What do we do?
How do we do politics?
The Failure of Electoral Politics
I have completely lost faith in electoral politics. The two-party system dominates electoral politics, and both parties serve capitalism. While I acknowledge that there are differences between the parties, namely some civil rights issues, the manner in which both of these parties engage in them essentially make these just wedge issues. Wedge issues that make people that dislike both parties forced to vote one way or another. If we take a look at the dialectic between the parties, it is clear that the resolution of this dialectic will always be on the side of capitalism. There is no potential for leftward movement within the two party system. I am not inherently opposed to the progressive Democrats, and I do believe they mean well, and may very well get something materially good done. However, it must be said that I am convinced that there is a hard limit on what they can actually accomplish. Eventually, I believe, through no fault of their own, they will either hit a wall, their own party will conspire against them, or they will have to jump ship. Bourgeois politics can tolerate social democracy to appease the masses, but it will not tolerate socialism.
However, a good chunk of the people I want to reach out to do believe in electoral politics, and vote for one or both of these parties, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. In this aspect, electoral politics might still be useful. This is a way to reach out to some of the working class. But it cannot be done as a splinter group of one of the two main parties, it must be entirely a thing of its own. It must be opposed to both parties simultaneously, and appeal directly to the working class.
A Possible Plan
I’ve been thinking about how to do this for a while, and I think I have a plan. Once this pandemic is over and I feel safe enough to do this, I plan on going into the community, and start talking with everyone I can. I think this bears quite a bit of similarity to the “mass line” method spoken of by Mao. My plan is to get a notebook and a pen, and write down all the problems I hear about, and write down solutions I hear from the people, as well as people’s comments on these solutions. Once I get a few practical solutions, I’ll need to try to implement them. Perhaps this might lead to me getting involved in local government, for some solutions. In which, I will refuse to be part of the two party system, and start my own party, by getting my comrades to do the same. Perhaps this can be the start, perhaps not. I’ll have to try it to learn.
To What End?
As communists, we should always think pragmatically. So, why go through all this work? Suppose we do build up a party, and suppose we gain enough power, what then? I do not believe that even if the party reaches the national stage, that it will be able to actually accomplish any goals. So why is this a good idea?
Well, in Lenin’s “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder”, in the chapter on “Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?,” there are some insights. As you may know, the Bolsheviks were a faction that split from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, and the Bolsheviks participated, to some extent, in the parliament before the establishment of the Soviet Union. Lenin did lead a revolution, and you can argue how successful it was in the long term all you want, but the truth is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks built up huge public support. The work was written in 1920, so while some of the current events are outdated and circumstances have changed, it is worth taking a look at. Here is Lenin talking about what the strategy of the German communists should be when approaching bourgeois “democracy”.
Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the “Lefts” do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements). Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags. - V.I. Lenin 1920
Germany in 1920 is not the same as America in 2020, but I think Lenin’s words still ring true. Let’s try to apply what he says to our current electoral system. He seems to say that our 250 year old electoral system is obsolete. I am inclined to agree, but he also says that just because we, as communists, are correctly acknowledging this, the fact that the masses do not means that we can’t simply ignore it, since it has not “politically outlived itself”. We should not go back on our statement that electoralism cannot lead to change, but we need to meet the masses where they are at, and show them the futility of engaging in electoralism, so that they come around to our way of thinking. Communists do not have the strength to abolish the current electoral system. It’s as simple as the fact that we don’t have the numbers, we would basically need to control the entire government for that to happen, and it will not in a bourgeois state.
So essentially, we are stuck engaging in electoralism in a cynical manner, in order to show the man behind the curtain, if you will. But it should be noted that engaging under the banner of one of the current political parties cannot fulfill our purpose. Should you participate in a capitalist party, their party’s objective of continuing capitalism is chugging along nicely. Sure, they might lose the occasional wedge issue that they probably don’t really care about, but that’s not the primary purpose of either of them.
Don’t, as some have, take Lenin’s words to mean that you need to vote for a Democrat, by the way. It’s pretty clear if you read that he specifically means you should be engaging as and voting for communists. The Democrats (and Republicans, because apparently that needs to be pointed out to some Democrats) are not communists. End of story. If there is no communist party that you can vote for, then vote for whoever you want, it doesn’t matter to me.
