Is this how capitalist rule will end?

Of course, in Chile, as I've been reading up recently, it wasn't an automatic process.  They had to assasinate the head of the army, Schneider, and then his sucessor managed to discredit himself at the worst possible time…it's like a football goal, fifty percent planning, fifty percent luck, to pull off a coup.

Transcendentalism, that is, believing in ideal beings such as heroes, martyrs, and saints, or messiahs and saviors are all part of the culture and tradition perpetrated by capitalism, it is thousands of years of brainwashing that it is hard-wired in our emotional system, the origin of which is already lost in the archetype of human history. For as long as transcendentalism is the prevailing thought of our society, the ruling elite will use it to maintain their domination.sardaan Ordinarian

I don't know where you get these 5 principles from, hazarding a guess you've just pulled them out of thin air, but they've got nothing to do with socialism. Perhaps you could add "Work makes free" as number 6?

 Or, alternatively,  remaining in opposition making capitalism ungovernable and unmanagable. See my letter in the current issue of Weekly Worker (although some quotation marks have been omitted in the letter)http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1041/letters/(ALB too has a related letter published)

You have never use any one of them? are you sure?sardaan Ordinarian

 There is, I think , an intermediate position between that of socialism-in-one-country  and that of instantaneous  worldwide revolution, neither of which seem plausible for different reasons.  That is to acknowledge that, were a majority of socialists to take power in one country first, this would necessarily presuppose a near majority of socialists almost everywhere else. It is inconceivable  that you could have significant spatial lags in the spread of socialist ideas given the potential of modern telecommunications as well as the increasingly interdependent nature of modern production. Not to mention the determination and resolve of the  globally based socialist movement itself to minimise the extent of such spatial lags through the redirection of effort and assistance to those parts of the world where the growth of socialist conscious appeared to be lagging most. Therein perhaps lies the key to an approach that the socialist movement might increasingly put into practice the larger it become.  The domino theory of revolution, as I like to call it, fundamentally differs from the socialism-in-one-country model in that the latter regards the spread of socialist ideas outside of the country in question , though useful, to be essentially a matter of indifference whereas the former regards that spread to be absolutely indispensable.Socialism in one country is a recipe for managing capitalism under the aegis of the so called dictatorship of the proletariat  – an oxymoron if there ever was one – which will sooner or later morph into just another capitalist government  managing some kind of state capitalist variant (probably) of capitalism; the domino theory, on the other hand, allows for the direct implementation of genuine socialism in some or other part of the world first to be followed soon enough afterwards by others parts.  Its confidence and ability to take that giant step depends on the certain knowledge that other parts of the world are hard on its heels. It recognises the external constraints on implementing full free access socialism immediately, given the fact that t has still to deal with a residual capitalist world outside and with which it will still have to maintain certain economic relations for a little while longer, relations which will probably take the form of barter. But internally,  it eliminates the commodity relation altogether and administers society no longer under a state (since classes will have disappeared) but through the democratic organisation of society itself within the temporary and increasingly porous territorial shell of the now completely extinguished nation state. In short, there is no country anymore and therefore no socialism-in-one-country. If there is a sound rationale behind the distinction between a "lower" and "higher" phase of socialism/communism  as outlined by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme then perhaps it derives its force from this distinction that could be made between the external relations a newly constituted socialist zone has to maintain with the residual, if rapidly shrinking, capitalist world outside and its own internal mode of production and way of life

 Salvador Allende and the Unidad Popular only obtained 1/3 of the votes, he did not obtain a majority of votes. The case of Venezuela was different, Hugo Chavez had to be placed back in power because he was supported by the majority of the workers, and they were willing to fight back. Juan Bosh could have been placed back in power because he had the support of the workers and the support of some sectors of the milliary forces who were willing to place him back, but he did not want to be a president again.