Systemic Change?

[Hermes]

I know that I'm chock-full of stupid questions recently, but could someone explain how systemic change comes about, and whether or not we actually have any capability of facilitating that?

Taking, for example, the movement for LGBT marriage equality, I don't think that it does anything systemic to address the problems of LGBT people as a whole, and instead focuses solely on the top layer of it. The question I have, then, I guess, is what next/else? I don't want to fall into the 'activist' mentality that we have to be fighting for some change, regardless of whether or not it'll actually get us anywhere, but I'm still a little hazy on exactly how systemic change comes about (sorry for repeating myself).

Any help would be greatly appreciated, even if it's just with reading suggestions, etc.

[Akshay!]

Socialist revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialist revolution.

This is the learning forum, so please try to make your answers go beyond some snappy phrase. Nobody can really be expected to learn anything from the post you just made. Please make an effort to be more constructive - as i've said, this is a forum for learning.

[ZenTaoist]

Taking, for example, the movement for LGBT marriage equality, I don't think that it does anything systemic to address the problems of LGBT people as a whole, and instead focuses solely on the top layer of it. .

Exactly, because it doesn't take into account the class issue behind it. For example, a rich person who happens to be gay probably doesn't need to worry about a lot of discrimination. He might not be able to marry who he wants (which is certainly discrimination), but he isn't going to be forced to join the military for economic reasons. And institutions like the military are quite hostile to homosexuals. Up until recently, they couldn't serve openly.

In fact if it weren't for wealthy people who want things like DOMA overturned, the campaign for LGBT rights would be ignored. It was well-funded.

It's like that with every identity issue. Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The class issues are always swept under the rug.

Systematic change? No.

Changing the system? Yes.

The way to do that is up for debate. Some revolutionaries support reforms, some don't. Just support the working-class in every way possible, including helping them to become more class conscious. Especially on identity issues they might care about.

[d3crypt]

I think there is some limited value in reforms. But to much reform will calm people down to much.

[Hermes]

The way to do that is up for debate. Some revolutionaries support reforms, some don't. Just support the working-class in every way possible, including helping them to become more class conscious. Especially on identity issues they might care about.

Can you ever really be sure, though, that whatever you choose to support/champion will help the working class, especially in the long run? That is, if we only look at the short term, then wouldn't we only accomplish reforms without any plans for long-standing change?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm not entirely sure of the distinction you're making between systemic change and changing the system. Could you elaborate? To me, it seems like the system itself can accommodate to certain 'identity politics', but that doesn't mean that is it has changed, systemically or otherwise.

[Remus Bleys]

I think its dangerous to go "they might be too comfortable" reminds me of a Chomsky quote.

"One can, of course, take the position that we don't care about the problems people face today, and want to think about a possible tomorrow. OK, but then don't pretend to have any interest in human beings and their fate, and stay in the seminar room and intellectual coffee house with other privileged people. Or one can take a much more humane position: I want to work, today, to build a better society for tomorrow – the classical anarchist position, quite different from the slogans in the question. That's exactly right, and it leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc. That is not a sufficient condition for organizing for a different and better future, but it is a necessary condition. Anything else will receive the well-merited contempt of people who do not have the luxury to disregard the circumstances in which they live, and try to survive."When people avoid reform on the grounds it makes the poor too comfortable certainly have a point, but it just seems rather elitist.

[AnSyn Blackflag]

And institutions like the military are quite hostile to homosexuals. Up until recently, they couldn't serve openly.


This is certainly true. I served in the USMC (happily done with it) and they are ridiculously macho when it comes to just about every aspect of their lives. Lots of talk about desertion and ass kicking took place as the countdown took place for the repeal of the DADT policy came closer and closer. That being said the transition was surprisingly clean. I guess there were less Marines who wanted any part in that PR nightmare, than anticipated.