You learn more from failure than from success, and I'm sure Lenin himself would tell you that, as his strategies changed completely after 1905. And every failure Marx saw in revolutionary movements made him realise abstentionism is political suicide.
"One should never believe that it is of small significance to have workers in Parliament. If one stifles their voices, as in the case of De Potter and Castian, or if one ejects them, as in the case of Manuel – the reprisals and oppressions exercise a deep effect on the people. If, on the other hand, they can speak from the parliamentary tribune, as do Bebel and Liebknecht, the whole world listens to them. In the one case or the other, great publicity is provided for our principles. To give but one examples: when during the [Franco-Prussian] war, which was fought in France, Bebel and Liebknecht undertook to point out the responsibility of the working class in the face of those events, all of Germany was shaken; and even in Munich, the city where revolutions take place only over the price of beet, great demonstrations took place demanding an end to the war. The governments are hostile to us, one must respond to them with all the means at out disposal. To get workers into Parliament is synonymous with a victory over the governments, but one must choose the right men, not Tolains."
But I guess Karl Marx was just a liberal-pragmatist as well, right?
And sure, he may never have participated in a revolution directly, but he certainly participated in the First International, which Bakunin destroyed.
I'm already wasting too much time teaching you Socialist history, I won't teach you french history as well.
So you literally acknowledge that using electoral institutions as movement-building was what helped made the Bolsheviks successful? Way to argue against your own point, dipshit.
Yes, other than the writings and judgements of all the sensible leaders of the german Communists including Rosa herself, and the fact the alternative failed, and that the equivalent strategy succeeded elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest that. But that's not worthy of getting into because it's all speculation, although the failure of insurgency is not.
First, no it didn't. Several of these states just rejected ML politics and the Communists crumbled like a house of cards. Second, Vietnam, China, Cuba never went through counter-revolutionary violences and also reformed back into capitalism, China while the man who lead the revolution himself was alive. Which, following your reasoning, would make revolutionary politics useless and disproven by history, but I'm sure there's no shortage of cognitive dissonance to square that circle.
" By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (3% of the population in 1897). 22% of Bolsheviks were gentry (1.7% of the total population), 38% were uprooted peasants, compared with 19% and 26% for the Mensheviks. In 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks). Total membership was 8,400 in 1905, 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907 (8,400, 18,000, 38,200 respectively for the Mensheviks). By 1910, both factions together had fewer than 10,000 members."
"The total population of the Russian Empire was recorded to be 125,640,021 people (50.2% female, 49.8% male; urban 16,828,395 )."
You do the math, since you're so good at it. :^)
Try not to multi-task user, we don't want you tripping like you usually do.