Reform Versus Revolution
Reform Versus Revolution
By Punkerslut
It has always seemed that there's been a conflict between
reformers and revolutionaries. The former relatively being
described as those who want to patch up and repair the parts of
the current system that cause so much misery. The latter
relatively being described as those who want to completely
overturn the social system in favor of a different system, one
much more applicable to the wants and desires of human society.
The chief aim of both has been thus: to change the current order
of society insomuch that the lives of people (and animals,
perhaps) are considerably improved. Both the reformer and the
revolutionary are motivated by the same cause; they are plants
to the same fertilizer. Their aim is to improve the lot of
mankind -- to change those faults which have become inherent
parts of life.
One of the most common assaults made against the reformer by
the revolutionary is this: by reforming the system, by making
small changes, my patching up small parts of the system, we are
doing nothing but making the system more livable, making the
people more tolerant of the status quo. For example, during the
French Revolution, the efforts of all reformers (if there were
any) 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, was
enough to motivate the mass of people to revolt and overthrow
their government. It was their misery, their pain, the suffering
they had endured, that made them in to revolutionaries.
Reformers, the revolutionary intellectual argues, prevent that
misery from existing, and thus, they prevent revolutionary
tendencies from taking place. For example, reformers in the
United States have created a Minimum Wage law, have sustained
fair working conditions in manufacturing plants, have created
unemployment payments, have erected numerous public works
programs -- all things that have alleviated the miseries of the
working class in the United States. If none of these things had
been put in to place, if none of these reforms were given
acceptance by the government, then the working class would be
pretty pissed off -- they would become revolutionaries from the
16 to 20 hour working days, the repression of the will of the
workers, the massive amounts of poverty and unemployment, etc.,
etc.. If the conditions in the United States were worsened, then
working proletariat would be so moved as to revolt against the
class system, and they would create a genuinely Libertarian
Communist social order.
At least, that is the argument presented by those people
wearing the title "Revolutionary." I think an example or two is
sufficient to prove them wrong. Consider again, the French
Revolution. The misery and poverty of the working class
instigated them to overthrowing the ruling class. However, what
was the result? Did they erect this genuniely Libertarian,
Anarcho-Communist-Syndicalist social order? Did they create a
society 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, that
of a Federated Republican government. That is to say, what they
created upon the eve of revolution, was a system of government
that the reformers had been aiming to create. If we took away
the hard-earned rights that labor has earned in the United
States (minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.), if we took all of
those away, and a revolution were to take place because fo that,
I think it's pretty obvious what kind of government the
revolutionaries would set up. They would create a government
that wasn't much different than the previous one, the primary
differences being a fair minimum wage law, overtime pay,
non-hazardous work conditions, etc., etc..
I think the essential message here is that revolution alone
does convince people of the arguments of Anarchism, Socialism,
Communism, etc., etc.. That is to say, the arguments of those
who want to radically reorganize society so that human misery
and want nearly disappear completely. That does not mean that
revolution itself is a completely useless tool, without any
relation to the class struggles that take place everyday in
modern society. In fact, what use is revolutionary activity?
Does it have any valuable, useful aspects to it? I suppose I am
of the opinion, "No Peace Without Justice." I cannot see
justice, in a people laying down, to make it easier for their
oppressors to steal their labor and destroy their culture. Not
only is such an idea devoid of justice, but it is equally devoid
of sense and common reasoning. Let's take some examples... The
French Resistance to the Nazi invasion of France; did these
underground revolutionaries ("terrorists") help to better serve
their purpose? Were they wrong for secretly building bombs to be
used in destroying fortifications of the Third Reich? I don't
think of any person would disagree to this argument, excepting
maybe Gandhi.
Consider a more modern argument. Consider American and European
revolutionaries today, "urban guerillas," etc., etc.. It was an
Anarchist who shot President McKinley on his inauguration day,
because of McKinley's invasion Cuba and other islands in the
area. It was the Anarchist Alexander Berkman who assasinated
Frick, a Capitalist whose idea of "humaneness" was working in
dangerous conditions for low and unfair pay. But then again, the
way governments and corporations respond to such industrial
sabotage and warfare, is usually with a repression of civil
liberties. It does not make the enemy more sympathetic to the
cause of these radicals. At least, not necessarily. There is a
good chance that the activities of bombing McDonald's and
burning down Starbucks will catch the public eye, and make it a
social issue. The tactic of bambing Starbucks, for example,
might only have a monetary damage on a corporation that uses
foreign slave labor for coffee beans, maybe $20,000 or $30,000.
>From the stand point of the urban guerilla, that is the point of
the activity. But, this bombing puts corporate practices of
Starbucks in to the spotlight of society. People will be forced
to look at it and deal with it as an issue. A single bombing
might very well have a greater spread of ideas and beliefs than
a ten thousand printed and distributed pamphlets. Essentially,
these urban guerillas would be satisfying the philosophy of
Martin Luther King: by making an issue of the matter, people
must recognize it and deal with it. King accomplished his goal
by marching in the streets, being ripped to shreds by attack
dogs 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, that
means the entire social structure breaks down. That means that
no money will be funnelled to Vietnamese sweatshops so that
children work 12 hours a day. That means no bribes are going to
be made to the shifty governments of third world countrties. In
an international Capitalist society where money is power, by
inflicting economic damage on these creatures of doomsday, we
are eliminating their power, their strength. That is to say, we
are hindering their ability to exploit the citizens and workers
of all countries. And, beyond that, to act as a current and
standing threat to the corporations, to stand as the defender of
internationally understood rights of the people. Corporate
entities will be much more hesitant to engage in activities that
bring with them a constant barrage of bombings, property
defacement, etc., etc..
The second purpose, and perhaps the often unintended purpose,
of revolutionary activity is to bring the issue to the
spotlight, to make society look at these guerillas and
understand their reasons. Sure, the great deal of conservative,
right-wingers will argue that these men are deviants of the
social order, an unintended consequence, probably spawned by
mental illness and the inability to adaptate to society's wants.
The same was said of Martin Luther King, of the Communists and
the Socialists and the Anarchists, of all people who wanted to
improve society and make the lives of all much easier. In fact,
sometimes this second purpose is the primary purpose. There are
many Animal Liberation Front/A.L.F. cells (known as "terrorist
organizations" to the government) which break in to testing
laboratories with video cameras. Many of them obtain video tapes
from the testing facility. These tapes are then mailed to the
major news media outlets, and they are often played on national
television; the public then is made aware of the cruelty that is
inherent in animal testing and experimentation. Lewis Heine, the
photographer of the early 1900's, was capable of sneaking in to
many factories and manufacturing plants, disguised as an
official of the census bureau; upon gaining access, he would
photograph the children laboring in machines, many of them
physically deformed by the environment that they were working
in. It was these photos that greatly aided the elimination of
child labor from the United States and all European countries.
(I'm quite curious as to why the government hasn't ever labelled
this man as a terrorist, despite the fact that his tactics are
nearly identical to those of the A.L.F..) It was through the use
of these tactics that the goals of these revolutionaries were
accomplished, by forcing the public to acknowledge the issue.
So, then, in conclusion, what is the greatest way to advance
the political ideology that you hold dear? What way is most
effective in advancing Animal Liberation, in destroying the
Corporate State, in establishing an Anarcho-Syndicalist
Federation? Is it reform, that is to say, the peaceful and
lawful 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 to
accomplishing your goal? In the past, both tactics have managed
to gain ground, to accomplish their goals. Harriet Tubman,
Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, John Brown, every person
who served in the revolutionary forces to accomplish and sustain
the civil rights of all people -- the term terrorist that is
applied to A.L.F. and Anarcho-Syndicalist cells equally applies
to these people. In some of the cases, their tactics were
succesful in making the enemy weaker, so that the deathblow
would be much more succinct and easy. The reformers, of which we
can count Henry Stephens Salt, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Robert
Green Ingersoll, among so many countless other names, were
successful in some efforts and unsuccessful in others. To which
road should we take? It is clear that I have taken the road of
the reformer, to convince the minds of men and women of
alternative theories of social order, that a collective effort
can be willed into existence, to change our living conditions.
Whether a person decides to take the road I have, or the road of
the revolutionary, I do not think anything should be held
against a person for their decision, unless it is clear that
their actions simply inhibit the achieving of our goals.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut