Paper Tigers

We can then deduce or infer a basic theme behind the politics of the global milieu, namely, the politics of progressive change on one hand and the politics of anachronistic and reactionary forces on the other hand. It is a foregone conclusion that some sort of change has to occur over the course of time, but the change which progressive forces seek is different than the change which anachronistic and reactionary forces seek. In general, anachronistic and reactionary forces seeks regressive change, whereas the authentic forces of change seek progressive change. One should note that the financial class in America which owns the political class actually prefers regressive change over progressive change, given that actions speak louder than words. 

In a sense, it all comes down to wanting “something different.” Time itself is the determining factor behind change. Essentially, time is an independent force which no one can manipulate or defraud. Plus, for those who suggest that change should be incremental, the question we should be asking them is: what is “incremental“ change? The question is not one of change or altering the status quo. Everyone is of the belief that change and some sort of alteration of the status quo is needed. The question is, what do anachronistic and reactionary forces mean by “incremental” change?

Over the short run, however, discipline is required on the part of the forces behind progressive change in order thwart the tactics of anachronistic and reactionary forces. As Gramsci wrote: “Bourgeois discipline is the only force which keeps the bourgeois aggregation firmly together. Discipline must be met with discipline.” Gramsci also wrote: “But whereas bourgeois discipline is mechanical and authoritarian, socialist discipline is autonomous and spontaneous.” Change includes a method which anachronistic and reactionary forces lack, but discipline is required to overcome anachronistic and reactionary tactics. As Mao famously said: “Over a long period, we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously.” 

Moreover a cheapening and devaluation of everything has prompted the basic impetus for “fire change” on the part of many around the world. Larry Summers as president of Harvard, for instance, is a cheapening and devaluation of Harvard from the time when Ralph Waldo Emerson was there. Moreover, it is not outside the bounds of reason to suggest that some people would prefer complete chaos and an outright collapse of the system than to endure Joe Biden and his administration for another four years. Arguably, the policy of preserving the status quo and enabling anachronistic and reactionary forces can backfire. As Mao said: 

“‘Lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet’ is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behavior of certain fools. The reactionaries in all countries are fools of this kind. In the final analysis, their persecution of the revolutionary people only serves to accelerate the people’s revolutions on a broader and more intense scale. Did not the persecution of the revolutionary people by the tsar of Russia and by Chiang Kai-shek perform this function in the great Russian and Chinese revolutions?”

In short, we have a long view to take into consideration on one hand and a short view on the other hand. And in the long view, the advantage does not rest with anachronistic and reactionary forces. To conclude, and as Mao said: “All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are powerful.”