Doug Henwood:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Several decades ago, Sweezy in discussing some projected reform, argued
that
> if the working class had the power to force _that_ on the capitalists, it
> had the power to overthrow the state. Hence, dreaming of or working for
the
> reform in question was pointlesds. I rather think nationalizing the banks
> falls into that category.
How would firing squads in front of open graves stack up?
We are considering a reform to prevent which the firing squads would be called out. So the achievement of the reform is possible only if the firing squads refuse to fire! That has happened on a number of occasions in the last two centuries.
Often, of course, in fact usually, the firing squads do not refuse, and in that case the reform is not achieved. (Consider the strikes crushed in blood at one time or another.) But if they do refuse, then it is near insanity for the masses involved to accept the reform when they could seize the state. Reforms, after all, are reversible.
It is not clear, for example, what would have happened in Iran (when the generals assured the Shkah the troops would not fire) had the Shah, rather than abdicating, offered huge reforms. Possibly the demonstrations woujld have continued and the result would have been the same. But possibly the tactic would have worked -- and what would have followed that is utterly unpredictable.
The demonstrators in Tianmen (sp?) square gambled that the troops would not fire. They lost. But the gamble was not ridiculous.
Carrol