[Marxism] Electoral systems and the first party of the US working class

[l.willms@xxxxxxxxxxx (Lueko Willms)]

.    On  09.11.04
  wrote  andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx (Jurriaan Bendien)
     on  /ALIST/MARXMAIL
     in  000501c4c6a0$8d8d4810$0100000a@jurriaan
  about  [Marxism] Looking for a "Man Date"?


JB> Lueko Willms argues that proportional representation is irrelevant,

  no, you are distorting my words

JB> better democracy

  democracy of which class? I did not speak of "better democracy"

JB> would require "Increased social activity" as "the
JB> key, i.e. primarily a rise in class conflicts, with a strengthenig of
JB> working peoples self-esteem and self-confidence.  Changing
JB> technicalities of the election setup would not do the trick, which is
JB> one of the fallacies of the Nader/Camejo campaign which heavily
JB> pushed that theme." It sounds very orthodox Marxism-Leninism.

   Just experience from 150 years of class struggle.

JB> The problem is that if the first-past-the-post system means that the
JB> chances of electoral success of third parties are very slim,

   Well, here in Germany it might be the third party after the SPD and  
the KPD, but for the US-american working class it would be the first  
party they form. They did not have any other parties worth that name  
before (pardon me, comrade Debs!), so it does not make sense talking  
about a "third party". We're talking about the _first_ party of the US  
working people, which is still in the making.

JB> so that dissenting votes are wasted, many people will see the
JB> "increased social activity" of third parties as futile.

   Sure, but that did not prevent the british working class to develop  
its own party, even though the majority-vote system has never been  
changed in England or Scotland etc (at least for Westminster).

  I'm not sure, but the same is true for Canada with its NDP.

  While a serious party, i.e. one which aims at taking power, will not  
miss any the opportunity provided by the bourgeois elections to  
advance its program by presenting candidates, and using -- if elected  
-- the platform of the parliament, it is not prevented from any growth  
by not being able to get some people elected.

  Generally speaking, the formation and growth of political parties of  
our class is not dependent on their ability to get a foothold in the  
instutions of the bourgois state, but of the growth of the political  
SELF-confidence of the class, i.e. its breaking with the idea of a WE  
which encompasses the class enemy. Working class parties even grow  
under conditions of dictatorship which does not allow elections, or of  
illegality. The German SPD in its revolutionary time did grow quite  
heavily under Bismarck's "Sozialistengesetz" which made any socialist  
activity illegal. Same for the Russian Bolsheviks, and their growth in  
the masses was not dependent on their ability to get people elected to  
the Duma despite being outlawed.

  And you got my words wrong: I did not speak about "increased social  
activity" of the _party_ (again, the _first_ party of the US working  
class, not the third), but of the class, or of the oppressed masses in  
general.


JB> There is no reason why electoral reform and "increased social
JB> activitÿ" could not go hand in hand.

   Sure, I didn't and I wouldn't rule that out. But we appear to  
differ about cause and effect.

   I take every bet that electoral reform in the USA will never come  
"from above", by some 'progressive thinking' of the bourgoisie, to  
make things nicer for the Naders and Co, but only as an achievment or  
a reflection of the growth of a working class party in the USA.

   Then the bourgeoisie might decide that they should try to lure the  
masses or their leaders into parliamentary cretinism by offering more  
chances to get offices in the bourgeois state machine, and to broker  
some kind of electoral reform to achieve this.

   It may also be that such a party makes electoral reform a main goal  
in her campaigns, but I doubt that, and I wouldn't recommend it.

   A revolutionary election campaign would center on the practical  
taks to solve for the masses' life, and the necessity of taking  
political power in order to achieve such goals, i.e. a Workers and  
Farmers government, and would put some minor reforms of the bourgeois  
state apparatus on the second plane.

   I recall my applause for Alexander Cockburn's critique of the  
Nader/Camejo campaign in that regard (was it really Alexander Cockburn  
who recommended Nader to travel to Gaza and Baghdad? I think so. At  
least that came from "Counterpunch").


   BTW, what impression do you intend to impress on your readers with  
that phrase "It sounds very orthodox Marxism-Leninism"?


Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Die Arbeit in weißer Haut kann sich nicht dort emanzipieren, wo sie
in schwarzer Haut gebrandmarkt wird."     - Karl Marx     12.11.1866

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism