could one argue that attempting to vote your way to socialism --and failing-- is an important radicalising experience for an awakening working class movement in the present conjuncture?
im thinking particularly of what seems like a rising tide of socdem (but not only socdem) activity in the uk culminating in the new corbynite party (potentially mamdani also fits the bill in nyc)
thoughts?
edit 7hrs: for those curious, I’m informing some of my analysis on the new party in the uk from three essays published in recent weeks at NLR (https://newleftreview.org/sidecar), which I thought were interesting
it would be better to leapfrog straight to a victorious leninist party, but where is the historical analysis in that? the whole point of a marxist approach is to reckon with the actual balance of social forces in a society, including the real development of class experiences, made in this case by a class regenerating after at least half a century of bitter defeats experienced by their parents and grandparents
a rigorous analysis requires a confrontation with the actual trajectory of class consciousness in core societies; such an analysis would surely show that the masses in most european states are not now ready for a leninist approach, though that day may come after a renewed parliamentary wave is destroyed by bourgeois forces in ever more blatant, illiberal fashion
perhaps we would wish ourselves a different political situation, but we risk idealism by dreaming too much of a society and conjuncture other than the one we are presented with by history
Depends on how a person interprets it. Some will just get doomer and want to give up. Some may end up floating in adventurism or ultraleft extremes. Some may even divert to fascism, if all they wanted was slightly better working conditions for themself. A principled, organized vanguard party is critical for giving people something grounding to rally around and such a party is not going to be only voting (though it may do some voting as part of its organizing strategy). The worst problem is when the organized vehicle is only voting and actively discourages people from doing anything else. Even AES state vanguard parties that have dominant power are not going to be only voting, they’re going to be doing other kinds of organizing too, such as in organizing local community and tending to its needs.
So I would say part of the problem with the “vote” mindset is it’s not just that it will fail to oust the dominant political force from power, it’s also only a small part of exercising power. The voting part, in an actually democratic peoples setup, gauges what people most want and elevates those who most represent a given community/region/etc - represent in their consistent deeds, not just in platitudes and promises. It is a tallying of process of what’s already there. In faux “democratic” capitalist systems, voting is a marketing campaign of manipulation, selling a product based on empty platitudes and false promises, sold by a would-be representative whose claims to representation usually amount to little more than knocking on some doors or belonging to a certain class or caste categorization.
People need to understand this about political power. Voting on a product now and then does not get them any closer to an organized system of community and representation that can get needs met, much less challenge the hegemony of capital. The strongest forces of liberation are not those who have a “great man theory” once-in-a-millennia leader, but those whose organization is unshakeable and whose resources are strong enough to overcome the imperialist forces that will inevitably try to break them. Point being, there’s no magic “find the right representative” button to shape society in your image, you still need organization and you still need resources to call upon. The only reason it can look like that for the capitalists is because their representatives tap right into the capitalist organization and resource infrastructure.
If the arc of history inevitably leads toward communism, then these failures will ultimately foster greater class consciousness. The inherent contradictions of capitalism will be made more apparent in the long-run. But the same is true of any reform that falls short of abolishing capitalism. Better wages, for example, do not address the capitalist’s need to profit by exploiting the value of our labor.
In the short-term, democratic socialists subdue and redirect our righteous anger by giving us false hope in the system. This could delay progress for another generation, and I’d rather see a real movement rise to prominence in my lifetime.
I would argue that capital’s capacity to offer reforms has totally degenarated, there is no slack in the present crisis conditions with which to appease even a socdem wave, which is why we are seeing escalating repression and militarisation of the state apparatus, despite no serious radical left force yet having entered the political arena in the uk, for example
given that escalating repression, processes of radicalisation are accelerating even among those who might have remained moderates in an earlier era given a higher capacity for capital to grant concessions and appease such moderates
edit: to your last point: I am not defending social denocracy as an ideology, I am however interested in the real effect of such a mobilisation, given present conditions, on class consciousness in the medium term – what we would prefer to see is not a relevant category imho
So, on your view, the reason why voting for democratic socialists will fail is not because successful reforms will distract us (in the short-term), but because our present economic situation won’t allow such reforms to occur at all?
If this is true, then we are already at a historical crossroads. (I don’t know whether it is or isn’t true; I certainly don’t know enough about the situation in the UK to weigh in there.)
I’m not convinced capital is in a position to offer concessions in much of europe, given the crisis of capitalism; referring particularly to the plummeting global competetiveness of western economies, that puts us (those of us in the core) in a fundamentally novel political situation, just as you say in your second paragraph
distraction becomes a risk when concessions are a possibility, but I’m not convinced european capitalists are in a position to offer any – which is (potentially) why we see car factories being turned to military production, which is insulated from global markets in a way consumer goods production is not
Another thing electoral movements can do is improve conditions enough to where change that previously wasn’t possible becomes possible. Think of a mild reform like forcing police to use body-worn cameras. It certainly didn’t solve all problems with policing in capitalist societies, but it did open up a lot of avenues for changing cop behavior and agitating for further improvements.
More broadly, I think we have to be somewhat agnostic about what electoral movements can and cannot do. No one has ever brought socialism to a bourgeois democracy, or to an economy as developed as that of the modern imperial core. The closest examples to accomplishing that come from Latin America – Chile under Allende, the pink tide early in the 21st century – and were done through elections. There are no historical successes in anything close to the conditions of, say, the modern U.S. No one really knows what will or won’t work.
could one argue that attempting to vote your way to socialism --and failing-- is an important radicalising experience for an awakening working class movement in the present conjuncture?
im thinking particularly of what seems like a rising tide of socdem (but not only socdem) activity in the uk culminating in the new corbynite party (potentially mamdani also fits the bill in nyc)
thoughts?
edit 7hrs: for those curious, I’m informing some of my analysis on the new party in the uk from three essays published in recent weeks at NLR (https://newleftreview.org/sidecar), which I thought were interesting
The problem is that we can’t really afford to do it every 20 years for every generation.
it would be better to leapfrog straight to a victorious leninist party, but where is the historical analysis in that? the whole point of a marxist approach is to reckon with the actual balance of social forces in a society, including the real development of class experiences, made in this case by a class regenerating after at least half a century of bitter defeats experienced by their parents and grandparents
a rigorous analysis requires a confrontation with the actual trajectory of class consciousness in core societies; such an analysis would surely show that the masses in most european states are not now ready for a leninist approach, though that day may come after a renewed parliamentary wave is destroyed by bourgeois forces in ever more blatant, illiberal fashion
perhaps we would wish ourselves a different political situation, but we risk idealism by dreaming too much of a society and conjuncture other than the one we are presented with by history
My parents still wear their Bernie shirts.
Depends on how a person interprets it. Some will just get doomer and want to give up. Some may end up floating in adventurism or ultraleft extremes. Some may even divert to fascism, if all they wanted was slightly better working conditions for themself. A principled, organized vanguard party is critical for giving people something grounding to rally around and such a party is not going to be only voting (though it may do some voting as part of its organizing strategy). The worst problem is when the organized vehicle is only voting and actively discourages people from doing anything else. Even AES state vanguard parties that have dominant power are not going to be only voting, they’re going to be doing other kinds of organizing too, such as in organizing local community and tending to its needs.
So I would say part of the problem with the “vote” mindset is it’s not just that it will fail to oust the dominant political force from power, it’s also only a small part of exercising power. The voting part, in an actually democratic peoples setup, gauges what people most want and elevates those who most represent a given community/region/etc - represent in their consistent deeds, not just in platitudes and promises. It is a tallying of process of what’s already there. In faux “democratic” capitalist systems, voting is a marketing campaign of manipulation, selling a product based on empty platitudes and false promises, sold by a would-be representative whose claims to representation usually amount to little more than knocking on some doors or belonging to a certain class or caste categorization.
People need to understand this about political power. Voting on a product now and then does not get them any closer to an organized system of community and representation that can get needs met, much less challenge the hegemony of capital. The strongest forces of liberation are not those who have a “great man theory” once-in-a-millennia leader, but those whose organization is unshakeable and whose resources are strong enough to overcome the imperialist forces that will inevitably try to break them. Point being, there’s no magic “find the right representative” button to shape society in your image, you still need organization and you still need resources to call upon. The only reason it can look like that for the capitalists is because their representatives tap right into the capitalist organization and resource infrastructure.
If the arc of history inevitably leads toward communism, then these failures will ultimately foster greater class consciousness. The inherent contradictions of capitalism will be made more apparent in the long-run. But the same is true of any reform that falls short of abolishing capitalism. Better wages, for example, do not address the capitalist’s need to profit by exploiting the value of our labor.
In the short-term, democratic socialists subdue and redirect our righteous anger by giving us false hope in the system. This could delay progress for another generation, and I’d rather see a real movement rise to prominence in my lifetime.
I would argue that capital’s capacity to offer reforms has totally degenarated, there is no slack in the present crisis conditions with which to appease even a socdem wave, which is why we are seeing escalating repression and militarisation of the state apparatus, despite no serious radical left force yet having entered the political arena in the uk, for example
given that escalating repression, processes of radicalisation are accelerating even among those who might have remained moderates in an earlier era given a higher capacity for capital to grant concessions and appease such moderates
edit: to your last point: I am not defending social denocracy as an ideology, I am however interested in the real effect of such a mobilisation, given present conditions, on class consciousness in the medium term – what we would prefer to see is not a relevant category imho
So, on your view, the reason why voting for democratic socialists will fail is not because successful reforms will distract us (in the short-term), but because our present economic situation won’t allow such reforms to occur at all?
If this is true, then we are already at a historical crossroads. (I don’t know whether it is or isn’t true; I certainly don’t know enough about the situation in the UK to weigh in there.)
I’m not convinced capital is in a position to offer concessions in much of europe, given the crisis of capitalism; referring particularly to the plummeting global competetiveness of western economies, that puts us (those of us in the core) in a fundamentally novel political situation, just as you say in your second paragraph
distraction becomes a risk when concessions are a possibility, but I’m not convinced european capitalists are in a position to offer any – which is (potentially) why we see car factories being turned to military production, which is insulated from global markets in a way consumer goods production is not
Another thing electoral movements can do is improve conditions enough to where change that previously wasn’t possible becomes possible. Think of a mild reform like forcing police to use body-worn cameras. It certainly didn’t solve all problems with policing in capitalist societies, but it did open up a lot of avenues for changing cop behavior and agitating for further improvements.
More broadly, I think we have to be somewhat agnostic about what electoral movements can and cannot do. No one has ever brought socialism to a bourgeois democracy, or to an economy as developed as that of the modern imperial core. The closest examples to accomplishing that come from Latin America – Chile under Allende, the pink tide early in the 21st century – and were done through elections. There are no historical successes in anything close to the conditions of, say, the modern U.S. No one really knows what will or won’t work.
this is more or less where I’m at, I like your use of agnosticism in particular, which fits neatly with what I’m trying to develop here
Voting for Bernie definitely radicalized me