I'm going to dissent from Cheezy's opinion here, because I think that communism isn't simply a revolution that goes beyond bourgeois politics, but a revolution that actively moves against it, that tears down the illusory distinction between the "spheres" of economic, political and private life. Communism, in a certain sense, is a movement against politics, in that it dissolves politics is a seperate, specialised sphere of activity, and the dispersal of the functions it represents throughout society. The problem with electoral politics, in this view, isn't simply empiricial, that is not likely that we can vote socialism into being, but one of principle, that it is not possible to vote socialism into being.
Social forms aren't imposed from above, least of all by act of parliament. They develop out of everyday social practice, and the practice of communism is directly contradictory to the practice of bourgeois politics. You cannot dissolve mediatory structures while at the same time reproducing them.
At most, you could organise some sort of "kamikaze party" which had the sole purpose of crippling the state, but history tends to suggest that capital is quite ready to abandon the democratic political form when and as necessary, so it's very unlikely that any such project would even be permitted to take their seats, let alone achieve anything of substance.
It's unlikely but not impossible, sure. But, by the same token, it's unlikely but not impossible that I'll win the lottery. I still don't buy a ticket, because it's a waste of my time and resources. Unless it can be established that we have some ethical obligation to prefer the parliamentarian route, and I can't imagine how that would be achieved, it doesn't seem to me that there is any good reason to expend a moment of time on electoral politics when it could be expended elsewhere.
As for the state "encouraging" these communistic practices, how would it do so? The state is pretty much by definition a mediator: it functions by forcing people into situations where they have to accept the structures of mediation and arbitration which it provides for them. To take an obvious example, if you tried to conduct business in non-state currencies, armed men will come to your house, drag you away and put you in a box, all for the simple reason that you declined to use state-supplied money. If communism is the abolition of mediation, the abolition of these state-provided structures, how could the state possibly participate in it? The only think that a "communist" government could do is attempt to cripple itself, and, as I've said, history tends to suggest that the state-capital complex is quite ready to jettison its democratic segments if necessary. Look at Italy in 1922, Germany in 1933 or Chile in 1974, to name only the famous examples; in all cases the state was able to abandon democratic elections without losing its ability to govern.
It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that attempts to engage in the democratic process in capitalist countries are doomed to failure, because the bourgeois powers will torpedo the republican apparatus when it becomes too threatening to their privilege. In addition, to participate in the operations of the state would be itself a devaluation of one's anti-capitalist principles, since the state upholds the capitalist framework and cannot be divorced from it.
I mostly don't disagree. In fact, I've stated just as much myself in the last few pages. However, I think there is an incredibly important element that you're missing here: culture. I will, from here out, speak strictly to the American perspective. We believe, as a culture, in the triumph of democracy. It is seen as the solution to everything, and all things legitimate attempt to operate within it. Furthermore, the slander that something is anti-democratic is a very effective one, because the emotional value associated with something being against democracy, and thus by default operating against or indifferent to the wishes of The People, touches on the foundational principles of our country. In a word, it's what we're all about. So for us to outright eschew that system would be a public relations disaster, because we would be painting ourselves, in the cultural eye, as both anti-America and anti-American. It's easy to stand against bourgeois politics, but that position doesn't matter if it achieves nothing. And remember, we operate with the Philosophy of Praxis, which means that we have to achieve results, we don't care as much about ideological purity. It's politically irrelevant to be loyal to a position for the sake of being right: that's a debacle best left to religion and morals, and politics is properly unburdened by either of those, most of all the politics practiced by communists. Besides, participation doesn't mean endorsement, it means accepting the situation for what it is and choosing the path that best achieves results. Maybe our participation will never win us the presidency. I don't think it will. But the inaiblity to achive the highest office in the country doesn't mean that lesser goals can't be met that still serve us. Maybe we win congressional or state legislative seats, or mayorships, or city council seats, and begin to enact change that helps people and expands our influence and spreads the message of our mission to a greater and greater audience. When it comes down to it, this is the political language spoken by the people whose support we want, so we must speak it if we ever hope to win that support.
In addition, following the democratic political route doesn't mean an abandonment of the civic organization route. I rather think they play into each others' hands. Work in the community to spread the message of socialism, help people out, win their support, and win votes for the ballot box. That's basic political organization. Win the support of workers, help them organize unions or community organizations, and those organizations can deliver your candidates votes. Sure it's a political machine you're making, but nobody said politics wasn't messy. And again, it advances the cause of communism, so we should do it.
As for the second point, which is that assuming state power corrupts the holder into supporting the state itself, I think that's kind of silly. You say that the state doesn't dictate how society functions, but doesn't it? It creates the laws, the tax codes, the building codes, the rights and privileges that define society, and enforces them. Ultimately, the state defends the defining aspects of capitalist society: the universal commodity exchanger (money), and private property. Destroying either or both of those will require the assumption of state power at some point, whether it's by legal or extralegal means is irrelevant, because the ability to destroy them means the assumption of that power. Again, I think your objection here is academic and not practical.
And as for the third point, which is that communism is a movement against politics itself...what exactly is community organization but politics by another route? Everything is political. Communism as a thing is political. It may seek to abolish the political game, and aspire to that happy time when politicians step aside and let engineers and agronomists do most of the talking, but the path to get there is extremely political, and requires that people realize and act upon the fact that
everything is political. Things are only going to get more political before politics starts to "go away."
So in short, while I kind of understand/agree with parts of your points, I don't think they're particularly useful. I'm out there to achieve results, not to defend a fortress of philosophic purity. Always remember the maxim: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways.
The point, however, is to change it."
