enigma2517
9th January 2005, 23:42
Article by Anton Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1908/reforms.htm)
Check that out.
The title of this article is Two Sorts of Reforms. I think that it can be very accurately summarized by the following snippet.
Current social reform, having as a goal the preservation of the capitalist system, finds itself in opposition to the proletarian reform of tomorrow, which will have the contrary goal: the suppression of the system.
Have a look at the rest of the article of you're interested. My question is this...what does Pannekoek mean by the latter? He remains somewhat vague on the subject...how do these new "proletarian" reforms differ from existing ones. I think it sounds great on the outside, and despite his somewhat misinformed attack on anarchists I believe that this could just mean an even greater convergence of the marxist and anarchist theory.
However, I think practice can mean a totally different thing.
In fighting for reform the working class develops and makes itself strong. It ends by conquering political power. This is the unity of reform and revolution
Erm, pardon me but shouldn't it logically start out with conquering political power? The promise of these new, penetrating reforms is inspiring...but if, as Pannekoek says, these reforms will be of a "completely different kind from those of even the most radical bourgeois", then how on Earth does he assume they will be put into practice? He writes that these reforms will strengthen the movement and make "proletarian hearts will leap for joy", yet how does he hope to acquire that same proletarian following in the first place? What a catch 22 <_< . In order to pass anything in parliment you need a majority....but how to accumulate this majority? I don't think pamphelets and flyers will do the (entire) trick.
One of the reasons why I currently reside on the anarchist side of the argument is that direct action and open resistance gives something the class to look foward to. Granted we will have our defeats and victories, but overall, this sort of movement will be inspiring to the antagonized classes. However, I'm not entirely familiar with his works...and even if I was he can't speak for every Marxist. So a question to throw in here would be...do marxists advocate similiar types of "direct action" like anarchists engage in?
And anybody who thinks that they can explain the dogmatic mess above in general would be greatly encouraged by me to do so as well.
Edit: Just found another article here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/tactics.htm). Its called Marxist Theory and Revolutionary Tactics. I don't have time to read it right now but if anybody has similiar questions to mine about the subject in mind I'd advise you to go read and pick out the highlights for the rest of us :D Peace
Check that out.
The title of this article is Two Sorts of Reforms. I think that it can be very accurately summarized by the following snippet.
Current social reform, having as a goal the preservation of the capitalist system, finds itself in opposition to the proletarian reform of tomorrow, which will have the contrary goal: the suppression of the system.
Have a look at the rest of the article of you're interested. My question is this...what does Pannekoek mean by the latter? He remains somewhat vague on the subject...how do these new "proletarian" reforms differ from existing ones. I think it sounds great on the outside, and despite his somewhat misinformed attack on anarchists I believe that this could just mean an even greater convergence of the marxist and anarchist theory.
However, I think practice can mean a totally different thing.
In fighting for reform the working class develops and makes itself strong. It ends by conquering political power. This is the unity of reform and revolution
Erm, pardon me but shouldn't it logically start out with conquering political power? The promise of these new, penetrating reforms is inspiring...but if, as Pannekoek says, these reforms will be of a "completely different kind from those of even the most radical bourgeois", then how on Earth does he assume they will be put into practice? He writes that these reforms will strengthen the movement and make "proletarian hearts will leap for joy", yet how does he hope to acquire that same proletarian following in the first place? What a catch 22 <_< . In order to pass anything in parliment you need a majority....but how to accumulate this majority? I don't think pamphelets and flyers will do the (entire) trick.
One of the reasons why I currently reside on the anarchist side of the argument is that direct action and open resistance gives something the class to look foward to. Granted we will have our defeats and victories, but overall, this sort of movement will be inspiring to the antagonized classes. However, I'm not entirely familiar with his works...and even if I was he can't speak for every Marxist. So a question to throw in here would be...do marxists advocate similiar types of "direct action" like anarchists engage in?
And anybody who thinks that they can explain the dogmatic mess above in general would be greatly encouraged by me to do so as well.
Edit: Just found another article here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/tactics.htm). Its called Marxist Theory and Revolutionary Tactics. I don't have time to read it right now but if anybody has similiar questions to mine about the subject in mind I'd advise you to go read and pick out the highlights for the rest of us :D Peace