Since reading Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution and discussing with my wife about it, we both got to the conclusion that a party should have its goal in their laws and executive actions to get rid of capitalism instead of making it “livable” under it, like the Northern countries.

Now, that is mostly clear to me, and I kinda also understand what Lenin spoke of in Left-wing communism (haven’t finished reading it). But how would one go about doing so?

I also recognize that having a mix of both reformist and revolutionary laws before the revolution might be advantageous and a worthy tactic to raise the class consciousness in the short term and starting to lay the foundation for the revolution on the long term. But this is very abstract and I can’t quite fully understand how this would be measured and which law would have to be reformist or revolutionary.

My interpretation of revolutionary is anything that is inherently anti-capitalist. This can either impede exploitation of a sector of the current economy (like abolishing the ability of landowners to own more than 2 homes or outright banning corporations of buying homes and subsequently appropriating their homes) or make it impossible to extract profits (collectivization of national industries and running them on non-profit basis).

Am I missing something here tho? Are there any other useful tactics or strategies to apply in the European imperial core?

  • Large Cane Toad@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Things aren’t always that simple, if Allende was alive today he would strongly disagree. The closest example we have of a socialist government coming to and staying in power through non-revolutionary means is maybe Venezuela and that still had a militaristic component to it, Hugo Chavez had the advantage of being a former military officer and had to deal with some close call coups.