[ALB]

In 2003 a pilot scheme for electronic voting took place in ten councils, including Norwich. At the time we wrote to the authorities protesting that there was no provision to not vote for any of the candidates. The correspondence must be somewhere at Head Office. In any event, the upshot was that e-voting was not proceded with.Here's an extract from amusing account of how a comrade in Australia struggled with electronic voting with no option to not to vote for anyone  and where voting is compulsory:

Quote:

This informal voter subsequently wrote to the Federal Electoral Commissioner of the AEC asking what provision was there, in the Federal Electoral Act Regulations pertaining to electronic voting, for a deliberate informal vote. I will not bore the reader by dwelling on the reply I received from the Electoral Commissar, suffice to say that like a non-vote, it was a non-answer; however the last paragraph of the letter contains an eye opener for it says – that if an elector made an informal vote by not selecting any candidates or by not allocating preferences to all candidates, then the electronic voting system alerts the elector that the necessary number of selections have not been made. So potential informalites be warned that unless you express a vote for a candidate on the electronic device, you will be stuck in a quarrel with a machine telling you that 'your vote is invalid, please try again'. (No doubt after three attempts the Polling Station electronic device will start flashing a light to alert Electoral Office Rottweilers to the fact that there is an un-Australian in their midst and they should take appropriate action!).

That's the point at which you walk away.

[ALB]

I came out as a "Menshevik Internationalist", i.e, a Menshevik opposed to Russiam participation in WWi. I thought I might be.

[ALB]

We've had this doscussion before. If there's is no provision to not vote for any of the parties or candidates, then the only alternative is to "spoil" the voting machine, i.e., start the process of voting and walk away without completing it.  The polling clerk will then have to do something before anyone else can use that machine. I can add that when I voted in Belgium once they did have a provision to cast a blank vote (and to do that in either French or Dutch).

[ALB]

And vice versa. That the critique of religion led to a critique of the social conditions that gave rise to religion and that therefore mere anti-religious argumentation (atheism) would not get rid of it as long as the social conditions that gave rise to it persisted.

[ALB]

The young, pre-socialist Marx was more openly opposed to religion than later. In fact, he came to socialism/communism via atheism.

[ALB]

When asked, as a candidate, about cycles lanes, what I have replied is something like "nothing against it, but only vote Socialist if you want socialism, not merely more cycle lanes (or whatever)" (though, as a car driver, that's not really what I wanted to reply )

[ALB]

From "anarcho-communism in one (or two) cantons" to trade on a wider scale:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-northeast-idUSKBN16A0K2?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29&&rpc=401I think the administration there also imposes conscription, which is not very anarchist. Still, they don't seem to want to impose any particular religious practice on people and to be against discriminating against women.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Following the discussion elsewhere, what is the party distinction between abstentionism, electoralism and the party approach

This is how wikipedia defines "abstentionism":

Quote:

Abstentionism is standing for election to a deliberative assembly while refusing to take up any seats won or otherwise participate in the assembly's business. Abstentionism differs from an election boycott in that abstentionists participate in the election itself.

I'm not sure this reflects actual current usage as the "election boycott", as practised by "left communists" and anarchists, is also called "abstentionism" even by them. The Conference motion is only advocating abstentionism in the first sense.In laying down that any elected councillor or MP should also not take their salary the motion is going beyond the "Sinn Fein" tactic in that the SF members of the Westminister Parliament do take money for offices, etc there. Which is sensible. As has been pointed out, that's what any elected Socialist should do: take the money and give it to the Party. I would have thought that this was obvious.Although this appears to be a question of abstract political theory speculating about what we should or should not do in the future (which is not up to us anyway) it does have a practical aspect. About how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question", e.g. are you in favour of a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue? The motion gets round this by effectively saying "that's not what we're about". But it would also give the impression that we are not concerned about more important questions that affect workers, such as twc's detriments that can be temporarily lessened.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”.  At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.

I can go along with that, but not with not voting in favour of some of these temporarily lessened detriments if put before a local council or national parliament. By others of course. Socialist MPs wouldn't propose anything, nor seek election on the basis of obtaining a few temporarily lessened benefits.

[ALB]

Beyond me but what do our Audio Visual with their whiteboards think?Actually, I quite like the idea of  "the world turned upside down".

[ALB]

That's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits than can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war. If world socialists elected to office, locally or nationally, are going to abstain on such issues, what's the difference between that and the "Sinn Fein" tactic of not taking their seat?

[ALB]

I know there's another thread that's been started on this, but participating in an election without a candidate doesn't open doors to the press like participating with a candidate does. And in local elections there is no extra cost to standing, just some extra administrative work (form filling and accounting).

[ALB]

What about this motion, down for discussion at this year's Conference:

Quote:

This Conference instructs the EC to ensure that all Party candidates for public office shall stand on the basis that, if elected, they shall refuse to take office and shall repudiate any associated salary or other benefits.

Another option, but a bit of a departure from the position the Socialist Party has held since its foundation — as if would be to renounce bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so. 

[ALB]

After the Socialist Party of London, the Socialist Party of the Home Counties.

[ALB]

Found it. It's on page 1163 of Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution, published by Gollanz in 1965 (in the chapter "The Congress of the Soviet Dictatorship"):

Quote:

The capital awoke under a new power. The everyday people, the functionaries, the intellectuals, cut off from the arena of events, rushed for the papers early to find out to which shore the wave had tossed during the night.

Also this (by someone we know):

Quote:

On the morning of 7 November the workers of Petrograd woke up to find that in the night the Bolshevik Party had assumed power, the Bolsheviks had carried out a revolution while they were asleep.

[Author]

Posts