Best option (in your opinion) for an American Marxist ?

[LiberaCHE]

?

[Kami]

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

Furthermore, voting (in terms of democratic theory) is a tacit validation of the candidate. You are basically saying: "I support this candidate as a representative of my interests, to rule over me for the next four years."

Consciously withholding one's vote is the best option.

- August

[F9]

go and paint this on the paper::blackA: :lol:
i dont know if you cant go,if you cant just dont waste your time for arseholes!

Fuserg9:star:

[Trystan]

Furthermore, voting (in terms of democratic theory) is a tacit validation of the candidate. You are basically saying: "I support this candidate as a representative of my interests, to rule over me for the next four years."

Consciously withholding one's vote is the best option.

- August

"Tactical voting" isn't a bad idea. Personally, I'd vote for the party that could stop the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-cons remaining in power. It makes sense. Withholding your vote achieves nothing at all.

[Pogue]

Vote for the best possible, or use your vote to try and block the worst. I suppose for you that'd be McCain, so vote for whoever will best keep him out of power. Or vote for the most left-wing group, so the SWP, depending on your ideals.
Its like tactical voting over here, where voting for the party who you most agree with can be counter-productive because thats a wasted vote as that party has no chance of election, so you should use your vote to keep out the worst.
Labour over here sometimes encourage people to vote Lib Dem in areas with little Labour influence to keep out the Conservatives.

[More Fire for the People]

I might vote for Obama, or McKinney, or PSL. But I don't know. The fraction of difference is little.

[bcbm]

Personally, I'd vote for the party that could stop the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-cons remaining in power.

And which party would that be, exactly? Surely not the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-liberal democrats?

[Trystan]

And which party would that be, exactly? Surely not the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-liberal democrats?

Yes. :) :rolleyes:

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I'll fill out the majority of the ballot, but probably leave the president portion blank.

Again.

[Pogue]

Whats the ballot paper look like in the US? What options do you get come election time?

[Hessian Peel]

"Tactical voting" isn't a bad idea. Personally, I'd vote for the party that could stop the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-cons remaining in power. It makes sense. Withholding your vote achieves nothing at all.

Why would you encourage people to vote for one half of the business party rather than the other?

I fail to see how Obama is going to be significantly better than George W or McCain.

[Trystan]

Why would you encourage people to vote for one half of the business party rather than the other?


Why not? At least Obama has liberal policies.

[Winter]

Why not? At least Obama has liberal policies.

Yeah. Like putting more troops in Afghanistan, swearing alliegance to Israel, and invading Darfur to end "genocide" which would obviously lead to another war much like the catastrofuck in Iraq.

Just a side note, liberal policies is not what us Leftists should aim for at all. Liberalism in the modern sense of the word here in the US just represents an illusion of more power for the people. The reality is that all that they offer us is scraps and that is all. If we want more, we cannot work within the system but must destory it completely.

Liberalism, in whatever variety it might stand for, has always been the enemy of Communism.

[Trystan]

Yeah. Like putting more troops in Afghanistan, swearing alliegance to Israel, and invading Darfur to end "genocide" which would obviously lead to another war much like the catastrofuck in Iraq.

Yeah. I'm not disputing any of this. But since a socialist party is unlikely to be elected, it is only common sense.

[Kami]

Yeah. I'm not disputing any of this. But since a socialist party is unlikely to be elected, it is only common sense.
"The socialists are unlikely, therefore vote for their opponents" is not only a non-sequiter, it's self-fulfilling.

[BIG BROTHER]

I would recomend either not voting at all in order to devalidate the so called "democratic" institutions. In the case of the U.S. I say one could also vote for some third party in order to undermine the two party system and the democratic party.

Even though i live in the u.s. i can't vote because i live here ilegally so no voting is the default option for me:lol:

[chimx]

I voted for option one.


I fail to see how Obama is going to be significantly better than George W or McCain.

He probably won't be significantly better, but he'll probably be somewhat better. He's supporting some things that are marginally pro-union that could be beneficial to labor organizing in the future. Some members here are cynical about it, but I think it remains the best option given how weak the left is on a national level.

[Trystan]

"The socialists are unlikely, therefore vote for their opponents"

Yeah, that's pretty much the logic behind it.

Luckily for me though, I don't live in the US and will not have to vote in such shenanigans. :)

[politics student]

I recommend not voting or how about a revolution? I thought the constitution was clear that if you have a dictatorship you should over throw it, I know they are elected but the system is stuck between 2 parties who hold very minor differences well maybe not so minor but the freedom of democratic choice is not there in a majority system.

Revolt!

hehe

or vote Obama as voter turnout is already low and the large amounts of non voters has not caused changes to be made in the system.

[Demogorgon]

Furthermore, voting (in terms of democratic theory) is a tacit validation of the candidate. You are basically saying: "I support this candidate as a representative of my interests, to rule over me for the next four years."

Consciously withholding one's vote is the best option.

- August

I don't know why people keep repeating this. If you watch what politicians are saying closely, you see them saying that if people are not voting, then it must mean that they are satisfied with the status quo and see no need to take even minor action (like voting) against it.

Not voting is considered closer to endorsement of the system as a whole than voting is.

[LiberaCHE]

I recommend not voting or how about a revolution?


1. Taking down an apache helicopter with a Molotov cocktail will require a "great arm."

2. Average American: "But American Idol is on that night."


:ninja:

[politics student]

1. Taking down an apache helicopter with a Molotov cocktail will require a "great arm."

2. Average American: "But American Idol is on that night."


:ninja:


Well with the lack of gun control.

but getting them to have a revolution would be nearly impossible.

[DancingLarry]

Whats the ballot paper look like in the US? What options do you get come election time?

President:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

U. S. Senate:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

U.S. House of Representatives:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

Governor:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

State Senate:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

State House of Representatives:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

County Commissioner:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

Sealer of Weights and Measures:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

Canine Control Commission:
(Vote for one)
[ ] Hegemony (Democratic)
[ ] Hegemony (Republican)
[ ] Hegemony (Libertarian)
[ ] _________ (Write In)

BALLOT QUESTIONS
Q. 1. Shall this State define marriage as solely a matter between one man and one woman, and reserve all the rights, privileges, perquisites and emoluments of marriage to married couples so defined, and excluding all others?
[ ] YES

Q. 2. Shall the Commissioners of Yoktapanawha County be authorized to increase the tax on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products to 2% with the proceeds therefrom to fund public education in said County?
[ ] NO

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know why people keep repeating this. If you watch what politicians are saying closely, you see them saying that if people are not voting, then it must mean that they are satisfied with the status quo and see no need to take even minor action (like voting) against it.

Not voting is considered closer to endorsement of the system as a whole than voting is.

Indeed:

Why abstention and not spoilage? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html)

[Lost In Translation]

Move to Canada, everybody! At least we're well represented in parliament (well, the NDP is centre-left, at best, but what the heck).

[Chapter 24]

I'd say... either don't vote or vote for the party leaning most to the left. But considering that's probably the SWP or some other party that's never been heard of by the general public and receives, maybe, ~.001% of the vote... your best bet is to stand outside your local voting place and hand out Marxist literature and educate people. Unless you would feel too uncomfortable in doing so because it's so similar to what the Hare Krishna people do at airports. :lol:

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Real quick; does anybody here live in the U.S., is able to vote in the U.S., and live in a state where their vote for president would affect the outcome in any way?

I am registered to vote in Illinois.

If I vote for Obama, McCain, or Mr. Potato Head, it will matter little; Illinois (and it's 21 electoral votes) goes for the Democrat presidential candidate, and it has voted for this Democrat presidential candidate already multiple times (Dem. Pres. Primaries, U.S. senator.)

It doesn't matter how I vote for president, and that is the main cause of my presidential election apathy. If I lived in a swing state, or if there was no electoral college, I would vote for president.

edit: FYI, I have voted for Obama (as Senator to block out the greater evil; Alan Keyes), and I am happy that I did. However, with the electoral college, voting for the lesser evil is an ineffective strategy in the presidential election.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ At least show up and SPOIL!

[OI OI OI]

I would say that an american Marxist should organize with his/her organization for the time where Obama gets elected (and even now) in order to expose his bullshit in the opinion of the working class and make them understand that they have no option left except of forming a new workers party! (Because they will be screwed both by the Republicans and their only hope which is emboddied in Obama will be proven a hoax)

I really think that communists in the US(and not only them but also social democrats etc) should start forming a mass labour party (not communist but left wing reformist).

And by working in that party they can reach to the masses and spread the ideas of genuine socialism.
For that there is a need of alot of work principaly with the big unions.
But I think after the Obama experience it can be reality.
Because the US is one of the few countries with no labour party

[Decolonize The Left]

"Tactical voting" isn't a bad idea. Personally, I'd vote for the party that could stop the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war, neo-cons remaining in power. It makes sense. Withholding your vote achieves nothing at all.

And who, exactly, would you "tactically" vote for? What revolutionary potential are you "tactically" achieving by instituting a capitalist presidential candidate who will most certainly ignore all leftist requests/demands?


I don't know why people keep repeating this. If you watch what politicians are saying closely, you see them saying that if people are not voting, then it must mean that they are satisfied with the status quo and see no need to take even minor action (like voting) against it.

Not voting is considered closer to endorsement of the system as a whole than voting is.

Politicians can phrase anything however they want... so your argument is pointless. I am not voting so that my government will tell people that someone consciously withheld their vote.

I am not voting because it is incompatible for me to value leftist principles and vote for a capitalist, imperialist, exploitative, and oppressive system.. How complicated is this?


Indeed:

Why abstention and not spoilage? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html)

And here's what a comrade had to say in that thread:

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.
Bingo.

- August

[Trystan]

And who, exactly, would you "tactically" vote for? What revolutionary potential are you "tactically" achieving by instituting a capitalist presidential candidate who will most certainly ignore all leftist requests/demands?


None whatsoever. But it makes sense to me to vote for the candidate whose views are most aligned with mine. Of course, they're really far from my own views but it is better than having ultra-right-winger in charge. I would do the same thing if a fascist candidate stood in my area. It's just common sense.

[gla22]

I think i will vote for a third party candidate in protest of the two party system.

[LiberaCHE]

I guess it could be humorous if you could get several thousand people in a small state to all write "Fuck Capitalism" in as their candidate.

Enough to at least garner 1 % of the vote, and thus the networks might have to report that "Fuck Capitalism" garnered 1 % of the vote in ________.


:)

[Comrade B]

The US government couldnt give two shits thay you arnt voting, all the better for them. There are no rich people not voting I will bet you that, and congratulations, you are assisting them in being the #1 heard voice in America!
If I were born a couple of months earlier, I would be voting for Nader. My reasons for this
1. He is the best of the options that people have heard of before, and if his percentage of votes rises, the reasonability of voting radical left could become more recognizable in the US, drifting the country closer towards socialism.
2. I live in Washington state. It doesn't matter who I vote for, Obama will win the state, so I do not have to worry about McCain taking power and launching the working class of America into a few more wars and initiating a genocide against the people of Iran (we can see from quotes of his, such as that about Iran being the #1 importer of US cigarettes, McCain is more interested in killing Iranians, than he is in anything remotely political).

Edit: When participating in local elections, my family members always write in Dick Cheney, or some evil bastard, for some tiny useless position to force him to be constantly traveling. He would though, no doubt, just resign from the local position, but it would be funny anyway to force him to have to do the resignation.

[BIG BROTHER]

I guess it could be humorous if you could get several thousand people in a small state to all write "Fuck Capitalism" in as their candidate.

Enough to at least garner 1 % of the vote, and thus the networks might have to report that "Fuck Capitalism" garnered 1 % of the vote in ________.


:)


that would be awesome.

[#FF0000]

I've never heard an argument against voting that made much sense, aside from George Carlin's bit on it.


Consciously withholding one's vote is the best option.

What ends does that meet, though? Sure, you're not giving the state your consent to rule over you if you don't vote, but it doesn't need your consent. It's the State.

I agree with Chimx on this. The Democratic party makes concessions to labor all the time. Even if they make things only barely better for the workers, it's something, and it helps. Especially with the way things are now.

[chimx]

even if they make things only barely better for the workers, it's something, and it helps. Especially with the way things are now.

q f t

[Comrade B]

On tactical voting:
Take your pick, Hitler or Bush. Bush will be a dick to gays, radical leftists, minorities, and everybody else. Hitler will kill them. Which one is a step in a worse direction/better direction?

They are both horrible bastards, but some people are more bastardly than other people.

Obama or McCain
Obama wishes to relax restrictions on Cuban goods
McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Take a stab at how he feels about communists.

Obama wants to increase troops in Afganistan, and, after a short time, pull troops out of Iraq.
McCain wants to leave the troop levels in Afganistan and Iraq the same, and go to war with Iran.

Obama has been called "the most progressive leader the United States has had" (Or something of the storts, cannot remember the exact quote) by Fidel Castro.
McCain has been praised by the Bush administration.

These are some differences between the candidates, feel free to try to tell me that Obama is no better than McCain.

[Plan9]

presidential politics is a waste of our time. discussing local, city or state elections might be more constructive, but choosing a president is like flipping a coin. Obama and McCain are both big business politicians and they're very much alike except in rhetoric and style. they'll do whatever the hell they want once they're in office, so lets concentrate on things that really matter, like building an alternative to the Republican/Democrat parties, instead of worrying which corporate stooge gets in the White House.

[KC]

Yeah. I'm not disputing any of this. But since a socialist party is unlikely to be elected, it is only common sense.

What are these "liberal policies" that Obama holds? I've asked this question so many times and have yet to receive a substantial answer. The only actual progressive position he holds is his cosponsorship of the Fair Elections Now Act, which won't pass and which is a topic he will drop once elected.


2. Average American: "But American Idol is on that night."

What is an "average American"? :confused:

[Colonello Buendia]

ummm, don't be an American Marxist.... Bakunin worls as a detox :P

[Aurelia]

Bakunins words are a Utopian disease.

[Trystan]

On tactical voting:
Take your pick, Hitler or Bush. Bush will be a dick to gays, radical leftists, minorities, and everybody else. Hitler will kill them. Which one is a step in a worse direction/better direction?

They are both horrible bastards, but some people are more bastardly than other people.

Obama or McCain
Obama wishes to relax restrictions on Cuban goods
McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Take a stab at how he feels about communists.

Obama wants to increase troops in Afganistan, and, after a short time, pull troops out of Iraq.
McCain wants to leave the troop levels in Afganistan and Iraq the same, and go to war with Iran.

Obama has been called "the most progressive leader the United States has had" (Or something of the storts, cannot remember the exact quote) by Fidel Castro.
McCain has been praised by the Bush administration.

These are some differences between the candidates, feel free to try to tell me that Obama is no better than McCain.

My sentiments exactly.

[KurtFF8]

Firstly, this is a halarious poll, good writing and analysis of elections (in poll format I suppose, hah).

Anyway, I am still torn between tactical voting (which in my opinion is a valid option for leftists) and just voting for PSL or SPUSA.

Staying home isn't an option for me because there are other things on the ballot in November other than the presidential election that need to be dealt with.

[FreeFocus]

You can do two things: abstain and engage in direct action, or vote for McCain, whose policies will further the collapse of American imperialism. Obama, with his ability to confuse people into thinking there's hope that America will not be as aggressive and will work with the world in good faith, is incredibly dangerous over the longterm. Voting for Obama is unacceptable.

[BIG BROTHER]

presidential politics is a waste of our time. discussing local, city or state elections might be more constructive, but choosing a president is like flipping a coin. Obama and McCain are both big business politicians and they're very much alike except in rhetoric and style. they'll do whatever the hell they want once they're in office, so lets concentrate on things that really matter, like building an alternative to the Republican/Democrat parties, instead of worrying which corporate stooge gets in the White House.

that's very true, but lets face it even if its just a small difference obama is a more progresive candidate than mccain. we could say obama is the "good" cop.

[Guerrilla22]

Don't vote, stay home and save gas.

[Mala Tha Testa]

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

this

[LiberaCHE]

"A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not in reach, keep your ballot in your pocket."

~ Malcolm X

[Comrade B]

Before you say the same thing about not validating the process as the last twenty some people, anyone care to actually debate their view? Please, read my rational. I wish to actually have a debate here.

[hekmatista]

Are both bourgeois parties (all bourgeois parties if you throw in the minor leagues) in the USA heading for more wars for Empire and repression at home? Ultimately there is no difference; if there were, I'd be a social democrat in the traditional sense. Proximally, however, there is no mass class party in this country, nor is there a mass class-conscious union movement. In order to make use of bourgeois legality, which has great advantages while we have it, one does make tactical choices. Hence I'll be in the streets of Denver and St. Paul building the future alternative, ditto on the job, but voting O in November to prolong the time that I can do so openly. The latter is a matter of five minutes in November; the former is the work of a lifetime.

[Luís Henrique]

Start building a working class party.

Luís Henrique

[PigmerikanMao]

If I ever vote it'll be for the lesser of two evils. :laugh:

[manic expression]

Vote for the Socialist Workers Party in 2008. Vote for Roger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.

http://www.themilitant.com/2008/7202/720220.html

If you want to oppose imperialism and further the cause of the working class, one important way to do it is at the ballot box. Just as the Bolsheviks pursued electoral campaigns, so too must all revolutionary socialist parties present their platforms to the workers through campaigns.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Start building a working class party.

Luís Henrique

I have problems with the ambiguity of your words, but don't worry, comrade, since it's a self-criticism of my work, too. :( Such "working-class party" should be a class-strugglist labour party. According to your view, such party doesn't yet have to be a "communist" party," but the term class-strugglist indicates something definitely in the middle without flirting with bourgeois "socialism" ("Socialist" International style).

[The self-criticism is in regards to "Social Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)" as a name, when the full name should be "Class-Strugglist Social Labour" or "Class Strugglists for Social Labour." Also, the two merger formulas that I used may not have been clear enough ("political socialism" and "workers' movement"). :( ]

[lombas]

Go kill something.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, "Nur" propaganda of the deed works wonders, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[lombas]

Yeah, "Nur" propaganda of the deed works wonders, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Get yourself some molotov-cocktails and go burn something.

Invite friends. Throw a party. Have fun.

[Red Flag Rising]

Obama is far more radical than he lets on. He comes out of a radical milieu, his friends are almost all radicals, his backround is radical. His election will be radical because it will signal the beginning of the end of white-america. Obama may not be able to ultimately overturn capitalism but it will serve as another wedge into the system.

[Benos145]

Vote for the Socialist Workers Party in 2008. Vote for Roger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.

If you want to oppose imperialism and further the cause of the working class, one important way to do it is at the ballot box. Just as the Bolsheviks pursued electoral campaigns, so too must all revolutionary socialist parties present their platforms to the workers through campaigns.
SWP = sectoid Trotskite wreckers

No thanks.

[More Fire for the People]

Start building a working class party.

Luís Henrique
You got a programme for that... or at least a premier.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Here are appropriate historical program links (thankfully, not one of them is Trotsky's Transitional Program):

http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_g1.php#gotha
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891erfurt.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/index.htm

[manic expression]

SWP = sectoid Trotskite wreckers

No thanks.

That's ridiculous. The SWP represents a real working-class alternative at the ballot box and beyond. It's a party that's involved in multiple ongoing struggles of the American worker, from the textiles to the mines.

Why not review the SWP's platform and debate disagreements you may have instead of making useless claims? That would take effort and thought, and I hope you have that in you.

[apathy maybe]

I selected the option "Go light a tire on fire in the middle of the highway instead", but feel that it is equivalent to "[do not] validate the process".

Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.

OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue. Even if you didn't mean to (the USA presidential system democratic? Not even the term "representative democracy" makes sense in this case).

OK, so don't vote, and the politicians say, people are happy with the status quo. However, we all know that is bullshit, especially in this case where the present president cannot be re-elected. The reasoning behind the claim is totally flawed. To not vote, does not endorse the status quo, because the status quo is changing! OK, what about not voting as "accepting the system"? Yeah, if you vote you are endorsing the system and whomever gets elected, and by not voting the same... Actually, only the first is the case. Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).

OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then voting for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.

But when since is voting fun? Especially when it means that (whether your vote is counted or not, and we all know how many votes aren't counted, whether because you are black or from a Democratic county, or because you foolishly used (or didn't have a choice in using) Diabold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions) machines (regularly giving votes to Republicans and losing Democratic votes, every time) endorsing (tacitly and implicitly, even if not explicitly) a system that you are fundamentally against.

So yeah, if you are against the present system of exploitation etc., then use bullets, the ballots aren't going to change the system.

[apathy maybe]

The US government couldnt give two shits thay you arnt voting, all the better for them. There are no rich people not voting I will bet you that, and congratulations, you are assisting them in being the #1 heard voice in America!
The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.

If I were born a couple of months earlier, I would be voting for Nader.
Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.

My reasons for this
1. He is the best of the options that people have heard of before, and if his percentage of votes rises, the reasonability of voting radical left could become more recognizable in the US, drifting the country closer towards socialism.
Sorry, I just don't agree with your reasoning. One, his percentage of votes won't rise significantly (especially since 2000 with the smear campaign against him).

2. I live in Washington state. It doesn't matter who I vote for, Obama will win the state, so I do not have to worry about McCain taking power and launching the working class of America into a few more wars and initiating a genocide against the people of Iran (we can see from quotes of his, such as that about Iran being the #1 importer of US cigarettes, McCain is more interested in killing Iranians, than he is in anything remotely political).
So, it doesn't matter who you vote for (I agree, see my post above about the flaws in the system). Why bother voting at all? By voting you are saying that you agree with the system and will support whomever gets elected. You don't really want to say that do you?


Edit: When participating in local elections, my family members always write in Dick Cheney, or some evil bastard, for some tiny useless position to force him to be constantly traveling. He would though, no doubt, just resign from the local position, but it would be funny anyway to force him to have to do the resignation.
Umm, funny. And a waste of time. Sorta like voting for the presidential election and not writing in "none of the above" or similar.

[apathy maybe]

Oh yeah, and a good time to repost an old essay of mine.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-presidential-elections-t21651/index.html

It was written before I become explicitly anarchistic in my thought, and as such has flaws. However, seeing as many of you actually seem to support the system it may provide an eye opener.

Some quotes,

However, the system currently in place was not meant to be democratic, only to provide a system of rule.

Also once elected the President is not held to any promises made during the campaign.

The current US Presidential electoral process produces a weak mandate

It is accepted in the US by many political theorists that if a person does not vote, then they are happy with either the status quo or with whoever got elected. Generally from minorities, many people do not vote because they feel disenfranchised. They feel that the system is rigged so that their voice will not be heard anyway, so why bother voting. And because the voting system is 'first past the post' (in the majority of instances) this leads to a situation where it is theoretically possible for a President to be elected with 10% support of the people who voted, with only 10% of people voting (or one percent support).

[manic expression]

Basically, it doesn't matter who *you* vote for, your vote doesn't count. It is one vote out of thousands, and with the shitty system (first past the post in most places, along with the electoral college), it doesn't mean shit.

It does if you vote for someone you want to win. It doesn't if you don't. If a party gets 1,000,000 votes nationwide instead of 1,000, that matters.

Presidential campaigns are a time of heightened political debate, many people are "into" talking about the issues in many different situations. This lends us a special opportunity to talk to them about what we believe. If you can get 1,000,000 people to vote for your candidate when, if you didn't try (and "had some fun" instead), they wouldn't have known the first thing about your program, that is a positive achievement.


OK, so assuming you *do* vote (for whatever fucked up reason you justify to yourself), and you vote for "Obama". You just endorsed capitalism, the state, Christianity, and a whole lot more bullshit. You just supported all Obama's of policies on every single issue.

No serious socialist or revolutionary would vote for Obama. Irrelevant.


Not voting depends on your motivation, and when I don't vote I'm objecting (even if only close friends and family know that I don't vote and the reason why).

That might make you feel very warm inside, but it doesn't help any cause outside your own moral satisfaction.


OK, lets examine burning a tire on the hireway. What does it do? Well, it might rate a mention in the local paper, and it is possible that it might be linked to anti-voting activity (anti-system). But it isn't about to bring about a revolution (but it will do a shit load more then voting for any of the candidates, whether "socialist" or not). But, it could be fun, and it might cost the state a bit of cash.

Burning a tire on a highway does nothing for anyone. Some poor public sector worker has to go out of his/her way to clean up the mess you made and it will cost the state absolutely nothing. So, what did you accomplish? You had fun? Go to the water park, at least then you won't have any delusional pretensions about making your "fun" into politics.

As I've explained above, voting for a working-class alternative DOES do something.


the ballots aren't going to change the system.

Ballots won't change the system, but campaigns are useful in the promotion of revolutionary socialist ideas to a wider audience. If something is useful, you should use it.

[Comrade B]

The rich will always be "the #1 heard voice in America", because they can buy access to politicians, to media, to judges whatever they want. Their vote is worth twice or more of yours.
And how is this a reason not to vote? The rich are not the majority of the States.


Another old rich white heterosexual male. Have fun with that.
White heterosexual male is not a reason to vote against a person.

In the United States, the wealthy are the only ones who are able to afford a campaign. Might as well make sure the least evil of these people get elected.


So, it doesn't matter who you vote for (I agree, see my post above about the flaws in the system). Why bother voting at all? By voting you are saying that you agree with the system and will support whomever gets elected. You don't really want to say that do you?
In some places it does matter who you vote for. Some states are decided by much smaller numbers. By voting you are not saying you fully agree with the candidate, because no one does this, and I see no way it could mean that you support whoever it is that gets elected. No one likes politicians.


Umm, funny. And a waste of time. Sorta like voting for the presidential election and not writing in "none of the above" or similar.
There are positions that definitely matter in my local elections, and useless positions might as well have a funny write in candidate.


No serious socialist or revolutionary would vote for Obama. Irrelevant.
I would vote for Obama in the situation mentioned in my earlier post.
I would prefer a leader that only wants to continue killing Afghanis and stop killing Iraqis over a leader that wants to continue these killings, and join in killing Iranians.


If I were in Nazi Germany and there was an election between Hitler, and a person that only wanted to burn half the people Hitler did, I would vote for the person who only wanted to burn half the people, then I would go out in the streets and fight a leader who, if my struggle fails, will harm the masses much less.

[Plagueround]

Months ago I would have voted for Obama as a lesser of two evils vote (I had even posted advocation of this idea), but I simply cannot vote for and endorse the policies he stands for. I'll probably stay home or toss in a spoilage vote.

[apathy maybe]

I would prefer a leader that only wants to continue killing Afghanis and stop killing Iraqis over a leader that wants to continue these killings, and join in killing Iranians.
The lesser of two evils is... evil.

If you are going to vote for evil, vote for Cthulhu, the greater evil.

[Comrade B]

The lesser of two evils is... evil.
Wouldn't you prefer to have Bush in control over Hitler?

[manic expression]

Wouldn't you prefer to have Bush in control over Hitler?

Who would you rather vote for: Hindenburg or Hitler?

And on edit: OR, a revolutionary socialist working-class alternative?

[JimmyJazz]

Stay home: definitely not. As others have said, it's a tacit endorsement of the 2-party system.

Vote Obama: definitely not. For the same reason.

OK, so I'm going to cast a protest vote.

If I voted Socialist or put down a write-in, I don't think anyone would even notice my vote--it would probably be the practical equivalent of just staying home.

If I vote Nader, I'm voting for a guy who will croak in a few years, probably sending his flock of disoriented and confused sheep straight into the waiting arms of the Democratic Party.

So, as of right now, I'm voting Green as I believe it is the most effective protest vote. I don't kid myself that it is *more* than that: the 2-3% they have will NEVER turn into a 34% plurality, Americans are too brainwashed and the Replublicrats wouldn't let it happen anyway. It is a protest vote and that's it, but it's a protest vote for a durable platform (a party rather than an individual) and one that will actually get counted and remembered.

I don't put any real stock in elections in this system (obviously, or I wouldn't be throwing my vote away on a protest). But it also doesn't take much effort to drive down the block and punch a chad for Green. So that's my plan.

My plan for the next four years after I cast my protest vote are to: protest war and intervention and forced free trade whenever I can, go to SOA Watch’s protest at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning (it comes just two weeks after the election!), support the California PIRG as it puts pressure on elected officials, further my political/economic/cultural education, and link up with social activists from other parts of the globe (maybe including working on my Spanish until I am fluent).

[JimmyJazz]

You can do two things: abstain and engage in direct action, or vote for McCain, whose policies will further the collapse of American imperialism. Obama, with his ability to confuse people into thinking there's hope that America will not be as aggressive and will work with the world in good faith, is incredibly dangerous over the longterm. Voting for Obama is unacceptable.

Yeah I agree with this. I don't understand in what sense a person still calls him/herself a revolutionary if his/her strategy is to vote for the Democrats. We all sneer at Eduard Berstein when we read Luxemburg's "RoR". The SPD was way more progressive than the Democrats. At least the SPD only actively undermined the revolution in its own country, whereas the Dems have been doing it all over the world for fifty years.

"Tactical" voting would be voting for McCain. That or third party voting, which practically speaking is the same as a McCain vote, but at the same time allows you to register something close to your true desires.

I also like Lightning's idea of handing out Marxist literature at the voting booth, but I don't now if I would have the guts. :) Maybe once I make more irl Marxist friends and I wouldn't have to do it alone. Most of my friends right now are either Greens or non-leftists.

[Reuben]

To be honest i think that the discussion of 'i could not endorse x/y/z' is of limited importance. For a revolutionary the point of any social or political action is not simply personal self-expression. It is about engaging with society and doing what might help move society forward - most importantly, what will raise the consciousness of those who have an interest in overthrowing capitalism. This is why lenin told the bolsheviks to join even those trade unions run by the Tsarist secret police.

On the issue at hand, I would vote democrats. Do i think that the democrats will improve the lot of working people in America and elsewhere? Hell no. WHat i do think is that after 8 years of republican government people who need change invest their hopes in a Democrat presidency. It is only through the bitter of experience of Democrat government that such illusions can be shattered - and then there will be a real space to start talking about radical alternatives at a mass level.

[Dust Bunnies]

If I could vote and was forced to I'd vote for Nader.

But if I could vote and vote for whomever I'd write in Paris Hilton, if she wins the next 4 years will be filled with laughs.

[Pawn Power]

On the issue at hand, I would vote democrats. Do i think that the democrats will improve the lot of working people in America and elsewhere? Hell no. WHat i do think is that after 8 years of republican government people who need change invest their hopes in a Democrat presidency. It is only through the bitter of experience of Democrat government that such illusions can be shattered - and then there will be a real space to start talking about radical alternatives at a mass level.

This position only makes sense if your memory goes back only a year. Why do our hopes need to be smashed again? The US has decades a Democratic-run White House in their history... all demonstrating the party's preference for war and capitalism.

Hell, if you can remember just two years ago when the democrats were voted into a majority in both the house and senate with the hopes that they would end the War in Iraq only to month later hand Bush billions more in war funds.

We don't need anymore examples of Democratic shit. It has been proven... Radicals do not need to vote in another 'example' they need to divulge the history of US ruling class 'betrayal' and agitate for real working-class change.

[More Fire for the People]

^^^ Here are appropriate historical program links (thankfully, not one of them is Trotsky's Transitional Program):

http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_g1.php#gotha
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891erfurt.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/index.htm

Well that's all good and a good starting point... do you have anything within the past quarter-century.

[Asoka89]

Vote for the Green Party to help them get above 5 percent and hopefully debate access, to try to destroy this 2 party hegemony in America and open up the debate for progressives. This will force the Democrats Leftwards. McCain is a danger though so if your in OH, PA or any swing state i might vote Obama.

SWP candidates arent big this election, PSL is running a larger election campaign

Bourgeois democracy is a hoax but not voting will do NOTHING, vote Green, vote progressive, the revolution will/wont happen either way

[chegitz guevara]

Vote Socialist!

While I would prefer you vote for my comrades, Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander, of the Socialist Party USA.

If, for some reason, you consider us too reformist (in which case you haven't paying attention to us lately) then vote for Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear of the Party of Socialism and Liberation or for the Socialist Workers Party candidates: Róger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.

A vote for any of these comrades is a vote against imperialism and for socialism.

[chegitz guevara]

I guess it could be humorous if you could get several thousand people in a small state to all write "Fuck Capitalism" in as their candidate.

Enough to at least garner 1 % of the vote, and thus the networks might have to report that "Fuck Capitalism" garnered 1 % of the vote in ________.

If Fuck Capitalism isn't on the ballot, it won't be counted. If it were on the ballot, and someone misspelled Fukc Capitalism, it would not be counted for Fuck Capitalism.

This guy's gunna have fun as a write in.
www.luzietti.com

Oh, that's me. ;)

[chegitz guevara]

Couple things to keep in mind. People died so you have the right to vote. Regardless of how you feel about the system, Black people, women, and working white men, all owe their ability to vote due to the fact that people fought and struggled with the ruling class to obtain it. To not vote is to spit on these people and their struggle.

Next, voting Green to help them break the 5% barrier and "destroy" the two-ruling class party system is a fools game. The minute the Greens become a viable alternative, the two major parties will either co-opt them, or, if the Democrats collapse and disappear, the Greens will become the new other ruling class party. It's not a step forward. At best, it's a step to the side, just unnecessary work.

[apathy maybe]

Couple things to keep in mind. People died so you have the right to vote. Regardless of how you feel about the system, Black people, women, and working white men, all owe their ability to vote due to the fact that people fought and struggled with the ruling class to obtain it. To not vote is to spit on these people and their struggle.
:rolleyes:
Yes, people died so that others could vote. (I hope you aren't talking about WW1, WW2 or other wars though, they weren't about voting, they were about the USA being attacked, and about imperialism and major party games. The ruling classes didn't give a fuck about voting or fascism, it was all about the fact that the Japanese were getting too big for their boots. And then Germany declared war on the USA, not vis-versa. WW1 was even more bullshit.)

However, those people had a different agenda to revolutionary leftists. To not vote is not to "spit on these people and their struggle", that is an absurd thing to say.

(It is even more absurd if you are talking about Australia where voting is compulsory, but seeing as the discussion is about the USA, I guess you aren't).


Next, voting Green to help them break the 5% barrier and "destroy" the two-ruling class party system is a fools game. The minute the Greens become a viable alternative, the two major parties will either co-opt them, or, if the Democrats collapse and disappear, the Greens will become the new other ruling class party. It's not a step forward. At best, it's a step to the side, just unnecessary work.
Yes, actually, voting Green will make the two major parties co-opt their policies. However, if you support what the Greens stand for (social democracy and environmentalism), then having the major parties jump on the band-wagon isn't such a bad thing.

But no, it is not a step forward, and neither is voting for any of the socialist candidates. There aren't enough people who are going to vote for the socialists for them to count. Not to mention, that there are 7 or some ridiculous number of "socialists" standing. Who should a person vote for? Why that "socialist" and not that other "socialist"?

A better option is not to bother voting at all, you'll have as much effect on the outcome of the election, and you won't have to get out of bed in the morning.

[chegitz guevara]

:rolleyes:
Yes, people died so that others could vote. (I hope you aren't talking about WW1, WW2 or other wars though, they weren't about voting, they were about the USA being attacked, and about imperialism and major party games. The ruling classes didn't give a fuck about voting or fascism, it was all about the fact that the Japanese were getting too big for their boots. And then Germany declared war on the USA, not vis-versa. WW1 was even more bullshit.)

Oh yeah, that's what I'm talking about, because working class white men, Black people, and women, gained the right to vote because of the world wars. :rolleyes: Are you really that stupid?


However, those people had a different agenda to revolutionary leftists. To not vote is not to "spit on these people and their struggle", that is an absurd thing to say.So because the people who overthrew the French monarchy had a different agenda than revolutionary socialists, we should not remember and honor their struggle and sacrifices on Bastille Day?


(It is even more absurd if you are talking about Australia where voting is compulsory, but seeing as the discussion is about the USA, I guess you aren't).Not only is the discussion, but the poll and thread, are about the USA, so as you note, your point is utterly irrelevant. I guess you are that stupid.


But no, it is not a step forward, and neither is voting for any of the socialist candidates. There aren't enough people who are going to vote for the socialists for them to count. Not to mention, that there are 7 or some ridiculous number of "socialists" standing. Who should a person vote for? Why that "socialist" and not that other "socialist"?But we aren't pretending it's a step forward. We aren't pretending it's going to bring down the two-party system. It's just a protest vote. One that at least represents the views (more or less) of many people on this board. Will it change anything . . . depends on how close the election is. If all the folks who voted Socialist in Florida in 2000 voted for Gore, we wouldn't have Bush as President.

As for which socialist you vote for, while I'd prefer my own party, ultimately I don't care which socialist you vote for, as long as you end up voting socialist.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I've done some personal research on this, on the internet mostly, and I think La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation) is the most genuinely marxist communist candidate. I think I'll vote for her.

[JimmyJazz]

I've done some personal research on this, on the internet mostly, and I think La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation) is the most genuinely marxist communist candidate. I think I'll vote for her.

Will anyone notice that you did? That is my only problem with voting socialist.

If I vote Green, sure it might help hurt the 2-party system in various ways, but I don't think it really has to, it could just be a protest vote that actually gets counted. I mean, when's the last time you heard a Democrat complain about the "socialist spoilers" in the 2000/2004 elections? But you bet they noticed the Nader voters. As a result, no one--not even the biggest right-wing blowhard--can deny that a minimum of ~3 million Americans were discontent with the 2-party system from the left in 2000. This is important. Deniability is the ruling class's greatest friend, we need to take it away from them whenever possible.

I'm open to debate about how to vote tactically in America, but that's what all voting has to be: tactical. There shouldn't be any illusions that socialism will ever be voted in. The capitalist elites would abandon democracy for fascism before they'd allow that to happen. I fail to see the tactical value of casting a socialist vote if nobody pays attention to it.

[Asoka89]

The Broad Left of the Democratic Party should vote together in a bloc, from social democrats to communist, there needs to be an electoral opposition to force the Democrats Left. Progressive forces that do exisit in America though are on the left fringes of the Democratic Party, working within the party if you want progressive reforms.

Or if your young, angry and ultra-left like me you can protest vote and never work within 100 yards of the lesser-evil ruling class party.

Elections are a tactic not a strategy. When a revolutionary situation comes, revolutionaries will need to organize and do good work, until then, most of our efforts will be futile, but its important to build the organizations and networks today.

[trivas7]

The Broad Left of the Democratic Party should vote together in a bloc, from social democrats to communist, there needs to be an electoral opposition to force the Democrats Left. Progressive forces that do exisit in America though are on the left fringes of the Democratic Party, working within the party if you want progressive reforms.

This is pretty much the line of CPUSA, no?

[Asoka89]

Yes, that has always been the stance of the DSA, but since Webb took over the CPUSA has even moved to the right of the DSA in this regard.

The DSA insists though that elections are just a tactic, not a strategy. A center-left victory, over the far-right gives us room to breathe, and at least gives us the hope of a leftward shift. We can pressure, use direct action, agitate through NGOs, anything to make Obama see the light and ride some of his "hope" and "change" against him to make him follow through.

In other words we can actually try to pressure for a minimum programme

Under McCain, what can we do? We can only fight on the defensive to try to protect the working class and reforms that we've fought for so far.

With a Democrat, we need to be on the defensive sometimes too, but we can also go on the offensive, there is that room to breathe at least.

Or we can just sit back and wait for the next depression and start the revolution?

[AnthArmo]

I voted Canada, lets be honest with ourselves, there's no hope on earth anyone even remotely socialist is going to set foot in the White house. The Red Scare and The Cold War have left a dead weight on the public that basically tells them that if your vote Left, your un-American, your voting for the "totalitarian" commies, that it'll bring back the Russians, that your not "Christian" or "patriotic". And that communism was declared dead years ago. There isn't even any hope to raise consciousness amongst the workers! The media and the schools admit communism as something that simply does not work. I may be overestimating the scenario (I hope I am) as I don't live in the U.S but if my suspicions are correct there's no hope for anything even slightly left to take place in the U.S.A.

Now if you guys had the excellent Preferential voting system we have here in Australia we wouldn't have this problem would we :cool:

[spice756]

Why would anyone vote ? You should be protesting the system.

Also lobbying group or intrest group will influence policy by giving money doing campaining;)

Well at this point rallies and speeches are better option now.And setting up web sites and message boards .Do to your 2 party system. Repulican fascism or Democratic conservative.

And if you look at the last election people are so divided and has been like that for years .That is the dam problem with the US it is so divided .Well thank the US media for it.:lol:

=================================
wikipedia the
Alabama 62.46% 1,176,394 Republican 2004
Arizona 54.87% 1,104,294 Republican 2004
Arkansas 54.31% 572,898 Republican 2004
California 55.88% 4,850,157 Republican 2006
Presidential elections results 44.36% 5,509,826 Republican 2004
Colorado 40.16% 625,886 Republican 2006
Presidential elections results 51.69% 1,101,255 Republican 2004
Connecticut 43.95% 693,826 Presidential elections results 2004
Delaware 45.75% 171,660 Presidential elections results 2004
Florida 52.10% 3,964,522 Presidential elections results 2004
Georgia 57.97% 1,914,254 Presidential elections results 2004
Mississippi 59.55% 684,981 Presidential elections results 2004
Nevada 50.47% 418,690 Presidential elections results 2004
Texas Republican 61.09%
=================================

[Asoka89]

read this http://dsausa.org/pdf/Statement_on_the_2008_Presidential_Election.pdf

U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.

The U.S. electoral system — something which socialists cannot change by an act of will — does not allow for a credible form of “independent political action” (as the Trotskyist and Trotskyist-derived portions of the U.S. Left call it). The real options are to support and build the anti-corporate left wing of the Democrats to the point where either (a) the Democrats become dominated by the left or (b) more likely, the “party” splits along ideological and class lines, or to abstain from electoral politics altogether except as a form of protest, which ensures that American workers will not take you seriously.

I wish it was otherwise. Yes, the Democratic Party taken as a whole is a cesspool. But it’s a cesspool in which those fighting for a pro-worker politics have no choice but to wade.

It’s true that prior to the 20th century, U.S. primaries were machine-driven, closed affairs. With open primaries the parties became more amorphous — which is why industrial unions in the 1930s were able to influence them in a positive way, within limits. The nature of the American electoral system is what it is, and not to be overcome by an act of will. The reason that third parties haven’t become major parties once the ballot access rules were changed in the 1890s is not a failure to try. It’s been tried, and tried, and tried again. Similarly, the link of major institutions such as the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to the Democratic Party is not to be overcome by an act of will.

As the Old Man said, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.”

[Asoka89]

And if you guys are just purely Blaquist and maximalists and want a massive revolution or your just going to sit around debtating marx until then, then theres not much i can say to you comrades

[spice756]

U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.


You don't vote for a party in the US, you vote for leader her has it own party .Not like Canada and the UK you vote for a party .

There may be 3 or 4 democratic leaders her have theire own party and you vote the leader.Hilary Clinton has her own democratic party.

[Goose]

Move to Canada mate. As Russia gets more Bolshi I'm hoping it can be persuaded to bomb the US, so we'll need the sensible people out of the way ready to repopulate it after the fallout dies down.


You don't vote for a party in the US, you vote for leader her has it own party .Not like Canada and the UK you vote for a party .

There may be 3 or 4 democratic leaders her have theire own party and you vote the leader.Hilary Clinton has her own democratic party.

[Asoka89]

Because there aren't political mass parties in the United States, there are voting blocs.
And the Democrats happen to be the bloc with the people of color, union members, the poor etc. We need to adapt our tactics to this situation.

We need progressives in office for our street activists, strikes, activism to have an impact and to go on the offensive... FDR and LBJ were moderates/"liberals" but look at the level of activism and struggle under them.
Did you see that level under the Reagan or any of the ultra-reactionaries.

The CPUSA/DSA are right about this, even though I come out of the the trot tradition and hate voting democrat, if your in a battleground state, you gotta vote progressive

[Goose]

:rolleyes:

A better option is not to bother voting at all, you'll have as much effect on the outcome of the election, and you won't have to get out of bed in the morning.


Best comment ever. Ace! ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As much as I'd like to write in Debs's name, the man is now a corpse - at best.

Abstaining completely from the system sounds stupid to me. How much good has that done in the past? :laugh:

[FreeFocus]

As much as I'd like to write in Debs's name, the man is now a corpse - at best.

Abstaining completely from the system sounds stupid to me. How much good has that done in the past? :laugh:

Depends if you do something in conjunction with it. If you educate and engage in direct action or undertake other actions to strengthen communities, abstaining is fine. However, voting and doing nothing else is a pathetic course of action, and indefensible. At the same time, undertaking all activities is good, but you better be putting in a protest vote if you choose to vote while engaging in direct action.

Voting is the most passive form of political participation.

[Asoka89]

Best comment ever. Ace! ;)

Might as well just jump off that bridge, it won't have much effect on the world :), apathy is bad, that's why we're revolutionary leftists

[Die Neue Zeit]

U.S. parties are not like modern European parties. In Europe, the parties of the Left tend to name leaders on the basis of a political viewpoint and, in any case, only dues-paying members of the party have the right to elect delegates, who in turn select that leader. But in the United States anyone who declares himself or herself a member of a party can, without the payment of dues or the affirmation of a single political principle, help determine the leadership, program, and policies of the party.

The U.S. electoral system — something which socialists cannot change by an act of will — does not allow for a credible form of “independent political action” (as the Trotskyist and Trotskyist-derived portions of the U.S. Left call it). The real options are to support and build the anti-corporate left wing of the Democrats to the point where either (a) the Democrats become dominated by the left or (b) more likely, the “party” splits along ideological and class lines, or (c) to abstain from electoral politics altogether except as a form of protest, which ensures that American workers will not take you seriously.

Good points there, but I didn't advocate abstention. I advocated spoilage, ballot rejections, and other means to undermine "representative democracy" in the US / de-legitimize the electoral system in the perception of US workers.

Meanwhile, propaganda aimed at the "progressive" wing of the Democrats to cause them to split from the "New Democrats" and "Blue Dog Democrats" should be intensified.



BTW, in regards to the DSA and the rest of the US left, it's funny that there's also the "Social-Democratic" Party of America (even the "social-democrats" can't unite under a single party of their own, instead spreading their forces there, in the DSA, in the United States Labor Party, less and less so in the SPUSA, etc.). ;)

[manic expression]

Vote Socialist!

While I would prefer you vote for my comrades, Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander, of the Socialist Party USA.

If, for some reason, you consider us too reformist (in which case you haven't paying attention to us lately) then vote for Gloria La Riva and Eugene Puryear of the Party of Socialism and Liberation or for the Socialist Workers Party candidates: Róger Calero and Alyson Kennedy.

A vote for any of these comrades is a vote against imperialism and for socialism.


Finally, some sense on this thread. If you're unwilling to vote for revolutionary socialist candidates, you have little right calling yourself one. The Bolsheviks participated in bourgeois elections for the same reasons we must: they send a strong message that the socialist movement has support and is growing. I support the SWP, but chegitz guevara is right, any vote for a genuine socialist party is a vote for socialism, and that matters quite a bit.

[KurtFF8]

Finally, some sense on this thread. If you're unwilling to vote for revolutionary socialist candidates, you have little right calling yourself one. The Bolsheviks participated in bourgeois elections for the same reasons we must: they send a strong message that the socialist movement has support and is growing. I support the SWP, but chegitz guevara is right, any vote for a genuine socialist party is a vote for socialism, and that matters quite a bit.

But if American elections are a sign of the strength of the socialist movement, then wouldn't that make socialists in the US turned off to voting for socialist candidates?

I mean everyone realizes the difference between sending a message through a vote and voting strategically (the lesser of two evils). And as I argued before, there are differences between the two bourgeois candidates, so in a sense we get to "pick our enemy".

Now obviously many here disagree with that, and I completely understand why (I'm still personally not 100% sure what I'm going to do for example).

But I think that we (well not just us, but citizens of Western countries in general) spend too much time and energy worrying about elections. They're such a small part of the "democratic process" even for liberal democracy, much less transforming from capitalism to socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The first, non-economistic step towards the transformation of the "representative" system into a participatory one with lots of demarchy (random sortition) is the delegitimization of the electoral process (spoilage).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why not demonstrate against fake "elections" (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory9d65.html?subaction=showfull&id=1085182334&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)?

Supporting a "socialist" candidate is out of the question - it gives a system we want to destroy unwarranted legitimacy, not to mention the fact that it is doubtful in the extreme whether the ruling class will permit any more reforms.

Ballot spoilage? what makes you think they give a shit if you spoil your ballot?

But demonstrating against the bourgeouis electoral circus show is a good way of publicly displaying contempt for all bourgeouis "options".

[Comrade B]

people act like you can't vote and still hate and fight this system...

We all sure as hell recognize that there is a lesser evil, and you could also vote for one of the smaller candidates and try to get that percentage seen to let people know you are out there.
Voting for one of these could save us from a war in Iran, get the US out of Iraq (though, admittedly not Afghanistan), and perhaps a few other wars.

Communists did not take part in the crappy elections in the Weimar Republik, and millions died. I doubt the communists expected the genocide, but that is the thing, you never know how evil these right wingers are.

Casting your vote doesn't mean you fully support the candidate. Feel free to be angry with me, regardless of who is elected, with all the shit still wrong with this country.

[manic expression]

No, the communists DID take part in the Weimar Republic elections and did very well, getting more than 30% at times.


Supporting a "socialist" candidate is out of the question - it gives a system we want to destroy unwarranted legitimacy, not to mention the fact that it is doubtful in the extreme whether the ruling class will permit any more reforms.

Supporting socialist candidates does precisely the opposite. By showing concrete support for anti-capitalist candidates, we do NOT endorse capitalism, we simply use elections (and, ideally, political office) as a platform for revolutionary ideas. It is a great strawman to think that I am endorsing capitalism, I only endorse taking part in the ongoing political debates. If you don't want to out of purity, you lose an important opportunity to promote socialist ideas.


But if American elections are a sign of the strength of the socialist movement, then wouldn't that make socialists in the US turned off to voting for socialist candidates?

Only if socialists are more concerned with popularity contests than with agitating for revolution. By utilizing the process of elections, the socialist movement can reach out to a number of people who wouldn't usually be interested in politics at all. That's the point.

[The Something]

I seem to remember something similiar being said about Gerorge W. Bush and Al Gore and how "they're both the same who cares".....

Hmmmmmmmm I wonder how that whole way of thinking turned out.....

[Saorsa]

Hmmmmmmmm I wonder how that whole way of thinking turned out.....

Al Gore was Vice President while half a million Iraqi children starved to death. He would have been no different to Bush.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, the communists DID take part in the Weimar Republic elections and did very well, getting more than 30% at times.

Do you seriously think that is an argument in your favour? Are we both talking about the same Weimar Republic? You know, the same Weimar Republic that appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor?


Supporting socialist candidates does precisely the opposite.

Bullpats. You're in their system playing by their rules. As leftists it should be our prerogative to reject this fake "democracy" and to encourage others to do so. You do not disrupt a chess game by taking part, you smash the board and scatter the pieces!


By showing concrete support for anti-capitalist candidates, we do NOT endorse capitalism, we simply use elections (and, ideally, political office) as a platform for revolutionary ideas.

Completely muddle-headed. You're trying to send the message that system is illegitimate while at the same time taking part in that system. At best, this confuses people. At worst, they'll see you as just another bunch of cynical manipulators after their vote, just like all the other capitalist bastards!

Not good!


It is a great strawman to think that I am endorsing capitalism, I only endorse taking part in the ongoing political debates.

Political debates are not limited to the electoral sphere, as you well know. Besides, nothing of true substance is debated in bourgeouis electoral politics. Nothing really changes as a result of these debates, they merely serve to reinforce the idea that there is something to capitalist "democracy".


If you don't want to out of purity, you lose an important opportunity to promote socialist ideas.

You can promote socialist ideas without diving into the muck of bouregouis electoral politics. In fact, considering that most people (in the advanced capitalist countries at least) don't vote in the first place, you'll have a much bigger "audience" for your message.


Only if socialists are more concerned with popularity contests than with agitating for revolution. By utilizing the process of elections, the socialist movement can reach out to a number of people who wouldn't usually be interested in politics at all. That's the point.

They're not voting in the first place. Why should they be interested in yet another bunch that says "vote for me and I'll set you free"?

[Chapaev]

The "elections" should be bocotted so as to not bestow a sense of legitimacy upon the bourgeois yoke.

[Comrade B]

Al Gore was Vice President while half a million Iraqi children starved to death. He would have been no different to Bush.

Ignoring people while they die is a lot different from killing them...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ignoring people while they die is a lot different from killing them...

Tell that to the dead. Wait, there's no point.

[Comrade B]

Tell that to the dead. Wait, there's no point.
Fidel didn't give food to the people of Iraq either in that time, should we blame him for their deaths?

[Valeofruin]

Vote for La Riva... an actual Communist candidate on the ballot in 12 states, for the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I warmly point out that revolutionary statements can be made through the Ballot Box.

I also would like to point out that we have neither the social conditions or the necessary Vanguard Proletariat Party, to adopt tactics clearly designed for use in a time when both those conditions are met. When the time is right for such tactics you'll know it, believe me.

For now, theres nothing wrong with parliamentary struggle.

[BraneMatter]

I will vote PSL (LaRiva/Puryer) at the top (they are on the ballot in twelve states), and then Green Party for the other slots where there is a Green candidate.

Oh, I know, it's only a "protest" vote, and I completely sympathize with those who just stay home.

It's depressing...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fidel didn't give food to the people of Iraq either in that time, should we blame him for their deaths?

So the fact that the US is the most rich and powerful nation in the world and could easily have lifted the sanctions and provided aid (unlike Cuba which is currently hobbled by US imperialism) has no bearing on the matter? :rolleyes:


Vote for La Riva... an actual Communist candidate on the ballot in 12 states, for the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I warmly point out that revolutionary statements can be made through the Ballot Box.

I also would like to point out that we have neither the social conditions or the necessary Vanguard Proletariat Party, to adopt tactics clearly designed for use in a time when both those conditions are met. When the time is right for such tactics you'll know it, believe me.

For now, theres nothing wrong with parliamentary struggle.

Apart from the fact that it A) achieves nothing of substance and B) legitimises a system we want to destroy and thus sends a conflicting message that shows either opportunism or confusion in the mind of the average person.

The ruling class would never allow themselves to be abolished by the very system they designed to keep themselves in power in the first place.

[Comrade B]

So the fact that the US is the most rich and powerful nation in the world and could easily have lifted the sanctions and provided aid (unlike Cuba which is currently hobbled by US imperialism) has no bearing on the matter?
When has the US ever cared about something they couldn't profit from?
My point is not that Al Gore is the great savior of the left, it is that he isn't as bad as republicans. Just another American politician, not a fanatic.

[Lenin's Law]

I agree with Chimx on this. The Democratic party makes concessions to labor all the time. Even if they make things only barely better for the workers, it's something, and it helps. Especially with the way things are now.

No, the Democratic Party makes some minor concessions to the labor bureacracy, not for the rank and file. Furthemore, how can a big business party overflowing with corporate cash (Obama has received more Wall Street money than McCain!) make things a "little better" If you mean for their capitalist paymasters then that makes some sense, if for the working class than no it does not in the least.

The days of FDR-style liberal reformism is all gone....what's left is the further dismantling of the reforms made previously all in the name of "sacrifice" Just look at what's going on in the Wall Street bailout, it's working people that are being made to suffer, not the plutocracy.

[Lenin's Law]

Might as well just jump off that bridge, it won't have much effect on the world :), apathy is bad, that's why we're revolutionary leftists

Correct. To answer the main question being asked here, well if you are a Marxist you are then, by principle not neutral or apathetic when it comes to a political question. Even if in the form of bourgeois politics, it can serve as a valuable opportunity to educate the masses and spread information about socialism.

Remember, the whole point of winning the masses over is to join them in their struggles against the bourgeoisie; not to seem apart, separate or "holier than though" from them. It all too easily gives the appearance of being an elitist group looking down upon say women or African-Americans who have a legacy of major sacrifices just to be able to do so. Bourgeois elections give revolutionaries the opportunity to show how fake they are and how the real decisions are made behind closed doors, by business/capitalist leaders. The Wall Street bailout will be, I think, a very effective backdrop in all of this.

[Circle E Society]

Other.
Organize your community in efforts to become more autonomous.

[Qayin]

I just fill in illuminati because their going to win anyway!:laugh:



kidding

[F9]

Dont necromancy please!
Closed