Voting

[Fodman]

I turned 18 on sunday, and so i am now eligible to vote.

However the thought occurred to me that, would it be hypocritical of someone like me (a syndicalist) to participate in voting for bourgeois leaders?

Would the only type of voting that would be right for me be purely down to pragmatic reasons and/or as a protest vote?

your thoughts...

[Rawthentic]

I would say don't vote, and explain to your fellow workers why not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm all for that trend of lower voter turnouts, too. One more thing: if there is even one "communist" party on the ballot, STILL DO NOT VOTE!

[Lower voter turnouts -> more Big Business-dominated governments -> intensification of economic and political conflicts worldwide]

[midnight marauder]

na man, i don't think it'd be hypocritical at all.

voting isn't ever going to accomplish type of change we want, when we want it, how we want it, and to the extent that we want it. i think that's a given.

but certainly throughout history there are countless examples of when it has improved the quality of life of our people.

the tendency on the left i think it is to denounce it as being reformist and legitimizing, but i don't have any problem with comrades voting anymore.

here's a few quotes from me in some earlier threads on the issue:


[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.


I'm still waiting for the proof that advocating short term reforms and being a revolutionary are mutually exclusive. Of course we need to be out in the streets, of course we need to unionize and organize ourselves, and of course we need to behave a geniune revolutionaries.

After all, revolutionary periods don't just happen; we as revolutionary leftists make them happen!

So the question then becomes: if a revolution isn't happening at the moment, and I would say that it isn't in the States, should we completely withdraw from the system?

I recognize fully that the Democratic party, the Republican party, and any of the other frivolous political groups do not exist to protect my best intrest. They are the human representations of everything we oppose. They're our enemies.

But does that mean that they can't ever accomplish anything?

I mean, do the posters here on the other side of the issue deny that any progress can be made in terms of voting?

I mean, to put it in perspective, here in my city we have a few things on the ballot. If I could, I know full well that I'd vote on certain issues: increasing the minimum wage (!), voting down the ban on stem cell research, and voting down the ban on smoking in public. The rest of the proposals as far as I can tell aren't important, but these issues I feel compelled to fight for. Even if that means using the system.

After all, like I've posted before, the ruling classes in our societies are going to exist whether we vote for them or not, so it strikes me as being counterintuitive to assume that by pulling out completely will accomplish anything "revolutionary."

those i think came from http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60341&hl= and prolly some other threads. there's good debate in them so you might be interested in skimming thru both sides of the issue.

in the end, voting can never be an excuse for organizing, protesting, and in general, revolutionary activity. But it can have some success in some instances, and in those instances, i for one am all for it.

[midnight marauder]

[Lower voter turnouts -> more Big Business-dominated governments -> intensification of economic and political conflicts worldwide]

then why not speed up the process and just vote for every reactionary bill and politician on the docket? :rolleyes:

[JRR883]

If you ask me, it's hypocritical to advocate worker control of the means of production but vote for people whose interests lie in the preservation of private property.

I vote on referendums, but nothing else.

EDIT: Scratch that; I voted for a proletarian for governor, simply because he was a proponent of worker-controlled farms and would give them tax breaks, would put solar panels and a greenhouse in the capitol building, and he rode his bike EVERYWHERE (except for trips, where he uses his biodiesel-fueled Volvo). Of course, he didn't win, but he definitely had the working class at heart.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:58 am

[Lower voter turnouts -> more Big Business-dominated governments -> intensification of economic and political conflicts worldwide]

then why not speed up the process and just vote for every reactionary bill and politician on the docket? :rolleyes:
^yeh the thread about Ron Paul (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66502) really made me think about it - especially when Alex (BurnTheOliveTree) mentioned that he may vote for Ron Paul for pragmatic reasons

thank you for your comments :)

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I think if it were something like a vote that would essentially decide whether a war would end or not (ie McGovern vs Nixon in 1968) or a referendum, it's worth participating in.

[bezdomni]

I vote on referendums, but never for candidates.

[Demogorgon]

If you live in a country with proportional representation and viable socialist/communist parties you ought to vote. If you live somewhere like America I don't see the point.

[apathy maybe]

Don't vote, you'll only encourage them.

Don't vote, a politician will get in.

Whoever wins, we lose.



Voting perpetuates a system of inequality, those who govern, and those who are governed. Not only are you being ruled over, but you are forced to chose your rulers. How degrading. Because there have been a number of threads on this topic in the past, I cannot be fucked adding any more.

[Luís Henrique]

Who are the candidates?

There are two State-parties in the US, never vote for either. If it is a third party, is it a bourgeois party?

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

Gravel on health care and assurance. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyW7y0hq8XQ&mode=related&search=)Voting in America has some serious problems. Especially because most don't vote. And most who don't vote are those who've become apolitical or disgusted by politics. The people who really need change are the people who lost faith in voting.

Mike Gravel sounds fun. Gravel on voting. (http://www.gravel2008.us/national_initiative) Too bad he's with the democrats :( .

Mike Gravel (1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA)
Mike Gravel (2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAmhXMHIk8)
Mike Gravel (3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fFX4V23FVo&mode=related&search=)
Mike Gravel (4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20BAITNBMmY)

[Enragé]

depends. Make an assesment based on the options presented to you, try to figure out if there are any advantages to a certain party getting into power (and im not just talking reforms, but actually more things that create a good, free atmosfere for the radical left to thrive), if so, vote, if not, its irrelevant.

People will say that when you vote you empower them to rule over you, that you lend them credibility; nonsense. Regardless if you vote or not, the bastard in charge will still be in charge, and his/her decisions WILL affect you... so if possible we should make it a not-so-much-bastard bastard.
A good example of this is the elections in spain prior to the one in which the popular front gained power: thousands of anarchists (who didnt vote, No Votad!) as well as socialists were persecuted, imprisoned and the worker's movement was repressed. The next election, the popular front gained power, because the spanish anarchists stopped their moronic abstentionist policy (moronic in those circumstances), and following from that the military coup came to be, and the Social Revolution erupted.

[DiggerII]

I just turned eighteen too and the same thoughts are going through my mind. To me, voting seems more effective on a local level(such as how workers function when they own the means of production). The turnouts for local elections in the U.S. (and national elections as well) are just pathetic. However, I think it to be a good idea to get involved in local elections and get people to really care about their communities again, not just deciding who has the better rhetoric between two cappies every four years.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally if you have paper ballots and no one worth voting for, you are as well to right"they are all a bunch of ****s" or something similar on your ballot paper rather than not turning up. It doesn't achieve a great deal but can be mildly amusing.

I also voted for a candidate once, not because I supported her (I most certainly did not, she was a Liberal Democrat) but because the Labour candidate who was her rival had been rude to me. I ought not to have voted for her party of course but I was determined to get my own back at that **** (he lost his seat indeed ha ha).

Apart from that I stand by what I say that it is only worth voting if you have viable socialist or communist candidates (which will generally require proportional representation)

[Goatse]

If you don't like any of the candidates then don't vote. People who say you have no right to complain if you didn't vote are idiots. People who vote for a candidate they openly admit they don't actually support are the ones without the right to complain.

Incidentally, isn't there complulsory voting in Australia? Which undermines the whole point of democracy, because you have to vote for someone, even if you don't like them.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Vote...only if there is a good leftist party, so the socialst or whatever, has more of a voice. It takes one away from the bourguoise...otherwise no.

[apathy maybe]

In Australia (and other places) it is compulsory to enroll and vote yes.

Of course, that doesn't stop people from not enrolling (or not telling the authorities when they move) and so on. As well, the maximum fine is $100 (normally starting at $20). And (at least in Tasmania, I think Federally and in the other states as well), only the public prosecutor can bring a case to court.

My own personal experience is that they send a letter, you tell them that you have "a philosophical objection" to voting, they say "that isn&#39;t good enough, please pay use &#036;20", you say, "No, here is a 3 page letter explaining why I didn&#39;t vote", you never hear from them again. Of course, if you have a "religious objection" to voting, you don&#39;t have to vote <_<.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I would strongly support voting in your next general election, especially if there is a Communist or Socialist party in your country. I never went for all this "don&#39;t buy into the system" stuff; I believe that each and every one of us has an obligation to use every weapon in our arsenal to try and improve the situation, however slightly, for those in need. Like it or not, the vote is an extremely powerful weapon in democratic societies. If you have a far-left party in your country or area I strongly advise you to vote for them; and if you don&#39;t, you should vote for the party you believe will do the least damage to society.

[Janus]

We&#39;ve discussed this topic countless times.

Reformism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&st=25)
Reformism (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54279.html)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878&hl=elections)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764&hl=)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&hl=)
reformism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38940&hl=)
Voting (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t59197.html)

[bolshevik butcher]

I would refrain from voting for a bourgoirse candidate.

However parliament is a legitimate tool for the working class to utilize for propaganda and to pass positive reforms, no it&#39;s not a place to impliment socialism from but that doesn&#39;t necesserally justfity a purtitan attitude towards elections. If a candidate representing an independent working class interst is standing I&#39;m not against voting for them.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:30 pm
We&#39;ve discussed this topic countless times.

Reformism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&st=25)
Reformism (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54279.html)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50878&hl=elections)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46764&hl=)
Voting (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&hl=)
reformism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38940&hl=)
Voting (http://www.revleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t59197.html)
ok sorry

i&#39;m going to Uni in Preston as of September, and the Respect Party has a fair amount of support there - so I may vote for them.

[The Grey Blur]

"Voting legitimises the system" is nonsense, end of. It&#39;s just rhetoric and has no concrete meaning.

Vote if there is a purpose - an independent working-class candidate, a referendum on a certain issue, or to defeat an extremely reactionary candidate. Voting and by extension parliament cannot bring about Socialism but a Socialist representative can be used for propaganda purposes and campaigning in elections is a good way to spread the name of your party.

I would engage with the activists in the Respect Party, some might actually be committed Socialists, but show them that reformism is not a road to Socialism. Voting should not be our sole or main focus anyway, it is just one means to propogate Socialism as are activism in the work-place, protests, meetings, etc.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:54 pm
I would strongly support voting in your next general election, especially if there is a Communist or Socialist party in your country. I never went for all this "don&#39;t buy into the system" stuff; I believe that each and every one of us has an obligation to use every weapon in our arsenal to try and improve the situation, however slightly, for those in need. Like it or not, the vote is an extremely powerful weapon in democratic societies. If you have a far-left party in your country or area I strongly advise you to vote for them; and if you don&#39;t, you should vote for the party you believe will do the least damage to society.
agree 100%

[JRR883]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+May 22, 2007 12:36 pm--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg @ May 22, 2007 12:36 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 03:54 pm
I would strongly support voting in your next general election, especially if there is a Communist or Socialist party in your country. I never went for all this "don&#39;t buy into the system" stuff; I believe that each and every one of us has an obligation to use every weapon in our arsenal to try and improve the situation, however slightly, for those in need. Like it or not, the vote is an extremely powerful weapon in democratic societies. If you have a far-left party in your country or area I strongly advise you to vote for them; and if you don&#39;t, you should vote for the party you believe will do the least damage to society.
agree 100% [/b]
Even if we did have a far-left President or governor, he wouldn&#39;t be able to accomplish anything because of the bourgeoisie infesting Congress.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Even if we did have a far-left President or governor, he wouldn&#39;t be able to accomplish anything because of the bourgeoisie infesting Congress.
Well if you guys had a leftist president (hypothetically) he may get the chance to install leftist supreme court judges--maybe. Beside the point though, the fact of the matter is that in most countries a left-leaning government would be able to pass reforms which help (not save, but help) working class people. Also, even if you have a leftist government that can&#39;t do anything because of Congress, at least he wouldn&#39;t be selling the working class out to the corporations.

[The Grey Blur]

That&#39;s not why we see voting as a legitimate tactic RS1916, we use parliament and political positions like that as a way to propogate Socialism, not to create it.

In the bourgeois state the true power does not lie with the politicians but the ruling class.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 10:24 pm
That&#39;s not why we see voting as a legitimate tactic RS1916, we use parliament and political positions like that as a way to propogate Socialism, not to create it.
I clearly stated in my post that I don&#39;t believe parliament is a way to create Socialism, As I believe I have stated, I think voting is valuable for a) propagating socialism and providing socialists with a platform on which to address pressing issues, and b) to try and get as many reforms in favour of the working class and social progress as possible.


In the bourgeois state the true power does not lie with the politicians but the ruling class.
I agree, but the state does have some sway in issues of social reform.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:52 am
[Lower voter turnouts -> more Big Business-dominated governments -> intensification of economic and political conflicts worldwide]
Capitalism doesn&#39;t really need help making things worse, it pretty much does it by itself.

[The Grey Blur]

Okay sure I agree RS, I just skimmed through your posts so I must have missed some stuff sorry.


to try and get as many reforms in favour of the working class and social progress as possible.
I agree so long as we are conscious that any electoral reform directly threatening to the ruling class they will result in them defending their interests with force - Venezuala when Chavez was elected, Nicaragua when the Sandanistas were elected and other examples.



In the bourgeois state the true power does not lie with the politicians but the ruling class.
I agree, but the state does have some sway in issues of social reform.
You don&#39;t understand the state then, according to Lenin it is a tool of the bourgeois to suppress class conflict. It is made up of the armed forces, the administrative bodies, political bodies - in short it is the organisation of society for the ruling class. You are referring to the political wing of this structure and thus it can be said it only has as much "sway" as the ruling class allows it to.

I agree with the main thrusts of your argument but I&#39;d recommend the State and Revolution by Lenin if you haven&#39;t already read it, it really explains the concept of the State and how it is created.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I haven&#39;t actually read State and Revolution, I will over the summer. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s a very enlightening and valid work, however I am not going to immediately resign this point to you on that basis alone. While I agree completely that the state as we know it operates within parameters set by the ruling class, you must realize that we live in a democracy, whereby we elect officials to represent us, and that the constitutions of most democracies give the state limited powers over industry. While it is obvious that none of the mainstream political parties out there today are going to throw the system on its head and implement a workers&#39; state, there is no reason to believe that it would be impossible to introduce some reforms. Take the Republic for example, we currently have a choice between a Labour/Fine Gael/Green coalition and a Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat coalition. While both are bourgeois parties and none represent the interests of the working class, I think many here will agree with me when I say that I wish I had the vote, so I could do my part to get the PDs, those laissez-faire Thatcherist relics, out of the Dáil. Thus the importance of voting.

In fact, the very fact that different parties have different policies dispels the theory that the ruling class have complete domination over politics as a whole.

[The Grey Blur]

Not neccessarily, they only represent different wings of the bourgeois, in a crunch situation the bourgeois will always back one party.

And yeah I agree, the lesser of two evils makes sense.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I don&#39;t vote. If you vote it isn&#39;t hypocritical unless you actually believe that you will make a change by voting. If you don&#39;t think it will change anything I really don&#39;t see the point in wasting your time by voting. But I don&#39;t think the action of voting is inherently hypocritical.

Although voting at the local level on initiatives and referendums can be a good thing. But I don&#39;t do that either.

[Taboo Tongue]

Don&#39;t Vote.
Even if you do (in the U.S. at least) your vote will be counted only to make the novela&#092;soap opera larger and more believable. What novela? The one put on by the bourgeois to dupe the working class into believing they have a choice... in who will beat their rights out of them.
In the U.S. the peoples vote doesn&#39;t matter in most States, only the electoral college&#39;s. They may say your vote counts but there has been 150+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) documented cases of the electoral college going against what their constituents voted. And that really means 150+ cases where, even while the candidates all supported the bourgeois, they voted for someone other than the bourgeois candidate the people voted for.

It would be better to expose the show than participating in the it.
Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections" (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)