"We need to stop confusing reform with transformation." So true. I am genuinely tired of politicians and many activists trying to look revolutionary while being just social democrats. I studied Sociology in college, and many classmates used revolutionary language while advocating for reforms to both academia and the government. It was frustrating because many of them also dismissed more radical actions. Now that many of us have graduated, it feels weird to see how these people, who should know how structural change actually works, try to pass their jobs in NGOs, consultancies, and government as meaningful. I am also trying to think about how not to contribute to this. I don’t know how I could build a career differently from this, but I guess building a career only makes sense in our capitalist society.
That’s another contradiction you’ve pointed out. The idea of making a living within the capitalist system while trying to actively resist capitalism. While there are certainly better options than working within an NGO or the government. This struggle is essential for us breaking away from the system but it will happen not when we are comfortable within it.
Hahaha, yes. It's definitely difficult to deal with that contradiction, especially now when the context is counter-revolutionary. Revolutionaries have to stick together and keep actually promoting and organizing towards workers’ liberation. By the way, which would you say are better options than working within an NGO or the government?
Sorry for not answering your question sooner. Working within a government body can serve to stabilize rather than fight against it in my view. From my experience working within an industrial industry might work to have someone be closer to the means of production, you could also work within a trade, but there is also the option to work within a revolutionary organization, labor unions, or a mass organization. This isn’t to say quit your job because a job can be a means of survival especially if you don’t have other options. However, your job within the government or NGO cannot function as the primary means of political activity.
Don't worry and thank you for your answer! I have been thinking a lot about this even though I am actually not able to choose where to work (I am job searching right now but there hasn't been results). But thanks, your answer gave me clarity.
I think your analysis is spot-on: change is instinctively treated as more dangerous than inaction. Marxists must contend with both status quo bias and omission bias. People count the harms caused by changing the existing system while treating the harms caused by preserving it as natural, inevitable, or simply no one’s responsibility.
That is not a fair standard, but Marxists must meet it anyway because Marxism is not the dominant ideology. You write, “Capitalism is not the safe option just because it is the familiar option.” Bars. Then: “We need to stop confusing familiarity with safety.” Again: bars.
In theory, it is reasonable to assume that once people understand this, they will become more open to a revolutionary mindset. Logically, that follows. Sometimes the problem is, there is what is logical—and then there is humanity.
You write, “But naming it is only the beginning… we must act.” I agree. But to move people to action, you must also paint a picture of what they are acting for. I believe too much revolutionary socialism asks people to leap into the dark without knowing what waits on the other side.
You need to fill those gaps. If capitalism is not safe, what would safety look like and how would Marxism create it? If the alternative is unfamiliar, what within it would remain recognizable? How do you light the darkness, or shorten the distance, enough for people to feel confident abandoning the only world they have ever known?
The problem is the revolutionary road is unknown because we have to work towards it. The problem is people want easy guarantees and easy wins. This is not social democracy, reform isn’t the goal. The goal is a complete transformation of society. That’s something that takes work to achieve, work born from struggle and contradictions. The Marxist Leninist have their ways and answers of how to get there, other stances within the Marxist tradition have their ways and answers. The shift that needs to happen is seeing revolution as the only path and then picking a way to get there. Most Americans aren’t there yet.
Capitalism is inherently oligarchic. The means of production are controlled by the owners of capital for their benefit exclusively; power resides in the allocation of capital. It can have a wrapper of many different colors including myriad varieties of quasi-democratic or Marxist republic. An historic cadre of fascistic scoundrels has besmirched the names of Socialism and Communism, neither of which are inherently anti-democratic (in fact, quite the opposite). Combining democratic principles with Socialism or Communism appears attractive, but entrenched oligarchs will resist with lethal force when necessary all while singing the siren song of Capitalist “free market hegemony.” It’s a literal ideological clusterfuck of epic proportions that is highly unlikely to be resolved within my lifetime. This makes me both sad and curious - but more sad than curious, frankly.
"We need to stop confusing reform with transformation." So true. I am genuinely tired of politicians and many activists trying to look revolutionary while being just social democrats. I studied Sociology in college, and many classmates used revolutionary language while advocating for reforms to both academia and the government. It was frustrating because many of them also dismissed more radical actions. Now that many of us have graduated, it feels weird to see how these people, who should know how structural change actually works, try to pass their jobs in NGOs, consultancies, and government as meaningful. I am also trying to think about how not to contribute to this. I don’t know how I could build a career differently from this, but I guess building a career only makes sense in our capitalist society.
That’s another contradiction you’ve pointed out. The idea of making a living within the capitalist system while trying to actively resist capitalism. While there are certainly better options than working within an NGO or the government. This struggle is essential for us breaking away from the system but it will happen not when we are comfortable within it.
Hahaha, yes. It's definitely difficult to deal with that contradiction, especially now when the context is counter-revolutionary. Revolutionaries have to stick together and keep actually promoting and organizing towards workers’ liberation. By the way, which would you say are better options than working within an NGO or the government?
Sorry for not answering your question sooner. Working within a government body can serve to stabilize rather than fight against it in my view. From my experience working within an industrial industry might work to have someone be closer to the means of production, you could also work within a trade, but there is also the option to work within a revolutionary organization, labor unions, or a mass organization. This isn’t to say quit your job because a job can be a means of survival especially if you don’t have other options. However, your job within the government or NGO cannot function as the primary means of political activity.
Don't worry and thank you for your answer! I have been thinking a lot about this even though I am actually not able to choose where to work (I am job searching right now but there hasn't been results). But thanks, your answer gave me clarity.
very insightful analysis and application of marxist method
Thank you so much 🙏
I think your analysis is spot-on: change is instinctively treated as more dangerous than inaction. Marxists must contend with both status quo bias and omission bias. People count the harms caused by changing the existing system while treating the harms caused by preserving it as natural, inevitable, or simply no one’s responsibility.
That is not a fair standard, but Marxists must meet it anyway because Marxism is not the dominant ideology. You write, “Capitalism is not the safe option just because it is the familiar option.” Bars. Then: “We need to stop confusing familiarity with safety.” Again: bars.
In theory, it is reasonable to assume that once people understand this, they will become more open to a revolutionary mindset. Logically, that follows. Sometimes the problem is, there is what is logical—and then there is humanity.
You write, “But naming it is only the beginning… we must act.” I agree. But to move people to action, you must also paint a picture of what they are acting for. I believe too much revolutionary socialism asks people to leap into the dark without knowing what waits on the other side.
You need to fill those gaps. If capitalism is not safe, what would safety look like and how would Marxism create it? If the alternative is unfamiliar, what within it would remain recognizable? How do you light the darkness, or shorten the distance, enough for people to feel confident abandoning the only world they have ever known?
The problem is the revolutionary road is unknown because we have to work towards it. The problem is people want easy guarantees and easy wins. This is not social democracy, reform isn’t the goal. The goal is a complete transformation of society. That’s something that takes work to achieve, work born from struggle and contradictions. The Marxist Leninist have their ways and answers of how to get there, other stances within the Marxist tradition have their ways and answers. The shift that needs to happen is seeing revolution as the only path and then picking a way to get there. Most Americans aren’t there yet.
Capitalism is inherently oligarchic. The means of production are controlled by the owners of capital for their benefit exclusively; power resides in the allocation of capital. It can have a wrapper of many different colors including myriad varieties of quasi-democratic or Marxist republic. An historic cadre of fascistic scoundrels has besmirched the names of Socialism and Communism, neither of which are inherently anti-democratic (in fact, quite the opposite). Combining democratic principles with Socialism or Communism appears attractive, but entrenched oligarchs will resist with lethal force when necessary all while singing the siren song of Capitalist “free market hegemony.” It’s a literal ideological clusterfuck of epic proportions that is highly unlikely to be resolved within my lifetime. This makes me both sad and curious - but more sad than curious, frankly.