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.

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.



And because you don’t show up in anycase you won’t get change either.

The so-called democratic system in modern states is usually monopolized by the bourgeoisie and has become simply an instrument for oppressing the common people.


Chairman Mao pushing the people to voting the Japanese imperialists and KMT fascists off the mainland:



Political power grows from the ballot box or something

I don’t see mls driving out ICE from MN. Why would they? They can’t even be bothered to vote; much less something that takes even more effort.