The real and the only weapon of the working class is the mass strike. Mass strikes damage capitalism at its very core, where it is created in the first place. More than that, the mass strikes teach the working class how to establish their own rule. In almost all mass strikes which last for more than just a few days, the workers themselves began to organize the production: production and distribution of food, public transport etc. In the Paris Commune and especially the Russian revolutions, they in fact founded their very own state. Which completely differs from the bourgeouis state with its wider democracy, precautions against bureaucratization and a new type of army consisting of armed workers. The mass strike carries the potentials for both the destruction of the current state and the birth of a new one.
The Cuban revolution was indeed a revolution, but definitely not a socialist one. Even Castro claimed that theirs was a communist revolution 2 years after the revolution. At first, he even openly stated that they were not communists: "I know the world thinks of us, we are Communists, and of course I have said very clear that we are not Communists; very clear." Then, when it became clear that the USA was not going to support them in any ways, they turned their faces towards Russia and claimed to have become communist. Ironic, but typical for a national movement.
As the Cuban experience has shown us, guerilla warfare can be useful for a nation liberation movement. But only at times when the current state is almost tearing apart on its own. Other than that, it's pretty difficult to takeover the government with a bunch of guerillas.
And I shall repeat that it's nothing like socialism. It didn't destroy the state, but it was a takeover. And more importantly, it didn't transform the society, or the working class itself. Because they were only passive supporters of the guerillas. Direct action is the way to change, not passive support.
But it is for that very reason why a socialist state is an oxymoron, the imposition of a minority view/interest on a majoraty cannot be socialist. During the time of the hague congress of the first international, marx and his followers finally and for good departed from the socialist lineiage, the embracing of state power and parlimentry means is and was in direct contrast with socialost thought, this is why marxists are not socialists.
It's not an oxymoron. What Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and co said was, that the socialist state is not an imposition of a minority on a majority, but the opposite. It is built to suppress the minority, not the majority. And that's the reason why it has to wither away. You don't need a state machinery to suppress the minority forever. Once you can abolish the bonds of capitalism, the state is no more needed.
But the point here is that, the working class cannot takeover the current state, which is a bourgeouis state and transform it for its own interests. The current state's purpose is to suppress the majority against the minority, it was built according to that purpose. It's useless for the working class. Instead of taking it over and trying to transform it, the working class should destroy it and build its own, temporary state-like mechanism.
Lenin's work "The State and Revolution" is a great source for Marxist theory of state. Those who haven't read it should definitely take a look.
"Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full." - Comrade Trotsky
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10