The Chance and Need to Boycott the Election Process

Note to Readers: The bulk of what follows is not my writing, but rather is that of my friend Dustin Slagle, who runs a blog called The Hong Se Sun. I have made substantial edits, removing contents I disagree with and adding some general thoughts in place of them, to more closely reflect my own perspective. This is part of a collaborative project we are doing. The original piece can be found here. Okay, here goes:

This blog post and general idea [in Dustin's case -- MQ] was pulled/inspired from a blog posted by a supporter of the RCP-PCR here.

If someone really wants to know why there is no (progressive) revolutionary consciousness in the US to speak of, one factor they might consider, in addition to decisive objective factors like the virtual non-existence of an American proletariat, is the political nature of the majority of the "socialist" groups in the US. How are even the few more progressive-minded Americans suppose to develop a revolutionary mindset when all these groups who claim to be revolutionary support nothing but reformist tactics and attack any groups directly calling for revolution as ultra-leftist? How is directly advocating revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution while denouncing revolution and participating in imperialist elections anything but reformist and social-democrat-esque?

Nearly all "left wing" groups in the America are fakes and paper tigers. They use the call "revolution" for opportunist reasons only. In reality they support this capitalist-imperialist system by organizing people around the demands of exploiters and on the terms of the imperialist enemy. One of the ways these groups help this system is by legitimizing it in people's minds; by trying to reform it from within rather than destroy it from without. I would argue that even just by participating in bourgeois elections, they accomplish this feat. Their participation legitimizes the bourgeois electoral process in people's minds. This obviously sends the wrong message to an important group coming into progressive circles, and that is the young people. The number of young people who say things like "we are real revolutionary socialists" followed directly by "wanna buy our paper or a book or some stickers or pins, how about a donation, vote for this person" makes me so sick to my stomach. That's especially true when you see these hypocrites wearing Mao shirts and hear them quoting the likes of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, yet then tell you how narrow and dogmatic you are for directly advocating proletarian revolution. Here's a good and relevant quote by Marx such people seem to have missed: "The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution." (That's from The Communist Manifesto.)

I think it obvious that communists should not be participating in elections in which the only possible outcome is more of the same: more imperialism, more plundering, more exploitation, more oppression, more misery for the world's vast majority. We need to be providing an alternative ideology to this fake democracy that is bourgeois democracy: democracy for the world's oppressing and exploiting minority, not for its oppressed and exploited majority. There is no good reason to give the illusion that these elections give those who would work on behalf of the international proletariat any real chance at creating positive change. Boycotting an election may not be in itself revolutionary, but it is, I believe, a correct tactic for any group claiming the world needs a new and much better system.

Just think for a moment about the whole history of all those communist parties and groups that went astray and strove to lead a proletarian transformation of society through electoral avenues. It is nothing but the history of failure, revisionism, betrayal, right wing coups, and horrific bloodbaths. Indonesia. Chile. Columbia. Nicaragua. Nepal. I don't even have to explain. You know to what I refer when I bring up those countries in connection to "communist" reliance on electoral avenues. And these are but a few of the examples that could be cited in this connection. Joining capitalist elections leads to nothing but betrayal at best (either on our own part or on the part of our enemy) and unfathomable disaster at worst. Never has this strategy succeeded. Never has it even gotten anywhere as a tactic that I can think of. The more you try to change the system from within, the more instead it changes you. Or finds an opening to destroy you.

Written by: Dustin Slagle
Edited by: Monkey Queen

(1) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html (their source is the turnout for elections sided with population of people 18 and older)

Americans Support the Bombing of Libya

Whereas these posts on American public opinion seem to be popular in some quarters, I figured I'd continue to provide more.

Several bogus left wing groups, in the run-up to the U.S.-led bombing of Libya, proudly proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to such things and that there would be no popular mandate in the U.S. for direct, open military actions on America's part against Libya. Bullshit. There have been many opinion polls over the last couple weeks, both in the run-up to the start of the bombing and since it's actual beginning, that could be cited to make this point, but the following one by CNN is the one I'll focus on simply because it asks the most questions, thus going into the greatest detail on American public opinion on the subject. I will highlight the questions out of their original order to emphasize the main point, but if you wish to see the full survey and all questions placed in sequence, it can be found here at PollingReport.com. So anyhow, here's my rundown of the highlights:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 18-20, 2011. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Some people have suggested establishing a 'no-fly' zone in Libya which would be an area patrolled by military planes from the U.S. and other countries to prevent Gadhafi from using his air force. No U.S. ground troops would be involved but U.S. airplanes or missiles might be used to shoot down Libyan airplanes or attack ground bases used by the Libyan air force. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries attempting to establish a no-fly zone in Libya?"

Favor: 70%
Oppose: 27%
Unsure: 3%

COMMENTS: This is the most basic thing. The No-Fly Zone is the formal justification for the current U.S.-led military actions against Libya. Continuing...

"The military actions to create a 'no-fly zone' might not be directly targeted at Gadhafi's troops who are fighting the opposition forces in Libya. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using planes and missiles to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"

Favor: 54%
Oppose: 43%
Unsure: 3%

COMMENTS: This goes beyond the No-Fly Zone mandate. It goes beyond targeting the Libyan air forces. Moving on:

"As far as you are concerned, should protecting civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"

Very important: 44%
Somewhat important: 39%
Not too important: 10%
Not important at all: 7%

COMMENTS: In other words, 93% of the U.S. population does not oppose the general idea of the United States actively "protecting [so-called] civilians and civilian-populated areas [they have captured] under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces", and 83% believes it should be a national priority. So even fewer Americans are opposed to the principle than are opposed to the particular conduct that is being undertaken. In fact, almost no Americans are opposed in principle. Let's investigate further:

"As far as you are concerned, should the removal of Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"

Very important: 34%
Somewhat important: 43%
Not too important: 13%
Not important at all: 10%

COMMENTS: This highlights the percentage of Americans who believe it is our national responsibility to either assassinate Gadhafi or take him into custody. As you can see, 77% believe it should be a national priority, and fully 90% are not opposed to the idea.

"And would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using ground troops to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"

Favor: 28%
Oppose: 70%
Unsure: 1%



COMMENTS: While I'm sure this type of statistic can be unfortunately changed with another press conference by the president, it demonstrates the underlying cowardice of the U.S. population in a certain way. They're willing to ravage a foreign country so long as it doesn't sully their boots. Minimal effort for maximum effect is the key to American popular support for the rape of the Third World.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya?"

Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 41%
Unsure: 9%

COMMENTS: This is the most commonly asked survey question, but, as you can see by the rest of the above responses to other questions, Americans are able to separate "the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya" on the one hand and the actual bombing, assassination, etc. campaign on the other, and are specifically more committed to the latter. It would seem that, if anything, a good percentage of Americans believe their president acted too slowly in response to developments in Libya. At any rate, 3 out of 5 do not in any way oppose the exact policies being pursued on the ground at present.

I have skipped some of the more secondary questions that just deal with predictions of the outcome since they're not really relevant to my point.

For my last highlight, I'll look at one question from a CBS poll of Americans dated from the same time frame, since in my next post I'll be seeking to highlight how both of the main U.S. parties are equally reactionary relative to the principal contradiction. This question highlights that by breaking down opinions on the No-Fly Zone along party lines:

"As you may know, the U.S. military and other countries have begun cruise missile and air strikes in Libya in order to protect civilians from attacks by Qaddafi's forces. Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. and other countries taking this military action in Libya?" March 20-21, 2011. N=622.

REPUBLICANS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 19%
Unsure: 11%

DEMOCRATS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 25%
Unsure: 5%

INDEPENDENTS:
Approve: 65%
Disapprove: 30%
Unsure: 5%

OVERALL:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 26%
Unsure: 6%

4% of Yankees Consider Aggressive War a Major Problem

This post will be an expansion on this earlier entry. Below are the results of a recent opinion poll of Amerikans conducted by CBS:

CBS News Poll. Feb. 11-14, 2011. N=1,031 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

Economy and jobs: 48%
Budget deficit/National debt: 7%
Health care: 6%
War/Iraq/Afghanistan: 4%
Education: 3%
Big government/Bureaucracy: 3%
Crime: 2%
Misc. social issues: 2%
Other: 21%
Unsure: 4%

Need I explain?

The Real Opinions of Amerikans

I'd like to start off by debunking the common mythology of the Amerikan "left" that most of the U.S. population is basically progressive-minded. Many "leftists" in this country believe most of the population borders on radicalism simply by virtue of supporting more funding for health care and education, ever higher minimum wages, etc. They have discovered the amazing fact that *gasp* Amerikans support their own further enrichment. There's a shock. Who would've thought? They likewise often point to polls suggesting that most Amerikans might oppose a particular war they're losing. But here's the bigger point: what are the broader views of Amerikans that combine to make up the psyche? Examining even just a handful of these, we can easily see through the myth. Here are a few samples borrowed from PollingReport.com:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 10-12, 2010. N=1,019 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
						.
"Do you think the United States does or does not have a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs?"

Does: 66%
Does not: 31%
Unsure: 3%

"Because of the United States' history and its Constitution, do you think the U.S. has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world, or don't you think so?"

The greatest: 80%
Don't think so: 18%
Unsure: 2%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Amerikans are characterized by extreme national chauvinism that leads around two-thirds to openly (not just objectively!) support Amerikan imperialism in principle. This is the mentality of an exploiter society; a nation that collectively benefits from the plundering of foreign countries and peoples.

Let's continue:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 17-19, 2010. N=1,008 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
						.
"As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of confidential U.S. government documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

Approve: 20%
Disapprove: 77%
Unsure: 3%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To judge from the above, I would say most Amerikans are capable of connecting their own interests to those of the U.S. military. The safety of occupying Yankee troops apparently trumps the right of their victims to have their (horror) stories told, in terms of priority. It does not matter to the Amerikan that torture, rape, and murder have been and are being systematically committed on their behalf and in their name. It matters only that this country advances its own material interests in the world. This too is the mentality of an exploiter society.

Pressing on:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 9-12, 2010. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?" Approve: 45% Disapprove: 46% Unsure: 10%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 19-21, 2010. N=1,037 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
"Thinking now about U.S. military action in Afghanistan that began in October 2001: Do you think the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, or not?"

Made a mistake: 39%
Did not make a mistake: 58%
Unsure: 3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This differs considerably from those polls Amerikan "leftists" typically show us wherein 63-72 percent of Amerikans "oppose" the Afghanistan War. The statistics on the proportion of Amerikans who "oppose" the war rise in proportion to the proportion that sees Amerika as losing that said war and will conversely fall off in the event that Amerika appears to be winning at a given juncture. The same is true of any U.S. war of aggression. In other words, Amerikans are thinking purely in strategic terms of how best to advance their nation's interests around the world, not in moral terms of whether wars are right or wrong.