From:   Richard S. <>
Sent time:   Monday, September 26, 2011 10:20:35 PM
To:   september17 <>
Subject:   SPAM-MED: [september17discuss] Re: revolution, not a riot, revolution

Actually, I've gotten a reverse impression from a lot of our history:

Reforms are most likely achieved when the ruling powers are scared by

talk about revolution. This certainly is a big part of why the New

Deal reforms went through - because there was concrete fear of a

revolutionary communist movement. Much of the workers' organizing

that led to pressure for reforms like the New Deal was led by the

Communist Party. (Our comrade Noam Chomsky has said as much on many

occasions - and he is not normally a champion for any CP.) In other

countries, too, some of the great leaders who are highly regarded here

would not have been able to achieve what they did had there not been

harder or more militant revolutionaries to balance them out, scaring

the ruling classes. Certainly, this was one of the keys to Gandhi's

political success, as Gandhi was easier for the ruling class to take

than the very prevalent communists of the day.


On Sep 25, 8:06 pm, Doug Singsen <> wrote:


> Every revolution in history has begun with demands for reform. You don't

> begin a revolution by trying to "prefigure" a future society, you do it by

> building democratic, participatory movements for change that address issues

> that directly impact peoples' lives. When the state and capital are

> unwilling or unable to meet the needs of the mass of the people, revolution

> can result.


> Doug S








> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Lauren <> wrote:

> > Honestly it will be neither a revolution nor a riot if our only

> > demands are some reforms on the legislative agenda which the

> > legislators will get rid of again in a matter of months.