Impossibilism/Possibilism

[ThisDay]

Impossibilism or Possibilism

Which do you favour? and why?
or do you believe in a different way?
discuss.


:hammersickle:

[Dean]

Impossibilism or Possibilism

Which do you favour? and why?
or do you believe in a different way?
discuss.


:hammersickle:

Can you please explain what you mean by this?

[CommunistWaffle]

Possibilism of course because I like being able to do stuff rather than not?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Impossibilism is the branch of revolutionary socialist thought that opposes participation in the bourgeois state; possibilism is the branch that supports the same.

I am an impossibilist. Any reforms that might be gained through the parliamentary method are at best fleeting and limited, and often results in the organization participating in the State taking on reformist tendencies; it is impossible to bring about any real gains through parliamentary struggle. Rather, it is necessary to organize the workers outside the parliamentary realm so as to put pressure on the capitalists and the State. This is the only way any real, lasting reforms can be achieved, as well as being the only way the ultimate revolutionary change to socialism can be achieved.

EDIT: Actually, marxists.org has a rather different definition (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm) of impossibilism that seems to have little to do with the division I addressed. I am somewhat confused by this...clarifications, anyone?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in Theory then.

In Philosophy, these terms have a different meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/possibilism.html

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/impossibilism.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

Perhaps the OP should tell us whether he/she meant this politically or philosophically.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Impossibilism is the branch of revolutionary socialist thought that opposes participation in the bourgeois state; possibilism is the branch that supports the same.

I am an impossibilist. Any reforms that might be gained through the parliamentary method are at best fleeting and limited, and often results in the organization participating in the State taking on reformist tendencies; it is impossible to bring about any real gains through parliamentary struggle. Rather, it is necessary to organize the workers outside the parliamentary realm so as to put pressure on the capitalists and the State. This is the only way any real, lasting reforms can be achieved, as well as being the only way the ultimate revolutionary change to socialism can be achieved.

EDIT: Actually, marxists.org has a rather different definition (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm) of impossibilism that seems to have little to do with the division I addressed. I am somewhat confused by this...clarifications, anyone?
It was my understanding that hardly anyone really called themselves an impossiblist, it was a more-or-less meaningless political swearword used against anyone whose conception of socialism was more hardline than the person using it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically, the SPGB and its affiliates have adopted the term, probably because they are glad to be disassociated by those who use it as a slur word against them. I believe one of the earlier uses was against Guesde and such. Engels commented on a split in the French left in which it seems that the word 'possibilist' was used:


In France the long expected split has taken place. The original conjunction of Guesde and Lafargue with Malon and Brousse was no doubt unavoidable when the party was founded, but Marx and I never had any illusions that it could last. The issue is purely one of principle: is the struggle to be conducted as a class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, or is it to be permitted that in good opportunist (or as it is called in the Socialist translation: possibilist) style the class character of the movement, together with the programme, are everywhere to be dropped where there is a chance of winning more votes, more adherents, by this means. Malon and Brousse, by declaring themselves in favour of the latter alternative, have sacrificed the proletarian class character of the movement and made separation inevitable. All the better. The development of the proletariat proceeds everywhere amidst internal struggles and France, which is now forming a workers' party for the first time, is no exception.

[New Tet]

This should be in Theory then.

In Philosophy, these terms have a different meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/possibilism.html

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/impossibilism.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

Perhaps the OP shoud tell us whether he/she meant this politically or philosophically.

Aside from providing sound definitions, how do we deal with this apparent Possi/Impossi dichotomy from the historico-materialist perspective, comrade.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Well, if you mean "How do we deal with them if they are interpreted philosophically?", I have already answered this, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1596520&postcount=20

All such attempts to uncover allegedly fundamental features of reality by thought alone are non-sensical (I explain why in the above links).

How we deal with this in historical materialist terms? We simply extend Feuerbach's analysis of religious affectation.

I will be attempting to do just this in one of my later Essays. Until then I have summarised what I am going to say here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to jump to section three:

Feuerbach's Half-Finished Project

However, the plausibility of the things I say depends on earlier sections of the same essay, and on earlier essays.

[Remember, if your Firewall has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or the links at my site won't work!]

[Dave B]

Re post 7 from Zeronowhere


I think the following document with its preamble may be helpful, I think the SPGB had quite close links with Paul Lafargue.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

Elsewhere at the time I think M&E where also loosing patience with elements in, and the direction of, their German party with its over emphasis on the minimum programme to the exclusion of the maximum.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, Engels' invocations of the 'I am not a Marxist' quote hints more at an attack on abuse of the materialist conception of history than anything else, though this could just be because of texts which aren't on MIA.