Reform vs. Revolution

[Lefty]

They were black political activists and intellectuals back in the day. Booker T. was all about slow progress and operating within the system. W.E.B. was more "SMASH THE SYSTEM!" Which do you think more effective?

[Dio]

Actually Booker T. and W.E.B. DuBois discussed the topic of education for African Americans at the time. Booker T. was for vocational training which is basically "Blacks should just get jobs that are below that of the white man, to progress in society." While DuBois wanted college education for blacks so that they could advance in society.

[pandora]

DuBois all the way. If you read Booker T. his ideas are so antiquated that you see that continuing in his train of thought without other influences would never have led to the progresses that we do have today.
Booker T. was very hard on African-Americans; if you lost your job it was because you didn't work hard enough. It was all about when African American's work hard enough they will be treated with respect by Whitey. What a bunch of shit.
As soon as people of any color were in any sort of position of power you quickly found out what that was about. [PS Check out a certain "badassss" movie for more info on Hollywood if she could but can't it's only 1973 for pete's sake]
I know a Sioux woman only 23 here that when she was 17 she spoke out against having a derisive Native American mascot for the hockey team, in Washington State.
The mascot image was very insulting. They offered to make it more aesthically pleasing, but she and her tribe fought against it still.
She was rewarded by having young men, many from "liberal" families cutting down a Native Totem pole, a very sacred symbol, and bringing it to and burning it on her front lawn instead of a cross, for being so uptight.
Afterwards the ACLU got involved and the symbol was removed from the team; so she won, but this is just a few years ago.
Booker T. would have spoken against her for "causing trouble."
Booker T. also didn't care if you worked 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week and couldn't even cover your bills you were still lucky to have a job.
Lots of blame the victim bs

[ComradeRed]

Out of curiousity, is it possible for reformers to smash the state? I mean, as soon as the reformers get in office...

[Guerrilla22]

In "selected Poems" by Dubois, there is a writing called "On mr. Washington and others," in which Dubois points out that Washington does not take into consideration how society treats blacks. Washington spoke as though all blacks had unequated opprotunity if they were willing to go out and work for it.

Dubois points out that this is not true. Due to the constraints placed on black society by the white society, this opprotunity really did not exisy. Dubois advocated change to society's train of thought as a whole, rather than small, simple reforms.

[Lefty]

Sorry, I admit that I don't know shit about either Booker T. or W.E.B. My history teacher, perhaps erroneously, taught me that Booker T. was more of an Uncle Tom that made small steps for the black man, and that W.E.B. was more of a firebrand. I'll make another analogy that is more modern and perhaps more clear:
Do you agree with the Bono system of activism (spread the word and kiss lots of ass, feeding millions) or the Redstar2000 system of activism? (speak out violently, attend protests, etc)

Basically, it's a question of reform vs. revolution. Which do you support, and why?

[Pawn Power]

REVOLUTION is the only way! :ph34r:

[Lefty]

Now justify your statement, glory. Instead of just posting tired rhetoric that we've all heard before, post your own thoughts.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I completely agree with you Lefty.


Which do you think more effective?


Depends on the situation and the conditions, but I would say a good mix of both would be the most effective in the West. Strikes, flag burning, demonstrations, organization of the workers, occasional shooting and abuse of the politicians and police. I believe that would give the public the best impression. That it could go relatively peacefully, but also show that we are not backing down, and it could go into a full scale (class) war if they didn't back down.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Revolutionary war is relatively faster if it works but takes the most self-sacrifice. Reform is slower, but we all get to stay alive.

Personally I think revolution is the better option, if people are willing to make the sacrifices.

[Pawn Power]

Coming form a more communist and Marxist stand point, where as Booker T. and W.E.B where talking more of civil rights for blacks, we are not actually on the exact same page but in the whole scheme of things it might work out.
I think revolution would be the only way because slow reform brings about a variety of problems. During a slower reform and leisurely progress capitalist leaders and big businesses are able to keep a foot hold and continue their control, not always in an obvious and direct way. A revolution would be the only definite way of breaking the strong hold of the big business capitalists.
A proletariat revolution would better ensure of our on control. During a revolution we could completely break the ties between the current wealthy upper class leaders, which would continue to alter their views slightly to keep control from the new wave of working class.
I also disagree with Kurai Tsuki when he says there would be more loss in a revolution. During slow dawn out reform there would be much more loss because it would stretch out over hundreds of years, while a revolution could be done in a decade. Also the poor and disempowered are dieing everyday at the hands of the capitalists. The longer the revolution takes to transpire that many more will continue to suffer everyday from these atrocities.

[Karo de Perro]

Reform vs Revolution ... which is the way to effect social change with any hope of a sure transition? ...

A law that can be ammended is really no law at all and its not law that creates power but power which creates law ... and for those libertines who bemoan the idea of power ... why protest power in that the stimulus for thought itself is power and for you to becry power is itself hypocrisy in that your protests are themselves a product of mental power.

A person can only be transformed by an initial emphasis of change arising from within the person themself aside from and often contrary to any outside influence,moreover,the efforts of an outside force wishing to effect such a change tend to cause the persons resolve to harden by which he becomes all the more determined to remain as he is.

Material substance itself is tranformed by an outer force being worked upon it but we are human beings empowered with mind-stuff and by this are not mere objects to be shaped and molded at the behest of others or by any means of coercion if our will is truly of such that compromise is never an option.

Society can be viewed as the macrocosm of which the individual is the microcosm and by this one can better understand the situation confronting radicals and reformers ... envision society as a person addicted to a drug,etc ... now,how can this person be redeemed from his malady? ... by gradual steps through which his body flushes all traces of his opiate overlord and thus returns to a semblance of its former self? - NO! ...

Such forms of treatment are ineffective in that their supposed cure fades as quickly as it seem to have occured,the slow process with its step by step plan of recovery is nothing more than a facade by which one fools themself and others for a short time but ultimately lapse back into the same stupor with renewed enthusiasm.

To truly break such addictions and change old habits one must act swiftly and with all the courage and determination one can possibly muster ... any half-hearted attempt is but a waste of time ... ... ... of course by the foregoing I wish to lay the foundations of one all-encompassing principle in socio-political matters and this is the crux of what I hold as a fundamental truth in these concerns ... 'society can only be transformed through the struggle of opposing ideas and the idea which wins the day is the unrelenting idea who refuses to back down or step aside and which in the end takes up the gun'... viva la revolution.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 07:38 PM
Coming form a more communist and Marxist stand point, where as Booker T. and W.E.B where talking more of civil rights for blacks, we are not actually on the exact same page but in the whole scheme of things it might work out.
You're right..the reform vs revolution thread could have been a much broader one if it were discussed in more ways than in relation to civil rights.

[wet blanket]

I think Lenin put it best when he said...

"That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand."

In other words, no. There must be a workers revolution, it must be permanent, and it must be international.

[Lefty]

I agree with you, Glory. Revolution, when enacted quickly and with public support, is the most effective method of bringing about change. (see: Cuban revolution) However, do you think that, given sufficient support by the people, there can be a middle ground? For example, if only democrats, green partiers, and socialists won the upcoming election, would there still be need for a revolution, or would sufficient change have been made?

[onefreakinlove]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:56 PM
Depends on the situation and the conditions, but I would say a good mix of both would be the most effective in the West. Strikes, flag burning, demonstrations, organization of the workers, occasional shooting and abuse of the politicians and police. I believe that would give the public the best impression. That it could go relatively peacefully, but also show that we are not backing down, and it could go into a full scale (class) war if they didn't back down.
Quoted for truth.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 07:18 AM
For example, if only democrats, green partiers, and socialists won the upcoming election, would there still be need for a revolution, or would sufficient change have been made?
Democrats, puh… but if only green party and socialists where elected, ah, a step in the right direction? Maybe, because the US is voting increasingly conservative which is becoming frightening! Even if the only (representatives) elected where socialists and green party members the capitalist corporations would still have their tight grip on, not only the government but society! A (communist/anarchist) revolution is not just to change the government but to change society! Free market capitalism breeds the "powerful CEO", that controls more of the government and the public then one would think.

[Lefty]

Anything's better than republicans. But I'm saying, purely hypothetically, if only politicians with the interests of the people and environment and such in mind were elected, do you think a revolution would still be necessary?

[Fabi]

Neither revolution nor reform. They both are based on forcing people to change - one doing it slowly, one quickly.

The only real change can happen in the individual - it can happen at any time and it only takes a second. If an individual is forced to change by means of reform or revolution we will end up with yet another system of oppression.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:55 AM
Anything's better than republicans. But I'm saying, purely hypothetically, if only politicians with the interests of the people and environment and such in mind were elected, do you think a revolution would still be necessary?
Absolutely... do you think the bourgeois are just going to hand over the means of production?

[synthesis]

I think it's a pretty simple question. Reformism is meaningless - the only times that any (any!) meaningful change have been created out of the electoral process were when the material conditions of the situation threatened to destroy the electoral process and the status quo entirely.

For examples, one need only look at the New Deal, the Progressive Era, the reforms of Petr Stolypin... the ruling class will only ever allow one iota of significant change through the voting process if disallowing it entirely would result in their execution by the angry masses.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:55 AM
Anything's better than republicans. But I'm saying, purely hypothetically, if only politicians with the interests of the people and environment and such in mind were elected, do you think a revolution would still be necessary?
Like i said before:

Even if the only (representatives) elected where socialists and green party members the capitalist corporations would still have their tight grip on, not only the government but society! A (communist/anarchist) revolution is not just to change the government but to change society! Free market capitalism breeds the "powerful CEO", that controls more of the government and the public then one would think.

A revolution is necessary to change society, not just the government. We can change our (representatives) to any political party we like, some parties better then others, but we will still be living under and being ruled by capitalism!

[Bolshevist]

I think Salvator Allende somehow proved to us what reformism results into.

[Lefty]

Glory: living under capitalism would be more tolerable if all the candidates were non-republican. And the quality of life would keep improving, at least in theory. Eventually, with intelligent people in office, we would come to be like Switzerland or New Zealand or Canada- admittedly, they aren't socialist paradises but everyone is at least happy there.

[Pawn Power]

Glory: living under capitalism would be more tolerable if all the candidates were non-republican. And the quality of life would keep improving, at least in theory.
I agree it might be more tolerable, but shouldent we be looking for a real soulution. Blacks under slavery in the 16 and 17 hundreds sang and danced and did other entertaining things to make their awful situation more tolerable. Which was fine to keep their minds off slavery but the main goal was freedom. We want a resolution to the problem not a temporary solution. We have to clean up the mess not just cover it up with newspaper.


Eventually, with intelligent people in office, we would come to be like Switzerland or New Zealand or Canada- admittedly, they aren't socialist paradises but everyone is at least happy there.
I don't think everyone is happy there, the quality of life might be improved ,however why do we still see many people on this forum from Canada.
Voting more "left" representatives into office might make us not as enraged but it doesent solve the main crisis!

[Lefty]

So, I've laid out my plans- work as hard as possible to elect people that will effect change for the better. What are your plans?

[James]

Lefty is just being stupid. In fact, i think he's being counter productive - surely this means he's more on the side of "them"; the imperialists. As most members like to group each other, we might as well just call him an imperialist to save time/confusion. In fact, why not restrict/ban him? If not now, do so in the next CC with hunts!

Anyway lefty, you have to be a r-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-a-r-y.
What "we" (revolutionaries") do, is this...

Firstly, before you do ANYTHING, declare to yourself and pet dog (a cat will do in the event of there being no dog) that you are forming a gang (we call this a "movement" or "revolutionary group"). The aim of this revolutionary action is to form as many different groups as possible, all with different names. Try to include
"free"
"people's"
"Revolutionary"
"workers"
"solidarity"
"socialist"
"Communist"
"Anarchist"
... movement

You can mix (and include your own!) them about as much as you like. The longer and harder to remember - the better!

Then form a constitution, argue over the petty things as much as possible. Once this is done, please do try to annoy all 3 of your members into quiting, or even better - spliting!

A split is most desirable because it will give your publication something new to talk about (even the die hard member[s] of your group will get bored of the cliche revolutionary literature). Indeed, you will be able to call them seperatists, a sect, and if they are a serious enough threat to you/your movement.... then you can roll out the big guns. Yes, you may call them "counter revolutionary" or.... you could even call them the name of the french middle class that existed during the french revolution! Or failing that (if you have lost your dictionary), just call them "Middle Class".

This will form the start of an inter-revolutionary-group war, two "revolutionary" groups: each fighting each other. The counter revolutionaries will think this is stupid, and unproductive, but just call them middle class (if possible, try and link them to nationalist/imperialist tendencies! most will just jump on the band wagon regardless of the evidence ): and then stick your fingers in your ears so you can't hear their [i]capitalist lies.

Obviously this inter-group war will help a revolution because it is the same as making a fire.
A fire is a revolution.
A group is a stick.
The counter revolutionaries think a fire is made by merging the sticks into one: don't listen to them! we all know that a fire is made by rubbing two sticks together.

Then wait for many many years, and maybe something will pop up which you will be able to exploit. I advise you keep your fingers crossed. Only on one hand too. If you have some spare time, cut your hair - as letting it grow is middle class. no no no, i mean cutting your hair is middle class. Actually i'm not sure. hmm. Best off leaving it to a vote each week.

To keep the counter revolutionaries off your back, constantly try to do this thing which we always try to label - "anaylsis" This is basically where you get one writer to loosely link daily happenings/developments to your narrow revolution/philosophy. The more tenuous the link the better, especially if you make it as long as possible (we call this trick "in-depth" anaylsis! works everytime...). Print some copies, and stick it all in a booklet with as shite a front cover as possible - then charge a ridiculous amount. Most people won't buy it: but some will. Out of those, most won't read it all, but thats not the point: the point of this exercise is that it allows you/your group to claim that you/your group are helping "the revolutionary process".
Try selling these during trade union activity and you can claim to be working with/in the trade unions (which, you must point out, are the institutions of the working class. apart from some, which a middle class. And some others are even upper class. Its a tricky call...). A killer argument to use against other inferior revolutionary groups.

In the event of revolution your group must take a vote on something silly, and then split again: and/or then disolve. A few members will try and join in the revolution - what ever you do don't tell them they will get shot.
Once they have gone off with their red flags, disappear for a few months.

Its common sense really.
Much better than working in the system which can bring changes (small - but many which build up over time).
Its also more romantic. And gives you the moral high ground on che lives.

[Lefty]

That made me laugh. Thanks, James. :D

[Kez]

note to all foreign readers, that post was what we call "sarcasm" a skill Brits have perfected.

[James]

I fail to see how that was actually sarcasim; of course it was written with a sarcastic tone, but i think the points still aplies. Being "anti-reform" is being a retard. Retards do what that post said.
End of story.




(retards is the word i've chosen for those who prefer to work against change: also known as conservatives. Throw em out of the CC!)

[Saint-Just]

W.E.B. Dubois was, ultimately, in favour of segregation whilst Washington's approach was far removed. Washington was in favour of a lesser degree of segregation where African-Americans would accept their position in society and work to get out of it. Neither ever developed large mass-movements. Many African Americans living in poor areas either work hard and achieve very little or turn to crime.

As a matter of supporting the historical reckoning of my ideology, W.E.B. Dubois was a Stalin supporter.

On Stalin

By W.E.B. DuBois
From the National Guardian,
March 16, 1953

Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also - and this was the highest proof of his greatness - he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.

Stalin was not a man of conventional learning; he was much more than that: he was a man who thought deeply, read understandingly and listened to wisdom, no matter whence it came. He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance; nor did he let attack drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

His judgment of men was profound. He early saw through the flamboyance and exhibitionism of Trotsky, who fooled the world, and especially America. The whole ill-bred and insulting attitude of Liberals in the U.S. today began with our naive acceptance of Trotsky's magnificent lying propaganda, which he carried around the world. Against it, Stalin stood like a rock and moved neither right nor left, as he continued to advance toward a real socialism instead of the sham Trotsky offered.

Three great decisions faced Stalin in power and he met them magnificently: first, the problem of the peasants, then the West European attack, and last the Second World War. The poor Russian peasant was the lowest victim of tsarism, capitalism and the Orthodox Church. He surrendered the Little White Father easily; he turned less readily but perceptibly from his ikons; but his kulaks clung tenaciously to capitalism and were near wrecking the revolution when Stalin risked a second revolution and drove out the rural bloodsuckers.

Then came intervention, the continuing threat of attack by all nations, halted by the Depression, only to be re-opened by Hitlerism. It was Stalin who steered the Soviet Union between Scylla and Charybdis: Western Europe and the U.S. were willing to betray her to fascism, and then had to beg her aid in the Second World War. A lesser man than Stalin would have demanded vengeance for Munich, but he had the wisdom to ask only justice for his fatherland. This Roosevelt granted but Churchill held back. The British Empire proposed first to save itself in Africa and southern Europe, while Hitler smashed the Soviets.

The Second Front dawdled, but Stalin pressed unfalteringly ahead. He risked the utter ruin of socialism in order to smash the dictatorship of Hitler and Mussolini. After Stalingrad the Western World did not know whether to weep or applaud. The cost of victory to the Soviet Union was frightful. To this day the outside world has no dream of the hurt, the loss and the sacrifices. For his calm, stern leadership here, if nowhere else, arises the deep worship of Stalin by the people of all the Russias.

Then came the problem of Peace. Hard as this was to Europe and America, it was far harder to Stalin and the Soviets. The conventional rulers of the world hated and feared them and would have been only too willing to see the utter failure of this attempt at socialism. At the same time the fear of Japan and Asia was also real. Diplomacy therefore took hold and Stalin was picked as the victim. He was called in conference with British imperialism represented by its trained and well-fed aristocracy; and with the vast wealth and potential power of America represented by its most liberal leader in half a century.

Here Stalin showed his real greatness. He neither cringed nor strutted. He never presumed, he never surrendered. He gained the friendship of Roosevelt and the respect of Churchill. He asked neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory. But on what he deemed essential, he was inflexible. He was willing to resurrect the League of Nations, which had insulted the Soviets. He was willing to fight Japan, even though Japan was then no menace to the Soviet Union, and might be death to the British Empire and to American trade. But on two points Stalin was adamant: Clemenceau's "Cordon Sanitaire" must be returned to the Soviets, whence it had been stolen as a threat. The Balkans were not to be left helpless before Western exploitation for the benefit of land monopoly. The workers and peasants there must have their say.

Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and of the ill-bred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he suffered under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his own lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.