/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Truke

All hail the people's child rape/murdering bourgeoisie!

>>2676519
I think the best argument against electoralism is the amount of energy that some activists put into it when they could be working on the ground to build up independent organizations (or actual socialist parties) instead. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people, especially not the ones sitting on their ass shitposting on the internet. Most non-voters are not doing something better than voting, they're just doing nothing.
I sympathize if your state/country is a shithole and they make voting as hard as possible, but otherwise voting really is not that hard.

>>2676610
I live in the third world and the government does everything short of offering blowjobs in order to get people to vote

The turn out is like 20% mostly just military and militia personnel who are forced to.

At the end people don't want to grant legitimacy to their class dictatorships and its daily violence. Amazing how the 'masses' can be more class literate than some self described "revolutionaries"

>>2676519
This guy eats babies

You can't say that we can't vote our way out of a bourgeois system and then simultaneously say that voting can help us get out of the bourgeois system

>However, it's only a valid argument if you use that time more effectively
Chilling is more noble than wasting precious and non-renovable time giving the next batch of parasites the only thing they want from you politically (your vooootes)

Participating in something shapes consciousness to conform with it.
For example having people write an essay on why they agree with something will change people to be come more accepting.

You can participate in the lesser evilism, but advocating for voting successfully will shape the participating movement as more defensive of authorities.
You might observe this with political movements where you are over time.

Abstrntionism is first world privileged behavior. In the third world your party choices are like "neiliberal but won't kill you" or "neiliberal but WILL kill you and rape your family". The choice is simple in a lot of countries

>Electoral
stopped reading right there

>However, it's only a valid argument if you use that time more effectively.
Gooning to futa is more valuable than vooting
Besides, your statement is moralistic

In a US context, voting really only matters for local ballot measures. It's the only form of direct democracy we have. Many states legalized weed, abortion, etc through ballot measures and not through legislation by elected officials. My state this year might have a measure to ban license plate readers (dope).

Voooting for candidates will always be a waste of time. Expecting someone to "represent you" in a system that makes it more profitable for them to ignore the fuck out of you, is just expecting a savior. You'd be better off working with local groups to build community systems outside of the political system.

>>2712082
>they are purely popularity and charisma contests
In other words, politics. What political system doesn't need to muster popularity and charisma?

>>2712099
Organic centralism

>>2676519
The Marxist position on bourgeois elections is not abstentionism, but rather organizing into a distinct revolutionary party of the working class for proletarian class domination that is independent of the bourgeoisie. Using the election to gauge its strength and demonstrate its revolutionary program to the masses, along with radical reforms that do not bring complacency but advance the class struggle, facilitates the radical organization of workers and solidarity with other workers, does not tolerate any funding to imperialist capitalism in solidarity with the workers of the world, rejecting all arms money, aid, and loans to countries and organizations abroad that maintain the puppets of finance capital without exception. Financial sovereignty must be defended above all, not tolerating any bank being independent and outside of politics. All this must be defended even if the candidates of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, independent of the bourgeoisie, have no chance of winning. Voting for communist candidates is a duty if you call yourself a communist, to develop experience in the class struggle and spread propaganda to the masses.

Now, with quotes against abstainers and against those who, when discussing electoralism, think that Marx, Engels, and Lenin tolerate voting for neoliberal bourgeois parties that support current imperialist capitalism:

<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.

<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken

ttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.

<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.

<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm

<Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

<It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:

<“. . . All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. . . .”

<This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?

<Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.

<Is parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the “Lefts” would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a most searching analysis, and the “Lefts” do not even know how to approach the matter. In the “Theses on Parliamentarianism”, published in the Bulletin of the Provisional Bureau in Amsterdam of the Communist International No. 1, February 1920, and obviously expressing the Dutch-Left or Left-Dutch strivings, the analysis, as we shall see, is also hopelessly poor.

<In the first place, contrary to the opinion of such outstanding political leaders as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the German “Lefts”, as we know, considered parliamentarianism “politically obsolete” even in January 1919. We know that the “Lefts” were mistaken. This fact alone utterly destroys, at a single stroke, the proposition that parliamentarianism is “politically obsolete”. It is for the “Lefts” to prove why their error, indisputable at that time, is no longer an error. They do not and cannot produce even a shred of proof. A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfil this duty and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the “Lefts” in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.

<Second, in the same pamphlet of the Frankfurt group of “Lefts”, which we have already cited in detail, we read:

<“. . . The millions of workers who still follow the policy of the Centre [the Catholic ‘Centre’ Party] are counter-revolutionary. The rural proletarians provide the legions of counter-revolutionary troops.” (Page 3 of the pamphlet.)

<Everything goes to show that this statement is far too sweeping and exaggerated. But the basic fact set forth here is incontrovertible, and its acknowledgment by the “Lefts” is particularly clear evidence of their mistake. How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright “counter-revolutionary”!? It is obvious that parliamentarianism in Germany is not yet politically obsolete. It is obvious that the “Lefts” in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico-ideological attitude, for objective reality. That is a most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries to make. In Russia—where, over a particularly long period and in particularly varied forms, the most brutal and savage yoke of tsarism produced revolutionaries of diverse shades, revolutionaries who displayed amazing devotion, enthusiasm, heroism and will power—in Russia we have observed this mistake of the revolutionaries at very close quarters; we have studied it very attentively and have a first-hand knowledge of it; that is why we can also see it especially clearly in others. 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.

<Third, the “Left” Communists have a great deal to say in praise of us Bolsheviks. One sometimes feels like telling them to praise us less and to try to get a better knowledge of the Bolsheviks’ tactics. We took part in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Russian bourgeois parliament in September–November 1917. Were our tactics correct or not? If not, then this should be clearly stated and proved, for it is necessary in evolving the correct tactics for international communism. If they were correct, then certain conclusions must be drawn. Of course, there can be no question of placing conditions in Russia on a par with conditions in Western Europe. But as regards the particular question of the meaning of the concept that “parliamentarianism has become politically obsolete”, due account should be taken of our experience, for unless concrete experience is taken into account such concepts very easily turn into empty phrases. In September–November 1917, did we, the Russian Bolsheviks, not have more right than any Western Communists to consider that parliamentarianism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we did, for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long time or a short time, but how far the masses of the working people are prepared (ideologically, politically and practically) to accept the Soviet system and to dissolve the bourgeois-democratic parliament (or allow it to be dissolved). It is an absolutely incontestable and fully established historical fact that, in September–November 1917, the urban working class and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were, because of a number of special conditions, exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system and to disband the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power. That these elections yielded exceedingly valuable (and to the proletariat, highly useful) political results has, I make bold to hope, been proved by me in the above-mentioned article, which analyses in detail the returns of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia.

<The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”. To ignore this experience, while at the same time claiming affiliation to the Communist International, which must work out its tactics internationally (not as narrow or exclusively national tactics, but as international tactics), means committing a gross error and actually abandoning internationalism in deed, while recognising it in word.

<Vladimir Lenin’s, 1920, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

>>2712107
what does this even mean, is this just fancy democratic centralism?

>>2712110
No such thing as the end of politics. The mere questions of what to do first and who shall give orders is universal

Because if you are even 1% honest about communism and admit that in the long run you will have no borders, you will get zero votes. The only way to get votes is to lie and change your program. Ergo, your programme is no longer communist and you lost before you even started playing.

>>2712129
what science is that?

>>2712074
/thread

I always vote because my mom makes me promise to and I don't want her to be disappointed.

>>2712146
>should we have A or B as general secretary?
>how many districts should we divide the country into?
>what sorts of speed limits should we have?
Give me a sec, let's consult the works of Marx and Lenin for answers

>>2712074
>Voooting for candidates will always be a waste of time. Expecting someone to "represent you" in a system that makes it more profitable for them to ignore the fuck out of you, is just expecting a savior.
I'm just a fag from Burgerland but mostly get annoyed by people moralizing about it either way. What liberals do is get people into a mindset where they engage in voting as a ritual and they kind of sacralize it. Like "we have to vote in order to protect our right to vote." It's tautological and similar to religious dogmatism. "We must vote to defend democracy." The reason they do this is because they're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, justify the system, while discouraging people from rocking the boat too much, while protecting their own class position as highly-paid Democratic Party consultants. For that specific class fraction, elections are their mode of production because their livelihoods depend on it (fundraisers, pollsters, "communications" specialists).

Does that mean we should sit out elections? Depends on how you look at it. The question is whether it's useful or not. I think it can be for different groups who are still nevertheless struggling over power and resources, and they're pulling strings, or using voting as a crowbar to wedge their own interest into the door of a corrupt political system. It's just another tool. I think of it like the election day scene from the movie Gangs of New York. It's like, hell yeah we're voting to get some gibs. Can you blame Muslim voters in New York for voting for Zohran because he criticized Israel? They believed he was useful. He's not going to destroy Israel, but the use of force in this situation is constrained to begin with. There are a lot of Zionists who didn't want to see him win, I can tell you that!

For anti-voters, I relate to them much more if they just go "I don't care about this stupid election because this is a sham." But if they're getting mad at you for voting for AOC because she won't really change the system, that is annoying to me, because while it's true, that's also not on the ballot. It's either her or somebody else. That's why I voted for her three times! "Whaddya mean you only voted for her three times!? I voted for AOC five times!"

>>2712120
You are wrong. The participation of communists in a bourgeois election aims to gather the strength of radicalized workers, as a method to spread propaganda to the masses to lose faith in bourgeois democracy, so that radical reforms that prevent capital from accumulating with imperialism abroad or intensifying the exploitation of workers within the country, leading to a capitalist state in crisis, can occur, in order to intensify the class struggle instead of pacification. An example of such a program is the defense of guaranteed public employment, forced unionization of all workers, ensuring that all labor rights apply to all workers, ending the more intense exploitation of informal work, equalizing union wages and radically democratizing these unions by removing all barriers to union radicalization imposed by the bourgeois state or capitalist influence, guaranteeing the right to legal action for all workers to defend their rights with all costs passed on to the capitalist and the bourgeois state, guaranteeing solidarity in defending the labor rights of another worker, with all capitalists exploiting any worker being obliged to compensate that worker along with the union and the state, plus fines, and this will apply to everything and will be done so that capitalists go bankrupt to be collectivized and nationalized since they will be competing with state-owned companies in the market, which intends to cheapen consumer products in order to deliberately bankrupt private companies.

Another program that communists should defend in a bourgeois election is the nationalization of all banks, because no bank should have any independence or be free from politics. A workers' statistics council without "technocrats" will control inflation by balancing workers' wages with the price of food and workers' consumption so that no costs are passed on to the workers. Cheap credit will be used to benefit cooperatives, state-owned companies, and workers, and to indebt capitalists so they can be expropriated. All money abroad will be cut off for puppets of financial capital, both in weapons and debt, including non-profit organizations, to foster solidarity with workers worldwide. A country's public debt should be reviewed, as should all contracts with capitalists, prioritizing non-payment of the debt and abolishing any fiscal responsibility or spending cap used as an excuse for austerity. The abolition of all indirect taxes on workers' consumption and progressive direct taxes attacking capitalists, with no loopholes for bankruptcy, should be defended. All pensions must be public, not tied to profit, passing the cost on to the state and capitalists.

Bourgeois democracy must reach its limit so that popular workers' councils can be formed, a popular workers' militia for self-defense can be formed and gain experience in class struggle so that the masses are prepared by the vanguard for the revolutionary situation. There is no contradiction between revolutionary socialism and the use of reforms to bring about the collapse of the capitalist state; this is not revolution by peaceful means, but rather preparing the conditions for a revolutionary situation, and this means that it is forbidden to vote for parties that serve imperialist capitalism without exception.

If you don't believe what I've written, I will post four quotes from Marx and Engels with programs in a bourgeois democracy and one from the Bolsheviks by Lenin that prove my point. The first is in the text of the "Communist Manifesto," the second in "Principles of Communism," the third is in "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany," the fourth is in "The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier," and the last, by Lenin, is in "Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme," in chapter four, called "Draft of Revised Programme."

Here is the link if you want to read it:

From the Communist Manifesto in Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

From The Principles of Communism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

In "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

In "The Program of the Parti Ouvrier":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Now the text of Lenin:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm

>>2712650
All the communist revolutions that succeeded in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat had a period of preparation until the revolutionary situation arrived, where the class struggle intensified and the capitalist state entered a crisis, both in Russia and China. Or do you think spontaneous revolutions exist? Where a radical armed workers' organization suddenly appears to make a revolution? Communists have legal and illegal activities to prepare for a revolutionary situation, and one of these legal activities would be propaganda in a bourgeois election to shatter the bourgeoisie's illusions among the masses. If a communist politician wins an election in a bourgeois democracy, this can be used as a tool against the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state. There's no need to worry about stability; even if no laws are passed, this can be used to spread propaganda and irritate the bourgeoisie, demonstrating to the masses that there is an alternative not spoken of by liberals, conservatives, reactionaries, reformists, or any class conciliators. If you want a historical example, I would give the Bolsheviks.

>>2712141
So you lie by omission. All that your opponents need to do is ask what is the long term goal of communism and you will get zero votes.

>>2676519
Participating in elections is fine if you're doing it the old fashioned way of building up a party, and engaging in United Fronts with bourgeois politicians where you give them a voting bloc in exchange for policy concessions. It keeps your movement independent and organized while making it clear to the proles that their power flows through you. You're NOT supposed to field your own candidates for office.

But unfortunately we have generations of socdems and Stalinite Popular Frontists who think you have to run 'socialist politicians' for office, or worse, just tell people to vote for bourgeois politicians without organizing them. Then when those politicians win they find themselves constrained by capital and you look like an asshole explaining why the 'socialist government' is breaking strikes and cutting public services. Or you become brain broken workerists and think that the Left has to crack down on homeless and immigrants to get popular support because that's what the proles want!!!

>>2676519
Mass abstaining from elections forces a redefinition of political action away from electoralism and into the streets, in particular highlighting the opportunism of "left" elements who prefer modes of political action which can best serve to further their personal careers and deescalate threats to the petty bourgeoisie and labor bureaucracy. This can become an important political act in contexts where popular consciousness of politics and political action revolves around regular bourgeois elections (the US) or where opportunists within otherwise revolutionary forces are pushing for a reintegration into the bourgeois state (India, Nepal, Peru, etc.). This doesn't mean that all elections should be boycotted all the time, for example in snap elections called during a political crisis of the bourgeois classes or in contexts where the petty bourgeois tendency to center elections as political action has been effectively curbed, but participation in bourgeois elections is something that should be done with strong intentionality and not "because Lenin said so." The default position of communists today should be to prioritize all other forms of political struggle until a strong and explicit reason to participate arises.

>>2714237
Completely wrong. It is mandatory to support communist candidates and vote for these candidates even if they have no chance of winning. The communist program in a bourgeois election depends on advancing the class struggle; this means more chaos and hatred from the bourgeoisie against the workers, and the workers losing any faith and illusion of superstitions about the state, such as the constitution as sacred, bourgeois democracy as something to be defended, and the idea that they have some natural right. All bourgeois parties that wish to bring stability must be attacked, and workers cannot depend on any bourgeois newspaper or institution to build any illusion of class conciliation. Scientific socialism defends the political domination of the proletariat and its supremacy; other working classes should only act according to what they have in common with the proletariat and its dominance. This is the truth, and it is not necessary to give any value to the majority or respect any ritual of bourgeois democracy.

Parties you call "socialist" desire stability instead of chaos, empowering workers to seize power and socialize the economy, regardless of the sacrifices required or obstacles to be overcome. Every situation should be exploited to spread propaganda about the need to nationalize and socialize something. If conservatives want to intervene in the economy, you must go even further, always pushing the discourse to the left and not to fearful liberals who are afraid of chaos and "authoritarianism" in intervening in the economy. The media and the bourgeoisie must feel fear, and there should be no fantasy of communists not being demonized, hated, or called insane and lunatics. It is mandatory to speak of financial sovereignty, that is, controlling all banks and the national currency itself, technological sovereignty, food sovereignty, energy sovereignty, etc. This means defending state capitalism as a tool to attack private property and lead the bourgeois state to chaos. All bourgeois institutions are enemies, and there is no conciliation with them. Bearing in mind that capitalism has already spread throughout the world, there is no threat of "feudalism" but rather of capitalist imperialism. This means that liberals reconciling with imperialism is intolerable and therefore they are enemies.

>>2715130
>It is mandatory to support communist candidates and vote for these candidates even if they have no chance of winning.
This only works IF you don't win, or if you're in a parliamentary system and can remain in opposition and never join a ruling coalition. To quote the SPD: Not one man, not one penny for the system.

Communists actually winning political office and having to govern the capitalist state, without a mandate for revolutionary change, has been a disaster every time. Either you tack to the right to remain in power and be 'responsible' and end up allying with the hated bourgeoisie. Or you are an impotent junior partner like the SACP in South Africa, watching the ANC government murder striking miners and not lifting a finger to stop them.

sorry, but i WILL vote for the socdem party

>>2715226
You are wrong again. If a communist is elected to public office, they should only use populism and propaganda to cut all contracts with private companies and prepare a parallel power so that the masses have direct participation in everything, breaking the complacency and superstitions of the state and society. Furthermore, communists should prioritize creating state-owned enterprises and cooperatives of all kinds and dismantle any law or barrier that prevents the proletariat from developing the class struggle to eventually acquire supremacy. So-called "opportunistic socialists" usually see the state as a neutral entity above social classes instead of the state as an instrument for one class to oppress another, where everything should be used as a weapon so that the dual power of popular councils can be formed, leading to more chaos and conflict with the bourgeoisie and the police.

The death of workers should be seen as martyrdom in propaganda for the proletariat to seize power, breaking any faith in the institutions of the bourgeois state so that it enters into crisis. You don't understand that before the dictatorship of the proletariat emerges in a revolutionary situation, this parallel power of popular councils must be created by sabotaging the bourgeois state, pushing it to the limit of its contradictions with the democratization of everything and using everything against the capitalists, regardless of how many martyr casualties there may be. The communist politician who gets elected has to prove to the party that he plays this role or be expelled as a traitor.

There should be no attachment whatsoever to the capitalist state to save you or the workers, and it seems to me that you are trying to deceive communists to co-opt the workers, making fools of them so they can be co-opted by finance capital. It is clear that if there is a common interest against imperialist capitalism, it is possible to march with reformists or other groups together if there is something of interest to the communist cause, but communists should not concede anything and should prioritize never becoming the tagtail of a bourgeois party, remaining independent so that nothing can be co-opted by reformists and defenders of class conciliation. These situations should be used again to break any narrative that the bourgeoisie tries to invent to pacify the masses.