What are these groups’ position on voting for 3rd party candidates in the US’s “first past the post” climate? Genuinely asking. I’m all for organizing and educating, but until we can end the correct 2-party system, these candidates are in no way viable.
Both are revolutionary parties, they have the same stance Marx and Engels did:
that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled.
Straight from Marx and Engels themselves.
The US’ First Past the Post climate will never leave without struggle and resistance, both parties cement it because they benefit from it. Revolution is necessary. Voting can’t get us there. I recommend reading Reform or Revolution and The State and Revolution for why reform is pretty much impossible and revolution is necessary.
Again, I appreciate the information but “revolution” is a nebulous term. What’s the realistic plan to get there?
Voting can’t get us there.
I’d believe that if we had enough participation. Look at the number of eligible voters, then look at the margins on every single candidate and issue. If enough people had voted, we would have literally put fascism behind us and had election reform. First past the post would be a distant memory. Which again, is the absolutely required first step before 3rd-party candidates become viable in the US.
Voting works if enough people vote. But we do have the numbers! I realize getting people to participate is the harder problem than just saying an ideology will solve everything, but that’s the world we live in. Any realistic plan for revolution must at least include voting as long as voting is still an effective part of progress.
Are you asking how do we organize for revolution? How do we conduct it? How do we know it’s fairly inevitable, and needs to be prepared for? All have different readings I can recommend, and questions I can answer.
One thing I do think is just fantasy is the idea that if “enough people” voted we could have all the things you listed. People don’t pick policy, politicians do, and the politicians we are allowed to pick from are intentionally limited to pro-status quo individuals.
Secondly, you make a critical misunderstanding of fascism. Fascism is Capitalism in decay, it can’t be voted out. It isn’t an ideology to adopt, but something that rises with deterioration of Capitalism and Imperialism. I recommend reading at least the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds to truly understand what fascism is, who it serves, why it rises, and how to banish it forever.
I realize getting people to participate is the harder problem than just saying an ideology will solve everything, but that’s the world we live in.
I am not saying “an ideology will solve everything.” I am saying that voting is ineffective at protecting working class interests, and explaining why that is. I am additionally telling you what is necessary instead of hoping voting will fix anything, as we just saw, voting failed. I am sorry, I know that voting is easier than building up Dual Power, organizing, reading theory, correctly analyzing the working class movements, educating the masses, and more, but I maintain that this is the path forward.
Any realistic plan for revolution must at least include voting as long as voting is still an effective part of progress.
See, voting evidently isn’t an effective part of progress, which is why I recommended the two most famous and revered works on the question of reform or revolution. Participation in bourgeois elections is good, but won’t be anywhere close to the main path of success, it is a supplemental part of the whole.
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.”
What are these groups’ position on voting for 3rd party candidates in the US’s “first past the post” climate? Genuinely asking. I’m all for organizing and educating, but until we can end the correct 2-party system, these candidates are in no way viable.
Both are revolutionary parties, they have the same stance Marx and Engels did:
Straight from Marx and Engels themselves.
The US’ First Past the Post climate will never leave without struggle and resistance, both parties cement it because they benefit from it. Revolution is necessary. Voting can’t get us there. I recommend reading Reform or Revolution and The State and Revolution for why reform is pretty much impossible and revolution is necessary.
Again, I appreciate the information but “revolution” is a nebulous term. What’s the realistic plan to get there?
I’d believe that if we had enough participation. Look at the number of eligible voters, then look at the margins on every single candidate and issue. If enough people had voted, we would have literally put fascism behind us and had election reform. First past the post would be a distant memory. Which again, is the absolutely required first step before 3rd-party candidates become viable in the US.
Voting works if enough people vote. But we do have the numbers! I realize getting people to participate is the harder problem than just saying an ideology will solve everything, but that’s the world we live in. Any realistic plan for revolution must at least include voting as long as voting is still an effective part of progress.
Are you asking how do we organize for revolution? How do we conduct it? How do we know it’s fairly inevitable, and needs to be prepared for? All have different readings I can recommend, and questions I can answer.
One thing I do think is just fantasy is the idea that if “enough people” voted we could have all the things you listed. People don’t pick policy, politicians do, and the politicians we are allowed to pick from are intentionally limited to pro-status quo individuals.
Secondly, you make a critical misunderstanding of fascism. Fascism is Capitalism in decay, it can’t be voted out. It isn’t an ideology to adopt, but something that rises with deterioration of Capitalism and Imperialism. I recommend reading at least the first chapter of Blackshirts and Reds to truly understand what fascism is, who it serves, why it rises, and how to banish it forever.
I am not saying “an ideology will solve everything.” I am saying that voting is ineffective at protecting working class interests, and explaining why that is. I am additionally telling you what is necessary instead of hoping voting will fix anything, as we just saw, voting failed. I am sorry, I know that voting is easier than building up Dual Power, organizing, reading theory, correctly analyzing the working class movements, educating the masses, and more, but I maintain that this is the path forward.
See, voting evidently isn’t an effective part of progress, which is why I recommended the two most famous and revered works on the question of reform or revolution. Participation in bourgeois elections is good, but won’t be anywhere close to the main path of success, it is a supplemental part of the whole.
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.”