: Now, on top of that, we’d have the fact that we could then sezie and control the *means of violence*, and more specifically, their co-ordinating *material* structures - so as in order to strip of the state of its repressive character, and prevents them being used against us. The seizure, for a Maxrist, of the means of violence is a precondition of seizing the means of production, so once we establish a working-class monopoly on violence, we then begin to socialise the Means of production.
SDF: So what's your position on Salvador Allende? Would you rather the Chileans had spoilt their ballots rather than elect Allende? Or that the Nicaraguan people shouldn't have re-elected Sandinismo in 1984, they should have chosen to spoil their ballots instead?
I don't buy this idea that there are principles of behavior toward bourgeois democracy that are good for all times and places. Some tactics work in some situations, others in other situations. Today, in the US, building a movement is the most important matter at hand. Revolution? We ain't even CLOSE.
And I don't believe that "protest against the system" and "voting" are mutually exclusive alternatives. I think that's a false dilemma -- one can vote while protesting against the system, just as one can walk and chew gum at the same time. And, as I said before, what legitimizes bourgeois democracy is not voting, but the cops. Getting rid of bourgeois democracy means first getting rid of the cops, and having a President who will weaken the power of the cops might help toward that goal.