People who are not involved in politics, will suffer governance from those worse than themselves. Our approach to existing political systems is carried out on a pragmatic basis, that distinguishes between a free democracy and State oppression - a continuum which exists often exists the same institution, and has "tipping points" where practical involvement and revolutionary opposition become points of rational choice. Further, as Hannah Arendt understood "... it was the polis, the space of men's free deeds and living words, which could endow life with splendour - ton bion lampron poleisthai" (the enlightened free life).
The approach of "revolutionary reformism" combines the perspectives of involvement in practical politics but for the purpose of fundamental social change. Success requires both the introduction of political reforms as well as a clearly articulated and principled vision.
Mario Ferrero's recent essay Revolution or Reform? Socialism's Dilemma as Rational Choice Problem (in the journal Homo Oeconomicus, 2004) is worthy of reference. It argues that the revolutionary party is a producer cooperative that requiress a parallel commercial reform sector to provide worker incentives and consumer trust. Success in the reform sector, along with a sorely lacking proper use of public democratic institutions (Georg Lukács's The Question of Parliamentarianism, 1919 is critical reasoning in this regard) creates loyalty and attachment to those more radical proposals not yet implemented.
Success in the reform sector, along with a sorely lacking proper use of public democratic institutions (Georg Lukács's The Question of Parliamentarianism, 1919 is critical reasoning in this regard) creates loyalty and attachment to those more radical proposals not yet implemented. In a liberal-democratic state (and not dictatorships which do require revolutions), with their supposed organising principle based on personal freedom and social democracy, there is far greater opportunity for extending these principles to their logical conclusion.
The strength of liberty depends on the involvement of the public. 'Vanguardism' by a cadre elite, is insufficient to guarantee that a revolutionary spirit is not hijacked by authoritarian opportunists, regardless of perceived advantages in a division of labour. It is not therefore "the Party" that should seek to achieve power on behalf of the masses, but rather such political parties should be engaging in a constant campaign that they masses become their own vanguard, led by their own "organic intellectuals", to use Gramsci's phrase. Ideally, the Party should cease to exist after a revolution; if it has fulfilled its revolutionary potential, the people will know how to manage their own affairs.
....
The causes of social change is still subject to significant debate. Broadly speaking, there is a school of thought that argues for a high level of technological determinism, often encapsulated in Marx's remark: "The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord: the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist" (The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847). This argument essentially claims that technology pushes society in a particular direction, rather than the demand of actors pulling technology in a particular direction. In addition Marx argues just as the economic base of society determines the possible range of social relations, he also argues that these social relations with this economic base when the latter provides greater potential than the former can provide. This is is illustrated by the famous paragraph from Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):
"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution."
These attitudes are also prevalent among phenomenological social theorists, including Lynn White (Medieval Technology and Social Change, 1962), Martin Heidegger (The Question Concerning Technology, 1954), and, in a phenomenology of communications technology Harold Innis (Empire and Communications, 1950), and Marshal McLuhan (The Medium is the Massage, 1967). In each of these examples it is assumed that the objective reality of technology acts as, at the very least, a deeply influencing orientation on the mind of the subjects who encounter it.
- - -
The Pursuit of Happiness
The seventeenth-century cleric and philosopher Richard Cumberland wrote in 1672 that promoting the well-being of our fellow humans is essential to the "pursuit of our own happiness." (Cumberland, Richard (2005). A Treatise of the Laws of Nature. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. pp. 523–24.), The 1763 English translation of Jean Jacques Burlamaqui's Principles of Natural and Politic Law extolled the "noble pursuit" of "true and solid happiness" in the opening chapter discussing natural rights (Burlamaqui, Jean Jacques (2006). The Principles of Natural and Politic Law. Indianapolis. p. 31.)
Arendt argues that "happiness" is to be interpreted as public freedom and the ability to engage in public participation and well as private welfare.
However that may be, of one thing at least we may be sure: the Declaration of Independence, though it blurs the distinction between private and public happiness, at least still intends us to hear the term 'pursuit of happiness' in its twofold meaning: private welfare as well as the right to public happiness, the pursuit of well-being as well as being a 'participator in public affairs'.
This point is also emphasised by Garry Wills in his book, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.[9] Wills argues that the "pursuit of happiness" does not refer to property or to private happiness, but instead to public happiness.
Wills, Gerry (2002) [Copyright 1978]. Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Mariner Books.