Elections 2008

[Orange Juche]

In the last few years, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Equality Party ran candidates... I was wondering if anyone knows about any future prospective candidates, and any intention of the SWP to run a candidate again.

[RedAnarchist]

I presume these are American parties?

I don't have the answers to your questions, but why support them anyway? Even if they did manage to get into power, at best they would be reformist and at worst they would shed all socialistic values and veer to the centre or right.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

but why support them anyway?

To do something other than complain, for one thing.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:48 pm

but why support them anyway?

To do something other than complain, for one thing.
You can always vote blank.

[davidasearles]

R.A. wrote:

I don't have the answers to your questions, but why support them (Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Equality Party and the like) anyway? Even if they did manage to get into power at best they would be reformist ....

Dave S. writes:

That would be on strategy to run candidates so that your party "gets into power". But in the US in the current state of affairs the working class very seldom strays from either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Q. The last US president elected from a party other than Democrat or Republican?

A. Zachary Taylor, 1848

Q. The last time the US House of Representatives was controlled by a majority of other than the Democratic or Republican parties?

A. 1849 when the Whig party lost control to the Democratic party

A tactic mostly associated with leftist parties that run or ran candidates is to utilize the campaign as a vehicle to spread an idea or ideas rather than to get a person elected into office to wield power.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 06, 2007 01:55 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 06, 2007 01:55 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 01:48 pm

but why support them anyway?

To do something other than complain, for one thing.
You can always vote blank. [/b]
Of course. But too many like to use the excuse of it being a bourgeoisie democracy to just sit at home all day and moan and complain about capitalism.

[long_live_the_revolution]

how many votes(%) does smaller partys get on USA election(exept democrats and repuclicans)?

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:55 am
I don't have the answers to your questions, but why support them anyway? Even if they did manage to get into power, at best they would be reformist and at worst they would shed all socialistic values and veer to the centre or right.
I wouldn't vote for them in a sense of trying to get them elected. But if suddenly a socialist gets one or two percent of the vote, the movement gains credibility with some, and those who feel too disenfranchised to give a shit might start giving a shit.

I agree that they'd probably be reformist. But considering what I've said, is there any con to voting for them, really? Like someone said, its at least better than just *****ing.

[More Fire for the People]

Elections are a very good time for communists to strengthen their alignment with the people and deepen their connections with them. The post-election environment also offers them a platform to criticize elections.

[davidasearles]

Hopscotch Anthill:

Elections are a very good time for communists to strengthen their alignment with the people...

Dave Searles:

Excellent point. And I wonder if some of the parties, organizations and individuals who eschew elections on theoretical or ideological grounds in fact do not embrace elections in order to insulate themselves from any possible reality that they simply are not addressing actual cares and concerns of the people.

[rocker935]

My opinion is that you should ALWAYS vote. Even if you know your vote doesn't count or even if you know you have no real choice. By not voting they see that you don't want to voice your opinion, that even if you had a choice you wouldn't care. Show that you care and vote when you can. It doesn't take that long to get off your ass and vote does it?

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:27 pm
My opinion is that you should ALWAYS vote. Even if you know your vote doesn't count or even if you know you have no real choice. By not voting they see that you don't want to voice your opinion, that even if you had a choice you wouldn't care. Show that you care and vote when you can. It doesn't take that long to get off your ass and vote does it?
Voting propagates a system which we don't agree with. Voting reinforces the idea of letting someone else make decisions for you, and discourages personal action, or community organization, in favor of letting a 'representative' do it for you. Voting takes the power away from the people, and discourages most downtrodden people from community organization.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 06, 2007 04:21 pm--> (GeneCosta @ November 06, 2007 04:21 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 06, 2007 01:55 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 01:48 pm

but why support them anyway?

To do something other than complain, for one thing.
You can always vote blank.
Of course. But too many like to use the excuse of it being a bourgeoisie democracy to just sit at home all day and moan and complain about capitalism.[/b]
so you think voting in an election that is rigged counts as some kind of activism? i agree that people shoulden't just sit around a ***** but voting doesn't help at all.


But if suddenly a socialist gets one or two percent of the vote, the movement gains credibility with some, and those who feel too disenfranchised to give a shit might start giving a shit.


i dont think that 1 or 2 percent of the national vote would be enough to get anyones attetion. even on the off chance that it does get some media attention (which it wont) it would probably just prompt people to look into the parties that got the vote and that will give them a misrepresentation of socialism (since almost all parties that run canidates are remorists <_< )

[davidasearles]

RSR:

i don&#39;t think that 1 or 2 percent of the national vote would be enough to get anyone&#39;s attention. even on the off chance that it does get some media attention (which it wont) it would probably just prompt people to look into the parties that got the vote and that will give them a misrepresentation of socialism (since almost all parties that run candidates are remorists

Dave S.:

According to RSR:

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote you do not think would be enough to get anyone&#39;s attention.

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote won&#39;t get media attention.

If getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote did get some media attention the media will give a misrepresentation of socialism becuase almost all parties that run candidates are remorists. (Whatever a remorist is.)

Dave S. continues:

RSR, those may very well be your opinions, but you haven&#39;t given a jot of support for any of your statements.

[crimsonzephyr]

I believe that (if our votes counted) i would vote, no matter how much i hate the representative gov.

Many things in the history of the U.S. and I&#39;m sure other country&#39;s have relied on just a few or even one vote

heres a few examples:

http://www.empowermentzone.com/one_vote.txt

[Schrödinger's Cat]

so you think voting in an election that is rigged counts as some kind of activism? i agree that people shoulden&#39;t just sit around a ***** but voting doesn&#39;t help at all.

Yes. With enough support the government and media will not be able to hide the fact they&#39;re screwing us over without making it blatantly obvious. As is the case with small examples like Kucinich.

[davidasearles]

RSR:

you think voting in an election that is rigged counts as some kind of activism?

GeneCosta:

Yes. With enough support the government and media will not be able to hide the fact they&#39;re screwing us over..

Dave S.:

Gene, might I suggest that the "screwing over" that we receive primarily comes form the private ownership of the means of production - that the workers must make our way in life primarily through sell our labor power in a market that can only continually depress the value of what we receive as wages.

There is a short pamphlet online on the topic of reform and revolution that you might consider reading. There are others I am sure but this is the one that I am most familiar with Reform and Revolution. An excerpt:

"The Socialist revolution demands, among other things, the
public ownership of all the means of transportation. But, in itself,
the question of ownership affects only external forms: The Post
Office is the common property of the people, and yet the real workers
in that department are mere wage slaves. In the mouth of the
Socialist, of the revolutionist, the internal fact, the cardinal
truth, that for which alone we fight, and which alone is entitled to
all we can give to it - that is the abolition of the system of wage
slavery under which the proletariat is working."

http://www.deleonism.org/ror.htm

[davidasearles]

Hardee:

Many things in the history of the U.S. and I&#39;m sure other country&#39;s have relied on just a few or even one vote

Dave S.:

I agree with the sentiment - not only as it applies to formal elections but as to the "power of one" in general.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 12, 2007 06:34 pm
Voting propagates a system which we don&#39;t agree with. Voting reinforces the idea of letting someone else make decisions for you, and discourages personal action, or community organization, in favor of letting a &#39;representative&#39; do it for you. Voting takes the power away from the people, and discourages most downtrodden people from community organization.
What you say doesn&#39;t change anything.

Voting or not voting, the system isnt "propagated," its there either way. Worrying about "reinforcing ideas" is far less proactive than really doing something to change things. And no, I don&#39;t believe electing someone (regardless of who it is) will "change things.". The critical importance is the unifying force within the campaign. Bringing different people together. Theres far more pros than cons on this one.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
RSR, those may very well be your opinions, but you haven&#39;t given a jot of support for any of your statements.
first off remorists was supposed to be reformists lol :P

secondly i dont have any hard evidence because a socialist party has never had any significant numbers in an election (atleast for a very long time and never in america). i was speculating on 1) the elite of any country have a lot to lose if socialists started making a scene and gaining support. therefore its quite obvious that they would do something to either hide what was going on from the public, slander the hell out of the party, or find some way to discredit them. 2) in every country in history the bourgeosie put up a fight whenever the left starts to gain numbers and strength (and they win most of the time) so i dont see why it woulden&#39;t happen today.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Eugene V. Debs comes to mind when I read this topic. ;)

[davidasearles]

According to RSR:

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote you do not think would be enough to get anyone&#39;s attention.

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote won&#39;t get media attention.

If getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote did get some media attention the media will give a misrepresentation of socialism becuase almost all parties that run candidates are remorists. (Whatever a remorist is.)

And Dave S. wrote:

RSR, those may very well be your opinions, but you haven&#39;t given a jot of support for any of your statements.


RSR answered:

i dont have any hard evidence because a socialist party has never had any significant numbers in an election (atleast for a very long time and never in america) i was speculating on ....

Dave answers:

Just wondering.

[davidasearles]

According to RSR:

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote you do not think would be enough to get anyone&#39;s attention.

Getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote won&#39;t get media attention.

If getting 1 or 2 percent of the national vote did get some media attention the media will give a misrepresentation of socialism becuase almost all parties that run candidates are remorists. (Whatever a remorist is.)

And Dave S. wrote:

RSR, those may very well be your opinions, but you haven&#39;t given a jot of support for any of your statements.


RSR answered:

i dont have any hard evidence because a socialist party has never had any significant numbers in an election (atleast for a very long time and never in america) i was speculating on ....

Dave answers:

Just wondering.

[fidel59]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation will be running candidates for the white house in 08.

[crimsonzephyr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:13 pm
The Party for Socialism and Liberation will be running candidates for the white house in 08.
really?&#33; who?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:31 pm
really?&#33; who?
...cares?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:25 am
Eugene V. Debs comes to mind when I read this topic. ;)
No, he really doesn&#39;t. Sorry if this was a sarcastic comment, but Debs built up a party that was huge by American proportions at any rate, based on the rank and file labour movement, aka the class conscious workers of America. His party had some sort of social base, and therefore grounding on which to launch an election campaign. I&#39;m sure all parties launching these campaigns are doing so for agitational/propaganda purposes, as Debs did but I doubt they really have any serious way of mounting such a campaign, as Debs did. Debs tied his campaign in with the rest of the activities of his party, it wasn&#39;t a serious attempt to gain power.

[davidasearles]

BB:

Debs tied his campaign in with the rest of the activities of his party, it wasn&#39;t a serious attempt to gain power.

Dave S.:

Good point. What the hell would he have done if elected?

[bolshevik butcher]

Perhaps a better question is what the ruling class would have done. For there to be a stage of class consciousness in which Debs could get elected to power on a socialist program, i think that the struggle would have gone beyond elections and the working class would have been in a position to question who ran society and take power from the bourgoirsie.

[davidasearles]

B.B.

For there to be a stage of class consciousness in which Debs could get elected to power on a socialist program, i think that the struggle would have gone beyond elections and the working class would have been in a position to question who ran society and take power from the bourgoirsie.

Dave S.

Perhaps. But even Debs, one of the most advanced class conscious workers, that I am aware of did not articulate even a nacsent plan for this to be implemented. And it&#39;s not just the taking. That would be the relatively easy part.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I say it&#39;s a good Idea for a leftist party to run a canidate with the sole intention of letting people know there is something else. Mao once compared revolution to playing a piano. With one hand you play the base notes while the other hand plays the melody.

I interperet this as the system must fall by revolution BUT it wont succede without being weakened from within.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:22 pm
I say it&#39;s a good Idea for a leftist party to run a canidate with the sole intention of letting people know there is something else. Mao once compared revolution to playing a piano. With one hand you play the base notes while the other hand plays the melody.

I interperet this as the system must fall by revolution BUT it wont succede without being weakened from within.
That&#39;s my opinion on the matter as well. If a convinced socialist was to be elected, he could work for legislation that puts the Bourgeoisie and republocrats in a pickle jar. Even a high turn-out for a socialist candidate would mean a stunning propaganda defeat.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 22, 2007 03:28 pm--> (GeneCosta @ November 22, 2007 03:28 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:22 pm
I say it&#39;s a good Idea for a leftist party to run a canidate with the sole intention of letting people know there is something else. Mao once compared revolution to playing a piano. With one hand you play the base notes while the other hand plays the melody.

I interperet this as the system must fall by revolution BUT it wont succede without being weakened from within.
That&#39;s my opinion on the matter as well. If a convinced socialist was to be elected, he could work for legislation that puts the Bourgeoisie and republocrats in a pickle jar. Even a high turn-out for a socialist candidate would mean a stunning propaganda defeat. [/b]
Big thumbs up, both Petey & GC.

"The fire that burns from within burns the hottest"
-Unknown, but still a good quote.

We need a multi-pronged effort to start a revolution in America. Electoral, to raise the profile of our movement, and then direct action to put our ideas into action.

[bezdomni]

The idea of a "communist" sitting in the White House is offensive.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:26 pm
The idea of a "communist" sitting in the White House is offensive.
I don&#39;t think these candidates will be victorious.

Third parties like Workers World run candidates to raise the profile of revolutionary politics, not because they want top-down capitalist reforms.

[davidasearles]

CC wrote:

Third parties like Workers World run candidates to raise the profile of revolutionary politics, not because they want top-down capitalist reforms.

Dave S. writes:

I go to the Workers World website

http://www.workers.org/

and unfortunately do not see anything of a coherent plan (or indeed any mention of the need) for the workers to take over and operate the means of production. Somehow it seems that simple idea always gets lost in so called "revolutionary politics."