On the Primacy of Building Movements and the Limits of Electorialism

John Clarke

Past, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) organiser. Presently part of 230 fightback

Ontario Canada.

Oct.19 2026

 

On the Primacy of Building Movements and the Limits of Electorialism

 

I’m not posting this commentary to suggest that we should reject participation in electoral processes but I do want to offer some comments on a question that a lot of my Facebook friends friends don’t really grapple with enough.

 

Whenever an avowedly progressive figure runs for office, you can chart the course of a process of growing disappointment that begins with great hopes, goes over to a grim and dogged commitment to the ‘lesser evil’ and sometimes ends up with bitter perplexity at the backsliding and outright betrayal that ensued.

 

When left electoral candidates end up compromising and collaborating, the explanation is usually sought in personal or political flaws that led to this conduct. Certainly, there are no lack of left-talking careerists and opportunists and there are entrenched political tendencies that have turned betrayal into a routine performance. However, I want to stress a few basic considerations that speak more to the inherent limits of electoral strategies under capitalism and the constraints that are imposed on reform minded governments.

 

1. First of all, we should understand that state power is not reducible to the government that holds office. The most radical elected government has to implement its measures through a state administration that is devoted to the capitalist order. It’s more than a question of the class loyalties of generals, police chiefs, deputy ministers and central bankers, though that’s a formidable problem. The whole state structure has developed around serving the interests of the capitalists and preserving their system and it will do this despite the best efforts of those who got elected.

 

2. A government that is elected on a platform of major reforms nonetheless faces the practical task of making the economy work. Though it may wish to proceed with its progressive agenda, it relies on revenues that dry up if investors pull out and the capitalists work to undermine it. As a governing power, it seeks stability and that means preserving a system of profit-making based on exploitation. This sets in motion the familiar process of pragmatic adaptation and retreat we have become so familiar with.

 

3. From the second point emerges a sad reality. Once the reform government plays the role of preserving profitability, it faces the dashed expectations of its working-class base. In the face of angry demands to deliver on its promises, it starts to pass back-to-work legislation and order out the cops to contain social mobilization. The well-rehearsed script of demoralizing and demobilizing those forces that could push forward an agenda of positive change plays out yet again.

 

4. Any major improvements for the working-class in a capitalist society, especially at a time like this, require high levels of mobilization that generate a seriously altered balance of forces in society. By definition, such exceptional levels of energy are temporary and fragile. Bold and swift action is essential and vacillating incrementalism is the kiss of death in this regard. Legislative agendas and the class struggle are highly incompatible. Portions of George Novak’s ‘Understanding History’ deal with this question of momentum at decisive moments very well.

 

In what I’ve just set out, we can see that a reform legislative agenda starts to take directions that are inconsistent with the kind of struggles that can achieve major changes. This is all the more so since, in the crisis-ridden conditions of global capitalism that presently exist, major reforms point to the need for a different kind of society and the overthrow of this one. The agenda of a government committed to a gradual parliamentary process comes into conflict with the forms of struggle that are essential.

 

From this it flows that we have to subordinate electoral strategies to the primary task of building movements. To elect representatives of these movements would be very useful. To win control of even some municipal governments would be a positive development. However, the primacy of working-class struggle and the severe limitations of electoral approaches must be understood. 

 

We won’t be able to win major gains, let alone transform society if we place the emphasis on electing supposed agents of change. The overriding reality is that capitalism will not be defeated by the passage of a ‘Seizing the Means of Production Act’ that is debated and voted on in the House of Commons, or in the US Congress.