I really do not deny the role of reform. But there are reforms that better the condition of the working class in Australia and elsewhere, and there are reforms that better things in Australia only, so that when Americans bomb somebody poor, the Australian working class is all happy to jump on board. It is the latter reform that has been in the making and I am sure that it is difficult to show otherwise. How to bridge reform and revolution and transcend the national question is a sixty dollar question, well at least sixty.
My example of environmental degradation, disease and the working class was to show that the sort of ideology that locked western progressives into 20 century reform provided the inverted binoculars that let a human-being alienate himself from the very necessities of his material cum social existence. Therefore I went back to basics in a possibly reflex like and uncontemplated manner, and appeared anti reforms. But I am not really. And the basics are for the working class (I am sure the working class knows better for itself) not to be locked in the scholastic sophistry of the bourgeoisie because it leaves its binoculars and it adopts that of the bourgeoisie, an ideological shift if you like. But thanks for the comment. --- Greg Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a number of important questions you have > touched on Ali, but I believe that there may be some > superficial misunderstandings. > > I purposefully use the term reform, meaning an > immediate and realisable objective, much in the > sense that it was used in the Communist Manifesto. > However, the term has taken on so many other > meanings, perhaps not so much meanings but > associations. We could find another word but such as > "practical" but it is more abstract and less > definite. I have stated this because of a couple of > sentances you use, this is not a criticism but an > attempt at clarification: > > 1) " talk of reform when the stakes are high > represent a sort casuistry of bourgeois thought. the > raw unreformed uncompromising position are where the > working class can reveal the objective process of > exploitation at its best. " > > 2) "instead of reform i think i would call it the > workers should grab what they can without > compromising an iota, leave room for struggle > always." > > In both cases "reform" is identified with compromise > and lack of principle. There is of course a grain of > truth in this, all reforms, even revolutionary ones, > are by necessity a compromise with the historical > forces present - we cannot have the world as we wish > but must take it as we find it and move it in a > dersired direction - we do not have the freedom ever > to simply fulfil our desires without constraint. > Reformism, did more than put up reforms, it > compromised the class in how this reforms would be > made, it placed itself as a leadership in > substitution for growing class power, in other words > its coin was to sell actual struggle as way of > discounting future potential struggle. > > Because of the history of reformism the association > is strong between posing reforms but actually > selling-out, but it is an association not a > necessary condition. > > Long before reformism became a force in history (a > distinguishing force in the last century and part > and parcel with Imperialism) there were leaders who > sold out, leaders who were ambitious and opportunist > - this will also be the case in the future. But > reformism is different, it was not just wrong > leadership, it was a system, a class partnership > established on the basis of imperialism. Worker's > may well of benefited, did benefit, but not all and > at substantial cost - it remained even in its heyday > a sell-out (let us not forget that when classic > social-democracy was strong on the ground, so was > its opposite - pure uncompromised proletarian > struggle (one could argue about the calibre of the > leadership, the betrayal in "Stalinism, but no-one > can denigh the real struggle despite this > disadvantage)). > > Now the thing which strikes me as new territory > today is that social-democracy is reformist in name > only (I don't know much about France and Germany, > but the UK and Australia are no-longer in anyway > reformist), they are merely a liberal conservative > party which sometimes suffers a left-wing. In fact, > while I have always thought of US conditions to be > politically underdeveloped but now on the situations > where classic reformism once was powerful, seem to > mark no more than the difference between US > Democrats and Conservatives (at least this appears > to be the tendency). > > As you said the stakes are high, there is little to > doubt that we stand in the middle of a major > historical shift in the history of capitalism, I > believe this observation to beyond reasonable > argument. Unless we learn to act in the role of > communist to the working class, then the working > class is condemned and the whole of society along > with it. Despite the fact that your sentance two > (above) speaks against "reform" I actually think it > speaks directly for it, for what is working class > reform other than the "workers grabbing what they > can without compromise" leaving "room for struggle > always". > > Ali I do not intend a cheap shot by turning your > sentance around like this, for all it marks is I use > "reform" one way and you another and that is not > really a very important question. The thing I mean > is the thing you allude to, I happen to call the > object of such "grabbing" a reform, and I would use > almost the same phrase to place conditions on that > "grab what they can" - take what is practical to > take and having suceeded take what was not practical > before (leaveing room for struggle). > > Communists have a defined role in this, whether it > is called leadership or vanguardism, or simply > articulating the immediate interests of the class as > a demand, it matters not. Until we can clear away > the cobwebs, see the position of the actual class as > it is (ie not as we would have it) and from this > draw a clear understanding of their immediate needs > (not necessarily economic), what represents their > interests as obtainable goals (reforms in my > parlance) then we fail them and history. > > Again Ali I do not see large disagreements here, > rather it again underlines how much needs to be > straightened out before we can talk (ie not you and > I but the left as a whole), let alone act > cohesively. What I would like, if my redefinition of > reform meets with your approval is that we continue > discussing the things you have raised which I would > put as a number of contrary views. > > 1. Do we need to expose and descredit social > democracy when it has done such a good job of this > itself? > 2. Can reformism really assume in present conditions > the role that it use to have? > 3. Are we now looking at the world divided into two > vast camps (to paraphrase Marx) international > bourgeoisie against a yet to be politically formed > international working class? > 4. What exactly has changed? > > Best wishes and comradely salutations > > Greg Schofield > Perth Australia > > > --- Message Received --- > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:55:37 -0800 (PST) > Subject: [PEN-L:19611] Re: Re: Victory to Empire > > I agree I see no disagreement, but the historical > pattern that evolved in the twentieth century gives > room for more pessimism than optimism. particularly > the role of social democracy in the west, living > examples are schroder and blurr not to forget > mitterand. it is true that now with direct > competition > there is more room for unity but the opposite is > also > true. in the present balance of forces, reversion > to > nationalism is more likely. the idea that at rock > bottom they are victims of the same process is true > but that also was always the case. > so now comes the question why. it seems that any > compromise or unprincipled action on the part of the > working class allows it to fall into the trap of > bourgeois ideology. the working class should bring > the > bourgeois to its playing field in an uncompromising > manner. talk of reform when the stakes are high > represent a sort casuistry of bourgeois thought. the > raw unreformed uncompromising position are where the > working class can reveal the objective process of > exploitation at its best. > example: cancer, an environmentally triggered > disaster, and other disasters in the making should > for > questions of bare existence unite all, but it did > not. > workers kill themselves with own pollution > everywhere > yet do not unite. things are perceived in such a way > that it is a matter of survival to pollute because > profits depend on pollution and jobs depend on > profits. social democratic reform was at the root of > this conception. it compromised once and again and > mastered the art of working class differentiation. > it > is probably time to discredit the social democrats > else if the same pattern evolves there will be more > than just cancers killing workers. i maybe wrong > like > any good academic would say, although here i am > pretending to be one, but probably reform (whatever > is > meant by it the word itself is inappropriate) in the > present circles is another fall into the same trap. > instead of reform i think i would call it the > workers > should grab what they can without compromising an > iota, leave room for struggle always. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
