> “Leninists have rarely grappled with these facts, let alone provided a compelling explanation for them. In other words, they have assumed, but not actually demonstrated, that the dual-power / insurrection model of Russia 1917 — a revolution that toppled an autocratic, noncapitalist state, not a parliamentary regime — is relevant for capitalist democracies. Similarly, Post at no point provides any evidence for his assertion that only workers’ councils, not a socialist-led government elected by universal suffrage, are capable of leading a break with capitalism.”
The October Revolution overthrew the provisional government which was a parliament, although there was already a deep crisis caused by WWI at that point
Also, Leninists have talked about these facts
The rise of opportunism in imperialist countries due to the labour aristocracy and the super exploitation of the Third World, the cooption of communist parties in imperialist countries
On another point:
The Bolsheviks didn’t make the dual power situation happen
What happened was the masses spontaneously set up the Soviets in a time of deep political and economic crisis
The point that Leninists make is that in a time of crisis, the masses spontaneously take action (and this has happened in capitalist democracies too), the role of communists is to lead these movements to overthrow the state. The reason why this hasn’t happened is because of the rise of opportunism and the split in the working class
Ironically, the very ‘socialist’ parties that work through Parliament that this articles advocate for actually block this process from happening by diverting the energy into voting
Another point:
> "At the same time, the vast majority of elected left governments have never even tried to move down Kautsky’s suggested path due to the moderating pressure of labor bureaucratization and the immense economic power of the capitalist class."
This also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the split in the working class and the social basis of these left government
He’s implying that these left parties are radical but they are held back by ‘moderate Labour movements’
But the left parties spring up from the same class basis of these moderate labour movements they represent the interests of the section of the working class that make up these moderate labor movements
Also, if such a radical working class movement exists outside Parliament that is going to push this theoretical socialist party left…. Why doesn’t it just overthrow the state altogether and take power for itself?
> "Avoiding the dead-end of social democratization will above all require a very intense and sustained degree of mass action and independent working-class organization outside of parliament. Without this, even the most well-intentioned government will flounder."
Like… why do all this dancing around? Such a militant movement should and could overthrow the state if parliament becomes so hostile to it
The entire premise of this imaginary scenario is that a militant working class movement exists but only does stuff to keep its elected officials in check
Or when the state and capitalists block its agenda
I also just think the fact that it uses AOC and Sanders as examples kinda ruins the legitimacy of the article because these politicians are imperialists
A few more points:
> "Second, reclaiming Kautsky’s strategy should prompt socialists to focus more on fighting to democratize the political regime, a tradition that has gotten lost since the era of the Second International. Whereas liberals and social democrats generally accept existing governmental rules and structures, Leninists have often been reluctant to proactively fight for major democratic reforms because they seek to completely illegitimate the current state."
Leninism actively promotes the fight for democracy and democratic rights. Pro-migrant rights, solidarity with prisoners, being against anti-protest laws, police brutality etc. Lenin was very clear that these political battles have to be engaged with so we don’t fall into economism. I say again, just look at the BPP (Black Panther Party)
> "Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other newly elected radicals have raised working people’s expectations and changed national politics. Socialists should participate in this electoral upsurge to promote mass movements and to organize hundreds of thousands of people into independent working-class organizations"
These politicians were always imperialist btw, it’s just become very obvious post October 7. Also, very crucially, these politicians were encouraging support for the Democrats, a racist pro-imperialist party but one that was willing to give concessions to some workers. This is opportunistic. This doesn’t mean that socialists shouldn’t engage with such movements (I think US communists know better than I do) but that engagement always has to keep in mind that those politicians don’t represent the interests of all workers and they certainly don’t represent the interests of workers in oppressed countries, if anything I imagine communists would be trying to expose this.
This article is based in Euro Communism, essentially this kind of thinking means that they see the ‘global north’ (once again a term I really hate) is so stable, will never go into an intense crisis, etc that revolution is impossible. So your only hope is to basically form mass socialist parties and hope you get voted in. But at that point you’re not socialist parties, you’re just giving workers a bigger share of the imperialist pie.
Let's contrast these article with the praxis that Che and Fidel reached in Latin America.
These quotes represent Che's ideas on the following:
> "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."
He further clarifies that a revolutionary situation arises when:
> "People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken."https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1963/09/guerrilla-warfare.htm
> "It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them. ... [But] where constitutional legitimacy exists, however flawed, guerrilla warfare is premature."
He stresses that mass disillusionment with the state is a prerequisite:
> "The confidence of the electorate in any of the old forms must be completely shattered, confidence in the ability of the old system to honestly organize any aspect of public life shaken to the core."
https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm
Guevara's broader writings reinforce this principle:
In a 1959 interview, he condemned electoral systems as tools of oppression:"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians."
https://bigother.com/2020/06/14/che-guevara-on-love-injustice-and-revolution-and-socialism/
He linked revolutionary violence to the failure of institutional justice:"Justice remains the tool of a few powerful interests; legal interpretations continue to be made to suit the convenience of the oppressor powers."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/03/25.htm
Theoretical Consistency in Anti-Imperialism
Guevara framed armed struggle as a response to exhausted alternatives in global contexts:
> "The feeling of revolt will grow stronger every day among peoples subjected to exploitation, and they will take up arms to gain by force the rights which reason alone has not won them."
https://bigother.com/2020/06/14/che-guevara-on-love-injustice-and-revolution-and-socialism/
No, I meant a video or article of Mamdani saying this