>>2780501There are plenty of freaks with their own little non-"neoliberal" non-left parties (indeed, most British "communists") qualify. They fail because they can't appeal to anyone under 60 or anyone who doesn't want to join a literal cult, not because the big bad Green party is bedblocking.
You do not have the power to subordinate anything to class. As Your Party clearly shows, the ultimate litmus test is "are you remotely capable of organising anything whatsoever?", only once that is answered can one try to organise on a class-first basis. (One would however require a useful understanding of class. The average class-first leftist really doesn't want to admit that most pensioners are something other than proles…)
The Bolsheviks existed in vastly different circumstances. You are making the Trotskyist newspaper argument (it worked in 1917!!) and you are confusing my empirical analysis (disposition correlates to political views much more strongly than class) with a normative one ("and that's a good thing")
But let's look at the Bolsheviks with a broad brush: they were surely the most progressive wing of their class, but did not have it's universal backing. There were almost certainly differences in disposition between Bolsheviks and SRs, and between left and right SRs, let alone other groups. Some misguided proletarians fought for the white army! My advice, if you wish, is that the Bolsheviks should not alienate natural Bolsheviks in a doomed attempt to win over the black hundreds. They should instead focus on being better Bolsheviks.
(And this is what the Bolsheviks would do! They could and would eject proletarian members who were insufferable dickheads with reactionary sympathies!)