What Do We Mean by a “Radical” Transformation of Society?
This month I welcome Katya de Kadt and Karsten Struhl as co-authors of the Mindful Solidarity Substack publication. Katya and Karsten are dharma buddies and political activist comrades who I have worked closely with over the last several years. Within the Buddhist community, we have been advocating a secular, radically engaged perspective; among political activists, we have been urging Leftists to recognize the need for a more mindful and compassionate approach. In short: mindful solidarity.
Katya, Karsten, and I wrote an article in 2022 for the Secular Buddhist Network website which proposed five core tasks for those who support a secular, radically engaged approach. We urged Buddhists and political activists to recognize the need for both individual and social transformation.
What Radical Transformation Is and Isn’t
Throughout the article noted above and in Mindful Solidarity: A Secular Buddhist Democratic Socialist Dialogue, a key theme is that the severe harms caused by social structures and systems cannot be adequately addressed unless there is a fundamental or radical transformation of such structures and systems.
In a recent review of the book, Seth Zuiho Segall, agreed with the need for a naturalistic and pragmatic approach to Buddhism which is quite similar to the secular Buddhist perspective advanced in Mindful Solidarity. Seth’s book, Buddhism and Human Flourishing presents a theory of human flourishing which insightfully integrates Aristotle’s notions of eudaimonia and the centrality of virtues with core Buddhist insights; and we highly recommend the book.
However, in the same review, Seth strongly disagreed with the claim that we need a radical transformation to reduce suffering and promote human flourishing. In the first place, Seth opposes the goal of radical change based on the idea — articulated most famously by Reinhold Niebuhr in his Moral Man and Immoral Society — that societies can never be moral, that they will always be dominated by power conflicts between various groups. If a revolution occurs in which one group overthrows another, this doesn’t lead to a more moral and just society but to just another form of power conflict.
Seth also believes that any radical change has unintended and negative consequences — no matter how well-intentioned — because all aspects of society are so interrelated and interconnected that any change sets off a chain reaction of other changes, some of which will always be harmful.
Seth’s conclusion is thus:
This means that when you are imagining “dismantling” and “replacing” capitalism, and think this will result in a better life, you are dwelling in fantasy land. Attempts to totally change societies (the French, Russian, and Cambodian revolutions are cases in point) are more likely to result in disasters rather than improvements. You are better off making small changes here and there—strengthening unions, changing taxation rates, subsidizing college tuition, regulating mergers and acquisitions, limiting predatory bank practices, amending corporate law, overturning Citizens United—than thinking in terms of “ending capitalism.”
Let’s put aside, for another article, an analysis of Seth’s view that human beings, given our nature, aren’t capable of creating societies which are moral and just, and which have as their primary goal the flourishing of human and other beings. Our focus this month is trying to clarify what “radical” means in the context of social transformation. Does radical transformation mean, as Seth argues, a dismantling and replacement of one system by another which is both violent and total?
If not, how do we understand and envisage a radical transformation of society which can avoid the horrific events and consequences of some revolutions?
Revolutions Are Not All the Same
First, it’s important to recognize that radical or revolutionary change encompasses a wide range of phenomena. What the French, Russian, and Cambodian revolutions have in common is the overturning of the status quo and the widespread use of violence to implement and sustain certain political objectives. But beyond that, these revolutions are quite different in terms of the social groups involved, the aims of the revolutionaries, the amount of violence used, and their consequences (good or bad) for both individuals and society. We need to be attentive to the specific dynamics and effects.
So, while the French Revolution certainly included a period of violence and repression, it also played a key role in advancing the notion of liberty, democracy, and human rights throughout the world and challenged the divine right of kings. Was that revolution thus a “disaster”, as Seth argues?
Similarly, the Russian Revolution was, for a time, an inspiring example of how workers could “dismantle” the institutions of a repressive dictatorship supported by landowners and capitalists and gain power through mass, democratic institutions — the Soviets. That the Russian Revolution quickly transitioned into a one-party dictatorship, which used repression and violence on a mass scale, does not mean that it was simply a terrible, disastrous event. We can learn much from both the positive and negative aspects of the Russian Revolution, including how the transition to a dictatorship was shaped by both internal problems within the revolutionary party and external factors, such as the counter-revolution launched against the new workers’ government.
The Khmer Rouge’s seizure of power in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 was a horrific event and an example of a radical transformation of society which was disastrous in its impact, as several million Cambodians were murdered by the regime.
What Does “Radical” Mean?
It’s helpful, then, to avoid a kind of blanket condemnation of all revolutions. In each case, we need to examine the historical forces at play and to be aware of both their emancipatory and repressive aspects, and the reasons for each. Just as important, we need to be clear about what we mean by a radical transformation. What do the terms associated with radical change — “dismantling” and “replacing” — signify? If “dismantling” means burning everything to the ground and reducing it to ashes and if “replacing” means rising from the ashes as a phoenix, then Seth’s criticism has merit. But there are other ways to understand dismantling and replacing.
We can, for example, dismantle the institutions of a society slowly piece by piece until what is left no longer has the structure of the originals. This is, in fact, what Erik Olin Wright recommends in his How to be an Anti-Capitalist in the 21st Century. Contemporary capitalism has many different pieces and a political movement that was able to achieve political power could, in conjunction with social movements from below, begin to remove some of the key pieces that maintained the imperatives of capital accumulation and replace them with policies that emphasize production and distribution for human need. Such a process would involve several different strategies to erode and limit the power of capitalism rather than be based on just one strategy: a sudden violent and total seizure of power.
In our view, whether this strategy could work would depend on whether revolutionary activists and mass movements for change are committed to the values and practices of democracy. The dismantling and replacement of capitalism requires that the means of radical transformation are consistent with and support the goal of creating of an economic and political democracy which prioritizes human flourishing for all.
As we envision radical social transformation, then, the goal is to supplant the hegemony and imperatives of a system based on private capital accumulation and the power of corporations with a democratic system based on meeting human needs and which is sustainable in an ecological sense. This does not mean that all existing institutions are destroyed; some aspects of our current society will likely continue, although they will have a different form and role — markets are such an example. Yet, a radical transformation does entail a fundamental shift in power to working people and a basic reorientation of society’s production toward human needs and sustainability. What that means specifically in terms of institutions and processes will be the result of a process of democratic dialogue and collective struggle within a movement for radical social change.
Let your dharma buddies, colleagues, comrades and friends know they can get Mindful Solidarity from their local bookstore or online, including in Tuwhiri’s online store: Mindful Solidarity: A Secular Buddhist Democratic Socialist Dialogue.
Expect the next newsletter in your Inbox in late March 2025
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
I disagree.