Epoch of the Marxist Youth

For aspiring and studying marxist youth to come together and discuss the true way forward
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
SicSemperTryannis
Radical
avatar

Posts : 66
Join date : 2008-07-04
Age : 28
Location : Cape Coral, FL

PostSubject: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:00 pm

While it has taken me a bit of time to fully accept the probability of the proletarian revolution - and to ultimately support the revolution, which I can now finally say that I do - I can't help but think that Reformism should not be taken completely out of the question. And by this, I don't suppose that Capitalism should be simply reshaped from within, nor do I think that it ultimately can be, as corporate interests have historically been very capable of having their friends in congress allow them to do as they see fit without any oversight to ensure that their will be done - admittedly, the system is very much biased towards the favor of big business. But I think that it's absurd to think that the revolution can just simply "happen", and that workers from around the world will be so emboldened by the call to arms that they will all join in, and we will finally be able to depose Capitalism in place of some egalitarian form of economics, be it Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, Syndicalism, Collectivism, or whatever else. A certain extent of reform, I think, is necessary so that our movements can at least attempt to get an equal footing with the corporations and private sectors, and Capitalism must be conditioned in a way that it is easier for the workers to take action - we can do this by giving labor unions more power, spreading the word about our causes to various worker organizations to drum up support, voting for more progressive leaders when they present themselves, striking, not paying taxes, and other such forms of civil disobedience. I don't think that the revolution is unnecessary, of course - I think reform can only take us so far in the fight against Capitalism and Neoliberalism. But I think that these small steps will not only aid the eventual revolution, but will make it easier for it to actually come about.

These are just some random thoughts I've been turning over for some time. Please feel free to criticize - my goal here isn't to necessarily say that reform must come before the revolution, but that it shouldn't be taken out of the equation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://meatspin.com
Rename
Radical
avatar

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-28
Location : United States of America

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:28 pm

Well, considering reformation is somewhat against leftist actions, you need to recheck your equation. Reformation would help against a revolution than it would help, it would give people reason, a just government, free health care, fair wages, and so forth, which would make people not want a change if they already have what they need.

We strike for better wages, not for end of democracy
We do not pay taxes because it is not in the constitution, and that is a symbol of democracy, also.
And im not sure what you mean by civil disobedience, but obviously were not violent, we mainly just attempt to get officials in office to help the majority, not create a bloody revolution.

I understand what your saying by "a certain extent of reformation" but don't classify that as the true eReformation, because we want full over reformation from top to bottom, not just enough to spark a revolution, i think what your looking at would be more "Leftist-Reformation" than eReform or American Reform.

The only thing that would help the revolution would be the un-controlled mass media, but thats not hurting Canada very much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:20 pm

SicSemperTryannis wrote:
While it has taken me a bit of time to fully accept the probability of the proletarian revolution - and to ultimately support the revolution, which I can now finally say that I do -

That brings me joy. But i can't say i'm surprised really; you seemed like the type very soon after you arrived at world republic. And especially after hearing that your parents were involved in union business (I assumed after hearing that that your parents probably didn't do as much as most parents to hinder your revolutionary spirit).

Quote :
I can't help but think that Reformism should not be taken completely out of the question.

But if we contradict our principles, then we look foolish, we lose credibility, and we use an system that is heirarchical (that would be democracy) by nature to create a society in which all are equal. I can understand you're a bit wary of neglecting reform because it can, in some circumstances, be beneficial, but the question of to reform or not to reform goes deeper than just what insignificant gains can be had in this instance. And if we are constantly condoning reforms that only serve to make docile the working class, are we not basically condoning the use of reforms for significant change that, as we know, capitalism cannot by its nature allow?

Quote :
A certain extent of reform, I think, is necessary so that our movements can at least attempt to get an equal footing with the corporations and private sectors,

Could you elaborate please? I'm just a bit confused as to how this would actually happen.

Quote :
we can do this by giving labor unions more power, spreading the word about our causes to various worker organizations to drum up support, voting for more progressive leaders when they present themselves,

Voting on leaders too? Do you really think people could take us seriously? We'd be out there voting within a system that advocates oppression and heirarchy (synonymous), for a leader that will do the oppressing, and all the while we are preaching about accountability, freedom, and equality? Our actions should mirror our principles, if only for the reason of not looking like a joke to the world community.

Quote :
Reformation would help against a revolution than it would help, it would give people reason, a just government, free health care, fair wages, and so forth, which would make people not want a change if they already have what they need.

What in the hell are you talking about? Humanity has been undergoing reforms for ages and shit hasn't changed. I see no just governments, costly health care, and no fair wages; and considering the term "fair" is very subjective, i can only assume your logic is tainted.

Quote :
We strike for better wages, not for end of democracy

And the fact that you strike doesn't tip you off that something is wrong? I mean, strikes are in no way democratic (not inherently at least). And when you strike, you're basically saying, democracy has failed us, time to use more drastic measures.

Quote :
We do not pay taxes because it is not in the constitution, and that is a symbol of democracy, also.

... What? I'm gonna need you to explain your logic here.

Quote :
And im not sure what you mean by civil disobedience,

Civil disobedience is things we do to show the government and society that we will not be controlled.

but obviously were not violent, we mainly just attempt to get officials in office to help the majority, not create a bloody revolution.[/quote]

No, you're not violent; you leave all the dirty, bloody work to the cops and the army. Like you say, you can only really help the majority, so there must be violence in order to deal with the minorities, otherwise they wouldn't allow themselves to bend to your will; they'd fight back. So you can deny that you're violent, but that just means you're too cowardly to get your hands dirty for what you believe in, so you let others do it for you. And as violence is used on us, so shall we use violence to free ourselves. And in case you're wondering, i don't intend to glorify violence. It's an unfortunate part of our pathetic existence, but it is also of material necessity for both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (and will be for as long as these classes exist), so i see the merit of, and the need for, a violent uprising against violent oppressors.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rename
Radical
avatar

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-28
Location : United States of America

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:35 pm

As a reformist obviously im talking about REFORMIST ideals..not just small minor changes labeled as reform. Now tell me..Canada, is their media tainted? No, both sides are shown, they have free health care, and decent standards for wages and living! That's SOME of the reform we want...but we want it in America - eReform

Strikes in no way mean we hate democracy. When we want better wages that immediately says "K democracy sucks"? I think not.. most strikers do love democracy, or are blind and don't know what else to turn too, but we just want a more fair system, like it was in the starting years of democracy.

Obviously you no little of what i stand for..considering your talking of pure breed capitalism imperalism and im talking of reform. You really think that if we get in office were going to go kill minorities? Than you really need to check again...you impose to kill all leading official capitalists so we can have anarchy without interruptions like Spain, we wish to revert government back to a glorious state threw the election system. which is violent?.... Saying were going to be war-pigs using army and cops is also bias considering were against war and authorian police?...?...?

And also how are they violent? They exploit you as you call it, do they come to the streets and kill you? Beat civilians if they disagree? No..besides a few authorian cops who are found, put on trial, than thrown into prison anyway...

:::When has violence sovled anything? Give me a example.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
solpacvoicis
Soviet Administrator


Posts : 365
Join date : 2008-07-03

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:40 pm

Rename wrote:

And also how are they violent? They exploit you as you call it, do they come to the streets and kill you? Beat civilians if they disagree? No..besides a few authorian cops who are found, put on trial, than thrown into prison anyway...

:::When has violence sovled anything? Give me a example.

i'll leave the first parts to AD, but are you serious?

cops get major government protection from the law, they beat people all the time, use excessive violence whenever they can, they like to throw their authority around quite a lot, and they do NOT get punished for it!

and when has violence solved anything? ...do you remember a little thing called the american revolution? think that was a peaceful walk in the park? what about the indian revolution, the numerous french revolutions, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, every violent revolution that has succeeded has "solved" problems ranging from foreign control to the worst cases of exploitation....

when has NONviolence solved anything? AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rename
Radical
avatar

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-28
Location : United States of America

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:47 pm

solpacvoicis wrote:
i'll leave the first parts to AD, but are you serious?

cops get major government protection from the law, they beat people all the time, use excessive violence whenever they can, they like to throw their authority around quite a lot, and they do NOT get punished for it!

and when has violence solved anything? ...do you remember a little thing called the american revolution? think that was a peaceful walk in the park? what about the indian revolution, the numerous french revolutions, the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, every violent revolution that has succeeded has "solved" problems ranging from foreign control to the worst cases of exploitation....

when has NONviolence solved anything? AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!!
Alot of cops have been convicted, but some have not, so i guess i can't fight that very well, but you've seen the excessive force they used and went to prison for near 25 years no paroll for some police on the news all the time practically.

Point taken..violent protests have helped in some occasions, and i agree you are right...but alot of them could have been avoided (Not the ones you mentioned, obviously)
Nonviolent: What about labor unions? Increase minimum wage? Mohandas Gandhi? women's suffrage? Salvadoran people? Harriet Tubman's underground railroad during the civil war and Henry David Thoreau's refusal to pay war taxes? (IWW)? Vietnam War protestors? Environmentalist actions?
And no need to raise your caps lol! , im not that stupid, civil rights movement was violent
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anarchist.Dagger
Soviet Administrator
avatar

Posts : 89
Join date : 2008-07-08
Age : 29
Location : Amerikkka

PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Rename wrote:
As a reformist obviously im talking about REFORMIST ideals..not just small minor changes labeled as reform.

I don't think we necessarily disagree here, we just have different standards for what is significant, and what is minor (or at least that's my informed guess).

Quote :
Now tell me..Canada, is their media tainted? No, both sides are shown, they have free health care, and decent standards for wages and living! That's SOME of the reform we want...but we want it in America - eReform

Hahaha, "both"? I assure friend, there are more than two sides. Now i'm sure the two biggest sides are broadcast, but as you should know by now from my stance on democracy, i don't really give a shit that the majority is represented.

And why should they're lives only meet 'decent' standards? This doesn't allow them freedom, not truly (that's not true for everyone of course). You can't indulge in the arts and sciences (whichever you might fancy) when all your time is dedicated to work and resting... for work. And you can't indulge when you're just barely getting by as it is.

Quote :
Strikes in no way mean we hate democracy. When we want better wages that immediately says "K democracy sucks"?

That's nice, exaggerate my argument without quoting what i actually said; that'll win you points. For those who actually want to know my position, what i said was...

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:
And the fact that you strike doesn't tip you off that something is wrong? I mean, strikes are in no way democratic (not inherently at least). And when you strike, you're basically saying, democracy has failed us, time to use more drastic measures.

...Quite different from calling you a hypocrite that hates democracy; i'm sure you love democracy, but you contradict its principles when you use tactics like striking.

Quote :
I think not.. most strikers do love democracy, or are blind and don't know what else to turn too, but we just want a more fair system, like it was in the starting years of democracy.

So you're willing to contradict the principles you [seem to] stand for in order to stand for them.... See, now i just can't make that sort of intellectual leap. There seems to be very little logic to it is all.

Quote :
Obviously you no little of what i stand for..considering your talking of pure breed capitalism imperalism and im talking of reform.

Reformed capitalism is still capitalism. I don't know how you think that changes anything at all. Things may be more comfortable for some, but it doesn't change the fact that the system still thrives off of slavery (wage-slavery in most cases now).

Quote :
You really think that if we get in office were going to go kill minorities?

...Wow. I really don't remember saying that, and once again, you've failed to quote me as saying this. So i think it's safe to assume that this was fabricated just as with the comment about stiking.

Quote :
Than you really need to check again...you impose to kill all leading official capitalists so we can have anarchy without interruptions like Spain,


Do i now? I had no idea, thank you for taking it upon yourself to clarify my position on such an important matter. Actually, no one has to die. And i wish for that constantly. I understand the capitalists are just as much a product of their environment as anyone else, and, as such, i believe they should have life just like any other thief or criminal. The problem though, is that, most of the time, the greedy capitalists will refuse to give up what they believe is rightfully theirs so that everyone else can be fed, as well as free: So there is a crossroads; We either fight for the good of all, or back down because we fear to harm one man who is actively (willingly or not) harming society.

Quote :
we wish to revert government back to a glorious state threw the election system. which is violent?

Again you misrepresent my statement... this is getting old by the way. I never said reformism is violent (if i did, or you thought i implied it, i apologize).

Quote :
.... Saying were going to be war-pigs using army and cops is also bias considering were against war and authorian police?...?...?

"Authority" is to "Police" as "thievery" is to "capitalist": Necessary. How can the police be anything but authoritarian? They're controlling peoples' lives, and they're not very subtle about it. And all these people did to deserve it was to be born into an environment that made them more likely to commit what society calls crime.

Quote :
And also how are they violent? They exploit you as you call it, do they come to the streets and kill you? Beat civilians if they disagree? No..besides a few authorian cops who are found, put on trial, than thrown into prison anyway...

What are you, dense? How could they arrest you without violence? If the cops came up to you and said, "We'd like you to come with us, but we aren't prepared to get physical", would you go? Or would you say, "fuck off prick!!"? I know my response would be the latter; unfortunately they are prepared to get physical, very physical, as they've made very apparent in the past. And i don't know anyone who would go up against a possible army of men, even if they are armed themselves.

Quote :
:::When has violence sovled anything? Give me a example.

Hitler was defeated with violence. Does that suffice?

I'm not condoning violence for the sake of violence, as you seem to have me pegged. I'm condoning violence in response to initial violence. I'll give another example: If someone comes after you with a knife, and you have a lead pipe, for instance, would you really try to talk it out? If someone came to your door and demanded you work for him for ten percent (i believe that number is still current for the average working classmen)or starve because he's the only one with access to the means by which you subsist, would you not fight back? I fuckin would, and will if given the opportunity. So my stance is this: Violence is the worst blight cast upon humanity, and i resent it completely; but when violence is thrust upon you, as it constantly is in this violent world, what other option do you have than to be violent? Submit? That's hardly the better choice. So, as such, and until things change drastically, i, and my comrades of the socialist persuasion, will continue to fight in order to liberate ourselves.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?   

Back to top Go down
 
Reform and Revolution - Necessarily Non-Coexistant?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» 14 THESIS OF THE GERMAN REVOLUTION
» Brazilian Revolution 2014
» Spanish Revolution Documentary
» Revolution Vs. Reaction
» Ninja Revolution: Dawn of Shinobi

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Epoch of the Marxist Youth :: Critical Marxist Thinking :: Party Discussion-
Jump to: