Making The Working Class Suffer: A Revolutionary Strategy?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

After reading some discussions here on American politics and the recent election of Obama, it seems to me that some posters advocate voting for right-wing candidates, instead of center-leftists for office. Their reasons are that right-wing candidates will make the lives of the working-class citizens so miserable, that they will start a revolution and that center-leftists, if elected, would preclude revolutionary activity because they placate the working-class through small concessions.
I find this somewhat troubling. How many people here actually vote for conservative politicians with the intentions for making the working-class suffer? How many really believe this to be a legitimate approach to bourgeois politics?

I'm concerned, only because the opposite may occur if we vote for right-wingers. Think about it this way. The right-wingers may make the working classes more miserable, but at the same time they may influence their thinking once they come into power. The working-class may believe their positions in society to be legitimized by the rhetoric of a right-wing president constantly telling them about the "work-ethic" and the "meritocracy of the free market society". Once these beliefs have been thoroughly driven into the minds of the proletariat by right-wing political leaders, they will become more complacent and accepting of their status and the chance of workers revolution will be all the more unlikely.

I'm not advocating that we just vote for the center-left parties as political strategy. I'm just saying that we need to think more critically and meticulously about our approaches to bourgeois politics.

Thoughts?

[Wanted Man]

You're right, it's a ridiculous thing to argue. Only a minority of idiots support this idea. Idiots who see revolution as just a matter of cynically manipulating the people. It's old wine in new bags, 19th and 20th century Russian groups already came up with the idea of terrorising people to "push them to revolt". In practice, it leads to more support for the right to "keep law and order".

[bcbm]

As I recall it was only a handful of morons advocating that and they were called out.

[Plagueround]

As I recall it was only a handful of morons advocating that and they were called out.

Not to start a quote chain, but pretty much this.

[Sentinel]

I've never voted, except in the Swedish referendum on adopting the European currency ('no' won :cool:). As an anarchist I obviously don't much believe in progress through parliamentary bourgeois politics.

But I do have some understanding for those who voted for Obama in the US in order to prevent McCain and Palin getting elected, for purely practical reasons. That would for example likely have meant discriminatory federal laws, directed against women and minorities, being implemented.

Sometimes you have to be realistic and think about your actual, day to day life. I also definitely agree that trying to 'push people to revolt' by voting for the worst reactionary available would be cynical and anti-worker.

[not_of_this_world]

Voting, pure and simple is a waste of time! There is no difference between the parties whatsoever, they both serve the same master, capitalism. End of argument!

[Mister X]

As communists we should always strive for better working conditions for the proletariat. Through struggles in the workplaces, the streets and the schools we earn the sympathy and the trust of the working class. When we have its support through transitional minimum demands while having revolution into perspective. But revolution ie. real change will only come after the working class has trusted the communists and accepted their ideas. The working class will never accept the ideas of the communists if they support governments which pass anti-worker laws. Besides voting for the right wing in order to bring material conditions for revolution cannot be done in a mass scale for obvious reasons(exposing those who advocate it to the working class) Furthermore it is not a viable alternative in order to accelerate the process of radicalization due to the fact that poverty can bring demoralization ie. the opposite effect of what we want. Besides, the democrats and the republicans don't differ in terms of internal policies, they are both anti-worker (that includes the largest two parties of almost every country). Finally communists do not stand above society and are not super-human. To advocate worse conditions of living would be insane if you are not well off. Most communists which actually are part of the movement are proletarians themselves.

[Patchd]

But I do have some understanding for those who voted for Obama in the US in order to prevent McCain and Palin getting elected, for purely practical reasons. That would for example likely have meant discriminatory federal laws, directed against women and minorities, being implemented.

I can understand it, but its not our choice to make. We don't need to make the decision between one bourgeois or another, we're not here to conform to their parliamentarianism and bureaucracy.

Either way, by choosing a "lesser of two evils", you are effectively still condoning one evil.

[Red October]

Supporting reactionaries is a god-awful idea for revolution. It would probably just lead to people voting for "progressive" candidates the next time around anyway. Revolution has to come through people realizing that all politicians will fuck us up, not just conservatives.

[FreeFocus]

Strategy depends on circumstances and near goals. I don't think anyone argues that, as a rule, right-wing parties should be supported.

[Revy]

i think that if McCain were to have won, the Democrats would be able again to portray themselves as the glorious opposition.

Now since the Democrats are the establishment they will be held more accountable for their imperialist and capitalist policies.

[Herman]

If you make the working class suffer by choosing a fascist just so that it will create class consciousness, then you are no better than the fascists themselves.

[Bilan]

This isn't a real tendency. it is adhered to by some very childish people. They are more of a minority in the leftist movement than any other that comes to mind.
They're not even leftists. They're wanks.

[Revy]

I do agree that anyone who votes for the greater of evils just so there could be more suffering as if that somehow provokes a revolution is out of their damn minds and should be slapped.

It reminds me of a "theory" explained in the film Patty Hearst, which was about the Symbionese Liberation Army. It was explained that terrorist violence against civilians is justified because it makes the government crack down, thus angering the people, who rise up and start a revolution. The SLA pretty much collapsed but I don't think it was ever anything more than a tiny group.

[MYSTIC OWL]

A movement that lies and deceives the people at its inception, cannot be relied upon to serve them faithfully.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yeah, it's ridiculous.
Especially in modern Western society, the revolutionary left struggles as it is. the last thing we need is to opportunistically distort our position by promoting the suffering of the people. Even if it wasn't morally reprehensible, it wouldn't work in the end, if at all to begin with.
Besides, the reason for Marx writing what he wrote to begin with is that Capitalism has and will always ensure the suffering of the working class. We don't need to add to it to show the workers that this system causes them undue harm.
I do not see the labour aristocracy of the West as it stands as a likely catalyst for worldwide revolution, but for 'revolutionary leftists' here to promote their suffering in such an underhanded way is not in keeping with basic Communist principles. To deviously manipulate the masses is to separate the interests of Communists from those of the working class, and no successful revolution can be carried out that way.