Radical reforms?

When do political demands shift from being radical to being reformist? Does the demand “US out of Iraq now?” really represent an anti-war stance anymore? It seems that the question revolves around the rhetorical devices that other people employ to justify the policy; if the Iraq Study Group can demand withdraw in order to preserve US military and political dominance in the Mideast, the demand looses its force as an anti-System demand. Individual policies are transient, the real question is whether they coincide with ideas or concepts that can create a new political reality. When something can be logically adopted as a course of action that re-invigorates a form of political hegemony, the motivations and political position of the person constructing the argument matters less. However, not all types of non-radical demands end up with this fate. Demands for social justice, which are attached to some political figures, such as ecological sustainability can be linked to a variety of demands that cascade to seriously change our political situation. This is why impossible demands can be effective: they prevent the reduction of a political position to a particular policy proposal, and so prevent the redeployment of that policy for the sake of supporting a system the group would otherwise reject. So, the fact that the option “withdraw now” has become an option for mainstream politics – a way to win, a way to get out ‘OK,’ does in fact indict the usefulness of the demand for anti-war groups. This should inspire not just blind political opposition, but rather constant criticism, political groups willing and able to constantly reformulate demands for change once their proposals have been adopted as a part of mainstream political doctrine.

Duncan