Abstentionism vs electoralism

[jondwhite]

Following the discussion elsewhere, what is the party distinction between abstentionism, electoralism and the party approach

[twc]

The distinction should be clear to socialists.For example, the WSP of Australia always took the occasion to register a vote for World Socialism, to which all capitalist issues are subservient, and find their resolution.In the absence of (1) a world socialist candidate or (2) a referendum/plebicite on world socialism, write           WORLD SOCIALISM across your ballot paper.    “If you ain’t going to vote for it,     You ain’t going to fight for it,     It ain’t going to happen.”

[ALB]

What about this motion, down for discussion at this year's Conference:

Quote:

This Conference instructs the EC to ensure that all Party candidates for public office shall stand on the basis that, if elected, they shall refuse to take office and shall repudiate any associated salary or other benefits.

Another option, but a bit of a departure from the position the Socialist Party has held since its foundation — as if would be to renounce bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so. 

[Young Master Smeet]

The DOP doesn't commit us to electoralism: it commits us to political action, and transforming the machinery of state, including the armed forces into THE agent of emancipation (once had long discussions with a member who went off to be an infamous anrachist on that very definite article).

[twc]

If “public office” means “member of parliament”—since that’s what candidates stand for—then refusal to accept “public office” upon winning it is tantamount to denying the platform the candidate for “public office” stood on.To refuse “public office” won solely for World Socialism is the most overt and effective way of denying World Socialism.  [By comparison, mere salaries and benefits are inconsequential.]More importantly…Refusal to take “public office” abnegates our Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:

Declaration of Principles wrote:

8.  The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore,enters the field of political actiondetermined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist,and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system …

Refusal to take “public office” is the surest way ofvacating the World Socialist “field of political action”repudiating the World Socialist “war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”silencing the World Socialist “call to the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…consigning the will of World Socialist voters to impotence,converting trust to disillusion,turning political power into a political death wish.The proposed motion is tantamount to a World Socialist political suicide note!***By contrast…A World Socialist Party candidate, clearly and unequivocally,stands solely for World Socialism.advocates voting solely for World Socialism.repudiates voting for the candidate.A World Socialist Party candidate then achieves “public office”, only, as part of a growing popular movement towards World Socialism.A World Socialist Party candidate, so voted into “public office”, is—clearly and unequivocally—a representative solely of World Socialism.***A World Socialist Party representative of World Socialism therefore accepts “public office” in order to promulgate World Socialist Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:to enter the “field of political action”to “wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”to “call on the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…Unlike the death-wish of the proposed motion, Clause 8 is an affirmation of World Socialism.

[twc]

ALB wrote:

bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so.

This is universally impossible under capitalism, where all “benefit for workers” is deterministically subservient to capitalist return on investment, i.e. to capital, which is necessarily of “benefit to capitalists”.The only lasting escape from our inexorable grinding by capitalist return on investment, i.e. by capital, is World Socialism.

[ALB]

That's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits than can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war. If world socialists elected to office, locally or nationally, are going to abstain on such issues, what's the difference between that and the "Sinn Fein" tactic of not taking their seat?

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

shall repudiate any associated salary or other benefits.

Let us look at experience of a minority party in the devolved Scottish parliament.The elected SSP members took what they called the average living wage and then donated the substantial left-over to the SSP coffers. Wouldn't the party lose out a potential financial gain.The elected SSP members were entitled to public money for the full-time employment of assistants/researchers (other SSP members) who could use the extensive resources and gain access for the SSP member to government archives and library. Wouldn't the party lose out on the benefits of strengthening our case for socialism through the use of party access to the civil service and State organisations in providing facts and figures.The elected SSP can ask and demand answers  from the government. Would our propaganda  not benefit from the nature of those questions and replies of the government ministers?I am sure i will have missed out other advantages of being an elected official, such as promotion of the socialist case  via the press, although that could be disputed, i suppose. I think the policy of the SPC member who was elected to one of the local parliaments in Canada is the one we should follow.

Quote:

When I voted on the last division I did so because I saw an opportunity to benefit a few of my class, the laborers in the construction camp. There is no opportunity to get anything for the workers on this vote, and I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get something for my class, I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get anything for my class, I shall leave the House and refrain from voting.

If there is an opportunity to benefit fellow-workers, i'm not so sure they would appreciate us spurning it.But then there is an issue on what we would do for all the indivual and personal grievances and petitions an MP receives from his or her constituents? 

[alanjjohnstone]

Just another thing that has struck me…with the increase use of the electronic voting machines across the world, can someone explain how the protest spoiled ballot paper can be exercised by ourselves?I think different countries have different approaches. In some states of the USA a written ballot paper can be demanded.  There can be  no spoiled ballots because the computer will not permit it. However, if the legal structure in a jurisdiction requires the option to spoil a ballot or allows for protest votes, a button can be added in some programs to give electors the option to cast a protest vote (or decline to vote). – a situation where we can as ALB suggested, have a reform that is of benefit to our party directlyThis article might be of use, nb Italy makes a spoiled paper a crime.http://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings205/273.pdf

[alanjjohnstone]

Yet another issue came to mind. Our party rule as a general guideline is okay but is it sufficient?

Quote:

ELECTORAL ACTION – National and Local27. Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally, and by the Executive Committee nationally.

It may have a moral strength but legally i don't believe it has any standing. Once elected, any MP can renounce any pledge and there is little the Party can do except expel him or her from the Party. I did read once from someone (ALB?) we could have every elected MP pre-sign an undated application of the Chiltern 1oos and if he became a maverick, the party would only need to fill in the date. How effective this would be i have no idea and i also don't know how this problem could be handled in other countries. Protection of an MP independence is sacrosanct in our Parliament and there exist laws concerning outside pressure applied to him or her. We may well face contempt of parliament charges by enforcing our control of an MP.Another issue is that it would mean the EC/branches having to re-organise themselves dramatically so that it could over-see and instruct their councillors/MPs. Decisions made by our elected delegate will come fast and furious at times, not permitting full debate and discussion at branch level and i am sure some of our delegates actions will be mistaken misjudgements in conflict with the branch position, perhaps.Maybe each branch will be required to have a political sub-committee operating daily so how will those vounteers be recompensed for lost wages and their time and expenses and even so, how can the general membership of the branch participate fully.

[twc]

ALB wrote:

There are a number of benefits that can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war.

Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”.  At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.So long as private return on investment, i.e. capital, remains the pre-condition of all social life, permanent “benefits for workers” remain an impossible fantasy.  Otherwise, why Socialism?The pre-condition for permanent “benefits to workers” is abolition of private ownership of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which private return on investment, i.e. capital, rests.That pre-condition is common ownership and democratic control of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which rests World Socialism.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”.  At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.

I can go along with that, but not with not voting in favour of some of these temporarily lessened detriments if put before a local council or national parliament. By others of course. Socialist MPs wouldn't propose anything, nor seek election on the basis of obtaining a few temporarily lessened benefits.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Following the discussion elsewhere, what is the party distinction between abstentionism, electoralism and the party approach

This is how wikipedia defines "abstentionism":

Quote:

Abstentionism is standing for election to a deliberative assembly while refusing to take up any seats won or otherwise participate in the assembly's business. Abstentionism differs from an election boycott in that abstentionists participate in the election itself.

I'm not sure this reflects actual current usage as the "election boycott", as practised by "left communists" and anarchists, is also called "abstentionism" even by them. The Conference motion is only advocating abstentionism in the first sense.In laying down that any elected councillor or MP should also not take their salary the motion is going beyond the "Sinn Fein" tactic in that the SF members of the Westminister Parliament do take money for offices, etc there. Which is sensible. As has been pointed out, that's what any elected Socialist should do: take the money and give it to the Party. I would have thought that this was obvious.Although this appears to be a question of abstract political theory speculating about what we should or should not do in the future (which is not up to us anyway) it does have a practical aspect. About how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question", e.g. are you in favour of a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue? The motion gets round this by effectively saying "that's not what we're about". But it would also give the impression that we are not concerned about more important questions that affect workers, such as twc's detriments that can be temporarily lessened.

[jondwhite]

If a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue is being proposed by one of the capitalist parties, it likely meansless money in the pot for other things,a way to seek general support from other parties to keep the capitalist party in chargeor part of a bargain for something else.Socialists might agree a cycle lane but wouldn't be agreeing a trade off for any of these things. This was the WB Upton Park issue where Henry Martin thought Socialists were some kind of monastic 'no compromise' ascetics forgetting the point is 'no political trading' too.

[ALB]

When asked, as a candidate, about cycles lanes, what I have replied is something like "nothing against it, but only vote Socialist if you want socialism, not merely more cycle lanes (or whatever)" (though, as a car driver, that's not really what I wanted to reply )

[Author]

Posts