• Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Politically reform just means making changes to your system. It does not require them to be extreme changes that change the fundamental nature of how the system itself is structured. You can be a reformist while making many small changes that over time create a larger change, this is not some impossible thing or contradiction in terms.

    Here’s its historical context:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345230462_‘Reform’_in_English_public_life_the_fortunes_of_a_word

    While the full text is unavailable, note the first excerpt at the bottom. Improvement, not replacement. The word improvement implies you are keeping the thing.

    On the grand scale, I can agree with that. I am an American talking about an American presidential candidate, though, so I’m using the American scale which we all do agree leans right. It chops you guys off almost entirely, since you just don’t exist in any significant numbers in our system. Where we have plenty of fascists.

    Yeah, you’re right, she’s a little right of social dem. She’s to the left of neo-lib though, which is where our American system has its middle, and includes the mainline of the DNC for the past few decades. The overton window has shifted as we progressives have lost ground economically in the past half century or so. I’ll maintain though, that progressives just want progress. If we fall to the fascists, even conservatives will become “progressive” just for wanting free speech and women’s suffrage back.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Politically reform just means making changes to your system. It does not require them to be extreme changes that change the fundamental nature of how the system itself is structured. You can be a reformist while making many small changes that over time create a larger change, this is not some impossible thing or contradiction in terms.

      This is using a technicality to try to pidgeon-hole maintenance of the status quo as reformist. This is absurd. By your definition, everyone is either a reformist or a revolutionary, including people that wish to preserve the current system and merely steward it. There’s no such thing as a static system. Reformism, therefore, has historically been used to refer to people that wish to restructure the current system from within, rather than without.

      On the grand scale, I can agree with that. I am an American talking about an American presidential candidate, though, so I’m using the American scale which we all do agree leans right. It chops you guys off almost entirely, since you just don’t exist in any significant numbers in our system. Where we have plenty of fascists.

      The good news for Communists, both American and non-American, is that the contradictions within Imperialism have been weakening the American Empire, which is likely to collapse in the coming decades.

      Yeah, you’re right, she’s a little right of social dem. She’s to the left of neo-lib though, which is where our American system has its middle, and includes the mainline of the DNC for the past few decades. The overton window has shifted as we progressives have lost ground economically in the past half century or so. I’ll maintain though, that progressives just want progress. If we fall to the fascists, even conservatives will become “progressive” just for wanting free speech and women’s suffrage back.

      This is a bit ahistorical. Historically, liberals have joined hands with conservatives against Communists and Socialists and formed fascism. It happened in Italy, in the Weimar Republic, and is likely to happen again in America. You can see that with the DNC and GOP standing firm in support of the Palestinian Genocide. This is because the DNC and GOP get their power from 2 sides of the same source, the Bourgeoisie, not the public.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s no such thing as a static system.

        Tell that to the fascists. Whether we like it or not, that’s just false. It is quite possible to have a system that experiences no changes of any significance for a whole human lifetime. Most of human history was this way, it just does not agree with your Marxist definition.

        Yeah, you’re really getting into the weeds here. While yes, Hitler’s rise within Weimar was enabled by the moneyed interests, Italy was still operating under a Constitutional Monarchy at the time, where the king still had significant authority. Mussolini did have some liberal support, no question, but it was not his keys to power like it was in Weimar.

        I won’t disagree that liberalism stands in opposition to you, I’ve said that three times now. It also stands in opposition to fascism though, as WW2 very notably demonstrated once it was realized fascists were such a destructive, chaotic element.

        Regarding Gaza, no, I don’t think that’s due to the bourgeoisie. The profits from the MIC are negligible compared to things like the tech industry or domestic energy production. Instead its recognition that the Palestinian cause itself is far from innocent, and fully cutting off Israel would thus not be sufficient to save them. Without the threat of America leaving, if we simply followed through, then the Palestinians could simply all be starved.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Tell that to the fascists. Whether we like it or not, that’s just false. It is quite possible to have a system that experiences no changes of any significance for a whole human lifetime. Most of human history was this way, it just does not agree with your Marxist definition.

          Excuse me, what? Every second, there are quantitative changes. The river you visited yesterday has worn down the rocks of today, almost imperceptibly, but it has worn them down nonetheless. Capital has continued to monopolize, wealth disparity continues to grow, all while liberalism continues to dominate. You’re taking an ahistorical, anti-science position here.

          I won’t disagree that liberalism stands in opposition to you, I’ve said that three times now. It also stands in opposition to fascism though, as WW2 very notably demonstrated once it was realized fascists were such a destructive, chaotic element.

          WWII was a war between Imperialist Capitalist powers. The USSR sided with the Imperialists against the fascists, but the Imperialists wanted the Socialists and fascists to destroy each other. This isn’t because liberalism is anti-fascist, but pro-profit. The spoils of war went largely to America, but also to the European powers. It was immensely profitable.

          Regarding Gaza, no, I don’t think that’s due to the bourgeoisie. The profits from the MIC are negligible compared to things like the tech industry or domestic energy production. Instead its recognition that the Palestinian cause itself is far from innocent, and fully cutting off Israel would thus not be sufficient to save them. Without the threat of America leaving, if we simply followed through, then the Palestinians could simply all be starved.

          This is monstrous and immaterial analysis. The only reason the US supports Israel is because Israel is the equivalent of an aircraft carrier on land. Israel serves as a threat to the surrounding countries, and it is in this manner that the US Petro-Dollar dominates global finance for the US’ Imperialist ambitions. America is not Anti-Palestine out of any moral consideration, but economic. Biden said it best himself, Israel is the US best investment, and if it did not exist the US would have to invent one.

          I’m sorry, but you’re woefully misinformed on these matters, especially with respect to Palestine. I urge you to read up on the history of these conflicts and why they happened.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, changes in river water are totally irrelevant to governmental systems, you’re just playing semantics now in a desperate attempt to not have to admit you lied when you said your definition of reform was standard for the political world instead of just Marxism.

            WW2 had a USSR that annexed half of Poland against its will. That’s an Imperial Power my friend. lol I know you mean economic imperialism, though.

            I know you communists believe materialism governs everything, but that’s why you’re such historical failures. There’s just more to it than that. Frankly though, we are now energy independent, we no longer need our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. That rhetoric is from the 60s.

            I believe our differences are irreconcilable, I know full well how thorough and unalterable the communist philosophy is. You similarly will not be able to convince me to buy into such a simplistic, one-dimensional, material-based view of everything though.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, changes in river water are totally irrelevant to governmental systems, you’re just playing semantics now in a desperate attempt to not have to admit you lied when you said your definition of reform was standard for the political world instead of just Marxism.

              Wrong on 2 accounts.

              1. In any system with moving objects, such as circulation of currency and accumulation of Capital, the system itself is changing. Amazon was not the behemoth it is today even 10 years ago.

              2. Reformism is used to refer to wishing to restructure the current system even outside of Marxism. Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, hell even Libertarians are usually Reformists. None of these are Marxist.

              WW2 had a USSR that annexed half of Poland against its will. That’s an Imperial Power my friend. lol I know you mean economic imperialism, though.

              The government of Poland abandoned it before the USSR even went in, and the USSR went in after the Nazis went in to prevent the entirety of Poland going to the Nazis. Talk to some Polish people on Lemmy, there are many Polish Communists.

              I know you communists believe materialism governs everything, but that’s why you’re such historical failures. There’s just more to it than that. Frankly though, we are now energy independent, we no longer need our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. That rhetoric is from the 60s.

              You really are allergic to listening, aren’t you? First of all, rejecting Materialism is to say that you believe perception to be reality, rather than reality creating perception, which is ridiculous. Second of all, Israel doesn’t exist for the US to get cheap oil, but so that the world trades in Dollars and not, say, the Yuan. That’s why I specifically used the word Petro-Dollar, as many other countries need to get oil, and do so with Dollars.

              I believe our differences are irreconcilable, I know full well how thorough and unalterable the communist philosophy is. You similarly will not be able to convince me to buy into such a simplistic, one-dimensional, material-based view of everything though.

              On the contrary, believing that Material Reality is what guides ideas, rather than ideas guiding material reality, is stock-standard science. Communist philosophy and strategy has changed numerous times as well since Marx and Engels, to not change would be to reject the foundations of Marxism.

              Either way, it’s fine for us to be in disagreement, I know that I am correct and that the world doesn’t bend around what you or I believe, as much as you want it to. Reality will continue to progress and the American Empire will crumble whether or not you agree with Marxism.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah, your issue was you wanted the reform to be systemic, remember? If the reform is not changing the structure of the system you didn’t want to call it reform, but administration or something like that. I disagreed and said reform can be incremental and maintain the system, simply with improvements. You provided Marxist literature to support your claim, I provided a dictionary definition and a historical analysis of the word “reform” for mine.

                Okay, what would a non-communist Pole say? lol

                rejecting Materialism is to say that you believe perception to be reality, rather than reality creating perception

                The two can actually create each other, depending on circumstances. Religion, for instance, has created many realities independent of materialism. Particularly in their infancy, before they became large, mainstream churches.

                Israel existing in no way forces someone like Saudi Arabia to deal in dollars. This is just dumb. Saudi Arabia can accept whatever currency gives them the most benefit, Israel has nothing to do with it.

                Actually no, we could look at quantum mechanics for an example of a way perception itself changes reality, where an observed and unobserved photon will exhibit different behaviors. Perhaps you should stick to philosophy.

                You seem to have great faith, I hope you enjoy your religion, though I do hope you can eventually grow past your hatred of the Great Satanwest. We’re really not that evil.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah, your issue was you wanted the reform to be systemic, remember? If the reform is not changing the structure of the system you didn’t want to call it reform, but administration or something like that. I disagreed and said reform can be incremental and maintain the system, simply with improvements. You provided Marxist literature to support your claim, I provided a dictionary definition and a historical analysis of the word “reform” for mine.

                  I provided Marxist literature because it’s older and proves the historical context of the term “Reform” as it relates to politics. Choosing to keep the form is not reform.

                  Okay, what would a non-communist Pole say? lol

                  Are you implying that a non-communist pole would have wanted to be under the Nazis? Lol.

                  The two can actually create each other, depending on circumstances. Religion, for instance, has created many realities independent of materialism. Particularly in their infancy, before they became large, mainstream churches.

                  Yep, there it is, full rejection of science by yourself.

                  Israel existing in no way forces someone like Saudi Arabia to deal in dollars. This is just dumb. Saudi Arabia can accept whatever currency gives them the most benefit, Israel has nothing to do with it.

                  Bzzzt. Wrong. Saudi Arabia risks war with Israel and by extension the US if they trade in anything other than Dollars, hence the term Petro-Dollar, though times are changing and SA is looking to increase ties with BRICS.

                  Actually no, we could look at quantum mechanics for an example of a way perception itself changes reality, where an observed and unobserved photon will exhibit different behaviors. Perhaps you should stick to philosophy.

                  You truly don’t understand Quantum Mechanics if this is your interpretation, nor Materialism.

                  You seem to have great faith, I hope you enjoy your religion, though I do hope you can eventually grow past your hatred of the Great Satanwest. We’re really not that evil.

                  You haven’t once genuinely answered anything, except when you implied your support of the Nazis taking all of Poland. The West is evil, yes, and will collapse, yes. America’s constant genocides will end eventually and the Global South will throw off US Imperialism, ceasing their exploitation. Trying to call Materialism “religion” and requiring faith when you previously stated that Religion created Reality is ridiculous.