Another Topic on Voting

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Revolutionaries do not accept that reformism can result in communism. However, some people claim one political party is preferable (while there is no revolution) to another political party. These individuals, assuming they vote, also say this does not sacrifice their long-term goals.

To make a syllogism:

P1: Electing one party is preferable to electing another party.
P2: Your vote is statistically relevant.
P3: Nothing bad can come of voting.
P4: The effort exerted to vote is made up for by the benefits from your vote.
C: You should vote.

To make another:

P1: Electing one party is preferable to electing another party or it is not.
P2: Your vote is statistically relevant or irrelevant.
P3: Something bad can come of voting.
P4: The effort exerted to vote is made up for by the benefits from your vote or it is not.
C: You should not vote or there is no cause to take the risk of voting.

Assuming voting is legitimate, which I disagree with, who should you vote for in a Canadian election? NDP is the leftist party, Liberal the middle capitalists, and Conservative the capitalists. Where I live, pretend the liberals and conservative are the only parties with a realistic chance of winning. Since serving the long-term interests of reformism (voting NDP) is not beneficial, shouldn't a revolutionary vote for the Liberals?

Here is the bottomline. Some of you claim to be revolutionaries. You vote and say you are still a revolutionary. However, being a revolutionary does not include being a reformist. So if you are voting, stop voting for the communist party. That is idealism.

[Demogorgon]

Let me ask you this question. Do you think I could look any Iraqi in the face if I had let lofty principles stop me from removing the fiercely pro-war MP in my constituency?

[Whitten]

If the the communist party has the chance of winning a certain degree of representation, even locally, is it not worth voting for them in the relevant elections?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 02:17 pm
If the the communist party has the chance of winning a certain degree of representation, even locally, is it not worth voting for them in the relevant elections?
In History, when Socialist/Communist parties have been elected, the goverment made sure that they weren't going to do anything, thus turning them into nothing but useless stumps.

Around the 1920's, 5 Socialist Party State Legislators were elected for the State of New York, but the Governor refused to let them sit down at the state legislature, and instead chose new ones to replace them.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 26, 2006 04:46 am
Here is the bottomline. Some of you claim to be revolutionaries. You vote and say you are still a revolutionary. However, being a revolutionary does not include being a reformist. So if you are voting, stop voting for the communist party. That is idealism.
Says who? Is that graven on a stone tablet somewhere, Thou Shalt Not Vote Or Thou Art Not A True Revolutionary? The LORD sayeth, Reform and Revolution Are Toally Counterposed? History suggests otherwise; for starters there are, of course, examples of people who have run in elections and gone on to lead insurrections...

Whether you vote or not is not terribly important - in and of itself. But it tells ya something interesting about people....

There are people who proclaim on principle Thou Shalt Not Touch the Unclean Bourgeois Elections. Tells ya how dogmatic and tactically inflexible they are, and usually turn out to be in other respect also.

There are people who vote for bourgeois parties. Here also the damage is not mostly in the voting - it's that those who help elect the "lesser evil" support it in other ways also. They put the needs of mass actions behind the needs of liberal or social-democratic politicians. It's just as bad if you do that without voting - like the RCP going for "Drive Out the Bush Regime". They're tacitly supporting the Democrats even if they never actually cast a vote for one.

Then there are those who use the elections as a means of propaganda. Not only can you reach a lot of people this way - it dramatically demonstrates that you are not supporting any of the capitalist politicians. And gives a visible alternative to them. Helps keep one well away from any course of tacitly aiding any of them....

[Organic Revolution]

"If voting changed anything, it would be made illegal"

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/elections/main.html careful its a anarcho- capitalist site.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+November 26, 2006 08:32 am--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ November 26, 2006 08:32 am)
[email protected] 26, 2006 02:17 pm
If the the communist party has the chance of winning a certain degree of representation, even locally, is it not worth voting for them in the relevant elections?
In History, when Socialist/Communist parties have been elected, the goverment made sure that they weren't going to do anything, thus turning them into nothing but useless stumps.

Around the 1920's, 5 Socialist Party State Legislators were elected for the State of New York, but the Governor refused to let them sit down at the state legislature, and instead chose new ones to replace them. [/b]
I'm talking about people who vote for the communist party when they have no chance of winning.

[Rawthentic]

Why the fuck would I vote for a party that had no chance of winning? Plus the obvious that you stated which is that reformism cannot lead to communism. I wouldn't bother voting. Id rather talk to people why voting is irrelevant and the alternatives to it.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 04:26 pm
Why the fuck would I vote for a party that had no chance of winning? Plus the obvious that you stated which is that reformism cannot lead to communism. I wouldn't bother voting. Id rather talk to people why voting is irrelevant and the alternatives to it.
Voting for parties that have no chance of winning is a way to give your opinion to a system which really doesn't want to hear it. I voted for candidates whose platform included the socialization of the means of production. Sure, they didn't get even 1% of the vote, but when the ruling class sees that so many tens of thousands of people voted for this, they will know that there are this many of us out here that believe it, and aren't stupid enough to vote for Democrats. If I hadn't voted, they would assume that I was apathetic.