571
I didn't join the revolution to read
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
571 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
55860 readers
642 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
China is a socialist state run by communists, my point was about the reason Marxists are excluded from the electoral process. It has nothing to due with "purity," and is entirely due to the fact that we actually stand to change the status quo.
No Marxist gives a shit about "purity." Marx laughed at "moralists," because that's not how Marxists see the world. We don't give a shit if you vote, what we take issue with is the idea that voting will get necessary change, be it short or long-term.
Why is voting connected to striking and protesting? Take PSL, for example. They run candidates for exposure, and to prove the futility of using voting as a mechanism for change within capitalism. They also organize strikes, protests, and organize unions. This is a growing, effective movement.
Again, you haven't proven any of your points on "purity." I don't know why I need to repeat this, but the point is that electoralism cannot bring change, not that it's "impure." Even if a Mamdani-style president were to be elected, the state would resist any meaningful change, see how Allende was treated for proof of this, or how Venezuela's democratically elected government still faces intense opposition from capitalists and compradors. Revolution remains necessary, and the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution 2 decades ago is why Venezuela's Chavista government is still standing.
Why are you trying to make a strawman about the Marxist position? It's about practicality. To return to the now tired metaphor I've been using, what makes you think a stepladder can reach the lightbulb 16 feet above it? Are you waiting for some mythical tall person, a legendary candidate, to be able to stand 16 feet above the 4 foot stepladder and change the lightbulb? This is "Great Man Theory."
Marxists do not dogmatically oppose voting. Like the PSL example, we oppose the idea that we even can use electoralism as a vehicle for change.
This doesn't follow logically, and further I already showed how PSL tries to get on ballots, but is rejected by the capitalist electoral system itself. You're continuing to argue against strawmen.
How so? We have countless historical examples of the capitalist state crushing legal forms of "resistance," using the very same legal structures or even extra-legal structures, because said legal structures are designed to protect the system and resist change.
This is a view entirely divorced from historical analysis of socialist struggles. I implore you, study socialist history.
Then the MLs you speak of that oppose this use of electoral systems do not exist, and you are therefore arguing against ghosts and strawmen. Again, see PSL and how it treats elections.
You're discussing 2 different things:
Marxists opposing Electoralism as a vehicle for change, what you call "short term relief," which is a practical impossibility and not a question of "purity"
Marxists "opposing" using electoral systems for agitation and advertising our positions. This is utterly false, though, as the aforementioned PSL example proves.
I can't sprout wings and fly, but that's not because I'm unwilling to, it's just impossible, and therefore I suggest people stop thinking that they can do so to change the lightbulb. I'm more than willing to demonstrate the unfeasibility by jumping, and trying to do so, but these are separate ideas.
Marxists believe 2 things, neither of which have to do with "purity:"
Electoralism within capitalism cannot be used for change, not should not.
Marxist parties can run in elections to prove the former and advertise themselves.
You're arguing against a strawman that does not exist.