“Look, if – we finally beat Medicare.”
-Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States of America
Any honest viewer of the US presidential debate was left with an uncomfortable feeling in the stomach and serious questions about the capability of either candidate to lead anything, let alone a country. Embarrassed Republicans have wrestled with this thought about Trump for years now, having watched the con-artist (and recently-convicted felon) loudly spout bile and lies for his entire political career, but the comparative quietness of the current president has allowed many Democrats to remain in the dark about Biden’s shortcomings. The current president tripped and fumbled over words, struggling to remember talking points and come up with something coherent to say in response to the delirious fantasies of the former president. Regardless of party affiliation, viewers were left pessimistically wondering how this state of affairs came to be, how they could be faced with such a dismal choice.
Not so for Marxists. We are well aware that the presidential candidates are simply mascots for two teams of representatives of American capital. Their job is not to lead the country, but to put on a satisfying show for the constituents while the owners, who tend to sponsor players of both teams, make the real decisions in the background. Their decaying sportsmanship is an expected reflection of the emptiness of their platforms against their need to keep constituents engaged with the democratic process.
To anyone still entranced to some degree by the democratic process, the above is controversial, but the notion that politicians are bought and sold is not. Even if bribes, kickbacks, and other shady deals are ignored, in order to claim a seat in governance, candidates have to appeal to private interests for campaign funds. With a seat in the House costing an average of $2 million, and a seat in the Senate costing an average of $15.7 million[1], only in exceptional cases could anyone hope to claim victory in an election (or even put their name on the ballot, for that matter) without kissing someone’s ring. Even after winning a seat, politicians will have to maintain friendly relations with their backers to be able to keep that seat in the next election.
Various solutions have been proposed for this issue – improved systems of voting, voter education programs, public funding for candidates, and mandatory airtime for candidates on television, to name a few. Each has particular flaws, but all suffer from the fact that approval by the representatives of the existing system is required for them to be implemented. Indeed, if any are actually passed by lawmakers, it will be because it does not threaten their interests in any way, either naturally because nothing really changes, or because of alterations and compromises made in the process of implementing it.
For Marxists, this is nothing new. You cannot vote the ruling class out of power through its own state organs – they exist to protect and reinforce its domination of society. The only way to change that is for the ruled to organize and seize the state forcibly from the rulers. Someone who has been convinced thus far, but still sees virtue in the democratic process will be wondering if a revolution that simply enforces a more equitable voting system is possible. In short, no. Only up to 2/3rds of eligible voters even bother to exercise the right, meaning this voter’s revolution already loses at least a third of the population. Heavily partisan voters are preoccupied with cheering for their “team,” so participation from them cannot be expected, leaving a narrow stretch of moderates, many of whom are moderates because they do not care which party is in power. However, let’s forget about this for a moment and ask, what would happen if it were successful? The new system of voting would go into place, there could be some temporary upsets and even a bit of progressive legislation, but because the economic basis of the old way was untouched, the rulers will simply find new ways to exert its influence on the new way.
Suppose the voters-revolutionaries took an extra step, confiscating the wealth of the rulers and redistributing it equally to all; surely this would have the desired effect, no? No. Just as those who want to change things within the state run up against the very nature of that state, the voters-revolutionaries run up against the nature of democracy. Democracy is only relevant because of antagonistic interests in society. There is no need to vote whether water should be potable or buildings structurally sound unless someone has an interest in compromising water or building quality for his own personal enrichment. So long as those antagonistic interests are not removed, primarily through systematic education to the point of universal scientific literacy, the periodic clashes of interest will ultimately return to the present state of things, with idiotic mascots causing the whole population to rest their faces in their palms.
How would Marxists do it better? In order to actually succeed in overthrowing the rulers, we will have to organize the exploited classes on the basis of a real program for the all-round improvement of their lives. This requires painstaking work in convincing the people, raising their consciousness, and winning their confidence in our ability to deliver a better future. This is not possible unless we dedicate ourselves to the study of Marxism and beyond, understanding all spheres of life. Right now, in this country, almost no one has even begun to take up this task, and until enough do, and enough succeed, we will be faced with stupid choices like this one.
-Richard Turner
[1]https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of-money-in-politics-the-price-of-victory-is-steep/