Boycott Les Elections / Boycott The Elections 2011: Vote With Your Feet

In the same breath as boycott the elections, is a call for organizing armed struggle in the mold of the 1970s, so those who actually go this route better be prepared for drastic measures, otherwise they are just shamelessly posturing to the point of furthering the interests of right-wing hegemonic forces.

Either way, it's actually a pretty insidious strategy of ultra-leftism serving the interests of the bourgeois state (if not actually being agent provocateurs). 

Boycotting the election means the Cons get more seats because they're highly motivated. The only folks that boycott elections are those who normally vote for progressive or centre parties.

Get out there and vote!

Hi Winston.  Did you know that in one election during the Chretien years, Pete G. (perennially voted Saskytown's top activist) and I participated in the edible ballot campaign?  Our reasons were anarchistic.   He read out a manifesto while chomping down his ballot.  My story had its own drama.

I wrote about it on babble, so the description must be hidden away in the archives somewhere.

I'll say it simply; VOTE!

I missed have missed the part of Canadian history class where the teacher explained how Tommy Douglas and the CCF seized power in Saskatchewan through armed insurrection and 'direct action', followed by the imposition of Medicare on the bourgeois capitalists by a revolutionary anarcho-socialist vanguard.

Thanks for my morning chuckle, WZ! Loved that one.

And let me add:

If issuing bombastic pronouncements could change anything, they'd make that illegal too!

What If They Called An Election And Nobody Cared?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...

"...If you were from 35 to 44, just over half of you bothered to vote. Among the 25 to 34 group, fewer than half could be bothered. And for the 18 to 24 year olds, barely more than a third thought it worth the effort..."

@ Catchfire

Except with all respect, I believe she's mistaken. 

And making voting mandatory does not take away anyone's option of casting a blank ballot. I don't see any problem there

People are pissed because they vote in the same two parties but this time things are changing.

Vancouver: Anarchist Agitation In the Leadup To Mayday And the Federal Election

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2011041221173

"Do any of these parties have a need or interest to get rid of the capitalist system and hence get rid of the problem? Hell no! Voting day is yet another symbolic day where people who lust for power, play on your fears and hopes.."

To Noam Chomsky On Boycotting Elections

http://libcom.org/blog/noam-chomsky-boycotting-elections-14062010

"...We call on all people to boycott elections not so much because of our criticism of the individual candidates but because of the false promises of electoral democracy...Our dreams can never fit in their ballot box. We will not hand over our power willingly and will fight with our last breath to take it back.

We call for a more conscious, popular resistance to the electoral process and the representative bodies which make up the state in general. People intuitively know that these bodies do not really represent their best interests, yet many see no active, viable alternative. We call on people to get active and create organizations which will be the foundation of a truly popular movement which can undermine the state.."

Boycott people who call for boycotts of elections!

Tyranny Of One, Tyranny Of All - Voting  -  by Darrell Anderson

http://www.simpleliberty.org/tootoa/voting.htm

"Although physically I am a prisoner of the political system, at least I can declare the bondage is not self-induced.."

Thanks for a lesson in Voter supression. You must be a Liberal scared of the NDP vote, tough we are voting and there is nothing you can say or do that will change that so better go start knocking on doors because it is the only way to win.

George Carlin Doesn't Vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

Do you think that falling voter turnout has hampered, or reinforced, the push for electoral reform?

Would there have been four referenda on proportional representation in the last six years if voter turnout was consistently in the 75-80% range?

One person's slacktivist is another person's voter.

Anyone familiar with the concept of the "useful idiots"? Because this is it. Right-wingers don't give a damn about what the people making those campaigns are saying, so the only ones who might not vote because of that campaign would be the left-wingers. Of course, if the left-wingers don't vote, policies will remain right-wing, because the only elected officials will be right-wingers, and they'll be quite happy to get 70-80% of the vote even if the turnout is only 30-40%.

The only ones who have to win anything from a boycott movement as a protest aginst right-wing policies are the right-wingers themselves.

As to the idea that voting never changes anything... That is just an absurd statement. Yes, it doesn't solve all problems, but one just has to look at how society was in the 30s and how it is now to realize that this is a crock of shit. The middle class exists because governments that supported at least to some extent policies to help the middle class and the works defend their interests against the interests of the richest. This greater receptivity to these policies came as more and more people got the right to vote and did so.

The question has to be asked too: if elections are useless and will never change anything... what will? What is your alternative? Revolution? Because you think it's likelier for everyone to rise up in the streets for a common shared vision of an utopia than for a left-wing government to be elected? Absurd, just absurd.

No one would argue that bourgeois parliamentary democracy is the be all and end all of political activism. But what's the point of boycotting, when your act is indistinguishable from the background noise of absenteeism? It is a self-defeating proposition, especially when the system itself will go on as usual, without even a dent in its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the hegemonic forces will increase their stranglehold on the discourse, leaving you with even less room to manoeuvre. In fact, you'll end up with your back further up against the wall.

The whole attitude is not just noxious, but reactionary, especially when anarchists and ultra-left types actually benefit from the social systems that were developed by what they would call bourgeois political parties. Indeed, the attitude of many of the ultra-left becomes indistinguishable from the tea party who also cling to absolutes and want to see the annihilation of the state. They need to realize that whatever their level of cynicism or disgust, they also as members of a society have an obligation to others -- in this case, not to let the very worst ruin even more lives and hard one gains of the people.

Does it lead to legitimization of the political process? Maybe, but not necessarily. You must fight on all fronts. But this particular strategy of Jim Crowing yourself is perhaps the worst.

Yeah, I can respect spoiling your ballot if you're just disgusted by your options but just boycotting is indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.  It's pretty obvious that lower voter turnout hasn't resulted in a crisis of legitimacy-just increasingly reactionary governments and a public discourse that ignores demographics who vote in disproportionate numbers.  Obviously, as has been stated above, electoral politics isn't going to radically change things but combined with other forms of activism, it can be relevant.

Of course they'll never outlaw bombastic pronouncements. That's the best way the have of letting people convince each other that they are actually accomplishing something.

And spoiling one's ballot is indistinguishable from a voter error. But unlike voter abstention, nobody gives it a second thought.

Fredom 55, it doesn't get a second thought because there's nowhere near the same numbers.  There'd be a lot bigger crisis of legitimacy for our democracy right now if 50% of Canadians spoiled their ballots.  Good luck explaining that as voter error.  Of course that would require time consuming things like you know organizing.  People don't vote for lots of reasons and 'delegitimizing the government' is hardly the prevailing one.  That would take actual organization.

Light voter turnout does not delegitamize politics. Many municipal elections have turnout below 25% and there has been no call for political change because of it.

In the US voter turnout is also very low and there's been no political outrage as the Rpublicans laugh all the way to the bank.

How many Canadians even know what the voter turnout rates are?

Here's an original Maoist understanding of the boycott strategy: "the slogans 'boycott elections' and 'establish rural bases and create areas of armed struggle,' "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1968/12/x01.html

It's all kinds of messed up given the extreme violence of the GPCR and the Maoist factions that emerged afterwards. Plus without organization, you'd instead see the sprouting up of extreme right militias instead of lefty hipsters who'd be massacred in an instant.

An organized "ballot spoil" would be met with scepticism and general amusement.

Rick Mercer would have a field day.

Mercer is a pro-war Liberal, I'd expect him to mock anything that wasn't status-quo.

The fact is people don't feel like they're being given much of a decision to be taken away.  I'm going to vote but I'm under no illusion about it's worth.  I get the point of strategic voting, for all the complaining about it on here, it's a reality for most voters and that includes people who vote NDP.  I just think that those organizing an election boycott would be better off organizing something which showed their actual strength like a ballot spoil.  Low voter turnout occurs for all kinds of reasons (one of the primary ones being that our electoral system is a farce)and I agree with you that it hasn't undermined the system.  I think that's partly due to the fact it has no form of organization.

To be clear, I was refering to electoral decisions.

I am aware that the workings of government involve a fair bit of compromise (until I get to be in charge and make all the decisions, that is).

I assume this is your response to my questions in posts #11 and #41.

So if I understand you correctly... you're saying that because some people have called for a boycott of the current election; and because historically, some Maoists called for both the boycotting of elections, as well as armed struggle; therefore, those who are calling for a boycott of the current election are also calling for armed struggle.

If so, your smear of this campaign is based on a logical fallacy.

It seems those on the left pay a lot more attention than those on the right to suffrage rates-- it is all about interests.

If everyone on the left did not vote and there was a 308 seat majority for the conservatives the only people bemoaning the non-voting left would the left sticking pencils in their eyeballs. The Cons will laugh for a moment and move on.

When you go and protest -- ask who cares then decide if it is worth it.

If everyone on the left just lit themselves on fire the Cons would buy marshmallows.

Who elected you hall monitor?

Who elected you adjudicator?

Mmmmm.... no. I think I prefer the strawberry jello. Why don't you tell me about the sterling record of social justice in places where there is no vote. I think I have already pointed out a few benefits that have been gained by voting, and a few things that are on the line depending on the outcome of this election. 

Remind is absolutely right. How about I answer you over in the other thread. Doing this in stereo is even more annoying than in one channel.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I think that a low voter turnout can serve a useful purpose as a rhetorical device against the legitimacy of those who hold public office, but it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all. What makes it useful is the fact that 41.2% is a fairly significant number - well in excess of those who actually voted for the Conservatives in the last election. It doesn't really matter that we don't know why all of these people stayed away from the polls. All that matters is that despite having the opportunity, so many people declined to give anyone a mandate to make decisions on their behalf. True, an organized campaign to get people to spoil their ballots would arguably give a clearer picture of how many people actively reject all parties/candidates. But in my opinion, it would also require more time and resources than it would be worth. As I said, I think these numbers do serve a purpose, but they're not so important as to warrant the allocation of the amounts of time and resources that would be required to mount even a moderately successful campaign. I also disagree that such a campaign would increase the significance of the non-vote. It's unrealistic to expect that a campaign encouraging people to spoil their ballots would mobilize everyone who currently abstains from voting, no matter how much organizing went into it. As a result, it would only undercut its own usefulness by breaking-up the percentage of non-voters into smaller components.

Ex MPs Blame Parties For Hill Dysfunction  -  by Don Butler

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/blame+parties+Hill+dysfunctino/4631762...

"...According to 65 former parliamentarians the politics the public sees on the floor of the House of Commons, they said, 'did little to advance anything constructive.' Indeed the politicians claimed to be embarrassed by it. Political parties themselves are to blame.."

You're right. The article dosnt speak to voting at all.

Here is a response from a boycott supporter to that rotten imperialist Rick Mercer's drive to brainwash youth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5kIEdBm90o&feature=channel_video_title

LOL @ the people who think we got healthcare because of voting, or that even if we did, it has any bearing on the left and electoral politics today in a radically different situation, the situation of no voice for the left in bourgeois elections, even the fake left Blairite NDP party can't offer anything more left wing that laws around ATM fees We are learning now that the left needs to totally break with the bourgeois state or we will be systematically co opted or neutered as we have for the last many decades.

I wish it were a little more civil on one side. I haven't yet seen anyone supporting the boycott condemn an individual for voting as that's not the point of the campaign. On the other hand, I have seen boycott supporters attacked right off the bat with some of the following: go to north korea, you work for the conservatives, you hate women and the queer community, you are actively hurting oppressed groups (and such is the price for breaking with the line of the pro-imperialist "left" in an imperialist country, obviously). 

Of course, many people have made sincere arguments against the campaign. But it does point to something strong, a childlike naivite of the Canadian left towards the state, to see that putting forward the claim and arguing that voting and not boycotting the state at this point in time is objectively very harmful in the fight against imperialism and the world revolution results firstly in a stream of ridiculous attacks from the "official" left, made up of nationalists and "socialists" of claims that boycotters are bigots, ignorant, and doing great damage to 'their own' left project, NGO, bourgeois party in Canada. And it's not ultra-left, either, get a new buzzword to replace real arguments. 

One huge glaring weakness in the argument not to vote:

The greatest argument being made not to vote is that a lower voting rate suggests that the result of the election is not as legitimate.

The problem of course with that is the people who get to hold power don't give a damn about legitimacy. The only people who talk about legitimacy are the ones being asked to give up their ballot to make a point only they will even care about.

Here we are in an election with a lot on the line-- there are historical opportunities for a reactionary government who has gone further than any other in attacking our democracy actually getting re-elected. That fact would send a message louder than any other that we as a people with an opportunity to punish a government that has treated democracy more disdainfully than any other, will accept its re-election.

We are also facing an opportunity to elect a government that might be imperfect but at least it tries to speak to and for the Canadian public rather than corporate interests. We will send a strong message in rejecting that opportunity if we do not vote.

If we do vote and vote NDP we will send a message that we are searching for a political representation of a people's agenda. Then we can loudly criticize any failure in the delivery of that agenda. We would send a message that what the politicians do does matter to us and we will throw the bums out. Or at least that we can make them afraid.

The facts are we have an imperfect political system -- but it is still more responsive than many. We have the ability through peaceful means to change a government. We have the opportunity to remind them that we can and will do so.

Where is the answer to the facts that:

-- we do have votes and can use them and if we choose not to -- who is responsible for that other than ourselves?

-- those who hold power do not question their legitimacy when we have the ability to remove them and don't?

-- people's lives can change as a result of this election. Some could face the results of cutbacks and Conservative priorities, some will have inhumane mandatory sentencing, some will have their basic human rights threatened, more inaction on climate change, some will be taxed harder to help the rich pay less, some will find it harder to get needed health services. If we choose to turn the decision that can change their lives, even a little for the better or worse, into a protest, putting up with a government elected by those who vote, do we have nothing to say to them?

-- how can the people ask for more power and control over their lives when they don't use the few levers they have and pull on them as hard as they can?

-- If we all go out and vote and the result is not proportionate to what we voted because of a voting system isn't that more illegitimate than if we send the message we don't care?

If you want to make a point about illegitimacy go out and vote let your votes be counted and then go our and protest the result if it is not reflective of the ballots cast.

I agree not voting does raise the issue of illegitimacy but not that of the government it raises the illegitimacy of the opposition to the government which is why if you are opposed to Harper and you do not go and vote then you are doing what he wants-- what will help him and what will help the aristocracy, the ruling class of this country hold on to power. They won't care how many choose to vote so long as they win an election when people could have voted because their simple answer will be -- they had an option and they did not want to use it. There is no message louder than that possible out of a vote boycott.

I am saddened by the amount of energy going in to trying to get people not to vote with two threads at a time devoted to it. And we have already done this-- people voted in low numbers in the last election. A few progressives bemoaned it after the vote but tell me, seriously, where did the Cons ever say they had less legitimacy? That they cared? That they would govern differently because they knew that 47% of Canadians stayed home. What makes you think they will care if 97% stay home? We will care but we will still have only ourselves to blame not the government. People can remove this government if they want to.

How many will have to stay home for you to win your case? Almost half did in the last election. Did the Cons care? Did they govern with a lighter grip becuase people stayed home?

Please consider my post above yours.

When we stay home which power is made illigitimate theirs or ours?

No the Cons did not care, nor govern with a thought to those who stayed home. They laughed all the way to  what? A 55 billion dollar deficit.

The answer is of course that people who stay home legtimate the Conservatives.

Sean argues as if the NDP - so different from the Cons - would step down from an election with 40% voter turnout. He knows as well as any of us that they would not. So if he wants to argue, then, that parties in power don't care about legitimacy and low voter turnout then he is basically conceding that they never cared about voters or votes in the first place. But the truth is that Parliment does care about voter turnout because the legitimacy of their jobs hinges on it. Talk to someone in government about it.

No one knows what the threshold required for structural change will be.

I personally could care less about HAarper or if he forms a majority government. We've had 'Harper' stye governance since the 80s. To focus on the actions of one person and the personality is to be mesmerized by political theatre. To vote to replace Harper with someone else is to play right into their hands.

Uhh first of all no one is talking about a spoiled ballot campaign. The campaign of "Boycott the Elections," based on the participation of communists, anarchists and working people several cities in Canada does say things but it doesn't say a "spoiled ballot campaign" will accomplish anything. Please familiarize yourself with the material and then make an informed statement like a good voting citizen :)

You seem to think that people are arguing that an individual choosing to vote effects a harm to "social justice" which seems very mechanical, like there is a ratio between the two, like `lower turnout, better social justice work` which is definitely not a claim anyone made.

Rather the campaign claims that as a movement participating in the elections and supporting the yellow parties (Obviously this is not directed to the most stalwart social democrats, the genuinely corrupted one, who might genuinely think their party`s "vision" is anything more than left cover for bourgeois rule (in the name of `social justice`) has left us with nothing after so many decades, where objectively society has been heading in the same direction for 30 years, no matter which party (`socialist`-`conservative` spectrum) around the world is in power, and we remain totally trapped by bourgeois legality and bourgeois narrative. We have been unable to really organize independently where the power, mind, and heart of our movement is, the proletarian masses. And those who don`t vote already (that group of millions, maybe you haven`t met them...) don`t want to be told to vote for this clown with an orange background because he genuinely ``believes`` in what`s right. This is the problem of the left in the imperialist countries, and Canada is particularly bad in some respects.

By this logic, Parliament has been gaining democratic legitimacy since the late eighties and the current Conservatives are the most legitimate government in Canadian history. It's always best to think things through before you make an argument.

@ anondrogys #86

haha well I'm sorry. You'll have to excuse me for confusing you and the fellow on the right over the issue of going down to the polling station to do nothing. I suppose I should ask iwhere you stand on the issue of eating ballots (though I have to say the edible ballot people have you both beat hands down in the sense of humour department).

Tobold: 

as I said to atlanticaparty, You are far more high-minded than me. I'll settle for saving the safe injection site, the gun registry, the wheat board, status of women's funding, perhaps a return of something like the Kelowna accord, and a few of the other things I have mentioned a few times already.

Also, I can't prove it, but I would wager that Manitoba Hydro is still a crown corporation because we booted the Filmon Tory govenrment out when we did. 

Just a few examples. WHich is at least one more result than anyone has been able to come up with for not voting. 

WOuld it be heretical to call it the leftist version of creationism? It is starting to feel that way to me.

@ anondrogys #87

Really? More than Pinochet? Franco? Peron?  Stalin? Pol Pot? Hitler (who never actually won a plurality, but arrested his opponents to gain power, and then just got rid of all the other political parties).

I don't think so, and think your claim is just as absurd. Murder, exploitation and other abuses have been committed by countries across the political spectrum. 

yeah, yeah, I know.... don't confuse the ideas by bringing up facts.

Although I wonder why a leader like hitler would bother to get rid of democratic elections at all, seeing as it is the perfect system for creating misery and destruction around the globe.

After all even our ``friendly`` MP Paul Dewar just invaded Libya and nobody ``anti-war`` who is supporting them right now is willing to talk about it publicly. 

NDPP....

Facts? Yeah, I keep asking for a few facts  to back up the claim that spoiling a ballot, eating it, turning it into origami or not bothering to go get it at all will actually do anything. 

I think I have ante'd up enough clear and simple reasons why I intend to vote. It's not that it's any of my business if you personally don't vote. My only problem is with prosletyzing the idea that it solves or does anything. As I said, it is kind of like some of the other systems that people believe in with no evidence whatsoever.

I guess the next question is whose saviour is going to come first..... Jesus or the international peoples' revolution.

(edit)

And go back and check what I said about Hitler's takeover. His party did not win control of the house by democratic means. He never got more than 37 percent of the vote in a democratic election. What he did was create chaos and an unworkable situation in the Reichstag to force his appointment as Kanzler, giving him the power to arrest his political opponents and outlaw other parties.

But not before the SDP betrayed Rosa Luxemburg and other socialists in their frenzied attempt to secure power.

I think it is the voting system that people believe in with no evidence whatsoever that it solves or does anything. Like I said, been there done that. And quite a few times for the NDP too. And a few times they even won. That's when I found out ndp means no difference party. I think these 'representatives' represent only themselves. Certainly not me. As such I'm having none of them and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. I think the material posted is quite straightforward and logical and offers an alternative position that many may find a good deal more inspiring than assenting to these highly paid hustlers and liars selling me out yet again on virtually every issue that means anything to me or anyone else I know.

Like I said it's like a bad gambler with a 'system' who just needs one more race and the more he loses the more convinced he is that his horse is sure to come in this time...

it's a rigged, dirty game Smith. They win we lose. Everytime. I think it's high time to declare it as such, shut it down, take it over and organize something better. 'voting with your feet' this election is as good a place to start as any. There seems to be others who feel similarly so we'll take it from there.

So what's the alternative?

Without supplying a viable alternative, people will stick with the only viable choice available and the movement against voting will remain pointless.

Until we bring back the good old days of sabotage and wildcat strikes when things really got accomplished, eh, Tobold?

Without a "blueprint" people will never support your cause.

The best way to get people to support a working class "blueprint" would be to:

- establish a popular working class blueprint,

- form a party or have a party integrate the working class blueprint into their program

and

- go to the people and convince them that the working class blueprint is in their interest.

But many on the far-left now seem to believe that the people will never support their ideas, so they want to attack people's ability to choose for themselves through their right to vote.

People on the far-left who are against voting should be honest and admit that they think voting is illegitimate because it exposes the fact that the vast majority of people disagree with them.

They are against letting people decide for themselves what they want via their votes because they think their long electoral losing streak will never end.

They're sick of the people telling them that they disagree with them so they want the people to STFU.

Well you do claim a direct relationship between wildcat strikes and sabotage with the reforms which were forged in the last century (to the exclusion of all else, I would have to guess, since you don't seem to think voting had anything to do with it). 

And you also mention the decline of those tactics at the same time as you think our reforms started to decline. Not accusing you personally of promoting sabotage. It just seems odd that you link the rise and fall of our entire political system to those two things.

Aside from the fact I think your analysis is nonsense (as I said before) it begs the question what you think might actually bring about this mythical change you think might replace my right to vote.

(edit)

And sorry anondrogys, it's in the other thread where we are discussing exactly the same thing.

Organizing, strikes, and sabotage represent, among many other practices, the activities that scared the wealthy into instructing governments to grant the right to bargain collectively. 

Who said anything about replacing your right to vote?

Then why not help start up an other team that agrees with your viewpoints?

Because the game is rigged, not the teams, and teams don't have a choice in the rules of the game.

Not to mention, even if a totally `left` party won a majority in government, if would be able to do very little. The objective factors in the world have caused all the governments of all the imperialist countries, left and right, to all follow relatively the same policies of immiseration and unconditional support for private property.

There's another thread started as we usually close these off because the dial-up folks have to wait forever for the page to load after it goes much past 100 posts. Please feel free to adjourn to 2

Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.

 "Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes

and again here:

"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree

And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.

...

Your posts are littered with the theme that the federal NDP is just another neoliberal party in sheep's clothing. Your proposition says something along the lines that because there have only ever been two established lying-liar parties running the country, then the NDP must be the same. And that's called a fallacious argument. Youre basically saying that because the two lyingest-liar parties have poisoned the well of democracy in this country, we therefore can not trust any other political party based on the crooked and corrupted records of the only two parties that have governed federally since 1867.

And this is falsifiable on a number of levels. The NDP's voting record against the neoliberal agenda in Ottawa is a good place to start. The two oldest political parties have long and established ties to Bay Street money and influence whereas the NDP has never. Your knee-jerk reaction to the one party that actually opposed the Harper stoogeaucracy more times than any other party in Ottawa over the last five years is more conspiracy theory than anything. 

...

oh yes, Vladimir Lenin: by acclamation, Cretin-of-the-century award-winner

although give the embalmed-one credit, he could organize a secret police force in record time

I agree with Lenin. It's a very good chapter entitled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?

But not nearly as fast as the capitalist democracies embraced Himmler's intel agents in the SS years before the end of western aggression against the revolution part two was finished by 1945. Some of them are still slithering around North and South America, and some still there in Merkel's BND. The OSS-CIA and western militaries had some help from the best when writing manuals for secret police and stay behind tactics , torture and false flag terrorism apparently. And they were the scum of the earth.