Social Democracy

Do you guys think it is worth voting for social democratic parties that have a chance of winning rather than obscure leftist parties? In most countries, far left parties only have a very small base of support and therefore have no realistic chance of winning government. For example, in Canada the only left wing party with a chance of winning an election are the NDP (though even for them it is unlikely). I feel that voting for any true socialist party is a waste of a vote due to first past the post. Thoughts?

Attached: social democracy.png (424x600, 29.99K)

Get this meme out of your head

are you defending voting?
please explain how voting in very large elections isn't LARPing

You know what? If you want to, sure go for it. Just remember it won't do anything.

Of course voting in a bourgeois democracy can only do so much (i.e. little to nothing) due to the rule of money / corruption / manipulation of public opinion. If voting does nothing in your mind, then why is it bad to vote for the party you believe in? Like Engels said it is merely the gauge of the maturity of the proletariat and nothing more.
LARPing is pretending to be something that you are not. For example, pretending you are a revolutionary from behind your keyboard or making yourself out to be something that you clearly are not. Voting is not LARPing in any way

I think that's something that has to be decided on a case-by case basis.

I'd also argue that socialists voting for moderate mainstream parties instead of their own candidates hurts the far left parties by making them look more obscure than they are.

why not it's not like it takes real effort to vote

LARPing doesn't necessarily mean pretending. It is also used to refer to making a display of support in a way that doesn't produce results.

I am not claiming that one ``ought`` to vote, or not vote. Only that one's choice to vote cannot is incredibly unlikely to be decisive, which makes voting totally inconsequential (in sufficeintly large elections)

...

I’ll just repeat my general take on praxis and how it relates to this issue. It should go without saying that revolutions don’t happen out of thin air, they happen when the material conditions are right. Assuming we’re talking about something similar to the Russian or French revolutions, this effectively means a total collapse of a country’s political and economic infrastructre, such as one that may be brought on by a Great Depression level crisis. The question is then what to do in the meantime. There are a number of things that communists can do while waiting for conditions to become favourable to revolution, but among the most important is establishing ourselves as allies of the workers in the public imagination. This can only be done by bringing about concrete gains in the political power and living standards of the working class, by fighting for their interests and winning immediate gains that make noticeable differences in people’s lives. In a non-revolutionary situation, this means social democratic reforms. So yes, communists should work with social democrats, but I would emphasize that they should maintain political independence from socdem parties as well as maintain an openly anti-capitalist stance while doing so.

this

supporting socdems means continuing to promote conditions that'll ultimately lead to fascism

It depends on their programme. Cockshott's video on 1970s Britain is pretty enlightening for this reason.
If socdems want to eliminate rentiers and seize financial capital then it's well worth supporting cause they'll contribute to conditions which accelerate the way towards socialism. If all they do is austerity-lite like most did in the 90s then no. So in the UK, supporting Labour is well worth it. Supporting the German SPD isn't.


Terribly undialectical thing to say when in some countries, some socdem parties are more like the pre-WW1 ones.

I think it is considering many social democratic parties are backed by unions. The power to acheive progress needs to be attained even if it entails some compromise. The most practical way is to transform these parties rather than change parties.
Except for large disruptions in politics (such as maybe a large movement in america around the green party (unlikely)), it is a better strategy to transform the parties for the time being.
If unions can regain strength and support the workers agenda there can be real change in the party they support.
We are seeing something like this in the UK. Momentum and various unions have pushed Labour from its blairite faction to be closer to social democratic (and even further considering possible nationalisation)
Though, if a socialist party is growing it may be good to vote for them. Of course fptp is extremely unfair so maybe be careful.
There is always room to pursue the workers agenda, even in bourgeois democracy.

Or don't vote and wait for revolution LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG LEFTCOM GANG

This. If a communist party is on the ballot, vote for it. In most countries these parties will recieve more subsidies if they reach a certain number of votes, even if they don't secure a seat.

I wouldn't even call them SocDem anymore. They have enforced austerity, welfare cuts and went to war in Serbia. A conservative think tank has basically hijacked them in the 90s.

your face is undialectical
as long as they're anti-imperialist i dont mind but even there they pose a danger to that cause and one should always be wary of them

Vote for the ultra party. They need to get someone inside parlament and exist in media, polls, etc, get money if your country gives money to parties etc.

Because not voting is better.

Wrong and unmaterialist. Communists should use every means at their disposal. Voting is not much different from building dual power, it is only liberal idealism when you think that voting only can change things.

It's wrong and unmaterialist to think that not voting is "doing nothing". Not voting is solidarity with the working class, most of which actually do not vote if they have no representation (i.e. no actual socialist party). Low turnout rate also has a destabilizing effect as it makes people doubt the legitimacy of bourgeois democracy. A non-vote is essentially a vote against everyone on the ballot.

Now if your country has an actual communist party on the ballot? By all means, you should vote for it. But if the choice is between voting for milquetoast succdems and not voting, the latter option is superior.

Almost all western countries have a communist party on the ballot, which was exactly my point.

I heard y'all need some entryism.

Attached: 5d39f7c03d52f416026fa0cdb41c136e1b2504d3ea47ef43172cb89491eb48f5.jpg (720x540, 41.51K)

Mixed feels. One one hand social democracy is better than crapitalism, however Nordic countries sell weapon and are very polluting and very imperialist, however there are no anti imperialist green right wing parties. I guess Socdem is lesser evil.

Rather than just voting for far left, also join the party and engage in promotion work.

also this.

If you want to influence electoral politics then entryism isn’t the best method, since it forces you to tote some level of party loyalty. Depending on where you live this can get really shitty, since it could involve shit like swearing oaths if loyalty to monarchs or other cancerous nonsense. Not to mention you are expected to be at least somewhat supportive of your party even if it’s overrun with Blairites and idpollers. In other words it forces you to compromise your principles to a degree in order to have a meaningful career within the party. D.SA, while being full of libs, is much smarter in their approach, since it allows them to help socdem and leftist candidates get elected by mobilizing votes for them. However it doesn’t tie them to the party or government itself, meaning they have a lot more freedom in their rhetoric and positions and won’t be forced to compromise for the sake of success in a bourgeoise party. Instead they can just help get decent individual candidates elected.

Name a single time entryism has ever worked in any country

Allende, Chavez, Morales.
The USSR collapsed, how many ML and other communist revolutions failed. All tactics are legitimate, no one system can work everywhere, read Zizek.
PS Entryism by trots is shit tho

Succdems are only allowed to gain traction because their parties invariably devolve into neoliberalism when in power.

It's only a viable option in the US where non-capitalist politics are literally unthinkable.

That wasn't entryism. The PSUV and Unidad Populaire were explicitly socialist parties. Entryism involves infiltration of a moderate or bourgeois party.

oxymoron.
either:
1. people are retarded, like children when it comes to cognitive capacity outside socialization
or
2. we are all competent but have chips in our brains by illuminati
which is more probable?

If you want those small revolutionary parties to get bigger, it helps a lot more to actually contribute to them. If you vote socdem, you might as well just vote conservative; it'll be bourgeois either way.

You should be 'voting' by buying guns and preparing for when the US fascists declare the night of long knives tbqh

OP, accelerationism

fug, i didn't know i was in leftypol.

GOTTA GET THE FUG OUTTA HERE *ESCAPE*