ckaihatsu wrote:But, *strategically*, it's a common misnomer that capitalism's own political processes can get society *to* socialism -- this bad strategy is called 'parliamentarism':
With all of that being said however , Marx also stated these things .
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats(1) against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois... In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In our midst there has been formed a group advocating the workers' abstention from political action. We have considered it our duty to declare how dangerous and fatal for our cause such principles appear to be. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm
Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.
And to this I would add these words from Lenin . https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm
[ quote="Senter"]There is no argument that socialism is capitalism. Most interested people know the two are opposites. Capitalism involves the rule of the capitalist class over the working class, and socialism involves the rule of the working class over the capitalist class. The rest of the story is about the particular details of the implementation in any particular country and based on the specific conditions in that country.
The strategy that interests me does the best job of gradually "tuning" the specifics to the needs over time, as was done in the implementation of capitalism in feudal society. So specifically, that strategy advocates the development of worker-owned, worker-controlled cooperative corporations and the election of politicians who favor legislation to accommodate and facilitate that process. And that would be nothing like the process of violent revolution by those you mentioned.[/quote ] Such co-operativism is not particular to the socialist left . Not only can it be found in such places as Romagna https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
, it also has existed in Spain , even under Franco's fascism https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/mar/12/cooperatives-spain-mondragon
, and lastly none other than the British Conservative Party eendorsesthe idea of cooperative enterprise , as part of the Big Society
. So even before the establishment of a socialist republic
, and/or co-operative comminwealth
, co-operative enterprises can be established , in the interim , no matter the prevailing political regime .