Reformism

Reformism is just as acceptable a revolutionary theory as revolutionism. To claim that only one revolutionary tactic is valid or applicable is foolish and anti-Marxist, for example, While insurrection was the correct course of action is Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, attempting something similar in a country like Germany during the same time period would have not only been a failure, but premature and anarchistic. Since such a revolution in most Western nations today would similarly fail or, in the event that they were to succeed, would cause unacceptable destruction of capital and therefore damage the economy too much. Reformism is the acceptable and Marxist approach to revolution in countries like the United States, or most EU member states.

I believe in reform while waiting for the revolution. We must help the workers as much as we can. once we have the majority then we can smash the capitalist state.

mononokifool wrote:

I believe in reform while waiting for the revolution. We must help the workers as much as we can. once we have the majority then we can smash the capitalist state.

but if you have a majoraty it isn't a free market state, btw why do you say capitalist??

mattabesta wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

I believe in reform while waiting for the revolution. We must help the workers as much as we can. once we have the majority then we can smash the capitalist state.

but if you have a majoraty it isn't a free market state, btw why do you say capitalist??

I lose respect for you the more you show your lack of knowledge about communism but continue to be passionate against it...

the state exists to enforce the bourgeoisie's rule

the state=armed forces of men that exist to deal with class antagonisms in society

Capitalist state exists for the repression of the working class by the capitalist class

Workers state exists for the repression of the capitalists(exploiters of labor) by the workers

I support reformism whole heartably, it gives people a chance accept the system that slowly becomes reality, and also it doesn't require a Blood shed. And If thats not what it' about - sorry I really don't know much of hard theory, seeing getting a Marx book in Poland is as possible as getting a fair hourly wage.

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

I support reformism whole heartably, it gives people a chance accept the system that slowly becomes reality, and also it doesn't require a Blood shed. And If thats not what it' about - sorry I really don't know much of hard theory, seeing getting a Marx book in Poland is as possible as getting a fair hourly wage.

You can start here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm

here

http://spartacist.org/

reformism is all fine and dandy but if you do not link it with the call for socialist revolution it won't mean anything...and it'll be pulled back as soon as the ruling class gets the chance.

Reforms aren't enough, simple as that

Reformites think they can use the Bourgeois-controlled state to give the mop to the workers. Not how it works. The state is a ref;ection on the mode of production. SOcialist state, socialist government = soviet democracy. The bourgeois stae must be smashed and replaced by a workers state that is nothing like the old one.

Honestly Emy

i think they are just made because we stand by our principles very strongly

Strong principles>no principles. "If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything." -Malcom X

Pannekoek wrote:

Strong principles>no principles. "If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything." -Malcom X

yeah thats pissing them off

lol
They want us to stand down when we criticize their reformism

Maybe that's why they have posted in the last 7 posts.

By reformism I mean I want the state to slowly evolve in to Communism not a Borgouise controlled state - don't shove not my word up my throat. Thanks. Bye

And I said I only oppose a Violante Blood bath - as long as the revolution isn't a big Murder-fest I'm all cool with it.

Cyprian Uljanow wrote:

By reformism I mean I want the state to slowly evolve in to Communism not a Borgouise controlled state - don't shove not my word up my throat. Thanks. Bye

And I said I only oppose a Violante Blood bath - as long as the revolution isn't a big Murder-fest I'm all cool with it.

You see, we all realize that a revolution needs to happen. We just dont want the shedding of unnecessary blood, once we have the majority then we can smash the state and only fight the states army.

Im pretty sure we can all agree on that right.

No one wants unnecessary blood-shedding. If there's no resistanc, there's no blood. That won't happen so "there will be blood"

Pannekoek wrote:

No one wants unnecessary blood-shedding. If there's no resistanc, there's no blood. That won't happen so "there will be blood"

yay we agree on something

WE agree that there will be resistance so there will be blood? Sweet you're cooler than I thought.

MarxistFreeman wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

mononokifool wrote:

I believe in reform while waiting for the revolution. We must help the workers as much as we can. once we have the majority then we can smash the capitalist state.

but if you have a majoraty it isn't a free market state, btw why do you say capitalist??

I lose respect for you the more you show your lack of knowledge about communism but continue to be passionate against it...

the state exists to enforce the bourgeoisie's rule

the state=armed forces of men that exist to deal with class antagonisms in society

Capitalist state exists for the repression of the working class by the capitalist class

Workers state exists for the repression of the capitalists(exploiters of labor) by the workers

oh sorry I just didn't notice becuse i was opressing a worker sorry what did you say?

Lmao is that you?

Pannekoek wrote:

Lmao is that you?

LOL ya when I was 6

oligarch wrote:

Reformism is just as acceptable a revolutionary theory as revolutionism. To claim that only one revolutionary tactic is valid or applicable is foolish and anti-Marxist, for example, While insurrection was the correct course of action is Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, attempting something similar in a country like Germany during the same time period would have not only been a failure, but premature and anarchistic. Since such a revolution in most Western nations today would similarly fail or, in the event that they were to succeed, would cause unacceptable destruction of capital and therefore damage the economy too much. Reformism is the acceptable and Marxist approach to revolution in countries like the United States, or most EU member states.

I completely agree. Revolution is fine when the proper conditions exist anyone who thinks revolt in the developed world can succeed at this point in time is foolish. Revolution requires worker unification and sufficent econimic strain leading to class tensions.

the first will come from the vanguard, second from the laws of capitalism first descovered by me before i died and came back alive.

inkus2000 wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Reformism is just as acceptable a revolutionary theory as revolutionism. To claim that only one revolutionary tactic is valid or applicable is foolish and anti-Marxist, for example, While insurrection was the correct course of action is Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, attempting something similar in a country like Germany during the same time period would have not only been a failure, but premature and anarchistic. Since such a revolution in most Western nations today would similarly fail or, in the event that they were to succeed, would cause unacceptable destruction of capital and therefore damage the economy too much. Reformism is the acceptable and Marxist approach to revolution in countries like the United States, or most EU member states.

I completely agree. Revolution is fine when the proper conditions exist anyone who thinks revolt in the developed world can succeed at this point in time is foolish. Revolution requires worker unification and sufficent econimic strain leading to class tensions.

aka very unlikely, right?

no. aka fucken inevitable

Pannekoek wrote:

no. aka fucken inevitable

dose that mean I have to commite sucide?