How does change happen?

[Pawn Power]

Broadly speaking, what is your theory of social-political change? Please no responses like "Leninism" or "anarchism." But do elaborate on the details of how you think significant changes are made or have been made in the past.

[Owl]

Generally, I think change happens one of two ways: The lobbying, or popular movements. The former typically produces small reforms, the latter more radical ones.

[Q]

I'll write some points in note form. If more elaboration is required, do ask, but it is late right now so I'll remain concise:

- Class struggle is a constant within class society.
- Therefore struggles do happen, but happen spontaneously and are for that reason limited and localised.
- In the long run this is insufficient for social change as the existing state will always have the upperhand in these battles.
- For success our class needs to be organised as a class-collective.
- This needs to happen by voluntary union (democracy), an independent position regarding other classes and their political agendas and as a global entity (internationalism, trans-nationalism).
- Said differently: It needs to happen by merging the existing class movement with the goal of communism.
- Such a political entity is bound to be very diverse. Besides the "high politics" part, we should expect to see trade unions, workers coops, workers insurance collectives, educational collectives (giving out certificates etc), trade union workplace control ("closed shop"), community centers, workers sport clubs and events (including worker Olympics), cultural entities and much, much more.
- This movement is a pre-requisite for building political authority (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618) and embryonic institutions capable of taking political power as a class in revolutionary crises. Pose an alternative to the existing state that is designed with minority control of society in mind.

[RedMaterialist]

Broadly speaking, what is your theory of social-political change? Please no responses like "Leninism" or "anarchism." But do elaborate on the details of how you think significant changes are made or have been made in the past.

I still think change happens dialectically. As in water heated to 212 suddenly changes from liquid to steam. Applying the theory to politics and history is extremely difficult, primarily because no one, I think, really uses dialectics.

How to explain, for instance, the election of a black man named Barak Hussein Obama president of the U.S. in 2008? It's like his election came out of nowhere, like water suddenly starting to boil.

[subcp]

Economic shifts, even those happening on the subterranean level (not readily apparent), require corresponding shifts on the political terrain (which shows classes struggling against each other, and factions of classes struggling within the same class). Capitalist crisis, which occur due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism, presents the possibility for the subjective side of the capitalist social relationship (the class struggle) to turn a capitalist crisis into a revolutionary crisis- where the working-class has the chance to abolish capitalism, class society and build communism.

[Vanguard1917]

Economic shifts, even those happening on the subterranean level (not readily apparent), require corresponding shifts on the political terrain (which shows classes struggling against each other, and factions of classes struggling within the same class). Capitalist crisis, which occur due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism, presents the possibility for the subjective side of the capitalist social relationship (the class struggle) to turn a capitalist crisis into a revolutionary crisis- where the working-class has the chance to abolish capitalism, class society and build communism.

What happens when the working class lacks even a basic level of organisation, as is the case in Britain, where the majority of the workforce is not unionised? Why hasn't the 'subjective side' asserted itself in the current economic crisis, as it did in previous crises?

[Owl]

I'll write some points in note form. If more elaboration is required, do ask, but it is late right now so I'll remain concise:

- Class struggle is a constant within class society.
- Therefore struggles do happen, but happen spontaneously and are for that reason limited and localised.
- In the long run this is insufficient for social change as the existing state will always have the upperhand in these battles.
- For success our class needs to be organised as a class-collective.
- This needs to happen by voluntary union (democracy), an independent position regarding other classes and their political agendas and as a global entity (internationalism, trans-nationalism).
- Said differently: It needs to happen by merging the existing class movement with the goal of communism.
- Such a political entity is bound to be very diverse. Besides the "high politics" part, we should expect to see trade unions, workers coops, workers insurance collectives, educational collectives (giving out certificates etc), trade union workplace control ("closed shop"), community centers, workers sport clubs and events (including worker Olympics), cultural entities and much, much more.
- This movement is a pre-requisite for building political authority and embryonic institutions capable of taking political power as a class in revolutionary crises. Pose an alternative to the existing state that is designed with minority control of society in mind.

To build on that, popular movements can also put pressure on candidates. The results may be minor, but there's no reason to discount them.

[subcp]

What happens when the working class lacks even a basic level of organisation, as is the case in Britain, where the majority of the workforce is not unionised? Why hasn't the 'subjective side' asserted itself in the current economic crisis, as it did in previous crises?

Class struggle is not defined by unionization. The union was in the way at the Lindsay refinery struggle- which spread to other sectors.

[Comrade #138672]

Change happens dialectically by resolving the contradictions.

[LeonJWilliams]

Dissent causes change.

[redfist.]

Someone, quickly, post a picture of Hegel!

[Philosophos]

I'm tired of saying it but education is the only solution to actually change society. If you try to change it and the majority of people are uneducated it will fail in the long run.

I agree with Q but you can't do all these things if people are so stuborn (aka not critically thinking) that believe capitalism is the best/only way for them.

[Q]

I'm tired of saying it but education is the only solution to actually change society. If you try to change it and the majority of people are uneducated it will fail in the long run.

I agree with Q but you can't do all these things if people are so stuborn (aka not critically thinking) that believe capitalism is the best/only way for them.

Indeed! The formula is: Educate, agitate, organise (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18813), with educate at the start for a reason.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm tired of saying it but education is the only solution to actually change society. This is all well and dandy, but do you really think that prior to the eve of the French Revolution broad masses of the population actively participated in study circles and other forms of education?

What I'm getting at is that at least one instance of a social and political change did not occur in the way you seem to be implying.

Now, you'd have to do two things here. First, you'd have to be more clear on what would constitute education. Secondly, you'd have to make the case - actually demonstrate - that this particular society, capitalist society, if it is to be fundamentally transformed, actually necessitates the kind of education you posit by doing the former.


Broadly speaking, what is your theory of social-political change? Please no responses like "Leninism" or "anarchism." But do elaborate on the details of how you think significant changes are made or have been made in the past. The problem with the question is that it is far too broad in scope, and as such, its answer would need to be general. In this sense, social and political change occurs through social conflict, through class struggle - that would be my answer.

Now, as far as the details go, they differ from one historical instance to another because the historical social formations in question were quite different.

What I think stands in relation to contemporary capitalist society - and other historical periods of this society - is that minority action, resulting in a coup d'etat, isn't viable from the perspective of fundamental social change (the overhaul of the relations of production), and that instead mass action is necessary.


Change happens dialectically by resolving the contradictions.
Really? It's like you explained the entire universe in just one sentence. Puff, a magic trick and all is explained.

Any such approach is completely useless.

[Philosophos]

This is all well and dandy, but do you really think that prior to the eve of the French Revolution broad masses of the population actively participated in study circles and other forms of education?

What I'm getting at is that at least one instance of a social and political change did not occur in the way you seem to be implying.

Now, you'd have to do two things here. First, you'd have to be more clear on what would constitute education. Secondly, you'd have to make the case - actually demonstrate - that this particular society, capitalist society, if it is to be fundamentally transformed, actually necessitates the kind of education you posit by doing the former.

Look it's way different to convince people that are uneducated to become communists. It might be easy for you to accept that capitalism is full of shit and you can understand when propaganda is trying to mess your mind but there are lots of people out there that don't even have a clue.

At the same time how do you expect the whole society to accept communism? Communism is not just a raw economical system. In the end it targets a free society that has nothing to do with money and all it has to is equality, it's also about ethics. You can't have people with social acceptable ethics if they don't know how to obtain them (but they can with education).

Also the revolutions all over the world have failed because the people were uneducated (not ONLY because of that but it was a factor). How can you overthrow the capitalist remains in a communist country/world if the simple every day people can't understand that they must overthrow them from their lives? I say once again that there are people out there that have absolutely no idea of what communism is or capitalism or they are completely apolitical. The only thing they care is what to eat, if they are going to have sex tonight and if they are going out in a club. Mostly these people (from at least what I've seen) are people that didn't find any interest in the school subjects and at the same time the school itself didn't try to make them interested. The school didn't even try to make them think on their own :crying:.

We can send pm to each other if you didn't like my response or if you have a question because I don't want to completely "rape" the whole thread with our constant replies.

[subcp]

At the same time how do you expect the whole society to accept communism?

If we accept that communism is a material necessity rather than an ideal, then that happens in the heat of struggle which is started by a severe crisis of capitalism: which forces people to do things they wouldn't normally do, and think things they wouldn't normally think, because survival requires it. Capitalism isn't just exploitative- its inherent contradictions plunges itself into crisis, which has gotten worse since the completion of the world market. Workers engage in crisis activity, as they have in the past, and seek an answer to the problems of a system which does not and cannot meet their needs (and desires) in the context of such a generalized crisis. That's when today's pro-revolutionaries have a chance to have an impact far greater than their numeric size.

"Three days previously the men had had no thought of striking. Now they formed eager audiences for such extremists as Albert Parsons." - Louis Adamic, Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America, p.26

Communism is the only solution to the crisis of capitalism. At times when 'education' of socialists and communists was strongest, it did not lead revolutions or the working-class to success- when millions were members of social democracy and the Third International.