RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 329 Reform and/or Revolution: False Binary or What?
Episode 329 of RevolutionZ tackles the issue of reform versus revolution in context of the growing resistance to Trumpism and fascism in America. The episode recounts hopeful signs of resistance building across campuses, unions, and communities. But with this surge may come a familiar challenge: will those seeking immediate reforms and those advocating for revolutionary change work together or in opposition?
The episode distinguishes between reforms (specific policy changes) and revolution (transforming underlying institutions). It navigates the concerns of both camps: revolutionaries who fear reforms merely accept the existing system, and reformists who see revolutionary rhetoric as distracting from achievable goals.
To those who advocate revolution, the episode proposes that fundamental change may be the ultimate goal, but stopping fascism requires coalition with those who find revolution unrealistic. To those who favor only ws reforms, he suggests that resistance benefits from both defensive tactics and positive aspirations that extend beyond single campaigns. Let's try to immediate struggles that reduce suffering while building toward additional possibilities.
The episode offers that "Reformism that ignores anything beyond immediate campaigns is counterproductive. But reforms are essential," And that "revolutionary commitment that ignores the importance of winning reforms and denies existing reality are also counterproductive." For the most powerful resistance can we combine practical action with visionary thinking, immediate defense with long-term commitment.
So how will we engage in resistance? Whether through campus organizing, union solidarity, immigrant protection, or public demonstrations, shouldn't we pursue immediate justice while keeping our eyes on more fundamental transformations that might follow so we don't only go back to the status quo that birthed Trump in the first place?
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This episode is entitled Reform and or Revolution. Each day do you wake up wondering what has Trump or Musk or Vance or one of the other writers of the reactionary apocalypse done since I was last awake? What new abominable steps have they undertaken? I think a growing number of us do wake up that way and within minutes on most days, we can know what new atrocity has been unleashed, because even mainstream and certainly alternative media report it, feature it, laugh and or cry about it. Indeed, it feels like a non-stop tsunami of evil that endlessly tries to turn our days dark, to create shock and awe. Darkness even at the break of noon. Well, I wake up that way too, but I have to admit I get up each day also hoping and even expecting some modest but escalating good resistance news, good new disobedience news. I can even feel it coming, I can feel its potential and indeed resistance to Trumpist fascism grows. Discussions, phone calls and emails, meetings, rallies, marches and soon, occupations and encampments, desires, demands, confrontation, sanctuaries and disobedience. I get up each day feeling wondering what new is happening to stop Trump. What ways are unions considering to aid government workers who are being summarily, insanely, grotesquely fired? What ways are teachers and pastors considering to aid threatened immigrants? And perhaps mostly, I wake up expecting to see results on campuses of students having gathered in dorms, corridors and dining areas to discuss organizing against their administrators' collaboration with Trump and then implementing their plans. Maybe it will be student rallies or marches through their own campuses to reach out to students who are not yet engaged, or maybe it will be taking a building or creating an encampment as visible pressure to raise costs for administrators. Maybe student resistance will become assemblies and take up rethinking and then redesigning campus relations. Maybe students resisting at one campus, growing in number, will even march to another to inspire them, or perhaps even march to a union hall or to a neighborhood meeting place or to to a high school to inspire resistance there too. Perhaps students will seek to help and be helped by means of sanctuaries for immigrants or for demonstrators earmarked for deportation or incarceration. I wonder as I get up, might students horrified at fascistic collaboration and move to resist, even give themselves a name, perhaps students for a democratic campus or even students for a democratic society?
Speaker 1:As all of this unfolds, it isn't hard to predict that awareness of ills and also of their underlying causes will grow. Participants will broaden their views and commitments. Before long, resistors will explore and then debate various differences that they have. Young and curious, and indeed even some older resistors will read up, listen up and look up, and if their experience in coming months bears any resemblance to yesterday's experiences that we much older folks have known which is far from certain given how different today's conditions are then among other issues that will arise, one difference of opinion and also of orientation likely to emerge is that some will advocate reform while others will advocate revolution. We might reasonably wonder will one set of advocates be right and the other wrong? Will both sides be right and both wrong? And between these emerging inclinations will there be compatibility or friction? To sensibly address these issues, we will have to agree on what is reform and what is revolution. If that much is achieved, then perhaps we will be able to also discern when the two approaches will be compatible and when the two will clash, and at that point perhaps we will be able to determine why we should care about any of this and what our answers might imply about current choices.
Speaker 1:I perhaps ought to acknowledge that these matters repeatedly arise whenever anguish, anger and angst engender rapidly growing resistance to oppressive social circumstances. More each time these differences arise, they yield actors who sometimes rail at one another almost as much as they rail at the unjust and oppressive social circumstances they oppose. But is such confrontation of orientations inevitable, or might we avoid it, and would avoiding it be desirable? If one side is right and one side is wrong, which side is which? If both sides are part right and both sides are part wrong, can they productively cooperate? A reform is a change in social circumstances. Bernie Sanders favors various progressive changes in social circumstances. Various progressive changes in social circumstances Free health care, a wealth tax, a higher minimum wage, green energy they are all reforms. Donald Trump favors various reactionary changes in social circumstances Vaccine removal, a tax cut for the rich, child labor, more drilling, decimation of public schools these are also all reforms. If, when resistors seek to block and reverse choices and then to as well win gains and improve lives, now that will also be about reforms.
Speaker 1:Revolution is trickier to agree about. Some say it is a fundamental change in government. Others say it is a fundamental change in government. Others say it is a fundamental change in culture, kinship or economy. A few say it has to change all those sides of life.
Speaker 1:Despite such differences, everyone who offers an opinion on how to organize tends to agree that a reform changes a particular policy or situation on its own account, while a revolution changes underlying institutions that establish the setting in which all policy and situations are sustained, maintained or changed. We could quibble more about the definitions, but let's settle on that basic one. Understood in such a manner, what then is the cause of confrontation between reform and revolution? Some revolutionaries say that reforms necessarily accept rather than reject society's defining relations as such. They add that reforms intrinsically mislead participants away from revolutionary aspirations to maintain or at any rate to only modestly mitigate those oppressive circumstances. Such revolutionaries say that to seek reforms blocks winning revolution. Other revolutionaries disagree. They say no. Progressive reforms reduce suffering. That can also orient us toward and even bring us closer to future revolutionary goals. To seek reforms can be compatible with winning revolution Reciprocally. Some who seek to win reforms say that advocating revolution intrinsically distracts from winning real and worthy immediate gains because it wastes energy on hopeless wishes. They say to seek revolution can rhetorically block winning reforms. Others who seek to win reform say no. To seek revolution can strengthen resolve and sustain hope and, in so doing, ensure that the trajectory of immediate reforms at winning limited gains will continue on to win more gains later.
Speaker 1:Do we already see these divisions among us as our resistance grows to Trump and fascism? Will these differences grow or will they diminish in coming weeks and months? Will revolutionaries castigate people only seeking reform and vice versa? What underlying thinking and behaviors would tend to foster such mutual hostility? What underlying thinking and behaviors would tend to instead foster mutual compatibility and aid?
Speaker 1:Those who seek reforms because they feel that revolution is impossible or they feel that things just can't be vastly better need to contemplate that perhaps they are wrong. Wouldn't they agree that it would be nice if fundamental change is possible and could be incredibly worthy? If one doesn't think it is likely and therefore doesn't want to orient toward it? Likely and therefore doesn't want to orient toward it? Should one also reject those who do try? What if those who seek revolution were eager to help win immediate reforms and then, down the road, see where things lead? Couldn't having their energy and even their longer-run optimistic outlook on board be positive, as long as they do not alienate what could support immediate gains?
Speaker 1:The revolutionaries want to beat back Trump. Those who seek immediate reform also want to beat back Trump, Could each disagree with and yet respect the other's intent and welcome the other's efforts. Could we achieve that At the same time? Can those who feel that just reforms will not be enough and in any event will not even persist unless underlying structures change, acknowledge that to seek reforms is to be on the side of justice, whereas to forego or even castigate reforms is callous toward those in need and ignores that it is by way of such immediate struggles that people can expand their horizons up to and including desiring more fundamental gains? Can we all seek to win reforms together and, in time, see whether moving on from there follows naturally? Can we all work to beat back Trump and then to keep winning more together later?
Speaker 1:Suppose both those seeking immediate changes and those who also want more fundamental gains were to agree that an inclination to win reforms with eyes only on one or another short-run gain and to go home and celebrate upon winning that immediate gain instead of continuing to struggle for more would be inadequate. And suppose both were also to agree that to have eyes on an ultimate prize but be oblivious to actual current possibilities and conditions would be counterproductive now and later. Too. Might we then all agree to disagree about ultimate likelihoods while we together militantly pursue immediate necessities. I am not saying this will be easy, but I do think it is possible and that it would be desirable.
Speaker 1:But there is a complicating matter we should not ignore. Those doubting revolutionary aspirations will not wish to spend any time discussing them, much less offering vision for new relations. They will see such endeavors as utopian in the worst sense. Those with revolutionary aspirations will want to keep ultimate aims in mind and even grow support for them, even in the present, while feeling that to do otherwise will hurt future prospects and also diminish immediate hope and desire. So, even with all the above verbal wrangling toward arriving at shared definitions, an issue does remain being on the revolutionary side of this coin. I would like to talk directly to my side first, and only then to those who doubt our agenda.
Speaker 1:So, on the revolutionary side, we seek fundamental change. In my own case, I think that such change needs to address all life's many essential dimensions, and for that reason I seek fundamentally new ways of living, producing, deciding, celebrating, dealing with violations of shared norms and much more. But I also live in the here and now, that is, I live, not after all such fundamental aims are achieved. That is, I live not after all such fundamental aims are achieved, or even when they are imminent, because massive movements consciously share the vision and pursue its fulfillment. I live instead at a time when it is essential to derail a reactionary project that seeks to impose fascist rule, and I know that we relatively few who desire revolutionary changes can't remotely stop fascism alone.
Speaker 1:To win our immediate battle will depend on huge numbers of people who consider revolution seekers deluded and even fear and reject fundamental change. For revolutionaries to relate to those who think revolution is a pipe dream, as if they have views they do not in fact have and that they even reject, much less castigate them for their views, won't grow immediate resistance. So I need to refrain from such inclinations. On the other hand, I believe that immediate resistance to stop Trump and immediate reforms to mitigate serious suffering need a sense of hope, and I also feel that for their energies to persist beyond now to later is essential. So for those reasons, I do want to urge positive program consistent with long-run continuity.
Speaker 1:So what do I propose those who desire and wish to contribute to fundamental change ought to do now to immediately resist Trump and fascism. I propose that we respect every sincere defensive move to resist what comes from any direction that seeks to obstruct new or to reduce existing oppressive circumstances of embattled constituencies circumstances of embattled constituencies. But I also propose that when opportunity makes it comfortable and not antagonistic or distracting to do so, we humbly advocate positive aims that can motivate and then also fuel involvement beyond the immediate moment into an ongoing trajectory of worthy changes in the future. And what do I propose for those who feel that we who advocate for revolution are well delusional? That you acknowledge that resistance may benefit from not just defensive but also positive aspirations. That you hope fundamental change is possible, even if you doubt we can attain it. And that you welcome those who seek to move toward fundamental change, who do so intent to not reduce support for immediate change, both defensive and positive. When all is said and done.
Speaker 1:My point here is that reformism that ignores, or worse denies anything beyond an immediate campaign is counterproductive. But reforms are essential and reciprocally revolutionary. Commitment that ignores, or worse denies, the importance of winning reforms and that otherwise denies existing reality is counterproductive. What we instead need is sober and thoughtful attention to persisting into the future and even to seeking long-run fundamental aims that can inspire and inform today's commitments to an ongoing trajectory of worthy changes in the future. Yes to sustained reform struggles, no to mindless revolutionary posturing, yes to wise, visionary and longer-term commitment. Okay, I think we have some time.
Speaker 1:So when I got up this morning I came across something that I think it might be nice to share, even though it's totally out of the box as far as my episodes are concerned. It was a communication which had a bunch of I think 35 one-liners from a comedian named Stephen Wright. This guy is very clever in producing one-line jokes, one-line provocations. I don't agree with the sort of tone of all of them, but I found a whole lot of them quite funny. So I figured all right, I'll share them. One I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. All right, I'll share them. One I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. Quite a few people have done that In my experience, for example Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 1:Two borrow money from pessimists. They don't expect it back. Three half the people you know are below average. Four 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. 5. 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. That one certainly rings true nowadays.
Speaker 1:6. A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good. 7. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory. Eight if you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain. Nine all those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand. I like that one. The others are a little bit negative. Ten the early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. Think about that one.
Speaker 1:11. I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met. I found that one pretty funny also. 12. Okay, so what's the speed of dark? 13. How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink? 14. If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
Speaker 1:15. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm. That one is a bit more subtle. 16. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. This guy is not exactly an optimist.
Speaker 1:17. Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. 18. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now. 19. I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
Speaker 1:20. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? 21. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. His life tone not to my liking. But what the hell? 22. What happens if you get scared half to death twice? 23. My mechanic told me quote I couldn't repair your brakes so I made your horn louder.
Speaker 1:24. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? 25. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried. That's another one for today.
Speaker 1:26. A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking that one might be apropos. Nowadays, too disturbingly so. 27. Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. 28. The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.
Speaker 1:29. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research. This one is particularly suitable if you think about school, where copying is cheating and yet it really could be collaborating. 30. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. Clever, if not uplifting. 31. The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up. 32. The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it. 33. Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film that one strikes home. Thirty-four if at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. Thirty-five if your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work? Okay, so that was the end of the selection from the comedian Stephen Wright. Perhaps I should also have a song. So, in addition to the comedic interlude and, I hope, in the long run, more important and consequential let's also have a little lyrical interlude.
Speaker 1:There is a new singer-songwriter. Well, actually, it turns out he's been around for over a decade, I think, but he is recently gaining more visibility than in the past. His name is Jesse Wells. That is spelled W-E-L-L-E-S. If you want to look him up, and would you believe it, while he can rock, so far he has mostly stood with his guitar and with his harmonica holder around his neck and sung folk songs. You remember that? I heard about him a few weeks back and looked him up and then listened and also read a few of his lyrics. He does have a way with words and he is seriously angry and astute, also prolific. I even think there is a chance that, as resistance to Trump grows, think there is a chance that, as resistance to Trump grows, jesse Wells might even be held as well the voice of another generation, by somewhat stupid journalists. More to the point, I think his songs, his writings may begin to resonate still more widely than they are right now. All to the good.
Speaker 1:So here is a peek into at least one song titled War Isn't Murder. War isn't murder. Good men don't die, children don't starve and all the women survive. War isn't murder. That's what they say when you're fighting the devil. Murder's okay. War isn't murder. They're called casualties. There ain't a veteran with a good night's sleep. They're called casualties. They're in a veteran with a good night's sleep.
Speaker 1:Let's talk about dead people. I mean a dead people. The dead don't feel honor. The dead don't feel that brave. They don't feel avenged. They're lucky if they got graves. Call your dead mother, ask her when she died. It's a deathly silence. On the other line, the dead don't talk, but the children don't forget. So in 20 short years you could live to regret that war isn't murder. There's money at stake. Even Kushner agrees. It's good real estate. War isn't murder. S Netanyahu, he's got a song for that and a bomb for you. War isn't murder. It's an old desert faith. It's a nation-state sanctioned righteous hate. Let's talk about dead people. I mean the dead people. War isn't murder. It's the vengeance of God. If you can't see the bodies, they don't bloat when they rot and the flies don't swarm and the children don't cry. If war isn't murder, good men don't die. So in a short 20 years, when you vacation the strip, don't think about the dead and have a nice trip. War isn't murder. We should all give thanks. I saw it in a movie. Give it up for Tom Hanks. War isn't murder. They don't ship out the poor and the bullets they fire aren't part of the cure. War isn't murder. Land is a right, but the banks call dibs. It's something you can't fight. Let's talk about dead people. I mean a dead people. The dead don't feel honor, they don't feel that brave, they don't feel avenged. They're lucky if they got graves. War isn't murder. Ain't a river of blood Stretching all through time and raining down in a flood. It's a dark sacrifice made on your behalf. So get down on your knees and thank the sweet Lord that war isn't murder. And here's a little something for me to end this.
Speaker 1:War is not alone murder. Starvation is murder. Pollution is murder. Global heating is murder. Poverty is murder. Misogyny is murder. Racism is murder. Larcenous, corrupt, self-serving lying is murder. Hell all lying is murder. Musk is murder. Vance is murder. Trump is murder, and so society ought to therefore eliminate war, starvation, pollution, global heating, poverty, misogyny, racism, larcenous, corrupt, self-serving, lying, hell, all lying, and Musk, vance and Trump. Imagine all that. It's easy if you try. I just checked our time and it seems we still have some for this episode.
Speaker 1:So how about another song? I could do another one from Jesse Wells. I don't want to do a Dylan, given that I know folks listening have heard plenty of those. How about, for younger listeners, someone else from way back, with a song that could have been written yesterday, though perhaps with slightly altered images, but it wasn't. It is called Cops of the World by Phil Oakes, and I figure there are probably some listeners who might say Phil who? Which may say as much about our society's culture and priorities as the song does? Oakes was a singer-songwriter, initially largely folk, but later also a bit country and a bit rock. Largely folk, but later also a bit country and a bit rock. He was a little less poet, a little more blunt.
Speaker 1:So consider this. It starts. Come get out of the way, boys, quick. Get out of the way. You'd better watch what you say, boys. Better watch what you say.
Speaker 1:I've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port and our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short. So bring your daughters around to the port, because we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world. We pick and choose as we please. Boys, pick and choose as we please. You'd best get down on your knees, boys, best get down on your knees. We're hairy and horny and ready to shack. We don't care if you're yellow or black. Just take off your clothes and lie down on your back, because we're the cops of the world.
Speaker 1:Boys, we're the cops of the world. Our boots are needing a shine, boys. Boots are needing a shine. But our Coca-Cola is fine, boys. Coca-cola is fine. We've got to protect all our citizens fair. So we'll send a battalion for everyone there and maybe we'll leave in a couple of years, because we're the cops of the world.
Speaker 1:Boys, we're the cops of the world. Dump the reds in a pile, boys. Dump the reds in a pile. You'd better wipe off that smile, boys. Better wipe off that smile. We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck. We'll find you a leader that you can elect.
Speaker 1:Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck, because we're the cops of the world. Boys, we're the cops of the world. Clean the johns with a rag, boys. Clean the johns with a rag. If you like, you can use your flag. Boys, if you like, you can use your flag. We've got too much money. We're looking for toys, and guns will be guns and boys will be boys. But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy because we're the cops of the world.
Speaker 1:Boys, we're the cops of the world. Please stay off the grass. Boys, please stay off the grass. Here's a kick in the ass, boys, here's a kick in the ass. We'll smash down your doors. We don't bother to knock. We've done it before. So why all the shock? We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block because we're the cops of the world. Boys, we're the cops of the world. When we butchered your son, boys, when we butchered your son, have a stick of our gum boys. Have a stick of our gum boys. Have a stick of our bubble gum. We own half the world. Oh say, can you see? The name for our profits is democracy. So, like it or not, you will have to be free because we're the cops of the world. Boys, we're the cops of the world. So what do you think? Reform and or revolution? And that said, this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.