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.
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.