Re: [Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Who's wasting their vote? | SocialistWorker.org

[Thomas via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Makes no difference.

For those who favor the Clinton model of mass murder, oppression, imperialism, 
exploitation and endless capitalism, as distinct from the Trump model of mass 
murder, oppression, imperialism, exploitation and endless capitalism, those 
opposed to Clinton are one undifferentiated lump.  

T


-Original Message-
>From: Greg McDonald via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>
>Sent: Sep 15, 2016 3:34 AM
>To: Thomas F Barton <thomasfbar...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Who's wasting their vote? |  
>SocialistWorker.org
>

>
>Not the SWP. Try ISO.
>
>> 
>>
>> Just to take one tiny example from the SWP to show how when you start to
>> deviate from Marxism you end up throwing the method out with it:
>>
>>
>_
>Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
>Set your options at: 
>http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/thomasfbarton%40earthlink.net
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Who's wasting their vote? | SocialistWorker.org

[Greg McDonald via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Not the SWP. Try ISO.

> 
>
> Just to take one tiny example from the SWP to show how when you start to
> deviate from Marxism you end up throwing the method out with it:
>
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Who's wasting their vote? | SocialistWorker.org

[Clay Claiborne via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Just to take one tiny example from the SWP to show how when you start to
deviate from Marxism you end up throwing the method out with it:

The most compelling portion of the essay is Weese's analysis of what
> constitutes a "wasted vote." According to Weese, the definitions of a
> wasted vote, mathematically speaking, are: 1) Votes cast for candidates who
> do not win; and 2) Excess votes for candidates who do win.


So if a ton of ore has to be mined to find a single diamond, mining the ton
of ore minus a few carets is wasted labor. Worst yet, if the Syrian
revolution loses all the thuwar will have wasted their lives and if they
win those who died after victory was assured ...

And rewrite the Marxist theory of value to take the social out of it so
that labor that goes to crops that fail can be called wasted labor and only
the labor that goes towards crops that are ultimately harvested can be
considered productive labor.

This makes for fun after-the-fact condemnation of failed efforts but it is
of little guidance to the farmer who knows beforehand that a certain
percentage of his crops will fail but not which or how many.

Or to break it down even further, the farmer may know that only 50% of the
planted seeds will germinate, but he doesn't know which ones, so he plants
100 seeds to produce 50 seedling. If he uses "Weese's analysis" he should
consider the time to plant 50 of the seeds a waste of time and plantings of
50 seeds time well spent. Fortunately, he doesn't apply "Weese's analysis,"
so he correctly takes the entire time involved in planting 100 seeds as the
necessary labor to raise 50 seedlings. This, of course assumes that he
plants all of those seeds in such a way that they have an even chance of
spouting. If, on the other hand, he were to plant those 50 seeds in dry
salty beach sand with no water source but the ocean, well that would be
like casting a vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning, it
would be a complete waste of time and seeds.

Weese is wrong - if the point of the election is to chose a new POTUS and
there are two possible outcomes then every vote for one of those possible
outcomes is a vote that effects the outcome. Votes that aren't cast for one
of the contenders, like votes that aren't cast at all, are votes that play
no role in choosing the POTUS.

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust 
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach 


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

> https://socialistworker.org/2016/09/14/whos-wasting-their-vote
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] [UCE] Fwd: Who's wasting their vote? | SocialistWorker.org

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



https://socialistworker.org/2016/09/14/whos-wasting-their-vote
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com