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. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.
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.
YES!!!
That is fucking beautiful. And it’s incredible to see that what was true in 1850 is still just as true today. Thank you for that! Love it.
I’m gonna have to start using parts of that quote in some of my replies to the Lemmy bullies and people who are spreading discontent under the guise of just helping out their party, but who are really just protecting their capitalistic advantages under a corrupt duopoly.
Many on Lemmy seem to not don’t want change or are they are afraid to speak up for it. Because of Republican AND Democrat bullies.
In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.'s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.
They use the same tactics for decades and liberals fall for them every single time
Wow, that’s a fantastic read! I might have to borrow some of those words to fuel my fight against the capitalist barrage I face daily on here, just because I refuse to support the duopoly that so many are clinging to.
It’s true that Marx lived in a different political system, but the soul of his critique goes beyond the specifics of electoral structures.
Marx’s analysis of class struggle and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few is pretty much as relevant today as it was back then, regardless of whether we’re talking about a parliamentary system or a two-party, first-past-the-post system.
Exploitation of the working class and the manipulation of political systems to serve the interests of the ruling class is still very very much present in our current system.
To dismiss Marx’s ideas because the electoral mechanics are different misses the bigger point.
No matter the system, those in power will often rig it to maintain their dominance and suppress genuine alternatives that threaten the status quo.
Karl Marx 1850
YES!!!
That is fucking beautiful. And it’s incredible to see that what was true in 1850 is still just as true today. Thank you for that! Love it.
I’m gonna have to start using parts of that quote in some of my replies to the Lemmy bullies and people who are spreading discontent under the guise of just helping out their party, but who are really just protecting their capitalistic advantages under a corrupt duopoly.
Many on Lemmy seem to not don’t want change or are they are afraid to speak up for it. Because of Republican AND Democrat bullies.
W E B DeBois in 1956
They use the same tactics for decades and liberals fall for them every single time
Wow, that’s a fantastic read! I might have to borrow some of those words to fuel my fight against the capitalist barrage I face daily on here, just because I refuse to support the duopoly that so many are clinging to.
I’m pretty sure Marx lived in a country with a parliamentary system. Not a two-party, first past the post system.
If you don’t understand what the difference is with regards to election outcomes, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s absurd to pretend that the situation he’s referring to is anything close to what’s happening now.
It’s true that Marx lived in a different political system, but the soul of his critique goes beyond the specifics of electoral structures.
Marx’s analysis of class struggle and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few is pretty much as relevant today as it was back then, regardless of whether we’re talking about a parliamentary system or a two-party, first-past-the-post system.
Exploitation of the working class and the manipulation of political systems to serve the interests of the ruling class is still very very much present in our current system.
To dismiss Marx’s ideas because the electoral mechanics are different misses the bigger point.
No matter the system, those in power will often rig it to maintain their dominance and suppress genuine alternatives that threaten the status quo.
I’m not dismissing his ideas, I’m just saying that it’s not a 1:1 comparison