That's the exact same play the US left has fallen for over and over again.

The fundamental difference is that the tea party takeover was billionaire approved and astroturfed.
Entryism to the Democratic party on the other hand is a no go from the party's sponsors.

There are squabbling factions within the ruling class, but they are united against us. The overton window they define will always be far to the right of what the masses find acceptable (insofar as they are not stupefied by fascistic dreck and capitalist realism).

As for bloodshed, it's happening all the time at a scale that makes knowledge of it a moral hazard.
You're just insulated from it; much of it is omitted from news cycles or hidden behind layers of obfuscation.

Let's take some "uncontroversial" examples: Tens of thousands of people die in the US each year from denied health care claims. Mass shootings are now so common they almost never make the news. Three quarters of a million people in the US are homeless. Many die of exposure (often after police clear out their camps right before a cold snap). Just because they weren't stabbed or shot doesn't mean they aren't victims of violence.

The Socdems in Germany wanted to avoid bloodshed, too.

[The reformist] admits that the path of “bloody revolution” now becomes inevitable-after fifteen years of suffering, after the maximum strengthening of the class enemy, and therefore now involving far heavier sacrifice and bloodshed, that the so-called “peaceful” path is thus proved to involve in the end, not the avoidance of bloodshed, but the maximum of bloodshed.