Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:22:44 -0500
From: neil <74742.1651-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: AUT: Re: voting ... A Reply to Noam Chomsky



 
  
Chris says;
 
I hope this gets at what I think are some of the problems of the assumptions
so far in this discussion.

Firstly, there is the assumption that if Bush and Kerry are truly
different, then we must support Kerry against Bush, eo ipso facto.  But
that is nonsense.  Kerry clearly has different policies from Bush on a
number of issues. He has a different idea of what is the best way to
serve the interests of US capital.  Some of this will make an actual
difference in the lives of 'the masses', ie in our lives possibly too..
Clearly, this is not to say
that Kerry may not do what Clinton did, which is to use his 'Liberal
face' to make attacks that it would be hard for a conservative to get
away with (and I know people who to this day still think of Clinton as a
radical or communist.  No joke.)  To say that their policies are
different is NOT to say that I agree with one policy more than another
since even if one policy is less immediately harmful than another, both
are oriented towards defending capital, and as such, neither one gathers
any interest from me.  The problem, for us, is exactly NOT one of policies.
Both
policies seek to reinforce capital, even if one policy might be more
immediately damaging or reactionary.  But to many people, this is the
question.  To discuss with people the content of both parties means refusing
to just lump them together indifferently.

Neil;

Essentially OK.But  Communists are for ACTIVE abstention not just
the dominant PASSIVE type  , yes the 'issues' and the
tactical differences between the DP and RP need to be laid bare.
But this will clearly show that the DP/RP operate & rule as a 
tag-team for the needs of capital as a whole.
But seeing these essentials , you still leave the whole front 
of the quintessentials empty and unexplained, that rule of the
'democratic' state machinery as a whole is buttrussed greatly 
by the election circuses.
By the huge investment of the bourgeois ($3 billion for the 2000
Federal  Elections alone), this is not only for their economic lucre
from the state ,or just winning the arguments over tactics in persuit
of expansion of capital. You  'forgot' to point out that 
elections themselves have a powerful 'ideological' political
role to play in keeping illusions in capitals 'democracy '
that workers have some say-so in the policies of State.
That the State then is the  political upholder of social realtions
of waged slavery ,thru the 'rule of law', etc so one is cajoled
to stick to those parameters-- To think that this institution 
of capital  has little 
or no effect on social consciuosness with controls of the
mass media to 'spread the message' is a bit ludicrous in
the modern age.. 

Chris;
Secondly, I do not place any confidence, even desperate confidence, in
voting  as a means to affect change.  But I do not put any confidence in
abstention either.  The whole focus remains an act which takes the
bourgeois state as the determination of our activity, rather than our
own activity.  The assumption that abstention is a communist position is
wrong, but even more, that we are required to take a position on this,
under any and all circumstances, is wrong.

Neil;
There may have been an 'age' when elections could be used
by workers to win social gains, but such an era has ceased
a long time ago. Was there any time in our lives that the
class won lasting reforms mainly by voting and not through
its own struggles , its own actions,  outside/against the lying
promises of DP/RP bourgeois politicos?

It is strange to think the acts of the bourgeois state
don't effect our activity much. To ignore its role is to really
put ones head in the sands.

Chris;
Thirdly, there is no proof that the absenteee rate is politically
progressive except for the rather threadbare idea that 'abstinence resistance = one step towards class consciousness'.  There is no
indication that this refusal is the product of anything other than fear,
indifference or despair.  I am quite certain that for some people this
is a conscious choice.  I also suspect that those are the people who
will most likely talk to us, distorting our view.

Fourthly, raising wages or lowering the working week to 30 hours would
also impact people, although apparently wholly positively, if you
believe the trade union mentality.  And yet I find myself in strangely
the same position on voting as on this.  Just because it would mean a
change in people's lives does not mean that the appropriate political
response is to issue a set of demands or build a campaign.  It is not
our job to demand a 30 hour work week.  It is not our job to demand a
living wage.  To me, that is pure social democracy because we do not, in
such instances, address the need to abolish the wages system, for
example.  I agree with Wildcat and Aufheben's work 'Stop the Clock' in
this respect.  There is a distinct difference between supporting an
actual struggle and starting from a set of abstract/minimalist demands, put
forward by us, with the intent of sparking something esp. with the unspoken
hope that such demands 'radicalize the masses' or 'raise class
consciousness', with the even less-well-hidden hope that it
turns 'our' little sect into a 'real' force.

Neil; 

Making analogous capitals election charades and demand struggles
of workers (even those where 'leftists' promote their laundry
lists of  nice things in the struggles-campiagns) means you have
grossly underestimated the political- ideological role of
the elections themselves , the dominant ideas promoted by a
vast investment of capital to  keep the workers and 'middle
class' in political tow and using the heavy artillery of the 
corporate  mass media to do this.. 
Aspects of promoting ACTIVE abstentionism can be ONE way to turn
the tide, to try to combat this, but by itself you are correct
in pointing out its limitations as a panacea.

Chris;
So on the one hand, a vanguardist notion of what communist organizations
do and on the other a voluntarist notion of how struggle happens.  Add
to that the rather wretched notion of revolution as depending on our
pedagogically raising workers to the 'correct' class consciousness (as
if we had it!!), and you have a potent recipe for... Trade unionism,
sect building, and other forms of Leftism.

Neil;
True to a point. But your seeming negation of the whole front
and mass effect of elections on the social consciousness provides
no positive ideas for class struggle either. It is like trying 
to clap having one hand in motion and one tied behind your back.
Kind of like the generals  dealing with  real two-front war
demanding the struggle must be fought on only one front alone.


Chris;
Two other things to note:
Voting does not breed social democracy.  At worst, it might reinforce an
illusion that is already there.  In other words, it puts the cart before
the horse: workers do not weaken their position because they vote, but
vote because they are in a weak position.  But I would not even say that
it represents a sign of weakness in all cases.  In an initial upsurge in
political activity, voting may rise as people become more politically
engaged and active.  It may not.  That is a concrete question and
whether or not voting is part of a political progression or regression
is again not the same as whether or not we tell people to vote.
Contrary to Steve Again's position, I don't have to have a position on
if someone should vote or abstain in order to talk to people.  That is
ludicrous.  In fact, to say that there is no difference between Bush and
Kerry is to short-circuit discussion with a lot of people.

Neil; OK Voting alone does not create social democracy-- but the
hegemony of social democracy , and bourgeois democracy does create
and reproduce fortification of capitals ideology thru 
elections  inside  the class,
keeps masses confused and passive, adhering to 'saviors' at the
ballot box to rescue them, a secular religion of elections. 
At least there is the fighting chance that the 'abstainers'
can move to class terrain in their activity , away from 
atomization and passivity.

Chris;
As a result, I do not think that building a campaign of abstension is
meaningful activity for pro-revolutionaries.  Nor do I think that voting
is meaningful activity for us.  Meaningful work is to talk to people
about our ideas and to engage in a concrete critique, where relevant, of
what all parties in this process defend (Nader being absolutely no less
a defender of capital, exactly as an anti-corporate populist), but also
discussing what makes them different and what the people we are talking
to hope to get out of voting or not voting, if anything.  In other
words, I support good conversation as against talking at people.


Neil:
You make a good point about the approach to discussions, 
never try arrogantly to shove ideas down workers throats. But the 
confusions of modern Political  State and its 'democratic' forms needs
to be much more seriously looked at by communists. I think
many people look at 'leftists' as kind of delusional who tell them
that we are living under 'fascism' today. But that tactic
for the capitalist  DP liberals may work for Kerry against Bush-
promoting this as a 'choice' between "Democracy or fascism".
A nuanced version of 'the end of history'.

The objective situation will create more abstainers, the 
real question now is what political direction then do these
abstainers go, at least the ones that want to fight fro
social change?  Don't you think communists should be pointing
out that a non -exploitative world is materially possible 
with workers own rule? A kind of negation of the negation.

Int'l. Greetings
Neil




     


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---