Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the “Lefts” do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).
Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags. [Emphasis added]
Lenin’s view was that bourgeois elections were not an effective vehicle for affecting change, but that communists should still participate in them so long as the people are putting faith in them and paying attention to them. People care about the horse race, so we should have a clear position on the horse race in order to advocate for socialist policies in the broad cultural conversation, but that doesn’t mean we should expect the race itself to actually produce results.
You actually can believe exactly that.
Lenin’s view was that bourgeois elections were not an effective vehicle for affecting change, but that communists should still participate in them so long as the people are putting faith in them and paying attention to them. People care about the horse race, so we should have a clear position on the horse race in order to advocate for socialist policies in the broad cultural conversation, but that doesn’t mean we should expect the race itself to actually produce results.