Question on reform group

[pjoshh]

Hi all,

No offense meant here, but why do the propositions I've read here seem so...light weight? We've entered the beginning of a period in which the entire world has taken to the streets. This movement has the potential to soon grow to the be the most powerful force from below the world has seen in roughly 100 years. Despite that, the proposals here call for mild election reform, basic protections against corruption, campaign finance reform, etc. It seems like we're begging for scraps at a time when we should finally be demanding a feast. The sad part is, even if the 1% were to concede to these basic demands, not much would change. We'd still live within the economic system that creates this disgusting class disparity across the globe, still rely on borderline slave labor from the "third world" for our goods, still be exploited at the workplace.

I say, be realistic, demand the impossible. Capitalism isn't working, another world is possible.

[Albanius]

This WG has defined itself to address political/electoral reform.
There will be other working groups to address broader issues of politics, economics and social change.
I am working on helping organize such WGs, will have a proposal up soon.

IMO political democracy has always a work in progress, a long series of struggles, which has been increasingly corrupted
by concentrated wealth in recent decades, in tandem with increasing inequality.

The problem of political democracy will remain vitally important, whether or not we replace the present form
of corporate capitalism with another system.

Note Nov 7: this group has broadened its scope to political strategy, but IMO there is still a need for another WG to discuss issues, policies, structures relating to economic justice.

[shage]

Josh, while I share some of your concerns, I have also felt its important to abstain from criticizing this group. They have a right in this movement to form working groups based on their interests and what they feel is productive. If they do achieve some of these reforms, they may even do some good, even if it does not realize our idea of a transformed world. If they put forward something as a proposal in GA that you really feel would deeply set the movement back, you can always raise an objection at that point. I don't see what harm it does to have people working in this direction even if I would like to see us aim for more. There's nothing inconsistent between achieving some reforms and also continuing to push for deeper changes.

I think Albanius is on the right tack. The best solution is simply to organize another working group (the requirements are very loose) based on what interests you and to make it as inspiring as possible, rather than criticize a working group that doesn't reflect our personal preferences as well. I am interested in the kind of perspective you are working on and I am sure many involved in the 'reform' group may be interested in participating as well.

In short, there is no reason that reform and revolution have to be mutually exclusive. We can have groups working on both tracks at the same time. Achieving reforms needn't mean giving up on revolution, and could potentially create an atmosphere more favorable for revolutionary change.

On the other hand, it could sometimes also siphon off energies. But the fact is, if that is where people are comfortable directing their energies, we must allow that. People are of different minds and its better to encourage their best contributions based on their interests and the steps they are willing to take. I think we take the high road if we inspire others to take more empowered, bold directions rather than criticize what we may see as moderate steps some have taken thus far.

[pjoshh]

Thanks for the replies. It wasn't my intention to set up some kind of false dichotomy between reform and "revolution"(such a premature word!)
They are not separate, mutually exclusive orientations, but part and parcel of each other. They're necessarily related to each other. I'm not a reformist, but I believe in reform.

I just believe that we should be fighting for every winnable reform, and that at this point, more is potentially winnable.

[Albanius]

Public financing of campaigns is not a lightweight, moderate demand, though it has majority support.
The tilting of the political field by concentrated wealth through big contributions is a CENTRAL means the top 1% have used to get government to do their bidding, and to undermine efforts by the 99% to use political democracy toward economic democracy.

[shage]

amen to that, it would be a big deal to end corporate sponsorship of campaigns.

I think the concern some have with reform is that people will accept some small reform and then leave the movement. There is so much to be done that it needs to keep going and going. And if we had the opportunity to just rebuild our system from the ground up, such as after other revolutions occurred, that would be spectacular...we shall see, no telling what might happen.

[Albanius]

I think the concern some have with reform is that people will accept some small reform and then leave the movement.

IMO the opposite is more likely: a victory against the leveraged buyout of the political system, so that candidates would no longer need to go to members of the top 1% to finance their campaigns, would inspire people with hope. It could build the movement on many other issues of economic justice, and open the possibility of deeper structural change.