Marx, Engels and the party

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO@Mar 4 2006, 02:16 AM
Will we be able to make any reforms if our illegal repressentatives aren't allowed in the government buildings?

I think this is something that some comrades here don't take into account. If a communist were to somehow be elected, it is more than likely they would not be allowed to even take their seat. That is, if the bourgeoisie couldn't keep a communist from winning an election (i.e., the bourgeoisie could not rig the election enough in their own favor), they would declare the comrade to be in violation of some kind of elections rule -- either campaign finance, or violating the oath of office, or something. All of this is to be expected, and can all work in our favor.

A communist runs in a bourgeois election because it gives the organization a platform for organizing, not because we want to be seated as a bourgeois legislator. An electoral campaign gives a communist the opportunity to speak to larger audiences than we can organize on our own. An electoral campaign gives us greater access to the mass media. An electoral campaign means we can maximize our meager resources in our efforts to reach out to thousands and millions of working people by using the platform the capitalists provide to us, which in turn allows us to more quickly hang the capitalists using the rope they provide.

Just because bourgeois elections are part and parcel of the "old system" doesn't mean there isn't something there we can use to further our educational and agitational work.

Miles

[Much Commie Love]

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 4 2006, 05:52 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 4 2006, 05:52 AM) To demand not having a party is tantamount to desiring to disarm the proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie. More people should read Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder.[/b]

Is that so? So, before having a party, the proletariat is and was "armless"? And as soon as someone else - you, the Leninists - made a party, they got "arms"? Why not stretch our arms a bit and stop talking in apostrophes here: Yes, I mean ARMS. Get it?

No, I don't mean to holler at ya, but I must be frank on this issue, 'cuz it's alot at stake, mr. A party never HAS arms. It acts on the permission of the burgerouise, and you might just aswell let them take to the streets themselves, because acting for them is just a diversion. 'Rallying' them in a vote-way..doesn't convince them, and surely doesn't make it feel they're taking back at the Establishment by doing just like before...voting for a party.And as for using it as an organization to 'stage it' directly - Well, that's not what it's for, who needs that anyways when you can have a movement, outside of such restrictments?

It ain't like they're ever a member of those parties, anyways. What we've lost before even accepting a party or refusing an existant one..is, well, a bunch of 'benefactors'...and you know, things that are given can be taken. And burgerouise already got 'THE' arms. Having a party won't change that and we never had 'THE' arms.

Once we stop fooling ourselves with a 'party' with party offices and campaigns and all kinds of symbols...we'll see who has a disorder, and who's the "infant": We, you, or them..and you're not our parents, and we're not your kids! Don't beat me, Lenin!

"CL"

Nope, not a League in myself. In fact, if you look around, you will find a number of other League members here. They usually link to the League in their signatures.

Oh, that's news. Well! Good to see, that you take yourself THAT ceremonially..unlike our leninist-friend here. Bet he sure did enjoy reading about Lenin doing a nice "proletar"-revolution in a land of peasants and still in FEUDALISM (Perhaps on the way to, but that's another argument)...not Capitalism. Eyh? Well, enough about that.

So you're kind of a member-ship club, eh? That doesn't mean you believe in a 'vanguard party' now does it? Because if so..hmm, I could personally respect a support-movement for yer everyday Average Joe (And Jane), but not one that dictates for him. P.S., does yer league bear any similarities with that "Commie Club" I've sometimes seen talk of? Or is it two different thang's?

The difference in thinking would be too great, and especially refusal to bend in to protests from the people you're supposed to be 'caring' for, at best being dysfunctional 'help'. I 'aven't seen those links yet, by the way, but perhaps I'm not really looking either. Good luck with the league of extraordinary gentl...ahh, you caught me! Heh! Of pretty ordinary but remarkably radical gentle PEOPLE :blush:

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)All of this is only true if you accept that only the bourgeois conception of doing things is universal -- that is, the only way to do things. What you do is accept in advance that the bourgeoisie sets the terms and defines the boundaries. And if they decide to "move the goal posts", that's fine too. In other words, you agree in advance to "fight capitalism" while abiding by the capitalists' ideological terms, which means you don't "fight capitalism" at all.

You make a lot of noise about rejecting "alienating forms of struggle", but you do so while accepting alienating principles and ideology.[/b]

You are saying precisely the opposite from what that post of mine is advocating. The whole point is rejecting hierarchy and alienation throught struggle, and braking up with ways in which people like red_che here say one thing but mean something quite different (cough*bourgeois*cough).

Or is it maybe that someone who doesn't agree with can only be a "useless petty bourgeois"? An "anti-dialectic mechanicist"?

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)There is two very real, and very related, reasons why this has happened in the past: first, most of these organizations were jam packed with non-proletarian elements at all levels, which meant that the class-based division of labor that exists under capitalism was reproduced within these parties...[/b]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
and, second, these non-proletarian elements, like you and Pannekoek, never fully broke from bourgeois ideology and accepted the enemy class defining the conditions of struggle. Pannekoek's rejection of "party", "reform" and "elections" is a mechancial rejection -- the placement of a negative where his fellow petty-bourgeois radical leftists put a positive.

No. What "me" and "non-proletarians like me" are blamed for is admiting the obvious fact stated in the first part of the quote. We are blamed for rejection of bourgeois Jacobin ideology which is incompatible with the proletarian movement.

You dream of makin your little party, fight non-prole elements in it, and hope one day that it will grow so much in number of trained and disciplined proles who will on one fine morning overthrow capitalism and make the new "working class republic".

Cute.

I predict the "historical repeating" of trade-union example (if it goes anywhere, that is).

A "diamatist" who thinks that bourgeois-like labor division could reproduce within a "wokring class party" only through infiltration of "none-prole elements" is up for a surprise when he finds out that bourgeois political structure and hierarchy projected itself onto his little "proletarian" project.

Axel1917

@
More people should read Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

Oh, you mean that same pamphlet which passed Nazi censorship in 1933 and remained in distribution, when all other progressive books were burned??

EL KABLAMO

If we are to enter the realm of Bourgoeis politics, we have to make our representatives accountable and revocable; something which is illegal until there are amendments. I doubt the bourgoeis parties will make such accomodations.

Don't you see it comrades!? The fact that we use the "we must" attitude means that we're repeating the old "What is to be Done?" psychology!

[violencia.Proletariat]

An electoral campaign gives a communist the opportunity to speak to larger audiences than we can organize on our own.

Since when? I've never seen a communist candidate on tv or heard them on radio.

An electoral campaign gives us greater access to the mass media.

Erm, above. You have to pay for that stuff.

An electoral campaign means we can maximize our meager resources in our efforts to reach out to thousands and millions of working people by using the platform the capitalists provide to us, which in turn allows us to more quickly hang the capitalists using the rope they provide.

The majority of the working class doesnt even vote. Why would they care if communists are in the election?

further our educational and agitational work

Why cant you do this outside the elections? I mean, you pool all your resources for elections, you cant do the same just for the thought of spreading the movement?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
All of this is only true if you accept that only the bourgeois conception of doing things is universal -- that is, the only way to do things. What you do is accept in advance that the bourgeoisie sets the terms and defines the boundaries. And if they decide to "move the goal posts", that's fine too. In other words, you agree in advance to "fight capitalism" while abiding by the capitalists' ideological terms, which means you don't "fight capitalism" at all.

That is what reformists do!

The controversy here is whether or not revolutionaries should play the bourgeois game on the bourgeois field by the bourgeois rules at all!

When people enter a casino, they know (or should know) that the rules of all the games favor the house. Play long enough and you must lose.

That doesn't mean one should "never gamble"...it means that casino gambling is a form of entertainment for which the player pays.

The arena of bourgeois politics is actually worse than a casino...because the ordinary player always loses!

For revolutionaries to participate in the bourgeois political "game" is like throwing all your money away in a casino to "prove" that the house always wins...something that's already known.

More and more working people are completely indifferent to bourgeois "elections"...because they already know that it's not going to make any significant difference in their lives except make things worse no matter "who wins".

In addition, of course, there's the problem of the mixed message. I've reproached the Trotskyists here about this on numerous occasions. In the U.K., they run people for office while telling whatever audience they can manage to gather that "elections are no good; we need a revolution".

In other words, they're tell people that "running for public office is useless" while showing that they "really mean" it by...running for public office.

Who would take seriously anyone so self-evidently confused?

The boilerplate "rationale" is that people are "more inclined" to listen to political rhetoric during election campaigns...but I think the "truth" of that is visibly shrinking. I think a lot of people in the U.S. now are more likely to get their "political information" from MTV or Saturday Night Live...or from some 30-second dummyvision spot.

It's all a show...and no revolutionary group has the resources to compete in that arena.

Just because bourgeois elections are part and parcel of the "old system" doesn't mean there isn't something there we can use to further our educational and agitational work.

I'm think there's nothing there at all.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by nate+Mar 4 2006, 11:22 AM--> (nate @ Mar 4 2006, 11:22 AM)Since when? I've never seen a communist candidate on tv or heard them on radio.[/b]

I have. Remember, I helped with a communist campaign last year, and the candidate was on both radio and television doing interviews several times.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 AM
Erm, above. You have to pay for that stuff.

Not necessarily. See above.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:22 AM
The majority of the working class doesnt even vote. Why would they care if communists are in the election?

They vote when they have a reason. But that's not the point. Again, the point of running in an election is to conduct educational and agitational work.

nate

@Mar 4 2006, 11:22 AM
Why cant you do this outside the elections? I mean, you pool all your resources for elections, you cant do the same just for the thought of spreading the movement?

See above.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Mar 4 2006, 02:59 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Mar 4 2006, 02:59 PM) Don't you see it comrades!? The fact that we use the "we must" attitude means that we're repeating the old "What is to be Done?" psychology! [/b]

That wasn't my intention.

The point I was trying to make is that theres no way to keep an elected repressentative accountable in a bourgoeis Parliament. They are a great big disemobodied , floating, singing, head.

Miles

I think this is something that some comrades here don't take into account. If a communist were to somehow be elected, it is more than likely they would not be allowed to even take their seat

That will be known by everyone, and those who voted that candiate in will sing what happened. The song may fall on deaf ears, it may bring a reform into the system, or it may cause a beginning of a revolt.

But we don't have the resources for such a wide spread campaign.

Alot of Socialist and Communist parties in America have candidiates that run for president, the average Joe only finds about them when he reads the ballot, or if he decided to go on-line and research candidiates.

I don't know if a parlimentary misadventure is the best method.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Miles
They vote when they have a reason. But that's not the point. Again, the point of running in an election is to conduct educational and agitational work.

Lets say the candidiate wins a substancial majority, but they are unable to take their seat. If this causes great social unrest (which is the intention), the bourgoeisie can easily implement measures to have the candidiate take their seat, to suppress social upheaval.

Then what happens?

Does the candiate reject their seat, that they fought for?

Or do they inevitably form a block with the most left of the bourgoeis to get some reforms passed, and get caught up in the agenda of the bourgoeisie?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
That wasn't my intention.

Yes, I know. My comment was actually complementing yours. It was directed in another way...

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Mar 4 2006, 09:59 AM--> (DJ-TC @ Mar 4 2006, 09:59 AM)You are saying precisely the opposite from what that post of mine is advocating. The whole point is rejecting hierarchy and alienation throught struggle, and braking up with ways in which people like red_che here say one thing but mean something quite different (cough*bourgeois*cough).[/b]

But what kind of struggle do you do? You don't fight for immediate demands, either on the job or in neighborhoods; you don't organize or fight inside existing trade unions; you don't use the tactic of running candidates to augment street campaigns. What do you do, concretely speaking, to advance the class struggle? Publish a journal nobody knows even exists? Do a little "Sunday Speechifying for Socialism"? Go to an event and pass out a leaflet that is vague on what you would do, but quite specific on what you wouldn't do?

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:59 AM
Or is it maybe that someone who doesn't agree with can only be a "useless petty bourgeois"? An "anti-dialectic mechanicist"?

Just answer the question.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:59 AM
No. What "me" and "non-proletarians like me" are blamed for is admiting the obvious fact stated in the first part of the quote. We are blamed for rejection of bourgeois Jacobin ideology which is incompatible with the proletarian movement.

The problem is, you only reject the forms of "bourgeois Jacobin ideology", not its content -- the bourgeois ideology that underpins it.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:59 AM
You dream of makin your little party, fight non-prole elements in it, and hope one day that it will grow so much in number of trained and disciplined proles who will on one fine morning overthrow capitalism and make the new "working class republic".

Actually, if I "dream of makin'" anything, it is an organization that is able to convince a majority of working people of the need for them to take matters into their own hands and overthrow capitalism themselves, that helps working people establish the basis for the working people's republic themselves beginning before the actual overthrow takes place, and then encourages working people to take the necessary steps to complete the overthrow and begin on the road to a classless, communist society.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 09:59 AM
I predict the "historical repeating" of trade-union example (if it goes anywhere, that is).

Well, thank you, Carnac the Magnificent.

DJ-TC

@Mar 4 2006, 09:59 AM
A "diamatist" who thinks that bourgeois-like labor division could reproduce within a "wokring class party" only through infiltration of "none-prole elements" is up for a surprise when he finds out that bourgeois political structure and hierarchy projected itself onto his little "proletarian" project.

History will be the judge of that, not you and your fellow dilettantes.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Mar 4 2006, 06:41 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Mar 4 2006, 06:41 PM)

EL KABLAMO

That wasn't my intention.

Yes, I know. My comment was actually complementing yours. It was directed in another way... [/b]

Yeah, mostly to make yourself feel good.

Miles

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 5 2006, 12:22 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 5 2006, 12:22 AM) The problem is, you only reject the forms of "bourgeois Jacobin ideology", not its content -- the bourgeois ideology that underpins it. [/b]

Either my English is really bad or it's you seeing things in between the lines... things which don't exist.

Any how, only comment worthy posting is this one: you don't need a party, much less a party which accepts the bourgeois "game", to activate and release the revolutionary potential of the masses.

That's the only real issue which moved this discussion. Everything else you accuse me of was just "pinned" on me for I don't know what reason but those two I mentioned.

CommunistLeague

What do you do, concretely speaking, to advance the class struggle?

I don't do much, but I obviously don't do any less then you.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 4 2006, 02:30 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 4 2006, 02:30 PM)That is what reformists do![/b]

You said it, not me.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:30 PM
The controversy here is whether or not revolutionaries should play the bourgeois game on the bourgeois field by the bourgeois rules at all!...

Actually, the controversy here is whether communists step onto the bourgeois field, using their own rules in order to both demonstrate a point and frustrate the bourgeoisie's "peace", or if, by doing nothing, they accept and reinforce the bourgeoisie's rules and the universality of the bourgeoisie's game. We propose the former; in my view, DJ-TC proposes the latter, and then dresses it up in "Left Communist" rhetoric.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:30 PM
For revolutionaries to participate in the bourgeois political "game" is like throwing all your money away in a casino to "prove" that the house always wins...something that's already known....

If it is something that is really "already known", then explain this:

"Sixty-four percent of U.S. citizens age 18 and over voted in the 2004 presidential election, up from 60 percent in 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. Tables from a November survey also show that of 197 million citizens, 72 percent (142 million) reported they were registered to vote. Among those registered, 89 percent (126 million) said they voted. In the 2000 election, 70 percent of citizens were registered; and among them, 86 percent voted.

"In 2004, turnout rates for citizens were 67 percent for non-Hispanic whites, 60 percent for blacks, 44 percent for Asians and 47 percent for Hispanics (of any race). These rates were higher than the previous presidential election by 5 percentage points for non-Hispanic whites and 3 points for blacks. By contrast, the voting rates for Asian and Hispanic citizens did not change." -- http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...ing/004986.html

Now, either you're right, and most people "already know" the "house always wins", and they're comfortable with that, or you're wrong, and people still see elections (well, presidential elections, anyway) as a something more or less relevant to their lives.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:30 PM
More and more working people are completely indifferent to bourgeois "elections"...because they already know that it's not going to make any significant difference in their lives except make things worse no matter "who wins"....

See above.

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:30 PM
The boilerplate "rationale" is that people are "more inclined" to listen to political rhetoric during election campaigns...but I think the "truth" of that is visibly shrinking. I think a lot of people in the U.S. now are more likely to get their "political information" from MTV or Saturday Night Live...or from some 30-second dummyvision spot.

See above.

redstar2000

@Mar 4 2006, 02:30 PM
It's all a show...and no revolutionary group has the resources to compete in that arena.

In one sense, you're right that no single group has the resources themselves to carry out a serious campaign. But there is nothing that says such a campaign cannot do grassroots fundraising.

For example, for a communist candidate to do a decent run for president, we have figured it would take about $1 million to do it. We break that down like this: 50,000 people donating $20 a piece equals $1 million. Can we find 50,000 people across the country over the course of a year or so willing to donate $20 in order to build that kind of war chest? I think so. It is not unrealistic.

The key issue is ballot access. To get on the ballot in most states on a party line or as an independent is far out of the reach of most organizations.. However, you can run a national write-in campaign. In almost every state, all it takes to run as a write-in candidate is an affadavit (statement of intent) and a list of Electors. And you can usually find the handful of people willing to be Electors within a few days of campaigning. Beyond that, it's a matter of publicity and education about how to vote write-in.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Mar 4 2006, 07:37 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Mar 4 2006, 07:37 PM)Either my English is really bad or it's you seeing things in between the lines[/b]

Of course I'm seeing things between the lines. You often have to read between the lines to find the truth. Your lines are no exception.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 07:37 PM
... things which don't exist.

No, things you fail to recognize.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 07:37 PM
Any how, only comment worthy posting is this one: you don't need a party, much less a party which accepts the bourgeois "game", to activate and release the revolutionary potential of the masses.

Working people will activate themselves and will enter the struggle on their own initiative. But will working people automatically "connect the dots" between that self-activation/initiative and the need for the overthrow of capitalism, especially with all of those self-appointed "leaders" working overtime to divert their activity back into the bourgeois order? History says no. Experience says no.

That's where the communist organization comes in -- to "point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality", and "always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole" -- to be "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others" and that has "the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement", as Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto.

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 07:37 PM
That's the only real issue which moved this discussion. Everything else you accuse me of was just "pinned" on me for I don't know what reason but those two I mentioned.

You asked me to give you an analysis of Pannekoek. I did so. You took it personally and began to spout shite. That's how this part of the discussion started. Now you want to issue yet another self-serving proclamation and back out.

DJ-TC

@Mar 4 2006, 07:37 PM
I don't do much, but I obviously don't do any less then you.

Comrade, if you had any idea what I did on a daily basis, you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Mar 3 2006, 10:20 PM
This is unfair to the reformists...who are always talking about "fighting in the here and now". It's what they fight for that revolutionaries find unsatisfactory.

I meant to respond to this comment before.

The reformists do not tell working people, or any people, to "fight in the here and now". What reformists tell people is to let them "fight in the here and now" on their behalf. The last thing in the world the reformists want is something that can get out of their control, like a grassroots movement. They want tightly-controled demonstrations and tightly-controled campaigns. "Fighting" doesn't figure anywhere into it.

Miles

[redstar2000]

The Census Bureau numbers that you report are projections from a self-reporting survey...which suffer from known statistical uncertainties.

For example, 125.7 million people said they voted in the 2004 presidential "election", but (from the same link) only 122.3 million people "officially voted".

It's a less extreme version of "church attendance" figures. That is, when the religious are polled about their regular church attendance, the numbers come out substantially larger than the numbers actually reported by all the churches.

In surveys, people lie to make themselves "look better".

The registration numbers are probably similarly inflated. Most people know that registering to vote gets your name on the jury duty list...and who needs that?

It would be interesting to get a break-down of those Census Bureau numbers by class.

It's the "common assumption" that voting rates decline by "socio-economic status"...but it would be nice to have some actual empirical confirmation.

Because if that "common assumption" is indeed valid, then any "communist" electoral strategy would perforce be "based" on the premise of attracting people back "into" the system who've already left it.

Note also from that Census Bureau report...

Citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent).

If we assume that alienation from the existing system and potential receptivity to communist ideas tends to be highest among young adults, then once again a "communist" electoral strategy would be trying to "pull into the system" people who are already alienated from it or at least indifferent to it.

Finally, the high turnout in 2004 may have included a good many "votes against Bush"...people who would not have normally bothered to register, much less vote, were it not perceived as an opportunity to protest the Iraqi war, the Patriot Act, etc.

The long-term trend in what The Economist calls "mature democracies" () is for declining voter turnouts...and 2004 may have simply been a "blip" that will not be repeated.

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
For example, for a communist candidate to do a decent run for president, we have figured it would take about $1 million to do it. We break that down like this: 50,000 people donating $20 a piece equals $1 million. Can we find 50,000 people across the country over the course of a year or so willing to donate $20 in order to build that kind of war chest? I think so. It is not unrealistic.

How much radio and television time can you purchase for $1 million?

And will they be willing to sell you any time at all?

I rather doubt it, myself.

In almost every state, all it takes to run as a write-in candidate is an affidavit (statement of intent) and a list of Electors. And you can usually find the handful of people willing to be Electors within a few days of campaigning. Beyond that, it's a matter of publicity and education about how to vote write-in.

I have never heard of even a single state that bothers to count write-in votes and release the total.

The reformists do not tell working people, or any people, to "fight in the here and now". What reformists tell people is to let them "fight in the here and now" on their behalf. The last thing in the world the reformists want is something that can get out of their control, like a grassroots movement. They want tightly-controlled demonstrations and tightly-controlled campaigns. "Fighting" doesn't figure anywhere into it.

Well, that's an argument ultimately based on the "sincerity" of professional reformists...do they really "fight" for the reforms that they profess to desire?

I think most of them probably do...they could get higher-paying jobs if they really wanted them.

I agree they are averse to "grassroots movements" that might possibly escape their control; the modern reformist model appears to be a group of professionals and in which ordinary people "participate" by mailing in a check.

The difference between reformists and communists is not only in what they fight for but what they mean by the word fight. Reformists are "at home" on the bourgeois "playing field"...they "play by the rules" and are never rude to the "umpires".

And, from examples I've seen, they have adopted the techniques of bourgeois ideologues with considerable dexterity...fund raising letters that promise "doom is at hand" unless you (yes you, you selfish bastard&#33 mail in your check at once! They rely on guilt and fear.

If you're going to raise $1 million from 50,000 people to run someone for president in 2008, what techniques will you employ?

[violencia.Proletariat]

I have. Remember, I helped with a communist campaign last year, and the candidate was on both radio and television doing interviews several times.

It seems to have been very effective

Not necessarily

If your running for president and want to be covered on major cable television, you have to pay. People get their news most from tv, so thats where you would "reach the masses" yet at the same time you wouldnt because young people (who we really need to convince) dont really watch the news

See above.

But you can do the same thing without an election. Or can you only raise money for "an election" because peopel wont donate on a large basis otherwise?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by nate+Mar 5 2006, 12:39 PM--> (nate @ Mar 5 2006, 12:39 PM)It seems to have been very effective [/b]

Having been on the ground, I would say it was effective, even though the candidate did not win. But 41 percent of the vote is nothing to sneeze at, either.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:39 PM
If your running for president and want to be covered on major cable television, you have to pay. People get their news most from tv, so thats where you would "reach the masses" yet at the same time you wouldnt because young people (who we really need to convince) dont really watch the news

First of all, it's not necessarily true that "you have to pay". Many cable companies, like Comcast, for example, not only have a national network of public access stations that people watch, they also, during an election season, will run "meet the candidates" specials, either on public access or on one of the news stations (e.g., CNN Headline News). Both public access and the "meet the candidates" spots are either free or low-priced (a couple hundred dollars). In addition, both cable companies and local television stations will often sell airtime on a Sunday evening at a discounted price -- sometimes as low as $100 for 30 minutes.

It is true that most young people don't watch television. So, radio is the answer. A 60-second spot running during the times that young people are most likely to listen to the radio can cost $160-200 for a four-day run. And these are major-market prices, so it goes down in "middle America" areas. Then there are webcasts, podcasts, Google ads, link exchanges, and so on and so on.

(If you're wondering, I'm using the ad cards we collected during that campaign I was working with to answer your question.)

nate

@Mar 5 2006, 12:39 PM
But you can do the same thing without an election. Or can you only raise money for "an election" because peopel wont donate on a large basis otherwise?

People are more inclined to donate to a political organization if they are running a candidate in an election. This is not to say that people won't donate in general or outside of an electoral cycle; people will donate, if they see a point to it. All I'm saying is that you cannot collect those funds as quickly or efficiently as you can during a campaign.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 5 2006, 09:55 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 5 2006, 09:55 AM)The Census Bureau numbers that you report are projections from a self-reporting survey...which suffer from known statistical uncertainties.

For example, 125.7 million people said they voted in the 2004 presidential "election", but (from the same link) only 122.3 million people "officially voted".

It's a less extreme version of "church attendance" figures. That is, when the religious are polled about their regular church attendance, the numbers come out substantially larger than the numbers actually reported by all the churches.

In surveys, people lie to make themselves "look better".

The registration numbers are probably similarly inflated. Most people know that registering to vote gets your name on the jury duty list...and who needs that?[/b]

There are a number of things here that also have to be taken into consideration, which may affect how people look at the apparent discrepancy.

First, it's always been my experience that very few people lie about whether or not they voted. Certainly, there are many reasons why someone might lie and say they voted, but who do you know who would do that? My personal experience has been that, if someone did not vote, they admit it.

Second, there were a number of issues regarding the casting of provisional ballots. Ohio, for example, had over 155,000 provisional ballots cast -- a number larger than the margin of victory Bush had in that state. Similarly, over 20,000 provisional ballots were cast in New Mexico -- a state Bush "won" by about 12,000 votes. None of these ballots were counted. It is estimated that close to 1 million provisional ballots were cast but not counted.

Third, and going along with the second, there is the issue of "spoilage". On average, about 2-3 percent of the votes cast are "spoiled" and thrown out. The difference between the 122.3 and 125.7 million votes listed in the U.S. Census report is 2.61 percent -- and that number includes the provisional ballots.

Based on these things, I can see the numbers as being more or less accurate. You might be right that some people here and there lied about whether or not they voted, but not 3.4 million.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:55 AM
It would be interesting to get a break-down of those Census Bureau numbers by class.

It's the "common assumption" that voting rates decline by "socio-economic status"...but it would be nice to have some actual empirical confirmation.

Because if that "common assumption" is indeed valid, then any "communist" electoral strategy would perforce be "based" on the premise of attracting people back "into" the system who've already left it.

CNN has a breakdown on their 2004 Election website that gives a lot of information, but not something that breaks it down by class. However, it is an interesting read.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:55 AM
How much radio and television time can you purchase for $1 million?

And will they be willing to sell you any time at all?

I rather doubt it, myself.

You certainly can't purchase as much radio and TV time as one of the two bourgeois candidates does, but you can purchase a pretty good amount (and that amount can be maximized with a certain amount of forethought and efficiency). And, yes, they will sell airtime to a communist candidate -- at least, the cable companies and radio stations will.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:55 AM
I have never heard of even a single state that bothers to count write-in votes and release the total.

Actually, they do count write-in candidates, but not on Election Night. When the final totals are given to the Secretary of State for certification, the write-in candidates' totals are released. But again, this is not about winning office.

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:55 AM
Well, that's an argument ultimately based on the "sincerity" of professional reformists...do they really "fight" for the reforms that they profess to desire?

No, not really. It may have been, in the past, that they really did fight "on behalf of" their base. But now, virtually all of the reformists are in defensive mode, and that means "no fighting, just cover your arse".

redstar2000

@Mar 5 2006, 09:55 AM
If you're going to raise $1 million from 50,000 people to run someone for president in 2008, what techniques will you employ?

First of all, let me say that the League has not decided to run a candidate for any office at any level, and probably will not do so any time in the future.

That said, if I was working on an independent working people's campaign for president, I would be inclined to say that, as opposed to the "guilt and fear" technique of the Democrats, or the "fear and loathing" technique of the Republicans, we would say something like this:

"We are not interested in propping up this bankrupt system by lending it a 'legitimacy' it does not deserve. We are running in this election in order to give a voice to the issues that matter to working people by bringing them to a national platform, and to talk with our brothers and sisters about the need to move forward from this system by taking matters into our hands and beginning that very real revolutionary movement.

"However, no one is going to get involved in an unserious, amateurish effort, especially when it is aimed directly at the existing regime and the ruling class that supports it. We intend to conduct this campaign in a 'run-to-win' spirit. That is, we intend to challenge the bosses' candidates at every turn, answering every argument with our own, responding to every charge, going where they go (and won't go&#33, and offering a revolutionary alternative at every step. Most importantly, though, every step of this effort will be designed to leave a 'revolutionary footprint' in every community, every neighborhood, every workplace we go -- a 'footprint' that takes the form of a growing movement of working people fighting for their own liberation.

"But this kind of campaign -- this kind of organizing effort -- cannot be done without support. That is why we are turning to you and asking for both your financial support and helping hand...."

Something like that, anyway.

Miles

[red_che]

Which means, on the one side, proletariat organizing itself for the means of political and economical struggle, and on the other, the whole "broad historical" tendency toward social transformation and revolution.

Haha....

Some kind of revisions, huh!

Well, in Marx's view, the party in it's broad historical sense is one that has ideological, political and organizational leadership over the proletarian revolution. One party that leads the proletariat up to its complete victory, that is, from seizure of political power up to the complete abolition of private property and the establishment of communist society.

The controversy here is whether or not revolutionaries should play the bourgeois game on the bourgeois field by the bourgeois rules at all!

What game are you referring here with all that bourgeois rules?!!!

Participation in the reactionary elections, is that it?

Well, participation in reactionary elections can also be similar to going to court to file a peition against illegal arrest, or petition against union busting, or going to the streets in protest of a legislation of a certain anti-worker bill.

Of course, it may be different in some respect, but what I refer to here is that those were similar forms of parliamentary struggle in further advancing the revolutionary struggle. These were struggle for reforms in order to gain some concessions for the revolutionary struggle.

Reformism is different. It is reformism when the struggle would be confined only and is limited to parliamentary forms of struggle that only calls for some reforms and hoping that these reforms would peacefully evolve into socialism.

The arena of bourgeois politics is actually worse than a casino...because the ordinary player always loses!

This is again one of your hypocritical and metaphysical assumptions.

For one, it is true that ordinary players don't have a chance at getting to win in a high position, like becoming a President of the country or a Senator. That's true. But the proletarian party can gain some seats in the local legislature, for example, or some local government positions, such as Mayoralty posts, that can be very helpful in further advancing the revolutionary struggle.

For revolutionaries to participate in the bourgeois political "game" is like throwing all your money away in a casino to "prove" that the house always wins...something that's already known.

That's if these revolutionaries think as foolishly as you.

For revolutionaries to participate in the reactionary elections, they must know the limitations and must set specific objectives and how can that further advance the revolution.