Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about.
China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with “purity,” and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
I am saying that mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election.
No Marxist gives a shit about “purity.” Marx laughed at “moralists,” because that’s not how Marxists see the world. We don’t give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
As it stands ml types won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.
Again, you haven’t proven any of your points on “purity.” I don’t know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it’s “impure.” Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela’s democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela’s Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It’s about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I’ve been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is “Great Man Theory.”
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting?
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness. Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle. Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too. Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position?
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness.
Marxists do not dogmatically oppose voting. Like the PSL example, we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle.
This doesn’t follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You’re continuing to argue against strawmen.
Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too.
How so? We have countless historical examples of the capitalist state crushing legal forms of “resistance,” using the very same legal structures or even extra-legal structures, because said legal structures are designed to protect the system and resist change.
Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
This is a view entirely divorced from historical analysis of socialist struggles. I implore you, study socialist history.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
Then the MLs you speak of that oppose this use of electoral systems do not exist, and you are therefore arguing against ghosts and strawmen. Again, see PSL and how it treats elections.
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
You’re discussing 2 different things:
Marxists opposing Electoralism as a vehicle for change, what you call “short term relief,” which is a practical impossibility and not a question of “purity”
Marxists “opposing” using electoral systems for agitation and advertising our positions. This is utterly false, though, as the aforementioned PSL example proves.
I can’t sprout wings and fly, but that’s not because I’m unwilling to, it’s just impossible, and therefore I suggest people stop thinking that they can do so to change the lightbulb. I’m more than willing to demonstrate the unfeasibility by jumping, and trying to do so, but these are separate ideas.
Marxists believe 2 things, neither of which have to do with “purity:”
Electoralism within capitalism cannot be used for change, not should not.
Marxist parties can run in elections to prove the former and advertise themselves.
You’re arguing against a strawman that does not exist.
This doesn’t follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You’re continuing to argue against strawmen.
It does follow. If you have the numbers and willingness to show up it is obvious that you have to be taken seriously. It is also clear to your own movement and opposition that you have real strength to escalate if need be. Of course given that
we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
Means you are going to no show and as such will never been taken seriously.
It does follow. If you have the numbers and willingness to show up it is obvious that you have to be taken seriously.
PSL, for example, is taken seriously more by showing up and protesting every time the US Empire does something vile. They have growing numbers because they don’t treat elections as the primary vehicle for change, but more as advertisement, and instead focus on unionizing, protest, and striking. Showing up at the ballot once every 2-4 years is far less effective than organizing political education, protests, and organizing efforts year-round. This is strength, being able to organize a protest in less than 24 hours and have people on the streets shows enormous strength in logistics and discipline.
Means you are going to no show and as such will never been taken seriously.
Incorrect. To the contrary, the point Marxists actually oppose, that being showing up to elections only and treating it as the primary vehicle for change, is to doom us. Again, nobody is arguing that if someone casts a vote they are hurting the movement, just that they are basically wasting their time, especially in the US Empire where most states are solidly for one of two bourgeois parties.
And if they have the number you claim they do they should do so anyway and get some of their voice in office. It will be very helpful. Really what you are saying is that you have a very popular movement that is choosing to squander a major part of how influence is exercised. “Yeah we have lots of members who are willing to do all this much harder protest. Ohh no we are not willing to take an afternoon to vote as left as possible at least and certainly not make a formal party”. Really stop and thinking about what you are saying.
Like I said, if you have the numbers it is clear that you are a real movement and you pulling more effort into telling me why you won’t show up is telling that you don’t and that you don’t want to. Which is ironic that earlier you called out Geneva for only being interested in online activism.
Case in point. This snippet of your language shows that elections are not pure enough and you will not be showing up to help us on this front for a short term relief.
Then you wonder why you get no representation at the table when you explicitly said you don’t want to be heard.
No? My point on elections is that they do not bring short or long-term relief, because candidates are pre-filtered so as to not challenge the status quo. It has nothing to do with purity, and is entirely due to the practical assessment that elections under capitalism cannot answer capitalism’s systemic problems.
I don’t ever wonder why Marxists don’t have electoral representation, we’ve known why for centuries, and it’s because the ruling class fears communists above all else. Just look at the Epstein files, and read about how they refer to the PRC and socialist leaders like Xi Jinping. It’s utter disdain and fear.
Or even how he’s appraised by western intelligence:
Who is “us?” What is your strategy? Is it to vote for whichever pre-filtered candidate is most progressive, and then watch as this candidate loses to the more well-funded pre-filtered establishment candidate? What then? If the only ladders allowed to be available electorally are 4-8 feet tall and you need to change a bulb 20 feet in the air, how do you make progress?
How many stepladders do you need to try before you roll up your sleeves and drive down to the hardware store for an actual ladder?
Im not sure what that tangent about China is about. I am saying that
mls observably care about purity of their members and methods. Case in point here at the outright objection to even show up to an election. Its not just about getting some policy it is also about showing numbers and credibility of our movements. If you can get your group to show up and vote you can get them to show for a protest or strike. As it standsmltypes won’t be able to do either as they are not really interested in pushing for common goals out of vague purity issues. We can get candidates like Mamdami if we support them.China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with “purity,” and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
No Marxist gives a shit about “purity.” Marx laughed at “moralists,” because that’s not how Marxists see the world. We don’t give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
Again, you haven’t proven any of your points on “purity.” I don’t know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it’s “impure.” Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela’s democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela’s Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It’s about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I’ve been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is “Great Man Theory.”
Like i said. It is a show of numbers and willingness. Your lack of willingness to show up to primaries or even get your own party on a ballot means you are likely not going to show up somewhere with a rifle. Your arguments about “the elite won’t let us win” is meaningless too. Everyone will see eachother at the poll and know they have the numbers to force the issue at a fraudulent election.
Note that I never said elections are the end all be all for change and reform; just that we are foolish to ignore this aspect of organizing and getting our message out.
What do you mean? The part where I said mls are unwilling to build coalitions and engage with elections to bring about short term relief; where you have then step in to the thread to show that you are unwilling to do so?
Marxists do not dogmatically oppose voting. Like the PSL example, we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
This doesn’t follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You’re continuing to argue against strawmen.
How so? We have countless historical examples of the capitalist state crushing legal forms of “resistance,” using the very same legal structures or even extra-legal structures, because said legal structures are designed to protect the system and resist change.
This is a view entirely divorced from historical analysis of socialist struggles. I implore you, study socialist history.
Then the MLs you speak of that oppose this use of electoral systems do not exist, and you are therefore arguing against ghosts and strawmen. Again, see PSL and how it treats elections.
You’re discussing 2 different things:
Marxists opposing Electoralism as a vehicle for change, what you call “short term relief,” which is a practical impossibility and not a question of “purity”
Marxists “opposing” using electoral systems for agitation and advertising our positions. This is utterly false, though, as the aforementioned PSL example proves.
I can’t sprout wings and fly, but that’s not because I’m unwilling to, it’s just impossible, and therefore I suggest people stop thinking that they can do so to change the lightbulb. I’m more than willing to demonstrate the unfeasibility by jumping, and trying to do so, but these are separate ideas.
Marxists believe 2 things, neither of which have to do with “purity:”
Electoralism within capitalism cannot be used for change, not should not.
Marxist parties can run in elections to prove the former and advertise themselves.
You’re arguing against a strawman that does not exist.
It does follow. If you have the numbers and willingness to show up it is obvious that you have to be taken seriously. It is also clear to your own movement and opposition that you have real strength to escalate if need be. Of course given that
Means you are going to no show and as such will never been taken seriously.
PSL, for example, is taken seriously more by showing up and protesting every time the US Empire does something vile. They have growing numbers because they don’t treat elections as the primary vehicle for change, but more as advertisement, and instead focus on unionizing, protest, and striking. Showing up at the ballot once every 2-4 years is far less effective than organizing political education, protests, and organizing efforts year-round. This is strength, being able to organize a protest in less than 24 hours and have people on the streets shows enormous strength in logistics and discipline.
Incorrect. To the contrary, the point Marxists actually oppose, that being showing up to elections only and treating it as the primary vehicle for change, is to doom us. Again, nobody is arguing that if someone casts a vote they are hurting the movement, just that they are basically wasting their time, especially in the US Empire where most states are solidly for one of two bourgeois parties.
And if they have the number you claim they do they should do so anyway and get some of their voice in office. It will be very helpful. Really what you are saying is that you have a very popular movement that is choosing to squander a major part of how influence is exercised. “Yeah we have lots of members who are willing to do all this much harder protest. Ohh no we are not willing to take an afternoon to vote as left as possible at least and certainly not make a formal party”. Really stop and thinking about what you are saying.
Like I said, if you have the numbers it is clear that you are a real movement and you pulling more effort into telling me why you won’t show up is telling that you don’t and that you don’t want to. Which is ironic that earlier you called out Geneva for only being interested in online activism.