Log in

View Full Version : Ideological purity and realism



Demogorgon
19th September 2006, 02:05
I think something we all have to accept is that we won't clock off on Friday under the same old dreary capitalism and come in on Monday under a fully functioning Utopia.

I think a lot of Socialists have the problem though of wishing that were so. They want to change everything all at once because they believe to do anything else would be seling out to capitalism. Of course the upshot of this is nothing gets done as a result.

Of course I am not suggesting we sell out the movement like the Tony Blairs, Gerhard Schroeders and Thabo Mbekis of this world, rather I am saying we accept that change will most likely come gradually rather than all at once. If it is a thousand steps from here to socialism, a single step in that direction is something to be celebrated rather than dismissed as not enough.

Therefore we should be willing to co-operate with social democrats and even Liberals whenever they move in a proigressive direction. Of course we should never tolerate any moves to grind the process to a halt or make concessions to the right, but at the same time we shouldn't oppose small steps in the right direction either.

too much of the attachment to ideological purity is very much an excuse for inaction, sitting and waiting for the revolution to start is not good enough. We must do it ourselves, right here and now. And the reality of doing this means we must work for improvement in what we have as well as all out change. Once the change starts happening it will speed up and more and more change will happen and we could very well arrive at full blown socialism this way long before sitting and waiting for an ideologically pure revolution will ever yield results.

getoutofhere
20th September 2006, 10:22
I think something we all have to accept is that we won't clock off on Friday under the same old dreary capitalism and come in on Monday under a fully functioning Utopia.

Uhm... yea.


I think a lot of Socialists have the problem though of wishing that were so. They want to change everything all at once because they believe to do anything else would be seling out to capitalism. Of course the upshot of this is nothing gets done as a result.

I believe the anarchists do think this way.


Of course I am not suggesting we sell out the movement like the Tony Blairs, Gerhard Schroeders and Thabo Mbekis of this world, rather I am saying we accept that change will most likely come gradually rather than all at once. If it is a thousand steps from here to socialism, a single step in that direction is something to be celebrated rather than dismissed as not enough.

yea, I agree.


Therefore we should be willing to co-operate with social democrats and even Liberals whenever they move in a proigressive direction. Of course we should never tolerate any moves to grind the process to a halt or make concessions to the right, but at the same time we shouldn't oppose small steps in the right direction either.

I suppose it is not easy cooperating with these guys, but it's worth a try.


too much of the attachment to ideological purity is very much an excuse for inaction, sitting and waiting for the revolution to start is not good enough.

it seems many people do defend that idea.


We must do it ourselves, right here and now.

yea, and at the right circumstance.


And the reality of doing this means we must work for improvement in what we have as well as all out change. Once the change starts happening it will speed up and more and more change will happen and we could very well arrive at full blown socialism this way long before sitting and waiting for an ideologically pure revolution will ever yield results.

:)

apathy maybe
21st September 2006, 15:24
Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)I think a lot of Socialists have the problem though of wishing that were so. They want to change everything all at once because they believe to do anything else would be seling out to capitalism. Of course the upshot of this is nothing gets done as a result.[/b]This is a problem, but not as big as you seem to think it is.


Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)Of course I am not suggesting we sell out the movement like the Tony Blairs, Gerhard Schroeders and Thabo Mbekis of this world, rather I am saying we accept that change will most likely come gradually rather than all at once. If it is a thousand steps from here to socialism, a single step in that direction is something to be celebrated rather than dismissed as not enough.[/b]I take it you are a reformist then? Yes a single step is better then none. But far too often the acceptance of reformist means that you also have to accept that the 'reforms' might go the other way.


Originally posted by Demogorgon
Therefore we should be willing to co-operate with social democrats and even Liberals whenever they move in a proigressive direction. Of course we should never tolerate any moves to grind the process to a halt or make concessions to the right, but at the same time we shouldn't oppose small steps in the right direction either.Yes, I do not know anyone on the revolutionary left who would disagree. But the agreement is of course limited, we will not join organisations who's purpose we disagree with. We might fight specific campaigns, but we will not loose sight of the fact that the enemy is capitalism and the state.


[email protected]
too much of the attachment to ideological purity is very much an excuse for inaction, sitting and waiting for the revolution to start is not good enough. We must do it ourselves, right here and now. And the reality of doing this means we must work for improvement in what we have as well as all out change. Once the change starts happening it will speed up and more and more change will happen and we could very well arrive at full blown socialism this way long before sitting and waiting for an ideologically pure revolution will ever yield results.I know no one who advocates sitting and waiting for a revolution let alone an "ideologically pure" one. Most anarchists (of the revolutionary kind) will be happy to work with Leninists, but only to the limited extent that our aims coincide.

Change and action do not have to happen (and in fact should not happen) with in the system though. Revolutionary Leftists are in unions because they support small change, not because they necessarily see the unions as an actual tool for larger change (at least not at this time)(though some do seem them as a tool for larger change).


getoutofhere
I believe the anarchists do think this way.Anarchists do want "to change everything all at once", but this is because we want the best system possible now! But we are also (most of us anyway) realistic. And so we do fight for change, and things do happen, and yet we do not sell "out to capitalism".

Phugebrins
21st September 2006, 16:19
Hm. I think what you've got there is a double edged sword. See, by saying the revolution won't happen this weekend (with which I agree), there's also the fact that teaming up with social-democrats or 'the wrong sort' of revolutionaries risks letting your movement disappear into oblivion. Sure, support good reforms, but building momentum for revolutionary organisations separate from reformist ones IS planning for the long term.