American election
- This topic has 625 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Do you not think there are marginal (and sometimes not so marginal) differences between how competing parties can / or would manage capitalism? And do you not think that marginal differences can actually be quite significant, especially to those on the margins.”
There are certainly difference between what competing parties say they will do but in practice, when elected, the party making the more attractive promises always ends up running capitalism in the only way it can — having to put profits first. They may initially passed some reforms that benefit some workers but these don’t last. In fact, they are often withdrawn by the same government a few years later. Two historical examples are the Wilson Labour government elected in Britain in 1964 which abolished prescription charges and then brought them back a couple of years later. The other is the leftwing Mitterrand government elected in 1981 in France that did the same thing.
Can you produce any counter examples?
Socialist Party members do participate in referendums sometimes voting for and sometimes voting against. In other words, we don’t always abstain so we are not “indifferent” to everything except socialism. But elections to a law-making body are elections about which class shall control the state and in such an election we can’t vote for capitalist rule to continue by voting for any party that is not against capitalism.
“Can you produce any counter examples?”
There are plenty things that a state can legislate which aren’t directly related to the profit motive. For instance, in Poland abortion has just been made illegal, if a different party had won the election last time round it’s unlikely that would be the case now. I think there’s plenty of examples along this line that could be drawn up to support the “lesser evil” line.
I know you don’t go in for the ‘liberalism is the same as fascism’ silliness, but this kind of thing is relevant here. Certain configurations of capital / state / ‘freedoms’ are preferable to others, and more conducive to the development of socialism.
I don’t think the “lesser evil” thing applies all the time but there are certain cases where it could do.
“I think voting (and politics) isn’t just about expressing your ideals, it’s about trying to effect a change (however limited) in the here and now.“
Actually, for many people voting is about expressing your ideals. That’s what Labour voters do in safe Tory seats and vice versa. It’s what everybody who voted for the Green Party at the last general election in Britain did (except in one constituency). It’s what everybody who voted for the Brexit Party did. In fact it’s what everybody who refused “tactical voting” did,
Talking of which, that’s the logic of your position— that it’s better to vote for what you don’t want and get it than to vote for what you do want and not get it. An attitude rejected by millions of voters in all elections who vote to “express their ideals”. Are you saying that they shouldn’t?
” Are you saying that they shouldn’t?”
No, in some circumstances, even if you are in a (vast) minority position, expressing your ideals might make sense, if it will help grow a movement. But in other circumstances, there may be more urgent issues. Everything is context-dependent, that’s what I’m saying
“For instance, in Poland abortion has just been made illegal, if a different party had won the election last time round it’s unlikely that would be the case now.“
Leaving aside the fact that this decision was made by judges rather than the government, which party are you suggesting people in Poland should have voted for and presumably should vote for next time? Precisely how should socialists there “get their hands dirty”?
I am sure that if there was a referendum on this issue our members would vote to legalise abortion — as they did as a matter of course in the referendum in Ireland on the matter. But would draw the line at voting for a reformist party that included this amongst its other promised reforms, especially since there’s likely to be more than one capitalist party making this promise.
I prefered Stephen Shenfield’s article to ALJO’s, I think it’s better to have a self-reflective discussion rather than always wheeling out the party line.
So did i think Stephen had more to say.
We should always try to present a nuanced case for our ideas rather than some monolithic “we have all the answers answer to every political problem” posture.
But sometimes we leave it to those better able to actually achieve something. Individual reforms to those single issue activists dedicated to gaining them. Economic improvements to the unions. And political advantages to what our our fellow-workers think is the best way to acquire them. They are better positioned to achieve their goals without socialists deciding to join in. I thought that was clear from all the experiences of the Trotskyist entryist policies.
Why handicap those trying to improve their conditions with the association of revolution.
There has been talk elsewhere of so called “white privilege” but we cannot deny we enjoy the privilege of “bourgeois democracy” and involved is that fellow citizens decide what are the political issues, despite all attempts of the politicians and media to manipulate the political agenda. Sometimes our master are unable to limit debate and discussion.
I see the socialism as the science of generalisation. As such rather than be a proponent of specifics, we present the wider case for socialism and the historical relevance of different political action.
No one can disagree that the NHS or M4A is the lesser evil to free-market private health care. No-one can dispute that peace is the lesser evil to war. No-one can challenge that government hand-outs is the lesser evil to penury.
But it isn’t our role to defend those lesser evils. Being more sympathetic to those actually involved resisting attacks and cuts to them should be. Our “hostility clause” should be expressed better.
Our purpose of coming together as a political party is to critique the reason why “lesser evils” are necessary under capitalism and to explain that we have to go beyond advocating the “lesser evil” philosophy to end it.
What i do outside the Party is to survive the best i can and opting for the lesser evil will always be part of my strategy for surviving. That is the reality for all of us, isn’t it? Sometimes we should acknowledge that fact better.
For instance, in Poland abortion has just been made illegal, if a different party had won the election last time round it’s unlikely that would be the case now.
Isn’t it a case that the root problem is not the actual government but the cultural conservativism of catholic Poland.
What i see in the recent predominantly younger women protesting is an attempt to change Polish society’s attitudes, not just opposition to the court decision to further restrict already draconian termination rules. And i wish them all the solidarity that they can achieve persuading and influencing others to adopt a new progressive way of thinking.
Our task is to help the protesters to also accept another idea, as well.
Changing the government without changing the reason why it was so recently re-elected results in unintended consequences…such as driving prejudice underground to fester until it results in a reactionary back-lash.
(btw, i just this morning submitted an article of those Poland protests for the SS)
Anyways, now victory has been declared, we shall now see if Biden is indeed the lesser evil over the next four years.
We need not speculate but merely wait and watch and see how the future pans out for America and the World.
Personally as i have asked, what can Biden really do without a cooperative Congress.
“which party are you suggesting people in Poland should have voted for and presumably should vote for next time?”
Of course I’m not going to make suggestions about what people in Poland should do, why should they listen to me? I’m not a Poland expert by any stretch of the imagination.
Examples aside. Surely you can agree that hypothetically, however unlikely it may be, there could be a situation where, in the absence of a significant amount of people who would vote for socialism, voting for one capitalist party instead of another could be the most advantageous thing to do for a socialist? (Perhaps one party wants to outlaw socialism for example)
How we act as socialists before there is a mass movement of socialists is different to how we act when there is a mass movement.
LT
Firstly lets get real here. The number of socialists in the US – those who understand and advocate socialism in the sense that we are talking about here (not left wing advocates of more state intervention aka state capitalism) is minuscule. Consequently our attitude towards Biden’s capitalist party which we oppose ( just as we oppose Trump’s capitalist party) is not really going to make any difference as to whether Trump continued in power or not.
Maybe if the socialist movement was much larger it would make a slight difference but I presume that, even then, you would continue supporting a capitalist party likes Biden’s rather than support the socialist party on the grounds that it is more important to keep somebody like Trump out of power than advance the cause of socialism.
This brings me to my second point concerning your statement “Socialism would never come to fruition with your idea of radical, overnight change” . It would be highly instructive to learn from you what precisely are the circumstances under which, you imagine, socialism will come to fruition in that case
See, according to you it is vital that workers support the lesser capitalist evil (Biden) in order to keep the great capitalist evil (Trump) out of power. But what you dont seem to grasp at all is that it was the precisely dismal failure of the previous lesser capitalist evil (in your terms) – namely, Obama – to address the problems that workers faced that led to huge numbers of them, angry and resentful at the way the Establishment had screwed them over, to turn (however misguidedly) to the populist and allegedly anti-establishment figure of Trump instead. In this way, the lesser capitalist evil ALWAYS creates the conditions for the greater capitalist evil to eventually come to power. Disillusionment is baked into the very nature of capitalists politics
You say that with my attitude , “Trump would be in power for another 4 years: no more health care for tens of millions, no green deal, no social services, no environmental protections whatsoever, etc” I suspect this is probably a gross exaggeration at least in part but are you seriously maintaining that under Biden we can look forward to all these deficiencies being remedied? They certainly were not under Trumps predecessor, Obama
If Biden is not going to remedy then then how can you be sure that in four years time the workers will not turn to another Trump like figure to vote into power having become completely disillusioned with Biden?
In the other hand if Biden will be able to solve these and a multitude of other problems – that is, if capitalism can be reformed in the way that you imagine it could – then what, frankly is the point of striving to bring “socialism into fruition”? If capitalism can satisfactorily address the problems you refer to given the political will of politicians to make this happen, then there is surely no point in looking for an alternative to capitalism is there?
EITHER WAY, then, according to the logic of your own way of thinking there can NEVER be any circumstances under which it would be appropriate to vote for or advocate socialism instead of supporting one or other capitalist political party like the Democrats
In which case why even pretend to be interested in “bringing socialism to fruition”? Why not just be honest about it and admit that the limits of your political horizons extend no further than capitalism and the project of reforming capitalism? Why not just concede that you are basically just some kind of liberal no doubt with good intentions at heart but ultimately not really interested in socialism at all?
Personally as i have asked, what can Biden really do without a cooperative Congress.
He’s going to have his hands tied a lot of the time. Likely a lot of Republicans are actually happy with the result, they pretty much get to maintain power and have got rid of Trump too.
Now the focus of the media is on the run-off election in Georgia to determine who controls the Senate.
Arguing from the philosophy of idealism is proof of not understanding socialism. Marx’s work is philosophically based on the philosophy of materialism, which is rooted in relativism, not idealism. The idea of lessor or greater is an example of relativism, not idealism. Hence, if you are suggesting that you should not vote based on the idea of lesser (or greater) in the name of holding out for the “ideal”, then you are not a socialist. In other words, there is nothing “ideal”, everything is relative.
Tanks rolling down the streets of San Francisco. Army setting up road-blocks and check-points in NYC. Trump declares martial law. Right-wing militias assassinating leftists.
Where is this damn coup?
Examples aside. Surely you can agree that hypothetically, however unlikely it may be, there could be a situation where, in the absence of a significant amount of people who would vote for socialism, voting for one capitalist party instead of another could be the most advantageous thing to do for a socialist? (Perhaps one party wants to outlaw socialism for example)
DJP
All that will do is to perpetuate indefinitely the very circumstance in which there will continue to be an absence of a significant amount of people who would vote for socialism.
There is no way of getting round this. Voting for a capitalist party however reluctantly or half heartedly means endorsing capitalism and emboldening the forces of capitalism We have to take moral responsibility for our own actions
That aside if there is not significant amount of people who would vote for socialism then why should socialists bother voting for some capitalist political party seeing as its not going to make much difference anyway? Its not worth the effort and whatever good it might hypothetically achieve is more than outweighed by its negative impact on the socialist cause, pushing it even further down the path of insignificance, demoralisation and eventual oblivion.
Fine if that is not an issue with you but it emphatically is with me. I’m buggered if I am going to allow allow some seedy capitalist outfit operated by a bunch of career politicians take precedence or priority over a genuine socialist political organisation when it comes to the vote
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.