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.
Karl Marx Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League London, March 1850
I think this is missing some nuance. While Marx accurately notes that liberals will talk about the imminent threat of fascism to gain public support and push the Overton window ever so slightly to the right in the name of bipartisanship, voting strategically to keep the right from taking reins is unfortunately the only viable option until such a time that grass-root campaigns can be used to change the political makeup at the municipal, district, and state levels first. It takes time to raise awareness, get the working class politically engaged, and build political momentum. Not voting for the lesser evil in a two party system, until such a time that you have built up ideological support with the masses, is a very privileged position to take because it assumes that the damage done by doing so won’t affect you that much.
So support fascists to prevent fascism?
Do you really think that liberals are fascists? I’m curious to know why you think so. Blatant corporatists and complicit in keeping the war machine running? Sure. But I don’t see how you can call them fascists. That’s a very broad brush you’re painting with.
Fascism cannot flourish without the presence of a ineffective, weak liberal party. The Democrat ratchet effect that prevents right wing legislation from ever slipping back to something more progressive enables right wing fascism. An enabler is just as complicit in the action as the person committing the action.
That’s a very myopic view of the whole thing. In a two-party system, first past the post system, not voting for the party for which you would have otherwise voted is virtually the same as voting for the other party. A two party system is a zero sum game and unfortunately for us, it’s the system we have.
And I agree; the onus is on us to strengthen it. We need to change it – which is why wee need build awareness and start changing things from the ground up. Even revolutions cannot be sustained if the working class is not politically engaged. Forcing the democratic party to run more working-class, progressive candidates at the local and state levels is one of the most effective ways to do it. At the same time, we must not forget that we’re stuck in a zero some game, lest we undo the progress we have made.
There is no changing or reforming from within, the system is working exactly as intended. The wealthy will never allow us to vote away their wealth. We have no political influence within the party itself, only money has that influence. When 1 billionaire has more political influence than an entire state of voters, there is no reforming that system. The only possibility for change is to let one of the parties completely burn to the ground…
Of the 7800 State Legislators across the US, only 116 come from the working class. We cannot afford the multi millions of dollars necessary to run a campaign, we are priced out of our own democracy.
It has to start at the municipal level. You cannot change the outlook of an entire nation without changing its sociopolitical fabric. “Starting all over again” is a very privileged take because it ignores the true cost of a violent revolution. Revolutions are bloody, full of death and despair, and they come with a lot of human lives as collateral damage. We can wield a lot of political influence if we collectively start showing up to vote. We have before and can again reform the system. Yes, there will be a lot of pushback, but that is your chance to show the world why you think reform is needed. Burning something down is no solution because until you build awareness among the voting population, their rights will slowly keep eroding away from them. And I’d argue that if you can accomplish that, you wouldn’t need to burn anything down anyway.