Voting and reform

It is possible that at some time in the past voting offered some real possibility of change - that possibility of change might still have been a deceptive seduction which weakened the movement but the possibility itself was plausibly, arguably there.

Today, the idea that voting could change the character of the system one iota just seems idiotic, laughable... So absurd it takes an act of mental self-emasculation to believe...

The argument, even from the left, for voting isn't so much for reform as for some kind of vague concessions combined with an argument for believing for the sake of belief. If some portion of the poor sells their votes to the left, the left will be able toss some slightly nicer version of the same-old-shit to them. But just as much "The Audacity Of Hope" is a marvelous thing ... hope is best and rarest fuel for the liars running things - "You should play this game not because we've given even you even a slightest plausible argument that voting will change things but because not believing our lies will leave you feeling a full despair appropriate for the present world ".

I mean, those things that are spoken of as reform today aren't concession to the working class but reorganizations aimed against the working class. The right wing has its reforms and the left has their reforms. The right wing's reforms might even vicious than the left wing's reforms but this is far cry from any of these filth bags offering anything worthwhile.

The current health care bill in the US congress promises total shit to just about everyone except portions of the medical industrial complex. Buy health care insurance or go to jail - that's the free market and the state working together!

It's humorous that the US president is a former "community organizer". It's humorous that "green jobs" is the "radical" edge of the current "liberal" administration. The most extreme radical within the system are crying in the wilderness that there is no one as "radical" as the New Deal reformers who only aimed to squash communism in their day.

The possibilities of total change today certainly seem distant. But the possibilities of moderate change within the bounds of the law seem just distant to me. The captains of Wall Street call the shots so completely they sabotage even themselves - that doesn't stop the situation (the bail-outs ). Democracy, debate, reform and rethinking are terribly alive in the context of remaking capitalism to be ever-so-more-exactly-like-it-is-now. But in every other meaning of the terms, they utterly dead, the left pundits of today open their mouths and vomit sawdust while deserts lap at the walls of Beijing, toxic drywall spews sulfur into American homes and sea of capitalist ideology reaffirm we live in the best of all possible worlds.

In my opinion, voting for a politician brings no change and only enforces the institution of represenative democracy. It also just encourages illusions. The illusions are multiple, for example, that a group of people with vested interests in capitalism want to change anything. With the Obama example, referred to above, there was the additional illusion that a person, ie the president, is in a position to unilaterally decide to implement policies that are not in his competence. Even if one believed that he was sincere, (which I don't), the political competence doesn't lie with the president, which shows that people are not even too aware about how the political system works and are mislead to believe in personalities.

Then there is a question about the value of a single reform. Personally, I think they have some value, but you cannot lose sight of the whole. Obtaining single reforms may be accomplished through direct referendum, but through electing a representative, not necessarily since a referendum can be binding- a politician's promises not. (Not all referendum result are binding - in different places they can be overridden in different ways.)

Finally, any change is better made through popular uprising, protest, etc. than from above. Voting is a fucking vent which convinces people that somebody else will take care of business and that they should deal with matters through voting for unaccountable liars instead of taking matters into their own hands.

I'm still undecided on this point. This year, I had my first opportunity to vote in the EU elections. On balance I decided not to. But while a large part of the working classes in the UK also didn't vote for basically political reasons, the result of this was that the BNP made major electoral gains, which has in turn moved explicitly racial politics towards the mainstream.

While everything that has been said about voting, the way it perpetuates the myth of democracy, the way it legitimises the state, and so on, has a truth to it, voting does genuinely influence the political landscape of liberal democracy. And this in turn directly affects us as workers; in this case with the growth of nationalism and racism.

~J.

I can't see why any serious communist would do this.

~J.

this has been gone into in detail and several discussions, so I won't sidetrack this separate one - but I think you are mistaken here.

The election of a couple of BNP MEPs has not "moved explicitly racial politics towards the mainstream".

Firstly, I think it would be more accurate to talk about extreme nationalist politics, rather than racial, because the BNP to be popular has moved away from talk about race.

But in any case, it is not the election of BNP politicians which has moved extreme nationalist politics towards the mainstream, it is extreme nationalist politics being espoused every day by the mainstream media and the major parties which has resulted in increased votes for extreme nationalists - the BNP.

The BNP propaganda machine is insignificant, compared to the dominance of the mainstream media - much of which pushes BNP policies to millions of people every day.

In terms of voting, I think that advocating voting one way or another is counterproductive as it implies that you think meaningful change can be achieved by electing a new set of rulers - which it can't.

On reforms, echoing what red said above, "reforms" spoken of today are not the reforms spoken of 70 years ago - they are not "progressive", they are attacks on the working class. "Welfare reform" means slashing welfare, "education reform" is cutting and privatising education, etc.

"Progressive" reforms are granted by governments to head off class struggle - so what we should try and do is get involved in struggle. If any of these become successful, then some reforms will be granted. But we should not be asking the government to make reforms, we should just get involved in struggles where workers are making demands and try to help push them forwards.

But like I said, this is pretty much a moot point at the moment because we are not in an offensive position where we are demanding things which have to be met by reforms - we are currently on the defensive, so the demands of struggles at the moment are defensive - no/less wage cuts, no/fewer job cuts, etc.

I feel that's an overly simplistic view. But could you link to the past discussions please, I'd be interested to read 'em.

~J.

Actually, I think BiglittleJ's argument is the only remaining argument for voting: if you don't vote, something even more awfully insane than just the "sensible party for moderate capitalism in the bounds of the law" will win. In the US, the democrats and the republicans have been initiating remarkably similar policies despite the most advanced democrats' reputation as something like liberal Web 2.0 pragmatists versus republican's position as barkingly insane ideologues - fascists without racism in the original sense of Mussolini's fascists - the intentional use of single extreme, irrational for purpose of unifying state, industry and nation.

Because the majority of the working class is passive in their consumption of ideas, capital can organize things so that the choice "really is" between the less of evils because this passive majority isn't going to allowed a passive choice between anything else. Perhaps it "really is" good to vote in these circumstances. But that's not the point, "good" or not, voting has nothing to do with advancing the self-organization of the dispossessed, working class or whatever. Voting might marginally reduce this self-organization or it might be utterly irrelevant to it but those are the two possibilities. If we are going to speak as communists, if talking about the collective rejection of capitalist social relations has any meaning at all, we have to speak in terms of rejecting electoralism as it might possibly exist today.

Addendum: As communists, we cannot define ourselves as "the people who follow whatever is good and sensible and helps a bunch of people". This society is "sensible" and its sensible order has removed previous irrationalities and reorder everything in utterly miserable sensibleness but just as much, society is insane and its insane order has resulted and will continue to result in massive misery. Our job is not to reduce that misery and replace it with capitalist sensibleness but to help produce the movement, an insurrection, a counter-logic that will put an end to the whole logic (and illogic) of capital. The sensible face of capital and the very senseless face of capital will alternate as long as captial's logic continues. Thus the only communist position that we can't be concerned with tweaking capitalism to be more sensible. The volunteers who birds that oiled by crude spills or who try to reduce their "carbon footprint" to zero or who pursue "harm redunction" for heroin addicts or who try to improve Congresses policies to be marginally less insane are all fine people and further they outnumber communists a thousand to one. They altogether are making a concession to existence of capital and this inherently makes it easier for it to continue or at least does not challenge it in any way.

The unity of the present order should be more and more evident to everyone today. Everything I'm saying is based on this. As far as I can, just anyone who challenges this is "debating" rather than looking at what the heck is going on around them. Both the Internet and capitalist society are great for those who come up with sensible-sound three or five step programs - and I indeed can't prove they wouldn't work (unions have failed and been reactionary for fifty years but maybe your secret sauce will make them revolutionary once again, etc). It is indeed a good debate point to challenge the unity of present society because this unity is not an easily proven point. But despite it's vagueness, it is increasingly obvious, obvious that the present world forms a single system supported by at least many of the trivial efforts to do good (and not challenged by the rest).

I am in favour of the Sinn Fein voting tactic as laid down by Guy Aldred, but I will write something more substantial on this at some point in the near future, but for the sake of discussion it would encompass putting forward a radical programme during elections (most likely local elections) that would be an policy envisagement of how anarchism would work in practice (industrial democracy, transparent city planning, open curriculum free education etc) but without any intention of taking power. The point being that 'vote no one' campaigns that are usually advocated by libertarians and anarchists are lazy, and in a time when some people will be receptive its totally unengaging.

That's an interesting position, though I'm not sure whether it would be worth it when you see the incredible amount of work required for even a sensible left or independent candidate to come second (Steven and Catch will back me up on how much work Hackney Independent put in to coming second) - getting a worthwhile vote for an explicitly radical, libertarian abstentionist position - I dunno, I'm not convinced it's going to work unless you are riding a wave of successful militancy and have a high profile candidate when it becomes a personal vote anyway... I do agree that vote no one campaigns are a waste of time, you're better off doing nothing all day than that.

I am not opposed to supporting candidates as a policy of scaring councillors into backing a worthwhile measure in order to save their seats - if it can provide help to a strong independent rooted community campaign - but I would not recommend it as a primary tactic, and I would probably advise against it most of the time (see the HI reference above).

I am not opposed to voting in elections or referenda though I wouldn't prioritise it, it only takes a minute and can have a significant effect - for example if we'd had a vote on Lisbon a no vote would have been entertaining if nothing else, also although I have always opposed the call to vote anyone to keep out the BNP - I would personally vote for a Labour or left or Green candidate to keep them out - but I would not campaign for it, or even ask other people quietly to do it.

As for progressive reforms - bring them on - if they are won by working class militancy, or as a by-product of it, or by the threat of it, then brilliant - as long as we are also arguing radical social change, and pointing out that the reforms are not enough, I'm going to be happy.

In other words, people would vote for a party which only a few years ago invaded another country, propagates completely racist and xenophobic hysteria regarding Arabs and Muslims, killed far more brown people than the BNP could hope, in the name of 'anti-fascism' & 'community campaign', 'transparent city planning.'

LOL @ anarchists.

Scratch an anarchist, find a Trotskyist liberal quoting Sinn Fein.

Please show where anyone said they would vote Labour in the name of community campaigning.

Or, with enough militancy, the election system will actually bother to recuperate you, proving your past success and assuring your future failure.

i think the problem with this is that anarchism isn't a program to choose from a list, it's a revolution in social relations that can only come about through mass self-organsation. even if you had the resources to 'win' and not take power, what would actually be gained? i'd far rather put all those thousands of pounds and man-hours going door-to-door into actual organising for direct action, building networks in the community and workplaces etc. 'Vote no one' is lazy and fairly pointless, but also not very resource-intensive. If we had the resources to seriously contest elections (and there's no point doing it to come last), i think they could be put to better use.

Marsella, first of all that is a purely moralistic argument, and second it is a democrat's argument, albeit turned against democracy. It implies that voting for a government really does give you power, and some sort of moral responsibility, for its actions, which is clearly a nonsense.

You're obviously have no time for anarchism or 'libertarian communism', and I think a lot of the criticisms you've made are valid and interesting. But here you just come off as name-calling, with nothing of real substance to back it up. That, or you genuinely believe that voting for a government implies you are somehow responsible for it.

~J.

And you would be wrong on both latter accounts. It was a tactic used by the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation.

Its not meant to be an abstract choice, but an opportunity to air our politics which poses a movement beyond the restraints set by reactive activism like 'vote for no one'. Whether its vogue or not, some people are more receptive to political ideas when councils and MPs are having to getting the backing of the populace. For us its simply another platform and the threat of causing disaffection around one of the key illusions underpinning the system we live under is something we should not pass up. We need open displays of defiance to polarise the general public.

And no one said anything about squandering resources.

no, no one said anything about squandering resources. but running an election campaign doesn't come cheap. socialist groups have budgets literally hundreds of times SolFed's and have made little electoral headway, and superficially their message isn't that dissimilar.

if we had that kind of cash and enough activists for door-to-door canvassing etc i think it could be put to better use. i'm all for open displays of defiance, but i think direct action makes the best examples - whether relatively high profile stuff like Lewisham Bridge and Visteon or everyday stuff like LCAP.

the only message that voting X to keep Y out is sending is "this is a good system, and it genuinely represents me." I am aware that no one is advocating this strategy in the name of community campaigning, but doing it for whatever reason, as an anarchist, is fairly illogical.

Yeah,

Just as the present system is protected by social workers backed-up by police backed up by militarized police backed up by soldiers and tanks and planes god-knows-what weapons, the system is backed-up by an endless series of false choices.

Entering into the electoral "process" in any capacity winds-up being despicable because the electoral platform you put forward must accept ten of the system's false choices for every choice which it attempts to challenge. Sure, you can even say "overthrown capitalism" or something similar as your electoral platform but when this statement is made "specific" in the system's terms, it is sure to be something awful (a massive state sector or self-managed capitalism or ...).

And once you've put forward your single alternative, you're guaranteed to fail miserably by both the system's massive resources and the fact that changing one part of the system while keeping the capitalists in charge often can actually make things worse (and especially because the capitalists still administering things will take it as an opportunity to make things worse).

Only if you think not siding with a bourgeoisie faction is a moralistic argument.

I couldn’t care less about democracy, but I have heard anarchists argue that the BNP were ‘subverting the democratic process’ and hence should be opposed.

I think anti-fascism of this kind is only an excuse for people to vote for labour and other bourgeoisie parties, which is why we have labour members and even conservative members in anti-fascist organisations. The only moralism I see comes from liberals who spout democratic rhetoric in the guise of radicalism.

I don’t think it gives you moral culpability, and nowhere did I claim such. I think voting is about as effective as not voting, and on balance it only provides an illusion, a mystification, one which the ruling class wants to maintain, about social change.

Rather, I genuinely find it funny that some anarchists vote for a racist imperialist party (which has actually demonstrated their stances as clear as day) in order to prevent a racist imperialist party from coming to power (which anyone can see is fantasy anyway). I genuinely find it funny when anarchists support bourgeoisie candidates and the state. As someone noted above, it is, as an anarchist, ‘fairly illogical.’

In this debate i am somewhat surprised that the SPGB attitude towards reform and to elections has not merited a mention , even if you disagree with it , it is a unique analysis compared with most of the others and deserves a hearing .It has been discussed here on Libcom many a time and as i am frequently accused of lengthy posts i will refer those whose who are unaware of the SPGB position at
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/leaflet-the-vote-a-blank-check-state-power-31102008

I agree with most of this.

I think OL has a point, that during election times people do have more interest in politics - and it can be a good opportunity to put forward radical political ideas, but that doesn't mean you need to put candidates up, you can still go door knocking, and leafleting for your campaign group or whatever - use the election as an opportunity to promote LCAP or whatever.

Door knocking is actually a good tactic for building support, as one reason for the BNP's success often given is that they're the only ones that bother to knock on people's doors and ask them what they think.

When it comes to standing abstentionist candidates the points about Sinn Fein, are valid - any radical abstentionist campaign that had any level of success would inevitably lead to some people saying hang on with this level of support why not take the seat and try and do some good? Nt to mention the people that always secretly wanted to do that...

The SPGB point is also worth looking at - how much success have they had in over 100 years of abstentionist campaigning for socialism?

Voting doesn't equate to siding with anyone, unless you believe that democracy works.

Indeed, and clearly the bourgeoisie is very keen to keep workers voting. My question is, does this outweigh the introduction of explicitly racist politics to the British political mainstream?

Don't be absurd. I never claimed that the labour party was not racist and imperialist, or advocated giving support to any bourgeois candidate or state. Nor do I believe it is probable that the BNP will 'come to power' any time in the near future. My point was that their (limited) electoral success moves British politics towards explicitly racist themes.

~J.

but it's not the BNP introducing explicitly racist politics is it? the Daily Mail, with a circulation in excess of 2 million has front pages like this:

whereas the BNP's paper has things like this:

if anything the BNP are far more careful to appear as 'good honest patriots' and not racist, whereas the Mail prints its bile with impunity. the BNP aren't going round saying 'rights for whites', which is precisely why they've become electable. they're far more exploiting the racism in mainstream politics rather than causing it.

The Daily Mail has changed a lot, calling itself the Express now?

d'oh

wrong pic. ok the express 'only' has a circulation of 750,000. i'm off out so don't have time to find a pic but the Mail's in a pretty similar ballpark. point stands though.

I completely Agree with this plan. The sinn Fein tactic atleast gets publicity.

Blowing stuff up and shooting people gets publicity