2) This ruling class in reality exercises a dictatorship -- that is, a monopoly of political power backed up by and concentrated in a monopoly of armed power over the rest of society -- and those who at any given time are administering that dictatorship will continue to pursue policies they are determined to carry out, even in the face of massive popular opposition, unless and until the larger interests of the ruling class dictate that it modify or even abandon a particular policy -- or until that ruling class is overthrown.
3) Elections do not provide an avenue for the realization of the desire of masses of people to see these policies and actions of the government change -- although mass political resistance can, under certain circumstances, make an important contribution to forcing changes in government policy, especially if this takes place in a larger context where these policies are running into real trouble and, among other things, are leading to heightened divisions within the ruling class itself. (These points are from "Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy," by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, a work from which much of the framework for this talk is drawn.)
What actually happened through the 2008 elections, and in 2004 before that, was that the movements of resistance to the wars and other outrages were derailed, coopted, and depoliticized. Worse, a mandate was given to continue to carry forward wars and policies that cause unbelievable suffering in the world. The first Black president in U.S. history was brought forward to redress a huge political crisis for the ruling class. The political price for that demobilization is still being paid.
Elections in the U.S. are always a political and ideological process through which the whole country gets trained in American chauvinism. The entire framework of elections in the U.S. is America and Americans first. You know, "Not a red state America, not a blue state American but the United States of America." And what is good for America means war and deprivation on a world scale.
Some say, but what were we supposed to do? Vote for Sarah Palin? They are singing the same tune now. Are we supposed to vote for the lunatics? This is the game that those who rule this whole set-up run on you. They have their two parties -- one supposed to represent the interests of the people who suffer more under this system, and every election cycle they go to work roping disaffected people back in to the process. You think that you can have some say over what happens by forming a progressive block to pressure the Democrats to do your bidding -- or you'll withdraw your votes and, and go where? To the Republicans? You've been played.
Some say, well we can shape the debate by putting forward and supporting candidates in the primaries (or as third party) who can advance a program that more represents the people's interests, and this will create pressure on the electable candidates This charade is playing out now in the Republican primaries. But we've seen this with Jessie Jackson , Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton" before he took his job as MSNBC circus barker for Obama.
The reality is that these are candidates who are allowed into the early rounds of debates and caucuses to reflect some real desires and demands of the people. But, right away the media says they are not "serious" candidates. Why not? Because even the limited truth and reforms that they put forward are not in synch with the dynamics of the needs of the ruling class. Such candidates are rather quickly weeded out; their role is to draw people into the process before being "bait-and-switched" to another candidate who is deemed a "realistic" choice.
They have you coming and going. If the Democratic Party's role is to talk (at least sometimes) in terms that make you think that maybe with enough pressure applied to them you can make them adopt some of the things that you believe are really important -- and if you try to put pressure on them to actually do that by threatening to vote for the Republicans -- w ell, they know you can't go and vote for the Republicans who don't even pretend to be for those things that are important to you.
You have no leverage against them. They have you -- you don't have them -- as long as you are looking at the road to change as being concentrated within and finding their only (or their best possible) expression within these killing confines of bourgeois elections (and bourgeois politics overall). It is only by breaking out of those confines that you can actually begin to influence things in a significant way -- by going up against the whole operation of this machinery, breaking free of it and challenging it in a meaningful way.
Capturing the role of voting in this society, Bob Avakian, wrote: "To state it in a single sentence, elections: are controlled by the bourgeoisie; are not the means through which basic decisions are made in any case; and are really for the primary purpose of legitimizing the system and the policies and actions of the ruling class, giving them the mantle of a "popular mandate,' and of channeling, confining, and controlling the political activity of the masses of people."
It is a common misunderstanding these days, prevalent in the Occupy movement, that the problem is not with elections or the capitalist system itself, but that corporations have taken everything over and have come to dominate and corrupt the political process. While this could be the subject of an entire talk, I want to make a few points of refutation that will provide an avenue to dig more deeply into my overarching theme -- that the problem is the economic system of capitalism/imperialism and the state structures that enforce that system, including bourgeois elections as one cornerstone of that class rule. (Here I am drawing from a talk by Raymond Lotta given at OWS in NYC, and reprinted in Revolution newspaper.)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
