Anti-Voting

[Cyanide Suicide]

Greetings friends, I come to you today with a question.

I recently noticed that communists apparently don't believe in voting. I was wondering why this is? I would think that the desire for change, and a people's government, would call for people to vote. Sorry if this is a dumb question or whatever, I'm just curious.

[which doctor]

Voting, participating in the bourgeois spectacle of elections, legitimizes the very system which we are trying to destroy.

[rouchambeau]

And it is ineffective for creating communism.

[Dominicana_1965]

Because it is conservative and conformist.
Its not the people that change the system, but the system that changes them.
All these candidates are a bunch of bourgeoisie pricks, that have no relations to the working class.
Also as it is said above its ineffective for creating Communism.

[Cyanide Suicide]

It may be ineffective for creating communism...but I honestly don't think that not voting would play a huge role in creating it. You say it is conservative and conformist, I disagree. To me, what is conformist is letting other people choose leaders for you. I agree that all the canidates are pricks, but some are less...err.."prickley" than others. I think I would have rather had Gore and Kerry and than Bush. :/

[Janus]

To me, what is conformist is letting other people choose leaders for you.
But the whole point of communism is doing away with leaders.


I agree that all the canidates are pricks, but some are less...err.."prickley" than others. I think I would have rather had Gore and Kerry and than Bush. :/
Revolutionaries do not seek to reform the existing system but show that there is an alternative to it. Neither Gore nor Kerry are the alternatives that communists should have in mind.

[Cyanide Suicide]

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but let's be realistic. At this point in time a leaderless country is not an option. I think that attempting to get the lesser of the shitheads in power is the best solution of the moment.

I feel that not voting will get you no closer to the goal of communism. But I guess it just comes down to opinion. Thank you all for answer my question though, I now understand why it is you feel that way.

[Ander]

Voting is generally ineffective in the eyes of leftists because it is useless for our cause.

No genuinely socialist state has been created through election; the closest we've got are the pseudo-socialist parties of Europe and South America which are all a big joke. The majority of people are either afraid or comfortable with their way of living and fail to see a better alternative. They believe they are playing their part in politics by voting to elect some corrupt official who is no different than the one campaigning behind him. It serves no purpose but to put one more scumbag in office for a few years.

If Hugo Chavez can make good on his "14 years until socialism" promise, then we will have quite a fine exception. Until then, any non-reformist leftist should say no to voting.

[Janus]

I think that attempting to get the lesser of the shitheads in power is the best solution of the moment.
The point of the matter is that voting validates the system which we are seeking to destroy. One cannot fundamentally change an oppressive system by becoming a part of it; you can call it ultra-leftist or idealist if you want but the reformist path has already been shown to be a failure in achieving communism.

[Janus]

By the way, there are already many threads on this topic.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=50878&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=59138&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59138&hl=)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=59197&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59197&hl=)

[Ander]

In an ideal world I would agree with you, but let's be realistic. At this point in time a leaderless country is not an option. I think that attempting to get the lesser of the shitheads in power is the best solution of the moment.

I agree with you on the leaderless bit, however your second point I cringe at. Why do you think we should settle for the best of the worst? That is an extremely reformist way of thinking, which leads me to ask why you are posting on Revolutionary Left?


I feel that not voting will get you no closer to the goal of communism. But I guess it just comes down to opinion. Thank you all for answer my question though, I now understand why it is you feel that way.

It is not supposed to bring us closer to our desired goals (communism, socialism, anarchism, etc.) but it is simply a personal rejection of the system and reformist methods of complying with it.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:07 am
In an ideal world I would agree with you, but let's be realistic. At this point in time a leaderless country is not an option. I think that attempting to get the lesser of the shitheads in power is the best solution of the moment.

I feel that not voting will get you no closer to the goal of communism. But I guess it just comes down to opinion. Thank you all for answer my question though, I now understand why it is you feel that way.
We dont want a bouregouis leaderless country we want a communist country. It doesnt not matter who we vote for because they represent the ruling class and no one else. Voting will do exctaly the abosute, voting will not bring you closer to communism because by voting you are trying to reform the capitalistic structure through the bourgeouis frame work which will never happen. By voting you are (as everyone else has said) legitamizing the system we are trying to take down.

[Leo]

The thing is, economical infrastructure determines how the institutions of socio-political superstructure will act, so no matter how different "parties" are, that get elected, they all have to act in the same way; against the working class and for the interests of capital.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Why do you think we should settle for the best of the worst?

Because if we would have settled for the "best of the worst", there's a huge chance would not be in Iraq right now and not be going through a lot of the shit this country is going through. As much as you want to deny that you live Capitalistic America, you do. And what happens and what decisions the leaders make is important, so for the sake of man-kind you should get over your personal beef with voting.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 11:57 am

Why do you think we should settle for the best of the worst?

Because if we would have settled for the "best of the worst", there's a huge chance would not be in Iraq right now and not be going through a lot of the shit this country is going through. As much as you want to deny that you live Capitalistic America, you do. And what happens and what decisions the leaders make is important, so for the sake of man-kind you should get over your personal beef with voting.
This topic is a little silly: voting won't help you get a socialist country.

But I do agree that a left government tends to open people's eyes more so they go on strike more to demand their rights then under a rightwing government.

Besides, it is not my impression that communists are the ones that don't vote, it's more an anarchist thing. Communists see the parliament as a usefull tool to convince masses for the revolutionary alternative by just pushing the system to it's confined limits. Now, this might not always be true (for example in the two-party system of the US, different rules apply), but in general a parliamentary seat is just an easy way to get mass attention for your ideas, which is a good thing.

[Aurora]

it is ineffective for creating communism.
True

We must still fight for reforms,because when working class people see that we actively support them,they of course will be more supportive of us.

[Dimentio]

*Hint hint Venezuela*

Those who wants to keep their power often uses democracy as a ritual to legitimise it, but their tools could be used against them.

[Joby]

What abou Salvadore Allende in Chile?

Voting can bring in a revolutionary party, as long as that party remains true to its ideals and is truly focused on the class struggle. However, there will always be a counter-revolution once this spark is lit, and this is were the revolution must overcome. Venezuela made it, Chile didn't.

Notice all the troops trying to stop the bringing in of "such a fundamentally different" party in the US last month?

Didn't think so.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 10:38 am
Greetings friends, I come to you today with a question.

I recently noticed that communists apparently don't believe in voting. I was wondering why this is? I would think that the desire for change, and a people's government, would call for people to vote. Sorry if this is a dumb question or whatever, I'm just curious.
for this, i have some question for you:

1. in which country do you live and do you vote?
2. when you've done vote, do your life change into a better life as the one you vote for is winning the vote?

[Aurora]

Allende was a social-democrat just like Chavez.And they both have acheived fuck all

[Chocobo]

As the second post stated,
Voting, participating in the bourgeois spectacle of elections, legitimizes the very system which we are trying to destroy.

which is a very adequate reason why not too. I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I am going to register to vote and will vote (Green libertarian of course). The reason why im going to do this is because though I may be a communist in idea, I am going to go reformist in action. I dont really believe much in the global revolution, and more about making people concious on what society truely is now, so i'm going to work as a sort of sepertist within the community to change the community. Am I going to be a politician? Fuck no, but im going to be an everlasting protest and too hope that my protest grows to where our demands will be met. So why am I registering to vote? Because, sadly, some people refuse to take you serious or open their minds to not voting if you tell them you don't vote. In ideal though, hopefully the living protest grows to a time where we can all acknowledge voting doesn't matter. But yah, thats my stand on voting.

[midnight marauder]

Does anyone seriously believe that voting will procure a revoutionary change in government, politics, society, economics, etc?

As far as I can tell, there aren't too many pro-voting leftists that follow this line of thought. The question for us then becomes, is revolutionary change the only change that can occur in a given bourgeois democratic country?

The answer to which is obviously no. And that's where voting comes in.

For example, my state recently passed an amendment allowing for stem cell research. This is a progressive change. The town next to me recently passed a city wide ban on smoking in public. A regressive change, but one that could have been prevented had we had more like minded voters.

In the end, there's still other reasons why voting is in many cases useful to us perhaps not as revolutionaries, but as progressives in other measures. For those that are interested, if you look through my posts you'll find me debunking the myth of "governmental legitimacy" and how voting supports it.

In the end, antivoting seems to be just simply antimaterialist.

[Demogorgon]

It's because we don't win the elections and therefore throw tantrums and refuse to take part.

Voting might not achieve everyting we want. But it will achieve certain important things such as politicians not so keen to turn the middle east into one large warzone.

At any rate do you think capitalists care whether you legitimize the system or not? They are just glad that you aren't providing any opposition.

[Enragé]

i think, it depends on the circumstances. In the US for instance, i certainly can see why voting is dumb as hell, especially if you're going to vote for one of the big two parties.

However, in most european countries there is a more or less sizeable (somewhat) radical left. Helping them gain power, or at least more seats in parliament, pushes the whole country farther left.

Look, we all know reformism doesnt work, but most people dont. For revolution to become a viable option, reformism must first be proven to fail.

Also, when the CNT told its 2 million members not to vote
guess what happened
the bastards took power and emprisoned cnt-members, other leftists etc.
so the time after that they did vote

whether you vote for them or not, they'll still have authority over you

[chimx]

karl marx advocated voting within liberal democracies, asserting that the dictatorship of the proletariat can potentially be achieved through peaceful democratic means.

but personally, i'm not a marxist.

[Aurora]

That was before the paris commune

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:06 pm
What abou Salvadore Allende in Chile?

Voting can bring in a revolutionary party, as long as that party remains true to its ideals and is truly focused on the class struggle. However, there will always be a counter-revolution once this spark is lit, and this is were the revolution must overcome. Venezuela made it, Chile didn't.

Notice all the troops trying to stop the bringing in of "such a fundamentally different" party in the US last month?

Didn't think so.
The thing is that the party which forms a government must start to deprive the state of it's repressive power, so that it cannot be used by counter-revolutionaries thereafter.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:38 pm
Allende was a social-democrat just like Chavez.And they both have acheived fuck all
Yes Venezuela has achieved nothing since 1998. There is no significantly radicalised working class movement discussing socilaism in Venezuela today that wasn't there before hand. No workers control in Venezuela. There is no social missiones which have helped achieve a 100% literacy rate and greatly improved health care for the Venezuelan people.

[Leo]

There is no significantly radicalised working class movement... No workers control in Venezuela.

Those are actually true.

[bolshevik butcher]

Lies and nonscnese. You are an ultraleftist though, you aren't intersted in engaging in a mass movement of radiclaised workers unless they're perfect anarchists. I'm serious, go to venezuela and tell the workers that they have gained nothing and that they are not class conscious at all.

[Leo]

Lies and nonscnese. You are an ultraleftist though, you aren't intersted in engaging in a mass movement of radiclaised workers unless they're perfect anarchists. I'm serious, go to venezuela and tell the workers that they have gained nothing and that they are not class conscious at all.

Oh, stop crying. "They are saying 'God, Bolivar, Chavez' and you don't support it! You stupid ultraleftist!" Ah, priceless...

Anyway, back to "reality" from your left-capitalist "mass-movement" fantasies lets get deep down to this topic. The real reason for the wave of anti-US electoral victories are the consequences of the capitalist crisis in Latin America. In social terms Latin America remains the area of the world with the greatest disparity of wealth. Basically despite all the hyperbole about “revolution” (used to describe the literally hundreds of military coups that have occurred since the criollos won independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century) little has changed in wealth distribution. Towards the end of the post war boom in the 1960s a new middle class was beginning to emerge but in the face of the world capitalist crisis since 1973 it has all but disappeared. Today Latin America as a whole has an estimated population of 500 millions of which 240 millions live below the poverty line (i.e. have less than $1 a day to live on). In (which is fairly representative of the continent) in 1990 a quarter of the population did not reach the linea de indigencia. That means they are literally starving.

In, despite high oil prices for most of the period 1970-98, the actual per capita income fell 35%. Given that its distribution of income was typical of Latin America where the top 20% of the population possess 78 times more wealth than the bottom 80% it is not surprising that a populist movement should arise. Hugo Chavez had tried to take power in 1992 in a military coup and his televised speech denouncing neo-liberalism at his trial launched his political career. He was eventually elected by a landslide on a populist platform. He took office in February, 1999. As Venezuela is the richest oil-producer in Latin America, which supplies the US with 15% of its crude oil, it is a key state for the US. Chavez could not nationalise the oil industry as the previous regime did it in 1975. In fact he has changed the state’s relationship with the oil companies. He encouraged foreign oil companies to invest more in Venezuela without having to go through a state intermediary. This is more “liberal” than Mexico or Saudi Arabia. He also has the US over a barrel (pun intended). Unless investment in new sources is carried through the already high price of oil will become astronomical and world economic activity would become even more arthritic than it is now. Chavez knows they need Venezuela’s reserves (280 billion barrels of untapped heavy crude are said to lie to the north of the Orinoco River) and so he has taken the opportunity to scrutinise the oil companies and to increase their taxes from 1% to 30% with coordinated work of the government and the opposition. A crippling oil strike by those who worked in the industry was seen down in 2002-3 and, despite its effect, Chavez clung on to power. The failure of the strike allowed Chavez to sack 18,000 oil workers and thus made him more reliant on foreign firms but the increased revenue has allowed him to set up ambitious social programmes which have encouraged the development of cooperatives and the nationalisation of firms where the owners have gone bankrupt. The Iraq War has also helped since it has helped to put the oil price up to $60 a barrel (when Chavez had long argued that $20 to $28 would be a good level). Venezuela stills produces about half a billion barrels less than its OPEC quota.

The bourgeoisie’s attacks on the proletariat in Venezuela don’t stop there. The attacks on wages and decreases in the social wages of workers, supplemented by new state taxes, have led to an economic and fiscal policy that has given rise a level of inflation that is the highest in the region (23% on average for 2003 and 2004), which erodes wages month after month, all of which is in the process of forcing millions of workers and their families into an alarming degree of pauperisation: according to unofficial statistics, 83% of workers (of a total workforce of 12 million) are paid the minimum wage of 405,000 bolivars (about £105) whilst the basic ‘basket’ of foodstuffs, according to the government itself , now costs 380,000 and about 600,000 bolivars according to other authorities. This is without speaking of the levels of malnutrition, epidemics etc which can only increase. The government does everything possible to doctor the figures on poverty in order to be able to be coherent with its lie about the ‘struggle against poverty’, but it is impossible to conceal the evidence.

Every Right wing commentator in the US agrees with every old Stalinist, and nearly-as-old Trotskyist, that Castro, Chavez, Morales etc are “socialist”. Every move of social mobilisation from on high is greeted as if it was a genuine mass movement from below instead of as a social mobilisation by a regime. Socialism has nothing to do with state ownership of the means of production. Socialism can only come about through a movement which first overthrows the capitalist state, then establishes its own semi-state which withers away with the last vestiges of class rule, and then the way is open for a truly new mode of production to arise based on the common and free association of all producers. Socialism is neither a state in which the secret police is everywhere as with the G2 in Cuba, nor is it one which does deals with multinationals.

Some Trotskyists pour scorn on this position (which was that of Marx and Engels and even Lenin). They argue that what is happening in, e.g Venezuela, is a real step forward, and that inevitably the contradictions of the situation of someone like Chavez will dialectically lead to the revolution. This only shows that they have learned nothing from the past. They once fawned over Tito, Ben Bella in Algeria even, in some cases Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran as real anti-imperialists and all were the gods that failed. Anti-imperialism which is only anti-americanism is not socialism. And socialism cannot be created from above. It can only be the result of genuine mass movement which is not based on “the people” but on the self-conscious activity of the one class which is globally exploited, the working class.

[Louis Pio]

and that inevitably the contradictions of the situation of someone like Chavez will dialectically lead to the revolution.

Actually attacking something based on a mirror image you yourself set up is, well not very sober.
Point is capitalism has failed in Latin America, that's quite true. The bourgiosie hasn't and will not play the progresive role they could in Europe. They are too closely linked with big business and foreign capital. Which leaves one alternative besides barbarism.

Now it is beyond me how someone looking at Latin America can fail utterly in looking at the movement of occupied factories, and try to just wink it of with "stateownership of bla bla bla". When there are in fact quite a few occupied factories were the workers run production themselves, not producing the mistakes of Inveval or Invetex (and not just talking venezuela here). I would think that the role of any proclaimed "leftist" would be to support such measures and spreading the knowlegde of this, instead of just spreading pessimism, but that's probably just me. Guess pessimism will accomplish more....

[Leo]

Actually attacking something based on a mirror image you yourself set up is, well not very sober.

Actually worshiping something based on a mirror image you yourself set up is, well not very sober. After sending that post about the economical reality of Venezuela, I should have guessed that supporters of the regime would not be able to respond.


I would think that the role of any proclaimed "leftist" would be to support such measures and spreading the knowlegde of this, instead of just spreading pessimism

I'm spreading the truth. The regime in Venezuela, like all other bourgeois regimes in the world, is anti-working class. Have fun trying to digest that idea, if you have the stomach to begin with.

[Ander]

As much as you want to deny that you live Capitalistic America, you do.

Uh...no, I don't. I live in capitalist Brasil.


Because if we would have settled for the "best of the worst", there's a huge chance would not be in Iraq right now and not be going through a lot of the shit this country is going through.

You're looking at this situation from only one viewpoint, that of an American liberal. Although your lesser evil is far from perfect, at least they are not like regimes in other countries who violently oppress their citizens. Go to some of the countries in Latin America or Africa and complain to them about the Democrats. Places in Central America where the police run around gunning down children on the streets and worse.

That's besides the point though because the best of the worse in every case still supports capitalism and is against everything we stand for.

[Louis Pio]

Actually worshiping something based on a mirror image you yourself set up is, well not very sober. After sending that post about the economical reality of Venezuela, I should have guessed that supporters of the regime would not be able to respond.


Hehe you don't really have to tell me about the economic situation, im well aware. Which is sorta why my politic and IMT for that matter has always been to call (and work for that matter) for the overthrow of capitalism.


I'm spreading the truth. The regime in Venezuela, like all other bourgeois regimes in the world, is anti-working class. Have fun trying to digest that idea, if you have the stomach to begin with.

On the surface one would never disagree with your sentiment, but then again it doesn't look on some very important part of whats happening in Venezuela. What ABOUT the bolivarian movement and the occupied factories. How will you fit them into your simplistic analysis? And more importantly what would it lead you to do in the circumstances if you had anything to say on the matter? I think it would lead to the same conclusion as some of the UNT leaders, that is they tell the workers: "Venezuela is capitalist, therefore don't take over the means of production". In turn that actually means, don't start building any doublepower. I think the point must be to strenghten it, spread it and on this foundation build independent workingclass representation. Because it doesn't come from just proclaming it or waiting for the textbook revolutionary situation to occur (and when has that happened?). That's why pessimism is so damaging, because it's the guide to no action at all.

[bolshevik butcher]

http://www.marxist.com/nationalisation-san...ntrol151206.htm (http://www.marxist.com/nationalisation-sanitarios-maracay-workers-control151206.htm)

I would advise everyone spueing out this ultraleftist onscense to read about these venezuelan workers fighting for workers control and the nationalisation of there factory. Scenes like these are not uncommon in Venezuela just now. It's one of the few if not the only country in the world where socialism is growing hugely in popularity and rank and file working class people are reading socialist theory and beocming incaresingly militatnt.

[Aurora]

The regime in Venezuela, like all other bourgeois regimes in the world, is anti-working class.
Exactly,we should really stop thinking of social-democrats as Left-wing.They are not!

[Louis Pio]

Exactly,we should really stop thinking of social-democrats as Left-wing.They are not!


That's all good and all. But how do you propose reaching the rank and file of the reformist parties? And in the case of Venezuela the rank and file of the bolivarian movement?
I see you link to CWI in your sig, then your probably well aware that their call from the sidelines for a new workersparty goes unnoticed?

[Pawn Power]

What are peoples opinions on voting for issues involving gay rights and womens rights (ie abortion)? Recently the state of New Jersey past a law to allow homosexuals civil union, which would never have past with a republican majority. Nevertheless, the gay community wants full rights, marriage which was not supported by the democrats. While the parties are essentially the same, you will be hard pressed to find a republican to vote for any "progressive" gay rights issue. Are these rights a reason to vote?

This is kind of bait and kind or a real question.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 18, 2006 04:12 pm
What are peoples opinions on voting for issues involving gay rights and womens rights (ie abortion)? Recently the state of New Jersey past a law to allow homosexuals civil union, which would never have past with a republican majority. Nevertheless, the gay community wants full rights, marriage which was not supported by the democrats. While the parties are essentially the same, you will be hard pressed to find a republican to vote for any "progressive" gay rights issue. Are these rights a reason to vote?

This is kind of bait and kind or a real question.
Voting is a way of informing the ruling elite of public unrest. The Republican drones might care about gay marriage, but the business owners don't care. If people were protesting on the street, the state would get the same message - we want change - and act in order to pacify the people. Social issue gains are merely the result of the ruling class shifting how it controls the people since it's older methods aren't working anymore.

It is not the act of voting but rather the symbolism behind it that has significance. Voting itself changes nothing that cannot be accomplished through means that do not legitimize the state.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I was wondering why this is?

What are communists trying to do? We are trying to seize the means of production and put them under worker control with our goal being a stateless classless society. Now I ask you why someone who wishes to destroy the state would participate in it? However, this is a division amongst communists. There are those who support using the state whether through elections or violent seizure of power. Then there are those who wish to create structures and organization to run production after the state has been destroyed.

Those who advocate voting people into office need to consider a number of things. The first and most important being that half of the american population doesn't vote (I don't know the percentages for other countries). You're going to have to organize millions of people to go to a voting booth and vote for your specific candidates. This is completely futile. Why organize people to do something that does not help them? Politicians are not workers, they do not benefit workers. Politicans are bueraucrats who are making a career.

The usual response is "what about voting in reforms." Again this is another pointless activity. Workers don't need politicans to make imediate economic reforms. They have the power to do this through the organizations they create (the same organizations that might lay the skeleton for a post capitalist society). Look at history for examples. The workers in the Spain didn't vote politicans in to get an 8 hour work day. They used their organizations (The CNT, other unions) to force the state to give it to them (general strikes, militancy). The same happened in the American northwest with loggers. They quit going to work after 8 hours. They did not spend years and years trying to vote in enough politicans to make a majority.

Electing a marxist/revolutionary/whatever into the government is also very difficult to do. You need a majority in the house and senate in order to make real reforms. This would take billions of dollars in campaign funding, etc. Why do all this? If you did elect those people into the government, they would be overthrown. Look what happened to Salvador Allended in Chile. The real question is why would you go through all that work when you could organize the working class with much less effort.


To me, what is conformist is letting other people choose leaders for you.

Why are you giving people power over you if you wish to create a society without hierarchy? Obviously production and communities can be run in a libertarian manner without hierarchy. My question is, as a communist, why would you choose not to do this?


I agree that all the canidates are pricks, but some are less...err.."prickley" than others. I think I would have rather had Gore and Kerry and than Bush. :/

Your thinking of things in an american political perspective, not a class analysis. Gore and Kerry and Bush are all apart of the bourgeois class. They are not "better" than each other. These "anti-war" democrats sure don't seem to be taking the steps to pull troops out of Iraq. Are you suprised? You shouldn't be because the bourgeois elect do not represent the proletariat. They are wealthy, liars, and enemies of the working class.


At this point in time a leaderless country is not an option. I think that attempting to get the lesser of the shitheads in power is the best solution of the moment.

What do you mean at this point in time? Of course it couldn't happen tomorrow. However, what you propose is that we forget about communism. You propose that voting for someone else from the bourgeois class will actually do something significant for workers.

I ask you, why spend your time doing this? The best solution at the moment is to overthrow this shit economic system and replace it with something better. Everyday you put off working to create organizations and networks to do this, workers lose.


Because if we would have settled for the "best of the worst", there's a huge chance would not be in Iraq right now and not be going through a lot of the shit this country is going through.

Umm, I don't see democrats making a bill to end the war in Iraq. But do you think Iraq actually means anything? The democrats don't normally propose armed action in order to maintain the US's imperialist interests in the world. Why? Because they'd rather do it with treaties and laws like NAFTA and CAFTA, the WTO, etc. Guess what, this leads to just as much economic devesation to workers as the war in Iraq does. In other words, workers don't win no matter the party in power.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Why are you giving people power over you if you wish to create a society without hierarchy?

Because, these people are going to have power. Whether I vote, whether you vote, these people are going to have power. And I'd rather have my choice of which is in power.


However, what you propose is that we forget about communism. You propose that voting for someone else from the bourgeois class will actually do something significant for workers.

No, I don't suggest that. Like I said early, voting might not get closer to communism, but does it get any further away? I don't think so. Like someone said earlier, more things that benefit communism are possible under a leftist government, even if it is the democrats.


I ask you, why spend your time doing this?

Err...I don't spend my time doing it. It would take about five minutes of my day. You could easily vote 'and' work to create organizations for the working class. It's not like you can only choose one.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Because, these people are going to have power. Whether I vote, whether you vote, these people are going to have power. And I'd rather have my choice of which is in power.

So instead of organizing to destroy their power, your legitimizing it?


but does it get any further away? I don't think so.

Yeah it does. The ammount of organization it would take to get a voting proletariat would be a step backwards. It would take so much time and effort towards something that is not revolutionary? Why do this? I've already made it clear workers don't need politicans to make immediate economic reforms.


Like someone said earlier, more things that benefit communism are possible under a leftist government, even if it is the democrats.

Governments have nothing to do with communism. Nor do the bourgeois political parties that run them.


You could easily vote 'and' work to create organizations for the working class. It's not like you can only choose one.

I'm not talking about you personally voting. I'm asking you how you plan to get the majority of proletarians who don't vote to vote.

[midnight marauder]

So instead of organizing to destroy their power, your legitimizing it?

What the origional statement said was that whether not you vote, the system is still there. And that's not going to change. That said, I'm still waiting for someone who's anti-voting as a concept to prove that governmental legitimacy exists, and that voting somehow supports it.

And I'm also waiting for the proof that voting and organizing are mutually exclusive.

And I'm still waiting for somoene to disprove voting under a different context of voting bringing about revolutionary change (does anyone still seriously still think that voting could ever be a catalyst for leftist revolution? brining it up almost seems like a total strawman among leftists now). The question is whether or not voting as a concept is ever worthwhile under a bourgeois democracy.

And no matter what type of "class based analysis" you have, is it really wise to utilize it when it ignores issues of what are clearly a matter of social heirarchy, ie, gay rights, for instance?

[Leo]

Hehe you don't really have to tell me about the economic situation, im well aware. Which is sorta why my politic and IMT for that matter has always been to call (and work for that matter) for the overthrow of capitalism.

Unfortunately, IMT's awareness of the economical situation go unnoticed because of the parroting of the Chavez regime.


On the surface one would never disagree with your sentiment, but then again it doesn't look on some very important part of whats happening in Venezuela. What ABOUT the bolivarian movement and the occupied factories.

Ah, yes, co-operativism, the various forms of co-management and self-management directly promoted by the parties and organs of the state and aimed at conferring a ‘proletarian’ character on the new government. In fact these co-operatives are merely a means of ideologically controlling the workers and to subject them to increasingly precarious working conditions. Oh, and no, they are not really original or anything, there are co-operatives in many places in the world.


And more importantly what would it lead you to do in the circumstances if you had anything to say on the matter? I think it would lead to the same conclusion as some of the UNT leaders, that is they tell the workers: "Venezuela is capitalist, therefore don't take over the means of production".

This doesn't make sense at all. What I say is something like this: "Venezuela is capitalist, so unite independently, do seize power, do take over the means of production, do establish the dictatorship of the proletariat."


I think the point must be to strenghten it, spread it and on this foundation build independent workingclass representation.

Why should we strengthen an anti-working class bourgeois regime? We want it to be overthrown it by "independent working class".


Because it doesn't come from just proclaming it or waiting for the textbook revolutionary situation to occur (and when has that happened?). That's why pessimism is so damaging, because it's the guide to no action at all.

Then maybe you should tell 18,000 workers fired and struggling to live now because of liberal policies conducted by Chavez not to be pessimistic because a "textbook revolutionary situation" won't occur.


I would advise everyone spueing out this ultraleftist onscense to read about these venezuelan workers fighting for workers control and the nationalisation of there factory.

:lol: Haha, nationalization! Ah, priceless...

[Leo]

Hehe you don't really have to tell me about the economic situation, im well aware. Which is sorta why my politic and IMT for that matter has always been to call (and work for that matter) for the overthrow of capitalism.

Unfortunately, IMT's awareness of the economical situation go unnoticed because of the parroting of the Chavez regime.


On the surface one would never disagree with your sentiment, but then again it doesn't look on some very important part of whats happening in Venezuela. What ABOUT the bolivarian movement and the occupied factories.

Ah, yes, co-operativism, the various forms of co-management and self-management directly promoted by the parties and organs of the state and aimed at conferring a ‘proletarian’ character on the new government. In fact these co-operatives are merely a means of ideologically controlling the workers and to subject them to increasingly precarious working conditions. Oh, and no, they are not really original or anything, there are co-operatives in many places in the world.


And more importantly what would it lead you to do in the circumstances if you had anything to say on the matter? I think it would lead to the same conclusion as some of the UNT leaders, that is they tell the workers: "Venezuela is capitalist, therefore don't take over the means of production".

This doesn't make sense at all. What I say is something like this: "Venezuela is capitalist, so unite independently, do seize power, do take over the means of production, do establish the dictatorship of the proletariat."


I think the point must be to strenghten it, spread it and on this foundation build independent workingclass representation.

Why should we strengthen an anti-working class bourgeois regime? We want it to be overthrown it by "independent working class".


Because it doesn't come from just proclaming it or waiting for the textbook revolutionary situation to occur (and when has that happened?). That's why pessimism is so damaging, because it's the guide to no action at all.

Then maybe you should tell 18,000 workers fired and struggling to live now because of liberal policies conducted by Chavez not to be pessimistic because a "textbook revolutionary situation" won't occur.


I would advise everyone spueing out this ultraleftist onscense to read about these venezuelan workers fighting for workers control and the nationalisation of there factory.

:lol: Haha, nationalization! Ah, priceless...

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:07 pm
That was before the paris commune
no, it was one year after, in 1872 i believe.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 08:04 am
Because, these people are going to have power. Whether I vote, whether you vote, these people are going to have power. And I'd rather have my choice of which is in power.


say,if this "people with power" has won the election, do your life changed by that power? does the power give a real benefit to you and your family (if you or your family is a bureaucrat, i bet it&#39;s benefit enough)? and why did you didn&#39;t answer my questions at the first page of this thread? <_<

[Louis Pio]

Unfortunately, IMT&#39;s awareness of the economical situation go unnoticed because of the parroting of the Chavez regime.


Yes parroting is of course to fight and build independent working class representation ad support the movement of occupied factories in latin america...
It seems you have confused calling for a vote for Chavez with parroting, I don&#39;t blame you, it&#39;s hard dealing with real life from an ultraleft ivory tower.


Ah, yes, co-operativism, the various forms of co-management and self-management directly promoted by the parties and organs of the state and aimed at conferring a ‘proletarian’ character on the new government. In fact these co-operatives are merely a means of ideologically controlling the workers and to subject them to increasingly precarious working conditions. Oh, and no, they are not really original or anything, there are co-operatives in many places in the world.


No my thickheaded friend. And if you had been sincere you would know that. Im talking about factories like Sanatarios Maracay. As you would know if you had botherd reading our articles before you attack us you would know we have pointed out the mistakes made in regards to companies such Inveval or Invetex and are fighting to change it. Co-operatives is exactly not solving the problem, that&#39;s correct.


This doesn&#39;t make sense at all. What I say is something like this: "Venezuela is capitalist, so unite independently, do seize power, do take over the means of production, do establish the dictatorship of the proletariat."


You might say it in theory. But your politics are not aimed at this. It&#39;s result is alieanting the workers from you. In russia the bolshevics told the menshevics "you have power, use it to destroy capitalism". We have said the same, but unlike some revolutionaries, we don&#39;t stop at words. But work actively to accomplish socialism. You don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to chavez, that&#39;s just dreams.


Why should we strengthen an anti-working class bourgeois regime? We want it to be overthrown it by "independent working class".


But you only want to build independent working class representation if it follows exactly your ideas, that&#39;s just secterian. The current Venezuelan system has a very 2 sided caracter, as could be seen in the elections. People don&#39;t bother voting for parliament because they see the people there as careerists opposed to them. Whereas the presendential election is something totally different.


Then maybe you should tell 18,000 workers fired and struggling to live now because of liberal policies conducted by Chavez not to be pessimistic because a "textbook revolutionary situation" won&#39;t occur.


No, I would tell them to take over the factory themselves and run production since we don&#39;t need the capitalists for that. While pointing out that we need the whole system to change for that to be a viable sollution. While you would stand somewere on the sideline calling but recieving no answers.


Haha, nationalization&#33; Ah, priceless...

The only thing that&#39;s prizeless is your refusal to do anything. :rolleyes:

[Leo]

Yes parroting is of course to fight and build independent working class representation ad support the movement of occupied factories in latin america...

I&#39;m sorry but I think I saw that "Hands of Venezuela(&#39;s Imperialism)" link in your link. And independent representation? Not in the bourgeois government, I hope, because if you think anything like that is possible, I will doubt your sanity.


It seems you have confused calling for a vote for Chavez with parroting

I don&#39;t think all you do is to innocently call for a vote.


I don&#39;t blame you, it&#39;s hard dealing with real life from an ultraleft ivory tower.

:lol: LOL&#33;


russia the bolshevics told the menshevics "you have power, use it to destroy capitalism".

I think in Russia the Bolsheviks told the Mensheviks "fuck you" and... well, then initially ended either conscripting, banishing or killing them.


We have said the same, but unlike some revolutionaries, we don&#39;t stop at words. But work actively to accomplish socialism. You don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to chavez, that&#39;s just dreams.

Yeah, cause the road to socialism passes from sucking up to bourgeois statesmen, because "you don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to them, that&#39;s just dreams". Nice one...


But you only want to build independent working class representation if it follows exactly your ideas, that&#39;s just secterian.

What I want is not just independent representation, what I want is dictatorship, the dictatorship of the working class to be specific.


No, I would tell them to take over the factory themselves and run production since we don&#39;t need the capitalists for that.

But you don&#39;t tell them to take power, because obviously "you don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to Chavez". That&#39;s reformism, plain and simple. The factory doesn&#39;t mean anything to us as long as we are not in power, it is completely alienated. The whole slogan of "seize the factory" comes from the formal hegemony of capital, where production was done on a more craft based scale; with a much lower division of labor, workers actually had more control over production, as alienated as it was, it meant something. Now, the division of labor reached to such a point because of serial production that workers do the same thing, putting a button on a shoe for example, say, for fifteen hours - of course only for the money. What would a worker actually gain running production in that factory? First, workers can establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, only then managing the factories would actually mean something and in fact be possible.


While pointing out that we need the whole system to change for that to be a viable sollution.

Ah, so you "point out" that but just go for the reforms. Reminds me of Kautsky actually. I wonder when the Trotskyist movement will get its Bernstein to theoretize embracing only reformism and abandoning pointing out that "we need the whole system to change".

[cumbia]

Nothing is ever good enough for communist.

[Louis Pio]

I&#39;m sorry but I think I saw that "Hands of Venezuela(&#39;s Imperialism)" link in your link. And independent representation? Not in the bourgeois government, I hope, because if you think anything like that is possible, I will doubt your sanity

I don&#39;t talk about any representation in bourgios governments, you must somehow imagine things.
But yes defending Venezuela against US/Spanish or whatever imperialism should be a task for anyone claming any "leftism". Or you don&#39;t support national right to self determination?


I think in Russia the Bolsheviks told the Mensheviks "fuck you" and... well, then initially ended either conscripting, banishing or killing them.


:rolleyes: As i said the bolshevics attitude to the menshevics was "you have power now use it to end the war and give the workers power". They won over quite a few of the rank and file menshevics exactly because they didn&#39;t take a ultraleft position in regards to them. And they certainly didn&#39;t hurl insults of "social fascist" at them like you would.


Yeah, cause the road to socialism passes from sucking up to bourgeois statesmen, because "you don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to them, that&#39;s just dreams". Nice one...


Actually a conversation in the barrios would be quite short if you started with "let&#39;s get rid of Chavez", in reality that would be siding with the oligarchs, and I think people have more pressing matters than getting rid of the figure that started the whole process.


But you don&#39;t tell them to take power, because obviously "you don&#39;t reach the mass of workers by putting yourself in the camp in opposition to Chavez".

Now this is just stupid. Let&#39;s see what we actually have written on the subject


After the great victory of December 3, Revolution within the Revolution yes, Conciliation No&#33;
By Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria - venezuela.elmilitante.org
Thursday, 07 December 2006
Let us build socialism by expropriating the capitalists and creating a genuinely revolutionary state
Statement of the Revolutionary Marxist Current

The victory of President Chavez on December 3 was the biggest and clearest in the revolutionary process and in the whole history of Venezuela. Never has a revolution that proposes to advance towards socialism obtained so much support on the electoral front. As the President himself said tonight from the "People&#39; Balcony", it was a vote for him but it was also a vote to speed up the pace of the revolution and to urgently tackle in a decisive manner the main problems that the workers and poor continue to face. It was a conscious vote for socialism.

A conscious vote against capitalism and for socialism
This overwhelming victory is the best reply that could be given to the counter-revolution and to imperialism, who despise the people and believed that by exploiting the internal contradictions that still exist within our revolution and by promising a few peanuts in the form of the Mi Negra credit card (an empty, fraudulent promise) they could fool the people. It is also a reply to all those who say that the people is still not sufficiently mature and conscious, that we are not ready, that socialism, the expropriations and the radicalisation of the revolution would make us lose votes. It is precisely the opposite: only by showing the whole of the people that we are prepared to take the revolution to the end and solve their problems, can we keep and continue to expand this enormous support that the Venezuelan people has given to President Chavez&#39;s proposal that the Bolivarian revolution should move forward towards socialism.

But this movement forward, we can only achieve by breaking the control that the capitalists still have over the Venezuelan economy, which they use to sabotage all the revolutionary and progressive policies that the President tries to carry out. Together with this it is absolutely necessary to put an immediate end - as the President stated on the "People&#39; Balcony" - to the "bureaucratic counter-revolution", that fifth column which every day tries to slow down and divert the revolution, stopping us workers and the people from having real power, and that corruption that is a political, social and moral cancer for any revolution.

Faced with the reformist sectors who praise the supposed maturity and democratic will of Rosales and who call for negotiations to be opened with him, we must be clear: If the counter-revolution and imperialism did not come out with all guns blazing on December 3, this is not because they have accepted the revolution, or that their intentions have changed, or because suddenly they have decided to respect the constitution, to "enter into "dialogue" and to abide by democratic procedures. It was the decisive and massive mobilisation of the people, and only this - first on Sunday, November 26, in reply to the counter-revolutionary march of the previous day on November 25, and then throughout the whole following week and on the day of the elections itself - that forced the counter-revolution to put its plans on the back burner (for now&#33;).

Once again, it was the people from below, with its revolutionary instinct and mobilisations, that left it absolutely clear that if they dared move, the revolutionary hurricane would sweep them away. It was only the fear that an open confrontation could lead to a radicalisation of the revolution, that could threaten their control over the economy, that lead the decisive sectors of the bourgeoisie and of imperialism to force their candidate Rosales to adopt a different counter-revolutionary strategy.

The counter-revolution put on the velvet glove
To congratulate Rosales he has accepted (or at least he seems to have) the defeat and even more so to actually negotiate with him, means to "clean up" the image of these counter-revolutionaries, who would not hesitate to crush and oppress us if they had the strength. Rosales was the first to come out with statement about the famous blank voting papers, sowing doubt and attempting to introduce elements of destabilisation. Only once he and his imperialist masters realised that this tactic could actually work against their own class interests did they decide to change strategy.

Their strategy continues to be the same, but they have had to change its form and the tempo. Their aim is to continue deceiving a section of their social base and keep it mobilised so as to launch a counter-revolutionary offensive in the medium term. They will try to combine a policy of negotiation with the right wing sectors of the Bolivarian movement in order to put a brake on the revolution together with economic sabotage and slanders, with the aim of sowing doubt about the revolution both in Venezuela and internationally, and to stop it being a point of reference for the exploited of the world. Their aim, so long as they do not have sufficient strength to defeat the revolution openly, is to put a brake on it and to divert it away from its anti-capitalist objectives. Their aim is to demoralise a section of the masses which would then allow them to go back onto the offensive. But the balance of forces is so favourable [to the revolution] at the moment that they would only be able to achieve this if we allow them to by lowering our guard and if we don&#39;t take advantage of this new opportunity to complete the revolution by expropriating the capitalists.

No pacts and no concessions to the right wing&#33;
Only through the expropriation of the capitalists can Venezuela be free, sovereign and socialist&#33;
The only possible road for the Bolivarian revolution is to declare war on corruption and the bureaucratic counterrevolution, to declare war on capitalism and poverty, as proclaimed by President Chavez. The way forward is to continue doing what we have been doing over the last few days: to act quickly, with decision and forcefulness. The way forward was shown by the 20,000 peasants who took to the streets of Caracas two weeks ago, called out by the "Ezequiel Zamora" National Peasant Front in support of Chavez and in favour of a "Zamora agenda", which would see the launching of a war on the landlords and the expropriation of the landowners in order to give the land to the peasants. The road forward is the road followed by the workers of Sanitarios Maracay, who, faced with the decision of the boss, the pro-coup Pocaterra, to close the factory, decided to occupy it and run it under workers&#39; control, managed by a Factory Council composed of representatives, elected and recallable by the workers&#39; assembly. The factory is now selling its goods at solidarity prices to the communities of Maracay. The way forward is that proposed by the Revolution Front of Occupied Factories (FRETECO): to advance revolutionary co-management towards workers&#39; control. Expropriations like those of Invepal and Inveval should be carried out throughout the rest of the economy. The banks must be nationalised, and the large companies and the land must be placed under the control of the workers and the people.

One man alone cannot take the revolution down this road. The organisation and mobilisation, and the unity of action of the revolutionary masses is required from below to carry out the tasks of the revolution and to defeat the resistance of the bureaucracy and the capitalists. The Revolutionary Marxist Current participated in united action with other revolutionary organisations and social movements in the Popular Contingency Plan "Oligarchs Tremble". This united action must continue in order to advance the revolution to the expropriation of the capitalists and in order to establish a revolutionary state.

The main threat to the revolution at this time is the conciliation that a sector of the leadership of the movement, who do not believe in socialism nor the people, want to impose on us. These leaders view with panic the victories of the revolution - like the one we just achieved in the elections - because they create such enthusiasm among the masses and a desire to push the revolution to the end, which puts the privileges and power of these leaders into question. These leaders argue that the support for Rosales shows that a high percentage of the population are opposed to the revolution and are opposed to socialism. They argue that we must continue putting the brakes on the revolution. Lies&#33; The support for socialism is higher than the 56% received in 1998 for the end of the IV Republic. With these arguments the Bolivarian revolution would never have begun. Only by showing the world, including the middle class, that socialism is not an abstraction but the only concrete solution to the problems of the people, can we win.

The main companies of the country must be placed in the hands of the state. And the state cannot remain in the hands of the bureaucracy, but must be placed in the hands of the working class and organised working people as a whole. In this way the economy can be democratically planned and the problems of poverty, unemployment, lack of housing can be solved. We must finish our work and take the revolution to the end. This means we must concretise the strategic proposals of President Chavez, which have the massive support of the people, in a transitional socialist programme which can solve the fundamental problems of the country. The CMR believes that some of the central points of this programme must be:

- Decent jobs, health, housing, and education for all. All capitalist laws must be replaced with socialist laws which will guarantee the rights of the workers and the people.

- For the expropriation and nationalisation of all closed and idle factories and companies in crisis under the control of the workers. The banks, the large national and international monopolies, as well as the land, must also be nationalised under workers&#39; control.

- For a national democratic economic plan to be drawn up by the elected and recallable representatives of each neighbourhood and workplace, to solve all pressing social problems.

- For the expropriation of the construction companies and the necessary infrastructure to carry out Misión Vivienda (affordable housing project) under the control of the workers and the people.

- For the introduction of workers&#39; control in private enterprises to struggle against sabotage, speculation, etc.

- Against corruption and bureaucracy: for the election and right of recall of all public positions, for the rotation of all bureaucratic tasks, and no public official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.

- Social control of the Misiones exercised by elected and recallable representatives. For the establishment of a state monopoly of foreign trade to guarantee the sovereignty of the country.

December 5, 2006

And you can continue yourself if you want, lot&#39;s of articles shatering your ridicilous claims http://www.marxist.com/venezuela_gen_analysis.htm

[Louis Pio]

But of course it depends on wether or not you see it as a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation is as I see it when the masses take they destiny into their own hands and try to change it actively, to put it very short.
I would love to hear your definition.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+December 19, 2006 06:02 am--> (knight of cydonia @ December 19, 2006 06:02 am)
[email protected] 19, 2006 08:04 am
Because, these people are going to have power. Whether I vote, whether you vote, these people are going to have power. And I&#39;d rather have my choice of which is in power.


say,if this "people with power" has won the election, do your life changed by that power? does the power give a real benefit to you and your family (if you or your family is a bureaucrat, i bet it&#39;s benefit enough)? and why did you didn&#39;t answer my questions at the first page of this thread? <_< [/b]
Sorry, I missed it.


1. in which country do you live and do you vote?
2. when you&#39;ve done vote, do your life change into a better life as the one you vote for is winning the vote?

I live in America, and although I&#39;m not old enough to vote in most of the big elections, I can still vote on local issues around my town.

Yes, me voting has had positive effect on me. For example, recently Morgan Stanley (a company that builds additions/housing subdivisions) was trying to build a housing addition in my town. My town&#39;s population is a little less than 2000. What MS was proposing was to bring in a housing complex with an estimated population of nearly 1000 people. My town has a gas station, a small market, and a bank. The building at which I attend high school is used for elementary, jr. high, and high school. That&#39;s how small the student body is. 80 people in my graduating class. I huge rise in population all at once (which is what they were planning) would be devistating. So, the town council held a vote for whether or not to allow MS to build this huge thing all at once (this vote was made possible because MS breached something in their contract, so the town could potentially do away with them). I voted to deny it, and in the end they were in fact denied access to build it. They&#39;re now working on a contract that would allow them to build it gradually over the course of the next few years. Which is what most everybody wanted.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:10 am
I live in America, and although I&#39;m not old enough to vote in most of the big elections, I can still vote on local issues around my town.

Yes, me voting has had positive effect on me. For example, recently Morgan Stanley (a company that builds additions/housing subdivisions) was trying to build a housing addition in my town. My town&#39;s population is a little less than 2000. What MS was proposing was to bring in a housing complex with an estimated population of nearly 1000 people. My town has a gas station, a small market, and a bank. The building at which I attend high school is used for elementary, jr. high, and high school. That&#39;s how small the student body is. 80 people in my graduating class. I huge rise in population all at once (which is what they were planning) would be devistating. So, the town council held a vote for whether or not to allow MS to build this huge thing all at once (this vote was made possible because MS breached something in their contract, so the town could potentially do away with them). I voted to deny it, and in the end they were in fact denied access to build it. They&#39;re now working on a contract that would allow them to build it gradually over the course of the next few years. Which is what most everybody wanted.

so, it is gave benefit for you (the vote) as for me.... those fucking politician in my country just gave us an empty promises at their campaign which is never be realize at all when their won the election... damn... <_<

EDIT: that&#39;s why i never vote for anyone...you ask for anti voting, why? those are my reasons

[Leo]

But yes defending Venezuela against US/Spanish or whatever imperialism should be a task for anyone claming any "leftism". Or you don&#39;t support national right to self determination?

Of course I don&#39;t support "national right to self determination", workers have no country, nation is a farce.


Actually a conversation in the barrios would be quite short if you started with "let&#39;s get rid of Chavez", in reality that would be siding with the oligarchs

Chavez is an "oligarch"

[Vargha Poralli]

so, it is gave benefit for you (the vote) as for me.... those fucking politician in my country just gave us an empty promises at their campaign which is never be realize at all when their won the election... damn... dry.gif

EDIT: that&#39;s why i never vote for anyone...you ask for anti voting, why? those are my reasons


The same problem here too. But in recent election in the country I live(India -2004) I specifically went out and voted for the opposition Congress just to give a big slap on the face of the then ruling BJP which made a high profile campaign of "India shining" because of their privitasition drive. It had some effects on current congress govt., which had slowed down the privatisations which was started by itself when it was in power. But downright overthrowing of Bourgeoisie in India will take time since and will not be achieved until the people mistake Marxism for the Stalinists(CPI and CPI(M)) who didn&#39;t had Backbone to carry out revolution when they had a chance and Maoists(a dozen of them) who didn&#39;t had the Brains to carry out efficiently when they had a chance.

[Louis Pio]

Ok I thought you had some pretence of being leninist, I didn&#39;t know it wasn&#39;t so, my mistake.
Still I think the defense of "less developed" (or what term we should use) countries against imperialism is a cause worth fighting. We have all seen how imperialism smashes unions and put&#39;s in it&#39;s place it&#39;s own croonies. Also anti-imperialist struggles can lead to the socialist struggle to abolish capitalism, since in these countries the local capitalists are bound up with the foreign imperialists, therefore the logical conclusion to the struggle is to get rid of them all alltogether.

Your definition of an oligarch seems to come from delussions of some sort, stay of the drugs mate.

[Leo]

Still I think the defense of "less developed" (or what term we should use) countries against imperialism is a cause worth fighting.

So you think workers from "less developed" countries are not good enough for genuine communist movement and as long as an exploiter opposes the imperialists in the west from there. Well, as a communist proletarian from a "less developed" country, I&#39;ve heard this so many times that I&#39;m sick of it. The working class does exist in the "less developed" countries, so does an imperialist bourgeoisie and class conflict. Capitalism is a global system and has been for a very long time. The task of the working class in the "less developed" countries is not lining up behind the nation flag. It is the same with the working class everywhere: abolishing capitalism.


Also anti-imperialist struggles can lead to the socialist struggle to abolish capitalism

Unfortunately that never happened. When communists try to work with nationalists in national liberation wars, they got massacred, among with workers.

[Louis Pio]

So you think workers from "less developed" countries are not good enough for genuine communist movement and as long as an exploiter opposes the imperialists in the west from there. Well, as a communist proletarian from a "less developed" country, I&#39;ve heard this so many times that I&#39;m sick of it. The working class does exist in the "less developed" countries, so does an imperialist bourgeoisie and class conflict. Capitalism is a global system and has been for a very long time. The task of the working class in the "less developed" countries is not lining up behind the nation flag. It is the same with the working class everywhere: abolishing capitalism.


We agree mostly, it&#39;s just the last lines. Im not talking about lining up behind the national flag but from the platform of the struggle against imperialism advancing it to wards socialism, by reaching the rank and file of that struggle.


Unfortunately that never happened. When communists try to work with nationalists in national liberation wars, they got massacred, among with workers.

It&#39;s a long discussion. But in Iran for example the problem was not the fight against the shah and imperialism. But that the Tudeh party in this fight didn&#39;t put forward an independent working class line but just bowed down to Khomeini. Lots of other examples.

Btw the first link in your sig doesn&#39;t work.

[Leo]

We agree mostly, it&#39;s just the last lines. Im not talking about lining up behind the national flag but from the platform of the struggle against imperialism advancing it to wards socialism, by reaching the rank and file of that struggle.

But unfortunately, "the platform of the struggle against (yankee) imperialism" usually means the same thing with lining up behind the national flag, although it really shouldn&#39;t. It is important for communists in all countries to realize that the enemy is in their country first. Any unity of the workers with the bourgeoisie is against the interests of the proletariat.


It&#39;s a long discussion. But in Iran for example the problem was not the fight against the shah and imperialism. But that the Tudeh party in this fight didn&#39;t put forward an independent working class line but just bowed down to Khomeini. Lots of other examples.

Well, yes - obviously. The thing is, communists should have never worked with Khomeini, he was a very reactionary and nationalist leader, and the aim of his movement was clearly becoming the new rulers of the country, that was the problem. Of course opposing shah was not the problem, supporting "Iranian imperialism" against "American imperialism" was the problem. All other examples of national "liberation" movements ended similarly: communists and workers got massacred and the national bourgeoisie took power. National "liberation" is, after all, their game, and it&#39;s their imperialist ambitions to control variable capital (labor power) and constant capital (raw materials and means of production) that create mass capital and their struggles against other imperialists who want to control or don&#39;t want to lose the control of constant and variable capital in a certain area. Yes, this is a very long and deep discussion, which goes into the whole nature of imperialism.


Btw the first link in your sig doesn&#39;t work.

Yes, unfortunately it doesn&#39;t. We are building a new website, the old site was only temporary. If you are interested in reading our texts, PM me your e-mail adress and I&#39;ll send them to you.

[Human-o-matic]

Oh...seriously...cut off the dogmatic shit...

Truly, this narrow-mindedness isn&#39;t going to get anyone anywhere, see...first of all, there ARE good people in the "system" that you guys insist you don&#39;t want to "legitimize"....of course they&#39;re the VAST minority and the ones of them who appeals to the masses(and consequently elected) are even fewer, here in Brasil for example...while our national congress is a ridiculously corrupted aberration (for example, it just approved a raise of 90% in their already HIGH wages out of nowhere) there was one socialist group who voted against this absurd burglary. The republican system(i&#39;m NOT talking about the political party) CAN be used for good, of course it&#39;s FAR from the ideal since it&#39;s susceptibility to major corruption is undeniable...and...well...it just sucks too.

My second point is that "legitimize the system" is dogmatic...see... like 300 persons said, imagine if Gore had won the elections for example, well, then the stupid Iraqi war could have not existed, plus you don&#39;t have to resign of your "revolutionary overthrow" or whatever it is just because you voted...you can have gains from both of the margins of the river, i mean...you can spare the life of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis(just for example) while you fight against the still-corrupt system. Seriously, Kerry and Gore can be bourgeoises etc but Bush & cohorts are just too blatantly imoral to be accepted as presidents. I seriously think that saving the life of , like i said, hundreds and hundreds of persons is more important than being worried about if you are legitimizing the fucking system of not....of course either Kerry or Gore would kill a lot of persons as well as is characteristic of capitalism but...Bush...oh my god. Just making clear , i&#39;m talking all of this in a north-american(forgive me the mexicans and canadians, i just don&#39;t know another gentilic <_< ) perspective because it&#39;s extreme...so it&#39;s easier to understand what i&#39;m trying to say...i know everybody knows this but i feel better if i make it clear :D

You guys got to be more realistic...a "revolutionary overthrown" in a big burgeoise country isn&#39;t going to happen anywhere soon...so let&#39;s just stop the murderous beasts from taking the power.

[lithium]

Just had a quick flick through some of the replies on the first page..

I do agree that voting when you want an immediate change is useless. But let&#39;s say some of the candidate that come up are Socialists, would it not be good to vote for them? [I reckon if I ever went up for election I&#39;d be pushing to left all over the place&#33;]

I reckon it depends on where you live. If there are Socialists running for election, contact them, talk to them, sort them out, and then vote for them if you think they&#39;re up for it. It may be a slow process to eventually lead to a true Communist society but imo if there&#39;s no bloodshed it might just be worth it. Again, it depends on the political situation on your region/country/whatever.

But for me, when the Irish general election comes up next year I&#39;ll have my red marker to spoil my vote with a big Hammer and Sickle. A spoiled vote counts as a vote, but it just doesn&#39;t go to any of the parties involved... So if you really don&#39;t approve of anyone in your next election, I say spoil it instead of not voting at all; media coverage saying "thousands of voters coloured their ballot in red with a Hammer and Sickle" would be much better than "voters didn&#39;t turn up at all".

Just my couple of cents..

[Pink TnT]

Good to vote for Socialist candidates: No, for a couple of reasons.

1) Capital &#39;S&#39; "Socialists" would either be Social Democrats or authoritarian socialists.

2) Socialist electoralism is pretty ineffective in that the State is bourgeois, so the effectiveness of a socialist politician is limited to capitalist framework.

3) It&#39;s petite bourgeois, basically.

Anyway, despite that, I&#39;d vote for the Green Party or for the Socialist Party in Montana, being a "safe" state.

On the voting issue, it seems to make little sense to advocate abstension from voting. A Communist who doesn&#39;t want to vote is essentially a Republican to the extent that she is ineffective outside the political sphere. Our actions and inactions have social consequences. So, if a radical leftist decides not to vote, her impact on people&#39;s lives had better be real and substantial, otherwise her moral posturing proves to be more harmful than good.

I think that a better stance from an intellectual standpoint is to vote, but abstain from electoral advocacy (letters to the editor supporting this or that candidate, get out the vote campaigns and so on). It takes almost zero time to vote, and even though it makes little difference, its benefits outweigh the costs. Meanwhile, direct action will always be more effective than electoral advocacy, that is, its benefits outweigh its costs, so it is the best action to take.

So, basically, "direct action and voting" is the answer, not "direct action" or "voting."

[Ander]

Originally posted by Human&#045;o&#045;matic+--> (Human&#045;o&#045;matic)here in Brasil for example[/b]

Oi cara, onde você mora no Brasil?


Human&#045;o&#045;matic
there was one socialist group who voted against this absurd burglary.

I assume you&#39;re talking about PSOL?

[Pandii]

Voting, is useless.
If it isn&#39;t going to generate profit, then it&#39;s not going to to be accepted.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 03:14 pm
Voting, is useless.
If it isn&#39;t going to generate profit, then it&#39;s not going to to be accepted.
agree :D

why are we vote for someone that will forget about his "promises" that he said in the campaign anyway?otherwise,the election for the politician is just a "way" for them for being rich by the help of the people who vote for them.

[Morpheus]

See my article Elections are a Scam (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/voting.html). It should be noted that some communist do vote, although I think they&#39;re mistaken. Mostly its Marxists who vote, while anarchist/libertarian communists don&#39;t but there are exceptions.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:06 pm
Nothing is ever good enough for communist.
Restrict?

[Human-o-matic]

Originally posted by Jello+December 21, 2006 05:38 am--> (Jello &#064; December 21, 2006 05:38 am)
Human&#045;o&#045;matic
here in Brasil for example

Oi cara, onde você mora no Brasil?[/b]
Desculpa a demora pra responder, passei um tempo fora etc =P, mas então...moro em Salvador, e você?(a propósito, encontrei esse tópico meio que por acaso, eu tava revirando o fórum e encontrei ele =P, tenho que aprender a usar as ferramentas disso aqui :D )



I assume you&#39;re talking about PSOL?
Exactly

[Human-o-matic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 08:14 am
Voting, is useless.
If it isn&#39;t going to generate profit, then it&#39;s not going to to be accepted.
Mostly, however this is at least a very loose statement, things are not that simple.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Cyanide [email protected] 18, 2006 03:57 am
Because if we would have settled for the "best of the worst", there&#39;s a huge chance would not be in Iraq right now and not be going through a lot of the shit this country is going through. As much as you want to deny that you live Capitalistic America, you do. And what happens and what decisions the leaders make is important, so for the sake of man-kind you should get over your personal beef with voting.
A huge chance we wouldn&#39;t be in Iraq? Comrade, you are living in an imaginary world. Do you not realize that Democrats are responsible for The Korean War, The Vietnam War, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.... Clinton was bombing Iraq in the 90&#39;s. Clinton put sanctions on Iraq that didn&#39;t affect Saddam. The sanctions made the innocent people of the country poorer. Have you ever looked at the legislation that Clinton pushed? Did you know that nafta, one of the worst policies for workers, was championed by Clinton?

Just take a look at the records of Democrats and you will see that they are hardly the lesser of two evils. JFK had the Bay of Pigs. How is that a lesser of two evils? Here is the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton pushed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

It says that the USA ought to support regime change in Iraq any way possible. Now is that evidence that Gore wouldn&#39;t have went into Iraq? This was on the board already. The Democrats and Republicans are the same party. I don&#39;t see how any "leftist" can&#39;t see this. Here is Bil Clinton&#39;s record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#...on_and_programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs)

[Ander]

Originally posted by Human&#045;o&#045;matic
Desculpa a demora pra responder, passei um tempo fora etc =P, mas então...moro em Salvador, e você?(a propósito, encontrei esse tópico meio que por acaso, eu tava revirando o fórum e encontrei ele =P, tenho que aprender a usar as ferramentas disso aqui :D )

Eu moro em Brasilia <_<

Sobre o PSOL, nao sei muito sobre eles e queria saber se vale a pena discutir-los ou se eram simplismente reformistas. Voce sabe algo disso?

(Me desculpe se você nao pose entender meu portugues. Estou morando aqui apenas um ano e meio e as vezes tenho dificuldades me expressando em portugues.)