The Chance and Need to Boycott the Election Process

This blog post and general idea was pulled/inspired from a blog posted by a supporter of the RCP-PCR here.


First I think it is important to point out that only about half to fifty five percent of the nations registered voters vote in the presidential elections. While only 37% of people that are legally able to vote participate in the midterm elections (1).


Considering that almost 45% of this nation does not vote in the biggest election in this nation I think that is a good sign that the average American is fed up with the US government. Further more I would place a bet that if we got all third parties to boycott the elections that the turn out would be lower that 50% for the presidential election.


The fact that 63% of the US population (that is of age to vote) does not vote in the mid term elections tells us a few things;


1) That the election process is unappealing to the masses in the US. If the people really thought elections were a real way to create change then they would participate more in local elections because that is where your votes have the most effect.


2) That people who wish to play entryism are wrong when they claim their correctness by quoting Lenin saying; "we don't separate ourselves from the mass working class organs". The fact that over 60% of the people in the US do not vote proves them wrong that the election system is a gateway to the masses. Not to mention that by participating with a current, or wanting to create a new imperial-capitalist party to take over an established one, you are still participating in imperialist bourgeois democracy and have no right to claim you represent revolutionary politics.


3) That a boycott could actually motivate more people for your cause than getting the "other" vote could. With a boycott we could measure the amount of support the government really enjoys from the masses. If we boycotted the presidential election and the percentage of people who vote dropped bellow 50% we could declare the election a victory. If we called a boycott and only 45% or less voted than we could make a legitimate claim that the US government does not enjoy popular support.


If someone really wants to know why there is little to no revolutionary consciousness in the US we must first look to the majority of the "socialist" groups in the US. How are the people in the US suppose to develop a revolutionary mid set when all the groups who claim to be revolutionary support nothing but reformist tactics and attack any groups calling for real revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution ultra-leftist? How is calling for revolution while denouncing revolution and participating in the imperialist elections anything but reformist and social-democrat-esk?


I fear that most groups in the US are fake paper tigers. They use the call "revolution" for opportunist reasons only. But in reality they support this imperialist-capitalist system by organizing and participating within it. These groups help the capitalist system by legitimizing it by trying to reform from within rather than destroying it from without or even by just not participating in the elections. By participating the legitimize the bourgeois democratic process. This obviously sends the wrong message to the most important group coming into the socialist circles, and that is the young people. The number of young people who say things like "we are real revolutionary socialist" 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. Specially when you see these people wearing Che shirts and hear them quoting Lenin, Che, Marx yet then tell me how ultra-left I am for advocating for a uprising lead by the working class. Maybe the left is taking a turn to the right?


I think it is a no brainer that any revolutionary working class group should not be participating in elections while imperialist-capitalist is the only possible out come. We need to be providing an alternative ideology to this fake bourgeois democracy. Not giving the fake illusion that the elections give us any real chance at creating change. Boycotting an election may not be in itself revolutionary but it is the correct tactic for any group claiming we need a new system. Also for reasons already pointed out above a boycott would show the true number of supporters the US government has and would expose the real number of possible revolutionaries.



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

The Lybian Question.

I believe there are currently three main ideas circulating on the left about what is going on in Libya.



First one I will address is the one put forwards by the mainly tankie groups which tends to simplify the situation. They claim that the protest are MOST LIKELY imperialist backed (they don't wanna take a side because if Qaddafi ends up killing thousands of people and losing they don't wanna have to defend their position.) However they stay shy from criticizing Qaddafi while painting him as some heroic anti-imperialist. One big side of their argument for semi-support for the government is that two people in the tribal areas raised an old monarch flag after taking down a Libyan flag. It should be mentioned that flags are symbolic and this does not mean the protesters and people revolting want a return to a monarchy.



Another part of this "stance" is that a revolution in Libya will weaken the government and make it easier for imperialist to take over. This is a disgrace and insulting to the proletarian masses of Libya that have been in the streets and belittles the strength of those masses.



One big thing that is left unmentioned from this side of the argument is that Qaddafi has been both the UK's and the Italians running dog for years almost directly after 9/11. Qaddafi has been privatizing the nation causing bigger divides in the wealth gap and resentment from the masses towards government officials who have made a lot of money off of privatization. Not to mention the new rich capitalist class that has grown while poverty is also on the rise.



The second side to the situation is that of liberal Utopianism which is that the people should all rise up and destroy the state but since this is the real world and the conditions are not right for that I won't address that side.



Then there is the third side which is the side I stand on. The thing is that facts are and have been hard to get out of Libya. Yes Qaddafi used to be a great anti-imperialist but people change, and Qaddafi has changed. He openly embraces imperialist and imperialist puppets with open arms. He is happy to invite and play tour guide to the richest oil tycoons around the globe.



At the same time I am unaware of the protesting groups and the armed militias aims and goals. All I can concretely say is that I hope if the revolution (or whatever it is) is successful that the masses are the ones who take charge and are against any special outside influence. The people of Libya are very educated about the dangers of imperialism and the grossness and inequality of capitalism.



I have full faith in the people of Libya to stand up against imperialism and fight against any foreign influences that might try to take advantage of the people in Libya.



Written by; Dustin Slagle

The Reason Why Wisconsin Won't Lead to a Revolution.

People who are familiar with the left/socialist movement here in the United States know that every time a huge protest happens or a school building is occupied by students that the left will start screaming "the revolution is coming" or "this could be the start of the revolution" and "see the people in the United States are class conscious/revolutionary."



The event we see happening in Wisconsin is very important to pay close attention to. What we see happening is a right wing tea party supported governor who is a champion of corporate American billionaires trying to attack the unions right to collectively bargain. The governor is doing this to gain more support from the upper capitalist class (millionaires and billionaires) for making it easier for corporations to make more profits by paying their employees shitty wages, and the employees not having the legal right to demand higher wages.



It should be noted that this is the second attack on public workers, all in the name of "needing to cut the budget." The first cuts that were proposed to public workers were actually agreed to by the public workers and their unions according to MSNBC tv(1). But these second cuts will do more than make collective bargaining illegal it will also force public workers to pay double for their health care and force the workers to contribute 5.8% of their checks to their pension(2).



It is very important to support the unions and their right to collectively bargain. Even though a lot of unions in the US are reactionary and often side with the bosses before they would call for a strike. They can in some instances be the last line of defense for workers rights. So this post should not be seen as a attempt to stand against the Wisconsin workers.



I do want to touch on the claim that somehow the protest in Wisconsin means workers "do understand politics and are the first to engage in mass political activity." And that somehow workers trying to keep their jobs in Wisconsin is a sign that workers are trying to rise up and defeat the ruling and other bourgeois classes. Many populist socialist have made bolder claims that somehow all people who go to work and get a wage for their labor are working class(3). So by that claim I guess people making 300,000 dollars a year and millionaire CEO's who get paid by the hour are working class as well.



The truth of the situation is that probably 70% or more of those protester are pro-capitalism and they are just trying to keep their jobs. They are not there to do anything other than fight for their right to a fair job. This situation does not mean workers in the US are revolutionary or class conscious and as the link above falsely claims that US workers make common cause with workers in other countries. I would tell readers to go read any Yahoo news article, youtube, etc etc go read the comments about videos/articles about other countries. These comments are left by average everyday Americans and you will see that 70-30% are reactionary, xenophobic, and racist and ignorant, these are the real average US citizens. The people in left circles are advanced and are indeed not most of those things, but to claim the majority of Americans are revolutionary and not backwards is to lie to the people you're talking to.



Every time some bit of disorder happens does not mean "the revolution is here!" Here is what will probably happen; one of two things will happen. The Governor will win and the unions will be busted and the workers will be pissed off but will go back home eventually and start looking for a new job so their family doesn't starve but no revolt will happen and people in other states won't stand up with the workers (after all they have jobs and families to feed). Or the unions will win and everyone will cheer than go home and celebrate. But neither will lead to a revolution or even a radicalization of workers in the US. I really wish it wasn't true and I wish this would spark the prairie fire but it just won't happen brothers and sisters the conditions just aren't right at the moment.



If every time the left claimed revolution was about to happen then we would have around 3-6 revolutions every year. But what is most important is that we support the union in their struggle and encourage them to call for a general strike as the WIL (Workers International League) and the SA (Socialist Alternative) have advocated for. The people and the people alone will be the driving force.


Support a general strike in Wisconsin and Ohio!

Empty Rhetoric is Not What We Need!

I am noticing a trend. I see it with some groups more than with others. We have all heard the phrase "you're talking to big for your britches."


I was having a conversation that turned into a debate recently with a comrade about marching on Washington DC to demand a "stop to funding the Egyptian government." I was trying to debate him that this tactic has never worked and that the US government is not going to stop funding any of it's puppet governments just because the people take to the streets. It took me about ten minutes to realize that he was not debating me but rather just repeating democratic and the "they have to listen to us" rhetoric over and over again.


Just as a taste of what I mean (this was on a public site mind you) here are some clips of our discussion.

him- "Mubarak must step down now! Stop killing unarmed pro democracy protesters."(in reference to trying to get people to sign his petition found here. which is a petition 'telling' Obama to support democracy in Egypt.)

me-"when has a US president ever supported democracy in a nation he controls?"

him-"Only when the people in the U.S. stand up & demand it!"

me-"I don't think even then he (Obama) will care *persons name. The riot police is all you will get."

him-"The U.S. gives Mubarak 2Billion dollars a year, we are funding the ones killing the pro democracy protesters. Cut off funding, and demand the dictator step down."(I hope by now my point is clear that while I'm trying to discuss/debate he is using empty slogans with no way to make these things happen)

me-"No, I understand and agree with your rhetoric I'm just saying that Obama won't do it no matter what. His stake in having a Egyptian puppet is more important than what the people of the US (notoriously pacifist)say."

him-"Speak for yourself, but not all people in the U.S. are as cynical as you. Resist the War Machine! Solidarity with Egyptian Democracy Movement."

me-"yes, nothing but solidarity with the Egyptian people! But it's called realistic and dialects not cynical. I speaking from historical and current stand point. If you can get the Obama administration to tell the government to resign and he stops sending them money because of your movement then I will give you a personal apology."(and I will if they do)

him-"Our goal is to end the U.S. Imperialist War Machine's domination of the U.S. & much of the world. Remember the 60s? We gained social change, but not political change. We will continue the struggle for democracy in the U.S. The corporate media can't continue to ignore us. The U.S. peace & democracy movement is building. 131 Peace activists (mostly vets) were arrested in front of the White House last month & we will have many more in March. Join the revolution!"

me-"I wouldn't call it a revolution yet brother. People need to understand that we have no democracy before they will revolt but most people in the US still believe we have democracy."(I didn't have the heart to tell him that the conditions are way off for revolt.)



Most of the conversation went on this way and it is something that I have noticed has become sort of a trend. Many people on the left have traded dialects for slogans (liberal ones at that.) I fear that rhetoric has come to replace logic in our communist movement. It seems like most people think if they repeat "we are winning! we are winning!" that somehow with out advancing even a little bit that we are in fact winning. Is this correct? NO, further more it makes the movement as a whole look silly. I recall a time where an ISO and a SP-USA member sat there and went back and forth for two hours and all they were really saying was "we are the vanguard" "nope, we are the vanguard" and both thought they were right because they believed their own rhetoric. But to someone unfamiliar with the movement they would probably roll their eyes and say something along the lines of "wow why are communist so full of themselves?"


So before we just go out yelling slogans at people instead of explaining ourselves, we need to ask ourselves: "Is what we are putting forward realistic?" "Is it achievable?" "If it is possible to attain this goal then what is the correct path to move the goal forward to a reality?" and most importantly; "how do the people want to carry this forward" and "Is this what is best for the people?" Because yes I have noticed that sometimes groups will do opportunistic campaigns to gain a few members even when if the campaign had succeeded that it would have been against the masses well being.


The masses well being should always be our number one driving force. Empty rhetoric and worthless slogans are not going to liberate the masses on it's own.


Logic shall be our only guiding light!



Written by: Dustin Slagle
Originally posted on The Hong Se Sun

The Point of Polemics.

A polemic is a critique of a organization, groups, person, idea, tendency etc. It was brought to my attention lately by a leftist pal of mine that I am not a good communist because I don't help the local reformist and liberal class collaborators who pose as communist (not his words, but mine). I didn't think much of it at first because he is a "do something, anything-ist" but I think that he had a point in there somewhere. That even by not supporting a reformist party I am doing nothing because I don't participate in many local activities. While I do participate in some local activities, I try to keep to little circles who I think have potential or to participate in militant activities. I am not interested in how many news papers I can sell at a rally, but rather I am interested in meeting people and hearing of their thoughts and experiences. And through discussion trying to reshape their ideas to be more communist and create more awareness among the people, person by person.



While I must confess that to some leftist this does not fall into their category of "doing something" but I have had great success with this strategy. It is also more inspiring and energizing for me to do this than to go to a leftist event and hearing liberal and reactionary ideas being regurgitated as fast as they can be re-consumed by the ORGs followers.



It is no secret that others in my area read this blog. The reason why I write polemics about these groups and people (most polemics I write are about multiple ORGS and many of them are taken out of context) is because they have many incorrect theories, they are calling themselves revolutionaries while championing reformism and liberalism under the guise of workers power. They are using other leftist to further their goals and have personally told me that there will come a day when they have to turn their backs on the other groups (that's called opportunism). I write polemics because many groups have become theoretically ignorant and use dogmatism as their guiding light.



Polemics are important in making groups and people better themselves. If you read a polemic about your group or about your ideas and you brush it off for any reason than you may be a dogmatic follower. If you discredit anything that was said or written by Mao simply because it was written or said by Mao than you are dogmatic and thus anti-dialects. Same goes for other people if you discredit everything Stalin said because it was Stalin who said it, if you discredit everything Trots say just because they are trots than you are a dogmatic person. This is not to say that you can't disagree with all of someones thoughts and ideas. But disagree because you've read it and don't just refute because of who wrote it. I don't agree with 99% of what Trotsky wrote. But it is because I think he wrote things from a purest and Utopian view point and not just because it was Trotsky who wrote it.



If polemics scare you as an ORG than you probably need to reevaluate yourself as an ORG. Only great people and groups use a good polemic to better themselves. Only cowards who are theoretically bankrupt and dogmatic cry when a polemic is written about them. A polemic is a good place to start doing some self criticism and theoretical advancement.



Written by; Dustin Slagle

Originally posted on The Hong Se Sun

Why Create New Communist ORG's if There Are Already Existing Ones?

I wanted to write this post to answer the simple question of: "Why are people creating new communist organizations instead of joining the existing ones?" This is a good question for people new to the movement here in the states to ask. When I first walked onto the socialist scene I had a problem understanding why there were so many different groups when every one believed in a general idea (socialism).



I soon was to be crushed when I found out what a fractured and broken socialist movement we had here in the US. I was further crushed when I later learned that most groups in the US are fakes and wish to do nothing more use reformism to replace one ruler with another under a false banner of socialism or the false claim of "a party run by the working class". Then there are the parties who only seem to want to write polemics about other groups and do nothing else. Some parties exist only for opportunist reasons when they could easily join with other groups that share their same platform and politics but they do not merge because that would mean sharing money, resources, and membership.



There is actually a good reason why new ORGs emerge and if the sixties are any implication then we should see a growth in communist recruitment into the different parties. The creation of new parties is a sign that the existing parties are out dated and are being ineffective in doing mass work. This is the reason why we see groups such as the Kasama project, the LLCO and a few other groups emerging from the darkness. The founders of these groups don't see protesting and signing petitions as a way to build and carry through a revolution. They know that new and original theory's are needed to carry the communist movement forward. They are trying to fill a void by carrying communist slogans and moving the cause forward as a whole.



I think we should embrace this new outbreak of new groups here in the united states. It is obvious all the old parties and most of the "new" trot parties are set in their ways and are ineffective and outdated. Maybe the communist movement needs a revolution inside the communist movement itself?

The New Red Scare!

It was apparent as of last night on Nov second that the second republican revolution was underway and that American politics were about to shift back to neo-conservative in control of the house and a much more favorable number in the senate. But why did this happen? Was it because the young voters stayed home? Was it because America is coming down off of its hopeamine high? And what does this mean for the communist and other leftist in America?


So why did the republicans win so big in these midterms? The answer is easier than most would give. The simple answer is that when the democrats were in charge of all of the major branches of government they still didn't accomplish anything other than selling the masses out to the medical insurance companies and bailing out big banks before bailing out the people. So really the democrats are the ones who demotivated their base and even to a point encouraged their base to stay home on election day. Not to mention the fact that most people in this country are fed up with the system all together.


The Tea Party should also not be discredited with the role they played in this election cycle. The tea party energized and motivated the ultra right wing (along with some ignorant moderates) back to the voting booth. These are the same people who didn't go to the polls during the Obama election because they thought McCain to be too moderate. This coupled with the self de-motivation of progressives and leftist with in the democratic party clearly explains the huge loss suffered by the democrats.


Is the country just coming down off of their hopeamine high? Yes, when Obama ran for president he not only had his main democrat base excited but he also had many moderates, progressives and even some people on the left excited about his campaign. But it didn't take long for that high to wear off. Many progressives and leftist were in disarray when Obama followed Bush in bailing out the Banks and leaving the people to starve and go homeless. Shortly after that the health care bill came up. And the more and more the democrats and Obama compromised with the right the more and more progressives started fleeing from the Obama/democrat camp. The democrats took less than a year to prove to the voters that thought they were voting in a party of the people and change that they were in fact voting into power nothing more than corporate party with no back bone. The people felt and still feel betrayed by the democrats. This is a lesson that the masses will hopefully not soon forget though I feel that it will take little to no time for the voters to forget the democrats betrayal.


What does this mean for communist and other leftist in the US? Well that is up to us, we can keep doing what we have been doing, (which except for a few groups) and keep doing things that have proven to be ineffective. Or we can really start to unite the different parties and organizations and start to have one party with different tactics. Because as we are in this country (all separated and using different tactics) it is obvious that one tactic or the other by itself will not do the trick. We need a united party that works in the activist circles, that works in the unions and on peoples empowerment issues. All we have right now is a bunch of different parties all running in different directions claiming they have the right tactic, but since none are gaining any real ground it doesn't matter. And the few that are gaining ground as parties or ORGs (meaning members wise), they mainly are gaining members with false and liberal slogans.


If the left ever needed to unite and fight together then this would be it. But I'm sure that that will not happen due to different believes in what happened and should have happened in Russia in the beginning of the 1900's. But remember that this is our future and if we don't unite and fight back than this is what we can look forward to:

Written by:Dustin Slagle

Originally posted on The Hong Se Sun November 3 2010