Who can I vote for?

[blueeyedboy]

Can someone with knowledge of English politics please tell me who to vote for. The Labour party, one would assume, but they're more right wing than the conservatives. There's no true powerful left-wing political party in England no more, so I need help. Should I not vote at all?

[Cryotank Screams]

Why would you want to vote period?

[Cult of Reason]

"If voting changed anything it would be illegal."

Don't bother.

[MrDoom]

Replacing one bourgeosie-serving millionaire with another doesn't get anything done. Don't bother with liberal "democracy".

[which doctor]

Voting legitimizes the very system we are trying to destroy. It's counter-productive.

[cb9's_unity]

i think if youre just gonna vote for the hell of it don't vote. but if you see that a canidate can actaully make a difference than why not. like in my goveners race every candidate(except possibly the green party canidate) is filthy rich but the guy in the lead will actually might make some decent changes. i can't vote but if i could i would have to choose to vote for a slighty better quality of life for most people in my state.
but yah i don't know to much about english politics so if theres no decent canidates than do something more productive election day.

[izquierda80]

Voting does legitimize the system most of the time, indeed, but it can also serve to legitimize part of the current or eventual opposition to the system, if nothing else as an expression of dissent with the government's policies.

In the long run, that factor can't be counted out when most of the population of many countries, developed and exploited, does not have enough class consciousness to know what's in their best interests, and may not fully realize the extent of the system's flaws and consequences if left alone.

So my point is that showing that such dissent is potentially more widespread than the mainstream thinks, and actually helping that dissent spread through electoral campaigning and other activities that are associated with voting, can be useful for the benefit of revolutionaries. What those revolutionaries and others then decide to do (or are allowed to do, given the existance of repression) is, of course, and entirely different matter.

Voting it is not enough, in itself, and it may be useless most of the time, but together with other activities it can potentially have an impact.

[( R )evolution]

Fuck voting, it doesnt get you any where. Just another manger of the rich (or the rich sometimes)

[apathy maybe]

Do a quick search for voting in all the forums (anydate). That should bring up enough reasons not to vote.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...highlite=voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=625ffc0ac73f751cc6e323de4351581b&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=voting)
In fact here is the search.

[Demogorgon]

Respect Party, provided you can tolerate Galloway's ego.

Those idiots that say you shouldn't vote are living in a fantasy land, like it or not, the fastest means to be heard is through the ballot box. I'm not condoning the undemocratic election process we have here, but we still have to use it until we have something better.

[Cult of Reason]

RESPECT are reformist fucksticks.

[Pawn Power]

please tell me who to vote for.

Ohh, come on!

[C_Rasmussen]

Voting can actually get something done. Like the situation with gay unions here in WI.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:56 PM
RESPECT are reformist fucksticks.
Is that word simply to be thrown at every socialist party who do something as an excuse for your own inaction?

[Aurora]

Granted voting will not create a new society,but it can help to get a party recognised. Although who you vote for really depends on your politics,if your an anarchist its logical that you dont vote.
If your a marxist,vote for a marxist party,you cant create socialism through parliament,but you can make working class people aware that an alternative exists.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/


RESPECT are reformist fucksticks.
QFT

[Cult of Reason]

Is that word simply to be thrown at every socialist party who do something as an excuse for your own inaction?

I am against parties. Reformist ones annoy me more. Voting changes nothing.

[loveme4whoiam]

Is that word simply to be thrown at every socialist party who do something as an excuse for your own inaction?
Not as an excuse for inaction <_< Every party which participates in the so-called democratic elections only furthers the veil of legitmacy that the proceedings hide behind. Liberal and reformist parties should be scorned as much as, if not more than, the right-wing conservatives, as they actively perpetuate the myth that within the "democratic" capitalist system things can change. I would rather support an "inactive" revolutionary organisation than an active reformist one.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:45 PM
Voting changes nothing.
And do tell of the successes sitting around on our backsides fantasising about a revolution will bring

[Aurora]

And do tell of the successes sitting around on our backsides fantasising about a revolution will bring
Why are you here?Revolution is the only option to societies problems.

Are reformists restricted these days?I mean we are RevolutionaryLeft :rolleyes:

[Lings]

The main problem with the ballotbox and revolutionary parties participating in elections is the same as revolutionaries having positions in the yellow and reformist unions around, the fact that when you compromise yourself in a political situation, the system has a tendencie to fuck up people who used to be great. Yet, there are still solid arguments for participating in elections still, and organize in the large unions, at least in some countries. But you have to be carefull. For one, never belive that the bourgie-democratic parliament can bring about REAL change, just minor changes when the material situation of the society needs them to survive, and that is allways due to real mass-strugle outside parliaments. Like eight-hour days that were progressive reforms all over the western world in the twenties. Be clear on that point and make sure that all candidates are very clear on that point. The parliament can be a chair to speak out opposition, it can be a place to get more media-coverage, it is the place people look to when they are looking for rulers, and if there is real opposition, a real thorn in the eye of the bourgie-politicians, it makes it much more easy to go siding with the thorn.

And second, you have to have a very real organization. The people elected should stay in touch with the grassroot in every way they can, they should still go to meetings, studiecirkles and actions in their old local chapter of the organization, they should give away all money they make that are above average workingclass salaries and so on.
Even though some of us in some political struggles can benefit from "softening" our rethorics, elected revolutionary should never compromise with the system. In the things an elected revolutionary should suggest from the parliament floor, there is one number one rule. Never suggest anything, never vote for anything nor compromise with anything that will be worsen the standard of living for working people anywere in the world.


Its a fucking thin line to walk, but if a party can handle it, it just means that you have another tool for reaching out and spreading your message. Not allways the best tool, but many different sources of opposition is a good thing.

If you fail, and end up compromising yourself and what you fight for to make short term political victories, you are no longer needed and serve only as a preserver of status quo.

[blueeyedboy]

Lings, I agree with only voting if you know a party would make mass changes to the lives of the working people. So, basically, don&#39;t vote then haha.

Seriously, though, none of our three major parties are going to make mass changes for workers in the near future, unless the workers get more verbal about what is actually going on.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:14 PM

And do tell of the successes sitting around on our backsides fantasising about a revolution will bring
Why are you here?Revolution is the only option to societies problems.

Are reformists restricted these days?I mean we are RevolutionaryLeft :rolleyes:
There is more than one way of bringing around a revolution.

However keeping our cause as obscure and isolated as possible isn&#39;t one of them.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Very easy to talk about not bothering with elections if you don&#39;t live in the small gap between the parties. My first job after leaving school was on £3 quid an hour in a Coca-Cola factory. 6 months later the minimum wage came in at £3.60 and it has been increased 58% in 7 years. Now I don&#39;t think the good bosses at Coca-Cola would have seen fit to give us such increases off their own back. In fact, it probably would have gone the other way. That said, this is obviously a small concession and I&#39;m not stupid enough to think Labour are ever going to bring about the change required but what should I and other workers have done in 1997?. Not bothered and just let the Tories win again?. And what would that acheive?. Do you think the bosses will just do away with voting and turn the country over to the workers because of a low turnout?. I suppose you can claim a moral high ground by not legitimatising the system but where does that actually get us?. Is that meaningful action?. I think not.

[Leo]

Can someone with knowledge of English politics please tell me who to vote for. The Labour party, one would assume, but they&#39;re more right wing than the conservatives. There&#39;s no true powerful left-wing political party in England no more, so I need help. Should I not vote at all?

"Vote Labour without illusions" :rolleyes:

No, just spit in the ballot box actually. Therefore there will be something much more valuable in that ballot box, something so valuable that other ballot boxes, depressed with only having votes in them, can&#39;t even dream to have.

[cb9's_unity]

i think some people here have actually shown good reasons for why voting can be useful on an at least minor scale. and why is anybody who is willing to work with the system at all a reformer. i mean i think a workers political revolution in america is very much possible in the next 2 decades. i also believe that this revolution should send the constitution to the smithsonian and immeadiatly take the means of production away from at least the most oppressive capitalists. but am i still a reformer?

should we simply dismiss hugo chavez (one of the few socialsts whose ever really been able to get much done) as a reformer? no i think we need as many socialists as we can get and these remarks about not being revolutionary enough are really getting nothing done.

[midnight marauder]

I don&#39;t undestand why so many people here at revleft buy into this issue of not voting by virtue of the practice "legitimizing the government."

I&#39;d ask anyone here to ask themselves just what "governmental legitimacy" actually is. At best, the concept is extremely hard to define in any meaningful real world sense, and it&#39;s certainly an idea that&#39;s immeasurable.

For example, in the United States, the majority (&#33;) of the population doesn&#39;t vote. It&#39;s clear that, for obvious reasons, any comprable state would not and does not give a fuck about maintaining a "legitimate" goverment. Without revolution, the state will exist to preserve its interests whether or the people support it or not.

It&#39;s obvious that you won&#39;t abolish capitalism or smash the state through voting. But as materialists, are there not significant issues that can very well be influenced by electing (relatively) progressive candidates? Gay rights? Immigrant rights? The occupation of Iraq?

As a materialist, I understand the inherent problems with reformism and I am quick to denounce any practice, person (here&#39;s looking at you, Demogorgon&#33; <_<) , or organisation that I believe supports that useless route. But I also understand that in some instances, even if you have to vote against someone, there are certain issues that can be changed and influenced by the ballot box.

Not that the bullet isn&#39;t preferable. ;)

[which doctor]

THE LIMITS OF ELECTORAL POLITICS

Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of "government":

(1) Unrestricted freedom
(2) Direct democracy
(3) Delegate democracy
(4) Representative democracy
(5) Overt minority dictatorship

The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt
minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade of token
democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would
progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .

In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected
officials. The candidates&#39; stated policies are limited to a few vague
generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their
actual decisions on hundreds of issues -- apart from the feeble threat of
changing one&#39;s vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival
politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and
campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass
media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as
ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important
matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent secret
agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers
in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually
everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don&#39;t even
know who they are. . . .

In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the other (those
who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing their own
fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into relying on
others to act for them, distracting them from more significant
possibilities. A few people who take some creative initiative (think of the
first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater effect than if
they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil politicians. At
best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced to do by
popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from independent
radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that knows it
can count on radical support. (The Vietnam war, for example, was not ended
by electing antiwar politicians, but because there was so much pressure from
so many different directions that the prowar president Nixon was forced to
withdraw.) If people invariably rally to lesser evils, all the rulers have
to do in any situation that threatens their power is to conjure up a threat
of some greater evil.

Even in the rare case when a "radical" politician has a realistic chance of
winning an election, all the tedious campaign efforts of thousands of people
may go down the drain in one day because of some trivial scandal discovered
in his (or her) personal life, or because he inadvertently says something
intelligent. If he manages to avoid these pitfalls and it looks like he
might win, he tends to evade controversial issues for fear of antagonizing
swing voters. If he actually gets elected he is almost never in a position
to implement the reforms he has promised, except perhaps after years of
wheeling and dealing with his new colleagues; which gives him a good excuse
to see his first priority as making whatever compromises are necessary to
keep himself in office indefinitely. Hobnobbing with the rich and powerful,
he develops new interests and new tastes, which he justifies by telling
himself that he deserves a few perks after all his years of working for good
causes. Worst of all, if he does eventually manage to get a few
"progressive" measures passed, this exceptional and usually trivial success
is held up as evidence of the value of relying on electoral politics, luring
many more people into wasting their energy on similar campaigns to come.

As one of the May 1968 graffiti put it, "It&#39;s painful to submit to our
bosses; it&#39;s even more stupid to choose them&#33;"

--Excerpts from Ken Knabb&#39;s "The Joy of Revolution."
The complete text is online at http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev.htm

[midnight marauder]

Agreed, completely. But that doesn&#39;t answer any of the issues adressed in my post.

Voting can never be an excuse for organizing, protesting, and in general revolutionary activity. But it can have some success in some instances.

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:14 PM

And do tell of the successes sitting around on our backsides fantasising about a revolution will bring
Why are you here?Revolution is the only option to societies problems.

Are reformists restricted these days?I mean we are RevolutionaryLeft :rolleyes:
He has a point though. Yes I realize this is a forum but there is too much "talk" going on. Too many armchair revolutionaries.

[Leo]

should we simply dismiss hugo chavez as a reformer?

Yes.

[Aurora]

should we simply dismiss hugo chavez (one of the few socialsts whose ever really been able to get much done) as a reformer? no i think we need as many socialists as we can get and these remarks about not being revolutionary enough are really getting nothing done.
Has he created a socialist country?No.Will he create one in the future?No.

Originally posted by JUICE
As a materialist, I understand the inherent problems with reformism and I am quick to denounce any practice, person (here&#39;s looking at you, Demogorgon&#33; ) , or organisation that I believe supports that useless route. But I also understand that in some instances, even if you have to vote against someone, there are certain issues that can be changed and influenced by the ballot box.
I agree,as long as we all recognise that it is a "useless route".

I think the most important reason why we should participate in bourgeois elections is so we can get our name known and our message across

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Demogorgon
There is more than one way of bringing around a revolution.
And going through parliament isnt one of them :rolleyes:

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:35 AM
And going through parliament isnt one of them :rolleyes:
Woops&#33; The Bolsheviks used parliament as a way of splitting the bourgeois institutions and paralyzing them while the proletarian ones took over.

The also used it as a propaganda tool.

But never mind, when we talk about what to do for building a revolutionary movement, let&#39;s not look at successful revolutionary movements. That would hurt our heads.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:42 PM
If your a marxist,vote for a marxist party,you cant create socialism through parliament,but you can make working class people aware that an alternative exists.
Marxists don&#39;t create their own parties of two guys and a dog running in an election. Marxists work in the parties of the trade unions and make workers aware of the alternative by marching side by side with them.

Who should you vote for? Well, the Labour leadership is right wing at the moment, but pay attention. Labour is the unions. The unions have shifted, all the old right wing leaders are being kicked out, and a rank and file revolt is in motion. This is being reflected in Labour itself, though in a distorted and delayed form. New Labour is dead in otherwords.

Maybe don&#39;t vote for them, if the shift isn&#39;t complete by the time of the elections, but definitely join Labour and help with the rank and file revolt.

[Aurora]

Woops&#33; The Bolsheviks used parliament as a way of splitting the bourgeois institutions and paralyzing them while the proletarian ones took over.
Example please?

But never mind, when we talk about what to do for building a revolutionary movement, let&#39;s not look at successful revolutionary movements. That would hurt our heads.
I dont consider the bolsheviks very successful.The theory was good,the practice fucked over the working class.

Marxists work in the parties of the trade unions and make workers aware of the alternative by marching side by side with them.
Ya,and that is effective.But we need all the help we can get,i think it is a good way to spread our message by out-debating bourgeois politicians in parliament.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 17 2006, 03:03 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 17 2006, 03:03 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 05:14 PM

And do tell of the successes sitting around on our backsides fantasising about a revolution will bring
Why are you here?Revolution is the only option to societies problems.

Are reformists restricted these days?I mean we are RevolutionaryLeft :rolleyes:
There is more than one way of bringing around a revolution.

However keeping our cause as obscure and isolated as possible isn&#39;t one of them. [/b]
So what do you reccommend?

Voting for/supporting bullshit politicians for capitalist parties who work against our interests?

"Small steps for change" is bullshit, for people who lack ideal and creativity.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Anarion+Oct 18 2006, 03:35 PM--> (Anarion @ Oct 18 2006, 03:35 PM)
Demogorgon
There is more than one way of bringing around a revolution.
And going through parliament isnt one of them :rolleyes: [/b]
And what do you intend to do?

Hide yourself away from the world and refuse to have anything to do with anything that is not 100% ideologically pure?

I swear some people here will only accept a movement that functions as a secret society, not having anything to do with anything other than what is specifically sanctioned in 19th century books and consequently being as marginal and irrelevant as possible.

There never will be a revolution unless there is mas support, and there never will be mass support until two things happen. Firstly the movement has to embrace all progressives, not just those who hold EXACTLY the same views as oneself and secondly it needs to be well known. It needs publicity.

The fastest means to gain publicity is through the media. As the media is not exactly inclined to cover us, the only way to force them to is through parliamentary representation. Most countries have laws requiring all Parliamentary parties to have access to the media.

Incidentally while I am on the subject of gaining support, whatever fantasies you may have about a violent revolution, that is not going to be popular. People don&#39;t like violence, most people will not trade a quiet peaceful life for a violent one. Western society simply doesn&#39;t push people down hard enough for them to rise up again.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:02 PM

So what do you reccommend?

Voting for/supporting bullshit politicians for capitalist parties who work against our interests?

"Small steps for change" is bullshit, for people who lack ideal and creativity.
No, I recommend voting for socialist parties. Wasn&#39;t that hard?

There is such a bizzarre current of opinion on this board. People refusing to back any form of change for fear the change won&#39;t be perfect. Some people need to grow up.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Oct 18 2006, 01:16 PM--> (Demogorgon @ Oct 18 2006, 01:16 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 05:02 PM

So what do you reccommend?

Voting for/supporting bullshit politicians for capitalist parties who work against our interests?

"Small steps for change" is bullshit, for people who lack ideal and creativity.
No, I recommend voting for socialist parties. Wasn&#39;t that hard?

There is such a bizzarre current of opinion on this board. People refusing to back any form of change for fear the change won&#39;t be perfect. Some people need to grow up. [/b]
Ha... well I have only once seen one candidate on the ballot whom was socialist. Were I to do that, I wouldn&#39;t be voting... well... pretty much ever, anyways.

I&#39;m not refusing to back it out of fear that the "change won&#39;t be perfect." I&#39;m refusing to back it because the system itself is what I&#39;m against, and working within it does no good towards the ends which I seek, and is essentially a vouch of support for that system.

Have you ever heard George Carlin when he&#39;s spoken about how its an illusion to make us feel we have a say, when we don&#39;t? Well, he&#39;s right. I don&#39;t wish to fund that illusion.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE=Demogorgon,Oct 18 2006, 01:16 PM] Ha... well I have only once seen one candidate on the ballot whom was socialist. Were I to do that, I wouldn&#39;t be voting... well... pretty much ever, anyways.

I&#39;m not refusing to back it out of fear that the "change won&#39;t be perfect." I&#39;m refusing to back it because the system itself is what I&#39;m against, and working within it does no good towards the ends which I seek, and is essentially a vouch of support for that system.

Have you ever heard George Carlin when he&#39;s spoken about how its an illusion to make us feel we have a say, when we don&#39;t? Well, he&#39;s right. I don&#39;t wish to fund that illusion.
Well it does depend on what country you are in. Here in Scotland there are always Socialists on the ballot, and in the case of the Scottish parliament a fair few get elected. American "Democracy" is obviously a lot worse. I can understand entirely why my America comrades have no faith in it.

As for changing the system itself, that&#39;s what I want too, but you can&#39;t change the system unless you have the power to do so, I&#39;m not sayying winning an election is the only way to do it, but it is certainly one way.

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 03:17 PM

should we simply dismiss hugo chavez as a reformer?

Yes.

ok chavez is not the pure socialist that we all want to see in power but to dismiss what he has done is idiotic. People may actually get a taste of what socialism will really be like and he&#39;s actually exposing how careless and opressive capitalism can really be.

oh and should the people of venezuela not vote? Should they let the capitalists take back there country? right now most of them are concerned with trying to obtain a decent life rather than throwing over there government. who knows chavez may be setting the stage for a real revolution. once people aren&#39;t worrying that much about starving and are getting an education we may have a real revolution yet in venezuela.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by cb9&#39;s_unity+Oct 18 2006, 10:16 PM--> (cb9&#39;s_unity @ Oct 18 2006, 10:16 PM)
Leo [email protected] 18 2006, 03:17 PM

should we simply dismiss hugo chavez as a reformer?

Yes.

ok chavez is not the pure socialist that we all want to see in power but to dismiss what he has done is idiotic. People may actually get a taste of what socialism will really be like and he&#39;s actually exposing how careless and opressive capitalism can really be.

oh and should the people of venezuela not vote? Should they let the capitalists take back there country? right now most of them are concerned with trying to obtain a decent life rather than throwing over there government. who knows chavez may be setting the stage for a real revolution. once people aren&#39;t worrying that much about starving and are getting an education we may have a real revolution yet in venezuela. [/b]
Now there is a point. Firstly a taste of partial socialism will bring the desire for real socialism to the people. After all a taste of partial capitalism was the death knell for feudalism.

Secondly scocialism can only work if the people participate, and people can&#39;t participate if they are too poor to have the free time to take part in government.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 12:58 pm
Ya,and that is effective.But we need all the help we can get,i think it is a good way to spread our message by out-debating bourgeois politicians in parliament.
I&#39;m confused... we&#39;re agreeing here, I&#39;m not sure if that was clear. When I said the parties of the trade unions, I meant the labour parties which may or may not have right wing leaders. These are institutions of the working class, and fighting the bureaucrats within them to make them fighting institutions is essential.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)Marxists don&#39;t create their own parties of two guys and a dog running in an election. Marxists work in the parties of the trade unions and make workers aware of the alternative by marching side by side with them.

Who should you vote for? Well, the Labour leadership is right wing at the moment, but pay attention. Labour is the unions. The unions have shifted, all the old right wing leaders are being kicked out, and a rank and file revolt is in motion. This is being reflected in Labour itself, though in a distorted and delayed form. New Labour is dead in otherwords.

Maybe don&#39;t vote for them, if the shift isn&#39;t complete by the time of the elections, but definitely join Labour and help with the rank and file revolt.[/b]I laugh at you. Obviously not all Marxist work within the &#39;labour&#39; parties around the world (unless you are going to claim that people who do not are not Marxists). Part of the reason is quite simply, they are not parties for the workers any more. See what redstar2000 had to say on parties, the workers do not have the time to do the politicking with in the party, thus they get taken over by those who do have time. The policies etc. thus do not come from the workers. Not only that, the rank and file members do not have the time to seriously compare one &#39;leader&#39; to another, besides which they end up voting for either celebrity party elite A or celebrity party elite B.

So my advice, don&#39;t join Labour or Labor or any of these major &#39;labour&#39; parties, they are not for the workers any more.



CyM
I&#39;m confused... we&#39;re agreeing here, I&#39;m not sure if that was clear. When I said the parties of the trade unions, I meant the labour parties which may or may not have right wing leaders. These are institutions of the working class, and fighting the bureaucrats within them to make them fighting institutions is essential.I&#39;ll say it again, they are not institutions of the working class, they might have been, but not now. The fighting unions are better off creating a new party, the others, you&#39;re better off creating a new union (one that will actually fight).

Fuck trying to use the bureaucrats rules against them, they make the rules, they can change the rules, and the only way to win is not to play (or completely fuck around with and ignore the rules, but you might get into trouble with the cops and the legal system if you do that).

[Louis Pio]

Point in question is what parties from the workers movement do the workers look too and what parties will they first move too in heating class struggle. This is a quite important question, nomatter what Redstar2000 had to say on the question. We can of course just choose to be holy from the sidelines, this however reminds me more of Jehovas Witnesses than of a revolutionary worker activist. The choice is of course free to make...