|
Reform Versus Revolution
|
By Punkerslut
[Hits: 23461]
|
|
Reform Versus Revolution
By Punkerslut
It has always seemed that there's been a conflict betweenreformers and revolutionaries. The former relatively beingdescribed as those who want to patch up and repair the parts ofthe current system that cause so much misery. The latterrelatively being described as those who want to completelyoverturn the social system in favor of a different system, onemuch more applicable to the wants and desires of human society.The chief aim of both has been thus: to change the current orderof society insomuch that the lives of people (and animals,perhaps) are considerably improved. Both the reformer and therevolutionary are motivated by the same cause; they are plantsto the same fertilizer. Their aim is to improve the lot ofmankind -- to change those faults which have become inherentparts of life.
One of the most common assaults made against the reformer bythe revolutionary is this: by reforming the system, by makingsmall changes, my patching up small parts of the system, we aredoing nothing but making the system more livable, making thepeople more tolerant of the status quo. For example, during theFrench Revolution, the efforts of all reformers (if there wereany) were completely ineffective. Nothing was patched up.Nothing was changed. The commonplace misery of the greater 95%of the population, caused by the social relationships, wasenough to motivate the mass of people to revolt and overthrowtheir government. It was their misery, their pain, the sufferingthey had endured, that made them in to revolutionaries.Reformers, the revolutionary intellectual argues, prevent thatmisery from existing, and thus, they prevent revolutionarytendencies from taking place. For example, reformers in theUnited States have created a Minimum Wage law, have sustainedfair working conditions in manufacturing plants, have createdunemployment payments, have erected numerous public worksprograms -- all things that have alleviated the miseries of theworking class in the United States. If none of these things hadbeen put in to place, if none of these reforms were givenacceptance by the government, then the working class would bepretty pissed off -- they would become revolutionaries from the16 to 20 hour working days, the repression of the will of theworkers, the massive amounts of poverty and unemployment, etc.,etc.. If the conditions in the United States were worsened, thenworking proletariat would be so moved as to revolt against theclass system, and they would create a genuinely LibertarianCommunist social order.
At least, that is the argument presented by those peoplewearing the title "Revolutionary." I think an example or two issufficient to prove them wrong. Consider again, the FrenchRevolution. The misery and poverty of the working classinstigated them to overthrowing the ruling class. However, whatwas the result? Did they erect this genuniely Libertarian,Anarcho-Communist-Syndicalist social order? Did they create asociety free of censorship, free of repression, free of sexism,free of racism, free of exploitive social relationships? No,they did not. What was enacted was the Jacobin philosophy, thatof a Federated Republican government. That is to say, what theycreated upon the eve of revolution, was a system of governmentthat the reformers had been aiming to create. If we took awaythe hard-earned rights that labor has earned in the UnitedStates (minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.), if we took all ofthose away, and a revolution were to take place because fo that,I think it's pretty obvious what kind of government therevolutionaries would set up. They would create a governmentthat wasn't much different than the previous one, the primarydifferences being a fair minimum wage law, overtime pay,non-hazardous work conditions, etc., etc..
I think the essential message here is that revolution alonedoes convince people of the arguments of Anarchism, Socialism,Communism, etc., etc.. That is to say, the arguments of thosewho want to radically reorganize society so that human miseryand want nearly disappear completely. That does not mean thatrevolution itself is a completely useless tool, without anyrelation to the class struggles that take place everyday inmodern society. In fact, what use is revolutionary activity?Does it have any valuable, useful aspects to it? I suppose I amof the opinion, "No Peace Without Justice." I cannot seejustice, in a people laying down, to make it easier for theiroppressors to steal their labor and destroy their culture. Notonly is such an idea devoid of justice, but it is equally devoidof sense and common reasoning. Let's take some examples... TheFrench Resistance to the Nazi invasion of France; did theseunderground revolutionaries ("terrorists") help to better servetheir purpose? Were they wrong for secretly building bombs to beused in destroying fortifications of the Third Reich? I don'tthink of any person would disagree to this argument, exceptingmaybe Gandhi.
Consider a more modern argument. Consider American and Europeanrevolutionaries today, "urban guerillas," etc., etc.. It was anAnarchist who shot President McKinley on his inauguration day,because of McKinley's invasion Cuba and other islands in thearea. It was the Anarchist Alexander Berkman who assasinatedFrick, a Capitalist whose idea of "humaneness" was working indangerous conditions for low and unfair pay. But then again, theway governments and corporations respond to such industrialsabotage and warfare, is usually with a repression of civilliberties. It does not make the enemy more sympathetic to thecause of these radicals. At least, not necessarily. There is agood chance that the activities of bombing McDonald's andburning down Starbucks will catch the public eye, and make it asocial issue. The tactic of bambing Starbucks, for example,might only have a monetary damage on a corporation that usesforeign slave labor for coffee beans, maybe $20,000 or $30,000.>From the stand point of the urban guerilla, that is the point ofthe activity. But, this bombing puts corporate practices ofStarbucks in to the spotlight of society. People will be forcedto look at it and deal with it as an issue. A single bombingmight very well have a greater spread of ideas and beliefs thana ten thousand printed and distributed pamphlets. Essentially,these urban guerillas would be satisfying the philosophy ofMartin Luther King: by making an issue of the matter, peoplemust recognize it and deal with it. King accomplished his goalby marching in the streets, being ripped to shreds by attackdogs of the police, beating beaten by cops in riot gear.
So, the first purpose of urban guerillas is economic damage.For preventing the corporate entity from gaining profits, thatmeans the entire social structure breaks down. That means thatno money will be funnelled to Vietnamese sweatshops so thatchildren work 12 hours a day. That means no bribes are going tobe made to the shifty governments of third world countrties. Inan international Capitalist society where money is power, byinflicting economic damage on these creatures of doomsday, weare eliminating their power, their strength. That is to say, weare hindering their ability to exploit the citizens and workersof all countries. And, beyond that, to act as a current andstanding threat to the corporations, to stand as the defender ofinternationally understood rights of the people. Corporateentities will be much more hesitant to engage in activities thatbring with them a constant barrage of bombings, propertydefacement, etc., etc..
The second purpose, and perhaps the often unintended purpose,of revolutionary activity is to bring the issue to thespotlight, to make society look at these guerillas andunderstand their reasons. Sure, the great deal of conservative,right-wingers will argue that these men are deviants of thesocial order, an unintended consequence, probably spawned bymental illness and the inability to adaptate to society's wants.The same was said of Martin Luther King, of the Communists andthe Socialists and the Anarchists, of all people who wanted toimprove society and make the lives of all much easier. In fact,sometimes this second purpose is the primary purpose. There aremany Animal Liberation Front/A.L.F. cells (known as "terroristorganizations" to the government) which break in to testinglaboratories with video cameras. Many of them obtain video tapesfrom the testing facility. These tapes are then mailed to themajor news media outlets, and they are often played on nationaltelevision; the public then is made aware of the cruelty that isinherent in animal testing and experimentation. Lewis Heine, thephotographer of the early 1900's, was capable of sneaking in tomany factories and manufacturing plants, disguised as anofficial of the census bureau; upon gaining access, he wouldphotograph the children laboring in machines, many of themphysically deformed by the environment that they were workingin. It was these photos that greatly aided the elimination ofchild labor from the United States and all European countries.(I'm quite curious as to why the government hasn't ever labelledthis man as a terrorist, despite the fact that his tactics arenearly identical to those of the A.L.F..) It was through the useof these tactics that the goals of these revolutionaries wereaccomplished, by forcing the public to acknowledge the issue.
So, then, in conclusion, what is the greatest way to advancethe political ideology that you hold dear? What way is mosteffective in advancing Animal Liberation, in destroying theCorporate State, in establishing an Anarcho-SyndicalistFederation? Is it reform, that is to say, the peaceful andlawful changing of opinions, through pamphleteering,distribution of propaganda, etc., etc.? Or, is it revolution,that is to say, breaking the law as a means and method toaccomplishing your goal? In the past, both tactics have managedto gain ground, to accomplish their goals. Harriet Tubman,Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, John Brown, every personwho served in the revolutionary forces to accomplish and sustainthe civil rights of all people -- the term terrorist that isapplied to A.L.F. and Anarcho-Syndicalist cells equally appliesto these people. In some of the cases, their tactics weresuccesful in making the enemy weaker, so that the deathblowwould be much more succinct and easy. The reformers, of which wecan count Henry Stephens Salt, Percy Bysshe Shelley, RobertGreen Ingersoll, among so many countless other names, weresuccessful in some efforts and unsuccessful in others. To whichroad should we take? It is clear that I have taken the road ofthe reformer, to convince the minds of men and women ofalternative theories of social order, that a collective effortcan be willed into existence, to change our living conditions.Whether a person decides to take the road I have, or the road ofthe revolutionary, I do not think anything should be heldagainst a person for their decision, unless it is clear thattheir actions simply inhibit the achieving of our goals.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut
|
|
|
|
