Reformist or Revolutionary? (from a leftie)

Post Reply New Topic

Which type of action is best?

I've not really sorted out my views on this matter. . . hardly at all. Here are a few related thoughts:


I don't know many people at all who are seriously committed to social/political change. The most enthusiastic makes the following argument;

Most on the American left are against the war in Iraq. However, virtually none of them would take violent action to create this change.

Most Iraqis are against the war in Iraq. Many of them, at greater personal cost and lesser result, take violent action to stop it. Few on the American left would argue that they should not.

Given this, some Americans, in order to be ideologically consistent, should be literally fighting to stop the war--as their sacrifice would have much greater chance of actually making change happen. He feels we need another Weather Underground, another Black Panthers. . . maybe and then some.


Another thought. The most effective non-violent agents for the kind of social change I want that I know of are organizations like
IAF and Acorn, and to some degree writer/activists like Chomsky and Zinn. I really like much of what Nader stands for, and respect him in many ways. . .

but it's hard to argue that he's been very effective.

Thoughts please?

I wouldn't doubt that most Iraqis are against the war, after all it is in their country. Personally, I do not even think about the war. It doesn't affect me as much. I might get confused for a Pakistani or even Arab but other than that nothing really.

I do imagine myself fighting in battle, but I'm sure I'd make a horrible soldier. I'm not much of an activist. Although I don't like the way society is shaping up, I'm comfortable in my home. It's nice, and no one really visits.

Lately, I have had nothing positive to say about politics. It's all the same to me. Politician gets elected. People rejoice. People complain. Some protest. Months and Years go by, New elections.

If I were living in Africa or Asia, even Latin America, I'd probably go out and do something, but here? I'm not bothered.

In America, everyone is affected by the fact that democracy and public discourse are incredibly weak.

Though I can see why those would not concern themselves with it who wish to shut themselves off and consider only immediate personal interests.

I don't think its an either/or question really. Groups like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground (and the many similar around the world in the same period) were part of and grew out of mass movements for social change that involved loads of non-violent activity as well. I think they only make sense in context. Of course there were huge debates and arguments about the right direction to take at the time, but my point is just that these groups weren't totally seperate from the wider movements. The situation of trying to fight for change in a country thats nominally a democracy is very different to being invaded and occupied by a foreign power in a country awash with weapons (well i suppose maybe the U.S could be said to be awash with weapons but anyway . I think a group such as the Weather Underground trying to start now in the US or Europe would be very very isolated and wouldn't be seen as emerging from the kind of mass movement that spawned the 60s-70's groups. Of course things may change but thats another debate...

I'm definitely a reformist, and actually quite dislike the revolutionary viewpoint, at least when it comes to changing the western world. I find it to be all talk, infatuation with a romantic idea of an epic struggle to destroy some bogey-man, which will somehow lead to a wonderful utopia.

I truly, sincerely HATE that idea. It has been used over and over to hurt people, to justify war, terror, and genocide. It bears a multitude of sins, and I want nothing to do with it unless things were to became absolutely intolerable. There is no bogey-man who's maliciously holding paradise away from us. There is only us, and a world that only has so many resources to go around.

You can't force ideas on people, they'll just push back, and you become the very thing that you proclaim to struggle against. If your ideas have merit, then other people will agree with them of their own accord; if they do not, then keep trying, find a new approach, or stop to reconsider if you are really correct. There's usually a good reason why things are the way they are; seek to understand why something is before trying to change it. I know that is fortune cookie advice, but I've often found it to be true, and important for trying to figure out how to actually change stuff.

Using your example of getting out of Iraq, violently fighting in protest of the war will not accomplish anything. If all the troops were to suddenly withdraw, Iraq would likely collapse into civil war, and might actually be invaded by Iran. It would also be stuck with a broken infrastructure - withdrawing will not magically fix the electric grid destroyed by the Shock and Awe bombing, or suddenly create a trained police force that can keep order in areas where criminals have been allowed to run around unchecked for years. Regardless of how unjust and wrong getting in the war was or was not, the US still has a responsibility to try to fix what has been broken.

Obama's timetable for withdrawal is probably the fastest way to get out of Iraq without causing disaster; I actually think his plan is too ambitious personally, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has to revise it if he is elected. But I really think that voting or even spending some time campaigning for him is the fastest way to get out of Iraq. The key thing is to keep up the pressure after he is elected; there are no finish lines when it comes to reform. So many people seem to forget that sometimes

"There is no bogey-man who's maliciously holding paradise away from us. There is only us, and a world that only has so many resources to go around." Very true, but that "us" hides a lot about exactly who controls those limited resources, we're not all just humans with equal power and equal responsibility for the way things are. Sure, there's no bogey man and also no paradise that he's keeping from us, but there certainly is a relatively small number of people with a large measure of responsibility for making many of the terrible things in the world quite as terrible as they are...i don't want to launch into some epic black and white revolutionary struggle for utopia, but i guess i do believe that the world could involve a lot less deliberately caused suffering and death than it does now (or perhaps rather than deliberate its better to say that there's a lot of suffering and death caused by the pursuit of profit with no importance given to its consequences).

Non violent reforms, always. In the name of justice you don't become what you are trying to fight. Violent or military actions are out of questions to me, always and everytime. If it is war we object to, then using violence to stop it would be a bit hypocritical IMO.

I do believe in non violent revolution though, a well-written text can really reach people and make them think, so a pen can be your best weapon if it's in the hands of the right people. Changing the way a society thinks will have a bigger long-term effect than any war can ever have.

Revolutionary action is the last resort. Thing is, the way the government is now taking away all our civil liberties and people are just sitting there as they do it makes me sad. Governments do not just give democratic rights to the people, they take them away if they can. Every time a country has achieved any sort of democracy it is because the people rose up and took it from the government. It is up to us to keep an eye on them. The government should be afraid of the people not the other way around. In the name of the "war on terror" everyone is letting the government take away the rights that our ancestors gave their lives to secure.

The government will never just give these rights back. One day we will be living in a police state and our grandchildren will be cursing us for allowing this to happen. Our ancestors won our human rights through bloodshed and civil war and one day our grandchildren are going to have do do it all again because we were so lazy and stupid and fell for the "terrorist threat" BS and let the government take it all back.

QFT. I have some wishes for how the world could be run that are quite different from the current system, but I would never want too immediate of a change (even if it were somehow peaceful). When change is forced too quickly it acts to destabilize and that counteracts any good that could possibly come of it. Gradualism is the way to go, regardless of which direction you want to move society,

I certainly agree that there is only us.

And I know that getting out of Iraq isn't simple. You may note that I did not state my own position on this.

However: consider that what American Liberals generally identify as militia or gang activity is often legitimate local policing.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_ ... chive.html
Also consider; is civil war worse in the long run than occupation? An occupation managed like this one?

I think the reasons things are the way they are is: the developments that have brought them to this place have served the interests of those in power. Not some bogey man conspiracy, but more the kind of natural ecosystem of power described in Manufacturing Consent.

I believe very strongly in self determination. I think the reason things don't look absolutely intolerable from where you sit probably has to do with some difference between your circumstances and those of most of the world's population.

I also find that, far from having to force my ideas on anyone else, many--even most--people at some fundamental levels agree with me. I find that many, many people want basically the same things as me--but:
a) they have lost hope that real change is possible
and
b) they may disagree on how to effect those changes, and have no space to refine or meaningfully voice their ideas in our rhetorically impoverished public sphere.




I'm not sure there are finish lines when it comes to anything important. However, in this, I'm not even seeing progress. In my lifetime, as far as I can tell, I have witnessed a large net decline in "America being the kind of place I'd want."

That's a nice thought, but changing the way society thinks is only useful if it changes the way society acts.


Also: what's everyone's take on the Weather Underground, that blew things up but was very careful not to kill people?

very interesting take. Thank you.

I'm more familiar with the SLA (very big story here in California) than the Weather Underground, but that sounds a lot like the 1980s version of the Irish Republican Army, which would call the police when they planted a bomb and tell them when and where the bomb would go off. Everybody would flee and the bomb would cause damage but no injuries. Contrast that with jihadism, where the goal is maximum human death and suffering.

I personally think murder is ok in the furtherance of revolution, but not random murder. I would support targeted assassinations of politicians for example, like in the novel Term Limits, but not random terror. Such a campaign would ultimately be far more effective than say random bombings. Bringing in a third party is unpredictable-this is what jihadism and most asymmetric warfare does, the hope being that the people will blame their leaders for the lack of security and overthrow them. It rarely works that way-either an authoritarian state results or the people rally around their leaders. Targeting the actual elites is more difficult but has far greater rewards.

The 1960s was actually one of the least elitist times in American history-there were few rich people, and the great estates had fallen into ruin or become homes for orphans or the disabled or such. Americans have a much greater justification for violent revolution today, where the rich are so numerous that they inhabit a bubble separate from greater society in which they consume conspicuously. Yet this new Gilded Age hasn't brought a renewed interest in revolution.

I personally think that the children of the lower strata of today's wealthy will be the most likely to revolt in the future-once they learn that all the money Mom and Dad made has been squandered on cars and yachts and estates and personal staffs and so on, leaving the kids with crushing debts, they will rightly conclude that they got a raw deal and seek to wipe out the creditors. They'll need an army, and that will be the kids of the poor, as usual.

In one book on today's rich I read, a guy is profiled who makes $1.3 million a month, but who only breaks even after paying the bills, and whose cost of living la vida loca is rising faster than his income. I wonder what his kids will think in 30 years after they realize the money is all gone, flushed down a rathole with little to show for it?

Revolutionary tactics as a last resort. Reformism may be slower, but it's preferable in cases it can be used. I suppose that's my only real divergence from Trotskyism.