Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power. It stops progress and results in incremental fascism disguised as a lesser evil. Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes despite several studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies.
Cool cool, so why does voting vs not voting matter? What actionable alternatives would you suggest and why do those preclude checking a box on a piece of paper?
I’d argue that even an illusory vote has value as a public barometer. If 80% of a voter base is consistently voting against the incumbent party it tells you way more about their discontent than 80% not showing up.
You’re correct about that. In a chapter titled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?, Lenin argues that there are a number of reasons why communists ought to participate in elections even if they aren’t an effective means of implementing change.
As you mentioned, elections can be useful for a public barometer, they can also be useful for promoting ideas, they can be used to test potential leaders for opportunism, etc.
The caveat is that those goals are only really useful in the context of an actual communist party. It doesn’t really do us any good to know that people are dissatisfied with the current ruling party if they just support a different bourgeois party. It undermines the ideas we’re trying to promote if we just sheepdog people back into the fold of incrementalism and lesser-evilism and having faith in the system. And it does us little good to test “leaders” who are already avowed anti-communists.
All of which is to say, there are reasons to participate in US elections, but not through the democrats, rather through a third party that actually stands for what we’re trying to promote, like PSL.
Really, the main reason that Lenin argues for participation in electoralism is for the sake of reaching people where they’re at in order to encourage them to pursue other, more useful approaches, such as strikes.
I appreciate the response, thanks for the perspective. From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild. The “participation” in elections begins and ends with “Both parties bad. Vote for [the nebulous idea of] a third party”. In my opinion, if you can’t give a concrete name and put in enough effort to get it on the ballot then you’re not actually participating.
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani’s campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative. Now with his win, there’s no discussion about parlaying that turnout into other elections. Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor) or projected future failure.
Nothing about that approach indicates any good faith engagement with progressive politics in the electoral space. In that sense it’s completely indistinguishable from the right’s suppression and defeatism.
From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani’s campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative.
I’ve seen quite a bit of discussion about this, personally. Here is a thread on Hexbear from a week ago with people arguing back and forth over this point. And if you search “Zohran” you’ll find plenty of comments celebrating his win.
Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor)
It doesn’t really matter that much as a mayor, but it does matter somewhat if he’s treated as a leader, representing ideas beyond his official capacity. And that sort of thing is why Marxist participate in electoralism in the first place.
Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power.
Its a political relief valve to limit the scope of corruption and the degree to which the public experiences pain. If you’re in the corona of folks who enjoy relief via reform, it is often enough to quell your desire to overthrow the system. If you’re not, it costs you support - often along ethnic or regional lines - in a way that divides your neighbors against you.
Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes
Voters are deciding political outcomes. Large waves of angry voters do change policies by forcing the government leadership into a reform cycle. This is often preferable to violent confrontations between an increasingly unpopular state leadership and growing crowds of dissidents.
Reform isn’t an illusion. It has material consequences for a subset of the angry populace. Soothing this populace and winning them back to the establishment’s side is why reforms work as a mitigation of revolution.
The illusion is in the belief that reforms aren’t necessary. Government leadership pumped up on its own hubris will often exceed the limits of the institutional system and undermine their function. Because reform requires appeasing people outside your immediate interest groups, they can often be characterized as an act of weakness rather than a strategic concession. And leadership that relies on the impression of strength (and the overt displays of brutality) can abandon reform as a vehicle for tempering hostility to policy changes, leading to revolutionary movements.
studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies
Studies have shown a large gap between public opinion and public policy. What these studies regularly neglect is the popular rejection of ostensibly favorable public policy, often in the wake of a short term media campaign or sudden economic shift, which temporarily change their historically stated positions.
Consent can and does get manufactured. And this consent is reflected in subsequent election results.
Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power. It stops progress and results in incremental fascism disguised as a lesser evil. Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes despite several studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies.
Another Rosa Luxemburg fan I see. She spoke the gospel.
Cool cool, so why does voting vs not voting matter? What actionable alternatives would you suggest and why do those preclude checking a box on a piece of paper?
I’d argue that even an illusory vote has value as a public barometer. If 80% of a voter base is consistently voting against the incumbent party it tells you way more about their discontent than 80% not showing up.
You’re correct about that. In a chapter titled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?, Lenin argues that there are a number of reasons why communists ought to participate in elections even if they aren’t an effective means of implementing change.
As you mentioned, elections can be useful for a public barometer, they can also be useful for promoting ideas, they can be used to test potential leaders for opportunism, etc.
The caveat is that those goals are only really useful in the context of an actual communist party. It doesn’t really do us any good to know that people are dissatisfied with the current ruling party if they just support a different bourgeois party. It undermines the ideas we’re trying to promote if we just sheepdog people back into the fold of incrementalism and lesser-evilism and having faith in the system. And it does us little good to test “leaders” who are already avowed anti-communists.
All of which is to say, there are reasons to participate in US elections, but not through the democrats, rather through a third party that actually stands for what we’re trying to promote, like PSL.
Really, the main reason that Lenin argues for participation in electoralism is for the sake of reaching people where they’re at in order to encourage them to pursue other, more useful approaches, such as strikes.
I appreciate the response, thanks for the perspective. From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild. The “participation” in elections begins and ends with “Both parties bad. Vote for [the nebulous idea of] a third party”. In my opinion, if you can’t give a concrete name and put in enough effort to get it on the ballot then you’re not actually participating.
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani’s campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative. Now with his win, there’s no discussion about parlaying that turnout into other elections. Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor) or projected future failure.
Nothing about that approach indicates any good faith engagement with progressive politics in the electoral space. In that sense it’s completely indistinguishable from the right’s suppression and defeatism.
I’ve seen quite a bit of discussion about this, personally. Here is a thread on Hexbear from a week ago with people arguing back and forth over this point. And if you search “Zohran” you’ll find plenty of comments celebrating his win.
It doesn’t really matter that much as a mayor, but it does matter somewhat if he’s treated as a leader, representing ideas beyond his official capacity. And that sort of thing is why Marxist participate in electoralism in the first place.
It’s a complicated issue.
Its a political relief valve to limit the scope of corruption and the degree to which the public experiences pain. If you’re in the corona of folks who enjoy relief via reform, it is often enough to quell your desire to overthrow the system. If you’re not, it costs you support - often along ethnic or regional lines - in a way that divides your neighbors against you.
Voters are deciding political outcomes. Large waves of angry voters do change policies by forcing the government leadership into a reform cycle. This is often preferable to violent confrontations between an increasingly unpopular state leadership and growing crowds of dissidents.
Reform isn’t an illusion. It has material consequences for a subset of the angry populace. Soothing this populace and winning them back to the establishment’s side is why reforms work as a mitigation of revolution.
The illusion is in the belief that reforms aren’t necessary. Government leadership pumped up on its own hubris will often exceed the limits of the institutional system and undermine their function. Because reform requires appeasing people outside your immediate interest groups, they can often be characterized as an act of weakness rather than a strategic concession. And leadership that relies on the impression of strength (and the overt displays of brutality) can abandon reform as a vehicle for tempering hostility to policy changes, leading to revolutionary movements.
Studies have shown a large gap between public opinion and public policy. What these studies regularly neglect is the popular rejection of ostensibly favorable public policy, often in the wake of a short term media campaign or sudden economic shift, which temporarily change their historically stated positions.
Consent can and does get manufactured. And this consent is reflected in subsequent election results.