Reformism in 'first-world' countries

[Muzk]

Gentlemen.

Reformism - the belief that 'small' changes in an economy could change the society's fundamental economic relations and political structures.

What is so wrong with it? Yes, a revolution and 'instant' socialism might be the direct way - but if that's not possible? And not in the near future?

In my country the reformist party is growing - already starting to suggest nationalizing things like banks, with the opposing right wing parties trying to spread that they are 'communists' (Yes, communists are feared by the 'brainwashed' people)

But, isn't this a step into the right direction, even if capitalism will(at first) still be in place?

If the people slowly understand what kind of criminal system capitalism really is, wouldn't it be more likely for them to revolt?
(On the other side they might not really get to know the 'real' capitalism)

I don't consider myself a reformist, I just want to know how you think about this.

Still, this is about TODAY, not in 100 years where capitalism might be at an edge of failure.

[chimx]

There is of course nothing wrong with it. If democratic institutions are in place that allow for gradual change then any good Marxist would want to take advantage of them.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Gentlemen.

This board also has female users...


What is so wrong with it [Reformism]?

Quite simply that capitalism can not be abolished peice-meal, nor without the working class seizing power and smashing the bourgeois state.

"What is wrong with it [reform]?", is a different question.


In my country the reformist party is growing - already starting to suggest nationalizing things like banks

Especially in times of crisis like these, it is absolutely essential that reformism is combatted, it being afterall, the last refuge of the bourgeoisie and the savior of capitalism.

What does the nationalisation of banks have to do with anything?


If democratic institutions are in place that allow for gradual change then any good Marxist would want to take advantage of them.

*My emphasis added*

'If' is the key word here. Today this is no longer a possibility for capitalism anywhere in the world.

[*Red*Alert]

This board also has female users...

Quite simply that capitalism can not be abolished peice-meal, nor without the working class seizing power and smashing the bourgeois state.


But it cannot be abolished in a single push either. Reformism is useful to a point but the ultimate objective of removing the bourgeois state should not be lost.

[ArrowLance]

Reformism suggests leaving the bourgeoisie in power. You can not 'reform away' the bourgeoisie in a democratic system for the bourgeoisie. So, supporting reformism in place of working towards a revolution, is in fact, supporting the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie have no problem with it.


There is of course nothing wrong with it. If democratic institutions are in place that allow for gradual change then any good Marxist would want to take advantage of them.

". . .so clear and obvious to every worker. . . to put the question: democracy for which class?" --Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm

[el_chavista]

This 'entryist' quotation of Engels comes handy:

Engels to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky
In Zurich http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htm


...Therefore I think also the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.

[NecroCommie]

Bourgeois system of government is specially evolved to answer the needs of capitalists and bourgeoisie. It's goals are capitalists, and it's means support capitalists.

Reformism basically means "working within the current system to change it into another". So basically modern reformists are working in the means that support capitalism, for capitalist goals, with the intention of removing capitalism.

Understand?

[Pogue]

Not everyone on this forum is a man. I know this is semantics but I think its odd to address us a gentlemen when we clearly have alot of women on the board. I wouldn't adress a room in such a manner if it contained women.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Reformists are delusional, at what point do reformists think they will be able to just gain control of otherwise bourgeois positions of influence?

The whole wet-dream that is reformism stems form a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a bourgeoisie. The ruling class will not turn a blind eye to workers control, whether that be gradual or otherwise, you can just imagine it can't you, workers taking control of a particular institution, say, Parliament or the national power-grid. As if the bourgeois would allow this. Not a single instution, isolated, can be taken from them, communism can only come into fruitition with mass following and when workers prepare themselves for confrontation and dismiss all reformist illusions that one by one institutions of the state can be converted into benevolent bodies; while the powerless bourgeoisie will look the other way :/

[eyedrop]

Reformists are delusional, at what point do reformists think they will be able to just gain control of otherwise bourgeois positions of influence?

The whole wet-dream that is reformism stems form a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a bourgeoisie. The ruling class will not turn a blind eye to workers control, whether that be gradual or otherwise, you can just imagine it can't you, workers taking control of a particular institution, say, Parliament or the national power-grid. As if the bourgeois would allow this. Not a single instution, isolated, can be taken from them, communism can only come into fruitition with mass following and when workers prepare themselves for confrontation and dismiss all reformist illusions that one by one institutions of the state can be converted into benevolent bodies; while the powerless bourgeoisie will look the other way :/

Not to mention that the reformist state has a interest in increasing the state's control nevertheless how benevolent they are. They work to consolidate and increase their control as they, and everyone else, believe they know best. Even parties who pay some lip service to democraticing things end up consolidating their control.

I've yet to see a reformist government handing down substantial workers control to the state owned enterprices, although they easily could. Reformists can nationalize stuff (under favorable conditions) and keep it under their control, although my contry's "Worker's Party" and "Socialist Left" has been to busy privatising the last 30 years to do that (they aren't even free to do as they wish, as most of the societal power is outside the state's hand, but I doubt they can hand down worker control over the means of production.

All funds and energy put into electoral, as for example most mainstream unions puts in quite abit of funds into political parties, is funds and energy not put into the enfranchising of workers. I don't see how putting funds into parties who "should" fight for worker's control can be compitable with worker's control. Letting someone else gain control over a part of society doesn't give us the control over society.

It doesn't hurt to throw them a vote if they may be more benovelent, but don't trick yourself into believing it makes us any closer to workers control. Besides both right- and leftwing parties introduces progressive reforms if forced to, and both right- and leftwing parties introduces regressive reforms if forced to.

[Delirium]

Gentlemen.

Reformism - the belief that 'small' changes in an economy could change the society's fundamental economic relations and political structures.

What is so wrong with it? Yes, a revolution and 'instant' socialism might be the direct way - but if that's not possible? And not in the near future?

In my country the reformist party is growing - already starting to suggest nationalizing things like banks, with the opposing right wing parties trying to spread that they are 'communists' (Yes, communists are feared by the 'brainwashed' people)

But, isn't this a step into the right direction, even if capitalism will(at first) still be in place?

If the people slowly understand what kind of criminal system capitalism really is, wouldn't it be more likely for them to revolt?
(On the other side they might not really get to know the 'real' capitalism)

I don't consider myself a reformist, I just want to know how you think about this.

Still, this is about TODAY, not in 100 years where capitalism might be at an edge of failure.

I dont consider myself a reformist either, but i of course support reforms which improve the standard of life for workers, (minimum wage, workers comp, etc) or would put the left in a better position to combat capitalism (employee free choice act).

Different tactics apply to different situations.

[eyedrop]

I dont consider myself a reformist either, but i of course support reforms which improve the standard of life for workers, (minimum wage, workers comp, etc) or would put the left in a better position to combat capitalism (employee free choice act).

Different tactics apply to different situations.

Sure enough support the reforms themself, but preferably through tactics that empower the workers, and not tactics that puts the power away from the workers. As electoral reformism does as you appoints someone to fight for the reforms for you.

[ZeroNowhere]

...Therefore I think also the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma.Eh, trying that lead to De Leonism, so I can't really complain. However, the biggest mistake it revealed was the KoL. The 'mighty and glorious movement' came with the ALU, which had its faults (racism among them), but soon joined the IWW, where that was removed. In the end, it fell due to internal fighting, and state pressure, but, well, it at least remained socialist, more that could be said for Engels' own project. And before somebody asks, the IWW's fall didn't start in 1914 (where it was anti-war), but before that. Like the SDP, in fact.

[Pogue]

The difference is between top down reforms and small reforms granted by militant grassrotos working class action along the path to revolution.

[Demogorgon]

People get rather confused here on the subject. Reformism is best understood as being a desire to reform capitalism to give it a human face. The problem of course is that faced with such a movement, the capitalists may temporarily agree to behave better, but it isn't exactly a long term solution.

Some people here however, dismiss as reformism anything other than a glorious revolution when a heroic battle will be fought (presumably without any weapons invented after 1930) against the "capitalists" and everything solved with that. Given real world politics doesn't work like that, waiting for that to happen simply strikes me as an excuse to do nothing at all. If you can make change at the ballot box, make it. If you can change GOvernment to have greater worker involvement, go for it. The more change you can get now, the easier future change becomes. Just don't be led down to road of thinking that things will be fine once the capitalists start behaving themselves.

[cb9's_unity]

I am not a fan of Reformism. However lets distinguish "Democratic Socialists", those who want to achieve full socialism through democratic reform, and modern "Social Democrats" who want to create a better form of capitalism. While the latter are of no interest to our movement the former are genuine socialists who could very well serve a good purpose. They are a good first step for those who once supported capitalism (most of the current proletariat) as they make concepts like "socialism" and "workers state" far more friendly to the person who previously only connected those concepts to the USSR.

So while I think socialist revolution needs to be largely a bottom up affair and that capitalism must be smashed and not reformed, the reformers themselves should be viewed as the true leftist progressives they are. After all we all want socialism, we just have different views of getting there. And that is nothing to seriously hate each other over.

[eyedrop]

People get rather confused here on the subject. Reformism is best understood as being a desire to reform capitalism to give it a human face. The problem of course is that faced with such a movement, the capitalists may temporarily agree to behave better, but it isn't exactly a long term solution. Fine summary. One should obviously struggle for a human-face capitalism, as it's better for most people.


Some people here however, dismiss as reformism anything other than a glorious revolution when a heroic battle will be fought (presumably without any weapons invented after 1930) against the "capitalists" and everything solved with that. That would obviously be a catasthrophy.

Given real world politics doesn't work like that, waiting for that to happen simply strikes me as an excuse to do nothing at all. If you can make change at the ballot box, make it. If you can change GOvernment to have greater worker involvement, go for it. The more change you can get now, the easier future change becomes. Just don't be led down to road of thinking that things will be fine once the capitalists start behaving themselves. It's seems to me that reformism is basically beaten by the treath of capital flight, they can't make the conditions any worse for the capitalists, or else the capitalists invests elsewhere. As far as I can see that is the reason why the political parties that promises a progressive tax aren't able to make it stick to the big players. So they are forced to juggle around on the funds they have and aren't able to make any significant reforms.

I'm not saying that one shouldn't struggle for progressive reforms, what else should one do, but I don't see it having a great deal of success these days. Especially not a so non-treathening struggle as a leftwing party, without any organised people behind it.

[Demogorgon]

It's seems to me that reformism is basically beaten by the treath of capital flight, they can't make the conditions any worse for the capitalists, or else the capitalists invests elsewhere. As far as I can see that is the reason why the political parties that promises a progressive tax aren't able to make it stick to the big players. So they are forced to juggle around on the funds they have and aren't able to make any significant reforms.

Yeah that is the problem, and it is the reason why high tax regimes like Denmark end up with even more ridiculously pro-business policies to compensate. The thing is of course that an investment strike only works because of the way the system is structured. Investors aren't actually contributing anything to the productive process, have no real role on the supply side of things other than a bit of resource management and only an artificial and easily replaced role on the demand side. If the system could be restructured fairly quickly to remove capital from the process, that threat would be removed.

Which comes back to the problem with reformism. The above problem is a fundamental component of capitalism (perhaps the fundamental component) and so cannot be altered within the system. Big change is needed; how that change comes about remains an open question though.

[eyedrop]

Yeah that is the problem, and it is the reason why high tax regimes like Denmark end up with even more ridiculously pro-business policies to compensate. The thing is of course that an investment strike only works because of the way the system is structured. Investors aren't actually contributing anything to the productive process, have no real role on the supply side of things other than a bit of resource management and only an artificial and easily replaced role on the demand side. If the system could be restructured fairly quickly to remove capital from the process, that threat would be removed.

Which comes back to the problem with reformism. The above problem is a fundamental component of capitalism (perhaps the fundamental component) and so cannot be altered within the system. Big change is needed; how that change comes about remains an open question though. Denmark was ranked 2nd best country in the world in The Economist's ranking of global operational risk (2008).

Social democratic countries still have a few cards up their sleeves to "bargain" with.

-An educated workforce
-Lot's of physical capital are tied up (not that easy to move a factory, although the capitalists have learned that lesson with the moveable light factories they have put up in various mainly asiatic countries)
-Good infrastructure
-Stability

But yeah reformism is gonna struggle as long as there are easily available and cheap sources of labour abroad.

[Demogorgon]

Denmark was ranked 2nd best country in the world in The Economist's ranking of global operational risk (2008).

Social democratic countries still have a few cards up their sleeves to "bargain" with.

-An educated workforce
-Lot's of physical capital are tied up (not that easy to move a factory, although the capitalists have learned that lesson with the moveable light factories they have put up in various mainly asiatic countries)
-Good infrastructure
-Stability

But yeah reformism is gonna struggle as long as there are easily available and cheap sources of labour abroad.Yeah, social democratic countries do offer that and those advantages are the reason social welfare will always remain to some extent in capitalism. Of course some of the Scandinavian countries also had aces up their sleeves with Norway's enormous oil reserves and Sweden's high tech industries, which is why, despite neoliberal plundering such countries have not been as badly damaged as, say, Britain.

At any rate though, Social Democracy is on the retreat. Not because, as neoliberal ideologues proclaim, it wasn't efficient-it quite blatantly was more efficient than more market based systems-but because the capitalists have worked out how to undermine it. We have to give it some credit. It took about thirty years for capitalists to defeat it, which is pretty good going given the circumstances, and that gave the world (the Western World anyway) thirty years of rising standards of living and a narrowing wealth gap (the only period this has happened since the rise of capitalism).

All the same however, it was defeated, and so we need something a lot more robust.

And to come back to what we were talking about, unless we can achieve simultaneous worldwide revolution (and we can't), any change is going to have to involve taking away private control of capital resources as quickly as possible to prevent an investment strike.

[eyedrop]

And to come back to what we were talking about, unless we can achieve simultaneous worldwide revolution (and we can't), any change is going to have to involve taking away private control of capital resources as quickly as possible to prevent an investment strike. I can't really think of much to say, except that I agree with you.

[chimx]

Reformism suggests leaving the bourgeoisie in power. You can not 'reform away' the bourgeoisie in a democratic system for the bourgeoisie. So, supporting reformism in place of working towards a revolution, is in fact, supporting the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie have no problem with it.



". . .so clear and obvious to every worker. . . to put the question: democracy for which class?" --Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm

Lenin was a closet Blanquist. I will take Marx over Lenin any day.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The difference is between top down reforms and small reforms granted by militant grassrotos working class action along the path to revolution.

What difference? Do you still think real, meaningful and permanent reforms can be granted today, whether from 'above' or from 'below'?


Given real world politics doesn't work like that, waiting for that to happen simply strikes me as an excuse to do nothing at all.

There is nothing more to the class struggle than the ballot box and street fighting with barricades?


If you can make change at the ballot box, make it.

Who is 'you' here? Is the bourgeois democratic ideology of 'my vote counts' an accurate assessment of reality now?

More information, as I said with chimx a few days ago, the key word here is 'if' really, isn't it? If change can not cannot come through the ballot box, is rejecting reformism still 'an excuse to do nothing at all'?


If you can change GOvernment to have greater worker involvement, go for it.

Why?

[BobKKKindle$]

There is a key distinction to be made between reformism and fighting for reforms. The former refers to a belief that it is possible to either abolish capitalism gradually or reform capitalism to the extent that it no longer needs to be abolished by working within the framework of the existing political system, and rejecting the overthrow of the bourgeois state. The latter obviously means acting in a way that will force the bourgeois state to grant concessions that are favorable from the viewpoint of the working class whilst also fighting for revolution. I endorse fighting for reforms because I recognize that in order to gain the confidence of working people and help develop the consciousness of the working class it's important that revolutionaries involve themselves in the most immediate struggles, which means not only struggles in the workplace against redundancies and pay cuts, but also broader social struggles that concern the state and the granting of reforms in the political sphere, such as the struggle to protect and expand abortion rights, or the struggle against the persecution of ethnic minorities. I think it's unrealistic to expect that anyone is suddenly going to become committed to the overthrow of capitalism if all socialists do is print newspapers talking about how bad capitalism is and the kind of society we want to build once capitalism has been overthrown - rather we need to immerse ourselves in struggle and show that we have the strategies and the ideas that will allow workers to win those struggles, if we want to attract people to our ideas, and prevent them from turning to reformists, who present only partial solutions, and will always try and limit struggles by tying them to bureaucratic organizations like social-democratic parties and the leadership of the trade unions. It should be clear from the above that I don't agree with the Left Communist analysis that the period of decadence renders meaningful reforms impossible (if this is not accurate then I apologize and please correct me) and I think there is a lot of empirical evidence from the 20th century that shows that reforms are not only viable but can open the door to more radical ideas and struggles. An obvious example in this respect is the struggle for Black Liberation in countries like the United States. Of course we can all agree that simply winning legal reforms doesn't grant liberation and black people as well as other ethnic minorities continue to encounter oppression and discrimination in all aspects of life despite past victories but at the same time it's evident that the granting of civil rights was a step forward and did create a basis for greater unity between black and white workers as a well as a space in which the class divisions within the black population were able to express themselves.

In sum, as Rosa Luxemburg said, "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". Revolutionaries are the most dedicated fighters for reform because we recognize that fighting for reform does not contradict revolution but is an indispensable prelude to it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Firstly, thanks as always, for the essay, BK.


It should be clear from the above that I don't agree with the Left Communist analysis that the period of decadence renders meaningful reforms impossible (if this is not accurate then I apologize and please correct me) and I think there is a lot of empirical evidence from the 20th century that shows that reforms are not only viable but can open the door to more radical ideas and struggles.

Given this claim, I wonder what other evidence there is aside from the American civil rights movement (something of a myth, as we will see) that exists. If there is alot of it, as you claim, I'm sure you wouldn't have an issue with bringing it up here, even if not at length (you may struggle with this)


An obvious example in this respect is the struggle for Black Liberation in countries like the United States. Of course we can all agree that simply winning legal reforms doesn't grant liberation and black people as well as other ethnic minorities continue to encounter oppression and discrimination in all aspects of life despite past victories but at the same time it's evident that the granting of civil rights was a step forward and did create a basis for greater unity between black and white workers as a well as a space in which the class divisions within the black population were able to express themselves.

Firstly, I think it's odd that you cite 'the struggle for Black Liberation' as a reform movement, yet only lines later contradict this by acknowledging, correctly, the racial and ethnic oppression can only be done away with by the victory of socialism. The US civil rights movement was not and could not be a struggle for black liberation.

Secondly, you state that "it's evident that the granting of civil rights was a step forward" (my emphasis) without actually supporting this assertion. I think in response to this the comments of the user Samyasa in a thread in the ICC group forum a while back are relevant:


Take for example, the Civil Rights movement in the US. From a purely formalist perspective, this movement ended the de jour apartheid that existed in many US states but the de facto apartheid has hardly been touched. Since the 50s and 60s, the real-life conditions of "black America" have got no better and have probably got worse. In some regions, the life expectancy of Black Americans is no better than the 3rd World! The victory of the Civil Rights movement for black workers to vote, to organise in the same unions as whites, to be able to sit on the same seats on the bus or in a restaurant has to be read in the context of the fact that voting and unions are a chain for the working class, the transport system is falling apart and many workers are struggling to feed their families healthy meals, let alone go out to restaurants!

Finally, you raise the important point of unifying white and black workers in struggle. However, I think it's incorrect to portray this as the role of the black civil rights movement in the US. I think it's much more significant role was in unifying blacks as blacks, that is, tying the interests of the working class to those of the exploiters. Contrary to providing space for class antagonisms within the black population to express themselves, it diluted and difused the proletariat into the cross-class identity of race. The unification of black and white workers that the US civil rights movement did bring was in struggle off the class terrain and thus not a meaningful or significant unity at all.


In sum, as Rosa Luxemburg said, "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".

Trotskyists love Rosa Luxemburg, the social democrat.

I would say, as Rosa Luxemburg said, "Our program is deliberately opposed to the standpoint of the Erfurt Program; it is deliberately opposed to the separation of the immediate, so-called minimal demands formulated for the political and economic struggle from the socialist goal regarded as a maximal program. In this deliberate opposition [to the Erfurt Program] we liquidate the results of seventy years’ evolution and above all, the immediate results of the World War, in that we say: For us there is no minimal and no maximal program; socialism is one and the same thing: this is the minimum we have to realize today." (On the Spartacus Programme, December 1918 [not 1905!])


Revolutionaries are the most dedicated fighters for reform because we recognize that fighting for reform does not contradict revolution but is an indispensable prelude to it.

On the contrary, revolutionaries are the most intransigent fighters for revolution because we recognise that the defensive and immediate struggles of the working class can only be victorious through world proletarian revolution; the two are one and the same.

[eyedrop]

More information, as I said with chimx a few days ago, the key word here is 'if' really, isn't it? If change can not cannot come through the ballot box, is rejecting reformism still 'an excuse to do nothing at all'?

Any links to the conversation?

The if is a big question. I think I made a decent case in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1517513&postcount=13) post (I'll se if i can dig up a proper study on it) for how reformism in the last 40 years haven't managed to increase industrial workers share of their productivity. Keep in mind that this is in one of the "western countries" where reformist parties has had most success, and it's in one of the best unionised sectors. So I think it can be made a decent case for that being close to the best reformism can achieve.

Although non-unionised sectors (service industry) has been worse at keeping earlier earned gains.


It should be clear from the above that I don't agree with the Left Communist analysis that the period of decadence renders meaningful reforms impossible (if this is not accurate then I apologize and please correct me) and I think there is a lot of empirical evidence from the 20th century that shows that reforms are not only viable but can open the door to more radical ideas and struggles. I think there is still room for societal reforms, but that progressive economical reforms doesn't work anymore, because of capitalflight. Haven't basically all of the reformist left ("western world") only been on the defensive when it's amounts to economical reforms. I doubt that is because all various parts of the reformist left has chosen wrong tactics.

[robbo203]

There is a key distinction to be made between reformism and fighting for reforms. The former refers to a belief that it is possible to either abolish capitalism gradually or reform capitalism to the extent that it no longer needs to be abolished by working within the framework of the existing political system, and rejecting the overthrow of the bourgeois state. The latter obviously means acting in a way that will force the bourgeois state to grant concessions that are favorable from the viewpoint of the working class whilst also fighting for revolution. I endorse fighting for reforms because I recognize that in order to gain the confidence of working people and help develop the consciousness of the working class it's important that revolutionaries involve themselves in the most immediate struggles, which means not only struggles in the workplace against redundancies and pay cuts, but also broader social struggles that concern the state and the granting of reforms in the political sphere, such as the struggle to protect and expand abortion rights, or the struggle against the persecution of ethnic minorities. .

This is confused. Reformism does not refer to a "belief that it is possible to either abolish capitalism gradually". What you are alluding to there is gradualism which is only a subset of reformism - the Fabian tactic of gradually transforming capitalism into socialism (most reformism does not have this in mind). Gradualism is a fundamentally flawed doctrine as is reformism generally - the notion that you can enact measures through the state that impact upon the economic system of capitalism in a way that might modify its behaviour to the benefit of working people. This too is mistaken. "Fighting for refroms" IS reformism. The problem is that you have conflated reformism with other things like workplace struggles (e.g. trade unions) . Workplace struggles are not refromist because their field of operation is not the political state but the industrial arena. An important distinction. Trade union struggle is and can only be, defensive. In the political arena or field we have the option of whether to perpetuate capitalism or end it. Fighting for reforms - reformism - effectively means coming down on the side of perpeutaing capitalism because the reforms in question are formulated with the intention of mending capitalism rather than ending it. You cannot do both. You have to chose between one or the other.




I think it's unrealistic to expect that anyone is suddenly going to become committed to the overthrow of capitalism if all socialists do is print newspapers talking about how bad capitalism is and the kind of society we want to build once capitalism has been overthrown - rather we need to immerse ourselves in struggle and show that we have the strategies and the ideas that will allow workers to win those struggles, if we want to attract people to our ideas, and prevent them from turning to reformists, who present only partial solutions, and will always try and limit struggles by tying them to bureaucratic organizations like social-democratic parties and the leadership of the trade unions..

What is totally unrealistic is to expect revolutionaries ideas to seamlessly emerge from reformism. It is only by rejecting reformism and recognising its limitations that the potetnial for a revolutionary outlook becomes possible. That does not been abdandoning workplace and other struggles but it does emphatically mean abandoning reformist political activities



I think there is a lot of empirical evidence from the 20th century that shows that reforms are not only viable but can open the door to more radical ideas and struggles. An obvious example in this respect is the struggle for Black Liberation in countries like the United States. Of course we can all agree that simply winning legal reforms doesn't grant liberation and black people as well as other ethnic minorities continue to encounter oppression and discrimination in all aspects of life despite past victories but at the same time it's evident that the granting of civil rights was a step forward and did create a basis for greater unity between black and white workers as a well as a space in which the class divisions within the black population were able to express themselves. ..

Actually I think the evidence points far more decisively to the fact that granting of reforms leads to the co-option of the refromers into the capitalist mainstream and the dissipation of radicalism. It goes without saying that a socialist movement stands fundamentally against racism and every other means of dividing the working class (including nationalism and national liberation struggles). The legalistic bent of the reformists - the idea that by passing a law you cure the problem - is naive. The Race Discrimination Act does not stop people being racist and might even arguably exacerbate racial tensions. The problem with refromists is that by defintion they abandon the struggle to radically transfrom society in the vain hope that by tinkering around with the system this or that problem can be solved and incrementally capitalism will develop into a something more humane and caring. But this ignores the ephemeral nature of reforms. Reforms granted at one stage may be withdrawn at another. It also overlooks that the primary reason for the granting reforms is whether or not they are beneficial for the capitalist class as a whole; the benefits accruing to the workers are incidental. The introduction of the state welfare system in Britain as the Beveridge Report of 1944 made abundantly clear was primarily motivated by considerations of cost effectiveness compared with the ineffeicient peice meal pre-war system of welfare. Prominent Tories strongly supported the a system of state sponsored social security this reason. 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"




In sum, as Rosa Luxemburg said, "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". Revolutionaries are the most dedicated fighters for reform because we recognize that fighting for reform does not contradict revolution but is an indispensable prelude to it.

It depends what Luxembourg had in mind by the term "reforms". If she is talking about workplace struggle then I would agree; if she is referring to measures enacted by the state then I would have to say she is profoundly wrong. Revolution depends decisively on rejecting reformism

[BobKKKindle$]

Given this claim, I wonder what other evidence there is aside from the American civil rights movement (something of a myth, as we will see) that exists.Let's pick abortion to start with, then we can go through a list of examples if you so desire. The struggle for abortion rights in the UK and other countries has resulted in women being able to enjoy a degree of reproductive freedom far greater than that enjoyed by their mothers and ancestors and as a result the mortality figures deriving from back-street abortions have dropped drastically. It's significant that in the UK the 1967 Abortion Act was not extended to Northern Ireland when it was first passed and has still not been extended to that part of the country despite repeated calls for the government to do so, and as a result of this situation there are large numbers of women, many of them working-class, who are forced to travel to Britain when they become pregnant simply in order to have an abortion, at considerable expense and legal risk. In my mind this demonstrates that the granting of abortion rights in Britain, however insufficient, is important and a major step forward especially for working-class women as if this were not the case and the reform was simply a scrap of paper with no meaningful impact on the options that are available to women then there would be no point in Irish women traveling to Britain, and they would not choose to do so in such large numbers - they would simply stay at home and give birth. None of this is to suggest that full liberation for women is possible within the framework of capitalism but I reject the notion that anything short of total liberation is impossible or insignificant - the granting of abortion rights is a significant gain for women, and I say especially working-class women because it has always been possible for bourgeois women to access abortion even when the bourgeois state does not give them the formal right to do so, by either traveling overseas, or using private clinics. It is working-class women who benefit from abortion being legalized and this is why socialists have always been at the forefront of the struggle to defend abortion rights when they've come under attack, as in the UK last year, when there was a proposal to reduce the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks. We can only assume that the ICC was absent from that campaign.


Firstly, I think it's odd that you cite 'the struggle for Black Liberation' as a reform movement, yet only lines later contradict this by acknowledging, correctly, the racial and ethnic oppression can only be done away with by the victory of socialism.There is no contradiction. I hold that the abolition of racism and discrimination will only come about as the result of a socialist revolution, which will involve the expropriation of the black members of the bourgeoisie. In that respect we are in agreement. However, I reject the idea that there are absolutely no meaningful gains that can be made under capitalism, and that these gains are not worth fighting for, which is your position.


this movement ended the de jour apartheid that existed in many US states but the de facto apartheid has hardly been touchedI assume that Samyasa means de jure here. In a sense it is true that the gains of the civil rights movement were only de jure in nature (although it's also significant that the struggle did lead to black workers taking more militant forms of action once they had gained the confidence to do so such as the 1,300 sanitation workers who went on strike for union recognition shortly before MLK was shot in Memphis - that strike and others like it were very much a part of the Civil Rights Movement) as they did not challenge the roots of racial discrimination - the historic experience of slavery and indeed the capitalist system itself. However, this user is mistaken in thinking that the Civil Rights Movement was ever about black people not being able to sit on the same bus seats as white people in a literal sense, as humiliating as that experience was - it was fundamentally about concerns that had a direct impact on the conditions and opportunities of black people, such as being made to schools that received less money and resources than those attended by white students, and encountering racist attitudes on a daily basis, as well as the violence that resulted from those attitudes, and in this respect it is possible to say that there have been gains. It is no longer acceptable to hold racist views to the same degree as a result of the legal achievements of the Civil Rights Movement as well as the symbolic impact of black people defying the state and racist establishment, and that in itself is progressive as it has created a basis for greater unity between black and white workers, just as women workers winning equal pay legislation has created a basis for unity between men and women.


I think it's much more significant role was in unifying blacks as blacks, that is, tying the interests of the working class to those of the exploitersFirstly, it's useful to draw out the conclusions of that line of argument. If you think that the Civil Rights Movement did serve to obscure class antagonisms within the black population and create a false unity between black workers and black bosses then not only should you not support that struggle, you should actually oppose it, and call on black workers not to participate. This seems to be a dangerous conclusion. Secondly, of course I do not agree that the effect is simply to obscure class antagonisms. Rather, the exact opposite is true, as it is in the course of these struggles that differences between socialists and other activists, and hence between the interests of the working class and those of the bourgeoisie, are able to reveal themselves. This is because it is only socialists who have the analysis to explain where different forms of oppression come from and it is only we who are willing and able to advocate the strategies that will enable these struggles to extract concessions from the bourgeois state, and enhance the position of oppressed groups, in contrast to liberal organizations, which do not acknowledge the role of class in influencing how people experience oppression, and limit their strategies to what is permitted by the law. An example that demonstrates this is the Tiananmen protest movement - a struggle that involved not only a large section of the Chinese working class in Beijing and other industrial centers but also a significant number of students, many of whom were the sons and daughters of low-level bureaucrats, and was initially directed towards liberal-democratic demands with no direct connection to class interests such as greater academic freedom and autonomy for the universities, due to the weight of the student leaders, and the absence of a revolutionary party in China at that point in time, and the disorientation of the working class. It was the students who were willing to compromise and limit the movement by entering into negotiations with members of the Politburo such as Li Peng, and, despite having inflicted humiliation on the bureaucracy by being accepted as legitimate negotiation partners and disrupting the scheduled visit of Gorbachev, eventually agreed to leave the square despite having achieved none of their demands, whilst it was the workers and particularly those individual workers who had some degree of class consciousness that posed the question of power by creating democratic bodies such as the Beijing Autonomous Workers Forum (which developed separate departments for propaganda, logistics, and other areas of operations, as well as spawning similar organizations in other parts of the country, with its membership reaching 20,000 just before the massacre) and, once violence had erupted, seeking to challenge the state by creating barricades in order to stop the movement of troops, and calling for a general strike, despite the unwillingness of the students to let the workers use their facilities as a means to publicize their aims. The Tiananmen protests developed into the biggest series of class struggles since the strikes and occupations at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1968-9 with one million Beijing residents eventually taking to the streets, and yet this was a movement that began with a limited social base and set of aims, which means that if there had been any Left Communists in China in 1989 they would have been forced to dismiss the movement as not taking place on class terrain and would certainly not have decided to intervene. This and the eventual fate of the workers who took part in Tiananmen reminds us that whether divisions within struggles for reform do reveal themselves and the extent to which they are clarified depends above all on whether socialists are willing and able to intervene in these struggles, and in this respect Left Communists ignore their obligations, I feel.

Incidentally, I actually asked Devrim about the stance that Left Communists take on Tiananmen not so long ago, the context of my question being that I read an account of the protests recently that showed that many of the workers who participated expressed their demands and grievances through semi-nationalist slogans that drew on the legacy of the May Fourth Movement, and I was wondering how this impacts the Left Communist position. Of course I would be interested in hearing your views as well.


as in struggle off the class terrainOn the concept of the "class terrain", as I mentioned above, I hold that for any given form of social oppression, such as women being deprived of their bodily autonomy by abortion restrictions, the impact of that oppression is always greatest for the workers who happen to belong the oppressed group in question, and this partly explains why there is such a pronounced tendency for bourgeois leaders to limit struggles against oppression once a minimum set of aims have been met. For this reason, I find that when Left Communists dismiss struggles as not being on the class terrain simply because they also involve a section of the [petty-]bourgeoisie or because they do not directly challenge the interests of the ruling class, that's a borderline chauvinist position, because it infers that "bread-and-butter" issues such as wages and conditions are the only things that are important for any given worker, despite the fact that issues like abortion rights are also incredibly important for working class women, and ultimately intersect with economic issues, as a woman's ability to protect herself financially is diminished if she becomes pregnant.


Trotskyists love Rosa Luxemburg, the social democrat. As for that quote, I think it needs to be interpreted in the context of a revolutionary situation, as part of the revolutionary wave that swept across the world in 1917/8. In that situation, I would agree that the foremost priority of revolutionaries should be to overthrow the state and bourgeois rule - not support reform-based struggles, in the unlikely event that workers would concern themselves with such struggles in a revolutionary situation. If Luxemburg meant what you understand the quote to mean - that reform-based struggles should be rejected regardless of whether revolution happens to be on the cards at a given moment, I would obviously say she was wrong.


because we recognise that the defensive and immediate struggles of the working class can only be victorious through world proletarian revolution;On this final note, if Left Communists think that trade unions are agents of capital, if you think that victories against immediate attacks on wages and working conditions will be swallowed up by inflation or passed on to other workers, if you think that social oppression cannot be diminished to any degree whatsoever under capitalism, if you think that reform-based struggles offer no possibility of allowing class antagonisms to express themselves, then what do you actually do, outside of revolutionary periods, or at the beginning of those periods, when workers are beginning to mobilize, but not yet calling for the overthrow of capitalism? What does your activity consist of?