Reform vs. Revolution

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2004, 08:05 PM
Anarchism for dummies (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6421)
Are you sure that the name "anarchism for dummies" doesnt send out the wrong message? Not that I disagree, anarchism is for dummies.

[Edit by CyM: I split this from the shoplifitng thread, let's have a real debate]

[PRC-UTE]

Are you sure that the name "anarchism for dummies" doesnt send out the wrong message? Not that I disagree, anarchism is for dummies.

Ouch, your wit is incredible, m8. :rolleyes: anarchism has no chance against the likes of youse. :ph34r:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:09 AM
Ouch, your wit is incredible, m8. :rolleyes: anarchism has no chance against the likes of youse. :ph34r:
He's just jealous that there are people in the world who actually know what it is they believe in.

[PRC-UTE]

Or can spell! :lol:


Nationalists are scum who must be stammped on.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:09 AM

Ouch, your wit is incredible, m8. :rolleyes: anarchism has no chance against the likes of youse. :ph34r:
Against the likes of me? What’s up promoting your selves guys? You stand no chance full stop, my petty dislike is unnecessary, your ideology is doomed with out it.

He's just jealous that there are people in the world who actually know what it is they believe in.

Indeed, I’m just glad I can experience the feeling with you dear TAT.

Or can spell!

Ahh, the sheer brilliance of this post. Lets consider your previous revelation:-


Ouch, your wit is incredible, m8. anarchism has no chance against the likes of youse.

Ohh and picking up on spelling is not a replacement for actual argument.

But on the subject of nationalists getting stamped on, I can recall another group of nationalists who claimed that they held socialist ideals: -

But whatever mein Fuhrer.


PS you know that Irish republicans actually supported Hitler in the war? Despite Kristallnacht, and the whole well know extream right wing ideology etc.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 31 2004, 01:06 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 31 2004, 01:06 PM) Against the likes of me? What’s up promoting your selves guys? You stand no chance full stop, my petty dislike is unnecessary, your ideology is doomed with out it. [/b]
Are we being taught on doomed ideologies by a reformist? :huh:

Oh please, spare us your biting criticism oh great one! :lol:


[email protected] 31 2004, 10:36 AM
A co-op employee is wage slave like any other; they have the choice to join the co-op or simply be employed by it.

Either way, I believe it's still valid. If nothing else it shows why shoplifting is incompatible with even ethical retailing.
Doesn't matter, my point was that a co-op is collectively owned, therefore very little institutionalized theft occurs in it as class dynamics are blurred in such a place. Or in a collective, where the class dynamics are completely abolished, at least internally. To steal from it is therefore not justified.

So shoplifting is only incompatible with ethical retail outlets. Shoplifting from anywhere that has institutionalized theft is completely justified.

[James]

Are we being taught on doomed ideologies by a reformist?

Oh please, spare us your biting criticism oh great one!



Yeah shut up enigma.

The petty reformers who you admire achieved nothing. They have contributed nothing to the cause. You aren’t with us: thus you are against us. This makes you a “counter revolutionary fuck-wit”. Restrict him I say!

Take the C19th that you admire so much, Enigma! Nothing was done!

Oh… apart from maximum working hours firstly being introduced.
But that’s it!
Oh … and of course they were then reduced further... But nothing else!

Actually, when I think about it, there were a whole host of factory regulations and reforms introduced. But they achieved nothing! Our man on the streets with the black flag did so much more! So there you have it, apart from a little success, your philosophy achieved pretty much nothing.

Hang on though, its only fair, I suppose, to mention the fact that reformers did succeed in making it illegal for children to work in certain conditions. And for certain hours. And eventually at certain ages.
But that’s it!

When I think about it a bit more though… I suppose that they did sort of succeed in gaining the vote for certain men. But that’s hardly a socialist ideal. Indeed maybe the reformers were counter productive!
So that really really is it!

So shut up enigma. And one more thing, I find it really annoying the way that you reformers insist on… oh hang on. I’ve just found out that the reformers also increased the number of men able to vote.
And I suppose reformers did get the vote for women in the C19th.

But elections mean nothing! What we are really about is the common man. The worker in the street! And not just the petty ways in which certain employers were slightly restricted in their exploitation of the workers. Yes, reformers achieved nothing for the common man!

Actually… I suppose they did revolutionize sanitation via reforms. But so what? Workers got clean water?! Oh and proper drainage systems. And I suppose it is true that reforms led to building regulations, which in turn abolished back to back housing. But so what?!! Our man on the street with his black flag achieves and has achieved, far more than all this!

And that was all in the past, enigma. Get with the times! Nothing is achieved these days. Well nothing that really matters…
Oh apart from, I suppose,
Labour...
gave GCHQ trade union rights again
social chapter signed
unfair dismissal protection after 12 months - down from 2 years
right to 11 hours of rest a day for all night shift workers
legal protection for workers taking strike action
new rights to protect whistle blowers
devolution
more and extended maternity and family rights
the new deal
national minimum wage
house of lords reform
free eye tests for over 60s
£1.6billion extra for 3rd world aid and international development (largest ever increase)
banning of anti personnel mines
1 million UK landmines destroyed
writing off debts of many countries
ban
more than 1 bn invested in renewable energy (i think a white paper is due on this)25,000 hectares of green belt created since '97
policy of using brown field before green field
country side and rights of way act - opening up of countryside
new £400 winter fuel allowance for OAPs

Hang on. I've just realised that maybe i was being a bit too harsh on poor old enigma. I'll grant enigma that: ok mate - maybe i was harsh! Reforms can achieve bits and bobs. But thats it.
You achieve much more by becoming mods and admins of boards, and wasting your time away in front of a computer screen.

Actually, i think enigma's philosophy has achieved more than your philosophy. ACtually - count me on enigma's side in this.

I'm not against anarchism: but don't you dare have the arrogance to bash a philosophy which is actually helping real people, in the real world, every day. And untill "the revolution comes" (have you set a date yet?): thats ALL we have.

Oh and by the way, one more point, you really cool anarchist who bash reformism.
Go fuck yourselves.
Thank you.

[Guest1]

Of course James, whatever you say... ignore that those reforms happened because of widespread riots, and not because parliament had been elected to enact them. Parliament did what reformists have always done, they threw the workers a bone to keep them from revolting.

It wasn't reformists who established the Unions and organized the workers, it was the radical left. Meaning Anarchists and Communists. Reformists, as usual, didn't have the balls to break the law. Then again, breaking laws is not reform.

So you contradicted yourself, godsucker :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

PS you know that Irish republicans actually supported Hitler in the war?

That's a lie, not that would bother your rant.

A few IR's wanted to get guns from the Nazis and it didn't work out. They were operating from the assumption that "England's difficuty is Ireland's opportunity". I don't support that course of action myself but I can understand the POV of physical force republicans who were suspicious of all politics. It wasn't ideaological.

However many more IR's died in the trenches of Spain fighting in the International Brigades and the POUM militia.


But on the subject of nationalists getting stamped on, I can recall another group of nationalists who claimed that they held socialist ideals: -

But whatever mein Fuhrer.

National Socialism of the Nazis = Irish Republican Socialism

BRILLAINT! :lol:

That's the silliest comparison I've ever heard. Your entire claim rests on jargon. I will answer it so I don't have to hear it again.

It is ahistorical and unmarxian to compare the Nazis to the IRM. Germany was a classic case of an industrial capitalist country in crisis. The ruling class turned to strike busting thugs to smash the biggest workers movement in Europe.

Ireland is a small nation struggling against occupation whose members include union organisers and is suppressed by the ruling class north and south. Republicanism comes from the working class and the movement is overwhelmingly proletarian.

Marx, Engels and Lenin supported the Irish struggle for National Liberation, every marxist should.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:53 AM

That's a lie, not that would bother your rant.

A few IR's wanted to get guns from the Nazis and it didn't work out. They were operating from the assumption that "England's difficuty is Ireland's opportunity". I don't support that course of action myself but I can understand the POV of physical force republicans who were suspicious of all politics. It wasn't ideaological.

However many more IR's died in the trenches of Spain fighting in the International Brigades and the POUM militia.



National Socialism of the Nazis = Irish Republican Socialism

BRILLAINT! :lol:

That's the silliest comparison I've ever heard. Your entire claim rests on jargon. I will answer it so I don't have to hear it again.

It is ahistorical and unmarxian to compare the Nazis to the IRM. Germany was a classic case of an industrial capitalist country in crisis. The ruling class turned to strike busting thugs to smash the biggest workers movement in Europe.

Ireland is a small nation struggling against occupation whose members include union organisers and is suppressed by the ruling class north and south. Republicanism comes from the working class and the movement is overwhelmingly proletarian.

Marx, Engels and Lenin supported the Irish struggle for National Liberation, every marxist should.
That's a lie, not that would bother your rant.


Actually its not, the IRA in particular supported Germany. You know like, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc: -

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1250

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov15/f4.asp

http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/IRA/Nazi.htm

Need I go on? Or must a further shatter your world view? Your ideology supported Kristallnacht.




Marx, Engels and Lenin supported the Irish struggle for National Liberation, every marxist should.

Marx also believe that the 1848 revolutions heralded the fall of the ruling class and even released the communist manifesto to try and help things along... we all know how that ended up... or rather the educated among us do. The point is Marx was not infalable, he wasn't to know that the "army" fighting for Irish sovereignty would become a group of Nazi supporting thugs in WW2, or become a group of Raqueteering thugs after. That they would abuse the issue, to such an extent that they lost practically any support in the nation they are trying to convince. He also didn't have the knowledge of what the republic of Ireland would look like following the split; a practically religious fundermentalist state, where a woman no longer has control of her own body, etc. Marx was wrong... and i'm not a marxist, so why do I care?

ignore that those reforms happened because of widespread riots, and not because parliament had been elected to enact them.

Actually thats not true, the most violant period during the reforms was caused by the Chartists, the reform following that took place in a time when the workers had better representation.

But I want you to point out just one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better. Just one, and I will accept defeat.

[DaCuBaN]

Doesn't matter, my point was that a co-op is collectively owned, therefore very little institutionalized theft occurs in it as class dynamics are blurred in such a place.

When employees join the co-op I'll agree - they have a vested interest in the establishment, and hence are unlikely to feel 'hard done by'. The problem lies in the nature of our society: There's no real incentive for most to join the co-op, and hence they feel no allegience - no responsibility - toward it.

So they fuck it over, and all those people who actually had the 'smarts' to join the co-operative.


Or in a collective, where the class dynamics are completely abolished, at least internally. To steal from it is therefore not justified.

Again, I agree. This is even more true than the former example - Theft in this case can have no justification, and I'm sure you're as vehemontly opposed here as I am.


So shoplifting is only incompatible with ethical retail outlets. Shoplifting from anywhere that has institutionalized theft is completely justified.


Whilst I understand your point, I reject it. It can indeed be reasoned as 'justifiable' to steal from a capitalist, in the end what do you achieve?

I go back to my inital point: If you are stealing for your own benefit - which will be true in the vast majority of cases then you are no better than the capitalists you despise. If we are working toward a 'better' world, surely we should start by instilling an attitude of mutual respect?

Theft does not promote such an attitude: It promotes greed, selfishness, and animosity to name but a few. The very idea is utterly incompatible with all social systems: After all, theft is theft - whether you're dipping the till at work, snaffling a 'candy' bar or scamming the doll, you become a leech.

[James]

Of course James, whatever you say...

Sorry. Of course, it is whatever you or any other "cool anarchist" (who hold the authority on the board: I love these contradictions. Thats anarchist theory in practise for you :rolleyes: ) "say". Isn't it? And then the toys come out of the pram when anyone says/thinks anything else.



ignore that those reforms happened because of widespread riots,

Yes. This really does confirm what i suspected: you are very ignorant and don't know much about history.

Factory Reform movement wasn't known for being radical old boy: it was a success because of the reform movement which it chiefly was. It worked because they didn't try and "over throw the authority".
Or was it actually down to the communists and anarchists Che Y m? Or were they too busy being admins?

True, sometimes there were riots too - but i'm not sure of any reforms which were passed in the UK because of riots alone. Do you? Take the reform acts: most of them were passed when there was no rioting. Or were they passed because there was no rioting?

Indeed one could make the argument that rioting and being general dickheads (you'd call it trying to over throw the system, i'm sure :rolleyes: ) was counter productive. The early 1800s were famous for government repression, in response to "revolutionaries". It took a few decades (and the work of many reformers) for any change what so ever to come after that!




and not because parliament had been elected to enact them. Parliament did what reformists have always done, they threw the workers a bone to keep them from revolting.

Oh PLEASE!
Are you really THAT ignorant, that you actually believe the government couldn't handle revolts? (which were even only potential)

The government smashed the chartists when they rebelled: time and time again.

Its as fucking stupid as the morons on here who claim there is going to be a revolution in the UK in the very near future!

These kind of people are counter productive because they are "away with the fairies"! But of course, on here, being away with the fairies is rewarded. And denying the existance of fairies is punished :rolleyes:


It wasn't reformists who established the Unions

Like Mr Owen you mean?
You really are VERY stupid.
Why, or rather, HOW are you an admin/mod?!?!?


Reformists, as usual, didn't have the balls to break the law. Then again, breaking laws is not reform.

And you manage to be wrong, yet again!
The chartists often broke the law: especially the reformist majority!
Take the suffrage campaign. They were always in prison.



So you contradicted yourself,

No i don't, Mr-i-hate-authority-yet-am-an-admin/mod.

Take the more recent reforms. Where was the threat of revolution which supposedly FORCED the rulling elite to "throw the scrapes" down off that high table, to prevent them from rebelling?

Do you, as an anarchist, take the credit for all of these reforms?
Actually no - do you take the credit for ANY of these recent reforms?

I find what enigma said quite correct. I'm sure he won't mind me repeating the question.
"point out just one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better. Just one, and I will accept defeat."





godsucker

Why are you bringing what i personally believe into this?
I think this qualifies as...

defamatory, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law

[The Feral Underclass]

Enigma,

I removed the Hitler picture..not because its any great policy of the admins to do such thing, just that I don't want to have to look at the fuckers face. Hope you understand.

Please don't post pictures of Adolf Hitler, it's not nice...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2004, 12:40 PM
Enigma,

I removed the Hitler picture..not because its any great policy of the admins to do such thing, just that I don't want to have to look at the fuckers face. Hope you understand.

Please don't post pictures of Adolf Hitler, it's not nice...
Sorry I thought that it was appropriate, considering i was arguing with a nationalist, who wishes to deny the people of Northern Ireland the right to self determination. More over a preson who denies the very linbk between the IRA and Nazi Germany.

But yeah, its not nice, hense the reason why I posted it.

[PRC-UTE]

Marx was wrong... and i'm not a marxist, so why do I care?

. . . ah, so why am I wasting time talking to you? You call me a nationalist - you're a Bourgesoie Reformist! :lol:

Your idealogy is working through a national parliament and you call me a nationalist for wanting to smash the state and replace it with worker self-management?

That's bloody hilarious!


Sorry I thought that it was appropriate, considering i was arguing with a nationalist, who wishes to deny the people of Northern Ireland the right to self determination. More over a preson who denies the very linbk between the IRA and Nazi Germany.

I'm not a nationalist.

The IRA didn't ideaologically support the Nazis.

I'm not a "phsyical force" republican and I don't support the IRA so I'm not by association a Nazi as you aledge, even if your logic was sound.

As it is, I'm a Republican Socialist. I support the IRSP/INLA and had I lived years ago I would've supported the Irish Citizen Army, (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/cc1913/ica.html) not the IRA.

I just don't agree with your absurd assertions that Nazism = Irish Republicanism.

[PRC-UTE]

Here's another Irish Republican who lived in that time period and was a supporter of the anarchist worker revolution in Spain, Peader O'Donnell. (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/rbr5/peader.html)

Yet by your logic I guess he's still a nazi, since IR = nazi.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:57 AM

. . . ah, so why am I wasting time talking to you? You call me a nationalist - you're a Bourgesoie Reformist! :lol:

Your idealogy is working through a national parliament and you call me a nationalist for wanting to smash the state and replace it with worker self-management?

That's bloody hilarious!



I'm not a nationalist.

The IRA didn't ideaologically support the Nazis.

I'm not a "phsyical force" republican and I don't support the IRA so I'm not by association a Nazi as you aledge, even if your logic was sound.

As it is, I'm a Republican Socialist. I support the IRSP/INLA and had I lived years ago I would've supported the Irish Citizen Army, (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/cc1913/ica.html) not the IRA.

I just don't agree with your absurd assertions that Nazism = Irish Republicanism.
You call me a nationalist - you're a Bourgesoie Reformist!

Where did I say I was a reformist? If you noticed, I was branded a reformist by TAT/CyM (cant remember which). Just because they say it don’t make it so. If violent or democratic socialism were to be formed I would support it: -

you're a Bourgesoie Reformist!

Or can spell!

LOL, yet again you prove your a hypocrite. That’s not how you spell "Bourgeois", nor is it an accurate description, though the "Bourgeoisie" did aim to reform, they aimed to reform so that they, the rich elements of the middle classes would replace the Émigré’s, as the controlling class in 18th-19th century western Europe. As such the "Bourgeoisie" would never support economic or political equality. If you also hadn't noticed the "Bourgeoisie" actually used revolution far more than any Marxist to achieve change. The 1848 revolutions, the great revolution of France, etc. So all in all I think you've been proved wrong on this one... completely.

you call me a nationalist for wanting to smash the state and replace it with worker self-management?

What you support is an unwelcome land plan which denies the rights of the Northern Irish people to the right of self determination. You seek to create further disunity among the working classes, making any progress far harder to achieve. You also seek to replace the British ruling class with a Catholic extremist ruling class, which is infinitely worse, especially if you are a teenager who has been stupid enough to get pregnant.


Now that’s bloody hilarious, the fact that you are so ignorant.

I'm not a nationalist.

Yeah you are, you support a nationalist movement, thus you are a nationalist.

The IRA didn't ideaologically support the Nazis.

No, just aided and abetted them... which makes them lackeys to Nazism. Nor is that how you spell “ideologically”.

I'm not a "phsyical force" republican and I don't support the IRA so I'm not by association a Nazi as you aledge, even if your logic was sound.

Then why have you supported the IRA at every turn to defend them and their actions? Why did you seek to defend them and their history, when it was shown that they supported the Nazis? Your a liar as well as a hypocrite. And that’s not how you spell “physical”.

[Guest1]

According to Engels, Marx and he were directly involved in the Chartist movement in Britain. They even organized and published newspapers for the movement there.

So your attempt to dismiss Marxist contribution to gains for the working class fails. Reformist contributions, however, remain dubious. Every "successful" reformist movement has brought the working class to the verge of revolution and real change, only to betray it at the last moment, opting instead for temporary window-dressing to Capitalism's harsh class realities. It is fine to accept reforms until Capitalism's final breaths, but one should not have any illusions that they will last, or they are a goal in and of themselves.

That, is the difference between you and the radical left.

[DaCuBaN]

Reformist contributions, however, remain dubious. Every "successful" reformist movement has brought the working class to the verge of revolution and real change, only to betray it at the last moment

Sure; but the same could be argued about the Russian revolution; of the revolt in Spain: Revolutionaries have a history of both betrayal and failure - Reformism has done no such betrayal: It never intended to revolutionise anything. After all, the whole idea of reformism is based on making capitalism bearable; not destroying it.

But it's a moot point ;)

[James]

According to Engels, Marx and he were directly involved in the Chartist movement in Britain.

Where?


They even organized and published newspapers for the movement there.

All i found was that they had links with the chartist movement, and Engels contributed an article or so to the northern star.


If anything, their major contribution to chartism, was to attract prominent members away from England and the chartist movement, and into Europe. Thus one could argue that their main contribution to the chartist movement (importance of which can not be underestimated) was to actually help the downfall of chartism.

But i need to see these other sources that you quoted, before i can make any such statement.




So your attempt to dismiss Marxist contribution to gains for the working class fails.

hmm, what you were actually asked was:
"point out just one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better. Just one, and I will accept defeat."

All you have done is reminded us that Marx and Engels may have written one or two articles (who didn't in those days?), had chartist friends (who didn't in those days?), and ultimately drew important leaders away from the chartist movement.

You have thus hardly done either. You havn't proved a worthwhile marxist contribution to the chartist movement (a marxist contribution to a movement which wasn't an anarcho-communist movement! If anything it was a reformist, utopian socialist movement), and you havn't in the slightest even offered one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better.




Reformist contributions, however, remain dubious.

Yes, that long list is nothing compared to the excellent examples of anarchist success in Britain that you have given

:rolleyes:


Every "successful" reformist movement has brought the working class to the verge of revolution and real change, only to betray it at the last moment, opting instead for temporary window-dressing to Capitalism's harsh class realities.

Actually the chartists did attempt revolution on several seperate occasions. Their sacrifices stand as evidence of how futile and counter productive such attempts are, in such political, socio-economic climates (both me and enigma have stated that we'd support revolution when/if such conditions are correct).



It is fine to accept reforms until Capitalism's final breaths, but one should not have any illusions that they will last, or they are a goal in and of themselves.


Quote either of us claiming such.
You can't.

What do you think that means? Go on, use that brain cell baby!



That, is the difference between you and the radical left.

You mean between the position that you made up, for us, and you (The radical left).
lol - like kamo and his friend who is aptly named "The Working Class".


Wish i was as cool like you
:rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 3 2004, 01:16 AM
According to Engels, Marx and he were directly involved in the Chartist movement in Britain. They even organized and published newspapers for the movement there.

So your attempt to dismiss Marxist contribution to gains for the working class fails. Reformist contributions, however, remain dubious. Every "successful" reformist movement has brought the working class to the verge of revolution and real change, only to betray it at the last moment, opting instead for temporary window-dressing to Capitalism's harsh class realities. It is fine to accept reforms until Capitalism's final breaths, but one should not have any illusions that they will last, or they are a goal in and of themselves.

That, is the difference between you and the radical left.
According to Engels, Marx and he were directly involved in the Chartist movement in Britain.

The only direct involvement of any consequence was chartists helping Marx set up the International Working mans association... in 1864, after the fall of Chartism.

All Engel’s did was write a document regarding the conditions of the English working class, along with a few articles for an already popular chartist newspaper, where the likes of Fergus O’Connor and William Lovett huge figures in the chartist movement were already writing. An inconsequential document written right at the end of the Chartist movement before its collapse. Everything written within had already been noted in numerous previous far more distributed works, such as the capitalist author Dickens, even the Tory prime minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote a novel about the conditions of the working classes of England. The government had also published their own reports on living and working conditions, and the public outrage caused led to the mines act. You see even the capitalist government was more directly involved than Marx and Engel’s. They were until far more recently quite insignificant.

If you read Marx and Engel’s collective works, 1844-45, to be fair, it is a very accurate description of the conditions of the working classes.

Though granted they were involved to a degree in the chartist movement, they were not leading players, and their ideology was not shared by most chartists, nor was it the movements stated ideology.

Reformist contributions, however, remain dubious.

Any gains made by the Chartist movement which you state Marx and Engel’s were directly involved in, were REFORMIST contributions, the movment never was a revolutionary or communist movement. Chartism was a largely moral force, rather than physical, events such as the plug plot riots were rare to say the least.

Every "successful" reformist movement has brought the working class to the verge of revolution and real change,

Except the very one we are discussing was never going to cause revolution in Britain... and Britain was never going to revolt in 1918 when suffrage was granted. Nor in 1872 when the secret ballot act was formed. Nor the mines act of 1842, nor the factories act of 1874, need I go on? If you wish to argue this point I suggest you further educate your self.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/...el/peelhome.htm (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/peelhome.htm)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/chartism.htm

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/histov.html

Some excellent sites on both political and social change in Britain in the 19th century, very interesting reading.

It is fine to accept reforms until Capitalism's final breaths, but one should not have any illusions that they will last, or they are a goal in and of themselves.

I would rather take what reforms to help the working classes than await an illusionary revolution. Though if revolution were to occur, then I would of course support it, however until that time arises reforms are the only logical way forward.

But please, enough of this, we must get onto your list of Marxist and Anarchist victories to the working classes of Britain. We are waiting.

[Kez]

"point out just one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better. Just one, and I will accept defeat"

Militant's intervention against the Poll Tax.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:04 PM
"point out just one Marxist achivment in Britain which has actually made the workers lives better. Just one, and I will accept defeat"

Militant's intervention against the Poll Tax.
For a start the majority of protest regarding poll tax was in the form of passive resistance, and peaceful demonstration, a few riots did occur, but the reason it failed is because vertually no one paid it.

Second instead all we got was an increase in the almost identical council tax, it achived nothing.

Third, the majority of demo's were not by or for marxist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:32 AM
shop lifting.auto reduction proletarish winkelen
Alright you got me, that still makes absolutly no sense.


"car reduction proletarian shops"

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:08 PM
For a start the majority of protest regarding poll tax was in the form of passive resistance, and peaceful demonstration, a few riots did occur, but the reason it failed is because vertually no one paid it.

Second instead all we got was an increase in the almost identical council tax, it achived nothing.

Third, the majority of demo's were not by or for marxist.
"For a start the majority of protest regarding poll tax was in the form of passive resistance, and peaceful demonstration, a few riots did occur, but the reason it failed is because vertually no one paid it."

-It doesnt matter how the fight against the poll tax went on, the fact is the Marxists of Militant intervened, led the demonstrations and beat it. Militant encouraged people not to pay it.

Council tax is based on the land you live on, not how many people in your family, completely different

the demos were led by Militant, try reading up on your history.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 11:24 AM
"For a start the majority of protest regarding poll tax was in the form of passive resistance, and peaceful demonstration, a few riots did occur, but the reason it failed is because vertually no one paid it."

-It doesnt matter how the fight against the poll tax went on, the fact is the Marxists of Militant intervened, led the demonstrations and beat it. Militant encouraged people not to pay it.

Council tax is based on the land you live on, not how many people in your family, completely different

the demos were led by Militant, try reading up on your history.
-It doesnt matter how the fight against the poll tax went on, the fact is the Marxists of Militant intervened, led the demonstrations and beat it. Militant encouraged people not to pay it.

Horse shit. Of course it matters, the intervention of marxists was imaterial, tiny and inconsequencial. Militant marxists were completely unnecessary.


Council tax is based on the land you live on, not how many people in your family, completely different

Actually the payment method and rating system which was used with council tax, was near identical to that of poll tax, council tax was increased, and thus it forfils the exact same task as poll tax. Again nothing was achieved, we are still paying huge amounts of Taxes.

the demos were led by Militant, try reading up on your history.

Nope, they weren't, perhaps you should read up on yours, the majority of Protests were lead by those following Gandhi's Passive Resistance. In any case its entirely irrelevant as no demo either violant or passive were to blame for the faqll of poll tax, the fact that no one was paying it as a principal was the reason it collapsed.

Marxists did fuck all.

[Guest1]

Umm... isn't not paying taxes illegal? Isn't that a militant action? Working outside the system as opposed to reforming it?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 5 2004, 09:15 PM
Umm... isn't not paying taxes illegal? Isn't that a militant action? Working outside the system as opposed to reforming it?
If you consider a form of peaceful protest "militant" then I suggest you buy a dictionary. :rolleyes:

Even if it could be considered "militant", which it most certainly cannot be, I would still like you to show me how this action can be considered a Marxist success.

[Guest1]

Shouldn't the English have a better understanding of English than me?


mil·i·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ml-tnt)
adj.
Fighting or warring.
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
Breaking the law is an aggressive method of protest. In fact I wouldn't consider it protest, you have taken it upon yourself to implement changes at the grassroots, regardless of what the law is, it no longer exists in practical reality thanks to your militancy.

Your arrogance doesn't help you, especially when you are so plainly wrong.

[Kez]

you can be militant and peaceful you bellend.

anyone who strikes in being militant.

Militant was an organisation who led the poll tax demonstrations.

If you call protests which end up smashing down gates of number 10 like that of the twat Ghandi, then your more fucked in the head than i originally believed.

[James]

Che Y M would have a point, if all reformers worked inside the law. I gave examples though of reformers who did not stay within the law. e.g. the suffrage campaign.

So no, he does not have a point.







Please keep trying though.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 5 2004, 10:03 PM
Shouldn't the English have a better understanding of English than me?


Breaking the law is an aggressive method of protest. In fact I wouldn't consider it protest, you have taken it upon yourself to implement changes at the grassroots, regardless of what the law is, it no longer exists in practical reality thanks to your militancy.

Your arrogance doesn't help you, especially when you are so plainly wrong.
For starters your on very loose ground, as you can see the words "fighting and Warring" all across that definition, and the fact that the word militant is synonymous with acts of violence for a cause, your on even more dodgy ground.

Is speeding an act of militancy? Is Parking without a permit the action of a militant? Is tax avoidance militancy? No, it is not.

Secondly I love your black and white logic, that if a person commits a crime when protesting they cannot be reformists, and must be militants. Tell me do you consider Ghandi a "militant"? Do you consider all peaceful protest militancy, if it breaks the law? Is a green peace activist blocking a public footpath (which is illegal) a militant?

If download a piece of music am I a militant? I haven't paid VAT.


I can afford to be arrogant, because I’m damn right, and you haven't got a case, and you know it, or else you wouldn't be getting tied up by these pedantic semantics. The fact that you say to me that im plainly wrong when it has already been shown that the poll tax issues isn't even applicaple too your argument anyway, is so hypocritical that it actually shocks me to read it.

Kez, any one who uses the term “bellend” is clearly not worthy of time or response.

If you call protests which end up smashing down gates of number 10 like that of the twat Ghandi, then your more fucked in the head than i originally believed.

We’ve been through this already, the riots were not the reason for the scrapping of Poll tax.

I’ve also already pointed out that the entire case is null and void anyway, because scrapping poll tax was firstly not a Marxist achievement, nor was it even a success, as we are now paying even more tax than were in the Thatcher era, through stealth taxes, etc.


Both of you your case, is around your ankles, just accept it and move on.

[Kez]

"For starters your on very loose ground, as you can see the words "fighting and Warring" all across that definition, and the fact that the word militant is synonymous with acts of violence for a cause, your on even more dodgy ground."

-Your on dodgy ground you prick, when marxists use the term militant, this is our definition, not yours you pick up from your a-level teachers and the bbc. this is where we differ, we look for a marxist revolutionary solution, you, for a petit bourgeoise one.

"Is speeding an act of militancy? Is Parking without a permit the action of a militant? Is tax avoidance militancy? No, it is not."
-Correct fuckhead, why? because these are not organised actions for a political goal, you muppet, however, non-payment to reach a political solution is. stubbed.


"Tell me do you consider Ghandi a "militant"?"
-Yes, as he brought actions for a political goal.

"Do you consider all peaceful protest militancy, if it breaks the law?"
-If its any method done to gain a political (industrial) solution, it is a militant one.

"Is a green peace activist blocking a public footpath (which is illegal) a militant?"
-yep

"If download a piece of music am I a militant? I haven't paid VAT."
-If those were done to gain a political solution yes. Although i'd simply call you a sad bastard.

"I can afford to be arrogant, because I’m damn right"
-Id say your arrogant, but id give a different reason.

"and you haven't got a case, and you know it, or else you wouldn't be getting tied up by these pedantic semantics."
-See Above reply

"The fact that you say to me that im plainly wrong when it has already been shown that the poll tax issues isn't even applicaple too your argument anyway, is so hypocritical that it actually shocks me to read it."
-Thats something i give a flying fuck about [sarcasm]

"Kez, any one who uses the term “bellend” is clearly not worthy of time or response."
- You got a tissue for me? Anyone? im lookin for a tissue, because i need to wipe my tears.

"We’ve been through this already, the riots were not the reason for the scrapping of Poll tax."
-i was using it as an example of militant action, tut tut.

"I’ve also already pointed out that the entire case is null and void anyway, because scrapping poll tax was firstly not a Marxist achievement, nor was it even a success, as we are now paying even more tax than were in the Thatcher era, through stealth taxes, etc."
-waaa waaa Labour are stealing my taxes i worked hard for being a middle class wanker, please bring down taxes!
-Tosser, those taxes are being spent on improving a fucked up NHS, and improving schools.

[Invader Zim]

-Your on dodgy ground you prick,

Look at that, an insult, tell me Kez, does insulting people over the internet make you feal a more important person? Do you get some kind of satisfaction from calling people pricks? Are you insecure about something? It's alright kez, no ones perfect, let it all out.

this is our definition, not yours

I'm sorry, do I have to pass a test to use the English language? Do I have to scream some revolutionary slogan, and damn the liberals first? I never knew language was so elitist.

this is where we differ, we look for a marxist revolutionary solution, you, for a petit bourgeoise one.


So my thinking that the word militant being synonymous with individuals usuing acts of violence for a cause, makes me automatically seek a "petit bourgeoise" solution to social problems?

Kez this is off the charts even for you, perhaps you should have a drink of water.

Correct fuckhead, why?

because militancy is not some minor breach of the law in order to persue a political goal.

however, non-payment to reach a political solution is.

No its not, thats a passive rather than agressive move to achive a political solution.

Yes, as he brought actions for a political goal.

I suggest that you read up on your history, Ghandi was in no way a militant, in fact he spent a lot of his time campaining against militants who undermimed his movment.

-If its any method done to gain a political (industrial) solution, it is a militant one.

Then your wrong, just because an action breaks the law does not make it an agressive one.

-Thats something i give a flying fuck about [sarcasm]

If you had a point Kez, then you would not feal obliged to make comments like that.

- You got a tissue for me? Anyone? im lookin for a tissue, because i need to wipe my tears.

Thats so funny Kez, have a medal.

-i was using it as an example of militant action, tut tut.

But that wasn't what I asked you to provide, I asked you to provide a single example of Marxism achieving something for the people of Britian. So far you have failed to list that single example.

-waaa waaa Labour are stealing my taxes i worked hard for being a middle class wanker, please bring down taxes!

Kez, now where did I say I dont like taxes? I simply pointed out that the poll tax issue was essencially a failure as we are still being taxed just as much.

I would also like to point out to you that if taxes are as you state a good thing, then why are you listing the abolishon of poll tax as a posertive achivment for militancy? Despite the fact that militancy was never the issue.

-Tosser, those taxes are being spent on improving a fucked up NHS, and improving schools.

I quite agree, however you unfortunatly managed to omit the following: -

Paying Blairs paycheck, funding the Military, funding the already extravagant civil service, etc.

Good evening.

[Louis Pio]

So my thinking that the word militant being synonymous with individuals usuing acts of violence for a cause, makes me automatically seek a "petit bourgeoise" solution to social problems?


Heh, I think he was referring to you using it in a different context than it has always been used in the labour movement. It's a bit stupid starting to redefine words that has been used through several decades just because the word is now used that way by proffesors, journalists and the rest of the lot that don't want any change.


Ghandi was in no way a militant,

He supported repression of workers and action taken against soldiers refusing to shoot at demonstrations. That's supporting capitalist "militancy".

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:03 AM

Heh, I think he was referring to you using it in a different context than it has always been used in the labour movement. It's a bit stupid starting to redefine words that has been used through several decades just because the word is now used that way by proffesors, journalists and the rest of the lot that don't want any change.



He supported repression of workers and action taken against soldiers refusing to shoot at demonstrations. That's supporting capitalist "militancy".
He supported repression of workers and action taken against soldiers refusing to shoot at demonstrations. That's supporting capitalist "militancy".

Well thats odd, because as I recall Ghandi was a pacafist, so shooting protestors doesnt quite ring true. Care to provide a source?

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:27 AM

Well thats odd, because as I recall Ghandi was a pacifist.
BOURGEOIS LIES!!1!!1one! :lol:

[Guest1]

Ghandi once said of the british officers who refused to fire on his demonstrqators that they were traitors for not firing.

Anyways, point is, militancy means aggressive political action, aggressive does not necessarily mean violent. It just means confrontational.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2004, 09:50 AM
Ghandi once said of the british officers who refused to fire on his demonstrqators that they were traitors for not firing.

Anyways, point is, militancy means aggressive political action, aggressive does not necessarily mean violent. It just means confrontational.
Well I think that refusing to pay taxes is a passive rather than agressive form of protest. At anyrate how the specific issue of poll tax can be attributed as a Marxist success still has not bee explained. Instead we are in a rather futile argument about different forms of none violant protest.

[Guest1]

I don't even know how the fuck this became a brit-specific convo.

That's why I'm trying to address general themes rather than the specifics of the poll-tax, cause I know very little about that, not being a brit myself. I do know however, that alot of worker's reforms, including unionization and minimum wage, were brought as a response to radicals and anarchists. Not reformers.

For example, look at the IWW, one of the major unions that brought rights in the us back in the early 1900's. An anarchist union.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 12:55 AM
I don't even know how the fuck this became a brit-specific convo.

That's why I'm trying to address general themes rather than the specifics of the poll-tax, cause I know very little about that, not being a brit myself. I do know however, that alot of worker's reforms, including unionization and minimum wage, were brought as a response to radicals and anarchists. Not reformers.

For example, look at the IWW, one of the major unions that brought rights in the us back in the early 1900's. An anarchist union.
I don't even know how the fuck this became a brit-specific convo.

it was actually a joint effort from you and James, he listed several sucesses of reformism, and you argued about a specific British one, and so the thread progressed.


I do know however, that alot of worker's reforms, including unionization and minimum wage, were brought as a response to radicals and anarchists.

Yes Kez rather dropped you in the shit, regarding that one.

I do know however, that alot of worker's reforms, including unionization and minimum wage, were brought as a response to radicals and anarchists.

Now your believing your own press, minimum wage was granted because trade unions demanded it, not some anarchist sect threatening revolution, but trade unions seeking social reform. The called for this because it was realised that in poor years when production was low then workers would recieve less money for their labours. Trade unionism was granted because William Gladstone was a liberal (for his day) and because a minority report produced by Thomas Hughes, and Frederic Harrison suggested practical changes to the law to alter the legal status of trade unions. Hughes was a christian Chartist and reformer, and Fredrick Harrison was a reformer influenced chritistan socialists.

The reason Gladsotone accepted it was because it was his own "liberal" leanings, and because pressure from reformers like Hughes forced his hand. This was in 1871, in the middle of the British empires most powerful period.

As for US trade unionism and the IWW, the IWW was by no means an anarchist party at least not from what I have read, as I was aware one of the most important individuals was Eugene Debs (though he left the IWW) who catagorically refused to ally him self with communists, and was leader of the socialist party. Eugene Debs was a leader of the IWW, william Haywood is yet another example of an important non anarchist member of the IWW, though I accept that he did condone sabotage as a tactic, but that doesnt make him an anarchist. Infact the only two leading members of the IWW who were even communist were Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who only joined the communist party in the 1930's, and prior to that considered herself socialist. The only other I can think of is william foster, who was anything but an anarchist, rather a staunch stalinist, who refused to condem the crimes of the soviet union.

Most of the leadership of the IWW was socialist, not anarchist or communist.

[James]

Even if "we" wern't right on this one and "you" (che Y M) were correct: so what?

The point is that reformism is not a failed ideology, as reforms have improved the livese of many workers. Especially when compared to the efforts of "revolutionaries" trying to spark a revolution.

These changes - successes - were not brought about by a revolution. Thus whilst it may be true that anarchists "were the real reason" for the said change, you have a duty to come to your senses, take your head out of the sand, and REALISE that these brave revolutionarie/anarchists were actually using the "philosophy" (as you termed it) of reform.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot.

I now await your reply: traditionally one or two sentences which are classically tenuously-linked (if linked at all) to the previous posts/conversation.

Or maybe you can take back what you said in the first place (that reformism is a "failed philosophy" when compared to anarchism etc blah blah blah). But i don't think your pride will allow that.

[PRC-UTE]

The point is that reformism is not a failed ideology, as reforms have improved the livese of many workers. Especially when compared to the efforts of "revolutionaries" trying to spark a revolution.

Reformism is why capitalism is still around to leave its bloody footprint across this earth. If it weren't for reforms like the welfare state, the whole bloody system wouldn't have survived. So it is failed from the interests and POV of working class revolutionaries.

Anyway, this is becoming a false dichtomy. Of course you can advocate reforms on the way to revolution, just as the IWW, BPP and others have.

[Guest1]

Now your believing your own press, minimum wage was granted because trade unions demanded it, not some anarchist sect threatening revolution, but trade unions seeking social reform.
Who established trade unions, bougie? Not the reformers, the reformers were telling workers to stay at work and vote. Striking was a revolutionary act pulled by the most radical leftists. Striking was at risk of death, bougie!


As for US trade unionism and the IWW, the IWW was by no means an anarchist party at least not from what I have read, as I was aware one of the most important individuals was Eugene Debs (though he left the IWW) who catagorically refused to ally him self with communists, and was leader of the socialist party.
The great thing about Anarchist organizations is, leaders don't matter. Fact of the matter is, the IWW is Anarcho-Syndicalist. Their website:

http://www.iww.org (http://www.iww.org/)

They tend to keep plitical labels on the backburner though, cause they allow any worker to join who agrees with their program. However, they very clearly call themselves revolutionary rather than reformist. They take what they can for now, but never lose sight of the real goal and they know reforms will never be enough. That's the difference between reformists and revolutionaries.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:37 PM
The point is that reformism is not a failed ideology, as reforms have improved the livese of many workers. Especially when compared to the efforts of "revolutionaries" trying to spark a revolution.
The point is that reformism, which only seeks reforms, is a failed ideology because none of those reforms last. As we have seen now, Capitalism never allows those respites from hardship to be around for very long. Healthcare systems across the developed world are being rolled back and thrown out, same with welfare reforms, minimum wages being lowered, union rights being curbed, overtime laws being relaxed, all while the reformists preach reform again.

Revolutionaries say fuck that, you tried to work with the bosses once and they just shot you in the back the first chance they got. Radicals realize, Capitalism cannot be reformed and the only real change will come when it is abolished.

The record shows, throughout history, revolution has been the only real way to change society. There were attempts to reform Feudalism too, they didn't work. They establish a kind of "class peace" for a limited period of time, but eventually the monarchs and aristocracy tried once again to put the bourgeoisie down. It wasn't until the bourgeoisie revolted entirely that real change happened.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 11:04 PM
Who established trade unions, bougie? Not the reformers, the reformers were telling workers to stay at work and vote. Striking was a revolutionary act pulled by the most radical leftists. Striking was at risk of death, bougie!


The great thing about Anarchist organizations is, leaders don't matter. Fact of the matter is, the IWW is Anarcho-Syndicalist. Their website:

http://www.iww.org (http://www.iww.org/)

They tend to keep plitical labels on the backburner though, cause they allow any worker to join who agrees with their program. However, they very clearly call themselves revolutionary rather than reformist. They take what they can for now, but never lose sight of the real goal and they know reforms will never be enough. That's the difference between reformists and revolutionaries.
Who established trade unions,

workers, not anarchists, socialists, communists or anyone else, workers who wanted to improve their lot.

Not the reformers, the reformers were telling workers to stay at work and vote.

Trade unions were formed long before universal male (none black) sufferage was granted in the US in 1920, trade unions have existed from long before then.

get your shit together.

Striking was a revolutionary act pulled by the most radical leftists.

Hardly, striking was an act of reformers, who initially did not want to use violant means to protest.

Striking was at risk of death,

No shit shelock, one of those unimportant leaders got hung.

The great thing about Anarchist organizations is, leaders don't matter. Fact of the matter is, the IWW is Anarcho-Syndicalist. Their website:

Is now, what it was in 1905, is completely different an openly admitted socialist organisation, and as we are discussing the IWW back then your point, like all your other so far, is null and void.

I would rather reform society than wait for a revolution which just isn't coming, or if it is it sure ain't on the horizon. Life for the working classes would have to be utter hell for places is MEDC's to start a revolution. At this time that is not practical, so you reform and improve the status of the workers, both politically socialy and economically. Who knows you may not need revolution.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:15 PM

Reformism is why capitalism is still around to leave its bloody footprint across this earth. If it weren't for reforms like the welfare state, the whole bloody system wouldn't have survived. So it is failed from the interests and POV of working class revolutionaries.

Anyway, this is becoming a false dichtomy. Of course you can advocate reforms on the way to revolution, just as the IWW, BPP and others have.
Reformism is why capitalism is still around to leave its bloody footprint across this earth.

And what thinking do you base that on? What you are saying can niether be proved nor can it be justified.

Unless of course you support workers being in such appauling conditions for the sole reason it makes them revolt against the tyrinny which has placed them into such conditions.


Basing your ideals on "what ifs" and maybe's from nearly 100 years ago, and in many cases more, is not very solid. For a start you weren't their, you dont know, secondly how do you know that capitalism would have been replaced by a leftist ideology? Fascism also breeds in times of strife for the working people.

[Guest1]

At this time that is not practical, so you reform and improve the status of the workers, both politically socialy and economically. Who knows you may not need revolution.
Wow, enigma, just wow.

[PRC-UTE]

Wow, enigma, just wow.

yeah, I agree and I think you're on the wrong message board, a mhac.


And what thinking do you base that on? What you are saying can niether be proved nor can it be justified.

Unless of course you support workers being in such appauling conditions for the sole reason it makes them revolt against the tyrinny which has placed them into such conditions.

what thinking do I base that on? Reality!

Even mainstream capitalists agree it was the marxists and anarchists who are largely responsible for the labor movement. . . especially in the USA. The most popular refrain in the labor movement is "Solidarity Forever". . . a Wobblie song.

I support reforms on the way to revolution, so I'm not sure who the second quoted paragraph was aimed at. I live in the current reality and would like a few reforms to make life a little more liveable. :D And yet my ultimate goal is revolution, the sooner the better.


Basing your ideals on "what ifs" and maybe's from nearly 100 years ago, and in many cases more, is not very solid. For a start you weren't their, you dont know, secondly how do you know that capitalism would have been replaced by a leftist ideology? Fascism also breeds in times of strife for the working people.

That's a good point, acually, maybe if things got worse (ie: no reforms in during the Great Depression) there would've been fascism instead. Yet we still have to try, otherwise fascism is inevitable.

[redstar2000]

The point is that reformism is not a failed ideology, as reforms have improved the lives of many workers.

So they have...although those improvements are beginning to look rather tenuous lately.

The word "failure" in this context refers to something different.

If you look at the early years of social democracy, Fabianism, etc., you'll discover that the premise of reformism was that revolution was "unnecessary"...we could "reform" our way from capitalism to socialism to communism.

In that sense, reformism has been a failure.

So much so that -- one by one -- the parties that proudly called themselves reformist have simply abandoned all pretense of challenging the class basis of existing society.

And, in fact, they're no longer even very good reformists.

The conceit of our ruling class is that they've "permanently defeated" the revolutionary options of communism and anarchism...thus, their idea of "reform" is forward to the 19th century!

The French "Socialist" Party, the German Social-Democrats, and the British Labour Party agree!

That is what is happening.

Some people evidently think that reformism can somehow be "revived" and made "influential" again. I think there are objective material conditions that will not permit that to happen...even if the reformist parties were interested in such a possibility.

It appears as if the capitalist class is "feeling the pinch" of falling profits...and the only solution they see is the reduction of labor costs. Thus they will simply not permit any more pro-working class reforms and apply themselves with real enthusiasm to dismantling the ones that already exist.

See any issue of The Economist for the details.

Of course, it may be counter-argued that reviving communism or anarchism is just as "futile". The reason I disagree with that is that a ruling class that becomes unable to offer even minor concessions to the exploited is one that lays the foundation for total resistance.

The "revolutionary message" is unintelligible to people who still see the existing system as "reformable". But as each passing generation sees things simply getting worse in every respect, the "revolutionary message" starts to make sense.

In the final weeks of the old order, the rulers will offer concessions and lots of them (even though they no longer have the capability to implement any of them).

Too late! That's usually the "final encouragement" to go all the way. Those last-minute "concessions" will be seen as "terms of surrender" by the working class, which will in turn appropriately demand unconditional surrender from the ruling class.

----------------------------

A note on violence and non-violence. In my opinion, revolutionaries should be as violent as their resources and support permit; but that rhetorical violence should be discouraged.

Making verbal threats of intended violence is often a case of "the mouth writing checks that the muscles can't cash".

Likewise, I would also discourage pacifist rhetoric...it's (correctly) perceived by most people, especially the class enemy, as a sign of weakness.

When the class enemy is physically stronger than we are, we should be peaceful. When we are stronger than the class enemy, we should kick their asses.

But there's no reason for a lot of public yap about this, one way or the other. We're not under any obligation to commit ourselves to either violence or non-violence.

Instead, we should look carefully at each struggle that we're involved in and coolly and rationally decide the appropriate level of violence that fits that situation.

"Big talk" should be avoided until it makes sense to call for a general insurrection.

Right now, what we should be telling people is to resist the tyranny of capital in whatever ways are possible now.

Remember the 11th Commandment and keep it wholly: DON'T GET CAUGHT!

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

Great post. :ph34r:

[SonofRage]

This thread seems to be all over the place topic-wise, but I thought I'd touch on something some of commented on as far as the nature of the IWW, just for the sake of "setting the record straight."

Although the IWW is thought of as being an Anarcho-Syndicalist union, it technically is not. What the IWW stands for is known as "Revolutionary Industrial Unionism." While it is very "Anarchist-compatible," it is not explicitely Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Revolutionary Democratic Socialists like Eugene V. Debs and Daniel De Leon are two examples of socialists who very much agreed with the idea of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism. As has been said before, one of the early leaders of the IWW, Big Bill Haywood, was a member of the Socialist Party of America and was even an officer in the SP if I recall correctly.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm aware of what you're saying, SoR and you're technically correct. But the IWW describes the CNT and other anarcho-syndicalist unions as its "sister union".

So even tho' there are many marxist members of the IWW, it is organised along anarchist lines. For example, there is only one paid position in the wobs, they espouse a decentralized federal form of organising, etc.

At the same time, I fear for the IWW. Although it is resurging, I worry that the union isn't ideologically sound enuf to fully carry out a revolution.

Maybe that's wildly inaccurate, just my thoughts. I've had some conversations with them and they don't seem to all be thinking in the long term, although quality of locals varies widely for obvious reasons.

[Palmares]

It's great to see RS2000 settle this argument.

Brilliant post.



Originally posted by RS2000
Right now, what we should be telling people is to resist the tyranny of capital in whatever ways are possible now.

[Sabocat]

FDR's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society" were classic reformist moves. It was done to stave off the upswell of anarchist/communist/socialist growth during the FDR years, and to quiet the radical militant Black movement during Johnson's years.

Today, almost all of the "New Deals" programs have been scrapped or are on the way to being scrapped. (The boss giveth, and the boss taketh away :lol:) All the New Deal did, was to take the fire out of the movement that was certainly gaining momentum, and it worked brilliantly. So what did the worker really gain from those reforms? A short period of some minor prosperity? Today most of the trade unions are ineffectual and have been marginalized. One example of the complete capitulation of those reforms and the planned weakness of the trade unions and labor in general was demonstrated when Reagan fired all the PATCO union (air traffic controllers), and yet the AFL-CIO who could have called a general strike of their unions in support did nothing. Reforms have done nothing under the current union structure, but emasculate the working classes strength. Reformism is nothing but a weakening tool for the bosses.


Reforms are like taking an aspirin for a brain tumor. Maybe some temporary relief from the immediate pain, but no help in the long run.

[Guest1]

Take too much though, and you just might kill yourself.

As for SonofRage, I agree, like I said the IWW doesn't label itself. Though they do seem to do that by association and action. Plus they use such symbols as the wild cat and the red and black flag on their website. Anyways, regardless, they are definitely not reformers and never were.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2004, 12:16 AM
Wow, enigma, just wow.
I dont thinbk you understand me, socialism is not necessarily formed only in a post revolution society, one of the few working models of socialist society was created by a person who attempted to reform. Revolution and socialism are not mutually inclusive, in my belief, I challenge you to prove that wrong.

I would also like you to answer some of the points I raised, and answer the question which is still open from the beginning of this discussion, which you have yet to answer.

I agree and I think you're on the wrong message board, a mhac.


I fail to see why, I have been here a hell of a lot longer than you, and I have said from the beginning that I dont think that revolution is always necessary as a precurser to socialism. This message board is designed for admirers of Che Guevara, one can support bloodless revolution as well as admire che, for the man that he was, the life he lead, the aims he had and successes he had.

what thinking do I base that on? Reality!

How can it possibly be reality? It hasn't happened, all you are using is conjecture to describe one possible outcome, had society progressed differently. The fact is society didn't, so how you can possibly say that what you are saying is based on reality is beyond me.

Even mainstream capitalists agree it was the marxists and anarchists who are largely responsible for the labor movement. . . especially in the USA.

Well I have already pointed out that none of the leadership claimed to be anarchists, socialists yes, not anarchists.

I support reforms on the way to revolution, so I'm not sure who the second quoted paragraph was aimed at.

Fair enough, I dont think that your wrong for belief.



----------------


I also take issue with the description of this thread. Firstly I dont consider my self a liberal, not in the sense that you use the term anyway, secondly its not you who is defending revolution rather James and my self defending the reforms of the past 150 years.

Perhaps you should try re-naming it to "Reform vs. Revolution, discuss", and not being such a complete arse... if you can help it.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:59 PM
Well I think that refusing to pay taxes is a passive rather than agressive form of protest. At anyrate how the specific issue of poll tax can be attributed as a Marxist success still has not bee explained. Instead we are in a rather futile argument about different forms of none violant protest.
do you not think the demonstrations were militant?

also, research the Anti-Poll Tax Committee, which our predecessor, the Militant Tendency, lead, and urged members for non-payment.

"I dont thinbk you understand me, socialism is not necessarily formed only in a post revolution society, one of the few working models of socialist society was created by a person who attempted to reform. Revolution and socialism are not mutually inclusive, in my belief, I challenge you to prove that wrong."
-I challenge you to give me one instance of socialism through reformism, and i mean socialism, not social democrat state.

"I fail to see why, I have been here a hell of a lot longer than you, and I have said from the beginning that I dont think that revolution is always necessary as a precurser to socialism. This message board is designed for admirers of Che Guevara, one can support bloodless revolution as well as admire che, for the man that he was, the life he lead, the aims he had and successes he had."
-Who gives a toss? Your a liberal petit bourgeoise muppet, who has no experience of the labour movement in Britain or Internationally, i suggest you read up, get some experience, then talk like the pompous person you are.

"I also take issue with the description of this thread. Firstly I dont consider my self a liberal, not in the sense that you use the term anyway, secondly its not you who is defending revolution rather James and my self defending the reforms of the past 150 years."
-Revolutionary Marxists should defend socialism from idiotic ideas which people like yourself bring into the movement, like a tumour. Fortunately tumours can be got rid of, the same is happening here, cancerous ideas are being quashed.

"Perhaps you should try re-naming it to "Reform vs. Revolution, discuss", and not being such a complete arse... if you can help it."
-Maybe if you take offence to beeing called a liberal you should prove yourself not to be one...if you can help it.

How can anyone seriously suggest reform as a solution?
Workers will always be oppressed under any capitalist society. Any reforms which are won are subject to capitalists taking them back, eg trade union reforms, NHS going private again, key industries being privatised again.

Only solution is to get rid of those who make such reactionary policies such as privatisation, is to get rid of the capitalist class, and i dont think even you would think the whole capitalist class would suddenly say "here are mate, have the means of production so we lose our power source is making decisions for government"

Your naive mate, very naive. Take example of Venezuela, Chavez is trying to reform, and he is failing, the main levers of power are still being operated by the capitalist class, and hes stuck between revolution or reform, ie progress, or reaction. Take your pick "comrade".

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:36 AM
I'm aware of what you're saying, SoR and you're technically correct. But the IWW describes the CNT and other anarcho-syndicalist unions as its "sister union".

So even tho' there are many marxist members of the IWW, it is organised along anarchist lines. For example, there is only one paid position in the wobs, they espouse a decentralized federal form of organising, etc.

At the same time, I fear for the IWW. Although it is resurging, I worry that the union isn't ideologically sound enuf to fully carry out a revolution.

Maybe that's wildly inaccurate, just my thoughts. I've had some conversations with them and they don't seem to all be thinking in the long term, although quality of locals varies widely for obvious reasons.
I know what you are saying and I'm sort of unsure myself. I'm hoping that as we (the IWW) continue to grow that some of that will start to change.

Right now, at least in the NYC GMB, the focus lately for most of us has been on the Starbucks campaign. As some of us move away from that, since hopefully the campaign will grow nationally and internationally as well as grow into other stores in the same industry, we are trying to look at improving our outreach. Some of us are more focused on the IWW as a union and are looking at outreach in terms of organizing workers. Personally, although helping workers organize is of great importance, I am looking at outreach for the IWW as a revolutionary organization.

[Invader Zim]

do you not think the demonstrations were militant?

Some of them had a militant element, not all. I have also already stated that the demo's had nothing to do with the actual repeal of the tax.

-I challenge you to give me one instance of socialism through reformism, and i mean socialism, not social democrat state.

New Lanark.

Who gives a toss?

So you think that this site should be reserved for only people with your specific views... which will leave just you.

Your a liberal petit bourgeoise muppet,

So you keep saying, and failing to back up. Kez, get over it, insulting me isn't going to do anything for you.


who has no experience of the labour movement in Britain or Internationally

And you do? What major union have you organised latley? Which strike have you lead in recent times? What revolution have you started of late? Come on Kez, get over your self, the sooner you accept that you are nothing the easier it will be to let go of this self righteous nonsense.

-Revolutionary Marxists should defend socialism from idiotic ideas which people like yourself bring into the movement, like a tumour. Fortunately tumours can be got rid of, the same is happening here, cancerous ideas are being quashed.

Wow, all that and you didn't actually say anything of any relevance to... anything. Why did you bother quoting my statment, what you said had absolutly zero relevance to what I said.

-Maybe if you take offence to beeing called a liberal you should prove yourself not to be one...if you can help it.

I dont take remote offence in being called a liberal if its being used in the correct context, which is: -

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

However I do not consider my self a liberal if you wish to attach the term liberal withthe actions or ideology of the typical "so-called" liberal parties of the western world. Such as the American Liberal party, or the Liberal democrats.

How can anyone seriously suggest reform as a solution?

Because it has been successful to a far larger extent than revolution, at this stage.

Workers will always be oppressed under any capitalist society.

Indeed. But if reform is consistant and regular then we wont be living in a capitalist society much longer.

Any reforms which are won are subject to capitalists taking them back, eg trade union reforms, NHS going private again, key industries being privatised again.


Do tell me when they plan on repealing the secret ballot act, universal sufferage, and I may consider actually agreeing with you.

and i dont think even you would think the whole capitalist class would suddenly say "here are mate, have the means of production so we lose our power source is making decisions for government"


Over the past 300 years, that is more or less exactly what the aristocracy of Britain did, even if it did take a good deal of pressure. The middle class is next on the list.

Your naive mate, very naive.

Kez, your the one who thinks that some magical revolution is just round the corner, and that it wont collapse and degrade in the same way which all revolutions have.

Chavez is trying to reform,

Kez, reform is not a gient change to society, it takes decades of implimenting small changes to society. Chavez if he is trying to reform, is going about it the wrong way, his land plan is far too ambitious at this stage.

Revolution history shows us is initially progressive, but soon turns sour.

[PRC-UTE]

Right now, at least in the NYC GMB, the focus lately for most of us has been on the Starbucks campaign. As some of us move away from that, since hopefully the campaign will grow nationally and internationally as well as grow into other stores in the same industry, we are trying to look at improving our outreach. Some of us are more focused on the IWW as a union and are looking at outreach in terms of organizing workers. Personally, although helping workers organize is of great importance, I am looking at outreach for the IWW as a revolutionary organization.

Good man! Keep up the good work, you're a credit to the movement.

I think material conditions will force a lot more militancy on workers. . . and not only that, but as RS2000 claimes, there's probably not as much room for reforms as there once was.

[Louis Pio]

and not only that, but as RS2000 claimes, there's probably not as much room for reforms as there once was.


There isn't
I live in one of the traditonal "wellfare states" and all the gains are starting to be taken away now. This is however a good starting point for our fight for socialism. We have started a campaign to keep these gains, and our main point is that they can only be kept and developed by a socialist revolution. We are actually getting alot of contacts because of that line. From everthing to old trade union millitants to young workers

[Invader Zim]

I'm not a nationalist.

Yep, I know your not, really.

[Louis Pio]

Hey at least he's not a reformist ;)

[Kez]

Some of them had a militant element, not all. I have also already stated that the demo's had nothing to do with the actual repeal of the tax.

-They quite clearly did, they showed the mass support and anger towards the poll-tax. Next you'll say the STW demo of 2,000,000 was not part of the anti-war movement.

"New Lanark."
- What, When. Since when was New Lanark a country? this is a pitiful example, give us a proper developed capitalist state.

"So you think that this site should be reserved for only people with your specific views... which will leave just you."
Nah, This site should be for marxists and anarchists. Not petit bourgeoise twats like you.

"So you keep saying, and failing to back up. Kez, get over it, insulting me isn't going to do anything for you."
-Slogan, backed with explaination will do somethin, it will expose you.

"And you do? What major union have you organised latley? Which strike have you lead in recent times? What revolution have you started of late? Come on Kez, get over your self, the sooner you accept that you are nothing the easier it will be to let go of this self righteous nonsense."
-you dont organise unions you silly shit. See you dont even know what you have to do to be part of the labour movement.
-Ive intervened in many strikes, the latest being the Bombardier Rail Maintence factory down in Crewe, where we talked of possible solutions. This is what is being involved in the labour movement. What revolution have i led? you dont have to lead a revolution to be part of the labour movement, again you prove your ignorance, and the fact your so isolated from events of the workers in the labour movement. This is how detached you are from the reality of workers affairs, you keep typing crap from your a-level books, see who's gonna read it.

"Wow, all that and you didn't actually say anything of any relevance to... anything. Why did you bother quoting my statment, what you said had absolutly zero relevance to what I said."
- Dear me, the point which you didnt comprehend was that it was perfectly justified for marxists to give such a title to the thread as we do not need people thinking your ilk have anything to do with marxism, therefore its given the title of Liberal, that thing which you are, my honourable friend.

"I dont take remote offence in being called a liberal if its being used in the correct context"
So Adam Smith was wrong and your right are you? When your ilk are called Liberals, we mean people in the capitalist mindset, such as yours.

"Because it has been successful to a far larger extent than revolution, at this stage."
You heard of the gains of the Russian Revolution? You been smoking pot again my middle class friend?

"Indeed. But if reform is consistant and regular then we wont be living in a capitalist society much longer."
-Here is the highlight of your ignorance, your failure to understand simple economics and the way in which the capitalist class operates. Whenever there is a boom period coming to an end, the capitalist class will always try to take away gains and and reforms that were previosuly tossed down to the workers, therefore it can NEVER be set of consistant and regular reforms, that CANNOT happen.

"Do tell me when they plan on repealing the secret ballot act, universal sufferage, and I may consider actually agreeing with you."
Oh, so it doesnt matter that the working class will now pay for basic health which they cant afford? Or that the trains which the working class uses most are going down the shitter? Or that in privatised industries workers are getting less Real Term incomes than when it was nationalised... Actually, youve shot yourself in the foot (again) here, the only reason they cant repeal voting rights is...because of REVOLUTION, the government would be out on the street if it tried anything like that...

"Over the past 300 years, that is more or less exactly what the aristocracy of Britain did, even if it did take a good deal of pressure. The middle class is next on the list."
-Err, not quite mate, nothin significant has really changed, and if it has, its been due to pressure of uprisings or mass mobilisation.

"Kez, your the one who thinks that some magical revolution is just round the corner, and that it wont collapse and degrade in the same way which all revolutions have."
-Your the one who thinks reforms will end exploitation are hundreds of years away (not that this would happen anyway), in the meantime, let the workers suffer, because....at the end of the day, your not even bothered about the working class.

"Kez, reform is not a gient change to society, it takes decades of implimenting small changes to society. Chavez if he is trying to reform, is going about it the wrong way, his land plan is far too ambitious at this stage."
-HAHHAHAHA, every marxist is saying hes not going far enough, and yet a liberal like you is saying hes going to far...you just showed your true colours, and lack of understabnding of what a crap like workers and poor go through.

[Guest1]

Over the past 300 years, that is more or less exactly what the aristocracy of Britain did, even if it did take a good deal of pressure. The middle class is next on the list.
As I said before, this did not happen. Read your economic history. At first, there may have been a few reluctant concessions by the aristocracy and the monarchy, but all across Europe the upper class dragged its feet and eventually even went back on those concessions. It was only through revolution that real change happened. It was the revolutions in several European countries, and the violent overthrow of the ruling classes there , that brought on Capitalism. Then, and only then, did a few nations capitulate and try to join the new class themselves.

I'm afraid, however, that this is not a situation where the old rulers will be able to adapt and join the new society in the same way. They only did so before because they could still keep their position of wealth and privilige over society. When the working class revolts, the majority of the rich and powerful will see no place for them in a money-less, state-less society.

[DaCuBaN]

If you look at the early years of social democracy, Fabianism, etc., you'll discover that the premise of reformism was that revolution was "unnecessary"...we could "reform" our way from capitalism to socialism to communism.

In that sense, reformism has been a failure.


Exactly the same could be said about revolutionism: In Russia it was not long at all until capitalism sneaked back in under the fence; in Spain it barely even got off the ground; There are few and far between that would advocate Cuban or Korean 'socialist' models as succesful.

So in that sense, revolutionism has been a failure.


I live in one of the traditonal "wellfare states" and all the gains are starting to be taken away now.

I get the feeling that many revolutionaries would have these reforms fall, simply to benefit their goal. I guess altruism isn't a necessary trait of the left and I should not expect it. :(

---

On a personal note, it really gets my goat that reformists are attacked: Especially when, in the case of Enigma, he clearly states that he would support revolution, but reform must come first. It's not an unreasonable standpoint in the slightest...

[Guest1]

No one said reforms should not be accepted, throughout this debate we have clearly stated that the difference between reformists and revolutionaries is the primary goal. To a reformist, reform is an end in and of itself. To a revolutionary, it is a temporary respite not to be taken for granted. It will eventually be taken back, we know that.

I have no problem with reforms, I have a problem with saying they can change society.

The only way to do that is to build for revolution. Build organizations, radicalize your unions, work with students to connect. Build those connections and go out there. What you do now will affect whatever revolution may come 25, 50 years from now.

If alot of people are building organizations and laying the groundwork, working together as a class, you'll find more class unity when the revolution comes.

If alot of people prefer to work on reform as a primary goal, they work with the ruling class under the false impression that change can be negotiated. When the revolution comes, these people may still believe change can be negotiated. They may even think it's immoral for us to take what is ours. Worker against worker.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 11 2004, 02:34 PM
As I said before, this did not happen. Read your economic history. At first, there may have been a few reluctant concessions by the aristocracy and the monarchy, but all across Europe the upper class dragged its feet and eventually even went back on those concessions. It was only through revolution that real change happened. It was the revolutions in several European countries, and the violent overthrow of the ruling classes there , that brought on Capitalism. Then, and only then, did a few nations capitulate and try to join the new class themselves.

I'm afraid, however, that this is not a situation where the old rulers will be able to adapt and join the new society in the same way. They only did so before because they could still keep their position of wealth and privilige over society. When the working class revolts, the majority of the rich and powerful will see no place for them in a money-less, state-less society.
As I said before, this did not happen.

Umm yeah it did, or so you see knights of the realm riding accross the country and into the house of Lords to make policy decisions?

Read your economic history.

I have already consistantly proved that it is not I who needs to read up on their history.

At first, there may have been a few reluctant concessions by the aristocracy and the monarchy,

Hense the reason it apart from a few very sparse and powerless people it no longer exists?

but all across Europe the upper class dragged its feet and eventually even went back on those concessions.

Yes, thats right, we dont live in a consititutional monarchy at all. Absolutly not, the queen has absolute power to do what she pleases when ever, parliament is in fact run by those who are at least a Vicount, and the house of commons is all a big farse set up by the knights of the round table.

It was only through revolution that real change happened.

Ohh yes, britian had a huge revolution where all the leaders and lords were sent to tyburn square.

They only did so before because they could still keep their position of wealth and privilige over society.

Ohh yes, I keep forgetting that the aristocracy rules Britian, I expect Lord Tavistock to knock on my door any second demanding why I am not on the fields.

throughout this debate we have clearly stated that the difference between reformists and revolutionaries is the primary goal.

Which is where you are mistaken, the primary goal of both revolutionaries and reformers is identical, to emancipate the working classes, create a socialist society based on complete economic, political and social equality. The difference is the means of reaching that primary goal.

To a reformist, reform is an end in and of itself.

No, to a true socialist it is a step towards the ultimate goal.

It will eventually be taken back, we know that.


No we dont, I can vote, I have the right to minimum wage, I have the right to not be forced into a 16 hour day at the age of 10, etc. The knighted boogie man from long dead aristocracy is hiding behind the closet just waiting to jump out is he?

The only way to do that is to build for revolution.

To date their has been NO successful communist/anarchist/socialist revolution which has created a lasting society based on economic equality. So how you retain such almost fundermentalist faith in your desire let alone necessity of revolution is most startling.

What you do now will affect whatever revolution may come 25, 50 years from now.

I'm sorry but a revolution is not coming, unless a serious economic crisis occurs it never will, revolution is a result of extream negativity, which can only be caused in times of extream strife, it is a bread and butter issue. Unless humanity suffers an extream drop in standard of living revolution will not occur. All revolutions are characterised by some for of negativity. Prior to the 1848 revolutions the potato crop of europe failed in a devistating blight, as well as many other crops because the year was poor in general, this is just one example.

When ever you have a revolution based on the negative it turns sour, this is because people look to a figure head to lead them out of their misery. This means that anyone can become leader, which means ytou could have a fascist dictator. Even if you are lucky enough to get a leader who is communist, when they inevitably must pass power on it create a power vacuum, which never leads to anything good. Power also corrupts, leaders with what ever good intention in the beginning ddont necessarily do good things at the end.

Nope, revolution in such cases requires leadership, which is completely incompatable with lasting socialism.

[redstar2000]

I'm sorry, but a revolution is not coming; unless a serious economic crisis occurs, it never will; revolution is a result of extreme negativity which can only be caused in times of extreme strife; it is a bread and butter issue. Unless humanity suffers an extreme drop in standard of living, revolution will not occur. All revolutions are characterised by some form of negativity.

Ok.


Whenever you have a revolution based on the negative, it turns sour; this is because people look to a figure head to lead them out of their misery.

Ah, "human nature" (as taught by the capitalists) crawls out from under its rock again.

We "must" have a "great leader" to "save us from our misery".

And of course, people are "inherently incapable" of learning from history...we had a wide choice of "great leaders" in the last century and all of them were fuckups or worse. But "forget that"...we'll just do it all over again, right?

Sure we will. Enigma said so, didn't he?

And his crystal ball "actually works". :lol:


Exactly the same could be said about revolutionism...On a personal note, it really gets my goat that reformists are attacked...

I quite agree that the Leninist version of "revolutionism" suffered internal collapse. The anarchists in Spain were militarily defeated. By all accounts, in those parts of Spain where they were free to arrange things as they saw fit, their system "worked".

The reason reformists are attacked (and that those attacks will become more vigorous in the coming decades) is that reformism is just as obsolete as Leninism.

Meaning, just as hopeless!

It doesn't matter what Enigma "wants" or what other reformists "want" or what Leninists "want". Their demonstrated inability to "deliver the goods" (communism) renders their promises "moot".

On the other hand, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists did "deliver the goods" (at least partially) until they were overwhelmed militarily by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

Indeed, the limited successes in the struggle for a post-capitalist world in the 20th century (and, to be sure, very limited they were) came from movements that lacked "great leaders".

The lesson of history is quite clear: a movement that wishes to overthrow capitalism must be both revolutionary and egalitarian from the beginning.

And even that might not work either...but we already know that reformism and Leninism won't work at all.

So what's the obvious choice?

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

The reason reformists are attacked (and that those attacks will become more vigorous in the coming decades) is that reformism is just as obsolete as Leninism.

I quite agree; reformism as a means and an end is utterly futile. In CyM's words:


No one said reforms should not be accepted, throughout this debate we have clearly stated that the difference between reformists and revolutionaries is the primary goal.

Anything that alleviates the ills inflicted upon the working class should be greeted with open arms: I really don't think there is anyone outside the OI that would seriously dispute this fact. The dividing line is quite clear: The difference however, is more blurred - those branded as reformists are simply those who do not see the 'bigger picture' - those who try to lessen the burden here and now on the working class, rather than merely working toward the inevitable - if distant - revolution.

With that in mind, the 'attacks' inflicted upon such 'reformists' are wholly unjustified - they are as necessary as revolutionaries are here and now.

[Nas]

reform vs revolution - the classic fight of all times :) , on the left side you have the revolutionaries and on the right the reformists, keep it clean guys and may the best men win !!, no low blows ( even though it seems you guys already have )




anyways, reform and revolution are like the good and bad side of a human , in reality its like you need both , because you cant have a good good human or bad bad human

i lean more to a revolution than to a reform but for a revolution you need a specific environment and timing , like Enigma said some of you are waiting for a revolution that is going to happen just "around the corner"

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:39 AM
Ah, "human nature" (as taught by the capitalists) crawls out from under its rock again.

We "must" have a "great leader" to "save us from our misery".

And of course, people are "inherently incapable" of learning from history...we had a wide choice of "great leaders" in the last century and all of them were fuckups or worse. But "forget that"...we'll just do it all over again, right?

Sure we will. Enigma said so, didn't he?

And his crystal ball "actually works". :lol:


Ah, "human nature" (as taught by the capitalists) crawls out from under its rock again.

I dont think its human nature, rather the obvious course, as history has displayed on every occasion which springs to mind. If I am wrong then please tell me, if you can think of a lasting revolutin which has been effectivly leaderless.

We "must" have a "great leader" to "save us from our misery".

Thats the complete opposite from what I said, I said that the necessity for leadership dooms your cause.

But "forget that"...we'll just do it all over again, right?

Undoubtedly.

Nah, This site should be for marxists and anarchists. Not petit bourgeoise twats like you.

Kez, your complete inability to discuss anything even with a pretense of civility proves that you are not worth talking to.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:28 PM
Kez, your complete inability to discuss anything even with a pretense of civility proves that you are not worth talking to.
silly ****. i just pissed all over your argument mate, and unless you answer the many points countering your babble, i'll assume you have no answers.

[redstar2000]

The dividing line is quite clear: The difference however, is more blurred - those branded as reformists are simply those who do not see the 'bigger picture' - those who try to lessen the burden here and now on the working class, rather than merely working toward the inevitable - if distant - revolution.

With that in mind, the 'attacks' inflicted upon such 'reformists' are wholly unjustified - they are as necessary as revolutionaries are here and now.

I disagree.

As I indicated (and you agreed), what reformists propose is futile...they simply cannot "deliver on their promises".

Whatever their past performances, they no longer can "alleviate the ills inflicted upon the working class".

The only thing they can do is mislead people into thinking otherwise. Intentionally or unintentionally, reformists are liars.

But their lies are "appealing"...who wouldn't want a "nice", "easy" way out of capitalist barbarism?

Revolutions are "difficult", "bloody" and even "frightening"...not something anyone would choose "if" there was an "easier way".

Thus, their lies are also pernicious...to the extent they are believed, people will put time, energy, and hope into activities and projects that we both know are futile.

And therefore, I think reformism must be attacked...as well as the people who knowingly advocate it for obvious careerist purposes.

Of course, that doesn't mean personally attacking some kid who advocates reformism at Che-Lives -- the chances are that s/he doesn't know any better and will learn better as time passes.

But the professional reformists are simply "up to no good"...they know that nothing of substance will come of their "efforts" but they make a damn good living by lying to people and they don't want their scam upset by a bunch of "ultra-leftists".

I intend to upset them at every opportunity.


I don't think it's human nature, rather the obvious course, as history has displayed on every occasion which springs to mind.

If it's not "human nature" then what is it? Phases of the moon? :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Invader Zim]

If it's not "human nature" then what is it? Phases of the moon?

I'm not sure, I dont believe in human nature, but in every instance of revolution this trend appears. Your the genius, who feals he can mock, so you explain it.

silly ****. i just pissed all over your argument mate, and unless you answer the many points countering your babble, i'll assume you have no answers.

Kez, you pissed on nothing except your own already tragic reputation. All you did was rant the same crap which has already been disputed and rejected. Your not worth giving the time of day.

[DaCuBaN]

As I indicated (and you agreed), what reformists propose is futile...they simply cannot "deliver on their promises".

Whatever their past performances, they no longer can "alleviate the ills inflicted upon the working class".

Frankly, this is horseshit: Reformism has brought many short term benefits to the least fortunate members of society, and I'm sure we need not get into a list of 'the goods'. The misunderstanding is where this all lies - Reformists aren't trying to carve out a 'new world' - for that, nothing short of revolution would work: They are trying to adapt our world to make it liveable - is this not why they are 'the enemy'?

After all, this may delay the revolution - and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?

[redstar2000]

Reformism has brought many short term benefits to the least fortunate members of society...

"Has" but can no longer do so!

And do not think they don't know that either!

As you very well know, the professional reformists of today at best are reduced to slowing the pace of repeal. They collaborate in the dismantling of the reforms their grandfathers won...but try to "slow it down".

All the while sending me (and probably you) fund-raising letters.

And pleading with us to "vote for them" lest we "sink into barbarism".

NO!


...and you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?

Sneaking in a little quote that was once used to justify Stalin is hardly relevant to this controversy.

I didn't suggest that we line up all the reformists against the wall and summarily shoot them. :lol:

But I do think it is necessary for communists to relentlessly attack the futility and dishonesty of reformism.


You're the genius, who feels he can mock, so you explain it.

Because I am a "genius", I know that speaking to fools is always useless.

Have a nice day, Enigma. :)

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

Reformists aren't trying to carve out a 'new world' - for that, nothing short of revolution would work: They are trying to adapt our world to make it liveable - is this not why they are 'the enemy'?

I would appreciate if you could ponder on this, and come back to me. In the interim:


As you very well know, the professional reformists of today at best are reduced to slowing the pace of repeal. They collaborate in the dismantling of the reforms their grandfathers won...but try to "slow it down".

Yes, much as Neville Chaimberlain 'bought time' for the UK prior to the full outbreak of World War 2 - admittedly at the expense of other nations. It's not something to be proud of - you and I both know this well, but it is not grounds to attack him

In my mind, the same applies to reformism.


And pleading with us to "vote for them" lest we "sink into barbarism".

NO!

It often comes back to this one: Whilst we agree that modern popularity contests are a total sham, when two candidates can be compared and one is worse than the other, surely it's a no-brainer?


Sneaking in a little quote that was once used to justify Stalin is hardly relevant

True, but I'm sure you'd agree that it's never wise to pass up a 'cheap shot' ;)


I didn't suggest that we line up all the reformists against the wall and summarily shoot them

Not in so many words, no: What you have done is essentially intimate that it's "our way or the highway"...or the end of a rifle.

'At the end of the day' it all amounts to the same thing. Yet reformism doesn't try to change the world, merely make it more palatable - surely as 'communists' we should be backing this in the interim whilst building for the big change?


I do think it is necessary for communists to relentlessly attack the futility and dishonesty of reformism.

I disagree! It's more important for us as people to simply attack dishonesty wherever we see it! It's goals should not be of relevence: Deceipt in a 'good cause' is surely still unacceptable!

I do not disagree that reformist politicians are a dirty bunch: This is true of all politicians, irregardless of their intent. This says nothing of reformism itself.

I myself have spoken on a similar subject in the run-up to the US elections, saying that perhaps Bush's re-entry to the Whitehouse wouldn't be such a bad thing - it would raise public awareness and possibly accelerate the coming of the revolution, yet I have my reservations: The thousands, nay millions of people who would suffer, here and now, as a result!

Do we have the right to condemn them? Is communism not in a sense based on selflessness? Surely we should be thinking of all those who suffer rather than doing all to benefit our own causes?

[redstar2000]

I would appreciate if you could ponder on this, and come back to me.

It does not matter what reformists try to do...they can't do it.


Yes, much as Neville Chamberlain 'bought time' for the UK prior to the full outbreak of World War 2 - admittedly at the expense of other nations. It's not something to be proud of - you and I both know this well, but it is not grounds to attack him

In my mind, the same applies to reformism.

What a bizarre analogy.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion an important part of the British ruling class of that era wanted very much for Hitler to go to war...against the USSR. That's what Munich was supposed to accomplish.

Perhaps you think this is "no reason" to attack Chamberlain. I think he was a total shit!


It often comes back to this one: Whilst we agree that modern popularity contests are a total sham, when two candidates can be compared and one is worse than the other, surely it's a no-brainer?

It is indeed a "no-brainer". Communists do not waste their time or energy on bourgeois shams.

We attack them!


What you have done is essentially intimate that it's "our way or the highway"...or the end of a rifle.

In other words, if we relentlessly criticize reformists, it "must be assumed" that "we intend to shoot them".

Great logic there. :D

But suppose you're right? Suppose after the revolution that workers are so angry with the professional reformists (con-men) who tried to mislead them that they do decide to shoot some of them.

Well, so what?

Who cares what happens to a bunch of bastards?


Yet reformism doesn't try to change the world, merely make it more palatable...

I repeat: "trying" is not achieving.


It's more important for us as people to simply attack dishonesty wherever we see it! Its goals should not be of relevance: Deceit in a 'good cause' is surely still unacceptable!

That's an evasion. We're talking about reformism here, not "things in general".

I'm not "a people", I'm a communist. :)

As to "deceit in a good cause", I think we should always be honest with the working class -- and should always lie to the ruling class whenever it will benefit us.


Is communism not in a sense based on selflessness?

No. That's charity you're thinking of. Communism is very selfish...it's about liberation from wage-slavery.


Surely we should be thinking of all those who suffer rather than doing all to benefit our own causes?

Our cause is to the "benefit" of "all those who suffer".

Far more so than anything the reformists have ever come up with...or ever will.

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:58 AM
It does not matter what reformists try to do...they can't do it.
Following this logic, all the reforms made during the 19th and 20th centuries throughout Europe (and the US, to a degree) never happened. I'd agree they amount to a piss in the ocean, but they still happened

That's success - to a reformist. After all, their goal is not to change society, but merely to append to it; to make it bearable by piling on employment laws and so forth.


I'm sorry, but in my opinion an important part of the British ruling class of that era wanted very much for Hitler to go to war...against the USSR. That's what Munich was supposed to accomplish.

Sidetrack Hitler on the USSR and make an ally of the USSR. Neither seem inherintly bad from a 'British' perspective, however it has little if anything to do with reformism. From a communist perspective, it's utterly irrelevant: It was surely clear by then that the USSR was on a one way trip to failure.


Perhaps you think this is "no reason" to attack Chamberlain. I think he was a total shit!


He was no worse than any other politician of his time; he was certianly no worse than his successor. He's certainly no worse than any we're lumped with in modern times.

But I digress.


In other words, if we relentlessly criticize reformists, it "must be assumed" that "we intend to shoot them".


What else can be assumed? If reformists refuse to give up their positions, what else could be done? Rehabilitiation? Human reforms?


But suppose you're right? Suppose after the revolution that workers are so angry with the professional reformists (con-men) who tried to mislead them that they do decide to shoot some of them.

Well, so what?

Indeed - but do you honestly think that it would stop there? No, the tar brush is long and wide. I dread to think of all those who would be smeared 'innocently'.


I'm not "a people", I'm a communist. :)

:lol:
If only it were that simple: You are not of flesh and blood? You were not born into this world, just like the rest of us? This might explain a lot :D

Seriously though, your political standpoint does not change the fact of your existence.


As to "deceit in a good cause", I think we should always be honest with the working class -- and should always lie to the ruling class whenever it will benefit us.

Trust, as you are no doubt aware, is a fickle thing: The 'working class' will never 'trust' as long as tactics of deception are used. Paranoia is a common human trait: I'm sure plenty of people would be sceptical of anyone who said "Oh, I lie to them but I'd never lie to you!"


No. That's charity you're thinking of. Communism is very selfish...it's about liberation from wage-slavery.

Then get away from your keyboard, and marry a rich girl!
If freedom from wage slavery is all that matters, this would have the same effect. I think you're dodging...

Communism is about freeing us all from the shackles of capitalism. When altruism isn't woven into the very fabric, it falls apart. We've seen authoritarianism tried time and time again. It's rate of success is poor, to understate it.


Our cause is to the "benefit" of "all those who suffer".

We've been here before: I agree!

The point at hand is a matter of timescales. Revolution is not on the horizon; yet people continue to suffer. Should we not be trying to amend our current society so as few people as possible directly suffer from the ills of capitalism?

After all, we are not in a position where we suffer greatly; we are, for the most part, quite priveleged even to be located where we are - yet we are aware of where the problems lie.

Surely then, it is not necessary for the suffering to continue, when the means to erase much of it are at our disposal? Surely it cannot hurt to try!

[PRC-UTE]

Not much to add, just wanted to say that the posts from kez and redstar2000 are spot on, keep it up, lads.

[Invader Zim]

Because I am a "genius", I know that speaking to fools is always useless.

Have a nice day, Enigma.

Complete evasion of the point, excelent spin even from your inantely high standards.

Our cause is to the "benefit" of "all those who suffer".

Far more so than anything the reformists have ever come up with...or ever will.

Shame that all revolution has done is create, in 99% of its attempts so far, complete misery. Perhaps realist is a better word than reformist, because its quite clear that revolutionaries such as your self are living on a completely different planet.

[Kez]

"Shame that all revolution has done is create, in 99% of its attempts so far, complete misery. Perhaps realist is a better word than reformist, because its quite clear that revolutionaries such as your self are living on a completely different planet. "

You fail to take in the capitalist revolutions too, such as the French one which was much more progressive than the previous state, bettering the well-being of the majority in those countries.

Also, im still waiting for you to answer my points.

[redstar2000]

Following this logic, all the reforms made during the 19th and 20th centuries throughout Europe (and the US, to a degree) never happened.

Evasion. I was not speaking of what they did in the past but what they can reasonably be expected to accomplish now and in the future.

The days of "great reforms" under capitalism are clearly over.

The "promises" of contemporary reformists are lies.

Which need to be attacked!

Along with the professional liars who do that shit for a living.


From a communist perspective, it's utterly irrelevant: It was surely clear by then that the USSR was on a one way trip to failure.

Well, I agree the example of Chamberlain is irrelevant to this discussion; you brought it up, not me.

In 1938, the overwhelming majority of communists thought the USSR was an astounding success. That was a mistake on their part...but it was their view.


What else can be assumed?

Well, if you gave some thought to the matter, you'd realize that in a post-capitalist society, reformism would be irrelevant. No one would bother advocating reform of capitalism because capitalism would no longer exist.

So who would we "shoot"...and why?

Not even Leninists would bother to shoot such pathetic losers, much less communists or anarchists.

Unless they made a nuisance of themselves, of course...trying to stir up counter-revolution and the restoration of capitalism.

Perhaps a possibility...but I think a very small one.


Indeed - but do you honestly think that it would stop there? No, the tar brush is long and wide. I dread to think of all those who would be smeared 'innocently'.

Troubled by Stalinist nightmares? Try drinking a glass of warm milk before going to bed.


Seriously though, your political standpoint does not change the fact of your existence.

My experience has been that whenever someone starts talking about "people" as an abstraction -- without regard to class -- that's generally a prelude to some really rotten politics.

One reformist on this board actually wrote: "capitalists are people too".

Overlooking the nasty detail that we are not "people" in their eyes. We are vermin to be exterminated.

I think we should return the compliment.


Trust, as you are no doubt aware, is a fickle thing...

Which is why I'm not overly concerned with it. I don't think that communists should ask the working class to "trust us" and "let us handle things" because we can be "counted on" to "look out for their interests".

I think we should tell the truth to our class as best we can...but the most important part of the truth is that the class must learn to trust itself.

It most certainly must never trust reformists to do anything but advance their own careers at the expense of the working class.

As to lying to the capitalists, would you care to furnish them with your real name, home address, telephone number, etc.? Do you tell the truth on job applications? When there's a political discussion where you work, do you make sure that the boss knows your real views?

How noble of you. I'm sure they appreciate your candor.

:huh:


Then get away from your keyboard and marry a rich girl!

She turned me down! :o

You understand what I'm saying? Sure, there is a tiny but measurable chance of individual escape from wage-slavery. Why do you think most lottery tickets are purchased by the "working poor"?

But the odds are overwhelmingly negative!

The only real chance of permanent escape from wage-slavery is to abolish it. If no one is a wage-slave, then the chances of you ever being forced into wage-slavery fall to zero.


When altruism isn't woven into the very fabric, it falls apart. We've seen authoritarianism tried time and time again. Its rate of success is poor, to understate it.

On the contrary, all the 20th century authoritarian versions of "communism" rested on altruism -- the "vanguard party" would "act in the interests of the proletariat" because..."they cared."

Altruism is also a "high card" in the hands of reformists..."we really care about the most unfortunate and you should too". Show you "really care" by "sending us some serious money".

Cynic that I am, I remain deeply suspicious of anyone who claims "altruism" as the "source" of their political activity or views. Not the young, who really do often feel genuinely altruistic, but the "professional altruist" (reformist) who makes a living dispensing that crap.

They're up to no good.


The point at hand is a matter of timescales. Revolution is not on the horizon; yet people continue to suffer. Should we not be trying to amend our current society so as few people as possible directly suffer from the ills of capitalism?

It's not a matter of "should" -- it's a matter of can it be done any longer?

The answer is no.

Whatever "successes" that reformism may have achieved in the past, their "strategy" is no longer useful.

Worse, it actually interferes with the development of a revolutionary strategy that may be very useful indeed.

The volunteers who are busting their asses to "defeat Bush" (elect Kerry) are wasting their time and energy...time and energy that could be spent doing something useful.

That's wrong...and only prolongs the suffering.


Perhaps realist is a better word than reformist, because it's quite clear that revolutionaries such as yourself are living on a completely different planet.

Agreed, Enigma. Mine is called Earth; what's the name of yours? :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:04 PM
"Shame that all revolution has done is create, in 99% of its attempts so far, complete misery. Perhaps realist is a better word than reformist, because its quite clear that revolutionaries such as your self are living on a completely different planet. "

You fail to take in the capitalist revolutions too, such as the French one which was much more progressive than the previous state, bettering the well-being of the majority in those countries.

Also, im still waiting for you to answer my points.
You fail to take in the capitalist revolutions too, such as the French one which was much more progressive than the previous state, bettering the well-being of the majority in those countries.

That would be the 1%, but the French revolution eventually lead to the rise of Napoleon, and fter his fall the restoration of the monarchy, though I agree, it was certainly progressive, just not enough.

Also, im still waiting for you to answer my points.

You didn't make any constructive new points, but I will answer some of your statements anyhow.

- What, When. Since when was New Lanark a country? this is a pitiful example, give us a proper developed capitalist state.


You never said it had to be a nation. My point stands.

Ive intervened in many strikes,

Define intervened. The only strike I have had any personal impact upon was the firemans strike where I spent a fruitless day standing out the fire station with a fire man I know, shaking a tin.

So Adam Smith was wrong and your right are you?

Yes, because Adam Smith was, as in most things, dead wrong.

When your ilk are called Liberals, we mean people in the capitalist mindset, such as yours.


Capitalist mindset, now thats just silly, considering that I am a volunteer. I dont do it for money, I refuse to whore my self to some multinational corporation. I rather think that I am absolutly exempt from charge.

You heard of the gains of the Russian Revolution?

Which if you hadn't noticed created a state which collapsed.

Whenever there is a boom period coming to an end, the capitalist class will always try to take away gains and and reforms that were previosuly tossed down to the workers, therefore it can NEVER be set of consistant and regular reforms, that CANNOT happen.

Again what major reforms have been stripped. Why do we still have minimum wage, etc? Your point is just plain wrong.

Oh, so it doesnt matter that the working class will now pay for basic health which they cant afford?

The NHS has not been disbanded. :rolleyes:

Or that the trains which the working class uses most are going down the shitter?

I dont know where you get that idea from, the working class certainly dont use the trains more than the middle class commuters.

the government would be out on the street if it tried anything like that...

I doubt it.

-Err, not quite mate, nothin significant has really changed, and if it has, its been due to pressure of uprisings or mass mobilisation.
Nope, no way, the Aristocracy fell because of middle class pressure not revolutionary pressure.

in the meantime, let the workers suffer, because....at the end of the day, your not even bothered about the working class.

You clearly dont understand reformism, the idea is to end working class suffering now! Not wait 50+ years for some none existant revolution.

-HAHHAHAHA, every marxist is saying hes not going far enough, and yet a liberal like you is saying hes going to far...you just showed your true colours, and lack of understabnding of what a crap like workers and poor go through.

Kez i suggest you read my statement again and pay particular refrence to the word "stage".

[monkeydust]

Whatever "successes" that reformism may have achieved in the past, their "strategy" is no longer useful.


Surely you can't just make a comment like that without backing it up.

Why is reformism completely irrelevant now, when it wasn't before?

[Louis Pio]

You clearly dont understand reformism, the idea is to end working class suffering now! Not wait 50+ years for some none existant revolution.

Revolutionaries fight for every improvement. They don't however see it as a end in itself. The problem with reformism is that the improvements are eventually taken back and the wellfare state destroyed. This is happening in all wellfare states right now. Denmark being a fine example, Sweden another, New Zealand yet another and so on, with the exeption of Norway who can rely on it's oil for the time being. Actually the worst thing about the wellfare state is that it is the workers themselves paying for most of those things through taxes. Capitalism entering crisis can't afford those things and reformism fails to end capitalism (all it accomplishes is to create a top layer getting a fat paycheck for administrating the big state apparatus needed). So what you suggest is that we have to repeat this cycle endlessly, in the end that get's a good deal more people killed over the time. Through wars, worsening working conditions and so on.

[Invader Zim]

Revolutionaries fight for every improvement. They don't however see it as a end in itself. The problem with reformism is that the improvements are eventually taken back and the wellfare state destroyed. This is happening in all wellfare states right now. Denmark being a fine example, Sweden another, New Zealand yet another and so on, with the exeption of Norway who can rely on it's oil for the time being. Actually the worst thing about the wellfare state is that it is the workers themselves paying for most of those things through taxes. Capitalism entering crisis can't afford those things and reformism fails to end capitalism (all it accomplishes is to create a top layer getting a fat paycheck for administrating the big state apparatus needed). So what you suggest is that we have to repeat this cycle endlessly, in the end that get's a good deal more people killed over the time. Through wars, worsening working conditions and so on.

Alright you raise a fair, pint and I accept that certain wellfair reforms are lost, however some of them become intrisic rights, and as Kez has pointed out (though I to an extent disagree) to revoke them would cause either revolution or major civil unrest. This being the case, these reforms cannot be removed. So you can never return society to how it was in the victorian era.

[Louis Pio]

and as Kez has pointed out (though I to an extent disagree) to revoke them would cause either revolution or major civil unrest.

Yes it would. But they still do it and while they do it the reformist leaders continue to promote reformism. A prime example being Chile, there it lead to a bloody dictatorship crushing the workers organisations, removing all rights, worsening the living conditions etc. Besides from the people killed by bullets countless others died from starvation.
So the choice you have in a situation like this is to fight for socialism or pave the way for a dictatorship. There is no middleroad.


This being the case, these reforms cannot be removed. So you can never return society to how it was in the victorian era.

No it will probably become worse if the capitalists triumph after eliminating a massmovement.

And this is were revolutionaries come in, in situations like this we need to go out and present an alternative, using our positions in the labour movement. Convincing people of the need for taking over production. Of course this will face some kind of repression but the alternative as I pointed out is much much worse.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 08:27 PM

Yes it would. But they still do it and while they do it the reformist leaders continue to promote reformism. A prime example being Chile, there it lead to a bloody dictatorship crushing the workers organisations, removing all rights, worsening the living conditions etc. Besides from the people killed by bullets countless others died from starvation.
So the choice you have in a situation like this is to fight for socialism or pave the way for a dictatorship. There is no middleroad.



No it will probably become worse if the capitalists triumph after eliminating a massmovement.

And this is were revolutionaries come in, in situations like this we need to go out and present an alternative, using our positions in the labour movement. Convincing people of the need for taking over production. Of course this will face some kind of repression but the alternative as I pointed out is much much worse.
Alright if that is the case then why has Britian not collapsed into a dictatorship, like you see in countries like North Korea, the USSR, Vietnam, etc?

[DaCuBaN]

Evasion. I was not speaking of what they did in the past but what they can reasonably be expected to accomplish now and in the future.

The days of "great reforms" under capitalism are clearly over.

The "promises" of contemporary reformists are lies.

Which need to be attacked!

Along with the professional liars who do that shit for a living.


No!

The goal of a liar is of no relevance whatsoever to anything that resembles a human being. We should simply be calling out lies as we see them wherever we see them

I dread to think of the 'utopia' spawned from the back of politicians; if we must become like this to execute a revolt, then the revolution is dead.


Well, if you gave some thought to the matter, you'd realize that in a post-capitalist society, reformism would be irrelevant. No one would bother advocating reform of capitalism because capitalism would no longer exist.

So who would we "shoot"...and why?


The firing squad is the choice of many communists as a solution to deal with 'the enemy'. Have reformists suddenly stopped being the enemy now? Simply because they have been 'beaten' you will drop the whole matter, shake hands and go for a beer?

How very sportsmanlike of you.


Troubled by Stalinist nightmares? Try drinking a glass of warm milk before going to bed.


You say it like it actually bears weight; You offer no advice to lessen my fears of the innocent being smeared and simply resort to jesting: Bad show! ;)


Overlooking the nasty detail that we are not "people" in [the capitalists] eyes. We are vermin to be exterminated.


This is simply false in the case of the majority of capitalists: They accept the system for what it is and rather than trying to change it they just get on with life, and make the most of it. Again, we get onto the generalisation: All capitalists are pig-dogs; all capitalists must die.

I hate to say it, but that's an urban myth: The majority either seem ignorant or stupid :lol:


I'm not overly concerned with [trust]. I don't think that communists should ask the working class to "trust us" and "let us handle things" because we can be "counted on" to "look out for their interests".

I agree; it is something that must be realised independantly - we can only assist this by trying to inform as best we can.


As to lying to the capitalists, would you care to furnish them with your real name, home address, telephone number, etc.? Do you tell the truth on job applications? When there's a political discussion where you work, do you make sure that the boss knows your real views?

How noble of you. I'm sure they appreciate your candor.

Yes, yes and yes: I work in IT and if my advocation of the Copyleft phenomenon and everything open source doesn't make my politics clear, then my words do so.

Neither they nor I have anything to fear.


The only real chance of permanent escape from wage-slavery is to abolish it. If no one is a wage-slave, then the chances of you ever being forced into wage-slavery fall to zero.

This is why communism appeals greatly to me. The fact remains however, that we are not in a position of terrible hardship, whilst others who share our globe with us are. You continuously state that reformism cannot bring benefit to these most harshly affected by capitalism; those who have never even seen real reform; that their only means of escape is through revolution.

Whilst this may be true for us, there are plenty of places where reforms would do an awful lot to ease the suffering. You may be able to 'wave away' this, but I cannot be so heartless.


20th century authoritarian versions of "communism" rested on altruism -- the "vanguard party" would "act in the interests of the proletariat" because..."they cared."

...or so they said. I think it far more likely that they, like you, simply wished an end to their own suffering. The 'class' borders that existed between party members and regular citizens would seem to indicate this.


Altruism is also a "high card" in the hands of reformists..."we really care about the most unfortunate and you should too". Show you "really care" by "sending us some serious money".

We've already agreed that politicians, irregardless of their cause, are a slimy bunch; I feel this is a moot point.


Cynic that I am, I remain deeply suspicious of anyone who claims "altruism" as the "source" of their political activity or views. Not the young, who really do often feel genuinely altruistic, but the "professional altruist" (reformist) who makes a living dispensing that crap.

They're up to no good.


Personally I take this one step further: Anyone who makes a living from politics should be viewed suspiciously: They almost certainly are up to no good.

The solution? Do it ourselves!. I in many respects consider myself a 'statist' in that I have no problem with the idea of a state apparatus: Provided that the state apparatus is all encompassing

Anything short of that is simply tyranny.


The volunteers who are busting their asses to "defeat Bush" (elect Kerry) are wasting their time and energy...time and energy that could be spent doing something useful.


Again, I agree: Voting in Nader however, would be a very different state of affairs.


Worse, it actually interferes with the development of a revolutionary strategy that may be very useful indeed.


Back we come ;)

"You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"

[Nas]

yeah i think Kerry wouldnt reform anything

[Louis Pio]

Alright if that is the case then why has Britian not collapsed into a dictatorship, like you see in countries like North Korea, the USSR, Vietnam, etc?

Well because we haven't reached that state yet. We saw traches of it in how Thatcher dealed with the miners. She did however not destroy the workers organisations totally. Also capitalism can still affort to keep alot of the things like public healthcare etc. But as the present situation shows it's moving to destroying that. At some point it will come up against massmovements. The british ruling class admiration for fascism before ww2 and later the gladio conspiracy shows they were open for the idea of total repression. However democracy works best for them now, but they will no hesitate to sacrifice it when it serves their purpose.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:05 PM

Well because we haven't reached that state yet. We saw traches of it in how Thatcher dealed with the miners. She did however not destroy the workers organisations totally. Also capitalism can still affort to keep alot of the things like public healthcare etc. But as the present situation shows it's moving to destroying that. At some point it will come up against massmovements. The british ruling class admiration for fascism before ww2 and later the gladio conspiracy shows they were open for the idea of total repression. However democracy works best for them now, but they will no hesitate to sacrifice it when it serves their purpose.
I agree that many of the public services are failing, but I believe that is because of the auful inefficency of the current way government has been conducted, and has been for the past 30-odd years. we are fealing the repercussions of this now.

I doubt that you are correct in your statement that all reform will be taken back... but really only time will tell.

[Louis Pio]

but really only time will tell.

Indeed


I agree that many of the public services are failing, but I believe that is because of the auful inefficency of the current way government has been conducted, and has been for the past 30-odd years. we are fealing the repercussions of this now.

Yeah people haven't had a say in the running of those things because we live under capitalism. Instead a layer of proffesional politicians have run it. Very incompetent most of the time. But this is because of our system, here in Denmark the funds are being reduced to all those things. Making a bad situation worse. And it will worsen in the coming years im quite sure. Right now I think things are just becoming more and more turbolent.

[redstar2000]

Why is reformism completely irrelevant now, when it wasn't before?

Answer...


It appears as if the capitalist class is "feeling the pinch" of falling profits...and the only solution they see is the reduction of labor costs. Thus they will simply not permit any more pro-working class reforms and apply themselves with real enthusiasm to dismantling the ones that already exist.

See any issue of The Economist for the details.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=453372 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28972&view=findpost&p=453372)


The firing squad is the choice of many communists as a solution to deal with 'the enemy'. Have reformists suddenly stopped being the enemy now? Simply because they have been 'beaten' you will drop the whole matter, shake hands and go for a beer?

I didn't say I would drink with the assholes -- after all, even I have standards.

But I see nothing to be gained by shooting them.

It strikes me, in fact, that you keep raising this because revolution would involve shooting some people...perhaps quite a few.

And that "bothers" you.

Why?

Don't you think there are people who deserve shooting?


You offer no advice to lessen my fears of the innocent being smeared...

We are humans, not "gods". Mistakes are inevitable. Keep in mind the fact that capitalism kills many innocent people every day.


This is simply false in the case of the majority of capitalists: They accept the system for what it is and rather than trying to change it they just get on with life, and make the most of it. Again, we get onto the generalisation: All capitalists are pig-dogs; all capitalists must die.

Ever hear of a place called Peterloo?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpeterloo.htm

Mind you, those were reformists that were massacred. Still haunted by "Uncle Joe"? Or me?

When capitalists "just get on with their lives", that has a real world meaning: exploitation, oppression, terrorism, and massacre.

Here's a prediction from "my crystal ball". Before the year 2020, at least one "western democracy" will open fire on its own citizenry for the "crime" of massively protesting some capitalist outrage. That's a "conservative" prediction -- I actually expect it to happen sooner.

So yeah, they really are all "pig-dogs" and they really do deserve execution.

That doesn't mean that we are "required" to do that...but if the working class decides to do that, it is justified!


Neither they nor I have anything to fear.

Here, I think, you demonstrate the magnitude of your delusions.

You "toss and turn" over visions of Stalinist terror but sleep comfortably in the confidence that present-day capitalists would "never" do "bad things" to you.

That's a perfect mirror image of reality.


Whilst this may be true for us, there are plenty of places where reforms would do an awful lot to ease the suffering. You may be able to 'wave away' this, but I cannot be so heartless.

If you're speaking of the "third world", then your position is even more irrelevant. Those places already have revolutionary movements...but you wouldn't like them at all. They are usually Maoist...and probably would be happy to shoot reformists or anyone else that collaborates with the old order.

The only places where reformism is still a "viable" option are "mid-level" capitalist countries -- places like Venezuela, for example. And, naturally, they have plenty of reformists, including their current president.

But that has nothing to do with you or me. With regard to the "third world", our task is to oppose our own ruling class's imperial adventures, period. Those folks "over there" will work out their own destinies without advice from us.


I think it far more likely that they, like you, simply wished an end to their own suffering. The 'class' borders that existed between party members and regular citizens would seem to indicate this.

If you wish to argue that 20th century communists all acted "in bad faith" from the very beginning, I won't trouble to dispute the point. I don't think that's "true"...but it has no bearing on my argument either way.


Voting in Nader, however, would be a very different state of affairs.

People "like Nader" are no longer permitted to win capitalist elections (in the late capitalist "democracies"). If one did win, he would not be permitted to govern.


"You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"

I like omelettes. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

It strikes me, in fact, that you keep raising this because revolution would involve shooting some people...perhaps quite a few.

And that "bothers" you.

Indeed


Why?

Don't you think there are people who deserve shooting?

Despite my bravado about locking people in a cage and burying them in the desert as a means of punishment, I don't believe we should be shooting people simply because we can't figure a way to work around them.


Mistakes are inevitable. Keep in mind the fact that capitalism kills many innocent people every day.

I'll assume this is an admission that 'innocents' will suffer at the hands of all violent revolutions - Indeed this is simply the reason why I cannot support them. You are 60-soimething years old - surely you have been on the receiving end of a wrongful accusation?

I'll bet you were glad that the accuser wasn't holding a gun, right?


Ever hear of a place called Peterloo?

It's required reading for Higher History in the Scottish education system - although admittedly I still fail to see why you've cited it here... Is this testament to the 'evils' of the ruling class in the UK during that time?

You're preaching to the converted here...


Still haunted by "Uncle Joe"? Or me?

It's not figures from the past nor present that haunt me; It's the idea that any mind can justify the ending of another life to better their own goals. The concept is so alien to me that I'm lost for words. Yet despite the fact that your pattern of thought could be considered 'frightening', I would neither be capable of giving the order nor shooting you myself.


When capitalists "just get on with their lives", that has a real world meaning: exploitation, oppression, terrorism, and massacre.

Bollocks!

These actions have been carried out in the name of every political ideology under the sun - capitalism merely takes the focus here because it is the dominant force in the world and has been throughout living memory. 'Crimes of Humanity' exist outwith political ideology, and you know it.

When people get on with their lives (which in this world means 'buying into' the capitalist system) their actions affect others. What may ensue is exploitation, oppression, terrorism and massacre - you say it like that's the intent. There's a world of difference between the two.

Whilst I do not consider unintentional 'crimes' any less acceptable, again surely death isn't the solution?


That doesn't mean that we are "required" to do that...but if the working class decides to do that, it is justified!

I agree! Consensus is the only way I could even abide such action. My own 'morals' prohibit me.


You "toss and turn" over visions of Stalinist terror but sleep comfortably in the confidence that present-day capitalists would "never" do "bad things" to you.

Covered above; you've made a misconception. On my own 'boss', I really do have nothing to fear, but neither do I wish to discuss at length the situation. My point is that it's not merely 'evil capitalists' I fear: It's anyone who thinks violence and murder is the right way to achieve a goal!


If you're speaking of the "third world"

I'm not. With my parents being relatively affluent, I've been afforded the ability to visit many of the population centres of the 'western world': London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, New York, Washington, Los Angeles - throughout them all I see people who reforms - simple, small reforms - could do a world of good for.


If you wish to argue that 20th century communists all acted "in bad faith" from the very beginning, I won't trouble to dispute the point.

I don't: I think primarily they were blind fools!
They made the huge assumption that their interests were in the best interests of all - It was not long before this idea was expunged.


People "like Nader" are no longer permitted to win capitalist elections (in the late capitalist "democracies"). If one did win, he would not be permitted to govern.

Take the UK as an example: We have our two horse race, but if you look more closely at the system, it's not such a straight competition after all: For the last 3 elections, the Liberal Democrats have clawed away votes from both major parties, leaving them with a not-unhealthy share of the seats in westminster. Whilst I don't delude myself in thinking that this changes much (except maybe my chances of being able to smoke hash in peace) it certainly disproves your claim above. You may be stuck with a two horse race in the US, but that's the price the country pays for it's size

Or at least that's what I've always assumed to be the root cause of that particular problem.


I like omelettes.

So do I, but this one tastes a bit sour I'm afraid...

[redstar2000]

It's the idea that any mind can justify the ending of another life to better their own goals. The concept is so alien to me that I'm lost for words.

Welcome to Earth...where the practice is so common as to be entirely unremarkable.

Corporations today even plan for a certain number of employee deaths as a consequence of their working conditions...carefully balancing the costs of safety measures against the costs of "too many deaths".

There's even an entire industry -- "product liability" insurance -- based on the premise that certain kinds of products will cause a certain number of deaths...and the premiums are set accordingly.

All of this is done "without malice" in the usual meaning of the word -- just the understanding that all other considerations must give way to the over-riding purpose of capitalism...maximizing profit.

This is somehow "different" and "not as bad" as what communists "would do"...that seems to be the burden of your argument.

I fail to see the difference. If you are wrongly killed on the job as a consequence of some cost-benefit analyst's decision that the safety measure that would have saved your life was "too expensive" -- how is that "better" than being wrongly executed because a "people's court" made a mistake?

You're just as dead.

Moreover, as a deliberating body, the "people's court" is conscious of what it is doing. It doesn't just pick people off the street at random and accuse them of "counter-revolutionary activity". It doesn't exist for the purpose of randomly killing the innocent.

Capitalism, however, does kill the innocent at random...murder is a "by-product" of its normal operation. So are things like crippling disabilities, pollution-caused chronic diseases, etc.

Your logic suggests that randomly killing the innocent is "morally superior" to killing your perceived enemies.

I simply don't understand that.


When people get on with their lives (which in this world means 'buying into' the capitalist system) their actions affect others. What may ensue is exploitation, oppression, terrorism and massacre - you say it like that's the intent. There's a world of difference between the two.

Are we now reduced to "moral intentions"?

Is it "ok" to behave monstrously as long as you didn't "intend" the monstrous outcome?

Is "collateral damage" (murder of innocents) less "morally repugnant" than deliberate execution of those presumed to deserve it?


Whilst I do not consider unintentional 'crimes' any less acceptable, again surely death isn't the solution?

Why not? If an airplane crashes, just why don't the executives of that airline (or some of them) deserve death?

Even if it's "pilot error" (and they love that excuse), who hired the pilot? Who certified him as competent to fly passengers?

Aren't they guilty of murder?


...throughout them all I see people who reforms - simple, small reforms - could do a world of good for.

But that's not going to happen, right?

So it's "moot" whether they would benefit or not, right?


Take the UK as an example: We have our two horse race, but if you look more closely at the system, it's not such a straight competition after all: For the last 3 elections, the Liberal Democrats have clawed away votes from both major parties, leaving them with a not-unhealthy share of the seats in Westminster...it certainly disproves your claim above.

I think you missed my point. It does not matter "how many" bourgeois political parties may exist or be serious contenders in bourgeois elections.

What I assert is that the ruling class will no longer permit a "sincere reformist party" to win...period.

If necessary, they will cheat to stop that from happening.

And if for any reason that didn't work, then they would openly rebel in the name of capital...that is, they would shut down everything they could, promote a military coup, plan and carry out assassinations, etc.

And all this not to "stop communism" (though that might be their rhetorical justification) but to stop left-bourgeois reformism.

I really think you have a very deficient view of the nature of the capitalist class in the present period.

They understand class war very well...and are playing to win.

Your opinions suggest that you don't really grasp that at all.

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

Suffice to say, your patience is appreciated. I do enjoy delving into another's mind in this fashion.


If you are wrongly killed on the job as a consequence of some cost-benefit analyst's decision that the safety measure that would have saved your life was "too expensive" -- how is that "better" than being wrongly executed because a "people's court" made a mistake?

I do not condone, let alone accept our current system, so it's not a case of one situation being 'better' than the other at all. As you yourself said: You're just as dead. - and this is where the problem lies. Irregardless of the intent, the action is abomibable to me - it is merely compounded by the fact that in the instance of the "people's court" aforementioned intent was good - such horrible actions occur in the name emancipation. At least the capitalist is honest about the situation: He regards his money more important than people.

I can't believe this doesn't at least make you feel 'uncomfortable'.


Is it "ok" to behave monstrously as long as you didn't "intend" the monstrous outcome?

No, but this is the crux of my argument: Revolution (of the bloody sort) intends to emancipate the working class, and results in the death of the innocent.


Is "collateral damage" (murder of innocents) less "morally repugnant" than deliberate execution of those presumed to deserve it?

As long as any accusation is based on presumption, then it could be argued to be morally superior - I cannot abide either scenario.


Why not? If an airplane crashes, just why don't the executives of that airline (or some of them) deserve death?

Even if it's "pilot error" (and they love that excuse), who hired the pilot? Who certified him as competent to fly passengers?

Aren't they guilty of murder?


An interesting analogy: Do you apply this as equally to the idea of the "people's court" ? The entire jury (or at least those who convicted the innocent individual) could be put to death for their participation in murder. Whilst we're at it, the firing squad better turn those rifles around...

Getting a bit messy here, it seems.


But [real reforms are] not going to happen, right?

My own crystal ball is sadly defunct; My best guess however would be that the task is by no means impossible. Certainly, we lose nothing by trying!


What I assert is that the ruling class will no longer permit a "sincere reformist party" to win

By the 'ruling class' I assume you mean those in charge of capital, rather than the lackey politicians? Perhaps: As things stand at least, in the US and UK there is no hope of such a party ever gaining power. In the UK, we have a significant (but very much a minority) of independant politicans, who've broken the party line and drawn up their own manifesto - In every instance I've seen, they've been as sincere as possible.

Perhaps changing the rules of the game to suit this may be one method of enacting real change? I wish I had the answers. I do not presume to say that revolution is doomed to failure - it's probability of success is remarkably high under the right conditions, and certainly higher than that of reformism. Still, I cannot justify murder.

[redstar2000]

No, but this is the crux of my argument: Revolution (of the bloody sort) intends to emancipate the working class, and results in the death of the innocent.

Driving a car can result in the death of the innocent. Drive enough cars over enough time, and it will.

Should we all just stop driving?

I don't think there is "any such world" where the innocent "never get wrongfully killed".

You take what measures you can to minimize it...but it's going to happen no matter what you do or don't do.

In this context, will "bloody revolution" kill fewer innocents in the long run than the indefinite continuation of normal capitalist "business as usual"?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me, but perhaps you think otherwise.


My best guess however would be that the task [of gaining reforms] is by no means impossible. Certainly, we lose nothing by trying!

I thought that earlier in this thread you agreed with me that reformism was futile.

In any event, we lose quite a bit by "trying". We lose all the time and energy that we might allocate to the "fight" for those reforms...without gaining anything at all.

Even more important, in the course of those "struggles", we "send a message"...that the system "can" be reformed.

Instead of "preparing" people for revolution, all we prepare them for is disappointment and cynicism...or worse.

I don't think such a course helps anyone...except the ruling class.

:redstar2000:

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