One of the things that distinguishes a “radical” activist from a more broadly “progressive” activist is that the radical looks ahead to the transition to another kind of society, and acts today with those more distant possibilities constantly in view. Already in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx made this point very clearly. What distinguishes radicals, he said, was not that they “set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.” On the contrary, he argued, radicals “always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.” Instead, the really distinctive characteristic of radical activists is that they have “the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the working-class movement.” In other words, they act today with tomorrow in mind: they work for “reforms” or immediate victories, but they are not “reformists” because they are always trying to build the capacities of resistance movements to the point where they can become capable of challenging the system itself. In short, radical activists have a strategy for radically transforming society, and immediate victories are fought for with that larger aim in view.
What does this mean in practical terms? To answer this question is to take up the most difficult question facing radicals today: the question of how to engage in revolutionary politics in a non-revolutionary time. It is a very difficult question, and most attempts to address it succumb to one or both of the two most destructive temptations affecting radicals: nostalgia (doomed attempts to relive perceived high-points in the history of radical politics, such as the Russian Revolution or the Paris Commune, etc.), or delusions of grandeur (attempts by tiny groups of isolated radicals to represent themselves as having some grand destiny to shape the future course of world history).
But the frequency with which radicals go astray in these ways should not deter us. Radicals have a responsibility to confront the problem of revolutionary strategy, and the only way to do so successfully is to take the problem up collectively, in good faith dialogue with others.The conversation is already underway, and here are a few links to contributions to this necessary discussion:
Check out some of these articles, and, if you want to add one to the list, post a comment!
1552 Responses to “What's the Point of Having a Revolutionary Strategy?”