Can the electoral road be used as a revolutionary tool?

[Dr Mindbender]

Clearly, there is a tendency within the revolutionary left to shrug off all manner of electoral involvement as a self defeating means of perpetuating reformism. Therefore, within the revolutionary paradigm is there any point of taking part in elections if they are nothing more than a beourgioise sham?

Granted, it is not possible to 'elect' a revolution but I would argue against the above, for the reason that second only to organising amidst industrial disputes they provide an excellent means to engage those who do not necessarilly come toe to toe with the beourgioise on a daily basis such as home keepers or the unemployed. Not only that, i believe that as a propaganditive tool they have the potential to cast a positive light on parties and ideologies that are viewed as 'cranks' or 'jokes' and help bring them into the public domain.

[KurtFF8]

I think that there is certainly a big trend on the revolutionary left, especially at this website to write off any electoral action as reformist simply.

I also believe that the reformist/revolutionary dichotomy is a false dichotomy. You can't dismiss all reformist actions, otherwise the 8 hour work day would not exist, working conditions would not have improved, etc.

The thing is that there are many on both sides who will hold that only their method is valid. For example social democrats who still hold a belief in socialism will see their reformist road as the only way to achieve the goals of socialism (obviously I and most here disagree with that) and see revolutionary action as a waste of time and a bad method.

Likewise some revolutionaries write off all reformist efforts when they can certainly be served towards building class consciousness. Take something like a General Strike. Most revolutionaries tend to support general strikes, while the tactic is certainly "working within the system" and could be written off as reformist in a sense.

Many often point to how Marx claimed that socialism could be achieved through democratic means. And this was also prior to the violent suppression of socialist attempts, but that too doesn't mean that achieving socialism can't be done via democratic means. For example, if Venezuela does eventually go socialist without bloodshed, it will be a prime example of this of course.

[piet11111]

well i personally consider participation in Bourgeois "democracy" as a waste of time but there are some benefits and very serious downsides to it.

pro's

- a platform for organisation and to get into the public eye.
- legitimacy just look at the russian revolution after the Bolshevists gained the majority of seats in the soviets they could carry out their revolution with a public mandate of sorts.

con's
- compromises have to be made all the time at the expense of your political integrity (but temporary gains can be won for the people)
- attracting careerists to your party that will sell out sooner or later.
- its hard to argue without looking like a hypocrite against a form of government you are a part off.

history has shown us that the majority of genuine revolutionary party's that take part in elections and government eventually transform into just another Bourgeois party that because of its original platform is likely to absorb all the discontent against the system for quite a long time until the people know that the "socialist" party's are class traitors.

taking part in government corrupts so do not take part in it is my opinion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Clearly, there is a tendency within the revolutionary left to shrug off all manner of electoral involvement as a self defeating means of perpetuating reformism. Therefore, within the revolutionary paradigm is there any point of taking part in elections if they are nothing more than a beourgioise sham?

No, because it's their game and they make the rules. At any time they feel like it they will "take their ball home".


Granted, it is not possible to 'elect' a revolution but I would argue against the above, for the reason that second only to organising amidst industrial disputes they provide an excellent means to engage those who do not necessarilly come toe to toe with the beourgioise on a daily basis such as home keepers or the unemployed.

Er, how? Most unemployed people I know couldn't a give a monkey's toss about elections. Some of them are in fact considerably more astute on the matter than the reformists I've seen.


Not only that, i believe that as a propaganditive tool they have the potential to cast a positive light on parties and ideologies that are viewed as 'cranks' or 'jokes' and help bring them into the public domain.

Not with an unsympathetic media establishment, you won't.

[Dr Mindbender]

No, because it's their game and they make the rules. At any time they feel like it they will "take their ball home".
thats why it's important to be one step ahead of the game in terms of theory, and putting our arguments forward better than the beourgioise.



Er, how? Most unemployed people I know couldn't a give a monkey's toss about elections. Some of them are in fact considerably more astute on the matter than the reformists I've seen.
True, but i think it's rather dismissive to the point of cynicism to say that they arent bothered about whos in charge. For the time being it seems, the electoral system is viewed for the most part as the 'legitimate means' of adminisitrative change.



Not with an unsympathetic media establishment, you won't.
Perhaps, but the respect party were able to get George Galloway elected in spite of this. I think this sets the precedence that parties that seem to deviate from the percieved norm can win gains.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

thats why it's important to be one step ahead of the game in terms of theory, and putting our arguments forward better than the beourgioise.

We can do that without "getting our hands dirty", IE wallowing in the muck of borgeouis politics.


True, but i think it's rather dismissive to the point of cynicism to say that they arent bothered about whos in charge.

That's because they know from experience that whoever's in charge, no real change is comes their way as a result of borgeouis politics.


For the time being it seems, the electoral system is viewed for the most part as the 'legitimate means' of adminisitrative change.

A view that "successful" reformism reinforces. If you try to effect change through what is percieved as a legitimate system and you fail, that casts a poor light on the goals of the reformist party to say the least.


Perhaps, but the respect party were able to get George Galloway elected in spite of this. I think this sets the precedence that parties that seem to deviate from the percieved norm can win gains.

"Gains" can be won (although what the working class possibly gains by having George Galloway in a borgeouis political position is questionable I must say), but they can be all too easily lost. In fact, the gains won by the working class (under the threat of widespread social upheaval at the very least, if not outright revolution) are being eroded as we speak, since the vast majority of the revolutionary classes are not defending them. The ruling class is pushing things as far as it dares.

[Vanguard1917]

Perhaps, but the respect party were able to get George Galloway elected in spite of this. I think this sets the precedence that parties that seem to deviate from the percieved norm can win gains.


Of course they can; if we can't defeat the mass media and win people to our worldview, we may as well call it a day.

However, i don't see how Galloway was an example of radicalism in Parliament. Between 1997 to 2003 he is estimated to have rebelled in 32 of the 893 parliamentary votes he took part in. In other words, he agreed with the New Labour leadership 861 times. Yes, he opposed the invasion of Iraq - but then so did the likes of Robin Cook and Frank Dobson, people we would hardly consider militants.

As for participating in bourgeois elections, that is mainly a matter of tactics. The important thing is that radicalism requires a movement from below, not the election of old Labour Stalinites to somehow cause a favourable shift in the politics of the establishment.

[Forward Union]

Winning reforms is different to reformism.

I am all for winning reforms. The 8 hour working day was brilliant, the NHS etc. These were borne out of the direct action of the working class, and represent a concession made by the rulers (though again none of these were won 'within the system' but by attacking it). These can be useful. In Reading our local group managed to force the council to give us land rights. This made them look weak and our revolutionary anarchist community group, look strong.

But reformism is the belief, not that (temporary) gains can be made within capitalism, but that capitalism can actually be reformed away. Which is pure nonsense. I think some people jump to defending reformism on the basis that they support winning certain reforms.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I like the above sentiment. It could make a trendy catchphrase: reforms, acceptable; reformism, not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It gets complicated by two things, however:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/begin-redefining-minimum-t90683/index.html


In sum, any reform can be fought for in ways that diminish the chances of further gains and limit progressive change in other areas, or fought for in ways that make further progress more likely and facilitate other progressive changes as well.


So long as socialist production is not kept consciously in view as its object, so long as the efforts of the militant proletariat do not extend beyond the framework of the existing method of production, the class-struggle seems to move forever in a circle. For the oppressive tendencies of the capitalist method of production are not done away with; at most they are only checked.