Why revolution?

[Manack]

I have what is essentially a revolution versus reformation question.

Firstly, by revolution I mean a popular upsurption of power through a mass movement or armed struggle where one system of governance is exchanged for another.

And by reformation I am talking about the same change occuring through the gradual evolution of society via other means. Democratic practices, internally driven political reforms or even new commodities and services being introduced into a market economy.

Is revolution a neccesary aspect of a transition to a better society or is it instead only neccesary in those situations whereby the same can't be done peacefully?

Since the rise in the modern western welfare state occured without revolution but mostly to reduce the militancy of the working class to provide market stability. Isn't reformation the natural method for change while revolution in Russia an aberation largely caused by an oppressive, outdated regime?

[black magick hustla]

Reformism is certainly better than pure capitalism, however, it is pretty much useless.

You CANNOT reform a system that relies heavily on burgeoise to become a worker's system. Sure, reformists can make some stuff, but they are still within capitalism, and those reforms still need the help of THE BURGEOISE.

Reformists do not strive to eliminate the class differences, instead, they HUMANIZE the conditions of being lower class.

[Clarksist]

You CANNOT reform a system that relies heavily on burgeoise to become a worker's system. Sure, reformists can make some stuff, but they are still within capitalism, and those reforms still need the help of THE BURGEOISE.

You are wise beyond your post count.

Revolution is the ONLY way to destroy the system.

The idea of reformism is futil when you look at our system of money controlled power. In the end, the bourgeois will dtill be in control, and in the end revolution will be needed still because it will be an "oppressive outdated regime".

With reformation comes corruption, compromises, and more exploitation.

It always comes down to the rich not wanting to give away surplus.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:38 AM
You CANNOT reform a system that relies heavily on burgeoise to become a worker's system. Sure, reformists can make some stuff, but they are still within capitalism, and those reforms still need the help of THE BURGEOISE.
I am not sure I fully understand.

Assuming a democratic system with full sufferage where each person is entitled to vote regardless of class. Assuming there is no restriction on candidates then parties advocating a reform to a worker's system could be included in the election. Assuming that the rule of law will be followed then if elected then a system can be reformed.

There are other consideration such as access to media and other backing like that. But all in all if a workers system is more beneficial the electorate are aware of the better alternative I can't see how it can't be reformed.

What is the fundamental flaw that makes reformation impossible?

A reformist can certainly strive to eliminate class and obviously humanising the conditions of being lower class would be an essential step in a reform process but not neccesarily the last.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:59 AM
With reformation comes corruption, compromises, and more exploitation.

It always comes down to the rich not wanting to give away surplus.
I would like to point out that revolutions are hardly free of corruption, compromise or exploitation. Not to mention the violence and associated difficulties that occur when there is a dramatic change.

Leaders of revolutions seldom give away their power either.

[KC]

Leaders of the capitalist system, i.e. the bourgeoisie, won't give their power up. Even if everybody wanted them to; reform is only permitted as long as it doesn't threaten the majority of the bourgeoisie's power and/or wealth.



Leaders of revolutions seldom give away their power either.

True! That is why not many here are Leninists.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:45 AM
Leaders of the capitalist system, i.e. the bourgeoisie, won't give their power up. Even if everybody wanted them to; reform is only permitted as long as it doesn't threaten the majority of the bourgeoisie's power and/or wealth.

So. Let me just restate this to ensure I understand your reasoning.

If reformation was progressing. At some point we would reach a threshold at which the bourgeoisie would refuse to comply with any further reforms no matter how legally justified and popularly supported they are.

Is this correct?

I am likening this situation to that of Venezuala. Where Chavez's reforms threatened the traditional power brokers who then led a coup to oust him from power. Is that the kind of conflict you suggest is inevitiable and requires a revolution to break past?

Except of course, in this case. The coup was thawted by a mass popular uprising that reinstalled the government and the reforms are continuing despite vigorous opposition from the bourgeoisie .

Since all wealth is created from labour isn't the power of the bourgeoisie illusionary compared to popular movements of the workers? As such shouldn't a popular reformist movement be able to overcome bourgeoisie opposition in much the same manner as a popular revolutionary movement overcomes a traditional army?

I still don't get the, "Thou shalt not reform" aspect. I more see revolution and reformation as different tools to apply to different situations in the very same global struggle.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Manack+Aug 10 2005, 04:00 AM--> (Manack @ Aug 10 2005, 04:00 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 03:38 AM
You CANNOT reform a system that relies heavily on burgeoise to become a worker's system. Sure, reformists can make some stuff, but they are still within capitalism, and those reforms still need the help of THE BURGEOISE.
I am not sure I fully understand.

Assuming a democratic system with full sufferage where each person is entitled to vote regardless of class. Assuming there is no restriction on candidates then parties advocating a reform to a worker's system could be included in the election. Assuming that the rule of law will be followed then if elected then a system can be reformed.

There are other consideration such as access to media and other backing like that. But all in all if a workers system is more beneficial the electorate are aware of the better alternative I can't see how it can't be reformed.

What is the fundamental flaw that makes reformation impossible?

A reformist can certainly strive to eliminate class and obviously humanising the conditions of being lower class would be an essential step in a reform process but not neccesarily the last. [/b]
The fuindamental flaw is that THE ECONOMY IS MOBILIZED BY THE BURGEOISE.

You see, even if people from ALL THE DIFFERENT CLASSES vote, the money is still in the upper classes. The government needs the upper classes IN ORDER TO MOBILIZE THE MONEY. You cannot completely reform the system if you live intact the burgeoise, it is simple.

[Clarksist]

There are other consideration such as access to media and other backing like that. But all in all if a workers system is more beneficial the electorate are aware of the better alternative I can't see how it can't be reformed.


Ahh, but you see the media has a BIG thing to do with elections. And guess who owns the media?

The fact is, if it came down to it, major TV conglomerates would give candidates FREE AIR TIME if it meant a saving of the system in the long haul.

The "workers" need to become conscience, but even then once they began voting together... what will stop this democracy from becoming a dictatorship? There is nothing to stop that.

We get to the point of having no freedoms if we ask for to many freedoms. That is the curse of reformation.


A reformist can certainly strive to eliminate class and obviously humanising the conditions of being lower class would be an essential step in a reform process but not neccesarily the last.


It may not be impossible but to humanize the workers struggle turns the workers struggle into a charity case and that leads to the unfortunate bourgeois charity action.

Which means, they will act as if they are helping by maybe donating a %0.00000001 of their money to free housing, or better working conditions. And the idea will set in that that is all we can do to help the workers.

But I think everyone here knows that it isn't.


I would like to point out that revolutions are hardly free of corruption, compromise or exploitation. Not to mention the violence and associated difficulties that occur when there is a dramatic change.


Definately, that's why we can't have leaders who "fuck over" the working class when in power. That means we need ultra-democratic action post-revolution.

I have often thought that perhaps we shouldn't allow "war heroes" to even run, as their personality automatically garners them votes regardless.


If reformation was progressing. At some point we would reach a threshold at which the bourgeoisie would refuse to comply with any further reforms no matter how legally justified and popularly supported they are.

Is this correct?


Correctomundo.


I am likening this situation to that of Venezuala. Where Chavez's reforms threatened the traditional power brokers who then led a coup to oust him from power. Is that the kind of conflict you suggest is inevitiable and requires a revolution to break past?


While I'm not a big fan of Chavez, the example is more than adequate.


Since all wealth is created from labour isn't the power of the bourgeoisie illusionary compared to popular movements of the workers? As such shouldn't a popular reformist movement be able to overcome bourgeoisie opposition in much the same manner as a popular revolutionary movement overcomes a traditional army?


You'd think so.

But look at the other big factors:
1.) The bourgeois are interconnected, and can call in other armies for aid to instill martial law.
2.) The workers movement can easily be squashed by the bourgeois propaganda.

Militarism in the worker's movement is a GOOD thing because the feelings become much stronger.


I still don't get the, "Thou shalt not reform" aspect. I more see revolution and reformation as different tools to apply to different situations in the very same global struggle.


Another note to add however: the ballot would have to be COMPLETELY turned over in 100% reforming candidates.

Listen, I know it seems we are all being stubborn and very pro-violence. But the conditions of reform are stacked in the bourgeoisie's eager hands.

I would LOVE to have a non-violent revolution. Just ask some people around here, I used to argue for reform too.

But the realistic aspect of reform and social evolution are not in our favor. And in the long haul, waiting for reform and evolution may kill the worker's movement entirely.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:23 AM
The fuindamental flaw is that THE ECONOMY IS MOBILIZED BY THE BURGEOISE.

You see, even if people from ALL THE DIFFERENT CLASSES vote, the money is still in the upper classes. The government needs the upper classes IN ORDER TO MOBILIZE THE MONEY. You cannot completely reform the system if you live intact the burgeoise, it is simple.
A a democratic government that does not comply with the popular will has two options. Repressions and losing office. I think what you are suggesting is similar to Bolvia am I right?

Here a government was elected with a mandate for change. But once in office it was pressured by the IMF and local capitalists to drop its attempts for social reforms and adopt a more market rationalist approach by threatening them with economic collapse and capital investment fleeing the country.

The result. The first government was repressive to force through this approach. It was overthrown by a justly outraged popular uprising.

The successive government has just been thrown out of office by popular demonstrations because they were not reformist enough and now they are demanding constitutional reforms on top of what they previously asked for.

Here is an example where the combined clout of international and national burgeoise classes are unable to maintain a government that acts without the mandate of the people.

Reform continues despite the mobilized economic opposition to a popular reformist movement.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:06 AM
....But the realistic aspect of reform and social evolution are not in our favor. And in the long haul, waiting for reform and evolution may kill the worker's movement entirely.
Thanks for your post by the way. I appreciate the good responses everyone has been giving me.

Okay so we have a problem with reformation being that the currently ruling class, like most ruling classes will not willingly give up power.

They maintain this power through a mutitude of methods.

Firstly they co-opt society through media, education and lifestyle into only popularising their message.

Secondly, if faced with a genuine reformist movement they could always crush it through overwhelming repression.

These are all good points, I don't think they are as overpowering as you do. But I'm happy to let that lie for the moment to address this last point of yours.

I think that reform through social evolution is entirely in our favour. I don't know if you know much about the mathematics of game theory but systems that co-operate and compromise do better than systems that outright compete and attempt to dominate.

You can trace this in the evolution of society from hunter/gathering to tribalism, to city states, to feudalism, to nationalism, to capitalism, to imperialism, to the emerging social capitalisms (giving social causes value in the market). Each advance of society has been to a state which allows for better mass co-operation.

It suggests that society has always and will always continue to reform towards a more productive state, of which the ultimate perhaps unreachable state is one of communism.

If the worker's movement fails entirely, then it's likely because it is not a positive evolutionary step and will die out as people will always trend towards the most productive method away from dead end mutations of society.

We know that state capitalism such as the USSR was one such of these dead ends. The workers movement is stronger because of its death because of how much we learnt.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Manack+Aug 10 2005, 06:06 AM--> (Manack @ Aug 10 2005, 06:06 AM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 05:23 AM
The fuindamental flaw is that THE ECONOMY IS MOBILIZED BY THE BURGEOISE.

You see, even if people from ALL THE DIFFERENT CLASSES vote, the money is still in the upper classes. The government needs the upper classes IN ORDER TO MOBILIZE THE MONEY. You cannot completely reform the system if you live intact the burgeoise, it is simple.
A a democratic government that does not comply with the popular will has two options. Repressions and losing office. I think what you are suggesting is similar to Bolvia am I right?

Here a government was elected with a mandate for change. But once in office it was pressured by the IMF and local capitalists to drop its attempts for social reforms and adopt a more market rationalist approach by threatening them with economic collapse and capital investment fleeing the country.

The result. The first government was repressive to force through this approach. It was overthrown by a justly outraged popular uprising.

The successive government has just been thrown out of office by popular demonstrations because they were not reformist enough and now they are demanding constitutional reforms on top of what they previously asked for.

Here is an example where the combined clout of international and national burgeoise classes are unable to maintain a government that acts without the mandate of the people.

Reform continues despite the mobilized economic opposition to a popular reformist movement. [/b]
It was still a demonstration of direct action.

But you saw that changes cant be made through peaceful means, right?

[Clarksist]

I think that reform through social evolution is entirely in our favour. I don't know if you know much about the mathematics of game theory but systems that co-operate and compromise do better than systems that outright compete and attempt to dominate.


But see, the state is already dominate. There is no competition right now, they have the immense upper-hand. The bourgeois are already dominate and hold all the "chips".

Now we could "sweep the carpet out from under them". But that would cause for drastic change, and would need some form of violence as a way to crush the state. I.E. revolution.


You can trace this in the evolution of society from hunter/gathering to tribalism, to city states, to feudalism, to nationalism, to capitalism, to imperialism, to the emerging social capitalisms (giving social causes value in the market). Each advance of society has been to a state which allows for better mass co-operation.


I somewhat agree with you there. I mean its obvious that is what has happened so far. But what you need to realize is, every single one of those "evolutions" was jump-started by a revolution.

It wasn't as if people just changed, they made the change.

BTW, I am NOT going to touch on dialectical materialism here. Let's keep the discussion about what its originally for.


If the worker's movement fails entirely, then it's likely because it is not a positive evolutionary step and will die out as people will always trend towards the most productive method away from dead end mutations of society.


Or if another force destroys it completely. If we just let the politicians try and "change" the system after a decade or so of just about little if any change... people move on.


The workers movement is stronger because of its death because of how much we learnt.


Well not really, as dissenters always play the "commie card" and just label the CCCP communism, and don't think anything else of it.

Now, theoretically under perfect conditions, I concede yes, reform could work. Under real conditions, however, they just can't. I understand wholeheartedly where you are coming from though.

Snap out of it. ;)

[Donnie]

There are other consideration such as access to media and other backing like that. But all in all if a workers system is more beneficial the electorate are aware of the better alternative I can't see how it can't be reformed.
It can't be reformed because the media like the "Sun" and other right wing organizations feed the working mass's that it's the asylum seekers that are the problems of you're poverty etc, so they tell the working mass's not to vote for proletariat parties because they won't achieve anything. From what I know the RCPB(ML) only have 20 members out of the whole of the UK. The CPGB don't have many members either in the UK.

It's better not to step into a bourgeois environment and fight on their terms. We as a class should unite on our own grounds; in the streets in our local communities and then challenge the bourgeois with a social revolution.

The majority of the working class is not interested in politics of the SP or the CP their more interested in surviving; the only time they do listen to politics is from the right wing racist like the BNP, WNP and the NF. That’s why as a class we should create consciousness through the workplace, streets and our local communities.

[Commandante_Ant]

my first feelings about this is that a revolution isnt essential for changes to be brought about, they can happen through "democratic" means...but more often than not, changes are mentioned and never acted upon. With a revolution, it forces the issue, not allowing it to be pushed to the side.

I'd love a revolution in Scotland, to completely change the country but it aint gonna happen. So i'm stuck with the democratic road.

[Clarksist]

It can't be reformed because the media like the "Sun" and other right wing organizations feed the working mass's that it's the asylum seekers that are the problems of you're poverty etc, so they tell the working mass's not to vote for proletariat parties because they won't achieve anything.


Capitalist parties also have a way of distorting the truth. They say that if you are poor under capitalism, you are poor by your own lack of work ethic.

Its very effective stuff.


my first feelings about this is that a revolution isnt essential for changes to be brought about, they can happen through "democratic" means...but more often than not, changes are mentioned and never acted upon.


Think of what a democratic reform would take. Over 60% of the elected representatives would need to be communists, almost all major positions, the old capitalist supreme court judges (at least here in the US) would have to be phased out by constant communist appointments via constant successful elections...

We haven't had more than three eight year terms of a president with the same party, let alone enough to outlast half the supreme court.

It is a nice thought. However, it is definately not practical. If we went democratically through the system, even if we got a good response, we would have to have support which is unfathomable even to the major political parties of our day.

[anomaly]

Shall we inherit the system or shall we destroy it? Reforms can only do so much. They will not destroy capital. And, as Clarksist mentions, to get anything done politically, we'd need an incredible amount of support. Do we show commitment to the cause by sitting on our asses and voting, our do we instead take to the streets to show our numbers (when the time comes)?

Besides, upcoming revolutionary activity will be nearly exclusively in the global south. We've had a socialist elected there before (Allende) and he was violently removed from power, thanks to a CIA-backed coup. Is it not reasonable to expect the same result if something similar happens? The imperialists understand force and force alone (look at the Iraq war if you don't believe me), and so force is what we shall give them.