The advance which the proletarian party is bound to make by such independent action is indefinitely more important than the disadvantage that might be incurred by the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body
Does this still hold true if there is no "proletarian party" of any significance?
In 1900, the RSDLP had less than 2000 members. Hardly of significance in a nation of 140 million people and a good deal smaller than many US left parties..
On the eve of the 1905 revolution, the RSDLP had 8400 members total, most non-Bolshevik. Another 24,000 from the Jewish Bund were in support.
By 1907 they had 83 seats in the Duma (in coalition with the SR) and 147,000 members.
You never know how fast things will grow, or when you or someone else will gain traction, which is why the current parties contest elections even without widespread worker support.
Does this still hold true if there is no "proletarian party" of any significance?
In 1900, the RSDLP had less than 2000 members. Hardly of significance in a nation of 140 million people and a good deal smaller than many US left parties..
On the eve of the 1905 revolution, the RSDLP had 8400 members total, most non-Bolshevik. Another 24,000 from the Jewish Bund were in support.
By 1907 they had 83 seats in the Duma (in coalition with the SR) and 147,000 members.
You never know how fast things will grow, or when you or someone else will gain traction, which is why the current parties contest elections even without widespread worker support.