this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
808 readers
4 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Communist parties do not "await" revolution. When you only wait for revolution, you will keep doing that forever. Communist parties work towards forcing a revolution (to the best of their abilities), by bringing about the conditions under which revolutions are successful, and this means organising, building a public presence, teaching theory, and supporting the actions of the revolutionary element of society, such as unionised labour, student groups, and the proletariat in industry and service economy.
They also protest against the police state and the war machine, engage in antifascist activism, and try mitigating the most immediate environmental and psychological effects of capitalism while they are unfolding.
Won’t doing this make people feel that there is nothing wrong with the system and prevent them from getting fed up enough to engage in revolution? I mean reforms are meant to destroy revolutionary spirit by keeping workers complacent, right?
This is an age-old debate (see Luxembourg's "reform or revolution").
The Marxist-Leninist line holds that protecting or enhancing the material conditions of the proletariat before the revolution can both increase the number of prospective party-members or militants (i.e. you can't organise rallies if you're starving) and gain the confidence of the working class by representing their immediate interests (i.e. protecting workers rights) unlike bourgeois parties.
Smaller more tangible reform fights are also ripe ground for recruitment of militants, as inexperienced comrades can get a lot of first hand experience organising for, for example, solutions for food security (Black Panther Party's free breakfasts).
However those reforms are means to an end, and that end is revolution. So reforms should not be a one-and-done thing (see the UK's NHS) but rather a front in heightening class war and highlighting capital as the enemy and their resistance to reform as evidence. I once saw a comment in another Lemmy instance that said something like "we tried to implement public healthcare, but capital resisted too hard so there's no hope". That is due to social-democrat and reformist monopoly over the discourse about public healthcare, which needs to be challenged by communists.
The term "class war" is not hyperbole. In a war, you should settle only for defeating your opponent, hopefully forcing them to capitulate or maybe even eradicating them. You don't take your single victory in a battlefield and pack your bags to go home, that's the reformist line represented by Jeremy Corbyn and in a more aesthetic sense, Bernie Sanders. But you also don't wait while your enemy marches into your territory hoping that their cruelty will materialise an uprising to defeat your opponent in a single blow, that is the spontaneists line held by every other Trotskyist splinter party or academicist communists.
What is academicist communists?
No.
The opposite will demoralize them.
Accelerationism never works.
There's plenty of destruction going on by the machine of capital. It's not likely to be stopped whole cloth by a revolutionary organization without the power of a state.