frank scott wrote:
>
> "Take the proposal to change the basis of representation in the Senate.
> If we were powerful enough to do that there would be no need to do that.
>
> I think this also applies to various proposals to control campaign
> financing."
>
> but then it follows ( sagely scratching philosophic beard) that if we
> were powerful enough to create a social revolution, we wouldn't need
> one...huh?
Under which conditions we should, of course, create the social
revolution -- or, rather, such conditions would indicate that a social
revolution was already in progress. But we won't _get_ to that point if
we play parlor games -- i.e. if we chase reforms in our head which
cannot be translated into building popular power but rather presuppose
the existence of that power.
>
> aren't a great number of reforms necessary in making social change of a
> serious nature? the above sounds a little self defeating...say it aint
> so, or clarify, please?
>
Yes, of course. That was the premise upon which my post was written. But there will be no reforms (i.e., no mass movement struggling for reforms) if energy is frittered away on meaningless ones. Incidentally, _all_ my posts on this list concern _not_ a revolution but rather the strategy and tactics by which we can build a mass movement for needed reforms. Hence the cretinism of those occasional posts which respond to one of mine by suggesting Cox believes nothing can be done until the revolution. Revolutions _never_ occur through direct revolutionary action (to begin with) but, if they come at all) emerge from mass struggles for reform.
Tentatively, I would also suggest (based both on historical knowledge and on personal experience) that it is not possible for left intellectuals to excogitate the reform struggles needed. That always turns out to be game-playing. (I have engaged in it myself.) We try to build them, nevertheless, even if we are skeptical or our success, because out of those efforts come the surpises. The efforts of the CPUSA in anti-racist struggles over several decades bore little immediate fruit. But without them the Civil Rights struggle would probably not have occurred (or have achieved the success it did achieve).
One keeps probing and working, but one avoids dreaming up ideal scenarios.
And as I have said before, this does not differ greatly from Gramsci's pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. In fact, it is a mere summary of the left struggles over the last two hundred years that have had any success.
Carrol
> fs
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk