Communication and Leftism

[enigma2517]

Its that time of year again.

When I told my friends I wasn't voting this election year I got one high five from my anarchist friend and about 5 or 6 "What, oh my god"s from everybody else.

I tried to explain to them why voting only gives the system more legitmacy but they didn't really seem to agree with me. Halfway through I realized that, like most liberals, they just want a kinder, more gentle capitalism.

Since my goal is to break out of wage slavery and class entirely, it would make more sense for me to not vote. After I told them about this they said that even if that was their goal, couldn't I vote in the mean time to make things "easier".

Well, I said no, if I spend time doing political stuff its typically in the area of educate, agitate, organize. I tried to explain to them that the fastest way to win reforms is revolution because reforms are really just concessions made to prevent any further social upheaval.

Anyway, does anybody here have any good ideas on how to discuss non-voting and the effectiveness of direct action? Honestly, its so hard because so many things need to be said to lay a foundation for this, it becomes very difficult to speak about it.

Like I just described, what usually happens is I blurt something out and then spend 30 minutes backtracking to justify myself.

Are there any particularly effective segways of conversation that you all have used in the past to convince people that other means of political action (community organization) is the way to go?

[apathy maybe]

Don't vote! I think your ideas are all good.

This http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...50878&hl=voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878&hl=voting) thread has more arguments about why people should not vote.

If I can think of any more arguments not mentioned in the above thread, I'll post again.

[BreadBros]

I understand the belief in strictly non-voting. However, I do not abide by it for several reasons. Primarily I see little actual value in the act of withholding a vote. Whatever legitimacy one gives or does not give via voting or not voting seems to me to be fairly negligible. Whatever value would be gained by not voting would seem to come in a revolutionary or near-revolutionary period, which we are not in at the moment (in the United States that is). The whole concept of deciding to withold your vote seems to smack be as some form of metaphysics, as if your psychological decision made some sort of deep impact on reality. I'm really interested in just advancing my interests, in whatever way possible. If a candidate comes along that offers some tangible reform or change and has a fair chance of being elected and enacting such a change, I would likely vote for them. I really have no qualms with pushing society as left as possible, even if it means enacting reforms. I obviously dont see those reforms as any kind of end or goal, but I dont really see them hampering any revolutionary possibilies either.

[Phugebrins]

Ballot-spoiling I can understand, and I may end up doing that at some point depending on who stands in my ward or constituncy. Simply not turning up - no. Certainly at the moment, that'll be chalked up to apathy and contentment (yes, by everyone).

[Demogorgon]

I never fail to vote. When there are decent socialist parties looking for votes, the only beneficiary from not voting are the capitalist parties. The sooner people realise this the better.
Voting doesn't actually legitimise the system. By voting for a party against the system you are clearly opposing it. That simple.

[Cryotank Screams]

I think that voting is much the same as sprinkling water, on a raging fire; it puts a dent into it for a brief second, then the fire still remains, or it just adds to the fire, either way it's a lose-lose situation.

I would try to tell people that things will not get better and the working class will still be oppressed when you elect one flabby aristocrat after another!

[Ol' Dirty]

Though I agree that voting only legitimizes the system, because we are not in a revolutionary time, we should try to make change however we can. If keeping an idiot like Bush out of office, and a lesser idiot like John Kerry in, I'd rather do that than do nothing.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Seriously? What are you people thinking? Are you actually delusional enough to think your little vote does something? It is statistically worthless. That alone is a reason not to waste your time. As for Kerry and Bush, it's sad that you would vote for Kerry. He is a capitalist and horrible individual who would continue to develop American policy into the neo-fascist ideology it is/has become. You are essentially choosing a kick in the face as opposed to a kick in the teeth.

Here is a simple solution:

If the candidate you voting for does not win, and the policy you want enacted is not enacted, will you accept that result? If not, why vote? If yes, why bother?

[Rhyknow]

Good on you Enigma! At the moment, i'm too young to vote myself, however, when i do eventually come of age (it has to happen sooner or later) I shan't be voting... For one, i'll prob be back in the UK, therefore having the choice between Labor (Oh God), the Tories (Oh GOD), and the Lib Dems (OH GOD!!!!)... Sure there are OTHER smaller parties you can vote for... but let's be real for a minute, they're NEVER going to get the public vote.
Either that or i'll be living in the US, and come on... Since i'm planning on Pennsylvania, i'd get lynched for voting a leftist party.

And it saddens me greatly to see others insult and detest leftist views, even though they are completely ignorant of the beleifs held in the leftist spectrum. In the US, people are simply taught that communism and leftism is "bad". They're given no explanation and take it all in like lambs to the slaughter... IMO, you need to at least grasp a basic understanding of something before you can claim to be against it.

Back to the issue of voting, corrupt politicians will always get into power. Just look at Bush! Al Gore's fav line these days is "Remember me, I was the president"... And it was sooo evident that the elections were rigged. Which is why i compare a capitalist government to a puppet show
"I think the puppet on the left shares my beleifs"
"I think the puppet on the right shares my... waitaminute... there's just ONE GUY holding both puppets!"

So, since we seemingly don't have the choice of who gets elected anymore, what's the point of voting?

[Phugebrins]

"Are you actually delusional enough to think your little vote does something?"
Like, say... legitimise the system? No, not really.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:44 PM
"Are you actually delusional enough to think your little vote does something?"
Like, say... legitimise the system? No, not really.
Non sequitur. One is attempting to achieve a result based on mathematics. The other is an action that sends a message based around social contract theory. Nice try.

[Phugebrins]

"[Non-voting] sends a message based around social contract theory."
Does it? Who, exactly, receives this message?

[rouchambeau]

Here we go again...

I never fail to vote. When there are decent socialist parties looking for votes, the only beneficiary from not voting are the capitalist parties. The sooner people realise this the better.
How silly. Socialist parties never call for an end to capitalism. All they do is complain about "Corporate bullies" and call for wage increases.

Voting doesn't actually legitimise the system. By voting for a party against the system you are clearly opposing it. That simple.
No. All political parties that run candidates are part of and for the system.

[midnight marauder]

I've been interested in the topic of voting for a long time now. I'm not quite old enough to vote yet (I will be in the 2008 elections in the US), but I still have several questions regarding this topic that have been knocked around my head for a while now. I don't mean these to rhetorical, or to act as criticisms against the non-voters on this forum, but to help me to adopt a proper oppinion on this topic rather than just a knee jerk reaction.

My main qualm on this topic is the idea of governmental legetimacy:

How would one define it, in a leftists sense?

How do you measure it?

How does voting add to it and how does not voting do the opposite?

Why does governmental legitimacy matter? Obviously no real substantial progress will be made through reformism. But either way you approach to topic of voting the status quo in terms of the "major" struggles (like capitalism and the state) will remain the same, right? If so, then what good is not voting?

That said, what about the other struggles where progressive change has been made through voting, such as, say, gay marriage in some states?

Thanks everyone.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:11 PM
"[Non-voting] sends a message based around social contract theory."
Does it? Who, exactly, receives this message?
The message is sent to the government or anyone who sees the fact that such an amount of people did not vote. I don't agree that non-voting is essentially beneficial. But when it comes to choosing whether to vote (which is useless) and not-vote (which we can assume is useless for now), I choose the useless option which doesn't require me to exert unnecessary effort.

[Phugebrins]

"The message is sent to the government"
Um, you're sending a message... to the government... to tell them that voting is a waste of time. Even if anyone correctly divines the meaning behind your message, even if they agree, the best you can possibly hope for is a temporary concession!

"or anyone who sees the fact that such an amount of people did not vote"
And the strength of this message, as you concede, is related to the number of non-voters - and we're back to statistical significance.

The way I look at it, when I happen to live in the right place, there's a small chance I can make a small difference in people's lives. Temporary it may be, reformism, of course. But simply not turning up to vote at the moment is regarded as apathy and contentment, not revolutionary contempt, and that is the message it sends: it reinforces the system. The question, then, is between a vote which just might edge a few people out of poverty, or a spoilt ballot which just might send a message to someone who's watching (or fail to send the opposite message, if you prefer). Forgive me if I don't always choose the semaphore.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You certainly haven't proven that voting has a small chance of making a difference and that such a difference is worth the effort exerted in the process of voting. Nor have you proved that not voting sends some sort of bad message to the government (which is irrelevant, who cares what they think). People may think revolutionaries are just lazy, but that is just a sign we aren't going to have have a revolution next week. We don't need to conform to bourgeoisie standards on pretending to create change so we can develop some sort of leftist follow.

Reformism is something separate amongst the left for a reason. It is fundamentally contrary to revolutionary politics.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:19 PM
Here we go again...

I never fail to vote. When there are decent socialist parties looking for votes, the only beneficiary from not voting are the capitalist parties. The sooner people realise this the better.
How silly. Socialist parties never call for an end to capitalism. All they do is complain about "Corporate bullies" and call for wage increases.

Voting doesn't actually legitimise the system. By voting for a party against the system you are clearly opposing it. That simple.
No. All political parties that run candidates are part of and for the system.
A lot of parties would be very surprised to learn they are pro-establishment just because they try to change it?

What's your solution, sitting around waiting for the revolution that will never happen?

[RaiseYourVoice]

every vote counts. its not like voting alone is about to bring communism, but it can decide between neo-liberal and social-democratic politics... and hell i know which of the two to choose if i cant have communism right now.

not voting is maybe showing the system is not legitimed to you, but no one in the government actually cares. in germany everyone not voting is supporting the right wing parties, since those mobiliese their few voters the best, so their % will be higher for everyone not voting for other parties. in other countries its differen but you can alway decide something.

not voting is as unrevolutionary as voting...

[RedAnarchist]

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"
Emma Goldman

[rouchambeau]

A lot of parties would be very surprised to learn they are pro-establishment just because they try to change it?
Is that a question?


What's your solution, sitting around waiting for the revolution that will never happen?
Why do you think that "the revolution" will never happen?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

every vote counts.

Mathematically, yes. Realistically, prove it? Prove that the effort exerted to cast a vote is not statistically irrelevant.


not voting is as unrevolutionary as voting...

How so?

[Phugebrins]

"Nor have you proved that not voting sends some sort of bad message to the government (which is irrelevant, who cares what they think)"
Eh? It isn't me who gives a damn about sending messages to the government - you were the first to suggest it, remember?

The only messages I care about are what ordinary people receive. How do we differenciate between an apathy vote and a 'genuine' abstention?

" It is fundamentally contrary to revolutionary politics."
Differences of philosophy are all very well, but if you have a choice between a concession on a roll of some dice and no concession, I would prefer the concession.

And I'm not comfortable with this racheting up of 'prove it' rhetoric. Unless you've got a hefty chunk of watertight concrete evidence (hmmm...) secreted away, can we just keep to exchanging arguments?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:26 PM
Why do you think that "the revolution" will never happen?
Because for a revolution to happen we have to go out there and make it happen. And that requires using a variety of means, ranging from voting to protest marches etc.

If people refuse to take part in any actrivity they don't regard as ideologically pure, suchjh as voting, it is just symptomatic of the wider problem of people sitting around waiting for somebody else to start an ideologically pure movement for them anyway.

At any rate, there is no reason to be against voting anyway. There is every reason to dislike current voting systems, they are extremely archaic after all, but voting is a concession to the people by the powers that be that will only grow to real significance after the revolution.

And as for said Revolution, that I don't think will come? Actually it will come, anyone with a decent Marxist understanding of history will be fairly sure of that, but it won't be the revolution many people think it will be. Too many people fantasise about there suddenly being a mass uprising and a few weeks later utopia will arrive, it won't happen like that. Things will start changing slowly and then gather momentum. The Revolution will take place over several decades.

[Delta]

Back to the original question. Direct action is certainly more effective than anything else. If people were willing to do a general strike and withstand the following governmental repression then they can get anything that they want. Shorter work week? More pay? Stop war in Iraq? If the people strike for it they will get it. What might never happen through political channels can be accomplished in a general strike lasting only a few days, or even simply the threat of a general strike.

The world is run by people with money. And so if you oppose their plans what do you do? Vote? That's a very roundabout way to do it. It's much more effective to go directly to what they care about, their money, their source of power, which can only be attacked by stopping work and by so threatening their profits.

However, voting is not pointless. It has its uses. Things can be improved by participating in elections, it's just that truly revolutionary measures will not be accomplished through voting. Direct action, and likely physical conflict, are the only ways in which a genuine radical change of society can take place. By voting for leftist candidates people are sending a message that they see problems with the current system, and the ruling classes often make concessions as a precaution.

In short, voting is not a substitute for direct action, but I believe there positive aspects to voting that outweigh the negative ones.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:24 PM
The Revolution will take place over several decades.
It depends on when you consider a revolution to be start and end. If you consider a change in the ideas of the people as the start of the revolution then sure, perhaps it will last several decades. Or longer. But in terms of the physical, military aspects of revolution I think it could be very quick or very drawn out, depending on the circumstances.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:22 PM
"Nor have you proved that not voting sends some sort of bad message to the government (which is irrelevant, who cares what they think)"
Eh? It isn't me who gives a damn about sending messages to the government - you were the first to suggest it, remember?

The only messages I care about are what ordinary people receive. How do we differenciate between an apathy vote and a 'genuine' abstention?

" It is fundamentally contrary to revolutionary politics."
Differences of philosophy are all very well, but if you have a choice between a concession on a roll of some dice and no concession, I would prefer the concession.

And I'm not comfortable with this racheting up of 'prove it' rhetoric. Unless you've got a hefty chunk of watertight concrete evidence (hmmm...) secreted away, can we just keep to exchanging arguments?
I am not fundamentally convinced that not-voting does anything. The theory behind it is interesting and, to some degree, removes an individual from responsibilty when the government does something horrible. Regardless, I am not trying to prove a negative, essentially, but disprove the positive. You cannot prove voting does anything. Therefore, it is most reasonable to do nothing rather than exert effort with no cause to do so.

If you elect someone, and they send someone to war, and someone dies, you are partially responsible for their death. Inaction is not immoral unless you have some sort of reasonable obligation to act and fail to do so. Voting does not have such a reasonable explanation. All results that could theoretically be achieved through voting are achievable through other means. Either that or achieving them through voting also comes with terrible side-effects (ie. giving your support to a government).

[Delta]

I don't think voting implies that you support a government. It simply says that until you are able to get enough support to overthrow the government you'd like the govenrment to be a socialistic and close to the people as possible. One could argue that not voting is the same as silent acceptance.

[SPK]

The voting booth is where movements go to die.

This is certainly true in the usa. The most recent examples include the neutralization of the antiwar movement. In 2004, the year of the last presidential election here, many of the major national coalitions bought into the Anybody-But-Bush line and essentially (objectively) supported the campaign of Democratic Party nominee John Kerry. Other people have spoken to this already.

I do think, however, that there is one type of electoral effort that can be worthwhile. Since I became a leftist, I have voted, but only on popular referenda which focus on a specific question. In the usa, the right-wing has become skilled over the years at placing contentious issues on the ballot. What happens is that some branch of the government, like a legislature or the judiciary, passes a law that (justly) grants a right to a particular oppressed people or grants concessions to working people: elected officials or appointed bureaucrats generally pass these measures. Elements of the far right then mobilize their minions to put the question of that law on the ballot. When the next election cycle rolls around, the law can be overturned if enough people are spurred through a campaign of hate and fear to vote against it. In tejas in the past, anti-discrimination ordinances for LGBTIQ people have been overturned through such initiatives. Conversely, an effort to remove affirmative action for people of color and women was defeated.

I think that organizing campaigns around, and voting on, these kind of very specific, targeted measures is legitimate, particularly when they are designed to rollback victories by the progressive struggles. People should be mobilized to defend these victories, i.e. to vote to retain them. This kind of electoral effort is different from simply shilling for a political candidate, in that the impact is much clearer, more focused, and more immediate. You’re also not simply placing further power into the hands of an elected representative of the capitalist ruling class, or strengthening people’s illusions about parliamentarianism, or buttressing the apparatus of a bourgeois party like the Democrats.

Further, such efforts have, in some instances, been effective at building progressive movements over the long-term. Proposition 187 in California in the mid-nineties was a reactionary ballot measure that would have eliminated a range of state services, including education and medical care, for immigrants without papers, i.e. “illegal” immigrants. It would have forced state workers, teachers, healthcare providers, and others to report such immigrants to the authorities. There was a massive struggle on the ground against 187, led by, primarily, the Mexicano, Chicano, and central American communities. Hundreds of thousands of people hit the streets in opposition. The proposition won at the ballot box, but, because of constant political pressure by the movement, was basically gutted by the courts. This struggle was, at least in California, one of the significant foundations for the even-larger upsurge that was seen this year in the immigrant communities.

Such purely defensive initiatives, like the one against proposition 187, are not unproblematic, but are still necessary and important for developing the long-term movement.

I can’t say much about positive ballot referenda, i.e. ones that would actually grant rights to oppressed peoples or concessions to the working class, since I have rarely seen such a thing. Does such a creature actually exist? :lol:

[Delta]

Yes SPK, voting on popular propositions (like we have often in California) is well worth the effort (especially when you can just vote from home via absentee ballot).

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:39 AM
I understand the belief in strictly non-voting. However, I do not abide by it for several reasons. Primarily I see little actual value in the act of withholding a vote. Whatever legitimacy one gives or does not give via voting or not voting seems to me to be fairly negligible. Whatever value would be gained by not voting would seem to come in a revolutionary or near-revolutionary period, which we are not in at the moment (in the United States that is). The whole concept of deciding to withold your vote seems to smack be as some form of metaphysics, as if your psychological decision made some sort of deep impact on reality. I'm really interested in just advancing my interests, in whatever way possible. If a candidate comes along that offers some tangible reform or change and has a fair chance of being elected and enacting such a change, I would likely vote for them. I really have no qualms with pushing society as left as possible, even if it means enacting reforms. I obviously dont see those reforms as any kind of end or goal, but I dont really see them hampering any revolutionary possibilies either.
Pretty much sums most of my views on this. Of course, there is a small gap between the boss parties but some of us live in that gap. Take the UK, does anyone seriously think Thatcher or the Tories would ever have brought in a minimum wage and then increased it 58% in 6 years?. Or repel some of the anti-union legislation they had brought in?. Increased taxes to pay to increase spending on public services?. Of course, these are just scraps from the table and we shouldn't make out we're grateful for them but that doesn't negate the point.

[enigma2517]

Excellent discussion, I'd just like to throw in a few of my thoughts quickly:

1.) Referendums are part of direct democracy. You are voting directly on an issue rather than delegating power to a later unmandated official. Thus, I think voting here is completely fair game.

2.) The issue of voting to "make life easier" is somewhat more arguable. First off, I think we should note that certain extreme leftist reforms under capitalism are actually pretty ineffective. The fact is, huge taxes and large, inefficient bureaucratic social programs often do more harm than good. Market economies simply cannot operate in the way they're supposed to when they are weighed down with all of these reforms. I'm not talking about ALL reforms, but quite frankly, if you want free public services of every kind and state ownership of many major industries, get ready for some huge taxes (50% or more) and lots of general economic stagnation, leading to an eventual decrease, not increase, in standard of living.

3.) All of that being said, is voting giving the system legitmacy? I think somebody already mentioned that non-voting can be misconstrued as complacency, which is certainly true. Some kind of action needs to replace voting, simply not going to the booths is not going to send the message you want. However, I think that if a particular candidate has a chance of getting elected and you think it will make your life easier, go ahead.

I wouldn't feel right telling a person they COULDN'T vote, rather, I'd make it a point, as somebody else already did, to mention that it is not meant to be an alternative to direct action. Voting needs to be seen as a desperate last measure, not a call to action.

The real crime would be to go tell people TO vote. Voting yourself is ok, but when you start spending resources on campaigns, you are essentially gambling. Most representative democracies operate on a "winner take all basis", so if you lose, all of the money and energy that you spent will now be equivelant to zero. On the other hand, time invested in direct action is never wasted, as it provides people with a continously growing sense of power over their own lives.

The only time I think voting would be completely inappropriate is towards the beginning of an actual revolution. This is the time when the capitalists will try to give out as many reforms (read: concessions) as possible. At this point, it is imperative that we help people realize that these things are actually meant to stop us from acheiving our goals.

Since we're not really near that time yet, vote away. Or not. Doesn't matter to me, as long as everybody participates in more organizing and direct action :)