About the marx and lenin thing, both of them saw working class participation in bourgeois poltiics as necessary for the working class to count its own strength and put forth its political program. They saw it essentially as preparatory work for any revolution.
Neither had any illusions that participation in bourgeois politics by voting for bourgeois parties or bourgeois candidates would have any benefits. I don't know which one said it, but they even explicitly point out that it is better for the number of reactionary representatives in parliament to increase than for the working class candidates to deradicalise their program, or sell out to the bourgeoise.
That is because, again, the point is to disseminate revolutionary views within the population, to create a known alternative that could become a rallying cry if a revolutionary situation presented itself.
Now that I think about it, medicare for all is funnily enough, a good example of this strategy. For a long time, the idea was completely mocked, but now that we went through that period of Ideological struggle around 2016 and 2020, it has become far more mainstream.
I don't know which one said it, but they even explicitly point out that it is better for the number of reactionary representatives in parliament to increase than for the working class candidates to deradicalise their program, or sell out to the bourgeoise.
Marx:
“Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.”
About the marx and lenin thing, both of them saw working class participation in bourgeois poltiics as necessary for the working class to count its own strength and put forth its political program. They saw it essentially as preparatory work for any revolution.
Neither had any illusions that participation in bourgeois politics by voting for bourgeois parties or bourgeois candidates would have any benefits. I don't know which one said it, but they even explicitly point out that it is better for the number of reactionary representatives in parliament to increase than for the working class candidates to deradicalise their program, or sell out to the bourgeoise.
That is because, again, the point is to disseminate revolutionary views within the population, to create a known alternative that could become a rallying cry if a revolutionary situation presented itself.
Thank you!
Now that I think about it, medicare for all is funnily enough, a good example of this strategy. For a long time, the idea was completely mocked, but now that we went through that period of Ideological struggle around 2016 and 2020, it has become far more mainstream.
Exactly. Voting is fine, not verboten, but vote for communist parties, fuck the liberals.
Marx:
“Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.”