Are reforms inside of a capitalist system reactionary?

[Forrest]

Don't they? If we make working conditions inside of capitalism a little bit better doesn't that lessen the odds of a revolution or delay it?

[Pogue]

They are not always reactionary they are just not revolutionary and can be used to hold the working class back. In that context they can be used to diffuse revolutionary situations and so are reactionary.

[scarletghoul]

It really depends what the reforms are. If they pacify the workers then they are somewhat reactionary as they seek to preserve capitalism. However if the reforms are actually giving worker's more power, increasing potential for revolution then they are good (for example the Chavez reforms).

[Forrest]

How are they not reactionary if they hold back the liberation of the proletariat?

[Pogue]

outsdie of a revolutionary period they can advance the conditions of the class. but they are often used in a reactionary nature.

[OneNamedNameLess]

They should be applauded in the sense that they improve standards of living. However, revolutionaries have always stated that they buy off the working class limiting it's revolutionary potential. Socialists and trade unionists were even claiming this during talk of reforms at the turn of the 20th century in Britain for instance. The fundamental issues, such as alienation and wage slavery, still remain. Thus, reforms should not be resorted to as a permanent solution for revolutionary leftists.

[robbo203]

The thing is you cant work to both end and mend the system. It has to be one or the other. It so much reforms that socialists oppose as reformism - the advocacy of measures enacted via the state to address this or that problem that arises from the very nature of capitalism. That is what makes reformism and ultimately futile endeavour and a diversion . It is a treadmill going nowhere

[New Tet]

Don't they? If we make working conditions inside of capitalism a little bit better doesn't that lessen the odds of a revolution or delay it?

Reforms have always been reactionary, now more than ever. They are essentially half-measures that hopefully lessen the effect of particular evils of capitalism without addressing their root cause. Their intention is to make capitalism a little more tolerable for the people who have to suffer it while preserving the essential features of private ownership, wage labor and profit. I think it was FDR who said "Reform if you are to preserve!"

Inevitably, some reforms, like the eight-hour day, have the effect of encouraging workers to demand more concessions and better conditions within capitalism, but hardly ever do they lead workers to challenge capitalist ownership and control of the economy.

[Forrest]

It really depends what the reforms are. If they pacify the workers then they are somewhat reactionary as they seek to preserve capitalism. However if the reforms are actually giving worker's more power, increasing potential for revolution then they are good (for example the Chavez reforms).

What are some good examples of Chavez reforms that increase potential for revolution?

[Niccolò Rossi]

The talk about reforms as passifiers of the proletariat and hence opposition to them on this basis is very unnerving for me. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx states that "[The communists] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole". If reforms are benefical for the working class, that is, are in their interests, yet 'we' oppose them on the basis that they passify revolutionary potential as a by-product, it begs the question of who 'we' are.

I would not say reform within the framework of capitalism is reactionary. I think the better question is to ask is, Is reform within the framework of capitalism possible?

To this question I would say today, no. The false and so-called 'reforms' advocated by the bourgeoisie and it's leftist lackies, I would agree, are in fact reactionary. This is not the say that the defensive and economic struggles of the working class are irrelevant or should be abandoned but only the illusions in the possibility of successfully defending its interests, without consciously adopting a revolutionary, political and international understanding of its struggle.

[scarletghoul]

What are some good examples of Chavez reforms that increase potential for revolution?
One example that springs to mind is the workers' militia thing.

[RedCommieBear]

To me, I don't see any correlation in the strength of workers movements and the lack of reforms. France, Britain say both have some form of public coverage, but are there workers movements weaker than the ones in the United States?

To oppose bettering the standard of living for the working classes is just beyond me. It's a matter of survival. Denying a single mother the reforms that can help her feed her family or keep her or her kids from getting sick just because reforms within the capitalist system don't conform to your theoretical paradigm - it's repugnant.

[Ned Flanders]

I think the constant need men see for reforming the capitalist system exposes it´s anti- humanitarian nature. Sure we should support any reforms who make the living conditions of the working class better, but we should also point out how limited they are by nature, and how easily they can be taken away when it suits the bourgeoise.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by New Tet
Inevitably, some reforms, like the eight-hour day, have the effect of encouraging workers to demand more concessions and better conditions within capitalism, but hardly ever do they lead workers to challenge capitalist ownership and control of the economy. But workers won the eight-hour day against the resistance of the bourgeoisie in the first place. What you're really saying here is that one victory for the class builds confidence and increases the demand for other victories.

[New Tet]

But workers won the eight-hour day against the resistance of the bourgeoisie in the first place. What you're really saying here is that one victory for the class builds confidence and increases the demand for other victories.

Yeah, but those victories don't necessarily lead workers to challenge capitalist rule.

[Sarah Palin]

Well, the first word I think of when I hear [liberal] reformist is compromise. And with compromise, we can go back to what Pogue said about reformists holding the working class back. Every post LBJ democratic [That's an oxymoron, but whatevs] is a quintessential reformist who holds the working class back. They get into office being supposedly "pro-union" and then give even more power to CEOs than their predecessor *cough Obama cough*. I think reformists are more dangerous to a radical leftist movement because of their charade. At least with far right leaders, they are open about oppressing the working class, so it's easier to spot the enemy.

[New Tet]

Well, the first word I think of when I hear [liberal] reformist is compromise. And with compromise, we can go back to what Pogue said about reformists holding the working class back. Every post LBJ democratic [That's an oxymoron, but whatevs] is a quintessential reformist who holds the working class back. They get into office being supposedly "pro-union" and then give even more power to CEOs than their predecessor *cough Obama cough*. I think reformists are more dangerous to a radical leftist movement because of their charade. At least with far right leaders, they are open about oppressing the working class, so it's easier to spot the enemy.

Correct. And when they declare themselves to be "pro-union" we have to ask ourselves "what sort of union are they in favor of?".

[blake 3:17]

Reforms and reformism are not the same thing. To think fascism will spark the working class in to action might be partly right. It'll spur it to fight for liberal democracy. Eventually.

Better wages, social supports, freedom of speech and assembly, public services, education, housing, health care all need to be fought for.


And when they declare themselves to be "pro-union" we have to ask ourselves "what sort of union are they in favor of?".

The ones who give them money. The Democratic Party or New Labour shouldn't be considered reformist. Clinton and Blair did a perfect job of opening up the era of reformism without reforms.

[KurtFF8]

Well firstly, I'm assuming we're talking about "progressive reforms" that in some way benefit the working class and oppressed people.

I think the answer ought to be obviously "no." Being a reactionary itself is a specific thing and we can't just label tactics and strategies we disagree with. I also don't see how reforms by themselves could be reactionary. They certainly can and often are used to perpetuate the status quo of the rule of capital.

"Progressive reforms" themselves tend to come up in times of great movements by workers and oppressed people. The New Deal, I'm sure we can all agree, was the result of massive pressure by the working class movement of the time. Yes those reforms did help to "buy off" the working class, but at the same time those reforms did indeed bring material benefits to the working class. Sometimes they are worth supporting, but obviously as revolutionaries we need to make it quite clear that they are never sufficient.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, but those victories don't necessarily lead workers to challenge capitalist rule.

True. But no victories sure as hell don't. It's easier to push a revolutionary agenda amongst workers who have the confidence which grows from victories than workers who are in the doldrums.

[Delirium]

Don't they? If we make working conditions inside of capitalism a little bit better doesn't that lessen the odds of a revolution or delay it?

Thats a pretty hard question. In some circumstances reforms are used to take the steam out of revolutionary movements. For example, the adoption of labor regulations during the great depression were designed to address the most obvious ineqalities of capitalism while maintaining the same essential structure.

On the other hand those reforms had an immediate and benificial effect for workers.

Some reforms are cosmetic, just changing the appearace of the status quo, while other actually can change the distribution of power.

I support reforms that materially benifit the workers, or would put the left in a stronger position to fight captialism. While maintaing the long term goal of communist revolution.

[Nwoye]

It depends. To answer this question we have to know what kind of reforms we're fighting for and why we're fighting for them. Because whether or not a reform is reactionary depends on what its role is in the proletarian movement - as an end or as a means. As usual, Rosa Luxemburg's writings are relevant:

At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.From Reform or Revolution (1900) (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

No socialist or supporter of proletarian liberation would oppose minimum wage laws, or the expansion of welfare, or the expansion of democracy, or etc etc. What makes these reforms reactionary is whether or not they're intended to be the end all be all of social and economic justice. Liberals think that the expansion of bourgeois democracy and petty wealth redistribution can right social injustices, and therefore support these measures - socialists see the usefulness of these measures as developers of working class consciousness and involvement in government, and therefore support them (in the short term) while recognizing the long term goal of a outright working class revolution.

[New Tet]

"Give us a truce with your reforms! There is a sickening air of moral mediocrity in such petty movements and childish aspirations at times like these, when great-man issues are thundering at every man's door demanding admission and solution." -- Daniel De Leon

[FreeFocus]

I pretty much support the bare minimum of reforms that allows people to have at least some freedom, e.g. the eight-hour workday (which many people have to work past anyway to make ends meet), universal health care, etc. Reforms usually have the effect of pacifying the majority (piecemeal solutions).

What I want is human freedom and the abolishment of capitalism. If the working class, the best (and really only) agent to bring that about, is pacified and satisfied under capitalism due to reforms, it becomes an obstacle to a just world without capitalism. That's unacceptable because then, well, there's pretty much no hope for humanity. There's no option other than a radical working class that is pushed to take action.

Frankly, as Malcolm X said, people take action when they're angry.

[redasheville]

"Give us a truce with your reforms! There is a sickening air of moral mediocrity in such petty movements and childish aspirations at times like these, when great-man issues are thundering at every man's door demanding admission and solution." -- Daniel De Leon

Daniel De Leon was also notoriously sectarian, and ran his (once powerful) organization into the ground.

[Axle]

Reforms are meant to disarm a revolution by keeping the workers somewhat satisfied.

In my personal work experience, not only are these reformed work rules often broken by management (resulting, if anything, with a slap on the wrist, of course), they are frequently not enough to satisfy many workers.

[New Tet]

Daniel De Leon was also notoriously sectarian, and ran his (once powerful) organization into the ground.

Let's try to outgrow these tired old slanders, shall we?

[More Fire for the People]

No. Improving the objective well-being of the proletariat is a good thing and these "reform" campaigns train us in the skills necessary for revolutionary campaigns.