When is it acceptable to work with/within bourgeois parties?

When is it acceptable to work with/within bourgeois parties?

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

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.

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 Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

I believe that it's certainly justified if you can nudge any socdem type party into supporting/promoting worker coops.

Inb4 the leftcoms come in.

Socialist are marginal now. They need to understand that the next revolution will be reactionary and work with liberals to prevent this.

When you get an official permission from Revolutionary Purity Council.


Work against liberals, you mean. Liberals seem to be doing everything in their might to make it happen.

Acceptable ?
It's not point of something being acceptable if you are striving towards some 'revolutionary ideological purity', point is that it's ALLWAYS counter-productive ( for revolution ) to work inside capitalist parties.

Probably never.

When did anarchists become reformists?

It is acceptable to work within the bourgeois parties to purge them of liberals and flood them with socialists.

Never

… and result in that party no longer being relevant in the mainstream political arena.

But user, Stalin prior to the imposition of the Leninist system didn't believe in straight transition to Socialism and thought that following the revolution the Socialists should be the minority opposition in a new bourgeois order.

lol really? What a fucking revisionist.

source: your ass

Y you always lying man

...

Reformists are SocDem, no?

for le slick entryism of course xdddd

...

Why can't we be friends


Socdems are reformists, but they don't want to reform into socialism. You can be a communist and a reformist (despite it being rare and stupid).