Is reformism sometimes a good thing?

[spiltteeth]

While acknowledging that reform is not the goal, that the problem is systemic and the current system isn’t designed to help the masses, and ultimately a new system must replace it, wouldn’t it help to popularize socialist ideas and help create a more revolutionary atmosphere if Leftist’s concentrated on some reforms? Such as:
A) Revoke corporate personhood B) Pass the Employee Free Choice Act to strengthen and create real unions C) Abolish corporate campaign contributions and cap individual donations.
I’m somewhat new and still learning, thanks! :trotski:

[Pogue]

Reformism is within the context of a system we are trying to completely destroy. As revolutionaries we have no place in working within it, it weakens us, distorts our ideas and actions and generally wastes time.

[redasheville]

While acknowledging that reform is not the goal, that the problem is systemic and the current system isn’t designed to help the masses, and ultimately a new system must replace it, wouldn’t it help to popularize socialist ideas and help create a more revolutionary atmosphere if Leftist’s concentrated on some reforms? Such as:
A) Revoke corporate personhood B) Pass the Employee Free Choice Act to strengthen and create real unions C) Abolish corporate campaign contributions and cap individual donations.
I’m somewhat new and still learning, thanks! :trotski:

This is a great question.

Revolutionaries fight for reforms. Winning reforms has two important aspects for revolutionaries. The first is that through the struggle for reforms the working class can gain confidence and organization needed to wage bigger struggles.

The second is that reforms simply partially alleviate the misery of the workers, which you'd be insane to not want to do.

Also, there is no way for revolutionaries, in non-revolutionary situations, to intervene in the class struggle save fighting for reforms. Everything else is bound to be sectarian and abstentionist.

The problem is therefore not reforms but reformism. It is therefore the role of revolutionaries to always make arguments to carry the struggle forward, incorporating ever larger demands, and to win the most "advanced" (sort of an out moded adjective, what I mean is merely the elements of the working class that have begun to challenge reformist ideas) folks involved in those struggles to revolutionary politics.

Of the things demands you mentioned, I'd say that only the passage of EFCA would probably be a demand that revolutionaries should take up.

If you want to read a Marxist classic on this subject, I suggest reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg, which is available online at the Marxist Internet Archive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you want to read a Marxist classic on this subject, I suggest reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg, which is available online at the Marxist Internet Archive.

As the comrade said, definitely check out Luxemburg on this issue.

I really agree that we shouldn't understate the effect that concrete gains and victories for the working class leading to greater confidence to make more and more increasingly radical reforms. As the French said in 68: with the eating comes the hunger.

Just to add a little... I think the important things about reforms is the question of do the reforms build working class and ultimately radical socialist consciousness.

A reform like gun control does not build confidence for workers to take on their bosses or the state, and it also implies that violence in US society comes from bad people getting their hands on bad weapons rather than being a result of deeper issues of inequality and violent state repression in the US.

If there was a massive strike wave and wildcat strikes throughout all sectors of the economy, arguing for and focusing our efforts on a change in the laws and getting rid of anti-union Taft-Hartley (unless this was an explicit demand of the strikers) would be step back and a conservative demand. In our current climate, if the unions were calling for a repeal to anti-union laws, this would be a step forward.

It's important for radicals to use reforms as building blocks to take us to the next level, not just an end in of itself.

[robbo203]

This is a great question.

Revolutionaries fight for reforms. Winning reforms has two important aspects for revolutionaries. The first is that through the struggle for reforms the working class can gain confidence and organization needed to wage bigger struggles.

The second is that reforms simply partially alleviate the misery of the workers, which you'd be insane to not want to do.

Also, there is no way for revolutionaries, in non-revolutionary situations, to intervene in the class struggle save fighting for reforms. Everything else is bound to be sectarian and abstentionist.

The problem is therefore not reforms but reformism. It is therefore the role of revolutionaries to always make arguments to carry the struggle forward, incorporating ever larger demands, and to win the most "advanced" (sort of an out moded adjective, what I mean is merely the elements of the working class that have begun to challenge reformist ideas) folks involved in those struggles to revolutionary politics. .


Sorry but I disagree. Revolutionaries do not fight, cannot fight, for reforms. To fight for refroms is what is meant by being a reformist - obviously - and to be a reformist is to relinquish completely your revoltuonary aspirations. You cannot seek to both mend capitalism and end capitalism; it is one or the other

But let us look at the two arguments you advocate in support of reformism. Firstly you claim that it is through struggling for reforms that workers can gain the confidence and organisation to wage bigger struggles. When you think about it carefully this is illogical. Suppose that workers succeed in gaining reforms from the capitalist state what does this tell them. It suggests to them that the way to go forward is to struggle for yet more reforms rather than revolution since revolution would then come to be seen as somewhat superfluous. Capitalism according to the reformist argument is amenable to manipulation, its economic laws capable of being overriden by well intioned politicians. There is in other words no real pressing need for a revolution.

On the other hand what happens if and when the workers struggle to gain reforms does not suceed. The logic of your argument suggests then that should that happen, the workers would be even further removed from a revolutuionary perspective. How then could "revolutionaries", having so diligently fought for reforms, retain any credibility whatsoever in the face of such failure by then opportunistically arguing that capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workers and that a revolution was needed instead. Only principled revolutionaries who refused to compromise by supporting reformism could maintain any semblance of credibility in such a situation

Your second argument in favour of reforms is somewhat misleading. Some refroms might inadvertently alleviate some of the misery of workers but this is hardly ever the primary reason why the capitalist state introduces reforms. Almost always, reforms are introduced only if and when they serve the interests of the capitalist class itself.

A classic example is the so called welfare state. In Britain, in the aftermath of the Second World war, a comprehensive system of state welfare was introduced under the Attlee govenment which involved the provision of state pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances and the inauguration of a National Health Service (NHS) providing free health care to the general population. The basic outlines of such system were roughed out in a landmark publication which appeared a few years earlier - the famous Beveridge Report, published in 1942. From this Report one can glean some idea of what motivated Beveridge and his associates to propose setting up a welfare state. It had little to do with a benevolent concern for the welfare of the workers as such. Rather , it sprang from the need to boost wartime morale and to diffuse possible social discontent (such as had happened after the First World War). As the Tory MP, Quentin Hogg (later Lord Hailsham) tellingly put it at the time: "If you do not give the people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution". However, what really clinched the case for setting up a welfare state was that it was seen to provide a more cost effective and efficient alternative to the peicemeal and rather cumbersome pre-war system of welfare provision. Indeed, this last aspect was particularly emphasised by Beveridge and others. In 1943, the millionaire industrialist and Tory supporter, Samuel Courtauld commented on the Report: "Social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the morale of the nation's workers; it will ultimately lead to higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs" (The Market System Must Go!, SPGB pamphlet, 1997 p20).

The point that you fail to grasp is that reforms are ephemeral and dependent on context. They can be granted at one time (eg in a boom) and taken away at another (in a recession). The image that you present of a kind of progressive incremental progress at work in which workers become increasing ambituous in their demands to the point at which they become susceptible to revolutuionary ideas is totally misleading and incidentally highly mechanistic and manipulative in its conceptualisation. Why would the more advanced elements of the working class begin to "challenge reformist ideas" if according to you the refromist struggle could succeed in progressively delivering what the refromists claim it can?

[redasheville]

Dear lord. I'm going not going to have time to reply to that until Wednesday.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Robbo,

I appreciate that you are trying to figure out a way to bring anarchists and socialists back together on the basis of a rejection of state-capitalism as "socialism" but it seems like your view of change is very ridged and oddly a bit elitist. It is as if socialists and anarchists are monks of the class war and hold all knowledge for the day when workers are ready to hear the gospel. I don't think you are elitist at all, but if a socialist revolution is to be the self-emancipation of the working class, doesn't the working class need to learn practical experience about how to make movements and win and why reforms are ultimately not enough?

History does not happen in neat little stages and steps. Look at the French revolution - none of the bourgeois leaders of this revolution were thinking that they needed a Republic at the start of the conflict. Most wanted the King to "come to his senses" but ultimately they realized that it was in their class interests to do away with the feudal order and replace it with one that suited their class needs.

Or, look at the civil rights movement in the US: how did a Liberal reformist movement (that barely wanted to challenge jim-crow at first let alone the state or capitalism) eventually lead to a large revolutionary consciousness and the black power movement? For the civil rights movement, getting rid of jim-crow lead people to black workers in the north quetioning why they were still opressed even though they did not have formal jim-crow laws, this lead to an understanding that the police and northern liberals were actually holding them back and not their allies.

Or what about strikes? Aren't all strikes just reforms when it comes down to it? Getting a coffee machine for the break room certaintly isn't revolutionary. So should workers put down their pickets and read a book instead to radicalize themselves? Or does even getting a coffee machine for the break room help workers to learn first-hand about solidarity, the class struggle (in the positive rathern than just getting beat-down all the time), and to expect more than what the bosses offer to give them.

So the real question is how do people develop revolutionary consciousness; how do we get from where workers are now to a radical understanding. You suggested in another discussion that it will be from people learning about socialism/anarchism and getting an understanding of communism that will lead to a revolution. If people don't get this consciousness through struggle and radicalization, it seems like you are suggesting that socialist consciousness can only come from propagandizing and spreading the word.

Although I think it's obviously important to figure out politics and try to understand how to change the world, action is just as important: people have to strike and then ask why the bosses won't let them have a simple common sense (to workers) raise or benefit for our politics to be relevant to them.

[RHIZOMES]

This is a great question.

Revolutionaries fight for reforms. Winning reforms has two important aspects for revolutionaries. The first is that through the struggle for reforms the working class can gain confidence and organization needed to wage bigger struggles.

The second is that reforms simply partially alleviate the misery of the workers, which you'd be insane to not want to do.

Also, there is no way for revolutionaries, in non-revolutionary situations, to intervene in the class struggle save fighting for reforms. Everything else is bound to be sectarian and abstentionist.

The problem is therefore not reforms but reformism. It is therefore the role of revolutionaries to always make arguments to carry the struggle forward, incorporating ever larger demands, and to win the most "advanced" (sort of an out moded adjective, what I mean is merely the elements of the working class that have begun to challenge reformist ideas) folks involved in those struggles to revolutionary politics.

Of the things demands you mentioned, I'd say that only the passage of EFCA would probably be a demand that revolutionaries should take up.

If you want to read a Marxist classic on this subject, I suggest reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg, which is available online at the Marxist Internet Archive.

Basically that.

In NZ most of what we've been fighting against is just oppression in general, which often involves *gasp* reforms. :rolleyes:

Raising the minimum wage, fighting redundancy, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the real question is how do people develop revolutionary consciousness; how do we get from where workers are now to a radical understanding. You suggested in another discussion that it will be from people learning about socialism/anarchism and getting an understanding of communism that will lead to a revolution. If people don't get this consciousness through struggle and radicalization, it seems like you are suggesting that socialist consciousness can only come from propagandizing and spreading the word.

Although I think it's obviously important to figure out politics and try to understand how to change the world, action is just as important: people have to strike and then ask why the bosses won't let them have a simple common sense (to workers) raise or benefit for our politics to be relevant to them.

There are three or four types of consciousness: tred-iunionizm and left populism, class consciousness, socialist consciousness, and perhaps a fourth consciousness that I can't name.

In my experience, socialist consciousness is spread through "education" in "educate, agitate, organize."

Class consciousness is a different animal from the first type, because this involves posing the question of political power (usually by means of a party and not through syndicalism).

The fourth type of consciousness, if it can be even called that, would indeed refer to your "action" musings, which come directly from Bakunin and Sorel, not from Marx. This is based on "agitation" in "educate, agitate, organize."

[Jimmie Higgins]

You are right, I didn't mean to suggest that socialist and class consciousness are the same thing or that socialist consciousness is automatic or spontaneous - just that if there is no struggle, then neither class or socialist consciousness can't come about.

The development of the Chartists was important to the development of socialism. Without the class struggle hitting the limits of reformism or coming into conflict with the state or whatnot, then Socialism is an abstract answer for a question that hasn't been asked.

[spiltteeth]

Wow, thanks so much for the replys, I'm learning alot.
Actually, I was thinking of suporting those 3 issues Specifically and mainly because I believe that if passed they would make a revolution more feasible/weaken the resistance.

The Employee Free Choice Act would create large, active unions, and the large ready organizations could easier be turned into soviets.

There’s a large movement to revise the 14th Amendment and take from corporations the rights that should be reserved for natural persons. Against it, small groups are popping up all over the country
The main roadblock to single-payer, national health care has been the enormous amount of lobbying and campaign contributions from those corporations that profit from the current system. By prohibiting corporate-sponsored campaign contributions to politicians and corporate-sponsored propaganda on television, the national consensus in favor of national health care could no longer be thwarted.
Corporations will be out of the political process. Politicians will rely on people for votes, not on corporations for money to buy votes.
There are a few organizations gighting against corporate personhood
This is a huge difference from the Russian or Chinese revolution – Americans will not only be fighting the military/government, but trans-national corporate conglomerates.

Why in the world are we not weakening the enemy now?

So. How does that sound?

[robbo203]

Robbo,

I appreciate that you are trying to figure out a way to bring anarchists and socialists back together on the basis of a rejection of state-capitalism as "socialism" but it seems like your view of change is very ridged and oddly a bit elitist. It is as if socialists and anarchists are monks of the class war and hold all knowledge for the day when workers are ready to hear the gospel. I don't think you are elitist at all, but if a socialist revolution is to be the self-emancipation of the working class, doesn't the working class need to learn practical experience about how to make movements and win and why reforms are ultimately not enough?

History does not happen in neat little stages and steps. Look at the French revolution - none of the bourgeois leaders of this revolution were thinking that they needed a Republic at the start of the conflict. Most wanted the King to "come to his senses" but ultimately they realized that it was in their class interests to do away with the feudal order and replace it with one that suited their class needs.

Or, look at the civil rights movement in the US: how did a Liberal reformist movement (that barely wanted to challenge jim-crow at first let alone the state or capitalism) eventually lead to a large revolutionary consciousness and the black power movement? For the civil rights movement, getting rid of jim-crow lead people to black workers in the north quetioning why they were still opressed even though they did not have formal jim-crow laws, this lead to an understanding that the police and northern liberals were actually holding them back and not their allies.

Or what about strikes? Aren't all strikes just reforms when it comes down to it? Getting a coffee machine for the break room certaintly isn't revolutionary. So should workers put down their pickets and read a book instead to radicalize themselves? Or does even getting a coffee machine for the break room help workers to learn first-hand about solidarity, the class struggle (in the positive rathern than just getting beat-down all the time), and to expect more than what the bosses offer to give them.

So the real question is how do people develop revolutionary consciousness; how do we get from where workers are now to a radical understanding. You suggested in another discussion that it will be from people learning about socialism/anarchism and getting an understanding of communism that will lead to a revolution. If people don't get this consciousness through struggle and radicalization, it seems like you are suggesting that socialist consciousness can only come from propagandizing and spreading the word.

Although I think it's obviously important to figure out politics and try to understand how to change the world, action is just as important: people have to strike and then ask why the bosses won't let them have a simple common sense (to workers) raise or benefit for our politics to be relevant to them.


I think what you are saying above is based on a misunderstanding of what I have been arguing. Of course people learn though experience all the time whatever I or any socialist revolutionary might say to them. I cannot stop that and nor do I propose to. Nevertheless it is important that a revolutionary interpetation of the experiences that workers are going through should be made available to them to enable them to make sense of it all.

Its like this. If you persist in wanting to drive down the wrong side of the road sooner or later you arre going to be involved in a head on crash. That will certainly "teach" you which side of the road to drive on! The revolutionary socialist message is simply there to forewarn you in advance. Revolutionary socialism is itself the outcome of the collective practical experiences of fellow workers not some disembodied set of dogma to be religiously studied

Furthermore I think you gravely misunderstad what I mean by refromism. I won't repeat what I said in the "revolutionary left" thread in the politics section except to say this. You note that "people have to strike and then ask why the bosses won't let them have a simple common sense (to workers) raise or benefit for our politics to be relevant to them". But I am not against militant trade unuion activity in the industrial field whatsoever . This however has nothing whatsoever to do with refromism and you need to grasp the nature of this distinction to make sense of this issue

,m

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think what you are saying above is based on a misunderstanding of what I have been arguing. Of course people learn though experience all the time whatever I or any socialist revolutionary might say to them. I cannot stop that and nor do I propose to. Nevertheless it is important that a revolutionary interpetation of the experiences that workers are going through should be made available to them to enable them to make sense of it all. Right, so why would radicals not want to be there when fellow workers are fighting for universal health care and come up against liberal opposition to their demands. Why would radicals not want to join the anti-war movement (a reform) and explain why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan and why it has nothing to do with Bush just being crazy or is just an oil-grab alone and why war is systemic in capitalism and why in order to finally get rid of war we need to get rid of capitalism?


Furthermore I think you gravely misunderstad what I mean by refromism. I won't repeat what I said in the "revolutionary left" thread in the politics section except to say this. You note that "people have to strike and then ask why the bosses won't let them have a simple common sense (to workers) raise or benefit for our politics to be relevant to them". But I am not against militant trade unuion activity in the industrial field whatsoever . This however has nothing whatsoever to do with refromism and you need to grasp the nature of this distinction to make sense of this issueI'll check out that other discussion, but ultimately aren't trade-union demands reformist and if one is against all reforms under capitalism, doesn't a trade-union "decieve workers into thinking they can get a fair deal under capitalism"?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

1. The revolution won't happen until people are ready.
2. Reforms are a waste of time and counter-revolutionary.

Sounds like an excuse to sit on your ass an do nothing, honestly. It's pretty obvious that workers will be better off with a health plan than without one.

Arguably, in the long-run the successes of reform will delude people into believing it can satisfy long-term goals. However, that's a pretty big assumption. I know that I can ask my parents for assistance without pretending I don't want and deserve financial independence.

Assuming reforms will somehow delude people really assumes they are stupid. If they are that stupid, I doubt communism is possible anyway. The arguments against reforms seem to be based on a pessimistic outlook. If I was pessimistic, I wouldn't be a communist.

We know what we want. Revolution is clearly the best tactic. That doesn't mean you can't use whatever options are available. I'm an anarchist, but I'd run for office if I thought I could make a difference. Politicians and reforms can influence the lives of people.

Are we worried that being diplomatic will somehow ruin or reputation of being a badass movement or something? I really don't get it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. The revolution won't happen until people are ready.
2. Reforms are a waste of time and counter-revolutionary.

Sounds like an excuse to sit on your ass an do nothing, honestly. It's pretty obvious that workers will be better off with a health plan than without one.Yes, thanks. Not only that, but if a movement organized for universal healtcare in the US and the government was forced to adopt it, this would be a huge ideological blow to the ruling class that originated the mantra of "the private sector always does things better and more efficiently". So worker's would learn that they can organize together and fight for what they want, while the ruling class would loose an ideological argument.

It's the same thing with the death penalty or the prison system. If a movement could get rid of 3 strikes or the death penalty, then the whole establishment logic about who should be feared in society is called into question.

If, however, a refomist group is calling for 3 strikes to replaced by some kind of long-term probabtion thing, then this reform is not something that revolutionaries can really use because it doesn't challenge the ideology and arguemnts that lead to the millions being in prision in the US. In california, some groups are argueing for alternatives to prison on the baisis that it will be cheaper - this is not something that radicals should support.

Some reforms, jusdged in terms of the class struggle, have much more of an impact on both workers and the ruling class than the single-aim they have. This is why it is just as wrong to ridgedly fight for all reforms as it is to ridgedly fight for no reforms. Radicals should take each refrm case by case and determine if it will help embolden and radicalize people and if it will hurt the ruling class.

[spiltteeth]

Specific reforms as part of a revolutionary strategy can create conditions more conducive for revolution to take hold, not reforms just for the sake of gaining rights or easing suffering.
Its not just about bullets, the main war is one of propaganda (for now ;))

I picked those 3 topics specifically because I believe if passed they would make a revolution more feasible and weaken the resistance from corporate oligarchies.

[Misanthrope]

Of course reform is a good thing. Reform can only go so far, that is where revolution comes in.

[redflag32]

Reformism is within the context of a system we are trying to completely destroy. As revolutionaries we have no place in working within it, it weakens us, distorts our ideas and actions and generally wastes time.

So it would have been better for the working class not to have struggled for the right to organise in unions?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Reformism is often a tool used to the bourgeoisie to maintain control over the workers. We must stay in line with our revolutionary principles by refusing to participate in illegitimate structures.

[redflag32]

Reformism is often a tool used to the bourgeoisie to maintain control over the workers. We must stay in line with our revolutionary principles by refusing to participate in illegitimate structures.

Whats an "illegitimate structure"?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Whats an "illegitimate structure"?

The state? Capitalism? Private Property?

[redflag32]

The state? Capitalism? Private Property?

Whats with the question marks? Are you not sure?:D

So we should not work inside capitalism for reforms?

What about the example i gave, of the struggle for the right to organise in unions?

[New Tet]

Specific reforms as part of a revolutionary strategy can create conditions more conducive for revolution to take hold, not reforms just for the sake of gaining rights or easing suffering.
Its not just about bullets, the main war is one of propaganda (for now ;))

I picked those 3 topics specifically because I believe if passed they would make a revolution more feasible and weaken the resistance from corporate oligarchies.

I think there was a time when reform and not revolution was the correct approach to redress some injustices of capitalism. That time is long past. From my perspective, nowadays reforms in capitalism spawn new evils that require new reforms that spawn new evils that require ever more reforms, etc., etc.

Marx had it right when, addressing the question of reforms, he said:


"At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: 'Abolition of the wages system!'" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch03.htm#c14)

[New Tet]

Whats with the question marks? Are you not sure?:D

So we should not work inside capitalism for reforms?

What about the example i gave, of the struggle for the right to organise in unions?

Maybe he was being ironic.

However, the act of organizing a union is revolutionary if the intended union's aim is to take, hold and operate the industries of the land in behalf of the people.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Whats with the question marks? Are you not sure?:D

So we should not work inside capitalism for reforms?

What about the example i gave, of the struggle for the right to organise in unions?

:D No I am sure. I do not agree with working inside a bourgeois government because there is nothing to gain from this. Reformism just weakens us as it does not send out the message that we oppose parliametary politics for the reason that it offers nothing to the working class. By working within them we weaken ourselves. I agree 100% with you on the union question because unionisation, even within bureaucratic reformist unions, is a method towards our goal and by organising within these unions we can raise class concsciousness.

[redflag32]

Maybe he was being ironic.

Maybe you should mind your own business


However, the act of organizing a union is revolutionary if the intended union's aim is to take, hold and operate the industries of the land in behalf of the people.

But the struggle for the legal right to organise in unions is a reform. And its a good thing for the working class movement.

[redflag32]

:D No I am sure. I do not agree with working inside a bourgeois government because there is nothing to gain from this. Reformism just weakens us as it does not send out the message that we oppose parliametary politics for the reason that it offers nothing to the working class. By working within them we weaken ourselves. I agree 100% with you on the union question because unionisation, even within bureaucratic reformist unions, is a method towards our goal and by organising within these unions we can raise class concsciousness.

I think i actually agree with you, wow:laugh:

[New Tet]

Maybe you should mind your own business


Maybe you should take chill pill and call me in the morning.

[redflag32]

Maybe you should take chill pill and call me in the morning.

Oh dont be so sensitive, manners are a bourgeois invention after all:cool:

[New Tet]

But the struggle for the legal right to organise in unions is a reform. And its a good thing for the working class movement.

Not every union is good for the working class "movement" whatever that means. Many unions, if not all, are reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

[redflag32]

Not every union is good for the working class "movement" whatever that means. Many unions, if not all, are reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

But i wasnt talking about the nature of individual unions, was i clever clogs? I was talking about the legal right to organise in unions. Which is a good thing for the working class movement.

[New Tet]

Oh dont be so sensitive, manners are a bourgeois invention after all:cool:

Good manners are a universal thing. But even if they were created by the bourgeoisie, I would not stop using them; some things are worth preserving, no matter who invented them.

BTW, I can throw a shit fit every now and then, be as vulgar as the next boor and as ill mannered as a drunk sailor, but in a public forum, where everything one writes is open to examination by anyone else, I try to be on my best behavior; it's the turn-around-and-bite-you-in-the-ass syndrome I fear the most.

Also, If you're being ironic, know this: Irony is obscure...

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think i actually agree with you, wow:laugh:

:D I'm glad we could see eye to eye. To respond to your other post it is a reform that helps the class struggle however we must realise that by giving us the right to unionise the bourgeoisie want to give the worker an illusion of power within bureaucratic unions. Therefore we must work inside them to radicalise them.

[Pogue]

:D I'm glad we could see eye to eye. To respond to your other post it is a reform that helps the class struggle however we must realise that by giving us the right to unionise the bourgeoisie want to give the worker an illusion of power within bureaucratic unions. Therefore we must work inside them to radicalise them.

I don't understand the rhetoric within our ideology of 'radicalising' existing unions. You can't radicalise the unions, you can however radicalise workers to act independently of the official union structure.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't understand the rhetoric within our ideology of 'radicalising' existing unions. You can't radicalise the unions, you can however radicalise workers to act independently of the official union structure.

That is what I was referring to. To be honest I thought that is what the phrase meant. Sorry for the confusion.:)

[Pogue]

That is what I was referring to. To be honest I thought that is what the phrase meant. Sorry for the confusion.:)

Oh ok no problem. I think that the term needs clearing up, or at least people need to say what they really mean by it. I cringe when people say they think the TUC unions can be radicalised.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Oh ok no problem. I think that the term needs clearing up, or at least people need to say what they really mean by it. I cringe when people say they think the TUC unions can be radicalised.

Haha, I have no hope for these unions and surely to radicalise a union which includes only members of a certain trade is futile anyhow?

[redflag32]

I don't understand the rhetoric within our ideology of 'radicalising' existing unions. You can't radicalise the unions, you can however radicalise workers to act independently of the official union structure.

What about the workers kicking the bureaucracy out and taking over the union? Isnt that radicalising the union?

[redflag32]

Good manners are a universal thing. But even if they were created by the bourgeoisie, I would not stop using them; some things are worth preserving, no matter who invented them.

BTW, I can throw a shit fit every now and then, be as vulgar as the next boor and as ill mannered as a drunk sailor, but in a public forum, where everything one writes is open to examination by anyone else, I try to be on my best behavior; it's the turn-around-and-bite-you-in-the-ass syndrome I fear the most.

Also, If you're being ironic, know this: Irony is obscure...

I was only joking comrade, sorry!

[New Tet]

I was only joking comrade, sorry!

Unnecessary apology accepted.

[genstrike]

I think reforms are a good thing (although VERY limited) and we should fight for them. Yeah, I want revolution and to smash the capitalist state too, but I also like having healthcare, unlike a certain country an hour's drive to the south where something like 40-something million go without.

And lets face it, we're not going to gain any credibility with anyone by sitting on our asses waiting for the revolution or for the level of struggle to go up (as if it is some natural ebb and flow) while the right is busy screwing shit up, privatizing public services, and dismantling the welfare state that many poor and working class people are desperately clinging to, especially not during an economic crisis. If a bunch of people come to us saying they need more generous social assistance rates or affordable childcare, we're not going to win them over to our side by saying "no, that is just a reform to prolong the existence of capitalism and we shouldn't fight for it, you can get healthcare after the revolution. Now, do you want to join The Party?" And then wonder why our revolutionary groupuscule is made up of white middle class kids, most of which are university students who get caught up in an endless circle-jerk of pamphleteering, tabling, reading the barely comprehensible works of dead white guys, and writing shit on the internet. Or in the anarchist-lifestylist cultural ghetto.

But I also think that one of the best ways to get reforms is to have strong revolutionary or potentially revolutionary movements that can scare the ruling class into giving us another piece of the pie in order to stave off the taking of the bakery.

And the way I see it, good organizing with reformist aims (electioneering doesn't count as good organizing) is better than bad or no organizing.

[Olerud]

I believe that reforming the state laws will help the working-class gain confidence and then after revolution will take place.

[Muzk]

HELL NO. If people are better off, the only chance to get them to overthrow the state is with massive third-world propaganda, after all reforms in the capitalist system only take money from one and give it to another, and doesn't eliminate the problems of the system itself. But why would your every-day politician question the system? They get money in their position.


Politicians are supposed to get a lot of money to secure the incorruptibility, but I say that this money is what makes them corrupt. As one you shouldn't be there for the money anyways - but because you know you are there for a hella lot of people, and it is your duty to secure the humanity, and criticize everything against human rights.

If you want lead a state - you should no longer be yourself, but more an objective machine, a 'god', trying to make the best decisions for everyone.
It would be much better if everyone decided together....


FUCK THE SYSTEM

[Tzadikim]

A degree of reform is probably required to make the conditions for revolution even possible. How can revolutionary unions be formed, for instance, in a society that gives control over to the State to break up any union? Hence in such a hypothetical situation I would support a reformist politician, to lay in place the basic structure that will one day consume him.

[RotStern]

Nope. Grab some arms and Smash the state :D To put it simply.

[Decommissioner]

A degree of reform is probably required to make the conditions for revolution even possible. How can revolutionary unions be formed, for instance, in a society that gives control over to the State to break up any union? Hence in such a hypothetical situation I would support a reformist politician, to lay in place the basic structure that will one day consume him.

I agree with this line of thinking. Reform isn't the goal, but it should still be fought for.

I personally do not have healthcare, and I really need it. Why should I not be willing to fight for healthcare outside of revolutionary circumstances. Some people have immediate needs that can't wait.

Also, a society has to be "open" to a certain degree to allow revolutionary activity to take place. An extreme example of a society that isn't conductive for revolutionary activity would be nazi germany, where speaking out and organizing would get you killed. So naturally, the state needs to be reformed so much until real work can be done. I understand that reform can leave workers content, and that the ruling class relies on this, but you also have to understand that if workers are too busy worrying about their medical bills or about where their next meal is coming from, then how can they be expected to organize and overthrow capitalism? With better wages and healthcare within capitalism, along with education reforms, this may open the door for a revolutionary culture to grow.