Rapid change or moderate reform?

[monkeydust]

Just browsing the Politics Forum today I noticed that some claimed (jokingly or otherwise) that they will vote Bush at the upcoming U.S. General election, because another four years of Bush, will, presumably bring greater opposition to Right Wing politics.

There's certainly a case to be made here, abandoning short term imrovements in order to make eventual, substantial change more likely. Yet this raises more questions.

Should we rigidly hold true to our ideologies, using all methods possible to increase the likelihhood of an eventual 'revolution' of some kind? Or should we seek to institute moderate reform, on the basis that it's quite realistically achievable?

There's certainly an arguement for the latter.

Most of us here are fairly radical in our beliefs, Commuists, Anarchists etc. There's comparatively few moderate social democrats. Yet, whilst sticking to our radical ideals may be what we consider principally 'right', our chance of achieving any great revolution is quite unlikely.

On the other hand, by pushing for gradual reform, we are able to make things somewhat 'better', and it's quite possible to do.

The question then, is should we stick to our guns, though the chance of success is low? Or should we aim to make things slightly 'better' simply because this is what's achievable?

Whilst a successful revolution might achieve a far more desirable situation than than the path of gradual change. The likelihood of success is comparatively small.

Essentially what I'm asking asking is: Is it better to push for moderate change, simply on the basis that it's the only way in which differences can realistically be attained; or is best to look for revolution, despite the fact that we may achieve nothing?

[Felicia]

Wanting and fighting for rapid change is a part of radical leftism. It's what most of us want, CHANGE RIGHT NOW. :)

but unfortunately that's a little difficult given the society most of us are living in, Western society. immediate change is more difficult for various reasons, the main one (imo) being that capitalism has taken so much root that it's all anyone here knows and people are afraid of change.

edit: but yeah, we have to "stick to our guns" so to speak, or we might aswell just give up and vote for the right. Us not giving up and challenging them is what keeps them from having absolute power.

[SittingBull47]

I am for rapid change. I think a change that is brought on with such alacrity is the best as opposed to slow reform. The potency can be lost if the speed is too slow.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I feel like G.B. Shaw but I believe moderate change is important if we are to improve the lot of the working class, anyway the working class have to have their conciousness raised to revolutionary fervour before they will rise against their oppressors surely?

Why not fight for what we can now and build simultanously.

[monkeydust]

SittingBull:


I am for rapid change. I think a change that is brought on with such alacrity is the best as opposed to slow reform. The potency can be lost if the speed is too slow.

I agree to an extent, but what you seem to be arguing involves the actual effectiveness of the two methods to acheieve the same goal, this wasn't really what I was getting at.

I'd imagine that most of us here would prefer radical change as soon as possible, a revolution, if you will. Yet, such an eventuality is, in my opinion most unlikely, at least right now. We can't really deny this. Whilst we can rant on about revolutionary politics, convert some, maybe change many opinions, we still have to accept that the likelihood is, through this method we may achieve nothing. There's simply not enough support for our cause at the moment.

On the other hand, a little change is comparatively quite possible, in our lifetimes. Whilst moderate changes, through constitutional means may not satisfy us, they're still quite attainable. By pursuing these goals we may have a far greater chance of achieving something than by aiming for 'revolution'

So then, do you think that we should aim for moderate change rather than revolution?

Geist


Why not fight for what we can now and build simultanously.

You seem to be suggesting moderate reform as a means to achieve our eventual goals, or not opposed to the probability of 'revolution'. This is certainly a possibility, I'm glad you raised the point.

It may be true that we can achieve moderate change, whilst simulataneously increasing our revolutionary presence. Yet, moderate reform is usually achieved through constitutional means. It normally would result in what some would call 'Capitalism with a nice face'. We can achieve some change through constitutional means, but realistically, an entrenched constitution would need to be overthrown entirely in order to institute the change we desire.

So, we can see that at some stage a 'revolution' of some kind will likely be necessary, this is where moderate change can actual be opposed to our cause.

In a left leaning state, the working class will often be relatively, they will not have the will to pursue a revolution. To take a Historical example, Germany's Weimar Republic advanced welfare reforms, communists thought changes hadn't gone far enough, yet they could never gain the support they needed because the workers were fairly content with their lot.

What I'm trying to say here is:

The more content the proletariat, the less likely the revolution.
With moderate change, the proleatriat is more content
Hence moderate change decreases the likelihood of substantial change.


In this way we almost have the choice of 'one or the other'.
We can either keep pursuing our goal of eventual revolution, or we can aim the moderate change, with a greater chance of success.

This brings me back to my initial example, from the start of post, referring to the possibilty of Bush's re-election.
Should we be encouraged by his right wing measures because they increase the likelihood of eventual, greater change?

[synthesis]

Yet, whilst sticking to our radical ideals may be what we consider principally 'right', our chance of achieving any great revolution is quite unlikely.

It isn't unlikely. It is inevitable.

[redstar2000]

On the other hand, by pushing for gradual reform, we are able to make things somewhat 'better', and it's quite possible to do.

This seems to be the "heart" of your thesis...but suppose it's not true?

If you look around the world today, the "gradual reforms" that were put into place in the period 1920-1950 (roughly) are all being "watered down" or repealed outright.

The major political parties in the advanced capitalist countries have all agreed that the time is "ripe" to "screw the working class"...perhaps all the way back to the conditions of 1920 or even 1844!

I suggest that the capitalist class has already decided that not only will no further pro-working class reforms be permitted but the ones that exist will be "gradually" dismantled. That's what they call "reform".

Thus, to strive for "gradual reform" is even more an "exercise in futility" than to strive for proletarian revolution. If the latter has a successful probability of .001%, the former has a successful probability of zero.

To put it another way, a young, healthy, expanding capitalism has "room" for pro-working class reforms. "Mature" capitalist economies cannot "afford" more concessions to the working class but must, in fact, "take back" the concessions that were made in its youth in order to continue functioning at all.

In recent decades, we've seen that "mature" capitalist economies struggle to grow by even 1 or 2 per cent per year...and often they stagnate or even shrink slightly. Some (perhaps much) of the growth that they do display is in unproductive sections of the economy: military expenditures, domestic security, the prison complex, etc.

Thus, if you had raised your argument in the Sweden of 1930 or the United Kingdom of 1950, it would have been difficult for the pro-revolution folks to argue with you.

But now, your argument is obsolete...even if we limited our demands to a series of pro-working class reforms, it would still take a revolution to actually achieve them.

Since revolution is now required to make any kind of real progress, why not go for everything we want?

We have nothing to lose.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[monkeydust]

Very well put Redstar.

Your argument certainly seems to ring true at the moment, in the UK right now the Trade Unions capacity for influence has declined enormously since Thatcherism and New 'Labour'. I suppose to achieve anything will be an eternal uphill struggle, furthermore, if Politics is Bourgeois dominated, any concession to the working class may just be an attempt to 'appease' them, only to prevent openly radical opposition gaining majority support..

[bluerev002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:08 AM
Just browsing the Politics Forum today I noticed that some claimed (jokingly or otherwise) that they will vote Bush at the upcoming U.S. General election, because another four years of Bush, will, presumably bring greater opposition to Right Wing politics.

There's certainly a case to be made here, abandoning short term imrovements in order to make eventual, substantial change more likely. Yet this raises more questions.

Should we rigidly hold true to our ideologies, using all methods possible to increase the likelihhood of an eventual 'revolution' of some kind? Or should we seek to institute moderate reform, on the basis that it's quite realistically achievable?

There's certainly an arguement for the latter.

Most of us here are fairly radical in our beliefs, Commuists, Anarchists etc. There's comparatively few moderate social democrats. Yet, whilst sticking to our radical ideals may be what we consider principally 'right', our chance of achieving any great revolution is quite unlikely.

On the other hand, by pushing for gradual reform, we are able to make things somewhat 'better', and it's quite possible to do.

The question then, is should we stick to our guns, though the chance of success is low? Or should we aim to make things slightly 'better' simply because this is what's achievable?

Whilst a successful revolution might achieve a far more desirable situation than than the path of gradual change. The likelihood of success is comparatively small.

Essentially what I'm asking asking is: Is it better to push for moderate change, simply on the basis that it's the only way in which differences can realistically be attained; or is best to look for revolution, despite the fact that we may achieve nothing?
Wont it all just depend on the place you want change in?

Obiously, as it was already put, we cannot even beggin to achieve a large scale revolution in the US. Moderate change would have to rule here. Where we will have to fight for workers rights, animal rights, any kind of rights that are being violated. For the most part it hasnt worked, but through time our objectives somewhat have been reached, moderate change I mean.

If your in a third world country where oppression rules the land, the people are starving, diying, and their voices ar no longer heard, the people are forced to take up arms to achieve thier objectives.

I cant do much for quick social change at the present moment and in my present home, so I must work for moderate reform.

But if it were anywhere in latin america, where the conditions are right, I would not hesitate to take up arms and join the local rebel group.

[suffianr]

Most of us here are fairly radical in our beliefs, Commuists, Anarchists etc. There's comparatively few moderate social democrats. Yet, whilst sticking to our radical ideals may be what we consider principally 'right', our chance of achieving any great revolution is quite unlikely.

On the other hand, by pushing for gradual reform, we are able to make things somewhat 'better', and it's quite possible to do.

To each, his/her own.

I agree that present times may require a more 'aggressive' approach, however, revolutions cannot be forced upon people.

A simplified case study:

When the Malayan Communist Party attempted to spread the revolution within the domestic labour movements in the early 20's and 30's, and subsequently all out guerrilla warfare in the 40's and 50's, the people's response towards liberation from the British colonials was at best, lukewarm.

The fact that the communists had attempted a Maoist strategy towards the people didn't really help at all, either; because the communists were mostly from Mainland China, their 'target audience' so to speak, were mostly Chinese labourers who had emigrated from China to Malaya to work in tin mines. So the Party's outreach was concentrated almost entirely on this group of people, neglecting, at their own expense, the interests of other ethnicities.

Until it was too late, the Party realized that it was trying to persuade a nationwide revolution on small communities of isolated groups, nothing like the wide-scale peasant-based movement of Mao, not even at a 'microscopic' level.

The result was the estrangement of other ethnicities within the local political landscape. The Malays, the Indians, the indigenous tribes etc.

This, in absolutely no time at all, led to the British exploiting this weak spot: "The revolution isn't for you, it's for the Chinese. It's not your national revolution, it's theirs!", echoed the government propaganda.

So alienating the other ethnicities led from disinterest to disillusionment and eventually to disgust and pure hatred of the Chinese workers and their communist allies. And so the British not only accomplished their goal of 'divide and conquer' but also established a sense of animosity that is still working it's way into present generations of Malaysians.

So, the question of whether revolutions should happen is as important as the question of who revolutions involve as well.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 04:10 PM

Wont it all just depend on the place you want change in?

Obiously, as it was already put, we cannot even beggin to achieve a large scale revolution in the US. Moderate change would have to rule here. Where we will have to fight for workers rights, animal rights, any kind of rights that are being violated. For the most part it hasnt worked, but through time our objectives somewhat have been reached, moderate change I mean.

If your in a third world country where oppression rules the land, the people are starving, diying, and their voices ar no longer heard, the people are forced to take up arms to achieve thier objectives.

I cant do much for quick social change at the present moment and in my present home, so I must work for moderate reform.

But if it were anywhere in latin america, where the conditions are right, I would not hesitate to take up arms and join the local rebel group.
Very good point. I agree with you.

Perhaps I should have clarified my initial arguments, a revolution in an opressed, poor Third World nation could be relatively possible. If a revolution seemed likely, pushing only moderate reform would be a little pointless, unless small change was your eventual goal. My original point was largely based on the premise that the majority of this board, hails from predominantly First World Nations, notably Britian and the U.S.A., in which Capiltalism is firmly entrenched.

[bluerev002]

I see. Well, I would like to see a quick social change.

But we must be realistic, the people are too blinded by propaganda to do such a thing.

"The revolution isn't for you, it's for the Chinese. It's not your national revolution, it's theirs!"

That would be a statement seen here in the US if wed try to do such a thing.