liberation: Trotter on the left's wish for “heightened contradictions”. continues a left discussion started by a Trotter column. Trotter refers to a post by Bryce Edwards with the following para. I read it and found myself wondering when these revolutionary socialists are going to understand the world has moved on.
Social Reform or Revolution remains today the classic statement of the revolutionary case against reformism. And to her, reform and revolution were inextricably linked. Luxemburg supported the struggle for social reforms as well as social revolution, considering the former above all a school for the latter, whose greater historical import she made clear in analysing the mutual relations of the two. She says that ‘By struggling for economic, social and democratic reforms on a daily basis, workers become more confident, better organized and aware of the need to fight for a fundamental transformation in the way society is structured’.
In comments someone shared by bemusement
what's so wrong with examining past thinkers? Should we jettison all previous influences on our politics? I agree that we need to be on guard against the old shibboleths and constantly question sacred cows etc, but I think there's still a strong place for the theories of many earlier thinkers.
Bryce - I shared Francescas bemusement at the ongoing obsession with historical thinkers. Their lessons are not totally lost. But discussing revolution or reform in a modern context? The world had changed. A black man has been democratically elected president of the most powerful country in the world. And you still discuss revolution as if it has legitimacy. If you cannot convince peacefully by the power of your ideas in this communication era then you have no right to assert the validity of your ideas, let alone your right to rule through revolution.