Would you vote for a social democrat?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Would you vote for a social democrat with no ties to the bourgeoisie, whose stated goals include:

1.) Eliminating unemployment
2.) Providing every worker with a democratic work environment if they choose
3.) Disarming Western aggression
4.) Expanding the realm of political democracy
5.) Using technology to eliminate menial labor

[Cult of Reason]

No. There is no chance of them winning (at least in the UK), even less of a chance of any of their ideas being enacted, or even having any effect, and of course a chance of them being bought off. All that would be effected would be to help legitimise the system and to distract people from other work.

If it was for local government I might be a little more sympathetic but, then, if it was local government none of his platform would make sense in the context.

[Unicorn]

Not if it is possible to vote for a communist candidate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would you vote for a social democrat with no ties to the bourgeoisie, whose stated goals include:

1.) Eliminating unemployment
2.) Providing every worker with a democratic work environment if they choose
3.) Disarming Western aggression
4.) Expanding the realm of political democracy
5.) Using technology to eliminate menial labor




Would this not be a return to the classical social democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-democracy-t74352/index.html)? He wouldn't stand a chance without electoral funding by bourgeois elements (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliamentarism-why-bolshevik-t72977/index.html). :(

To what extent will he wish to extend the realm of political democracy? [HINT: Please read my second link above.]

One thing I will say is this: he isn't an economistic "social-democratic" scum of the LSD type, more in line with genuine reformism.

[Black Cross]

No. Although i would sympathise with this candidate, the chances of him/her making a significant difference is unlikely at best. Seems to me he would just be a bourgeiose socialist, only mitigating any problems the proletariat faces, not eliminating them. This would only make the proletariat more complacent and less likely, then, to engage in revolution.

[jacobin1949]

Theres a difference between tactically supporting a candidate who would immediately better the lot of the workers, and outright merging into social democracy

Many on this forum seem to have this idea that the worse things are for the worker the better the chances of revolution are
Marx clearly stated we need to fight for the day to day needs of the worker, while keeping our ultimate goal in mind

[KC]

There wasn't enough information given in the question stated to give a valid answer. The conditions of the country at the time are crucial.

[spartan]

I would consider it only if a far-right party was threatening to win lots of votes and gain lots of seats and a Social Democratic party was its main obstacle to achieving this.

[Zurdito]

I would vote for a social democrat if they were from a bourgeois workers party, to test illusions. As Lenin said to British communists in 1920:



"If we are the party of the revolutionary class, and not merely a revolutionary group, and if we want the masses to follow us and unless we achieve that we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags) we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or rather compel the former to beat the latter because the former are afraid of their victory!); second, we must help the majority of the working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right; i.e. that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing, that they are petit-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is inevitable; third, we must bring closer the moment when on the basis of the disappointment of most of the workers in the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chance of success, to overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once."

...

"We would take part in the election campaign, distribute leaflets agitating for communism, and in all constituencies where we have no candidates, we would urge the electors to vote for the Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidate. Comrades Sylvia Pankhurst and Gallagher are mistaken in thinking that this is a betrayal of communism, or a renunciation of the struggle against the social traitors. On the contrary, the cause of communist revolution would undoubtedly gain thereby."

...

"At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them.

If I come out as a communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of "bourgeois democracy") but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man- that the impending establishment of a government of Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany."

[BIG BROTHER]

I would vote for him, but like jacobin said I still would keep the ultimate object in mind.

[Dean]

Would you vote for a social democrat with no ties to the bourgeoisie, whose stated goals include:

1.) Eliminating unemployment
2.) Providing every worker with a democratic work environment if they choose
3.) Disarming Western aggression
4.) Expanding the realm of political democracy
5.) Using technology to eliminate menial labor




Yes. Even though the change may not be revolutionary, it is still a better deal than what we have now. Voting for a capitalist government doesn't have to be submissive; you can still fight. The only issue is in manipulating the government against the ruling class, and for our interests.

The above changes would be a profound, fundamental change to the character of any imperial power, and I would certainly put the lives of foreigners above our own concerns that the changes don't go far enough. It's not dissimilar to those who live in other countries and speak of the Israelis and Palestinians as if they should not stop fighting until they've won. It's not our place; in the same vein, it's not our place to niggle when we are discussing deals related to foreign policy. Whatever eliminates our national aggression and instigation is ultimately preferable in my view, even if it is augmented with bourgeois sentiments.

[cyu]

Yes, if it will improve the lives of the people in the country. If the major alternatives were a moderate leftist and a more radical lefist, I'd choose the more radical one, of course.

[chegitz guevara]

There wasn't enough information given in the question stated to give a valid answer. The conditions of the country at the time are crucial.

qft