified struggle, sweeping away the bureaucrats of the workers' unions leads to a proper leadership within these parties as well.
The Labor party in Australia and New Labour in the UK are never going to become the workers party again. They are too centerist (or even right in some cases). They care more for any vote, rather then the vote of the workers.

I would put more faith in the Socialist Alliance (here in Australia), and I don't put much faith in them.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 15 2006, 01:11 AM
If enough people voted for Nader, there would be an anti-immigrant Nationalist
Nationalist?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, nationalist.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 16 2006, 08:30 PM
Yeah, nationalist.
How is he a nationalist? I'm not saying I don't think he is, I'm just curious as to how he is.

[Orange Juche]

What do you all feel about voting for local offices? Councilpeople, Town Supervisor, Mayor... stuff like that.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15 2006, 07:27 AM
The Labor party in Australia and New Labour in the UK are never going to become the workers party again. They are too centerist (or even right in some cases). They care more for any vote, rather then the vote of the workers.

I would put more faith in the Socialist Alliance (here in Australia), and I don't put much faith in them.
I believe the labour party in australia is no longer an actual labour party, as in it has broken its constitutional ties to the unions and is now a regular bourgeois party.

In the UK however, the ties remain, and this is what is fueling the rank and file rebellion against the new labour project which is now taking its dying breaths. So long as those ties remain, a labour party will reflect the changes in the labour movement. If the unions are radicalized, sooner or later the party is radicalized as well. This is why new labour has always been working to remove the union affiliation system, because so long as it remains, any changes to the right are merely cosmetic and can be swept away by the reinvigoration of the labour movement.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)(find out first if this is illegal in your country - can't encourage illegal activities)[/b]Wtf do you care?

Originally posted by Che y [email protected]
I believe the labour party in australia is no longer an actual labour party, as in it has broken its constitutional ties to the unions and is now a regular bourgeois party.
No true, the unions still have (I think) about 30% of the vote on any issue. That is all the unions have 30%. But it is still a regular bourgeois party.

Che y Marijuana
In the UK however, the ties remain, and this is what is fueling the rank and file rebellion against the new labour project which is now taking its dying breaths. So long as those ties remain, a labour party will reflect the changes in the labour movement. If the unions are radicalized, sooner or later the party is radicalized as well. This is why new labour has always been working to remove the union affiliation system, because so long as it remains, any changes to the right are merely cosmetic and can be swept away by the reinvigoration of the labour movement.
Even with union ties, a radicalised union movement will still only have 30% of the vote, and if only half the unions are radical, that is only 15% of the total vote.

I don't know if this is the system in the UK, but it is understandable why New Labour wants to remove the union links. They are not a workers party, and so they are trying to remove the pretence that they are. And even if the unions do a have say, they aren't radical, the union bosses seem to side with the other bosses most of the time.

Bourgeois partys won't help us, neither will 'bourgeois' unions. We need to help our selves.

[gilhyle]

When ever I hear people talking about beng against voting I find it incredibbly depressing; the formula is simple: the more revolutionaries oppose voting, the more unlikely revolution is.

Progressive reforms can make people's lives better. No revolutionary who is in it to make peoples lives better (rather than to distance himself from an unpleasant society) can ignore that;

So-called revolutionaries who sneer at reforms show up only their own preference for personal moral purity over the public good.

Revolutionaries advocate voting to support every progressive change in society. They advocate voting to put reformist leaders to the test of power. They seek entry to parliament to use that dung hill as a soap box from which to address people and, in parliament, they even vote for reforms that will aid people. But they dont vote for budgets, they dont join Governments (except in very limited pre-revolutioanry circumstances) and they dont tell people that voting the right way is enough.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by gilhyle+Aug 19 2006, 02:37 PM--> (gilhyle @ Aug 19 2006, 02:37 PM)When ever I hear people talking about beng against voting I find it incredibbly depressing; the formula is simple: the more revolutionaries oppose voting, the more unlikely revolution is. [/b]

No, the more who oppose, the more likely revolution is.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:37 PM
Progressive reforms can make people's lives better. No revolutionary who is in it to make peoples lives better (rather than to distance himself from an unpleasant society) can ignore that;

So-called revolutionaries who sneer at reforms show up only their own preference for personal moral purity over the public good.

oh great, they get an extra $ in their pay cheque - who gives a damn? If anything, that works against us. It placifies the people, it makes them think their government gives a damn about them, this stops them becoming unhappy for 10 minutes, and it slows down the impending revolution. The extra $ is a token gesture by the government, it means nothing in real terms, it makes little difference to the oppressed masses' lives, all it does is work against revolution.


[email protected] 19 2006, 02:37 PM
Revolutionaries advocate voting to support every progressive change in society. They advocate voting to put reformist leaders to the test of power. They seek entry to parliament to use that dung hill as a soap box from which to address people and, in parliament, they even vote for reforms that will aid people. But they dont vote for budgets, they dont join Governments (except in very limited pre-revolutioanry circumstances) and they dont tell people that voting the right way is enough.

no.

"If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the tsar himself" – Bakunin

Reformism cannot work, it will never work. If anything, it acts against us.

[gilhyle]

Who the hell is 'us' - if revolutionaries are not agents of the working class they are nothing but dreamers. If you want the working class to be your agents, to fulfill what you want to happen to the world, you got your priorities a bit mixed up.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:08 PM
Who the hell is 'us' - if revolutionaries are not agents of the working class they are nothing but dreamers. If you want the working class to be your agents, to fulfill what you want to happen to the world, you got your priorities a bit mixed up.
If you read the rest of my post you'd have seen who "us" is; the proletariat .

Reformism works against the interests of the proletariat - as I just explained.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Okocim+Aug 20 2006, 04:09 PM--> (Okocim @ Aug 20 2006, 04:09 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 03:08 PM
Who the hell is 'us' - if revolutionaries are not agents of the working class they are nothing but dreamers. If you want the working class to be your agents, to fulfill what you want to happen to the world, you got your priorities a bit mixed up.
If you read the rest of my post you'd have seen who "us" is; the proletariat .

Reformism works against the interests of the proletariat - as I just explained. [/b]
Eh, no what you 'just explained' is that you dont want workers to get any material improvements cos then they will be less receptive to your revolutionary message.

That is the logic of the marketing man trying to sell a product, not the revolutionary.

What kind of a model of revolution do you have if you think you can ever have a revolution when there actually is an alternative of material improvement by reform ? As long as that easier option of improvement by reform is or (more importantly, 'seems' to be there, the mass of workers will not be revolutionary and the only way to put an end to that option is to exhaust it, not to ignore it.

[Delta]

I think that rejecting improvements and reforms in the people's lives so that they are more miserable and more likely to be sympathetic to revolution is completely the wrong way. First off, it usually comes from people who view "the people" as being someone other than themselves. If you actually struggled day to day, then you would not be willing to reject improvements in your own life in order to harden your mentality for revolution. Secondly, if leftists refuse improvement in the lives of the average person, how are our ideas going to become popular with them? They will view us, and rightfully so, as enemies just like the capitalists who do not want to see their standard of living increase.


end to that option is to exhaust it, not to ignore it

That is correct, and the ruling class will not concede too much before they call in the military, and then the shit hits the fan.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by gilhyle+Aug 21 2006, 08:28 PM--> (gilhyle @ Aug 21 2006, 08:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:08 PM
Who the hell is 'us' - if revolutionaries are not agents of the working class they are nothing but dreamers. If you want the working class to be your agents, to fulfill what you want to happen to the world, you got your priorities a bit mixed up.
If you read the rest of my post you'd have seen who "us" is; the proletariat .

Reformism works against the interests of the proletariat - as I just explained.
Eh, no what you 'just explained' is that you dont want workers to get any material improvements cos then they will be less receptive to your revolutionary message.

That is the logic of the marketing man trying to sell a product, not the revolutionary.[/b]
That's not what I'm suggesting.

Of course big reforms which actually make a difference to people's lives should be welcomed because they make life easier for the people. However, the example I used was $1 extra in their pay cheque (I thought I could get away with this, without having to explain the whole real-terms market), and this is shit tbh.

This is a very simple example but basically: if the workers all get $1 extra, they think they're getting a sweet deal because it looks like wages have risen. However, with this rise in wages, businesses are going to need to fund this somehow, this is done by increasing prices slightly so that the business continues to make the same profit as before, despite the higher wage costs. I'm sure you can see the problem this causes for the workers - an apparent good thing (extra $) has turned into a bad one (higher prices across the board). This is what I was referring to when I said:

"The extra $ is a token gesture by the government, it means nothing in real terms, it makes little difference to the oppressed masses' lives, all it does is work against revolution."



[email protected] 21 2006, 08:28 PM
What kind of a model of revolution do you have if you think you can ever have a revolution when there actually is an alternative of material improvement by reform ? As long as that easier option of improvement by reform is or (more importantly, 'seems' to be there, the mass of workers will not be revolutionary and the only way to put an end to that option is to exhaust it, not to ignore it.

there is not an alternative method of material improvement by reform - there is only an "apparent" alternative. I think that the sooner people realise this, the better. But whilst people are saying "no, the gov's doing a good job" the people haven't a chance at really changing their lives. Take Britain - NHS = good, yes? In theory yes, of course free healthcare is excellent. but in practise, it's full of problems, the doctors at the top make thousands whilst people are dying from lack of funds. Labour actually had a plan to PRIVATISE it at one stage! This is what these apparent reforms do. They work for a while then come crumbling down.

Capitalism does not allow any real material improvement by reform. There must be poor people and there must be rich people in order for capitalism to work. Else there would be no workers and there would be no buyers.


I hope that makes sense...probably not. :(

[anomaly]

To those supporting the idea of 'voting' in bourgeois elections:

No, the point is not that we wish to prevent the proletariat from materially benefitting their lives, indeed, that is exactly what we want. However, the question is whether 'voting' and the so-called 'democratic process' actually achieves this goal. If one looks through American history, one will see the answer is no. Every single leader in every capitalist state acts only as an agent of the bougeois class. After all, representatives never act in the people's interests; they act in their own interests, their class interests. And representatives just happen to be overwhelmingly from the bourgeois class.

The 'democratic constructs' of which you speak only serve to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Why, then, support voting when it merely serves to reinforce our class enemy's ruling position? Rather, we should push for revolution, so that this rule may be overthrown.

[Okocim]

thank you anomaly for expressing what I wanted to say in far better terms than I could.

[gilhyle]

The argument about the $1 increase is the old 'Iron Law of Wages' argument blisteringly demolished by Karl Marx (no less). Put briefly (and I'll admit inadequately),the portion of surplus distributed to capital and labor respectively is a determined by class struggle. It is not predetermined.

Wage increases do not necessarily result in inflationary price rises. (I havent proven that by what I just said, but we'd be diverted into a major discussion of political economy to go into this).

More generally, while most (actually not quite ALL) governments within capitalist states act on behalf of that class, the material improvement of the lives of the working class can temporarily and in part be in the interests of the capitalist class, or a fraction of it. Thus the fact that the state is a class state does not exclude the possibility that that state will deliver material benefits to working people.

How could one think otherwise given the massive material enrichment of many workers in imperialist (and even some imperialised) countries over the last 150 years ?

I dont say this to argue against revolutionary politics - I say this just to recognise the immense difficult of revolutionary politics. There really is no point in any of us thinking tactics like not voting will work.

Sometimes it is correct to boycot an election - I have no problem with that. But boycotting elections because the State is capitalist: you just condemn yourself to irrelevance. Our job is to make voting as constructive as possible a part (if always a small part) of revolutionary politics.

[Phugebrins]

I'm deeply suspicious of reformism, but I think abstaining from voting is very often cutting off your own nose to spite your face. If you argue that fighting capitalism cannot be done through the appendages of capitalism, you argue that your struggle must come about without recourse to money, without using roads or buses, without using the media, without the very forum in which we debate. After all, our free speech is as much an illusion as our democracy, right?

Me, I'm all for fighting on every possible front. But I will say that we should reject the idea of the party that says 'vote for us and everything will be ok'. A revolutionary socialist party has to say 'Parliamentary democracy is a farce, but a farce we can make use of along the way'.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Phugebrins
A revolutionary socialist party has to say 'Parliamentary democracy is a farce, but a farce we can make use of along the way'.
That, of course, is why every single 'revolutionary socialist party' which has ever existed has itself been a farce.

[1984]

The decision for us, revolutionaries, to vote or not to vote, I belive quite depends on the situation.

In AmeriKKKa, for example, History has showed us no material, significant difference between the Republican or the Democrat party. The structure of two, semi-identical political parties that *actually* have any chance to govern is not much different than a dictatorship. In the US there may be freedom of speech (although somehow limited in virtude of the influence of the capital and corporate media, as in any other capitalist society), but the political structure is immutable.

In Brazil, we saw a president oriund from the operarian class to become a servent of the same neo-liberal, FMI-based economic policies he'd pass his life struggling for. In order to get elected, Lula had to change his speech. Right in the very first years his party expelled their most "radical" members, in other words, those who kept faithful to the original worker's party principals and disagreeded with the new economic measures the party made once in power. Upon the death of Roberto Marinho, owner of the Globo TV-station that once was the voice of the military dictatorship in the 70's and clearly manipulated the public opinion days before national elections in '89 and thus elected his opponent, president Lula called him a "great promoter of democracy" in Brazil. Recently he also claimed that he was never a leftist (!!!!).

President Lula's example in Brazil is the most recent and direct proof that voting is rather pointless and won't change the general situation of the working masses.

On the other hand, apparently Chavez' government in Venezuela has made small, but important steps towards socialism, mostly by directly opposing the US influence in Latin America (in particular) and global imperialism.

I'm still convinced that voting doesn't change a bit *in the long run*, and direct action is much more effective on the struggle against the system, yet the possibility of NOT having an openly right-wing as the chief of state makes voting, under the proper political contex you're under, appealing - remember that victories in class struggle gave us certain rights...