Comments on: Whither the Occupy Movement: Models and Proposals. http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1011 Changing Our Thinking, Changing Opinion, Changing the World Mon, 05 Dec 2022 21:47:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John Case http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1011#comment-319 John Case Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:11:41 +0000 http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1011#comment-319 The models seem arbitrary to me. Revolutions are often made simply to implement reforms that a outmoded set of class and institutional relationships make impossible. replacing " an outmoded set of class and institutional relationships" seems to me the key distinction in the term 'revolution' . The American revolution abolished the remnants of feudal relations; the Civil War abolished the classes of slaveowner and slave --- that makes it a revolution, even though it occurred within a constitutional framework -- a state was not completely dismantled. The Square Deal (Roosevelt I) and the New Deal (Roosevelt II) were "reform" movements --- even though the labor and suffrage advances were arguably not much less epochal than the abolition of slavery -- existing classes and power relations were realigned --- but no class was abolished. the Sixties Civil Rights and anti-War movements were reformist -- but the establishment of the voting rights act, medicare and medicaid, and the rebuke to imperialism also mandated important class realignments, if not the abolition of any. The total revolution positions -- in the absence of a true and genuine revolutionary crisis (e.g. state institutions completely fail -- as in revolutionary Russia in WWI, or China after WWII) are just hot air don't deserve serious consideration, IMHO. However assessing how the reforms needed today JUST TO GET OUT OF THIS DEPRESSION may mandate the actual disappearance of some classes, or at the minimum their removal from positions of political power --- is very important. Breaking up JP MOrgan and Citibank and Goldman - Sachs and Bank of America, and Monsanto and the big Energy companies, for example, is revolutionary -- it puts a key section of monopoly capital out of political power, and perhaps out of existence as private-dominated wealth. The capture of democratic institutions, especially Congress and the Supreme Court, by these forces may literally doom th edemocratic potential and responsiveness of those institutions. Dialectics is an over used term and perhaps become meaningless in the wake of decades of pseudo Marxist and Leninist blather. But the analytical advantages of framing the question of reform and revolution in CONCRETE institutional and economic contradictions -- may be helpful in assessing whether class relationships must be realigned, or replaced, in order to move forward. Laibman's labor power "valorization" argument is way too abstract. Plus, I don't think there is any evidence to support it. Likewise, looking for stability in "post-capitalist" society -- there is not much evidence to support any "inherent" improvement there -- the forces of revolutionizing relations of production and reproduction will continue to ACCELERATE as long as technology and knowledge advance. the new will challenge the old ever more persistently. There will be no "job security" in the traditional sense. You will have to change entire careers several if not many times in a life of work. Adaptations to environmental, technological, and knowledge domains will be highly stressful and hardly free of risk whether or not giant corporations leave the scene. Competition in these advances will become more, not less, intense. As will the forms of cooperation. The big question for a more civilized society is: can we manage this competition without killing the losers (the historical precedent)? Now -- that would be "revolutionary" in the deepest sense. John The models seem arbitrary to me. Revolutions are often made simply to implement reforms that a outmoded set of class and institutional relationships make impossible. replacing ” an outmoded set of class and institutional relationships” seems to me the key distinction in the term ‘revolution’ . The American revolution abolished the remnants of feudal relations; the Civil War abolished the classes of slaveowner and slave — that makes it a revolution, even though it occurred within a constitutional framework — a state was not completely dismantled. The Square Deal (Roosevelt I) and the New Deal (Roosevelt II) were “reform” movements — even though the labor and suffrage advances were arguably not much less epochal than the abolition of slavery — existing classes and power relations were realigned — but no class was abolished. the Sixties Civil Rights and anti-War movements were reformist — but the establishment of the voting rights act, medicare and medicaid, and the rebuke to imperialism also mandated important class realignments, if not the abolition of any.

The total revolution positions — in the absence of a true and genuine revolutionary crisis (e.g. state institutions completely fail — as in revolutionary Russia in WWI, or China after WWII) are just hot air don’t deserve serious consideration, IMHO.

However assessing how the reforms needed today JUST TO GET OUT OF THIS DEPRESSION may mandate the actual disappearance of some classes, or at the minimum their removal from positions of political power — is very important. Breaking up JP MOrgan and Citibank and Goldman – Sachs and Bank of America, and Monsanto and the big Energy companies, for example, is revolutionary — it puts a key section of monopoly capital out of political power, and perhaps out of existence as private-dominated wealth. The capture of democratic institutions, especially Congress and the Supreme Court, by these forces may literally doom th edemocratic potential and responsiveness of those institutions.

Dialectics is an over used term and perhaps become meaningless in the wake of decades of pseudo Marxist and Leninist blather. But the analytical advantages of framing the question of reform and revolution in CONCRETE institutional and economic contradictions — may be helpful in assessing whether class relationships must be realigned, or replaced, in order to move forward.

Laibman’s labor power “valorization” argument is way too abstract. Plus, I don’t think there is any evidence to support it. Likewise, looking for stability in “post-capitalist” society — there is not much evidence to support any “inherent” improvement there — the forces of revolutionizing relations of production and reproduction will continue to ACCELERATE as long as technology and knowledge advance. the new will challenge the old ever more persistently. There will be no “job security” in the traditional sense. You will have to change entire careers several if not many times in a life of work. Adaptations to environmental, technological, and knowledge domains will be highly stressful and hardly free of risk whether or not giant corporations leave the scene. Competition in these advances will become more, not less, intense. As will the forms of cooperation. The big question for a more civilized society is: can we manage this competition without killing the losers (the historical precedent)? Now — that would be “revolutionary” in the deepest sense.

John

]]>