Why abstention and not spoilage?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've read some recent so-called "ultra-left" talk regarding abstention (not limited to left-communist positions, but also some Trots, Maoists, and Stalinists). My question is: why abstention and not spoilage, and why the promotion of the former and not the latter? Abstention only feeds the bourgeois system (the notion that those abstaining are either stupid or content).

[Zurdito]

what difference do you think spoiling ballots would make?

when you argue for the working class to spend its time carrying out an action, you do so because you believe there is a benefit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Enough spoilage (to eliminate the possibility of mass mental disability being reported by the Big Media) sends a message in terms of contempt for the electoral system (think of it as akin to a general/mass strike but on a beginner's level). Abstention, on the other hand, sends mixed messages at best.

[Plagueround]

Abstention is too easily interpreted as not caring. An organized spoilage of ballots cannot be interpreted as being stupid or going "Oh crap, the elections were today?".

While spoiling ballots isn't something that will necessarily make a large difference on it's own, it does show that people think something is wrong and is something that could catch on. No one sees a protest that doesn't bother to show up.

[Zurdito]

^^^ Enough spoilage (to eliminate the possibility of mass mental disability being reported by the Big Media) sends a message in terms of contempt for the electoral system (think of it as akin to a general/mass strike but on a beginner's level). Abstention, on the other hand, sends mixed messages at best.

a message to who?

when I ask what difference it makes, I was being serious, not just superficially asking the most obvious question possible. please think of the deeper implications of what you are arguing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

At the very least comrades should go to their voting centers and campaign the day of elections - in the appropriate area.

[Devrim]

I've read some recent so-called "ultra-left" talk regarding abstention

As you are surely well aware Jacob, 'ultra-left' is an insult. You can't really expect people to engage in a dialogue you when you begin by insulting them. Unless you are asking others why the 'ultra-left' does something.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

I will agree with Jacob in that mass, co-ordinated spoilage is a far more effective technique than abstention. I think the only reason why we haven't seen mass spoilage campaigns is that the two have been falsely equated.

Such a seemingly little and trivial gesture can go a very long way in efforts of agitation. When polling results showing large numbers of informal votes come in, the media and the politicians, I believe will be more likely to take notice as opposed to turning the other cheek to voter apathy in the form of abstention.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As you are surely well aware Jacob, 'ultra-left' is an insult. You can't really expect people to engage in a dialogue you when you begin by insulting them. Unless you are asking others why the 'ultra-left' does something.

Devrim


At the very least comrades should go to their voting centers and campaign the day of elections - in the appropriate area.



Devrim, that's why I put "ultra-left" in quotes to diffuse any accusation that I'm insulting left-communists (in any event, the c-word that Lenin aptly used to describe left-communists like yourself in a certain "hysterical polemic" is a much more effective description, but obviously I'm not using it here). :glare:

This is the one issue in which I would advocate a POPULAR front (yes, Stalinist/"opportunist" style, rather than Trotsky's "United Workers' Front" crap) with non-socialist elements of the working class and lumpenproles, and with disgruntled elements in the lower ranks of the petit-bourgeoisie (at least so that they'll think twice about being seduced by fascist agitprop).

[black magick hustla]

"spoilage" and abstentionism are not mutually exclusive.

[Guerrilla22]

I have no idea how one could spoil elections in the US. One of two liberal market parties will win regardless, what exactly is the point?

[KC]

By the time that spoilage on this scale is possible, the level of consciousness would be to such an extent as to organize our own independent working class party.

Advocating for spoilage today is about as effective as running our own candidates.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, electing far-left candidates expresses contentment with the parliamentary system.

[Dros]

I've read some recent so-called "ultra-left" talk regarding abstention (not limited to left-communist positions, but also some Trots, Maoists, and Stalinists). My question is: why abstention and not spoilage, and why the promotion of the former and not the latter? Abstention only feeds the bourgeois system (the notion that those abstaining are either stupid or content).

Voting still conseptually strengthens the notion that change can occur through the bourgeois state and that the bourgeois state apparatus is legitimate. From a proletarian internationalist perspective, it also functions as endorsing the state and what it does to people there.

[chegitz guevara]

Spoilage and abstentionism are both ignored by the system. Now one pays it any mind and no one keeps track of deliberately spoiled ballots or deliberate abstentions. The only thing that counts as a vote against the system is to go and vote against the system. Vote for any socialist on the ballot.

[chegitz guevara]

Voting still conseptually strengthens the notion that change can occur through the bourgeois state and that the bourgeois state apparatus is legitimate.


Yeah, Lenin was a bourgeois traitor to the movement!

[KC]

Voting still conseptually strengthens the notion that change can occur through the bourgeois state and that the bourgeois state apparatus is legitimate. From a proletarian internationalist perspective, it also functions as endorsing the state and what it does to people there.

This sort of ultra-leftism where a tactical decision is transformed into one of principle and then decided upon forever and in all conditions are way too common. Go read Left Wing Communism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't understand the abstentionism argument at all.

It's the state which is charged with changing society, obviously those who wish for change should do whatever it takes to gain control of the state. We don't have to smash the state, hell, in the era of nuclear submarines such a notion is ridiculous, overly-romantic, and out of touch.

And in case anyone present hasn't noticed, Americans like the type of government we have. They like the races and elections, if not the people running the government itself. People don't miss votes because their "fed up," but, by and large, because those people are indifferent or don't care.

Also, it may or may not be true that most people in the industrialized world dislike the capitalist system (at the moment, I highly doubt it). But it cannot be denied that most people -not intellectuals or dead philosophers- like their country. Their proud to be whatever they are, and root fervently for thir nation in everything from economic matters to the world cup.

[KC]

It's the state which is charged with changing society, obviously those who wish for change should do whatever it takes to gain control of the state.

The argument is that when it is impossible to gain control of the state through electoral means then abstention is a sound policy (of course, some here argue that it is always damaging to participate in electoral politics, with which I and any levelheaded Marxist would vehemently disagree).


And in case anyone present hasn't noticed, Americans like the type of government we have.

I think that the complete opposite is true, especially because of the common "lesser-evilism" of most people with regards to electoral politics.

[Luís Henrique]

Abstention, spoilage, and voting, are just tactics. They should be used, or refused, regarding the practical situation of class struggle. Putting them above analysis of reality, like some kind of fetish, is counterproductive.

Luís Henrique

[Niccolò Rossi]

"spoilage" and abstentionism are not mutually exclusive.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by this?


I have no idea how one could spoil elections in the US. One of two liberal market parties will win regardless, what exactly is the point?

The point is to send a message, not matter how small or trivial. It is an act of defiance, that despite a refusal to participate in bourgeois elections, we have made the effort in showing up and "wasting" our vote.


By the time that spoilage on this scale is possible, the level of consciousness would be to such an extent as to organize our own independent working class party.

Huh? With the myriad of insignificant parties and sects already existing claiming to be the true and sole "leaders" of the working class, could not a co-ordinated mass spoilage campaign be conducted today. This is an obvious indication that spoilage is not only practical but even with significant support, there is no guarantee for the creation of an "independent working class party", as you suggest, but rather a stack of isolated and irrelevant sects.


Advocating for spoilage today is about as effective as running our own candidates.

Not at all. A bunch of isolated and irrelevant parties running their own unknown candidates is completely useless because they receive support only from their own tiny sects. Mass spoilage campaigns, on the other hand, are perfectly possible and far more effective, this is because it allows these independent and relatively meaningless sects to act according to a common plan.

But also, and more importantly, as Jacob mentioned electing "socialist" candidates expresses and contentment with bourgeois rule. This is not to say however, that I completely reject parliamentary tactics. I do recognise the value in the election of "socialist" and/or "communist" candidate, but this is only on the basis of agitation and publicity and only as a tactic on a very restricted scale.


Spoilage and abstentionism are both ignored by the system. Now one pays it any mind and no one keeps track of deliberately spoiled ballots or deliberate abstentions.

I'm not sure of the electoral system where you live, but in Australia spoiled ballots and informal votes are recorded and their numbers made public. This serves as a perfect example of how the tactics we follow can differ based on the political situation. For example in the US, where electronic voting systems are used absenation is not an option, but where paper ballots are still in use, spoilage is a far more effective tactic.


The only thing that counts as a vote against the system is to go and vote against the system. Vote for any socialist on the ballot.

So fight the system, within the system?

Voting for "socialist" candidates rarely does little more than help perpetuate the idea that salvation can be brought down from above and achieved via organs of bourgeois rule. (This is not to say I completely reject voting for socialist candidates all together though, see above)


It's the state which is charged with changing society

No, it is the revolutionary class which holds the duty for changing society. Marxism 101.


obviously those who wish for change should do whatever it takes to gain control of the state. We don't have to smash the state
But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism.

The capitalist state is a body which serves the sole purpose of mediating the class struggle in the favour of bourgeoisie. Parliament is simply an organ of bourgeois political rule. The proletariat can in no way use parliament as a means of seizing state power as it is geared solely to the purpose of capitalist rule.



People don't miss votes because their "fed up," but, by and large, because those people are indifferent or don't care.Precisely why spoilage is the superior tactic where possible. It can not be confused with the phenomenon of voter apathy.


Also, it may or may not be true that most people in the industrialized world dislike the capitalist system.People love the idea of "democracy". The only reason for their unadulterated support for the capitalist system is their failure to understand it's true nature, that being the means of class rule. This is why the vanguard is a necessary body, not as a leading power, but as an educational element.


But it cannot be denied that most people like their country. Their proud to be whatever they are, and root fervently for thir nation in everything from economic matters to the world cup.You're exactly right. But the question is, where is the foundation of this petty nationalism? The answer is in bourgeois ideology. By separating the working class based on national divisions the bourgeoisie is able to weaken the working class movement, this is why a staunch proletarian internationalism is a necessity.


Abstention, spoilage, and voting, are just tactics. They should be used, or refused, regarding the practical situation of class struggle. Putting them above analysis of reality, like some kind of fetish, is counterproductive.

Spot on, however we are not arguing that spoilage and abstention are principal tactics, but rather, where abstention is appropriate, spoilage can be more effective.

[Guerrilla22]

The point is to send a message, not matter how small or trivial. It is an act of defiance, that despite a refusal to participate in bourgeois elections, we have made the effort in showing up and "wasting" our vote.

I wouldn't really call that defiance. By participating in bourgeios elections all you really are doing is helping to legitimize their rule. The problem lies not with the individual parties but with overhauling the system in which the parties operate in. Only a mass movement led by the workers can change this, not individual political parties.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I wouldn't really call that defiance. By participating in bourgeios elections all you really are doing is helping to legitimize their rule.

This is why i support spoilage!


The problem lies not with the individual parties but with overhauling the system in which the parties operate in.

Correct, correct, correct

[al8]

I agree with what Luís sais exept for voting. I can't see how voting will achieve anything ever, since the system will corrupt the cadidates despite noble intentions, and any change will hardly come through because of inbuilt sift-out machanisms.

Abstention is easy and sort of justified if you look at it rationally what the benefits are of using your time for voting and what its consequent affects are as opposed to doing some other thing more immidiate and near to you. As your single vote is not a good conveyer of intent or wishes (just litle x as if you where illiterate), locked in preselect choices you have (mostly and most likely) not affected, for a position in a system you do not find legitimate. The effect of a single vote is astronomically miniscule, and has effectively no effect in and of itself. But what it does do is give the illusion of is that you are effecting the system. It panders to vanity -- that you are important. The pointless voting frenzy gives the system an the sense that it has ligitimacy.

If you are cought up in the atmosphere you can to fun stuff with spoilage. I have known people that write a poems (pretty good ones too) on their ballot, or state their frustrations and reasons for non-voting.

[al8]

Hey, I have an idea for agitprop! Advertiese for people that have conducted "wasted" valuable resistant effort on otherwise waste of a vote, be it by means of poems, writein the reasons for the non-vote and such -- to get it together in a book or a pamphlet and publish. It would make for and interesting read, and people that have done this sort of thing will most likely provide the material happily for it gives them a larger audience and thus larger effect. Think of how fun it would be to spread this material through pamphlet-stands near voting places. It woul be a fun way to counter the voting stupor. Hopfully people will be given food for thought that they'll remeber when they experience their hang overs. :D

[chegitz guevara]

So fight the system, within the system?

Voting for "socialist" candidates rarely does little more than help perpetuate the idea that salvation can be brought down from above and achieved via organs of bourgeois rule. (This is not to say I completely reject voting for socialist candidates all together though, see above)

Lenin was such a counter-revolutionary social-democrat for advocating the use of the ballot. :rolleyes:

[KC]

Not at all. A bunch of isolated and irrelevant parties running their own unknown candidates is completely useless because they receive support only from their own tiny sects.

That was my point. A bunch of isolated and irrelevant parties organizing a spoilage campaign is as productive as running their own candidates.


Mass spoilage campaigns, on the other hand, are perfectly possible and far more effective, this is because it allows these independent and relatively meaningless sects to act according to a common plan.

1. They won't act together.
2. If this campaign had a significant enough popularity to be effective, then consciousness is at a level where we could build an independent workers' party on that popularity (which was my previous point).


So fight the system, within the system?

You're already talking about electoral politics. This obviously isn't what chegitz was saying. He was saying that the only valid tactic with regards to voting is to vote for socialist candidates. He wasn't saying that that should be our ultimate goal.


Voting for "socialist" candidates rarely does little more than help perpetuate the idea that salvation can be brought down from above and achieved via organs of bourgeois rule. (This is not to say I completely reject voting for socialist candidates all together though, see above)

Not sure how you can contradict yourself, point to your own contradiction, and then support your contradiction without realizing that you contradicted yourself.


By participating in bourgeios elections all you really are doing is helping to legitimize their rule.

How does this even make sense? By spoiling ballots you're supporting the system? This makes no sense at all.


I agree with what Luís sais exept for voting. I can't see how voting will achieve anything ever, since the system will corrupt the cadidates despite noble intentions, and any change will hardly come through because of inbuilt sift-out machanisms.

The system doesn't corrupt the candidates; the system chooses corrupted candidates.

[Devrim]

Lenin was such a counter-revolutionary social-democrat for advocating the use of the ballot. :rolleyes:

Social democrat, yes. Check the name of his party.
Counter revolutionary, ultimately yes.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin was such a counter-revolutionary social-democrat for advocating the use of the ballot. :rolleyes:

Comrade, you may wish to read my Chapter 4 section on "United Social Labour" and the diminishing prospects of parliamentary tactics. I was the one who started this thread and advocated spoilage over abstention.


Counter revolutionary, ultimately yes.

Riiiight. :rolleyes:

Lenin may not have been a social-proletocrat, but he sure was way more revolutionary-Marxist than the childish "Sabbath sectarians" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) who can never connect Marxism with the workers' movement.

[Devrim]

Yes, Jacob, ultimately counter revolutionary in that he took part in the suppression of the working class.

Devrim

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The argument is that when it is impossible to gain control of the state through electoral means then abstention is a sound policy (of course, some here argue that it is always damaging to participate in electoral politics, with which I and any levelheaded Marxist would vehemently disagree).

As do I.


I think that the complete opposite is true, especially because of the common "lesser-evilism" of most people with regards to electoral politics.

I agree that many Americans feel the system is broken.

But at the same time, most like the system and form of government itself. Also, almost all of them believe that change can come within the current system. Very few people outside of a college campus are looking for revolutionay change, or any change of the system of government itself.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Lenin was such a counter-revolutionary social-democrat for advocating the use of the ballot. :rolleyes:

Did you not catch my endorsement of Luis' statement against turning tactics into principals. Parliamentary participation is not at all times and in all places ineffective and "counter-revolutionary"


2. If this campaign had a significant enough popularity to be effective, then consciousness is at a level where we could build an independent workers' party on that popularity (which was my previous point).

Why would we not expect the same sectarianism as we witness today? Numbers mean nothing when divided and fractured a hundred times over.



Voting for "socialist" candidates rarely does little more than help perpetuate the idea that salvation can be brought down from above and achieved via organs of bourgeois rule. (This is not to say I completely reject voting for socialist candidates all together though, see above)Not sure how you can contradict yourself, point to your own contradiction, and then support your contradiction without realizing that you contradicted yourself.

Well put, I will say, but you make a fundamental mistake. You see my acknowledgment that both options have their own usefulness in different situations as a sign of contradiction. This is a serious mistake, as you have proven your fetishism of tactics, turning them into timeless principals. Both are useful, but the latter in a far more restricted sense, so much so that I feel for the purpose of the debate to ignore it, instead assuming conditions appropriate for abstention.

Luis put it well in his comment:


Abstention, spoilage, and voting, are just tactics. They should be used, or refused, regarding the practical situation of class struggle. Putting them above analysis of reality, like some kind of fetish, is counterproductive.



By participating in bourgeios elections all you really are doing is helping to legitimize their rule. How does this even make sense? By spoiling ballots you're supporting the system? This makes no sense at all.

Are you intentionally misreading what I wrote? Voting for socialist candidates (under the assumed circumstances) only acts to legitimise bourgeois parliamentary tactics. Spoilage on the other hand, is a far more effective method of abstention, used to show a divergence from voter apathy and send a message of rage against the system.


The system doesn't corrupt the candidates; the system chooses corrupted candidates.Would you care to explain how the "system chooses corrupt candidates"?

It is obvious that you fail to understand parliament as a bourgeois organ of rule. You instead favour an idealistic approach in calling the corruption a result of mens ideas and thoughts, a lack of correct leadership, rather than a problem arising from the material content and conditions that are parliament.

[Guerrilla22]

How does this even make sense? By spoiling ballots you're supporting the system? This makes no sense at all.


If you vote for a third party in US elections you not only are wasting your time, but are also helping to legitimize the rule of the bourgeois parties by adding to the total number of voters who participated in the election as a whole. The more voters that participate, the more the they are able to claim their rule is legitimate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you not catch my endorsement of Luis' statement against turning tactics into principals. Parliamentary participation is not at all times and in all places ineffective and "counter-revolutionary"

Ah, but I'll reiterate the material reason why it has become ineffective for the foreseeable future:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html


In regards to the class struggle itself, this class struggle must not be carried out within parliamentary organs. Material developments have closed the door to the parliamentary option, contrary to Kautsky’s parliamentary reductionism. This chapter section was written shortly after the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr. In his time, the development of the media came to a point wherein minimum demands (to be revisited as a concept later) could be achieved by "demanding" from outside (most notably through publicized civil disobedience). Today, even more non-parliamentary channels have emerged (for the benefit of even genuine reformists), in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and of course the Internet. Of course, the only form of “parliamentarianism” that would be acceptable is the kind that would exist in the emerging organs of workers' power themselves, akin to soviets, workplace committees, and non-bourgeois communal councils. Building these alternative organs – a common task for both revolutionaries and genuine reformists within the United Social Labour organization (the Mensheviks did indeed help to build the soviets in 1917) – is not just for the post-revolution environment, but also for reminding working-class people everywhere of the class struggle: that things are changing for the better.

As for the prospects of parliamentarianism, even bourgeois-oriented academics are increasingly worried about the state of bourgeois “democracy” sliding into authoritarian capitalism. Over the past several decades, more and more power has accumulated within factually non-accountable sectors of the executive branch. In the United States, this would be the “imperial presidency”: a shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the president’s “Executive Office” (headed by the Chief of Staff). In Westminster-model countries, the legislative power has become increasingly one of a rubber-stamping function of the executive policies (even under minority-government scenarios), and there has been a similar shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the “Prime Minister’s Office.” Nowadays, there is no difference between parties in opposition and parties outside parliament, save for the fact that non-Marxist opposition parties receive electoral funding from bourgeois elements.




If you vote for a third party in US elections you not only are wasting your time, but are also helping to legitimize the rule of the bourgeois parties by adding to the total number of voters who participated in the election as a whole.

He's talking about spoilage, not "protest votes." :glare:

[Guerrilla22]

He's talking about spoilage, not "protest votes."

I know, I was refering to protest votes, apparently some people thought I was refering to spoilage. This is why you should read comments closely.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry for my rash reaction. :(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Regardless of whether you personally choose to abstain or spoil your ballot paper, what I think is important is that revolutionary leftist organisation publicly protest against the fraud of bourgeouis elections on the day concerned;


Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"! May 21, 2004 by RedStar200

(http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory9d65.html?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)[link]

I think it is important that we put the message across that the ruling class electoral system is completely illegitimate and that any vote, even for a "left" candidate validates the very system we fight to abolish.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ooooh. Well, spoil first, then join the organized protests. :D

[KC]

You see my acknowledgment that both options have their own usefulness in different situations as a sign of contradiction.

Actually I didn't interpret what you wrote as this; I interpreted it as you making a statement of principle that "Voting for "socialist" candidates rarely does little more than help perpetuate the idea that salvation can be brought down from above and achieved via organs of bourgeois rule" while at the same time saying that in some cases you support it.

If you were just saying basically what Luis said, then I of course agree with you.


Voting for socialist candidates (under the assumed circumstances) only acts to legitimise bourgeois parliamentary tactics.

Again, based on my earlier interpretation I assumed you were making a statement of principle and not tactic and thus assumed you weren't merely talking about the "assumed circumstances".


It is obvious that you fail to understand parliament as a bourgeois organ of rule. You instead favour an idealistic approach in calling the corruption a result of mens ideas and thoughts, a lack of correct leadership, rather than a problem arising from the material content and conditions that are parliament.

On the contrary, my position is based on a materialist assessment of the situation. The way that the electoral system is set up in the United States is such that only politicians that have proven their loyalty to their bourgeois masters have a chance of getting elected. This is what I meant by "the system chooses corrupt candidates". I meant that the system is designed in such a way that corrupt candidates (i.e. bourgeois pawns) are the only ones with the possibility of becoming elected.

[Guerrilla22]

Sorry for my rash reaction. :(
It's kewl :D

[Dros]

Yeah, Lenin was a bourgeois traitor to the movement!

Right. Because the situation in the US today is exactly the same as the situation in Russia before 1918.
:lol:

[Hyacinth]

Both spoilage and abstention are pointless strategies by themselves. What we should be doing is protesting, and if you care to combine either spoilage or abstention *with* protests against the sham elections, great! The ruling class and its government certainly don’t care that people aren’t participating or spoiling their ballots. If you protested against the elections during election time, due to the considerable media coverage elections receive, you are more likely to get your message out to the people who it is intended for.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists fight for the working class to organize independently of the bosses and their
system (whether it be "democratic" or otherwise). Some ultra-leftists oppose certain tactics on principle.

I could see where it could be useful in a certain situation to wage some sort of campaign to have workers write in the name of a class war prisoner (or something else in some other conditions, etc), if it was done in conjunction with our organizing. We have to determine our tactics by analyzing the conditions we're faced with..

[Black Light]

I don't think we should spoil ballots or abstain, but should actively campaign to get the "left" elected. I am an Anarchist but I always vote for the democrats, because I realize that people aren't just going to all of a sudden realize that capitalism and the state are terrible and against their interests. Consciousness has to come by degrees and experience, isn't that the whole point of Lenin's Left-wing Communism? People will become revolutionary when they see en masse that the legal "opposition" does nothing to help them, and we will be there to offer our revolutionary vision to the workers and have it accepted on a large scale.

[YKTMX]

I'm not sure what "message" (and to whom) either practice sends. If socialists have a socialist to vote for, they should for them. If they have two reactionaries to vote for, they should stay at home. If they have one reactionary and one progressive, they should for the latter.

Sitting at home wondering about how best to tell the ruling class we don't like them seems like a total waste of time. They know we don't like them and, you know what, they don't give a shit.

[Random Precision]

Right. Because the situation in the US today is exactly the same as the situation in Russia before 1918.
:lol:

Actually the situation in Russia was a lot worse, yet Lenin still used his party's representation in the Tsarist Duma to generate mass support: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1086630&postcount=14)

[Dros]

Actually the situation in Russia was a lot worse, yet Lenin still used his party's representation in the Tsarist Duma to generate mass support: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1086630&postcount=14)

"Worse" is not a condition.

What I'm saying is that pursuing electoral politics in a bipolar bourgeois democratic environment is not useful for any political end at all. The bourgeois democratic stage in Russia was "worse" economically and that led to political instability that allowed Lenin to build the party through the Duma to a certain extent. But that was a.) never the primary work of the party like it is in the SPUSA and b.) not at all similar in any way to the situation in the US today where a two party system is so heavily ingrained that participation just looks like and in fact is Bernsteinism.

[ChristianV777]

I saw on the first page someone address the United States political system, and it is a very different matter here than some other countries.
In Norway, for example, it could make a difference.
Here, it would give the Greens or Socialists a 2% of the vote, I suppose.
I'm not against protest voting at all. I do vote for either Ralph Nader, since many Socialists not aligned with a political party choose him as a protest vote since he's visible here, or I vote for a Socialist or even a Green Party candidate that catches my interest.
The first and second choice voting system is something I think, in the short term, it would benefit the Left to fight for.
I don't think we should sit back and do nothing, but voting is certainly no alternative to activism and protest, which is far more important in the bourgeois democracies we have.
So many on the Left put their hope behind the Social Democrat getting elected (how many times have we been betrayed now?)....but it's been shown, now more than ever with even so-called Socialist Parties promoting anti-immigration policies and proposing privatization that this form of politics is no solution.

I've had this debate many time with Left comrades. Most recently the London elections, where I said I could not support Boris the Racist or Ken Livingstone, and they argued that supporting the "lesser of two evils" was the best choice and anything else was reactionary. They have the first and second vote system there, so I would vote for Livingstone as a second choice vote, but I could never vote for him as a first choice.
I just cannot vote for a Democrat, because the policies of the Democratic candidate would then be on my conscience, because the Democrats are going to pursue the same Imperialist, pro-corporate, neoliberal, totalitarian proposals that the Republican was supporting.
At least the Greens or Nader offer some sort of alternative, although if the German Greens are any example, I guess not them either.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's obvious that electoral activity shouldn't be the only means of wider political struggle against the capitalist state, and more importantly, it shouldn't be done at a miscalculated time where parties do not even have the necessary political capital to cause a commotion in elections.

It's obvious that all of us here (except a few assorted reformists) view the bourgeois state as an instrument of class rule, and don't see parliamentarianism as the direct road to power.

[Coggeh]

Why not use elections as creating a platform for your ideas ?:blink:abstention and spoilage is pretty ridiculously stupid for the most part .

[Die Neue Zeit]

An interesting website:

http://www.spoilyourballot.co.uk/

1. Everyone should be an informed voter
2. Everyone in a democratic system should be allowed and should fight for a control - the power to vote against the system itself
3. Everyone should feel able and confident to use the system in place to do this. For example, by posting a blank ballot or by "spoiling" their ballot by stating their position in writing upon it
4. Every informed voter within a democratic system must oppose any system that does not allow a "No" vote

[Glenn Beck]

An interesting website:

http://www.spoilyourballot.co.uk/

1. Everyone should be an informed voter
2. Everyone in a democratic system should be allowed and should fight for a control - the power to vote against the system itself
3. Everyone should feel able and confident to use the system in place to do this. For example, by posting a blank ballot or by "spoiling" their ballot by stating their position in writing upon it
4. Every informed voter within a democratic system must oppose any system that does not allow a "No" vote

An important question is whether spoiled ballots are counted in the voter turnout statistics in the USA like they are in the UK. If so I think spoiling a ballot is definitely better than abstention. Abstention just leads to smug whining in the media about the ignorance and apathy of the masses, taking the time to go to the polls in order to not vote there is a much clearer display of lack of confidence in the system.

I think that given how easy voting is going to the polls and leaving a spoiled ballot or a ballot of 3rd party protest votes is the least one can do. Sure, an organized protest against the system is better, but why not use spoiling ballots as a rallying point to bring disaffected voters into contact with activists and make their voices heard? Even a bit of mocking news coverage on your local Fox affiliate about the "vote for nobody" march downtown is better than total political quietism.

[Lenin's Law]

I don't think we should spoil ballots or abstain, but should actively campaign to get the "left" elected. I am an Anarchist but I always vote for the democrats, because I realize that people aren't just going to all of a sudden realize that capitalism and the state are terrible and against their interests. Consciousness has to come by degrees and experience, isn't that the whole point of Lenin's Left-wing Communism? People will become revolutionary when they see en masse that the legal "opposition" does nothing to help them, and we will be there to offer our revolutionary vision to the workers and have it accepted on a large scale.

Hmm, an anarchist that votes for the Democrats who approvingly refers to Lenin's Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder! :confused:

And I thought I've seen everything on RevLeft!

[JimmyJazz]

1. Does anyone have any kind of proof that a "spoiled" ballot is even recorded, rather than thrown away, and that anyone more than a couple of pollworkers see it? (And I'm not talking about what is legally required; I'm talking about what actually happens).

2. Do you who plan on "spoiling" your ballot intend to leave some sign that it was spoiled by a communist rather than a fascist? If so, do you actually believe that whatever you plan on doing will result in the vote being recorded differently? Or will it again be a case of impressing a few pollworkers?

There are other reasons, that I'm sure you all can think of, why spoiling the ballot is a silly idea in the present political situation in America. And probably in most other liberal democracies, although I'd have to look at them case by case. I mean, spoiling in Venezuela could potentially be widespread enough to send a real message. Still, even if it could "work" (i.e., send a message that gets across), the opposition would paint it as an infantile move, and most undecided/centrist people would probably be inclined to agree.


Spoilage and abstentionism are both ignored by the system. Now one pays it any mind and no one keeps track of deliberately spoiled ballots or deliberate abstentions. The only thing that counts as a vote against the system is to go and vote against the system. Vote for any socialist on the ballot.

This seems to me so obviously the correct answer. It's obvious, as a few people have said, that the system itself is the problem and not the parties...so what do you do? You vote for a party that promises to overhaul the entire system, i.e., a revolutionary party. Will such a party ever be allowed to win by those with a stake in the status quo? Of course not, but any major electoral victory by them (and I'm only talking about something like 10% of the vote) would scare the living shit out of the ruling class, and hasten an open battle between the ruling class and the working class.

Seriously, think about what the Democrats and Republicans would join together to do if the Party for Socialism and Liberation (to pick just one example of an uncompromisingly revolutionary U.S. party) won like 8% of the national vote. You better believe they'd move in the direction of an anti-labor police state. And the working class, already radical enough that 8% of them are voting for the PSL, would certainly respond in kind.

That's why I'll be voting third party.


Communists fight for the working class to organize independently of the bosses and their
system (whether it be "democratic" or otherwise).

I really like this post as well. Socialists do their political work by organizing and raising consciousness, mainly (although not exclusively) among the labor movement. The fact that a thread on how to spend our votes in the "most socialist" way possible grows to 3 pages in length may indicate some fucked up priorities and/or laziness on our part, because I highly doubt that a thread for sharing strategies on infiltrating local unions and challenging their conservative leadership would get so much attention.

Bash the IMT all you want, but in between supporting reformist parties at election time, they are doing actual organizing among the labor movement. At least they don't give too much importance to bourgeois elections one way or the other, which is more than you can probably say for many of their critics. (I'm not an IMTer btw).

A major function of elections in liberal democracies is to individualize the political process. Originally, the focus on elections as the major form of political participation may have been merely a reflection of the individualistic liberal outlook, but at this point in history I'm convinced that they actually perpetuate that outlook. Individual freedoms like the secret vote, or those in the bill of rights, etc., can all be used by revolutionary socialists to our advantage. But our victory doesn't ultimately lie in the correct utilization of our individual rights, it lies in collective action. That's probably the single biggest difference between us and them, imo. Individualism leads to winners and losers, oppressors and oppressed. Only collective action can correct this problem.

[Lenin's Law]

1. Does anyone have any kind of proof that a "spoiled" ballot is even recorded, rather than thrown away, and that anyone more than a couple of pollworkers see it? (And I'm not talking about what is legally required; I'm talking about what actually happens).

Can't speak about every country but in the US spoilage is not counted or advertised at all. In fact the media is so dishonest here they report 100% totals of votes without even giving a clue as to votes that were challenged (a practice used especially against minorities and poor people), left blank, spoiled, whatever. I'm willing to be open minded enough to say that in some countries, where spoilage is featured more prominently it might be appropriate, though workers in general like to feel that they're voting for something and not nothing.



2. Do you who plan on "spoiling" your ballot intend to leave some sign that it was spoiled by a communist rather than a fascist? If so, do you actually believe that whatever you plan on doing will result in the vote being recorded differently? Or will it again be a case of impressing a few pollworkers?

There are other reasons, that I'm sure you all can think of, why spoiling the ballot is a silly idea in the present political situation in America. And probably in most other liberal democracies, although I'd have to look at them case by case. I mean, spoiling in Venezuela could potentially be widespread enough to send a real message. Still, even if it could "work" (i.e., send a message that gets across), the opposition would paint it as an infantile move, and most undecided/centrist people would probably be inclined to agree.

This seems to me so obviously the correct answer. It's obvious, as a few people have said, that the system itself is the problem and not the parties...so what do you do? You vote for a party that promises to overhaul the entire system, i.e., a revolutionary party. Will such a party ever be allowed to win by those with a stake in the status quo? Of course not, but any major electoral victory by them (and I'm only talking about something like 10% of the vote) would scare the living shit out of the ruling class, and hasten an open battle between the ruling class and the working class.

Seriously, think about what the Democrats and Republicans would join together to do if the Party for Socialism and Liberation (to pick just one example of an uncompromisingly revolution
ary U.S. party) won like 8% of the national vote. You better believe they'd move in the direction of an anti-labor police state. And the working class, already radical enough that 8% of them are voting for the PSL, would certainly respond in kind.

That's why I'll be voting third party.


I agree strongly with everything you said here; the most important thing for revolutionaries to be doing right now is building class consciousness and getting workers to identify the dictatorship of capital and how the two bourgeois parties with minimal differences between the two ulimately defend the same interests: the ruling class and the wealthy and big business who fund and support their campaigns.

Abstention does nothing.

On which third party to vote for? I'm not going to get into the whole sectarian matter of which party is the biggest, baddest, reddest on the block but rather give broad support to any leftist third-party (who I hope spend more time organizing than attacking each other). That I think should be the immediate, short term tactical goal right now.





I really like this post as well. Socialists do their political work by organizing and raising consciousness, mainly (although not exclusively) among the labor movement. The fact that a thread on how to spend our votes in the "most socialist" way possible instantly balloons to 3 pages in length may indicate some fucked up priorities and/or laziness on our part, because I'm pretty sure a thread on strategies for infiltrating local unions and challenging their conservative leadership would not get so much attention.

Bash the IMT all you want, but in between supporting reformist parties at election time, they are doing actual organizing among the labor movement. At least they don't give too much importance to bourgeois elections one way or the other, which is more than you can probably say for many of their critics. (I'm not an IMTer btw).

A major function of elections in liberal democracies is to individualize the political process. Originally it may have been merely a reflection of the individualistic liberal outlook, but by now it actually perpetuates that outlook. Things like the bill of rights, the secret vote, etc., can all be used by revolutionary socialists to our advantage. But our victory doesn't ultimately lie in the correct utilization of our individual rights, it lies in collective action. That's probably the single biggest difference between us and them, imo. Individualism leads to winners and losers, oppressors and oppressed. Only collective action can correct this problem.

[JimmyJazz]

workers in general like to feel that they're voting for something and not nothing.

This is another good point.


On which third party to vote for? I'm not going to get into the whole sectarian matter of which party is the biggest, baddest, reddest on the block but rather give broad support to any leftist third-party (who I hope spend more time organizing than attacking each other). That I think should be the immediate, short term tactical goal right now.

Yeah, I didn't want to say this, because I'm currently torn between voting Green and socialist. I really have no idea which is best. But I don't discount the whole notion of voting Green as many others here do; if a socialist vote is practically invisible, then a Green vote is a tactically smarter move for a socialist to make. On the other hand, a socialist vote is probably never 100% invisible, since the socialist parties themselves probably keep quite good numbers on how many votes they got*, which is at least going to be inspiring to young leftists who may feel alienated and alone. Fifty thousand socialist votes may be "invisible" to the system as a whole, but that number might be quite inspiring to someone who has never had a single in-person encounter with another real-life Marxist. So, I just dunno what I'm gonna do yet.

*can anyone confirm whether they do this?