Rethinking reformism

[Matty_UK]

First, as a disclaimer, I haven't become a social-democrat and I am still uncompromisingly opposed to capitalism. By reformism I mean standing in elections to take state power and undertaking a genuinely revolutionary reform project towards communism, and here I'm largely talking about the first world countries where most of this board's regulars reside.

I've been thinking lately that some sacred cows of the radical left, particularly left communists, need to be abandoned. Particularly, the idea that we can organise a revolution without seizing control of the existing state apparatus, and that to do so is inherently doomed to impotent "reformism" and capitulation. To imagine we can start by simply organising workers councils which can take over organisational functions and make the bourgeois state apparatus irrelevant seems to me, although appealing and *theoretically* possible, somewhat unlikely to ever come to fruition. Most workers in the first world are in service jobs, and do not produce anything that can sustain a communist community independant of the capitalist state and economy so would be easily defeated. To carry out a revolution in a first world country today, we need to be nationally co-ordinated from the offset, and being elected is probably more likely (or at least, realistically possible) than taking over through armed force or by spontaneous, simultaneous, instantly co-ordinated revolutionary action across the region.

I contend that, although once elected a communist government would inevitably come up against many legal obstacles and opposition from other parts of the state, we mustn't look at electoral politics as simply a sham. Our predecessors in the workers movement won the right to vote through struggle and opened up that window of opportunity, and we shouldn't dismiss it as meaningless. The failure of past workers parties in western Europe and elsewhere to achieve socialism isn't just inherent to the fact they took part in parliamentary politics, but is simply that they never aimed for socialism, only reforms, and in that sense they were genuinely successful. There simply has never been sufficient popular support for revolution in the west yet, but we are now in the early stages of what will certainly be a long period of crisis which could change all that. The time for social-democratic reforms has been over for some time, and perhaps now we are entering an era where revolutionary reforms could be possible.

Of course, the ruling class won't give up power peacefully, and for this reason a revolutionary party should not just act within the confines of the bourgeois state apparatus. Ideas like the IWW's "One Big Union" are fine, but without political direction they cannot carry out a revolution. I see no reason why a "big union" cannot also function as a political party - with political power you can actively give support and protection to experiments in workplace democracy, and with influence in the workplace you can have a social base with economic leverage so that you cannot simply be ignored or blocked as a political party. The party should work on directly democratic principles with direct internal democracy to prevent the rise of a self-serving bureaucracy. A good way to do this, suggested by Zizek, is selection of (instantly recallable, of course) candidates by random lottery (and if selected, you can of course opt out if you wish) and then by a vote.

There is also no reason why we cannot act as an international party, pooling resources and co-ordinating on a global scale. This is clearly a necessity for success.

Obviously, the bigger problem is getting all the existing parties to unite into one organisation, which is obviously the first step....I find most of the younger members of leftist organisations support this idea, but it tends to be the older ones who dominate the organisation and have a lot invested emotionally in their project who are the problem. As individuals within organisations, we need to start actively pushing for this sort of solution with our comrades and contacting people in other groups about it. It really shouldn't be as hard to do as it is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'Genuinely revolutionary reform project'. C'mon.

My ultimate thought here is that, once a reformist political party, always a reformist political party. It would take many years for such a strategy to develop, it would have to be defended against much of the left, including Left Communists, Anarcho-Communists and many Marxist-Leninists. It would likely split the movement, therefore. The ensuing sectarian fights would also either lead to the failure of reformism or, should it lead to the success, in electoral terms, of reformism, it would lead to the long term discrediting of revolutionary tactics outside of electoral activity.

[Wolf Larson]

Capitalists will never let themselves be voted out of power. They will in fact let themselves be voted into state monopolies and perhaps this is in fact whats happening. The state, in reality, only strengthens capitalism. It is the yin to capitalism's yang. The two are in reality one entity. Capitalism cannot survive without the state.We need to learn from this current financial crisis. Next time, and there will be a next time, we need to be more prepared for the media blitz railing against socialism. The capitalists have learned that in periods of recession/crisis socialists have more ability to organize so this Tea Party madness is no accident. It was a carfully planned insurance policy for the perpetuation of capitalism and it worked. It fucking worked.

[Rjevan]

First, as a disclaimer, I haven't become a social-democrat and I am still uncompromisingly opposed to capitalism. By reformism I mean standing in elections to take state power and undertaking a genuinely revolutionary reform project towards communism, and here I'm largely talking about the first world countries where most of this board's regulars reside.
I think you misunderstand "old" reformism for your views don't differ from it. Social-democracy was not always characterised like it is today and when the first reformist tendencies came up they were also (at least they claimed to be) opposed to capitalism and wanted reforms as means to achieve socialism. "Your" idea is more than 100 years old and there are dozens of theoretical works which perfectly outline its flaws and contradictions, its ignorance towards basic question of the nature of the bourgois state and class struggle, its betrayal to the working class and its outright reactionary and bourgeois character.

Alone "revolutionary reform" is an antithesis in itself. Think about the meaning of the words, the very basics of Marxist theory and you should see what is wrong with the whole theory of reformism. I'm not going to outline all flaws of reformism in-depth now because this was done already hundred of times before and better than I possibly could.

Please do yourself a favour and read up, read Marx and Engels on completely smashing the bourgois state machine as the only way to achieve the liberation of the proletariat, read Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution" and Lenin's polemics against Bernstein, the Mensheviks and later Kautsky. There are more works on this topic as well as on "Eurocommunism" which might also come close to what you have in mind, but these above are the basics and should be more than sufficient.


I've been thinking lately that some sacred cows of the radical left, particularly left communists, need to be abandoned. Particularly, the idea that we can organise a revolution without seizing control of the existing state apparatus, and that to do so is inherently doomed to impotent "reformism" and capitulation. To imagine we can start by simply organising workers councils which can take over organisational functions and make the bourgeois state apparatus irrelevant seems to me, although appealing and *theoretically* possible, somewhat unlikely to ever come to fruition.
I hope you realize that there are other tendencies than left communism within the revolutionary left and the the way of achieveing the revolution depends on the subjective and objective factors of each country, the historical and material conditions both internationally and nationally. The uneven economic developement of the capitalist countries is one of the basic laws of Marxism and hence it would be absurd to create a "master plan" how to start revolution in every single country by exactly the same way.


To carry out a revolution in a first world country today, we need to be nationally co-ordinated from the offset, and being elected is probably more likely (or at least, realistically possible) than taking over through armed force or by spontaneous, simultaneous, instantly co-ordinated revolutionary action across the region.
Quite the contrary! You suggest that it is even possible for a genuine communist party to be elected in a capitalist state, in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? That all the bourgeois oppression and slander spread by the (capitalist controlled) media could be overcome? It is not even necessary for the ruling class to ban a communist party, this might even boost this party and create more interest in it, strenghten it as it might be seen as a source of resistance and opposition to the state by the oppressed then. No, the easiest and most effective way is simply ingoring revolutionary movements/parties and slandering them where- and whenever possibly, proclaming that "socialism falied", "Marxism is outdated and refuted by today's conditions", "socialism leads to mass murder and poverty", "communism means all the lazy scum will get my hard-earned money", etc.

Moreover: where do you get the money necessary to finance your propaganda and election campaigns? Do you think that the ruling class will just sit there and smile if they see that a genuine communist party has good chances to win the election? Do you think they will just sit in the opposition and mourn a bit and that's it? And these are only some of the problems with "winning elections" for a communist party, I could go on and provide many more examples. Never forget that this state, like all states, is an expression of class antagonism and serves the purpose to secure the rule of one class by oppressing another class. In our case it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. If you fail to realize this you fail to realize the very basics of class antagonism and class struggle.


I contend that, although once elected a communist government would inevitably come up against many legal obstacles and opposition from other parts of the state, we mustn't look at electoral politics as simply a sham. Our predecessors in the workers movement won the right to vote through struggle and opened up that window of opportunity, and we shouldn't dismiss it as meaningless.
Ever heard about "crumbs from a rich man's table"? Giving the people the opportunity to vote is such a crumb, it basically makes no difference who you elect, "which members of the ruling class are to represent them and crush them" (Marx). And as pointed out before, it is impossible for communists to be elected in power under a the rule of the bourgeoisie. Engels: "Thus, universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state."


The failure of past workers parties in western Europe and elsewhere to achieve socialism isn't just inherent to the fact they took part in parliamentary politics, but is simply that they never aimed for socialism, only reforms, and in that sense they were genuinely successful.
True, today's social-democrats don't aim at socialism as ultimate goal and are not opposed to capitalism but as said before, in the past reformists officially claimed to aim at achieving socialism bit by bit through reforms. Seems it doesn't work too well.


There simply has never been sufficient popular support for revolution in the west yet, but we are now in the early stages of what will certainly be a long period of crisis which could change all that. The time for social-democratic reforms has been over for some time, and perhaps now we are entering an era where revolutionary reforms could be possible.
Again "revolutionary reforms"...
You see that the conditions are changing, that the crisis is far from being over and will continue which will make people realize that social democracy won't solve their problems and thus will be radicalized and all you can think of and come up with are "revolutionary reforms"? Think the though through to the end and don't stop half way.


Of course, the ruling class won't give up power peacefully, and for this reason a revolutionary party should not just act within the confines of the bourgeois state apparatus.
So suddenly you say that "the ruling class won't give up power peacefully", which is a totally correct and communist view but you still assume that a genuine communist party could achieve power by "democratic" elections (which do not exist, remember dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), which are very rarely fought out by violent clashes on the streets and armed uprisings instead of ballots.


Ideas like the IWW's "One Big Union" are fine, but without political direction they cannot carry out a revolution. I see no reason why a "big union" cannot also function as a political party - with political power you can actively give support and protection to experiments in workplace democracy, and with influence in the workplace you can have a social base with economic leverage so that you cannot simply be ignored or blocked as a political party.[quote]
Trade Unions replacing and functioning as political parties and revolutionary activity focused on trade unions... Lenin's "What is to be done?" immediately comes to mind, followed by "Left-Wing Communism: an Infertile Disorder" and "Once again on Trade Unions", as well as other works and other authors on this subject. Please have a look at them.

[quote]There is also no reason why we cannot act as an international party, pooling resources and co-ordinating on a global scale. This is clearly a necessity for success.
See above, the subjective and objective conditions of each country differ and each communist party there has to analyse the situation and work out its strategies and tactics based on theis analysis as well as firmly based on the Marxist(-Leninist) theory. This includes that the parties are connected with each other and share their experience and strategic plans and that they coordinate their actions to a certain degree.


I find most of the younger members of leftist organisations support this idea, but it tends to be the older ones who dominate the organisation and have a lot invested emotionally in their project who are the problem.
Maybe it is not just that the older members are emotionally and conservatives who stick to "outdated" models but they are more experienced in sturggle and in theory than the younger members, who are confused, are not consolidated in theory but impatient and rebellious.

All in all reformism is incompatibel with revolutionary communism, distracts and misleads the working class, serves the ruling class and is reactionary by nature.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not totally sure about some of the above post.

I wouldn't give so much credence to the organisational abilities of Capitalism as to say that there is some dark force that controls 'Capitalism's' tactics.

I would, however, agree - Capitalism as an entity will never be defeated through the ballot box alone. Elections in the 'liberal democratic' world are more about who is financed best, rather than who is genuinely supported best. Thus, true workers' democracy will never win simply through the ballot box.

[Rjevan]

I'm not totally sure about some of the above post.
If you refer to my post, don't hesitate to ask if you have a question about a specific statement.


I wouldn't give so much credence to the organisational abilities of Capitalism as to say that there is some dark force that controls 'Capitalism's' tactics.
There is of course no "dark force" in the sense of Illuminati pulling the strings but it would be wrong to assume that the ruling class isn't organized and will be helpless if it's power begins to be shaken. The main force which will ensure that the capitalists work together in such a situation and that they have their tactics is greed and hunger for power. You'd be surprised to learn how innovative and determined some people get, motivated by these factors. ;)

[zimmerwald1915]

I've been thinking lately that some sacred cows of the radical left, particularly left communists, need to be abandoned. Particularly, the idea that we can organise a revolution without seizing control of the existing state apparatus, and that to do so is inherently doomed to impotent "reformism" and capitulation. To imagine we can start by simply organising workers councils which can take over organisational functions and make the bourgeois state apparatus irrelevant seems to me, although appealing and *theoretically* possible, somewhat unlikely to ever come to fruition.
Have you read one Left Communist text on the revolution or the transition from capitalism to communism? Because the actual Left Communist position is not the one which you ascribe to us. It is true that Left Communists do not seek to "seize control of the existing state apparatus". However, this is not reflective of some reflexive anti-statism, but of a sober analysis of the situation. The "existing state apparatus" is engineered to protect capitalism: from potential or real attacks by workers, and from its own crises. Especially in the present period, when the state has the role of an active manager and regulator of capitalism, advanced struggles by the working class must inevitably confront the state. Workers' attempts to defend their livelihoods are, in the present period, reactions to state-sponsored and enacted austerity measures. Workers' attempts at massive struggles are confronted by the police. The "existing state apparatus" is an enemy of the working class, and the natural tendency of the class struggle, which tendency is reached only in cataclismic historical moments, is for one to destroy the other. The state may destroy the proletariat politically, so that it continues to exist only as a sociological category, or the proletariat may smash the bourgeois state.

It is also true that Left Communists call for the creation of workers' councils. However, you tragically misunderstand the nature and historical role of these bodies. Revolutionaries do not "organize" workers' councils. They form out of a long process of struggles, each building on the experience of ones that have gone before. Successful workers' struggles in the present period always involve workers breaking free of control by the social democratic and union sabateurs of the bourgeoisie, and creating bodies that they control themselves. Workers' councils proper appear as a way for workers to extend and deepen their struggles over broad territories and large populations. They are, in the last analysis, bodies of class struggle, defending workers' interests and extending their hegemony. What they are not is organs of state power. While workers' councils confront the state, they cannot become the state, because they do not represent the whole of society, but only one class of it. This holds true in the transition from capitalism to communism as well as in the revolutionary period. In the latter, the councils coordinate workers' combat against the bourgeois state. In the former, they have to control, by means of outside pressure, the new semi-state that will arise out of the continuing class divisions of society, making sure that its measures are in the interests of workers, and not in its own, self-preservatory interests. Revolutionaries help them in these tasks, keep them on track if you will.