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.

Showing up at the ballot once every 2-4 years



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.

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.



I haven’t claimed any numbers, I’ve claimed growth. Secondly, Marxists are systemically shunned and prevented from actually running in any real sense. PSL tries, but is often kicked out of elections and off of ballots. This is the proof behind me saying that treating elections as a tool for change that can even work in the first place is futile.



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.



No? I’m saying that PSL is growing, despite lacking an element you deem crucial (electoral success). They aren’t choosing to squander anything, they are outright systemically rooted out from the electoral process by the legal system.



"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.



PSL is already a formal party. Taking an afternoon to vote however you want is going to have absolutely minimal impact on whether or not PSL grows, or the standpoint of their power.



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.



How is this ironic? You’re continuing to see electoralism as the primary vehicle for change, and not organizing, striking, protesting, unionizing, agitating, and more. Do you consider all of those to be less than voting? If so, can you show where socialism has been solidified electorally? I can show you numerous countries where focusing on the areas PSL does has established socialism successfully, and 0 where voting has done so.

How is this ironic? You’re continuing to see electoralism as the primary vehicle for change



See I never said it was the primary way for change. That is you putting words in my mouth. I am saying that it is an important part to helping us get changed; particularly in the short term and to get as much legislation leaning as left as possible. Ignoring election is to not resist fascist and just let them waltz in without resistance.



Do you consider all of those to be less than voting?



Not at all, but if you can’t get your group to vote; which is comparatively easy in the west then you have little credibility of doing the harder stuff. Which is where most ml are. No credability and purity politics (like here you are trying to make it seem I don’t want change when i am reaching out to you to also participate in these methods with me as well, but you don’t want to get your white shirt dirty or something).

See I never said it was the primary way for change. That is you putting words in my mouth. I am saying that it is an important part to helping us get changed;



Electoralism cannot get change. I’ve explained how and why, and you have not explained why you think, for the first time in history, we can get meaningful change via electoralism.



particularly in the short term and to get as much legislation leaning as left as possible.



When the candidates are pre-filtered, a filter that blocks groups like PSL, you cannot actually shift legislation. Instead, what impacts legislation is the level of millitancy and organization of the working classes. The state votes against the interests of the working classes, and for the interests of the capitalists.



Ignoring election is to not resist fascist and just let them waltz in without resistance.



Fascism has never been stopped at the ballot box. Fascism rises as a result of capitalist decay, and is stopped by force historically. Whether the DNC or GOP wins, fascism remains.



Not at all, but if you can’t get your group to vote; which is comparatively easy in the west then you have little credibility of doing the harder stuff.



This doesn’t follow. If voting isn’t allowed to change anything, then people are more likely to be apathetic about it. I’ve seen many people in the streets, protesting, striking, that did not vote or voted third party.



Which is where most ml are. No credability and purity politics (like here you are trying to make it seem I don’t want change when i am reaching out to you to also participate in these methods with me as well, but you don’t want to get your white shirt dirty or something).



No? I’m telling you to stop trying a failed and impossible strategy that has never worked in history, and telling you to roll up your sleeves and get involved in party building and organizing in real life, if you aren’t already. If you are, then great, vote if it makes you happy. If you aren’t, then you’re just repeating the same mistakes reformists have been making for centuries.