Rancid wrote:I think the reformist is the only real solution here, which is why I cannot get behind the communist/socialist revolution. It's also why I cannot get behind the reactionary position as well. Just as an example of my support for reform, I occasionally bring up the idea of evolving our current capitalistic system with some socialistic features to remedy its current problems (reform). As opposed to a wholesale switch/change (revolution). I also advocate against making no changes (reactionary), because clearly, the state of the world today can still be improved/optimized, but also because its foolish to believe we can convince people to not bother to change the world.
The problem I see with revolution is (at least) two parts.
First, often you need a significantly large percentage of the population to feel like they have nothing to lose. This is extremely hard to "achieve" in a system that has moderate success. For example, why should I get behind demolishing the current global financial capitalist system when I'm functioning so well within it? It has provided me with a massive amount of upward mobility. Not just me, but my parents too. There are simply too many people like me, too many people that have enjoyed even moderate improvement in their state of being. Why the hell would any of us want to potentially fuck that up? Revolution is impossible until people like me have nothing to lose, and right now, I have a lot to lose, so no, I will not join the workers revolution or whatever. Also, the reformist works to ensure we never get to that point. In an odd way, I'm a reactionary (to the revolutionary) by actively trying to prevent revolution via reform.
Second, revolution is nasty. Loss of life, war, and worse, the massive risk of a power struggle. The problem that communists don't seem to worry about, is that when you start a revolution, there will be 100 other factions trying to take control of the revolution. From liberals, to fascists, to monarchist, etc. The communist seems to falsely assume that they will be successful and take command, easy peasy. We saw this in the Russian civil war(s). We saw this in Latin America, etc. etc.. There are always power struggles, and there is the strong chance you will not have communism once the dust settles. The down side in revolution is astronomically high, and the up side is astronomically low. That's just to get a new system started! That's not even having to deal with actual governance, that's another massive challenge. The odds of failure are just fucking ridiculously huge. You'd have to insane to call for revolution. Revolution in my eyes, is just fucking stupid. It's only good for a last resort. It only makes logical sense as an act of desperation en masse.
The problem I see with reactionaries is (at least) two parts.
First, the only constant is change. There is no stopping human curiosity, no stopping human invention, no stopping humans seeking to change how we live. We are incredibly optimistic creatures, which is why we are constantly trying to change the world via ideas and invention. This is one of the few things that brings actual happiness to humans. To be a reactionary is basically to fight the innate pursuit of happiness. It's a lost cause to fight human nature. To be a reactionary is to fight humanity itself. Makes no practical sense to me. Adaptation is the only way to survive, and the reactionary hates that. They will always lose, no matter what. NO matter how reasonable their ideas are, no matter how logical they are, they will ALWAYS lose. You can't stop a train. You cannot stop human nature. In an odd why, I'm a revolutionary (to the reactionary) by actively trying to push for change via reform.
Second, if we do nothing, we leave so many living a pitiful existence. We really can improve the lives of everyone, and we're nowhere near that point. Why not try? After all, the world WILL change no matter what. Might as try and have it change for the better.
I do not want to stop the train because it will leave millions stranded in a pitiful existence, and I do not want to accelerate the train because it can go off the rails and kill millions. I want it to move at a nice and easy pace, and we make adjustments along the way.
What I'm trying to reconcile at the moment, is that how is it that the reactionary and revolutionary can find so much common ground together? They seem to really hate reformists. You see that right here on pofo (I get hate from the far leftist and the far rightists). I understand that it could just be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but is it more than just that? I think yes, but I'm not sure how/what/why. I need to study annatar's posts, and try and connect that to our communist friends on pofo.
I think a tension I see in some reforms is that they end up truly utopian in that they see certain problems as not essential to a capitalist mode of production and in their goal to merely tweak capitalism they in fact in reality desire not-capitalist production. That what appears to be a moderate reform is actually quite radical.
And part of what is missed is the sudden qualitative change or explosion that is often described in dialectics. Evolution as a gradual process holds only up to a point and then suddenly there is something quite new, not the same.
https://www.lacan.com/zizliberal2no less utopian is the liberal-pragmatic idea that one can solve problems gradually, one by one. John Caputo recently wrote:
I would be perfectly happy if the far left politicians in the United States were able to reform the system by providing universal health care, effectively redistributing wealth more equitably with a revised IRS code, effectively restricting campaign financing, enfranchising all voters, treating migrant workers humanely, and effecting a multilateral foreign policy that would integrate American power within the international community, etc., i.e., intervene upon capitalism by means of serious and far-reaching reforms. /.../ If after doing all that Badiou and Zizek complained that some Monster called Capital still stalks us, I would be inclined to greet that Monster with a yawn. 1
The problem here is not Caputo's conclusion: if one can achieve all that within capitalism, why not remain there. The problem is the underlying "utopian" premise that it is possible to achieve all that within the coordinates of the present global capitalism. What if the particular malfunctionings of capitalism enumerated by Caputo are not only accidental disturbances but structurally necessary? What if Caputo's dream is a dream of universality (the universal capitalist order) without its symptoms, without its critical points in which its "repressed truth" articulates itself?
Basically, there is reason to be suspicious of the liberal pragmatism that such 'minor' changes can occur all within Capitalism. Of course one then might look to social democracy but how does even that capitalism with a human face occur? It requires as much struggle from people as one who desires a revolution.
To which there is no importing a revolution, there is only taking opportunity which presents itself, one doesn't strictly create the revolution.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/humanism-science.htmLenin wrote that Communists are opposed to violence against people in general and they resort to coercion only when it is imposed upon them by authentic admirers of violence. The only justification for violence is as a means of opposing violence, as violence against the violent, but not as a means of influencing the will of the majority of the working people. Therefore Communists are never the initiators of actions such as war or the “export of revolution” at the point of the bayonet. Lenin always categorically and consistently opposed “left” ideas of this type.
Basically, those who fetishize a revolution can sometimes people who simply fetishize the destruction that can come about from open conflict.
To which I also agree that the ideal end is rarely, if ever, identical to the realized end. But such an ideal end is necessary to motivate change. Which is why I think hope of a better future is a prerequisite to radical change rather than simply shitty conditions because one can keep people cynical and hopeless amidst misery and have little threat.
And indeed, those like ourselves who live moderately well enough in present state of affairs can be driven by an essentially moderate stance of, I agree with your goals but not with your means so please don't rock the boat because I'm quite comfortable with how it is. But of course for those who aren't benefitting so well, they likely to hold the same view about the legitimacy of the status quo.
I think of the difference between Gandhi and Ambedkar, where Gandhi essentially defended the caste system and wanted to reform it so that the upper castes would be more benevolent to the 'untocuhables'. Where Ambedkar, a member of the ' untouchable' caste essentially opposed the caste system and in fact in his frustration with Gandhi and Hinduism, converted to Buddhism and many of his followers did so with him. Seeing Hinduism as unable to be Hinduism without the caste system and thus essentially invested in his peoples oppression. Here we again see the issue of how essential is something that it can be reformed or must be eradicated for certain change.
And if a communist doesn't worry about the violence and loss of life, I think they are someone who is quite careless about what a revolution actually entails. It is necessarily brutal, but I imagine many would argue such brutality already exists for many.
That whilst many are invested in a status quo essentially that the talk of reform is support up to a certain limit but an essential defense of the status quo, others who perhaps endure the brunt of the problems of the current system are likely to be quite motivated for change in a way that is more essential. They don't want small concessions they want change.
ANd revolutions do emerge as a last resort rather than a first response, the sort of energy that must be built up tends to come from the rigidity of the ruling class in not giving concessions and reforms, not being flexible and often dealing poorly with such demands upon them. So it escalates more and more into further conflicts. I doubt anyone easily steps into a revolutions but is driven to it when the conflict clearly goes that course.
And how reactionaries and revolutionaries find some common ground is their antipathy towards the status quo ie neo/liberalism. They sense similar problems, its their solutions that are in opposition to one another.
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117166For myself, I don't see myself as a revolutionary or someone who in their actions is even a reformist, but I do see that revolutions are indeed rational outcomes and many are indeed tragic. But I don't necessarily see that as a reason to oppose them entirely as I am not a pacifist and violence as a means can become necessary. Peace time is only when one has already one and clearly dominates the other ie hegemonic stability. When another groups power rises, they become a threat. In global politics that could be seen as between nations as with the rise of China, it intimidates many. Even colonists initially befriend and work with native peoples before they develop enough power to fuck em over.So if workers build up their power and have clear interests, they end up in conflict and it can escalate and that is both a good and a bad thing. Just as unpleasant as violence, instability and the sort can be, such crises is an opportunity and many good things have also come from revolutions. I always point to people would they deny the American revolution its greatness?
And leaders of such pursuits do not of course rest on simple probability but are motivated by the ends to which they work for but cant guarantee, many dying almost frivolously at times for such ideals. A leader charts the course and leads the way although they do not yet know what it will entail. There is no guarantee of anything but if one wants something, you necessarily take risks.
So, I'm not sure there's much control in whether a revolution happens or how long until reforms exhaust themselves as they ask too much. Some conflicts don't settle as easy for some reason, but the pursuit of worthy ends entails risk and struggle. And those who dare are to be commended for taking such chances, especially when it has been in resistance to those who sell out the people entirely.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
No offense. 
- By Godstud
- By Rugoz
- By Fasces
- By JohnRawls