Socialist Election/Revolution

[ILoveShrub]

It has been quite a long time since I have posted here on Che-Lives or any other site.

My question to my brothers and sisters is what are the chances of a successful socialist election in America?

There are many leftist parties in the U.S. and I believe our numbers are respectable. But would we be able to learn from Marx's Communist International. Could we put our theoretical differences aside to elect a brother or sister of the revolution to the oval office. Or would we fall apart just like the International. We must have one union of leftist of all kinds no matter what our differences as long as we have the idea in our minds. Only then will we have a chance at the power to shape our land and finally reach freedom.

[redstar2000]

My question to my brothers and sisters is what are the chances of a successful socialist election in America?

In a word, zero.

This really doesn't have much to do with unity or disunity on the left; it rather applies, in my opinion, to all advanced capitalist countries (including countries like South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, etc.).

The simple fact of the matter is that the capitalist class has learned how to give its government the appearance of democracy without risking "the real thing". Any genuinely socialist alternative would simply not be allowed to function long enough to seriously contest a bourgeois election.

Extra-parliamentary resistence is, in my view, the only way to go...and, to be honest about it, it could take 50 or 100 years or even more.

If that seems like a long time to wait, consider the alternative: the parliamentary road "to" socialism takes...eternity.

:cool:

[SlimJin]

Yeah man you are dreaming if you think a real leftist would be voted in in the USA this country is so crooked, they laugh at us think were stupid people for even thinking we can compete in a election!

[ILoveShrub]

so you guys agree with revolution. I also agree with revolution, but you must try political means first before you have a large base of support. If you try to be elected and the status quo shoots you down even though you won you would have the support of most of the moderates and as a bonus expose the voting fraud and corruption.

[SlimJin]

Of course we agree witht the revolution, this IS a Communist only board!

[elijahcraig]

Elections in this country, and all capitalist countries, are purely bourgeois democracy, which means participation means nothing. Revolution is needed, elections are useless, no real democracy can be formed without the destruction of the bourgeois representative system.

[ILoveShrub]

I understand the mass corruption of American politics and that the chances of winning are so small it is a joke.
But I believe the point is not to win, but to prove that we are an organized front which has tried working inside the boundries of law, and has blatantly been deprived of justice. I believe that if we try we will win the respect of moderates and seem legitimate to the greater working class.

Also I believe that the only way is through revolution. But the must be a precursor to a socialist victory either through election or revolution.

This is where I agree with elijahcraig. I believe we must start a Direct Democracy Movement. This movement would have no communistic goals. Just the destruction of the American Congress and eventually the Presidency. The goal would be the installation of mass referendums. All choices now run by the congress would be voted on by the people.

The beauty of this Direct Democracy Movement is what would the US government
have to say for themselves. How could they put down a democracy movement. IF the tried anything they would open themselves up to mass ridicule.

Only after the D.D.M. would we have a fair chance. And with all luck we would win because the oppressors would have no say compared to the millions of working Americans.

[elijahcraig]

Oh, I believe in communism, we just have to do something to link the party to the masses more effectively this time. No falling into tyranny, we need a real proletarian party, not an intellectual ruling class which does not, in reality, act for the masses.

Bourgeois democracy is useless, Lenin made that quite clear in his condemnation of Kautsky and the rest of his lot.

America already has 50%down voting, if that lowers more we could see an emergence of an opportunity to form counterculture type movements which show the people, them being cast aside useless by this system, that there is a way out other than the present corporate mafia government. There are more radicals in the world today since marxism first lit the world on fire, that is an encouraging thought.

[革命者]

direct democracy wouldn't last and would abolish any type of government in a bad way. Unless some values were first teached to the masses-- otherwise this would end up in chaos--

Who will keep the masses from being influenced by the corporate machines??

If this DDM happens without good supervision and aforehand teaching of values about socialism, a populist would stand up: a racist fool.

If the indifference about the political system rises, we get the same effect-- the political system doesn't have any value without ppl believing in it. So therefore we, indeed, must educate them about the possiblelities(sp?) they have in such a system-- almost none!!

i am against referendums-- they are nothing but deceit.

[Iwannaarevolt]

I don't agree with the direct democracy, people in america barely vote in presidential elections, so voting in congress discisions would be come dumb and repetetive. Also on the revolution would be hard today. So many people would want to revolt, but when they actually had the chance they'd chicken out. Che said in 'guerrilla warfare' that you must enlist the peasents, farmers. But unfourtanately today so many are blind to the corprate american dream. It seems near impossible to take over a country as big as the U.S. but it could be done with enough will power.

[stonerboi]

Elijahcriag, you said that you believe a revolution is needed in the US and for that matter other advanced capitalist countries. I agree with you on that!

But when you talk of revolution, what do you really mean? Do you mean a mass strike like Paris in 1968 or Iran in 1979? Do you mean a leftist coup/uprising like russia in 1917 or afghanistan in 1978? Or do you mean urban guerrilla warfare?

Revolution could mean any of these things.

[Morpheus]

If a socialist were ever elected he would be assasinated. Remember Allende.

[blackemma]

If a socialist were elected to office in the United States, he or she would certainly not be shot for one reason: there's no point. What one must understand is the way the bourgeois parliamentary system works is that it keeps the illusion of democracy by allowing a two-party system to exist, offering the same platform with superificial differences: gun control vs. gun regulation. All other parties receive no access to the media - the media says this is because they do not have enough votes to be considered a 'real' party. But if that's true, how is a party supposed to gain legitimacy if it doesn't have access to the means of communication (i.e., the mass media)? Even so, if a socialist party were to get the support of the people and some money together (don't forget that financing a campaign is not easy when at present corporate donations outnumber union donations by a ration of 10 to 1) and thus receive access to the media, the entire press, being that it is under corporate control, would ensure the immediate discrediting of the party's program. As it has been pointed out many a time, freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. And who would possess the means of communication? The capitalist. Still, even if our heroic socialist party managed to progress despite the media's attacks and were elected, it would be cease to be able to implement socialism once in office. This could happen in one of two ways. The first thing to remember about bougeois parliamentarianism is that although the people elect their represenatives to office, those same represenatives are then removed from the people and placed within the halls of power. The common worker does not have access to these halls, but the business man does (women too will not find their needs addressed as capitalism also encourages patriarchy and thus only bourgeois 'feminism' would be allowed a presence). This can be seen by Clinton's meeting with China's Jiang Zemin which occured October 29, 1997. When receiving Chinese president, certain guests were invited. They are as follows:

American International Group
Apple Computers
Asea Brown-Boveri
AT&T
Atlantic Richfield
Bell Antlantic
Boeing
Dreamwork Films
Eastman Kodak
General Electric
General Motors
IBM
International Corporation of America
Lucent Technologies
Miramax Film
Mobil
Motorola
Oracle
PepsiCo
Proctor & Gamble
United Technology
Viacom
Westinghouse
Xerox

Note the fact that though the U.S. China Business Council was present, not a single union was.

This is how bourgeois 'democracy' works. As such, the socialist politicians, no matter how well intentioned, would be under enormous pressure to conform to the policies of the corporate elites. Don't forget, that in America, politicans are elected to sustain the capitalist system, not to destroy it. At best, a politician can hope to reform it, but even such attempts are likely to be overturned by subsequent presidents. For an example of this, look no further than the social-democratic government of Sweden which is under enormous pressure from financial institutions to alter its social system (i.e., eliminate it) or face enormous debt and eventual economic collapse - something that would in all likelyhood usher in an era of unrestrained capitalism or, better yet, fascism - see Nazi Germany for historical example.

The other reality is that socialist politicians are human and are subject to corruption like anyone else. This can be seen not only in the vastly bureaucratic and corrupt, post-Lenin Soviet leaders, but in the leaders of modern social democracy. Let's assume a socialist or social-democratic politician is elected to office. Social-democratic politicians are usually quite opportunist. They earn their living by representing the working class. They earn their living from the suffering of workers. If capitalism were overthrown and a socialist system were put in its place, they would be out of a job - and not just any job, a rather lucrative one. In this way, it is in the social-democrat's own interest to serve his or her capitalist masters. John's Loxley's Alternative Budgets addresses this point quite clearly: the public sector facilitates the expansion of the private sector in that it provides both the physical and human infrastructure needed by taxing the working class while smoothing over the problems caused by capitalist production by allowing for some degree of worker benefits, unemployment insurance, etc.

Basically, the odds of a genuine socialist transformation occuring from Washington is highly unlikely. That's not to say that reforms aren't worth fighting for - some reforms can be quite revolutionary, in fact, as Chomsky pointed out. However, assuming the objective is to create a genuine socialist system, bourgeois politics are not the way to go.

For further reading, I suggest Lenin's State and Revolution and his critique of social-democratic opportunists.