Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognize struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions [of] the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.
Lenin (via lenin4president)
I support any reform that makes the life of working class people more tolerable, as do most anarchists, but I won’t pretend like it’s going to fix or abolish any social ills. But the almighty Lenin said it so it must be true.
Like, I definitely think changing the way our society is organized (socio-economically - by increasing systemic democracy) will help empower movements against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
I also think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are fueled, supported by & inflamed by capitalist interests & institutions. However, these social ills aren’t born only out of capitalism, capitalism isn’t the only thing that fuels them, and they won’t fall away by themselves. But it is definitively an obstacle in the way of resisting other forms of systemic oppression.
I have mixed feelings about Lenin, but I definitely agree with your sentiment here, anarcho-queer.
Still, I want to make sure that I’m dedicated, steadfast & diligent in making room for kind, meaningful conversations within the left without repeating the self-destructive in-fighting of the past. I think anarchists & socialist (“state-ists”) have a lot we could learn from each other.
Such arguments provoked liberal, labor, and radical economists to seek to prove the contrary point. They questioned the theoretical assumptions about supply and dermand as it pertains to wage determination. They also offered empirical analyses to show countless cases where wages rose and no unemployment followed, etc.
Excluding unrepentant ideologues, most economists now acknowledge that the end product of the vast literature on both sides is a kind of stalemate. That is, it is not at all clear whether raising the minimum wage would help or hurt employment numbers. There is no one-to-one correlation, no clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship, between raising a wage, on the one hand, and increasing versus decreasing the number of workers employed at the raised wage, on the other.
Thus, to make arguments for raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it will necessarily have a determinate effect on employment is unsustainable and therefore ill advised.
Read the full answer here.
Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.… You ask for votes for women. What good can votes do when ten-elevenths of the land of Great Britain belongs to 200,000 and only one-eleventh to the rest of the 40,000,000? Have your men with their millions of votes freed themselves from this injustice?
Helen Keller in a letter published in the Manchester Advertiser (3 March 1911), quoted in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (1980) page 345.
Higher than any other president since WWII & twice as high as under Reagan.