Because it was not applicable to the point I was trying to make. I wanted to cite a select passage, rather than just post a link to the entire speech. But I did cite my source, so that those who wish, can read the entire document. But Greece has a representitive government, rather than despotism. So I feel that the part you posted does not apply, in this situation.
As long as the masses put faith in the parliament, it's sectarianism not to use it. The way Lenin behaved towards the Duma makes this crystal clear.
Lenin has already responded to this in The State and Revolution. He criticizes your opportunist idea that the strategy of the proletariat should be determined by the form of the state, and not by its nature. He wrote:
"Engels emphasized once again that not only under a monarchy, but also under a democratic republic the state remains a state, i.e., it retains its fundamental distinguishing feature of transforming the officials, the 'servants of society", its organs, into the masters of society."
Lenin also answered Marx's statements.
"On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:
"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)
(The letters of Marx to Kugelmann have appeared in Russian in no less than two editions, one of which I edited and supplied with a preface.)
The words, "to smash the bureaucratic-military machine", briefly express the principal lesson of Marxism regarding the tasks of the proletariat during a revolution in relation to the state. And this is the lesson that has been not only completely ignored, but positively distorted by the prevailing, Kautskyite, “interpretation” of Marxism!
As for Marx's reference to The Eighteenth Brumaire, we have quoted the relevant passage in full above.
It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".
Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17)."
Has the bureaucracy disappeared today? No, it became routine.
More than ever, we need violence. This is the most essential idea.
"Mao was just a degenerated Trotsky." Dagoth Ur
Because "marxism" to some people is to mine ancient writings from Marx and others to find handy little quotations to use for discussing completely different circumstances? It is also worthwhile to consider the amount of "Anglo-Saxon 'liberty'" in the US and UK, but perhaps also in Holland and Scandinavia, to understand why Marx would have been more careful about the need for violent revolution in those countries both then and now. Although of course this carefulness about democratic and pacifist traditions should not change our understanding of the fact that in the end, the form of government is still fundamentally the same and needs to be demolished by the proletariat, not preserved with a "socialist" bent. Norwegian or Dutch or American liberal or social democracy may not be the first to be destroyed, but they have to go anyway.
In any case, I don't think anyone is against "using" parliament, only against paralysing the workers' movement by fettering it to any vaguely "leftist" government. After all, as I mentioned, chaining the communist party and its allied organisations to the state in such a manner essentially excludes the possibility of them organising strike action against it, let alone anything further. The KKE "uses" parliament in opposition, not in government. Surely the distinction between opposition and government should be obvious to even the most misguided detractors of the KKE.
Alternative Display:Mobile view