Reform

[MKS]

I know that reform is an anti-revolutionary term and for any "real" leftist is a heresy but can’t reform lead to evolution? A society that is constantly reforming will sooner or later evolve from what it once was. Provided the reforms are progressive and libertarian, they should be embraced as tangible accomplishments of any Leftist movements. Sure a revolution would be wonderful, but in most modern developed nations it is not a possibility now, but reform can lead to social-economic progress and ultimately a greater equality. Surely no one can argue that the U.S. has evolved into a more free society than when it was established (Emancipation, women’s suffrage, "fair" labour laws and protections, a relatively open immigration policy etc).

In my view it is the charge of the Liberal Left to constantly provoke thought, speech and action towards more progression. To a greater ownership for workers, which lead to complete ownership, to a more direct democracy, which hopefully will eliminate the monolithic government bureaucracy and in general progress our society towards a greater acceptance of knowledge, and understanding that will destroy the superstitious traditions of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Is such thinking anti-left? Or is it the only way (for now) to a greater freedom for all members of the community?

[redstar2000]

The question among revolutionaries is that is reform of late capitalism a practical possibility? If it's not, then reformism is a diversion of people's energies into useless activity.

In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the proposition that reformism is no longer a viable perspective in the "old" capitalist countries. Their institutions cannot be "fixed" to work in our interests.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the proposition that reformism is no longer a viable perspective in the "old" capitalist countries. Their institutions cannot be "fixed" to work in our interests

I partly agree with your assertion; however one could argue that true reform or progression must be provoked by Liberals or Leftists in order to expand the people's consciousness and to establish egalitarian principles and ideals. The Capitalist institution cannot be fixed as you say but it can evolve and hopefully be morphed to a more socialist socio-economic reality. Is such a transformation improbable? Of course it is but it is not impossible, and I think that such a radical evolution is just as possible if not more possible than a successful violent revolution.

[Avtomatov]

We need take countries by revolution whenever possible. But sometimes we cant, then we need to take them democratically. In either case multi party elections must be suspended until there is barely any capitalists left to vote. Democracy is only a good way for the center to claim legitimacy. We need to all put aside sentimentality and comfort, and move to the country where the communists are most likely to win democratically so we can help by voting. Thats what i think.

Why do communists waste their vote by staying somewhere were it wont have any effect. Communism needs you at the battle front, so to speak.

[Ol' Dirty]

MKS has brought up some pretty good points, in my view. Aren't many small revolutions as good as one large one?

Again, Rome wasn't built in a day (Don't give me any shit about "if they had enoguh material recources": I'm talking of the Empire, not the city).

[MKS]

Why do communists waste their vote by staying somewhere were it wont have any effect. Communism needs you at the battle front, so to speak.

Voting is just a small part of Reform, rallies, protests, strikes etc are all parts of an active movement of reform and progression. Most Western legislatiors cannot be infilitrated by true Leftists and if by some chance one or two "Socialists" are elected to office they become just another part of the power system with little to no affect on the direction of the government. Reform should intitiate the people to act against the systems of power, not try to provoke the systems of power to help the people

[JimmyC]

Commies do not reform things. They generally open the same User Manual from the Nineteenth Century by Karl Marx.

They're still waiting for Version Marx 2.2

[MKS]

Commies do not reform things. They generally open the same User Manual from the Nineteenth Century by Karl Marx.

I agree. It seems Marxist/Communists are slow to adapt and very resistant to any form of progress that could be deemed contra-Marxism, which only hurts the Liberal movement.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:40 PM

Commies do not reform things. They generally open the same User Manual from the Nineteenth Century by Karl Marx.

I agree. It seems Marxist/Communists are slow to adapt and very resistant to any form of progress that could be deemed contra-Marxism, which only hurts the Liberal movement.
If some of these "marxists" you lament actually were being dogmatic then they would think reform is a good thing... so that card isn't very effective.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I don't mind reform. I really don't, but the chances of communism or socialism emerging, especially in the US system where there are only two parties who have any power. It's just impossible to imagine. But I do think communists should vote, but only for far leftist parties like SPUSA because it's better than not voting since than they just ignore you. Only about 50% of voting age people vote yet the way the media talks you'd think not a single person doesn't vote.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+Jun 16 2006, 10:09 PM--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ Jun 16 2006, 10:09 PM) MKS has brought up some pretty good points, in my view. Aren't many small revolutions as good as one large one?

Again, Rome wasn't built in a day (Don't give me any shit about "if they had enoguh material recources": I'm talking of the Empire, not the city). [/b]
No. Revolution is the transfer of power from one class to another...and there's no such thing as a "small one".


Lefty Henry
But I do think communists should vote...

"Elections" in the United States have been demonstrated to be fake! It's widely understood here that Bush and his party stole the national elections held in 2000 and 2004.

It makes no sense for us to ask people to participate in a sham.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There is only one reform that i think is worthy of taking part in the bourgios politics.

Its reform for less of a working day/week/month. Just basically less work.

Marx even go so far to say that, becasue the workers work so much, it hinders there ability to think about capitalism.

However, the likelihood of anything substantial happening through reformism is very small.

If the workers can have another mayday for a 6hr work day, or less, then that would be awesome.

[BobKKKindle$]

We are not oppossed to Reform because we are obsessed with the 'glory' of revolution or because we are transfixed by the stirring scenes in 'Ten days that shook the world'. Rather, we are revolutionaries because we believe our aims cannot be achieved through the current political process. In the past, when it seemed as if the democratic system could actually allow for a huge transformation of society, the Political factions who seemed on the verge of making a 'revolutionary reform' where crushed - for example, the Army Coup in Algeria when electoral victory for the Islamic fundamalists seemed imminent. I use an example of Islam, but in the case of real Socialism - Ie Not Allende style Socialism - the crackdown would likely to be all the more fierce, because Capitalism could have continued to some extent under a theocracy, but Capitalism would be crushed in the case of Socialism. It should further be noted that those who control the means of production also have considerable power in the Political process and the armed forces. And, of course, they key to success in the legislative system is acess to campaign funds, and no company is crazy enough to back a party that would abolish private ownership of propety.

'left' concessions such as The minimum wage were achieved in the past because the capitalist system could be maintained. That is no longer possible - we have got our minimum wage - but can we establish a worker's state through Democracy? Nope.


Voting is just a small part of Reform, rallies, protests, strikes etc are all parts of an active movement of reform and progression

The Sharpeville Massacre? Kent state? Magdalena? We have tried your suggestion in the past. The Ground was sodden wet with blood - Any thing that looks like a serious threat is utterly crushed by the Capitalist ruling class.


becasue the workers work so much, it hinders there ability to think about capitalism

I would agree with this...partly. The Monolithic Institutions and systematised work practises that dominate our society make it very hard for people so seriously imagine sweeping everything away and having something radically different. Workers thus have what lenin called a 'trade union consciousness' - a belief that Trade Unions act as realy representations of worker power and interests. It is our job to establish a revolutionary consciousness - to make the workers believe that they have nothing to lose but their chains, that all the world is theirs for the taking, and they that have the power to emancipate themselves and achieve anything.

[MKS]

but can we establish a worker's state through Democracy? Nope.

I hope that any "workers state" will be achieved through means, that is not say a war might need to be fought against the Capitalists but any society should be founded on Democracy, if the people don’t want change then it shouldn’t happen, to force the masses to conform to any ideology is wrong.


The Sharpeville Massacre? Kent state? Magdalena? We have tried your suggestion in the past. The Ground was sodden wet with blood - Any thing that looks like a serious threat is utterly crushed by the Capitalist ruling class.

Reform should not only evolve the system but more importantly progresses the popular ethos. If each year a Leftist rep. is elected to Congress than that represents a changing attitude of those that are voting. Ultimately if the progression continues than the entire system will cease to exist as it once did (hopefully)


"Elections" in the United States have been demonstrated to be fake! It's widely understood here that Bush and his party stole the national elections held in 2000 and 2004.

It makes no sense for us to ask people to participate in a sham.

The people allowed Bush to take office and be pacified by the spin and rhetoric of both parties.

There is no greater friend to oppression than apathy.

I realize that Reform to most Leftists is pure crap, but could it not be considered an alternative to violent revolution, for all those who oppose war it seems to me there is no other way to "peacfully" take power away from any government or power system.

[BobKKKindle$]

to force the masses to conform to any ideology is wrong.

I may get slammed by our resident Anarchists and councilsts for this, but the masses do not always know what is good for them and the kind of society they have the potential to achieve. The dominant ideas of any era are the idea of the ruling class, and these ideas are imposed upon all of society, generating a one-dimensional mode of thought. Most people 'want' Capitalism in that they are told by the elite that anything else is 'unnatural' or 'wont work'. The Monolithic nature of the Capitalist system and the 'democracy' that accompinies it means that the masses develop a Trade Union mindset, as I said before - they cannot imagine anything more radical than a pay rise. A Socialist mindset is a revolutionary consciousness. By all means, let us have a society based upon direct democracy, I fully support that - but that does not mean that we should or we can forge this society through the bourgeois demoractic apparatus we have now (which in reality is a multi party dictatorship and is undermined by private ownership of Capital)


Ultimately if the progression continues than the entire system will cease to exist as it once did (hopefully)

Hopefully is a very dangerous word. Your scenario is firstly highly unlikely. vast sums are required to run a successful political campaign - money that comes from corporations. No Corporation will support us - we want to socialise the MoP! But even if your scenario did occur - there is every likely hood that the Us could pull an Allende and crush a really progressive leftist government. You have seen the agression of the US towards venezuela - a government with leftist Leanings.

[MKS]

the masses do not always know what is good for them

Such logic is poison to the cause of liberty, if the masses do not "know what is good for them" than the entire revolution becomes not a practice of liberation but simply one of coercion which creates an entrenched system of power. (Just look at the Russian Revolution). In order for any real Liberal Revolution/Evolution to sustain as being truly egalitarian the people must all concede to its ideals and goals, as I said before. Coercion towards an ideology is wrong. The people, the masses must retain complete Democratic control over every aspect of the community or society.



Hopefully is a very dangerous word. Your scenario is firstly highly unlikely

I have previously stated that my assertions and ideas were improbable. But are they more improbable than successful Revolutionary War? Such an endeavor would cost just as much capital as well something more valuable; human life.


there is every likely hood that the Us could pull an Allende and crush a really progressive leftist governmen

Why would a government work to crush itself? If Liberals and Leftist succeeded at capturing the government than who would oppose it? The military? Than that would be considered a revolution or coupe on the other side (much like the coup that sparked the Spanish Civil War). The American system of government with all its faults does posses one simple truth; the government in power usually represents the ethos and attitudes of the populous. So if the Left captures Congress, the Courts and the Executive offices as well as local and state governments than a revolution would have occurred, and the Capitalist-Imperialist power that once loomed over the world will have radically altered to a more liberal and equal society that progresses the ideals of Socialism, Justice and Equality. Once again this scenario is unlikely, especially when one compares it to the current reality, but isn’t it worth working towards?

I don’t doubt that a war will have to be fought, but I will work to avoid it as should all Leftists.

[MKS]

the masses do not always know what is good for them

Such logic is poison to the cause of liberty, if the masses do not "know what is good for them" than the entire revolution becomes not a practice of liberation but simply one of coercion which creates an entrenched system of power. (Just look at the Russian Revolution). In order for any real Liberal Revolution/Evolution to sustain as being truly egalitarian the people must all concede to its ideals and goals, as I said before. Coercion towards an ideology is wrong. The people, the masses must retain complete Democratic control over every aspect of the community or society.



Hopefully is a very dangerous word. Your scenario is firstly highly unlikely

I have previously stated that my assertions and ideas were improbable. But are they more improbable than successful Revolutionary War? Such an endeavor would cost just as much capital as well something more valuable; human life.


there is every likely hood that the Us could pull an Allende and crush a really progressive leftist governmen

Why would a government work to crush itself? If Liberals and Leftist succeeded at capturing the government than who would oppose it? The military? Than that would be considered a revolution or coupe on the other side (much like the coup that sparked the Spanish Civil War). The American system of government with all its faults does posses one simple truth; the government in power usually represents the ethos and attitudes of the populous. So if the Left captures Congress, the Courts and the Executive offices as well as local and state governments than a revolution would have occurred, and the Capitalist-Imperialist power that once loomed over the world will have radically altered to a more liberal and equal society that progresses the ideals of Socialism, Justice and Equality. Once again this scenario is unlikely, especially when one compares it to the current reality, but isn’t it worth working towards?

I don’t doubt that a war will have to be fought, but I will work to avoid it as should all Leftists.

[MKS]

the masses do not always know what is good for them

Such logic is poison to the cause of liberty, if the masses do not "know what is good for them" than the entire revolution becomes not a practice of liberation but simply one of coercion which creates an entrenched system of power. (Just look at the Russian Revolution). In order for any real Liberal Revolution/Evolution to sustain as being truly egalitarian the people must all concede to its ideals and goals, as I said before. Coercion towards an ideology is wrong. The people, the masses must retain complete Democratic control over every aspect of the community or society.



Hopefully is a very dangerous word. Your scenario is firstly highly unlikely

I have previously stated that my assertions and ideas were improbable. But are they more improbable than successful Revolutionary War? Such an endeavor would cost just as much capital as well something more valuable; human life.


there is every likely hood that the Us could pull an Allende and crush a really progressive leftist governmen

Why would a government work to crush itself? If Liberals and Leftist succeeded at capturing the government than who would oppose it? The military? Than that would be considered a revolution or coupe on the other side (much like the coup that sparked the Spanish Civil War). The American system of government with all its faults does posses one simple truth; the government in power usually represents the ethos and attitudes of the populous. So if the Left captures Congress, the Courts and the Executive offices as well as local and state governments than a revolution would have occurred, and the Capitalist-Imperialist power that once loomed over the world will have radically altered to a more liberal and equal society that progresses the ideals of Socialism, Justice and Equality. Once again this scenario is unlikely, especially when one compares it to the current reality, but isn’t it worth working towards?

I don’t doubt that a war will have to be fought, but I will work to avoid it as should all Leftists.

[Janus]

There is a difference between reform and revolution. Namely that a reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom. Therefore, reforms are mainly used for appeasal by the ruling class and though may lead to short-term progress, they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

[Janus]

There is a difference between reform and revolution. Namely that a reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom. Therefore, reforms are mainly used for appeasal by the ruling class and though may lead to short-term progress, they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

[Janus]

There is a difference between reform and revolution. Namely that a reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom. Therefore, reforms are mainly used for appeasal by the ruling class and though may lead to short-term progress, they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

[MKS]

reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom

Give one example of any revolution that started at the "bottom" I can name some that started at the "top"; The American Revolution (led by wealthy aristocrats, merchants and landowners i.e. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Washington, Madison etc), The Russian Revolution (started by upper middleclass intellectuals and theorists), The Cuban Revolution (led by a lawyer, a doctor and other upper middleclass and wealthy bourgeoisie), in fact most revolutions are uprisings of the bourgeoisie against the entrenched nobility or oligarchy the working class are used as mere pawns to reach the upper-middleclass goals. One class replaced another but still remained above the oppressed workers and impoverished. And may I note that all of those Revolutions were complete failures when compared to their idealogical goals.


they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

You can only sacrifice what you are willing to sacrifice. Does this sound redundant? Let me explain; if the left makes any concessions that compromise their long term goals then they have no one to blame but themselves. While compromise might be a tenant of Reform it is not its only component. Reform has not worked in the past because the people did not push for it, like you said it was used as are most ideals, by the system to quell a seemingly restless populous. In that case the people are to blame for the failure of 'Reform' as they should be the only vehicle for true change. It is a popular sentiment among philosophers and political theorists that the only thing that allows and government to remain is the opinion of the people, if that shifts than so to does the government. Simply said all governments exist due in part to the opinion or lack thereof of the people.

My assertion is that true reform is in essence the same as revolution. Reform being the "non-violent" approach, but the ends of both means should be identical. The Revolutionary Left (parts of it) have relegated 'Reform' as something to be fought against which is one of the many reasons the Revolutionary Left has repeatedly failed to make any real gains. Their unwillingness to liberalize their thinking and to be true participants in the human struggle against oppression has caused them to remain isolated from the masses, weighed down by their myopic dogmatism and isolationism.

[MKS]

reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom

Give one example of any revolution that started at the "bottom" I can name some that started at the "top"; The American Revolution (led by wealthy aristocrats, merchants and landowners i.e. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Washington, Madison etc), The Russian Revolution (started by upper middleclass intellectuals and theorists), The Cuban Revolution (led by a lawyer, a doctor and other upper middleclass and wealthy bourgeoisie), in fact most revolutions are uprisings of the bourgeoisie against the entrenched nobility or oligarchy the working class are used as mere pawns to reach the upper-middleclass goals. One class replaced another but still remained above the oppressed workers and impoverished. And may I note that all of those Revolutions were complete failures when compared to their idealogical goals.


they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

You can only sacrifice what you are willing to sacrifice. Does this sound redundant? Let me explain; if the left makes any concessions that compromise their long term goals then they have no one to blame but themselves. While compromise might be a tenant of Reform it is not its only component. Reform has not worked in the past because the people did not push for it, like you said it was used as are most ideals, by the system to quell a seemingly restless populous. In that case the people are to blame for the failure of 'Reform' as they should be the only vehicle for true change. It is a popular sentiment among philosophers and political theorists that the only thing that allows and government to remain is the opinion of the people, if that shifts than so to does the government. Simply said all governments exist due in part to the opinion or lack thereof of the people.

My assertion is that true reform is in essence the same as revolution. Reform being the "non-violent" approach, but the ends of both means should be identical. The Revolutionary Left (parts of it) have relegated 'Reform' as something to be fought against which is one of the many reasons the Revolutionary Left has repeatedly failed to make any real gains. Their unwillingness to liberalize their thinking and to be true participants in the human struggle against oppression has caused them to remain isolated from the masses, weighed down by their myopic dogmatism and isolationism.

[MKS]

reform goes top down while a revolution begins from the bottom

Give one example of any revolution that started at the "bottom" I can name some that started at the "top"; The American Revolution (led by wealthy aristocrats, merchants and landowners i.e. Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Washington, Madison etc), The Russian Revolution (started by upper middleclass intellectuals and theorists), The Cuban Revolution (led by a lawyer, a doctor and other upper middleclass and wealthy bourgeoisie), in fact most revolutions are uprisings of the bourgeoisie against the entrenched nobility or oligarchy the working class are used as mere pawns to reach the upper-middleclass goals. One class replaced another but still remained above the oppressed workers and impoverished. And may I note that all of those Revolutions were complete failures when compared to their idealogical goals.


they force us to sacrifice our long-term goals.

You can only sacrifice what you are willing to sacrifice. Does this sound redundant? Let me explain; if the left makes any concessions that compromise their long term goals then they have no one to blame but themselves. While compromise might be a tenant of Reform it is not its only component. Reform has not worked in the past because the people did not push for it, like you said it was used as are most ideals, by the system to quell a seemingly restless populous. In that case the people are to blame for the failure of 'Reform' as they should be the only vehicle for true change. It is a popular sentiment among philosophers and political theorists that the only thing that allows and government to remain is the opinion of the people, if that shifts than so to does the government. Simply said all governments exist due in part to the opinion or lack thereof of the people.

My assertion is that true reform is in essence the same as revolution. Reform being the "non-violent" approach, but the ends of both means should be identical. The Revolutionary Left (parts of it) have relegated 'Reform' as something to be fought against which is one of the many reasons the Revolutionary Left has repeatedly failed to make any real gains. Their unwillingness to liberalize their thinking and to be true participants in the human struggle against oppression has caused them to remain isolated from the masses, weighed down by their myopic dogmatism and isolationism.