| Theory |
|
Reformism -- Seduction of the Innocents May 25, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
As the American presidential selection ritual slouches towards us once more, all of the old "arguments" for reformism are crawling out from under the rocks.
This collection of posts looks at various "revised & improved" versions of these shabby "ideas".
I'm sure there will be more to come...unfortunately.
============================================
In my opinion, the central flaw in this "new" perspective is that it doesn't take seriously the prospects for proletarian revolution.
It regards revolution as a "final option" to be invoked only when "all else fails".
The flaw is not one of "unorthodoxy" in the abstract; it is one of practical significance.
This strategy was implemented in practice by German Social Democracy in the decades prior to World War I. They did have all the things that he recommends -- community services (islands of socialism), members of parliament, their own mass media and considerable (if negative) attention in the bourgeois media, even a panoply of Herr Professors and economic "experts".
They even talked vaguely of revolution as a "final option"...but everyone (except for a few ultra-leftists) understood this to be a verbal formality. In fact, they fully expected to continue to succeed as they had done in the past...until they won a decisive majority in the Reichstag and began the transition to socialism.
But for all their efforts to "educate the working class" (and they were considerable), the real consequences of their perspective quite literally blew up in their faces at the beginning of World War I.
When faced with the prospect of imperialist war, both German workers (most of them) and German Social Democracy (most of them) immediately leaped into an orgy of patriotic bestiality.
Somehow (?), German Social Democracy not only failed to educate the German working class about the real nature of modern capitalism...but they even forgot the lessons themselves!
The perspective that he has "re-invented" was so "seductive" in its "successes" that when the real crunch arrived...it dissolved like mist on a summer's morn.
I can see no reason why that would not happen again.
The alternative perspective (what I think of as the communist perspective) is not to "preach revolution" in the way that the Salvation Army preaches "repentance".
Instead, at this time, I think our message to the working class should be one of resistance or as the anarchists say direct action.
I think our tone should be strongly negative...ruthless and relentless attacks on all aspects of capitalist society...and all illusions about how it "could" be "improved".
Even in those situations where our class actually takes direct action and actually wins a real improvement, we should congratulate the class on its victory and then point out what will happen next...the ruling class will take it back! (We should never say anything positive about the capitalist system.)
But what of our positive vision of communism? I think that should be introduced gradually...as working class resistance to capitalism becomes more wide-spread and genuinely bitter.
As the present grows grimmer, the future can be plausibly shown to be brighter...provided our class is willing to meet the challenge of revolution.
Most people do regard revolution, with good reason, as "the last resort"...they don't need us to tell them that.
What they need us for (if anything) is to remind them that revolution is the only option. When things get "hot", that won't sound anywheres near as wacko as it does now.
If things are going well, it will sound like plain common sense.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
At some age, humans acquire the ability to learn and make their own decisions. At this point, we are free and can develop any way we choose.
Not true. We are "free" to "choose" only those forms of "development" which are possible in the society in which we live.
It is, for example, all but impossible to become a priest of Marduk in America; it is a choice that would never occur to anyone.
The social pressure to develop in certain acceptable ways is enormous and rarely resisted by any significant numbers.
Moreover, of those who do resist, many have serious mental problems -- petty criminals as a "class" have below-average intelligence.
You may "choose" to be a philosopher -- but should you fail to secure one of the tiny number of academic appointments available, you'll still be driving a taxi to pay your rent and buy your food.
quote:
Man not only chooses which experiences to learn from, but what he learns. Which experiences influence us most and the degree of their influence is dependent upon our choices.
Your "Man" appears to be in orbit around the real world, picking out learning experiences the way people shop for fresh vegetables.
People do indeed have multiple experiences and absorb many lessons, true and untrue, from them. But they rarely get to "pick" those experiences and even when they do, the choices are often extremely limited.
It's not a "free choice".
quote:
Nietzsche's most sensible argument was that conscious thought coupled with our survival instinct generates what he called a "will to power."
If there were really such a thing as a "survival instinct" -- something of genetic origins found in all humans -- how is it that suicide takes place...ever? How is it that people will put their lives at risk for "causes"...often of the most transparently nonsensical nature?
Are such people "mutants"?
quote:
If it's not known to be in our DNA, we can't prove that it exists in all men. Survival instinct and conscious thought can be proven, so the existence of a will to power is hard to ignore.
Emphasis added.
It's pretty easy to ignore, because the genes for these two "things" have not been identified.
Conscious thought is an observable empirical phenomenon. The "will to power" is just a colorful expression for social ambition...which depends, does it not, on a particular society.
The ambitious Roman aspired to be emperor. The ambitious Christian aspired to be Pope. The ambitious feudal lord aspired to the kingship. The ambitious capitalist aspires to own the world...or as much of it as he can.
Perhaps it is "the will to power" that is the genetic mutation, since very few people actually demonstrate it...and they almost always come to a bad end.
quote:
Marx believed that man could acquire compassion and genuine concern for his comrades simply by making it important in post-capitalist society.
A society that rewards compassion, even if only with elevated status, is rather likely to be a good deal more compassionate in objective reality, don't you think?
quote:
If one disagrees with the way Marx sees mankind, however, and takes a more Nietzschean view, the Marxist ideal is a prescription for disaster.
Well, that's one of those "choices" that you mentioned earlier. One studies Marx and one studies Nietzsche and decides who makes more sense.
quote:
Due to our naturally distrustful, greedy, and ambitious natures, which precede capitalism, humans will not motivate themselves to do anything unless there is a reward.
But there are multitudes of "rewards"...something defenders of capitalism literally cannot see.
No more than a feudal lord could visualize "investment".
quote:
If there were no competition for the things we need, we would just take them and copulate and nothing else. While the species might survive, it would not progress...
As Marx noted, you are a perfect specimen of someone who is a product of the society that you defend. Nothing is possible except "what is". You believe yourself part of "the eternal".
A great many humans have believed that. They were always wrong.
quote:
The genius of a few individuals is all that has kept mankind raised from the life in nature that Hobbes called "brutish, nasty and short."
Not exactly. It often does take genius to think up a genuine advance for the human species. But once ordinary people understand the new idea and put it into practice, no further effort by the genius is required to "keep us raised" from a "state of nature".
Note further that many significant advances were made by people who were not considered "great geniuses" as well as the fact that many geniuses have given us some really rotten ideas that have retarded our advancement.
quote:
Despite the various crises of the past century, capitalism thrives and shows no major signs of strain.
An empirical dispute; in my view, capitalism has been "stagnant" (speaking roughly) for the last three decades. Aside from the personal computer and the cellphone, not much of consequence has changed...at least as perceived from down here, towards the bottom of the food chain.
Perhaps "up where you live", things look more optimistic.
quote:
The crisis of overproduction will never happen because capitalism is flexible and will sacrifice its short term goals to achieve its long term ones.
At least you hope so.
quote:
Marx also never took into account the effect government regulation and welfare would have on the capitalist system.
Quite true, he did not...which certainly made him look "pretty silly" during the last century.
Now that "government regulation and welfare" are being rapidly dismantled throughout the capitalist world, his "oversight" has become a "time-limited" error and his "model" of the capitalist system once more resembles ever more closely the real world.
quote:
None of the problems Marx predicted are unavoidable as long as we do not sink to the level of sharks.
It was precisely Marx's prediction that you would "sink to the level of sharks".
In Iraq, you have made sharks look down right cuddly.
quote:
The result of less specialization and fewer working hours is a decline in production.
Not if combined with advanced technology.
In addition, much of "production" in capitalism is objectively waste...things that no rational social order would produce under any circumstances.
quote:
Production is simply not something that anyone should interfere with.
Especially the people who do the actual work, right?
quote:
The final assumption Marx makes is that economics is the only force driving history.
Main rather than "only" would be a more accurate summary.
quote:
Individuals need a bit of "barbarism" to explore themselves and establish our identity. To an extent this requires us to hurt one another, but it is important.
Perhaps a visit to Mistress Condoleezza's Dungeon would satisfy your "need". *Laughs*
quote:
Capitalism will not collapse on its own, but will continue until we have unlimited resources and capitalism is no longer needed.
With the exception of the word "unlimited" (a fantasy, of course), you have just restated the Marxist argument in different words.
The reason capitalism "collapses" is that the conflict between what is possible (abundance for all) and what exists (obscene wealth for a few and dogshit for everyone else) is no longer sustainable.
People simply will not tolerate that crap for even one more fucking day!
And what seemed "all-powerful" and "eternal" will once again lie broken in the dust.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
All of this is taken on the assumption of one thing. That human character is essentially good, and that the evils of poverty, crime, cruelty, ignorance and war, are NOT down to human nature. Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but in reality, in the real world, humans are bad. And that is why a fully socialist system simply would not work.
No one knows what "human character" is, "good" or "bad". You are just guessing...like everyone else.
quote:
Capitalism is bad, but if modified correctly, it can be turned into a force for good.
What we need on this board is a Magic Forum. Water into wine, lead into gold, capitalism into "a force for good".
quote:
It is wrong to not let people have the FREEDOM to start their own enterprise because that is a breach of freedom.
And it's also "wrong" to not let people own slaves because that is a "breach" of "freedom for slaveowners".
quote:
Fully communist and socialist societies and systems DO NOT WORK in the real world.
Communist societies haven't existed long enough to say whether or not they would "work". The socialist countries did devolve back into capitalism...primarily for material reasons.
Your judgment is premature.
quote:
There are many examples of leftists who wish to reform the capitalist system, rather than abolish it.
Yes...we call them fake leftists.
quote:
Revolutionary/scientific socialism, by its very definition, is not intended for economically advanced countries.
No, the exact opposite is the case. Marx and Engels thought that the first communist revolutions would take place in the United States, England, France and Germany...the most developed countries of their day.
Those still seem like reasonable choices to me...with the understanding that they still may be considerably distant into the future.
quote:
And if you open up a history book you will see that revolutionary/scientific socialism has a long history of failure!
How long did it take capitalism to triumph over feudalism?
quote:
Marx's ideas no longer apply to the world exactly as they were written, times have changed and ideologies should be flexible enough to change with them.
A platitude...no one disagrees with that in principle. The question is always changed how?
quote:
Socialism isn't going to happen through revolution, I promise you that, those days are over.
How is it that all these fake lefties acquire crystal balls "that really work" while mine is always so damn murky?
quote:
If it's to happen universally at all, it will come eventually and through reform.
Here, at least, we're on solid ground. We don't need a crystal ball at all (lucky for me!)...we can actually watch all those "glorious reforms" disappear before our very eyes!
quote:
My idea is that we should focus on one thing at a time, first thing being to get some progressives into congress.
I nominate the Easter Bunny!
quote:
Reformed capitalism can = socialism.
Reformism = capitalism lite.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 22, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Why can we not plot the downfall of the power that be whilst simultaneously attempting to reform the system - to make the best of a bad situation. What the hell is wrong with that?
Two things.
1. It sends a mixed and indeed self-contradictory message.
If genuine reform is possible, then revolution is superfluous...we just keep adding reforms until we get everything we want.
But if genuine reform is not possible and revolution is the only real option, then why tell people something different? Why raise their hopes over and over again to see them crushed and people becoming disillusioned and utterly disgusted with politics...and with us?
2. It sends the wrong message. Everything we've seen in recent decades strongly suggests that real reforms in the interests of the working class are no longer possible and, further, that all the reforms of 1930-1950 are going to be watered-down or completely abolished.
The ruling class is lining up scapegoats for this process: it's "because" of the "aging population"; it's "because" of "environmental concerns"; it's "because" of the "oil crisis", blah, blah, blah.
The real reason is that capitalism doesn't work very well anymore (perhaps that old Marxist "devil" is at work -- "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time").
The period when substantive reforms were possible is over...probably for good. The new century is going to resemble the 19th century a lot more than it will the 20th...at least from the worker's point of view.
Murky as it is, that's what my "crystal ball" is saying.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 22, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...we can vote reformists into power, and when their reforms fail as you believe they inevitably will, we will have moved one step closer to revolt.
No, I rather doubt you can even elect any reformists any more...certainly not in any significant numbers.
Where would you find them? The Democrats are deeply conservative and the Republicans are almost semi-fascist. Both are deep in the pockets of the capitalist class...and thus unlikely to "bite the hand" that feeds them.
The legal barriers against third parties are significant...and can easily be raised even higher than they are now.
And, you assume that they count the ballots honestly. After Florida, I don't think that is justified any longer.
So your perspective, in the end, boils down to an endless succession of unsuccessful election campaigns.
You assume that this dreary record will "inspire revolt"...I think it's much more likely to inspire boredom.
quote:
Just because the statistics show that reformism doesn't help, does not mean that it can do no good, or is entirely futile.
I wasn't arguing from numbers, per se, but your objection is self-contradictory.
If reformism "doesn't help", then what "good" can it "do", and why is it not "futile"?
quote:
If social reforms are crippling the capitalist system, should we not in fact push even harder for it? Does this not in fact bring us, closer to revolution?
It doesn't matter how hard you "push"...they are going to get rid of them as quickly as they can.
The only thing that might delay or even briefly reverse that trend is massive protest in the streets -- not electoral politics.
But reforms are difficult to organize mass disruption over; they usually benefit only a part of the masses and the rest see little reason to offer more than token support.
Consider "national health insurance" for example...that would be a significant reform in the United States. About 40 million people would directly benefit.
But most of those people are either young and healthy ("who needs health insurance?") or old and sick...folks who couldn't walk a two-block demonstration without collapsing and in absolutely no shape to "raise hell in the streets".
I think this liability applies to all reforms; they are, by their very nature, partial and have little potential for mobilizing the working class as a whole.
quote:
Perhaps even a peaceful one?
It's not usually revolutions that are "violent and bloody"...it's the civil wars that often accompany them.
How violent the "next wave" of proletarian revolutions will be is impossible to predict at this point.
quote:
This is another thing that pisses me off, people who assume Marx was a psychic. There is a very possibility that he was WRONG about the possibilities of revolution in nations with advanced economies and impossibly strong and highly stable states such as America; after all, he was going on nothing more than a (highly) educated guess.
No, he wasn't "guessing". His theory "predicted" that communism, as the "next stage" of human society, would "naturally" arrive to succeed the most developed capitalist societies.
He was quite specific about this: no new epoch of production emerges until all the possibilities of the old epoch have been exhausted.
You are free, of course, to argue otherwise.
quote:
Think outside the box for a minute and face the facts, the social conditions for revolution simply do not exist in American society, and it would take a whooooooooole lot to change that, and right now reform is our only possible option, whether you agree with it or not.
I think reform is a non-starter, as I've indicated.
I quite agree with you that much must change before proletarian revolution is "on the agenda" in the United States. Perhaps by the last quarter of this century, things will look brighter here.
Meanwhile, if you would actually like to participate in a proletarian revolution (I know you don't, but others might), I suggest you move to a country in western Europe, become fluent in one or more European languages, take out citizenship, and go to work.
That's your "best shot".
quote:
My example was that a man named Bernie Sanders, a socialist, was elected into the House of Representatives recently.
Actually, I think he's been there awhile.
Notice any difference?
quote:
Let's be fair, you seem to foresee your revolution coming just as well as I foresee that it won't happen.
No, I'm not claiming "inevitability"...just high probability. You, on the other hand, are certain of your reformist perspective and equally certain that revolution will "never happen".
I think the probability is quite high (0.99) that reformism will never amount to a puddle of warm spit.
quote:
We should focus on one thing at a time, such as getting out of the Iraqi war, or gay marriage even.
Your perspective doesn't allow that, actually. Reformists are even more divided than revolutionaries. Each has his/her "pet reform" and is extremely reluctant to "take a back seat" to someone else's reform.
I'm quite sure, for example, that there are many conservative gay people who strongly desire to get legally married but have no problem with imperialist war at all...and some of them may even volunteer to serve in this one or the next one.
It's quite possible for reformists to be strongly in favor of a particular "progressive" reform in the overall context of a reactionary political outlook.
quote:
If we focus on the big picture, let's use your case and say revolution, then realistically the only thing you can do is to sit around and read socialist magazines, type socialist articles, and wait for something to happen.
Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections"
As an aside, it's interesting that many Leninists throw that old armchair at me too. If you're not building the "vanguard party", then you "must be just sitting on your ass".
No, it's not necessary to "just wait".
quote:
Stop dodging, progressivists are gradually gaining grounds in America, and even more so in other locations around the world.
"Progressivist" = fake leftist.
quote:
Alright, well if "capitalism lite" works, and it's a step in a better direction, would you disagree with it? I sure as hell wouldn't, "capitalism lite" could theoretically be reformed into full socialism or even, if you're more daring, communism.
Dream on.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I am telling people to stand for the school board, or the local council. Things at a local level (which is the easiest place to get elected) make changes to people's lives more often then things at a higher level.
Both school boards and city councils have the power to award contracts...feed money to local businesses.
As you might imagine, these local businesses take local politics very seriously...and make every effort to insure that "their guys" have enough campaign money to win.
There are occasions where a "grass-roots reformist" actually does win -- you need a huge number of door-to-door volunteers to pull it off.
But a seat on the school board or the city council is...a seat. You will be casting a lot of "no" votes and your proposals are unlikely to pass unless there's a way for local businessmen to make money from them.
You seem to be under the impression that bourgeois politics is a "rational search" for the "best policy"...when it is nothing of the sort.
It's about the money.
quote:
Don't listen to redstar2000 on matters of local politics. This is where you can get elected AND make a difference.
Listen to redstar2000. You probably can't get elected and even if you could, it wouldn't make any difference.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
And regardless of whether [Marx] was right or wrong, all possibilities of our current "epoch" will not be "exhausted" for quite some time, do you want to know why? Because our current epoch is moving on an indefinite line, which you view as a circle...
This is rather obscure but I guess you mean my proposition that the 21st century will resemble the 19th century much more than it will the 20th.
But I have no idea what you mean by "an indefinite line" unless you have thrown away your crystal ball and now maintain that history proceeds by chance and circumstance.
That's certainly a "respectable" position; all bourgeois historians endorse it and so do many lefties.
At this time, many people find Marx too "determinist" for their tastes; they prefer a more "open ended" analysis that allows them room for "infinite speculation" on the "limits of the possible".
As you wish; history itself will resolve the dispute.
quote:
But do you really believe that you will make any impact big enough to expand the European proletarian's social consciousness enough to incite him/her to revolution?
Huh? No, I don't mean anything like that.
My estimate (or guess!) is the the proletariat in western Europe will be the first to make a modern proletarian revolution...and if a young North American communist wants to actually be a part of it, that's the place to go.
I'm actually confirming part of your view; that revolution in North America is further away into the future and much more must change here before that happens.
quote:
But with rock steady stable states such as America, Japan, UK, or other European nations the conditions do not exist and the states will not permit them to exist (ever again if they can help it).
Emphasis added.
Like all reformists in one sense or another, your view of things is a-historical.
What is "rock steady" and "stable" now is what will "forever remain so."
In the year 363CE, the Roman Emperor Julian, having utterly smashed the barbarians in the west, led a victorious army to the very gates of the Parthian capital.
48 years later, Rome was sacked and just 64 years after that, the last Roman emperor in the west was deposed.
Things change!
quote:
Regardless of the amount of warm spit reformism will amount to if you give it time, it will always amount to more than sitting around with your thumb up your ass while making revolutionary speeches and handing out revolutionary pamphlets praying for something to happen...
Your own faith is quite touching.
But I would rather "have my thumb up my ass" than my head!
quote:
You're absolutely right, but as you've seen in the past, no matter how divided we are, we are actually the only ones to get things done.
And then you bawl like babies when those "mean old capitalists" turn right around and undo all that you've "achieved".
quote:
Now, you just have more people like yourself, sitting at home typing away on your computer and waiting for a spectacular revolution to come, while the state gets stronger than ever from not having to worry about a few votes!
Do you think that the kinds of people who might respond to the demonstration I propose are utterly incapable of anything but typing on a computer keyboard?
And, for that matter, perhaps typing on a computer keyboard might be the "best" thing for many people to do right now. What better place than a message board like Che-Lives to get rid of a lot of bourgeois reformist crap that they might have floating around in their heads.
Such as "the state is too powerful to overthrow...it will be eternal".
quote:
To put it bluntly, it's either reform, or sitting around, handing out flyers and making speeches, and waiting for times to change, when in fact, our chances for revolution are fast dwindling as the state gets stronger and more stable each day.
Emphasis added.
The state "was, is, and ever shall be".
quote:
And let me say this, before I started reading some of Noam Chomsky's work, I "used" to be a downright revolutionary conspirator. Chomsky hit me with a sack of reality bricks, he made me realize that the state is FAR too strong for revolution, if it ever happens, to have any effect.
Yes, Professor Chomsky certainly seems to have had a pernicious effect lately. It was bad enough that he criticized the Cuban government for locking up a bunch of mercenary "dissidents".
quote:
Basically, that's when I realized that we should work from the inside and not the outside, that we should try reform as a substitute for revolution. And I will point out the irony in this before you do: Chomsky would most likely not agree with me, he would agree with you.
Nope, no irony involved at all. He, like you, has followed his logic to its inevitable conclusion...he's voting for John Kerry and calls for all of us to do likewise.
Clueless Chomsky
quote:
Every socialist revolution in history has occurred either by means of a coup (in which case it would be socialist in name alone) or through increasing social awareness - something that I firmly believe can only be achieved once the delusion that our current political system can work through reform has been utterly refuted.
Yes, that's true.
But the question is: are communists required to demonstrate that reformism doesn't work?
It's not as if there is any "shortage" of people who advocate reformism, support candidates, run for office, blah, blah, blah.
What need is there for communists in this process...especially since our message is entirely different?
What we want the working class to do is resist the capitalist system...not try to "fix it".
quote:
My argument rest firmly on the principle that reformism is entirely futile. Only by thoroughly proving this can we move forward to a popular revolt.
I agree...but I don't see why that's the task of communists. Let those who believe that capitalism is both "worth fixing" and "can be fixed" proceed to their chosen tasks.
You and I both understand that their efforts are doomed; why should we help them in their hopeless cause?
Indeed, why shouldn't we attack their ridiculous perspective?
Why shouldn't we tell that small number of people who are presently receptive to our ideas the truth? Proletarian revolution, however long it takes and however difficult it may be is the only alternative to capitalist barbarism!
quote:
It's a step that has not been attempted thus far, and given that Marx himself asserted that communism was most likely to appear in a country such as the UK or US, it in fact seems highly probable that reforms would play a key role in elevating social consciousness to the level necessary for revolution.
It has been attempted before, most notably by German Social Democracy, c.1891-1914.
And your statement at least implies that the "more" reforms we "win", the "higher" class consciousness will "become".
The converse appears to actually be the case; to the extent "capitalism with a human face" appears plausible, the interest in revolution and a real change in the nature of class society declines.
I will grant that there is evidence on both sides of this dispute...sometimes "great reforms" do seem to "raise" class consciousness, at least for a time.
But when you stop and think about it, if "things are really getting better", then why would most rational people want to take the risks involved in making revolution?
quote:
Mass protest is in fact playing straight into the hands of the current system - if you continue along these lines it merely prolongs the myth that the USA is a 'free' nation and allows people to continue thinking that the status quo does in fact work. It does nothing but harm the growing social conscience in the western world and thus delay the inevitable revolt.
I confess that this is one of the most wacko statements I've read on this board.
Anyone who has been on a mass demonstration in recent years is under no illusion that the USA is a "free" nation. Police violence against non-violent demonstrators is now routinely at a level not seen since the days of Birmingham and "Bull" Connor in the early 1960s. What was scandalous in those "innocent" days is now standard operating procedure.
MIAMI POLICE: Torture, Beatings, Sexual Assault!
Every mass protest from the left now contributes to the revolutionary process!
quote:
If we push on the lines of reform, people will become slowly more disheartened as the far right in response attempts to strengthen their own standpoint and remove the reforms that we fight for.
That will happen even if communists are not present.
The problem is that becoming "disheartened" does not necessarily mean becoming "revolutionary".
Reformism also makes people cynical, corrupt, and even compels them "against their will" to move towards the right.
quote:
A catalyst is undoubtedly required for this...but who is to say that reform couldn't bring around the same conclusion?
Me!
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
As you mentioned, there are an abundance of centrists already following this path, but these people do not seek the same goals at all - In fact most simply wish to join the upper echelons of society (as they see it) and will abandon reform just as quickly. It is for this reason that I believe we must get involved - otherwise who will truly show how rotten the system is?
They (the reformists) are perfectly capable of this task...indeed, to anyone who's been paying attention, they've already done so.
The role of communists is to get people to pay attention.
quote:
I understand your reasoning... but have you really resigned yourself to never seeing at least a socialist US?
At 62, I'm "resigned" to not seeing much of anything, unless they find a way to reverse the aging process.
But a "socialist U.S." wouldn't be worth hanging around for, in my opinion.
Socialism is really just capitalism without capitalists (for a while).
I'm a communist...and not really interested in any "substitutes".
quote:
and I believe the theory goes Capitalism->Socialism->Communism.
My theory goes: capitalism -> proletarian revolution -> communism.
quote:
But that you abuse the current system to your benefit.
Cute word play there; but guess the outcome of any contest between professionals and amateurs playing the "pro's" game, by their rules, on their turf?
They will eat people like you (and even me) for breakfast!
It's an odd delusion, when you stop and think about it. A great many "lefties" think that they can "play bourgeois politics" better than the people who do it for a living.
As if I were to read a book on hitting by Ted Williams and think that I was therefore not only qualified to step into the batter's box against Randy Johnson but would actually hit a home run.
Talk about delusions of grandeur!
quote:
Failed Reformists: 1
Failed Revolutionaries: Countless
I think a more detailed and critical examination of the people that you place in the category of "revolutionaries" would show that a great many of them -- indeed a substantial majority -- were really reformists armed with little more than scraps and tatters of revolutionary rhetoric.
quote:
As an example look at Nazi Germany. Hitler managed to wrestle support to get his party into a prominent position in the Reichstag and then (admittedly due to a severe economic crisis) severely 'reformed' the system and took absolute control.
That's a vast oversimplification of what happened...and hardly a relevant example for communists in any event.
quote:
Not to forget the Spanish Anarchists who (foolishly) refused to take control of the parliament.
No, the foolish mistake was not "refusing to take control" of parliament; it was their failure to disperse it...to "smash the bourgeois state machinery" inspite of the fact that both Marx and Bakunin had explicitly told them to do that.
I think the lesson has been learned; every anarchist I've ever discussed the matter with bemoans that critical blunder and is determined never to repeat it.
I believe them.
quote:
Moving into the political arena is playing with fire, and if you are not resolute, you will be consumed by it. Do you fear for your convictions comrade?
Of course not! My ego is just as swollen as yours. I won't be corrupted...but all the rest of you sorry bastards will be!
You think you won't be corrupted...but you will be.
Everybody who's tried your strategy thinks they won't be corrupted...but that's what happens!
Always.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I still believe that it is better to attempt at reforms today and succeed at some but fail at most, than to spend all your time preparing for the state to collapse and it not happening in which case basically you did nothing...
Once you're handed your chips, you can bet them any way you like.
You win some and you lose some.
quote:
Educating a few people is the only thing your movement can possibly accomplish right now.
What did the abolitionists accomplish in the early years of their struggle?
For that matter, all that Marx and Engels ever did was "educate a few people".
Things start small...but if you're right, then they get a lot bigger.
quote:
Reformists on the other hand, can educate along with working inside the current system to bring it down.
Yes, reformists do "educate"...but the education is a very bad one. If they are successful, then they "educate" a generation to believe that capitalism can be "fixed". If their efforts are unsuccessful, then their generation "learns" demoralization and apathy.
A lose-lose proposition.
quote:
Encouraging people to stay home and not vote does nothing more than getting a few more people to pull their pants down and get fucked in the ass by a big, wide, steel, stately dildo.
A very graphic image...have you been watching videos from the American prisons in Iraq?
In any event, the "fucking" will take place whether or not people vote in bourgeois elections. Indeed, to borrow your image, voting is like "dropping your pants and bending over". It conveys an active willingness to be "fucked"...no matter who you vote for.
quote:
Because you do not know for a fact that the state will collapse, the only thing you can possibly know is that eventually change will come, and as I’ve stated before, that change could be better, or more likely it could result in a less opportunity for revolution than right now!
IF Marx was right (and he's been right about many things), THEN the opportunities for successful proletarian revolution will appear in due course.
My chips are on Karl!
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 24, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
=========================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| ...the world-wide opposition to U.S. imperialism in Iraq was a small but significant step in the right direction...the task is to deepen and extend it by many orders of magnitude.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
Duplicate entry '1152057946' for key 1 | |
