Reformism

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 7 2005, 07:54 PM
We do not need to settle for reformists.
We do not need to settle for reformists.

Oh my, I hate to break this to you, but its revolution which has a history of dire failure.

Out of all the great social experiments of the 20th century into communism and other progressive society using revolutionary techniques to gain power, they have all failed. They are, as a rule, lead by dictators of a highly authoritarian nature. These leaders and nations have been responsible for some of (including) the greatest acts of genocide in human history. If they are not run by dictators, they are controlled by weak disorganised, disunited, poverty stricken governments, which never last.

The most successful example of a society run on the principal of socialist collectives was in Spain during the Spanish civil war, which was defeated by Leninist incompetence imported from Stalinist Russia.

So in all honesty its the reformists who need to be asking, do they need to settle for you, because you lot have a history of dire incompetence and failure.

Of course this is not to say that revolution is doomed to failure, but it does mean that you lot should be so arrogant.

[Donnie]

The point you seemed to have missed is the fact that once the electoral system is filled with the proletariat, it cannot be bourgeois anymore.
However you have to start somewhere, as soon as you set foot into the sea of bourgeois politics with the first proletariat party it will be influenced by bourgeois idea's and the party you so declare for the proletariat will become corrupted with bourgeois ideas. One party has to take the first step into the sea of bourgeois politics and it will be the first to be corrupted.
A good example of this would be Marxism being racketed with the idea of revisionism.

Plus with the electoral system being intertwined with the state and the media and the media being controlled by the bourgeois this can give the proletariat party a bad name and can just generally mess things up for them and so there is no raising of consciousness among the workers.

[h&s]

Oh my, I hate to break this to you, but its revolution which has a history of dire failure.

Out of all the great social experiments of the 20th century into communism and other progressive society using revolutionary techniques to gain power, they have all failed.
Yes, agreed, but look at it from the other end. Reformism has been just as much of a failure as revolution over the 20th century.
Reformist parties have gone from being 'socialist' to being openly Thatcherite.

[Invader Zim]

Do you advocate this?

I advocate socialism, I don't care how we get there, reform/revolution, who cares. Its the society we should be after, all the rest is irrelevant.


But it is, and it has always been since the discussion on who we should allow into CC.


Fine, i'll take your word for it.

Reformism has been just as much of a failure as revolution over the 20th century.

Not really, you look at the conditions of the working classes in the 19th century and compair them to today, then you will see that you are in fact very much incorrect.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:22 PM
I advocate socialism,
That's still incredibly vague?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 8 2005, 04:55 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 8 2005, 04:55 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 04:22 PM
I advocate socialism,
That's still incredibly vague? [/b]
Good, trying to pin ones self to a specific ideology is daft, nobody thinks exactly alike.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 8 2005, 08:37 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 8 2005, 08:37 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2005, 04:55 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 04:22 PM
I advocate socialism,
That's still incredibly vague?
Good, trying to pin ones self to a specific ideology is daft, nobody thinks exactly alike. [/b]
So you advocate Socialism without knowing why? Or how or who this will effect?

Following this kind of logic, we can conclude the possibility that you advocate Social Democracy? Some Social Democrats regard themselves as advocating socialism?

Being vague is probably one of the biggest problems a movement could ever face. Maybe you should understand your politics better, then you can effect some kind of change? Just a suggestion.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:17 AM

The point you seemed to have missed is the fact that once the electoral system is filled with the proletariat, it cannot be bourgeois anymore.
However you have to start somewhere, as soon as you set foot into the sea of bourgeois politics with the first proletariat party it will be influenced by bourgeois idea's and the party you so declare for the proletariat will become corrupted with bourgeois ideas. One party has to take the first step into the sea of bourgeois politics and it will be the first to be corrupted.
A good example of this would be Marxism being racketed with the idea of revisionism.

Plus with the electoral system being intertwined with the state and the media and the media being controlled by the bourgeois this can give the proletariat party a bad name and can just generally mess things up for them and so there is no raising of consciousness among the workers.
You give the proletariat absolutely no credit. By your own logic, all the capitalists who post in OI should be Communists or Socialists now because they are being exposed to our ideology so often.

[Invader Zim]

So you advocate Socialism without knowing why? Or how or who this will effect?

Any one who claims to have complete understanding of socialism is a liar.

I find both your questions to be missing the point. People know exactly why and who their ideal society would affect, it's how the society affects the people; that is the important question. As I am not blessed with knowledge of the future, thus I am unsure how future collectives will cope.

But time to get on answering your questions, inadequate though they are, the transition to any socialist society will effect everyone, so no I know who it will affect. I advocate socialism, because I believe that the current system which people are subjected to is morally bankrupt, all the more so in less economically developed countries, so I know why I advocate it as well.


Following this kind of logic, we can conclude the possibility that you advocate Social Democracy?

Yes... you could, if you had a complete lack of understanding of social democracy and socialism for that matter. In a modern context, rather than a classic context, social democrats reject and distance them selves from socialism. They seek to solve problems within liberal democracy; they do not seek to bring about socialism.


Being vague is probably one of the biggest problems a movement could ever face.

Second to infighting and alienation of allies, I guess on that basis none of us are perfect, aye?

Maybe you should understand your politics better, then you can effect some kind of change? Just a suggestion.

A suggestion which everybody could take note of… everybody can learn more, even you.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:14 PM
By placing workers representatives in a bourgeois environment, they will be influenced by bourgeois ideas and polices.
A neat illustration of the point that sectarians are always afraid of their own suppressed desires to become reformists. To make a revolution, people are needed with the guts to remain revolutionaries even in a hostile or corrupting environment....not people so scared for their own purity they isolate themselves to avoid - not resist - temptation.

recommend a Mark Twain story called "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg" about the folly of trying to avoid temptation.


that people in the present day class struggle movement have no problem with accepting reformists, which is quiet scary and in the end would a be a threat to the revolutionary movement.

Most people in the "present day class struggle" are reformists. The question is not whether reformists will be accepted but whether revolutionaries will be....Historically, reformist misleaders have often been able to exclude revolutionaries from struggles...and some revolutionaries have been so ultraleft sectarian as to exclude themselves from the living class struggle.


No compromise is what is needed on the left.

"No compromise"? Compromises are inevitable in life. You never, ever, get everything you want, not even in a revolution.

This kind of idiocy is a good example of the ultraleft groupthink I was talking about earlier.

[Invader Zim]

"No compromise"? Compromises are inevitable in life. You never, ever, get everything you want, not even in a revolution.

I think Donnie is also incorrect, however I think that if he had added a comma after 'No' then he would have been absolutly correct.

[Pawn Power]

So in all honesty its the reformists who need to be asking, do they need to settle for you, because you lot have a history of dire incompetence and failure.

Why the hell would they do that? First of all, 'our lot' does not want to join them in their minor and often inconsequential reforms, so they shouldn't hold their breath.

Secondly, they do not have decent track record either. Any reforms that were made have not progressed us any closer towards communism. Many reforms that have been made have been gobbled up by capitalism and spite back out as crap.

And is this incompetence and failure because of the revolutionary methods or because capitalism has not evolved far enough?

[Donnie]

"No compromise"? Compromises are inevitable in life. You never, ever, get everything you want, not even in a revolution.
Compromises do not have to be inevitable, we can ignore the bourgeois’s petty pleads of keeping their property and push through and attain the destruction of capitalism and to the attaining of Communism.
If you compromise with the ruling class you're going to get a rubbish results and just a fairer term of exploitation and that’s not something I'm prepared to do. I will never benefit from you're idea reforming.


This kind of idiocy is a good example of the ultraleft groupthink I was talking about earlier.
There is nothing idiotic about my views neither is it ultra left it's the realization of the situation, if where talking about extreme views then the idea of reforming to socialism or what ever you want to attain is extreme and utopian.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 10 2005, 12:14 AM

So in all honesty its the reformists who need to be asking, do they need to settle for you, because you lot have a history of dire incompetence and failure.

Why the hell would they do that? First of all, 'our lot' does not want to join them in their minor and often inconsequential reforms, so they shouldn't hold their breath.

Secondly, they do not have decent track record either. Any reforms that were made have not progressed us any closer towards communism. Many reforms that have been made have been gobbled up by capitalism and spite back out as crap.

And is this incompetence and failure because of the revolutionary methods or because capitalism has not evolved far enough?
Your lack of understanding, is shocking to behold. If you actually understood that reform is a step by step process, then you would know that the progressive nature of reform is already in motion and has been for the past 200 years, at least. The fact of the matter is, if you expect instant change, then you are going to be waiting for ever.

The evolution of capitalism has nothing to do with revolution, revolutionary methods bypass social evolution. So when we think about the question
"and is this incompetence and failure because of the revolutionary methods or because capitalism has not evolved far enough?", we kinda have narrowed down the answer. Think about what your posting, next time.

[Pawn Power]

If you actually understood that reform is a step by step process, then you would know that the progressive nature of reform is already in motion and has been for the past 200 years, at least. The fact of the matter is, if you expect instant change, then you are going to be waiting for ever.

The problem is, is that these 'reforms' that have supposedly been taking place for the last 200 years, are not significant it bringing radical change. They may ease the suffering for a short time or even longer time period; however they have not brought us any closer to our goal, the elimination of wage slavery and the destruction of a class society.
I do not know about instant but I believe change will occur very rapidly in a post capitalistic society. Not to say that a revolution is pending in the next few decades but on the onset of revolution and the collapse of capitalism should bring some immediate changes.



The evolution of capitalism has nothing to do with revolution, revolutionary methods bypass social evolution

Not social evolution, the evolution of capitalism. There is a difference; society has been evolving ever since it existed and will continue to, at varying speeds, capitalism has only been evolving as long as it has been around and it seems to be slowly biding its time. I think there are many factors that go into it, both social and economic. Nevertheless, do you really think revolutionary methods bypass the stage in which the capitalist system is in; could a communist revolution have had happened anytime in history without regard to the strength of the capitalist economy? Could capitalism have come out of feudalism 100 or 200 years before it did?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:55 AM
The evolution of capitalism has nothing to do with revolution, revolutionary methods bypass social evolution.
What? No. Revolutions don't just miraculously fall from the sky. Revolution is a form of social evolution...which does not automatically proceed at a constant rate, any more than biological evolution does.

And the most important form. Not only for the change it brings directly...fear of revolution is also the biggest motive for ruling classes to introduce reforms.

[Invader Zim]

The problem is, is that these 'reforms' that have supposedly been taking place for the last 200 years, are not significant it bringing radical change.

Actually, yes they have, especially if you consider it in a European context, in 200 years more was achieved than in 200 years than in 2000. If you lived as a feudal serf, or did any research into the lives lead by peasants prior to the most basic of reforms implemented into the standard of living of the lower 'classes' (a word I hate to use in this context), they you can see change has been massive and radical. If you suggested to an eighteenth century aristocrat if they thought everybody over the age of eighteen would have the vote, indeed that their entire position within society would be stripped, they would be appalled.

however they have not brought us any closer to our goal, the elimination of wage slavery and the destruction of a class society.

I quite agree, but our goals are comparatively modern, I have no doubt in time, as society becomes more and more progressive (which it will do) social outlook will change, as it did. Our predecessors, were demanding the right for a secret ballot, paid MP's and universal suffrage. This was in the 1830's, it was in 1871 they got the secret ballot, and 1918 before they got universal suffrage (for men). These things are long term, the foolish attitude taken by our more modern predecessors has delayed any progress, the likes of Stalin have demonised the goals we seek to achieve.


Not social evolution, the evolution of capitalism.

I said evolution of capitalism, as I said that making it clear what I was talking about, I would have thought you would have understood what I was referring to when I stated 'social evolution'. (That goes for Severian as well)

Nevertheless, do you really think revolutionary methods bypass the stage in which the capitalist system is in;

Yes, in time of social or economic stress, and a revolution occurs, the old society is stripped and a new one is implemented. it is not a series of gradual reforms to a system, until the old system is gone. You miss all that out, and implement the majority of the changes in a very limited period of time. Even if you were to claim that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the elimination of the capitalist society, you fail to take into account that the leadership of society has changed hands. In the context of reform, this would be achieved through a series of numerous reforms, if history is anything to go by, this could take hundreds of years.

could a communist revolution have had happened anytime in history

A 'communist' revolution never has happened.

Could capitalism have come out of feudalism 100 or 200 years before it did?

It could and did, there are examples of non-feudal societies dating back thousands of years.

fear of revolution is also the biggest motive for ruling classes to introduce reforms.

I disagree, it is certainly a motive for reform, but to claim it is the biggest motive, is highly open to criticism. The biggest, in a modern context at least, is the enfranchising of the masses, thus giving the working man political leverage without resorting to the threat of violence.

However, a little threat of brute force certainly is the equivalent of WD40 on the machine of political progress. But like any other leverage, an advantage to be 'capitalised' (do forgive me... I couldn't resist) upon.

[Pawn Power]

If you suggested to an eighteenth century aristocrat if they thought everybody over the age of eighteen would have the vote, indeed that their entire position within society would be stripped, they would be appalled.

We obviously do not agree on what radical change is. When I speak of radical change, I imply change in the overall system, not voting rights. Not that voting rights are not noteworthy, just not radical.


I have no doubt in time, as society becomes more and more progressive (which it will do) social outlook will change

I hope so.


I said evolution of capitalism, as I said that making it clear what I was talking about, I would have thought you would have understood what I was referring to when I stated 'social evolution'. (That goes for Severian as well)

The evolution of capitalism and social evolution cannot be used interchangeably, they are not synonymous.


Yes, in time of social or economic stress, and a revolution occurs, the old society is stripped and a new one is implemented.

Well it hasn’t happened yet, however the strongest resistance has came during economic stress, in the United States in the early 1900’s and then in the 1930’s. Will the period of economic stress that brings about revolution actually be the tarring point of capitalism itself?


it is not a series of gradual reforms to a system, until the old system is gone.

How do you rid yourself of the old system?


You miss all that out, and implement the majority of the changes in a very limited period of time. Even if you were to claim that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the elimination of the capitalist society, you fail to take into account that the leadership of society has changed hands.

I don't quite understand, its a bit unclear, sorry.


A 'communist' revolution never has happened.

I recognize this. What I intended to bring up, is that a communist revolution could not have occurred earlier in history, not solely because of the methods per say, but because of the place it was attempted and the maturity of capitalist structure.


Could capitalism have come out of feudalism 100 or 200 years before it did?

It could and did, there are examples of non-feudal societies dating back thousands of years.

Yes, the Grecians in early Athens were not under feudalism. But could capitalism come out of feudalism (in Europe), much earlier then it did?

[Invader Zim]

When I speak of radical change, I imply change in the overall system, not voting rights.

You obviously have no understanding of life prior to and during the industrial revolution. It is a lot more than just voting rights (though it is very odd that you would play down the significance of such a truly monumental historical occurrence), conditions for workers have improved beyond measure, the power they have has increased so vastly that there is nothing with which to place it in scale historically. The entire balance of class control has changed hands. Yet you don't think that is radical change?


The evolution of capitalism and social evolution cannot be used interchangeably, they are not synonymous.

I never suggested they were, but in the context of the sentence they were in I would have thought that I needed to spell it out. But, if you care to read it again, it does work, when you consider that the ‘evolution of capitalism’ (which actually does not do justice to the changes politically and socially) is still a piece of ‘social evolution’. As I had qualified the nature of the ‘social evolution’ in the same sentence it should have been obvious that I was referring to the ‘evolution of capitalism’ and its broader social implications, rather than revolutionary change.


Well it hasn’t happened yet, however the strongest resistance has came during economic stress, in the United States in the early 1900’s and then in the 1930’s. Will the period of economic stress that brings about revolution actually be the tarring point of capitalism itself?

I will consult my crystal ball for you presently.... ;) Sorry, I can't predict the future, all we can do is make predictions based on the past. All political revolutions I can think of have occurred in times of social, economic or political strife, thus it is a safe bet that in order to drive people to revolution in the future one or more of these factors will have to reach a breaking point. Whether that will be because of the flaws of capitalism, or the result of a war/disaster/etc is impossible to know.


How do you rid yourself of the old system?

Again, i can't tell the future, but the old system withered away over a long period of transition brought about by hundreds if not thousands of individual factors erroding the power and influence of the old dominating class. In the 20th century we have seen the progress of this ongoing series of change empower the workers more and more both economically and politically. I have no reason to believe that this trend will not continue into the future.


I don't quite understand, its a bit unclear, sorry.

If reform is an ongoing system of individual small changes taking place over a bear indefinite period, causing political change and eventually the dominance of one class over its previous peers, then a revolution would do this automatically. You are bypassing a what has in the past taken decades to achieve in a much shorter period of time, by killing instead of replacing the old bosses with your own people.

What I intended to bring up, is that a communist revolution could not have occurred earlier in history, not solely because of the methods per say, but because of the place it was attempted and the maturity of capitalist structure.

I think you are incorrect, I don't think that the nature of the previous regime bares much impact upon the society in place, rather the political views of the leaders of the revolution or their successors.

But could capitalism come out of feudalism (in Europe), much earlier then it did?

I really couldn't say, I suspect that it could, but we have no way of telling.

[Pawn Power]

Enigma, your antics are tedious.


You obviously have no understanding of life prior to and during the industrial revolution. It is a lot more than just voting rights (though it is very odd that you would play down the significance of such a truly monumental historical occurrence), conditions for workers have improved beyond measure, the power they have has increased so vastly that there is nothing with which to place it in scale historically. The entire balance of class control has changed hands. Yet you don't think that is radical change?

Voting rights was a mere example, correlating with your own example. And to reiterate; voting rights and many other changes have been significant in the lives of workers; nonetheless we are still wage slaves. It will take a radical change to eliminate wage slavery. Discussing ‘radical’ now has just become semantics.



I never suggested they were, but in the context of the sentence they were in I would have thought that I needed to spell it out. But, if you care to read it again, it does work, when you consider that the ‘evolution of capitalism’ (which actually does not do justice to the changes politically and socially) is still a piece of ‘social evolution’. As I had qualified the nature of the ‘social evolution’ in the same sentence it should have been obvious that I was referring to the ‘evolution of capitalism’ and its broader social implications, rather than revolutionary change.

Then you should have used the correct term. I was not the only one confused by your inaccuracy. It seems like you will argue it to the death though...


I can't predict the future, all we can do is make predictions based on the past. All political revolutions I can think of have occurred in times of social, economic or political strife, thus it is a safe bet that in order to drive people to revolution in the future one or more of these factors will have to reach a breaking point.

Yes, the breaking point of the capitalist system, theoretically.
But you are right, we cannot predict the future, this is all assumption and hypothesis.


In the 20th century we have seen the progress of this ongoing series of change empower the workers more and more both economically and politically.

I think we have gained changes that improved our lives, however I do not see any reforms that have significantly empowers us economically and especially politically. Examples would be of help.


You are bypassing a what has in the past taken decades to achieve in a much shorter period of time, by killing instead of replacing the old bosses with your own people.

It looks like we have different goals. I do not want to see bosses replaced by our own people; I want the need for bosses eliminated.

[Invader Zim]

Enigma, your antics are tedious.

As are yours, I find my self explaining the same points to you repeatedly.

And to reiterate; voting rights and many other changes have been significant in the lives of workers; nonetheless we are still wage slaves.

The 'wage slave' idea is a modern one, and it is a radical step up from being a peasant in feudal society, who were not paid a 'wage' in a modern context.

I was not the only one confused by your inaccuracy.

Well you get me now, so quit the pedantic nonsense.


Yes, the breaking point of the capitalist system, theoretically.

So you admit that in order for revolution we must wait for some catastrophic disaster (either man made or natural)?


I think we have gained changes that improved our lives, however I do not see any reforms that have significantly empowers us economically and especially politically.

From having no power to what we have today, insignificant? The very fact that you are able to post this very material is testament to the inaccuracy of that hypothesis.

Examples would be of help.

I've given one already, the right to vote. The fact that you fail to see the massive social consequence of that is not my fault.


It looks like we have different goals. I do not want to see bosses replaced by our own people; I want the need for bosses eliminated.

No, you fail to understand me, or you need to read up on your Marxist theory. Following the revolution a period of social change must occur when the infrastructure of capitalism is torn down. The act of revolution only alters who is in power. It is that point directly after revolution to which we are referring, not the point following the withering of capitalist society. A similar point must be reached in a socialist society generated through reform, a point when the political power changes hands. Of course anarchists have a different take on the order of social change to marxists.

[KC]

Revolution has failed? Don't you mean the idea of a vanguard has failed?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:58 PM
[I disagree, it is certainly a motive for reform, but to claim it is the biggest motive, is highly open to criticism. The biggest, in a modern context at least, is the enfranchising of the masses, thus giving the working man political leverage without resorting to the threat of violence.

Which begs the question: why are working people given the right to vote? The biggest reason is to stablize the system and make a revolutionary upsurge less likely.

But also I don't agree that voting, or who gets elected, is the biggest factor in winning reform: IMO it's mass action. Kennedy started the US war in Vietnam; and Nixon ended it. Because Nixon was such a peace-loving guy? No, because of the struggle that was waged....primarily in Vietnam, and secondarily on the streets in the U.S.

Democratic presidents, the party of segregation for decades, presided over its dismantling...and Black people finally getting the right to vote. Including Johnson, a Texas segregationist Democrat himself, the last person you'd expect to push through a Voting Rights Act. But the pressure of mass action became greatest during the time he was in office.

I could go on with other examples.

***

Now you're saying you didn't just mean voting, by "the enfranchising of the masses." Well, if you meant it in the broader sense of the difference between the working class and medieval peasants, then your point makes no sense at all. The entry of the masses of working people into politics is not counterposed to revolution and the fear of revolution; on the contrary the two go hand in hand. The characteristics of the modern working class are precisely what makes a revolution led by working people in our own interests possible...for the first time in history. That's the ABC of Marxism there.

You also seem to be missing the ABC point that revolutions don't happen at random or just anytime somebody wants to replace one social system by another. Yes, revolutions involve relatively rapid change. No, they do not instantly change everything.

And revolutions happen when underlying economic changes have laid the groundwork for them. The bourgeois revolutions happened because the economic development of capitalism, which was beginning to take place, was in contradiction to the monarchist governments and continuing feudal and church property.

Proletarian revolutions happen because the development of social property and social production - which includes large-scale capitalist production - and its implications are in contradiction with other aspects of the capitalist system.

The rapid change seen during revolutions is just social change catching up with the world's economic and technological changes...due to the conservatism of the human mind, social change often lags behind.

****

Donnie just seems clueless. Read a little about the history of real-life revolutions; they all involved compromises and great, gaping flaws. In no revolution in history was it possible to get everything the revolutionaries wanted....no matter how much they wanted to just keep driving forward indefinitely.

[Pawn Power]

So you admit that in order for revolution we must wait for some catastrophic disaster (either man made or natural)?

Natural disaster???

No, I believe that revolution will occur when capitalism reaches or nears its breaking point.


From having no power to what we have today, insignificant?

Are these ‘powers’ significant in generating a social upheaval, or do they just appease the mass?


I've given one already, the right to vote. The fact that you fail to see the massive social consequence of that is not my fault.

I understand the massive social change with voting rights, however this is not a ‘power’ or a ‘tool’ that is useful in bringing about radical or revolutionary change. It is mealy in place to make you believe you have a say in a system ruled by the upper class.
Voting will not eliminate a class society or wage slavery. Elections are trivial in the pursuit of a classless society.


The act of revolution only alters who is in power.

Fair enough, the act of revolution brings the power to the hands of the masses.
Ok then
the point directly after...
Changes society as whole, not simply leaders. Revolution will bring about a complete revamping of how we think. With the destruction of capitalism nearly every aspect of our lives can be re-evaluated.

[Invader Zim]

Natural disaster???

Indeed, every workers riot or uprising in the entire 19th century, was caused by at least in a small respect by a poor harvest. That is usually a natural phenomenon. The 1841 revolutions in Europe were caused by a mixture of poor government, but the major factor again was that there had been a poor harvest. If a natural disaster were to cut of the food supply in the UK, I guarantee there would be riots and quite possibly a revolution in a matter of days.


No, I believe that revolution will occur when capitalism reaches or nears its breaking point.

Then explain what exactly the 'breaking point of capitalism' is. I don't think there is one, only external factors (political or natural) could cause capitalism to break.


Are these ‘powers’ significant in generating a social upheaval

Of course they are, look at society 200 years ago then compare it to today. That is the greatest piece of social upheaval in Western History. If you care to look from the end of the dark ages, around 800 AD, then in 1000 years the social order remained almost exactly intact, then in 200 years society totally transformed, the balance of class power completely shifted.

however this is not a ‘power’ or a ‘tool’ that is useful in bringing about radical or revolutionary change.

Err, it already has. The west has been growing steadily less reactionary since 1918, at a significant rate, much faster, even than when major social changes began to be put in place following the failed 1789 revolution.

Voting will not eliminate a class society or wage slavery.

Not yet, but like it has already been said, the process takes time, decades to materialise, it is a long term system of change.

Revolution will bring about a complete revamping of how we think.

it hasn't in the past, what makes you think it will in the future?

why are working people given the right to vote?

Obviously you have totally failed to pay attention to anything which has been stated earlier, you are repeating points already made.


Now you're saying you didn't just mean voting, by "the enfranchising of the masses."

No, I meant exactly what I said, "the enfranchising of the masses, thus giving the working man political leverage", giving the workers political leverage automatically includes social changes brought about, by proxy. If you notice, i also pointed out that this specifically refers to social change in a modern context.

Well, if you meant it in the broader sense of the difference between the working class and medieval peasants, then your point makes no sense at all

Well that would not be in a modern context would it?

The characteristics of the modern working class are precisely what makes a revolution led by working people in our own interests possible.

I disagree, there will never be a revolution in the west not in the current climate. If there was going to be a Marxist workers revolution, then it would have been in 1841, which is incidentally why Marx released the manifesto in 1841, because of the social/political climate. Never since has there been even a remote chance of replicating the conditions suitable for revolution.


You also seem to be missing the ABC point that revolutions don't happen at random or just anytime somebody wants to replace one social system by another.

No, i'm not missing that point at all, the vast majority of revolutionaries on the other hand... I have been saying it in this thread repeatedly already. Revolution is a knife and fork issue, and it takes massive social pressure to cause a revolution, like massive economic problems.


Proletarian revolutions happen because the development of social property and social production - which includes large-scale capitalist production - and its implications are in contradiction with other aspects of the capitalist system.

Wrong, proletarian revolutions do not, and have not happened successfully, thus you have no basis to draw such conclusions.


The rapid change seen during revolutions is just social change catching up with the world's economic and technological changes...due to the conservatism of the human mind, social change often lags behind.

A very novel view of social change, which unfortunately fails to take into account many of the repeated factors which have actually caused revolutions, which incidentally have always been headed by reactionaries.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:53 AM
Then explain what exactly the 'breaking point of capitalism' is. I don't think there is one, only external factors (political or natural) could cause capitalism to break.
Modern recessions and depressions are caused by overproduction. Not by poor harvests, but the opposite.

This is all pretty ABC stuff. I assure you nothing I've said - or that you've said - is the slightest bit "novel."

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 14 2005, 12:47 PM--> (Severian @ Aug 14 2005, 12:47 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 03:53 AM
Then explain what exactly the 'breaking point of capitalism' is. I don't think there is one, only external factors (political or natural) could cause capitalism to break.
Modern recessions and depressions are caused by overproduction. Not by poor harvests, but the opposite.

This is all pretty ABC stuff. I assure you nothing I've said - or that you've said - is the slightest bit "novel." [/b]
Modern recessions and depressions are caused by overproduction.

Indeed, but there have been numerous depressions and economic recessions, none of which have resulted in a revolution. It is only when people are so poor that they, the majority of society, cannot afford to buy food, this only has occured in the west, in times of drought/famine caused at least in part by nature.

Not by poor harvests, but the opposite.

Wrong, completely and utterly wrong. I suggest you go to a library and research historical revolutions and their causes.

I assure you nothing I've said - or that you've said - is the slightest bit "novel."

Yes your correct, I used the term 'novel', what I said was tactful method of stating that your view is insubtancial, your view of social change is infantile and unresearched, an attempt to paint the numerous reasons for social change as "just social change catching up with the world's economic and technological changes", which totally fails to take into account the vast majority of reasons for what social change we have had up to this date.

[JC1]

Indeed, but there have been numerous depressions and economic recessions, none of which have resulted in a revolution. It is only when people are so poor that they, the majority of society, cannot afford to buy food, this only has occured in the west, in times of drought/famine caused at least in part by nature.



This demonstrates the MIM/Enigma petit-bourgouise mindset. They think that the Workin' Class is so stupid that it will only rebel if it is starvin' and out on the streets on mass. So they can ony see reform as plausible. This stems from the fact that there only contact with the Workin' Class is television.


Wrong, completely and utterly wrong. I suggest you go to a library and research historical revolutions and their causes.

Youre the one making assecrtions. The onus is on YOU to provide evidence.

[Invader Zim]

This stems from the fact that there only contact with the Workin' Class is television.

All from some kid who has probably never done a proper days work in their life... Sorry, but you don't know me, about me, who I am or what I do to support my self.

They think that the Workin' Class is so stupid that it will only rebel if it is starvin' and out on the streets on mass.

Pray, where did I say any such thing?

The onus is on YOU to provide evidence.

I already have provided examples, try again.