Reform or Revolution

[¿Que?]

While I have only read the introduction, I intend to read the rest of it, as I intend to write an essay on the whole reform or revolution dichotomy. My first question is actually not really all that important. I want to familiarize myself with Bernstein's theory, but I really don't have the time or desire to read all of Evolutionary Socialism. Would anyone suggest the relevant chapters to read. I think Luxemburg at some point mentions that the gist of his argument is found in the last chapter, but I can't find the quote right now.

Like I said, I haven't read this yet, I have only read the introduction. And I intend to read this since it is rather a short book (starting over from the intro since I really didn't absorb it). But the first paragraph has really resonated with me.
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.http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/intro.htm

Why do so many people on here oppose reforms. I think I agree with this passage. Particularly the last sentence. Isn't fighting for reforms necessary for any revolutionary movement to be successful. Should I maybe have read the book before I posted this thread (although keep in mind that it is in the strategy section, not the theory section. Answers should reflect that. I am only quoting Luxemburg because it basically reinforces some presumptions I've had for a while of honest to goodness communist strategy).

So which is it. Reform, Revolution, or both.

[khad]

Reforms (not all, but in general) improve the position from which the proletariat can engage in class struggle. Public education, unemployment insurance, workday limits, as well as anti-discrimination legislation objectively increase the capability of the working class for organization and politicization.

Workers who are shackled to the factory for 18 hours a day are going to be hard pressed to politicize. Not saying that it can't happen, but many of them wouldn't have the time or means to do so due to the power that capitalists exert over them.

I think history bears out that revolutions tend to happen when the screws of repression are loosened. Successful revolutions rarely happen as a result of immiserating the working class.

[vyborg]

Communists are always in favour of reforms...even the small ones...we simply say that they are not sufficient and that capitalist willl take them back as soon as they can.

[red cat]

Why do so many people on here oppose reforms.

What revolutionary communists oppose is reformism, not reforms. Reformism is the act of restricting one's activities to conducting reforms, and gradually making it the primary goal rather than preparing for revolution.

Reforms are an important component of a revolution, and are present even in the most radical Maoist peoples' wars. If the vanguard party fails to secure small victories for the working class while still within the system, then the working class sees no reason to participate in any movement the party starts in order to achieve a goal that is decades away.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

I agree with reform, you can reform the capitalists face after split it open with my gerber lol

On the whole reform issue, i have no problem with reform, though i don't view it as anything that can advance the working class liberation, i mean reforms for me wont help the poor bastards in some sweatshop working their hands to the bone, reformism is eurocentric, its also selfish as it only helps the first world, revolution is the only way Mo Chara.

[khad]

On the whole reform issue, i have no problem with reform, though i don't view it as anything that can advance the working class liberation, i mean reforms for me wont help the poor bastards in some sweatshop working their hands to the bone, reformism is eurocentric, its also selfish as it only helps the first world, revolution is the only way Mo Chara.
It's very difficult to organize workers in sweatshops when they're kept under armed guard and aren't even allowed 5 minutes to themselves. Of course reforms in labor laws are needed there. Any revolution would have to necessarily have to fight for reforms.

Hell, public schools were a concession extracted from the capitalists in the most exploitive period of industrial capitalist development (late 19th century), and mass literacy has been a help, not a hindrance, to mass politiciization.

[Muzk]

Reforms ok, however there are some serious flaws in Bernstein's theory.

He thinks that class-struggle ceased to exist, that there are more and more capitalists because of the banking system.

I'm pretty tired so I can't go into much more detail now but Luxemburg did a good job refuting Bernstein's revision.

[InuyashaKnight]

Im in for reform as the peaceful solution, if not then REVOLUTION all the way. Thats my basis.

[mikelepore]

What revolutionary communists oppose is reformism, not reforms. Reformism is the act of restricting one's activities to conducting reforms, and gradually making it the primary goal rather than preparing for revolution.

I would not suggest that "restricting one's activites" or "primary goal" definition.

If an organization that supports revolutionary change also has some reforms mentioned in any of its "our program" or "the path to socialism" statements, I call that reformism.

Such reform ideas shouldn't be there, because they create the false conclusion in the reader's mind that a revolutionary social change is the same thing as an accumulation of many smaller changes to class rule, in the way that a long journey is an accumulation of many small steps.

It's all right to include a defense of civil rights, feminism, the right to organize, etc., because such things are not reforms. They are not reforms because there is nothing in them that assumes the continued existence of capitalism, in the way that the reform ideas "tax the corporations", "regulate the landlords", etc. assume the continued existence of capitalism.

In cases where support for an actual reform is a good idea, it should not be included in the revolutionary organization's "our road to socialism" or "our program" statement. It should be presented in a separate paragraph or article that clearly indicates at the top: "The following reform proposals have nothing to do with establishing socialism, and they are not steps in the direction of socialism, but they deserve our support, because they would make life easier, and because we are unlikely to acquire majority support for revolutionary change within the next few years."

An explanation of what such "support" means should also be included. To me, "support" can only mean that, in the event that a revolutionary activist got elected to a legislature, city council, school board, then, when a reform bill comes around, the revolutionary would give it an affirmative vote. I say it can only mean that because otherwise we would be making the error of believing that we can achieve reforms by yelling at capitalist politicians "we demand that you do this" even while we are also saying "however, I'd never vote to reelect you in any case, no matter what you do."

[¿Que?]

Reforms ok, however there are some serious flaws in Bernstein's theory.

He thinks that class-struggle ceased to exist, that there are more and more capitalists because of the banking system.

I'm pretty tired so I can't go into much more detail now but Luxemburg did a good job refuting Bernstein's revision.
Since this thread has been resurrected, I thought I'd throw in a comment. Been reading Luxemburg, albeit slowly as I got a lot of other things on my plate. Said I was going to plow through it last Friday, but I ended up ingesting an intoxicating combination of intoxicants. Oh Well.

That said, I'm about a third of the way into it, and I really like what she says about Bernstein's three "means of adaptation" (I'm not sure if that's her phrase, or Bernstein's). These are the credit system, the perfected means of communication, and the capitalist combines. Her fundamental argument is that none of these three "means of adaptation" are actually that, that they don't suppress or attenuate crisis, but actually produce it.

Also, one of Bernstein's arguments according to Luxemburg was that Marx said crisis in capitalism would occur every ten years or so. However, Luxemburg argues that the time frame between crises is not fixed or predetermined, thus you could have 5, 10, and up to 25 years in between a crises.

Just wanted to throw that in there. Thanks yall!

[x371322]

The way I look it, it's not that reforms are a bad thing. They're just not a viable means to achieve socialism and communism. For that we must have Revolution! :scared:

[Die Neue Zeit]

In cases where support for an actual reform is a good idea, it should not be included in the revolutionary organization's "our road to socialism" or "our program" statement. It should be presented in a separate paragraph or article that clearly indicates at the top: "The following reform proposals have nothing to do with establishing socialism, and they are not steps in the direction of socialism, but they deserve our support, because they would make life easier, and because we are unlikely to acquire majority support for revolutionary change within the next few years."

Why wouldn't they be steps? As Khad mentioned (and as you have read from my work), listing a shorter workweek has everything to do with supporting "the right to organize."

I guess it goes back to the question "Define reform."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Heads up:

The question "reform or revolution" is actually the wrong question to ask.

The proper question to ask is:

Reform coalition or mass strike? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2432)

[It's a continuation of my thread on Marxism as political strategy.]

[Bilan]

The way I look it, it's not that reforms are a bad thing. They're just not a viable means to achieve socialism and communism. For that we must have Revolution! :scared:

You've evaded the real question, however: are reforms still possible? The answer is no. That is precisely the reason why we are revolutionaries.


But the situation is entirely different now (to when the age of reforms were possible). No law obliges the proletariat to submit itself to the yoke of capitalism. Poverty, the lack of means of production, obliges the proletariat to submit itself to the yoke of capitalism. And no law in the world can give to the proletariat the means of production while it remains in the framework of bourgeois society.


source (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch08.htm).

Reforms only reaffirm existing illusions that the working class has, and the bourgeois left: that the bourgeois political system still offers us something.



The struggle for reforms has become a hopeless utopia. In this epoch the proletariat can only engage in a fight to the death against capital. It no longer has any alternative between consenting to be atomised into a sum of millions of crushed, tamed individuals, or generalising its struggles as widely as possible towards a confrontation with the state itself. Thus it must refuse to allow its struggles to be restricted to a purely economic, local, or sectional terrain and instead organise itself in the embryonic forms of its future organs of power: the workers’ councils.

Source (http://en.internationalism.org/node/611).

[khad]

You've evaded the real question, however: are reforms still possible? The answer is no. That is precisely the reason why we are revolutionaries.

Reforms only reaffirm existing illusions that the working class has, and the bourgeois left: that the bourgeois political system still offers us something.

The working class in the west at present is nowhere near organized enough to engage in open revolutionary struggle. Even the task of organization, by working through unions, community organizations, etc, would entail winning back many of the rights and protections that workers had stripped from them in this era of neoliberalism. Even Luxemburg, whom you cite out of context, claimed that revolutionary consciousness is an organic consequence of the struggle for reforms. I guarantee that you're going to get no traction if you just tell workers to fuck their rights and prepare for immediate revolution.

Which is why the ICC is marginal even among the marginal left. The branches of that organization that are actually relevant actually do engage in union activity and other such things to improve the material conditions of the working class under capitalism. Preparing revolutionary workers' councils should be a desired goal, but at the stage where western workers are right now, to reclaim workplaces would entail a violent confrontation with the forces of capitalism that they will not likely survive.

[Glenn Beck]

That Luxemburg quote has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of reform (aside from the parenthetical comment you added) and everything to do with its desirability relative to revolution. All that quote says is that no reform will definitively grant workers the control of the means of production, which is simply a trivial fact. Improving living and working conditions is not the same as granting ownership of the means of production, so this is a non-issue for the question of the possibility of reform. What is impossible, and what Luxemburg was writing about, is "evolutionary socialism" or the abolition of capitalism by legal reform. To say reform itself, the adjustment of state policy under capitalism in order to produce somewhat different outcomes within the boundaries of capitalism, is impossible is simply absurd and untrue.

In the prior paragraph she was contrasting the abolition of slavery and serfdom, which required a legal abolition, and the abolition of wage labor which requires direct appropriation.


Consequently, when we consider the question from the abstract viewpoint, not from the historic viewpoint, we can imagine (in view of the former class relations) a legal passage, according to the reformist method, from feudal society to bourgeois society. But what do we see in reality? In reality, we see that legal reforms not only do not obviate the seizure of political power by the bourgeoisie but have, on the contrary, prepared for it and led to it. A formal social-political transformation was indispensable for the abolition of slavery as well as for the complete suppression of feudalism.


But the situation is entirely different now. . .

[ZeroNowhere]

You've evaded the real question, however: are reforms still possible? The answer is no. That is precisely the reason why we are revolutionaries.So you would not support revolution if reform were possible?

[Bilan]

So you would not support revolution if reform were possible?

If reforms were still possible, wouldn't that imply we were in a different epoch of capitalism?

[Bilan]

The working class in the west at present is nowhere near organized enough to engage in open revolutionary struggle.

Who said it was? And who said a permanent mass organisation is going to actually bring about a revolution?

As Rosa Luxemburg said,


“The Russian revolution teaches us one lesson; that the mass strike is neither artificially ‘made’, nor ‘decided’ or ‘propagated’ in an abstract, immaterial ether, but is a historical phenomenon resulting at a certain moment and in a certain social situation from a historical necessity”



Even the task of organization, by working through unions, community organizations, etc, would entail winning back many of the rights and protections that workers had stripped from them in this era of neoliberalism.

That's presuming those can be granted; presuming that capitalism isn't in decay.




Even Luxemburg, whom you cite out of context, claimed that revolutionary consciousness is an organic consequence of the struggle for reforms.

Remind me of when Luxemburg was writing again.

The ICC puts it quite well:



Rosa Luxemburg and the German revolutionaries were no more capable than the Russian revolutionaries of severing completely the umbilical cord that tied them to Social Democracy.

i.e. Rosa Luxemburg's, when writing much of this, was still a member of the Social Democratic SPD, a party which led the working class into a imperialist butchering (and then also consider the influence of Ebert and so on).

In addition to this, just because it was Luxemburg's position almost 100 years ago, doesn't mean it's still the correct position.



I guarantee that you're going to get no traction if you just tell workers to fuck their rights and prepare for immediate revolution.

That is a really stupid interpretation. Really stupid.
Not supporting reforms or reformism, and recognising that it leads to reaffirming illusions int he bourgeois political system doesn't mean that you tell workers just to bow down and get fucked until they decide to revolt.

Use your brain.



Preparing revolutionary workers' councils should be a desired goal, but at the stage where western workers are right now, to reclaim workplaces would entail a violent confrontation with the forces of capitalism that they will not likely survive.

Yeah, again, this rests on a blatantly unempirical position: that workers can't survive without a mass, over-arching organisation. That is just wrong.

[Bilan]

That Luxemburg quote has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of reform (aside from the parenthetical comment you added) and everything to do with its desirability relative to revolution. All that quote says is that no reform will definitively grant workers the control of the means of production, which is simply a trivial fact. Improving living and working conditions is not the same as granting ownership of the means of production, so this is a non-issue for the question of the possibility of reform. What is impossible, and what Luxemburg was writing about, is "evolutionary socialism" or the abolition of capitalism by legal reform. To say reform itself, the adjustment of state policy under capitalism in order to produce somewhat different outcomes within the boundaries of capitalism, is impossible is simply absurd and untrue.

On the contrary, to assert that reforms can be maintained which are in the interests of the working class is utterly ridiculous.
What exactly is that based on?
Hell, a number of the reforms which the working class won way-back-when have been undermined: consider the 8 hour day, right to strike, etc.

They've been bashed back, and back, and back, and back. And now where the fuck are we?

To even suggest, that at this period of time, we should be trying to gain reforms from the bourgeoisie is leading workers down a path that will only foster their existing illusions. It is, in absolutely no way, what revolutionaries should be doing.

Next you'll be telling us to "Vote Left!"

[Glenn Beck]

On the contrary, to assert that reforms can be maintained which are in the interests of the working class is utterly ridiculous.
What exactly is that based on?
Hell, a number of the reforms which the working class won way-back-when have been undermined: consider the 8 hour day, right to strike, etc.

They've been bashed back, and back, and back, and back. And now where the fuck are we?

To even suggest, that at this period of time, we should be trying to gain reforms from the bourgeoisie is leading workers down a path that will only foster their existing illusions. It is, in absolutely no way, what revolutionaries should be doing.

Next you'll be telling us to "Vote Left!"

Are you genuinely this dumb or is this supposed to be some kind of demagogic Stalinist ruse
to bolster your flimsy dogma by ascribing false opinions to others in lieu of addressing their arguments?

[Bilan]

Are you genuinely this dumb or is this supposed to be some kind of demagogic Stalinist ruse
to bolster your flimsy dogma by ascribing false opinions to others in lieu of addressing their arguments?

Class argument there, soldier.

Anyhow, I didn't imply that anyone had any politics they haven't admitted to having. Clearly, the quip at the end was sarcastic. I didn't realise you were too daft to pick up on that.

But would you like to go through your argument again?

Please let me know why revolutionaries should be fighting for reforms.


To say reform itself, the adjustment of state policy under capitalism in order to produce somewhat different outcomes within the boundaries of capitalism, is impossible is simply absurd and untrue.

Minor reforms are not "impossible": sustaining those which are in the interest of the working class is.
We can get minor reforms through struggles but of what value are they when they will be taken away either overtly or covertly?

The 8 hour day is a good example because despite the myriad of struggles which took place, and which granted workers the right to an eight hour day, it has been wound back. And how? Not through an actual change in legislation (necessarily) but by the introduction of casual labour and over-time.
Now, not only are workers subjected to shifts over 8 hours (at my old work, the longest was closer to 17 hours; and another friend of mine spent 17 hours a day working just recently, albeit for a short period of time) but they can be subjected to even longer shifts depending on the bosses whims; they also have lost their job security.
But, even when fighting for "more secure work" we have to make compromises. The introduction of "part-time work" means lower wages than casual labour, but more job security; casual work means higher wages, but no job security. And the wages are substantially different: e.g. down from 17.00 to 13.00.

Now, Glenn Beck, I'd like an answer: why should revolutionaries be spending their time trying to get minor reforms when we know they can't be maintained and then we know that the only solution is revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If reforms were still possible, wouldn't that imply we were in a different epoch of capitalism?

That's the problem with your epoch argument. The bourgeois class "outer core" above the "inner core" that is the [mass] commodity mode of production is quite flexible. There have been more than two or three "epochs":

1) Before the Long Depression
2) Long Depression
3) After the Long Depression (Bernstein's optimistic revisionism can only be understood in the context of the Long Depression's end) but before WWI
4) Before the Great Depression
5) "Welfare State"
6) "Neoliberalism"

[Popular thinking erroneously condenses the first four into one "free market" era. :rolleyes: ]

[Die Neue Zeit]

The 8 hour day is a good example because despite the myriad of struggles which took place, and which granted workers the right to an eight hour day, it has been wound back. And how? Not through an actual change in legislation (necessarily) but by the introduction of casual labour and over-time.
Now, not only are workers subjected to shifts over 8 hours (at my old work, the longest was closer to 17 hours; and another friend of mine spent 17 hours a day working just recently, albeit for a short period of time) but they can be subjected to even longer shifts depending on the bosses whims; they also have lost their job security.
But, even when fighting for "more secure work" we have to make compromises. The introduction of "part-time work" means lower wages than casual labour, but more job security; casual work means higher wages, but no job security. And the wages are substantially different: e.g. down from 17.00 to 13.00.

The ecological reduction of the normal workweek – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime

[...]

Direct guarantees of a real livelihood to all workers, including unemployment provisions, voluntary workfare without means testing, and work incapacitation provisions – all based on a participatory-democratic normal workweek, all beyond bare subsistence minimums, and all before any indirect considerations like public health insurance – and including the universalization of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive and non-celebrity remunerations, pensions, and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living (not notorious government underestimations due to faulty measures like chain weighting, or even underhanded selections of the lower of core inflation and general inflation)

[...]

The institution of normalized planning and policy pertaining to reductions in the normal workweek below the participatory-democratic threshold and to related increases in labour productivity

[...]

The realization of zero unemployment by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services

Thanks for the casual labour rant, though.


Minor reforms are not "impossible": sustaining those which are in the interest of the working class is.

Now, Glenn Beck, I'd like an answer: why should revolutionaries be spending their time trying to get minor reforms when we know they can't be maintained and then we know that the only solution is revolution?

Because Jules Guesde and not Karl Marx was correct on this subject:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalisations-free-services-t116489/index.html?p=1535140
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html?p=1719523

[Bilan]

The ecological reduction of the normal workweek – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime

[...]

Direct guarantees of a real livelihood to all workers, including unemployment provisions, voluntary workfare without means testing, and work incapacitation provisions – all based on a participatory-democratic normal workweek, all beyond bare subsistence minimums, and all before any indirect considerations like public health insurance – and including the universalization of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive and non-celebrity remunerations, pensions, and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living (not notorious government underestimations due to faulty measures like chain weighting, or even underhanded selections of the lower of core inflation and general inflation)

[...]

The institution of normalized planning and policy pertaining to reductions in the normal workweek below the participatory-democratic threshold and to related increases in labour productivity

[...]

The realization of zero unemployment by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services

Thanks for the casual labour rant, though.

Did that quote even say anything? It was a series of words with no apparent point.





Because Jules Guesde and not Karl Marx was correct on this subject:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalisations-free-services-t116489/index.html?p=1535140
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html?p=1719523

Who is Jules Guesde?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Guesde

Lenin said something positive about Guesde's earlier work before joining the WWI coalition government.


Did that quote even say anything? It was a series of words with no apparent point.

The point is that political programs can rebutt your assertion.

[Bilan]

That's the problem with your epoch argument. The bourgeois class "outer core" above the "inner core" that is the [mass] commodity mode of production is quite flexible. There have been more than two or three "epochs":

1) Before the Long Depression
2) Long Depression
3) After the Long Depression (Bernstein's optimistic revisionism can only be understood in the context of the Long Depression's end) but before WWI
4) Before the Great Depression
5) "Welfare State"
6) "Neoliberalism"

[Popular thinking erroneously condenses the first four into one "free market" era. :rolleyes: ]

What? I have no idea what you're saying. "Outer core" and "inner core" of the bourgeoisie? What is that supposed to even mean?

Incidentally, I didn't actually specify any "amount" of epochs, making it hardly a fault of "my" epoch argument. It is more a fault of your "interpreting my" argument.

Further, how are any of those relevant? It is evident that the epochs of capitalism can be broken down into ones like you have done above, but that doesn't mean their isn't an over-arching epoch (one that, dare I say might encompass the last 3). What your "catergorisation" illustrates is just the particular form of economic "management" that was employed during this epoch.

However, this is barely relevant.

If you want to answer it, considering Khad is too busy thanking you to write, are reforms worthwhile, and why, and is that the role for revolutionaries to be playing in this current epoch (whether you break it down into sub-categories, or if you argue it is the epoch of "social revolution" or if you think that there is no epoch at all)?

[Bilan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Guesde

Lenin said something positive about Guesde's earlier work before joining the WWI coalition government.



The point is that political programs can rebutt your assertion.

No, I'm afraid political programs can't. Not because my word is more valuable, but because the validity will be shown in practice.
However, the apparent point does not exist. That "political program" is struggling to simply have a meaning.
Where did it come from?

[Glenn Beck]

Anyhow, I didn't imply that anyone had any politics they haven't admitted to having.

Except for when you assumed everyone who doesn't share your imprecisely worded and idiosyncratic line to the letter is an advocate of reformism as a tactic for revolutionaries.


Clearly, the quip at the end was sarcastic. I didn't realise you were too daft to pick up on that.

Don't worry sweetheart, I got the sarcasm. You were attempting to mock my alleged reformism. Yes, it was quite good, I chuckled.


But would you like to go through your argument again?

I would very much like for you to go through my argument for the first time. It was about what Luxemburg was actually saying and why what you wrote in your original post was a load of nonsense.


Please let me know why revolutionaries should be fighting for reforms.

When exactly did I say they should?


Minor reforms are not "impossible"

That's not what you said earlier, friend:

You've evaded the real question, however: are reforms still possible? The answer is no.


sustaining those which are in the interest of the working class is.

No shit. Any reform that leaves the capitalist system intact is bound to be rolled-back when the political balance changes. I really doubt you'll find anyone here to deny that; even liberals and social-democrats obviously acknowledge the empirical fact that reforms do indeed get rolled back. The distinction is that they resign themselves to the Sisyphean task of perpetually pushing the boulder of reform uphill.


We can get minor reforms through struggles but of what value are they when they will be taken away either overtly or covertly?

Uh, I don't know, I guess it depends on the reform. Are we talking about moral value? monetary value? In terms of state budget or to an individual worker? A minimum wage increase might be worth a few cents an hour until inflation catches up with it. Maybe refer to Tennyson as to whether it would be better to reform and lose than to have never reformed at all.

Also what's up this distinction between minor reforms and reforms in general? Are you implying that "far-reaching" reforms relative to other more modest reforms are for some reason no longer possible? Or are you just, as I suspect, completely not getting what the entire point of the distinction between reform and revolution is and asserting that a minor reform is a reform that doesn't fundamentally alter the relations of production? Because if the latter is the case then you can save your fingers the strain of typing those extra 5 letters every time and simply not make confusing and unclear distinctions that are in fact entirely redundant. No reform can do that.



The 8 hour day is a good example because despite the myriad of struggles which took place, and which granted workers the right to an eight hour day, it has been wound back. And how? Not through an actual change in legislation (necessarily) but by the introduction of casual labour and over-time.
Now, not only are workers subjected to shifts over 8 hours (at my old work, the longest was closer to 17 hours; and another friend of mine spent 17 hours a day working just recently, albeit for a short period of time) but they can be subjected to even longer shifts depending on the bosses whims; they also have lost their job security.
But, even when fighting for "more secure work" we have to make compromises. The introduction of "part-time work" means lower wages than casual labour, but more job security; casual work means higher wages, but no job security. And the wages are substantially different: e.g. down from 17.00 to 13.00.

Yes, the contemporary labor market indeed sucks, that's one of the reasons people take up anti-capitalist perspectives. That's a real shame about your friend, but I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion unless you are trying to demonstrate to me that conditions for workers have been substantially degraded in recent decades. You can see that I already acknowledged this, a bit baffled I might add because I'm not aware of ever implying anything to the contrary.


Now, Glenn Beck, I'd like an answer: why should revolutionaries be spending their time trying to get minor reforms when we know they can't be maintained and then we know that the only solution is revolution?

Insofar as participating in some capacity in reform struggles doesn't advance revolutionary goals they, uh, shouldn't. If you read upwards you'll note I never actually said they should, nor did I even imply it so far as I'm aware. I actually said remarkably little in my original post about anything except but what Reform or Revolution was about, compared to what you said it was about (although you are now backpedaling on your previously stated position on the supposed impossibility of reform).

[Die Neue Zeit]

What? I have no idea what you're saying. "Outer core" and "inner core" of the bourgeoisie? What is that supposed to even mean?

It's Earth geology. I don't like base-superstructure.

What I meant to say was that the [mass] commodity mode of production is not dependent upon the existence of the bourgeoisie.

Primitive communism -> Primitive commodity mode(s) of production -> [Mass] commodity mode(s) of production (including the most leftist of "state capitalism" that is monetary socialism) -> Lower and higher phases of the communist mode of production.

Giving up on some terms: Debating capitalism again, etc. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/giving-up-some-t129907/index.html)


However, this is barely relevant.

It counters your decadence argument.


If you want to answer it, considering Khad is too busy thanking you to write, are reforms worthwhile, and why, and is that the role for revolutionaries to be playing in this current epoch (whether you break it down into sub-categories, or if you argue it is the epoch of "social revolution" or if you think that there is no epoch at all)?

Maybe I should e-mail you an updated copy of my work. There's a graph outlining what kind of demands or measures can be raised, and recall the Hahnel and Kautsky criteria which I use.

[Bilan]

Glenn Beck,


I would very much like for you to go through my argument for the first time. It was about what Luxemburg was actually saying and why what you wrote in your original post was a load of nonsense.

Hardly nonsense, but granted, a misquote.




When exactly did I say they should?


I interpreted it as an implication of your argument.



That's not what you said earlier, friend:


What point is there in making a reform if it can't stay? The obvious point that a reform can be made is relatively silly. To even bring it up is stupid. You made a very simplisitic interpretation of that by presuming I meant you couldn't change anything within the bourgeois state, when really, you knew I meant nothing could be sustained, nothing was worth while.

However, it's my bad. I'll be sure to be clearer in future.




Also what's up this distinction between minor reforms and reforms in general? Are you implying that "far-reaching" reforms relative to other more modest reforms are for some reason no longer possible? Or are you just, as I suspect, completely not getting what the entire point of the distinction between reform and revolution is and asserting that a minor reform is a reform that doesn't fundamentally alter the relations of production? Because if the latter is the case then you can save your fingers the strain of typing those extra 5 letters every time and simply not make confusing and unclear distinctions that are in fact entirely redundant. No reform can do that.


Oh, no, I do get it, I was just attempting to make it crystal clear. It seemed relatively obvious that a "major" reform would not fundamentally alter anything.
Things like the raising of the minimum wage by a few cents are exactly what I was referring to.



Yes, the contemporary labor market indeed sucks, that's one of the reasons people take up anti-capitalist perspectives. That's a real shame about your friend, but I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion unless you are trying to demonstrate to me that conditions for workers have been substantially degraded in recent decades. You can see that I already acknowledged this, a bit baffled I might add because I'm not aware of ever implying anything to the contrary.

I was merely pointing out that many reforms had been bashed back considerably, and that the validity of aiming at any reforms seems relatively pointless, considering that they are to continually be degraded irrespective of what we do.
I am aware that you recognise that. However, you're coming across (to me, at least) as if you think some reforms are worthwhile pursuing now.




Insofar as participating in some capacity in reform struggles doesn't advance revolutionary goals they, uh, shouldn't. If you read upwards you'll note I never actually said they should, nor did I even imply it so far as I'm aware. I actually said remarkably little in my original post about anything except but what Reform or Revolution was about, compared to what you said it was about (although you are now backpedaling on your previously stated position on the supposed impossibility of reform).

I'm not back peddling. Clearly to say that all reforms are impossible is ridiculous. I was unclear, but I am not back peddling.
The thought that it would be interpreted as "no reform can be made ever again" didn't even cross my mind: the success of reforms, however, is what I am talking about.

[Bilan]

It's Earth geology. I don't like base-superstructure.

I understood the origin, but not the relevance.



What I meant to say was that the [mass] commodity mode of production is not dependent upon the existence of the bourgeoisie.

That's quite a stretch from "outer core" and "inner core" of the bourgeoisie. Anyhow, how is that the case?

Primitive communism -> Primitive commodity mode(s) of production -> [Mass] commodity mode(s) of production (including the most leftist of "state capitalism" that is monetary socialism) -> Lower and higher phases of the communist mode of production.

Giving up on some terms: Debating capitalism again, etc. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/giving-up-some-t129907/index.html)




It counters your decadence argument.

It really didn't.




Maybe I should e-mail you an updated copy of my work. There's a graph outlining what kind of demands or measures can be raised, and recall the Hahnel and Kautsky criteria which I use.

Maybe.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Things like the raising of the minimum wage by a few cents are exactly what I was referring to.

But that isn't a reform. That's on the same footing as the current "health care reform" shit.


I understood the origin, but not the relevance.

Even bourgeois capitalism (note the adjective) is quite flexible, contrary to apocalyptic predictions based on political inactivity. The presence of different epochs is a testament to this.


That's quite a stretch from "outer core" and "inner core" of the bourgeoisie. Anyhow, how is that the case?

The outer core is the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class. The inner core is [mass] commodity production itself.


Maybe.

Check your spam can (I have preparatory notes there on "that isn't a reform" being applied to some things). :)

[Bilan]

But that isn't a reform. That's on the same footing as the current "health care reform" shit.

How is it not a reform? Changes to the minimum wage require a legislative change, i.e. a legislative reform. And those changes are only going to happen with sustained action by trade unions and political groups - or else, it's unlikely they would happen at all.
That seems relatively self-evident.



Even bourgeois capitalism (note the adjective) is quite flexible, contrary to apocalyptic predictions based on political inactivity. The presence of different epochs is a testament to this.

I see the adjective, and I ask: quoi? Is there such a thing non-bourgeois capitalism? I mean, I read the two threads, and I saw the posts by you and (the polish communist whose user name I have forgotten) claiming that "state capitalism" was synonymous with "proletarian socialism", but that seems like a relatively preposterous claim, considering it still necessitated the existence of wage labour: the perpetual existence of wage-labour under these state-capitalist regimes was caused largely by the inability of the revolution to spread globally (i.e.via the crushing of the German revolution, Hungarian, and other revolts around the world), and the revolution rolling backwards; that the class system was not fundamentally smashed; the state machinery was left intact; in near all senses, the "proletarian socialism" spoken of (as opposed to bourgeois capitalism) was just capitalism: the bourgeoisie was simply replaced by ...the bourgeoisie.

So I, to some extent, understand your use of the "adjective" but I find this claim that it is an "adjective" ultimately misleading: it rests on a false understanding of the proletarian dictatorship. The fact is there is no non-bourgeois capitalism: there is capitalism and bourgeois socialism, and I think you may have identified with the latter.



The outer core is the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class. The inner core is [mass] commodity production itself.

Yes, I understand that is what you meant now. The interrelationship between these two is, however, inseparable.



Check your spam can (I have preparatory notes there on "that isn't a reform" being applied to some things). :)

Haha, I responded. I wouldn't put it in the spam can. <3

[Die Neue Zeit]

How is it not a reform? Changes to the minimum wage require a legislative change, i.e. a legislative reform. And those changes are only going to happen with sustained action by trade unions and political groups - or else, it's unlikely they would happen at all.
That seems relatively self-evident.

Even the IMF uses the word "reform" sparingly. They interchange it with the infamous "structural reform."


So I, to some extent, understand your use of the "adjective" but I find this claim that it is an "adjective" ultimately misleading: it rests on a false understanding of the proletarian dictatorship. The fact is there is no non-bourgeois capitalism: there is capitalism and bourgeois socialism, and I think you may have identified with the latter.

There were no bourgeois elements in the bureaucratic era of the Soviet state. What arose there is the same class that would rise under Bordigist authoritarianism: the coordinator class.


Haha, I responded. I wouldn't put it in the spam can. <3

Another's been sent. ;)

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I'd like an answer: why should revolutionaries be spending their time trying to get minor reforms when we know they can't be maintained and then we know that the only solution is revolution?

I'd say that it's worth the time if you can awaken people to our message. I'd gladly spend a month working to fight for a wage that'll be undone in two years if it'll gain us 10 socialists.

[mikelepore]

I'd say that it's worth the time if you can awaken people to our message. I'd gladly spend a month working to fight for a wage that'll be undone in two years if it'll gain us 10 socialists.

How do you expect to gain 10 new socialists by such a method, if, when you get the opportunity to give a speech or write an article, you make the its subject the need for the higher wage, instead of making its subject the reasons for establishing socialism?

This subject of socialism is a conceptual one, like math and science. To teach it to others, the speaker or writer must directly address the points.

[syndicat]

I think Luxemburg overdoes the "historical necessity" bit.

I think reformism shouldn't be defined as seeking reforms. The degree of change the working class can plausibly achieve at a given point in time depends on the balance of forces, current level of class consiousness and other things. But in developing organizations and struggles, people learn from that and if victories are won the lesson is that they maybe people had more collective power than they thought.

I think it's a question of how reforms -- changes less than total -- are fought for. If changes are fought for through trying to elect candidates to office, voting for Democrats, depending on collective bargaining by the bureaucratic business unions, lobbying...these are reformist methods.

But creating more rank and file controlled movements/organizations, movements from below, engaging in direct actions that can draw in broader participation and help to develop a larger movement, this is a non-reformist method. for one thing, because it is more likely to help the process of class formation...of developing a more activist working class, developing commitment to involvement, building a larger movement, building skills of working class people from their actual participation, and so forth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If changes are fought for through trying to elect candidates to office, voting for Democrats, depending on collective bargaining by the bureaucratic business unions, lobbying...these are reformist methods.

Two of the three are. One is mixed. Candidates in office can either stick to their guns or enter legislative and/or executive coalitions. The latter is certainly reformist.


But creating more rank and file controlled movements/organizations, movements from below, engaging in direct actions that can draw in broader participation and help to develop a larger movement, this is a non-reformist method. for one thing, because it is more likely to help the process of class formation...of developing a more activist working class, developing commitment to involvement, building a larger movement, building skills of working class people from their actual participation, and so forth.

Most "movements from below" aren't real movements, since they aren't real political parties (not synonymous with electoral machines).

[syndicat]

Most "movements from below" aren't real movements, since they aren't real political parties (not synonymous with electoral machines).

well there's dogma at work. I don't see political parties as being movements at all. and contesting for office in the government will inevitably lead an organization to focus decision making on certain leaders and will lead to statist solutions because they'll be talking about the state doing this or that through its bureaucratic hierarchies. and that's definitely reformist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see political parties as being movements at all.

So you're disputing the 19th-century assertion that "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement (http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=lars+lih+merger+socialism+worker&source=bl&ots=5i7p9tBOXo&sig=4UjPzlLUAwKu0JpxRZQFzPYCLso&hl=en&ei=gJXKS5CqE4qMswOpiq2BAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)"?

[syndicat]

In the 19th century Marx and Engels seemingly had the idea of a socalled "class party" or the working class organized as a political party. I would say that subsequent history has refuted this notion. It tends to drain life out of unions when they are subordinate to an electoral political party. Everything becomes bureaucratized.

Nor is it plausible even that all of the more active and thinking and leading layer of the working class will be united into a single political organization. Humans are too obstreperous and diverse for that, even when they appreciate the need for organization and some sort of collective discipline. Multiple vanguards are inevitable.

We thus need to think of class power as occurring through the mass organizations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the 19th century Marx and Engels seemingly had the idea of a socalled "class party" or the working class organized as a political party. I would say that subsequent history has refuted this notion. It tends to drain life out of unions when they are subordinate to an electoral political party. Everything becomes bureaucratized.

So what about equality between the SPD and the trade unions, which allowed hacks like Ebert to creep in and ultimate impose a pro-war position in the party?

What about the very non-revolutionary nature of the British trade unions which helped form the IWMA but then aided in its demise (by opposing the Paris Commune)?

The first truth is that bureaucracy is needed, and failure to properly master this by merely dodging it has led workers nowhere, such as World Social Forums.

The second is that unions should be subordinate to party-movements, not necessarily electoral machines.


Nor is it plausible even that all of the more active and thinking and leading layer of the working class will be united into a single political organization. Humans are too obstreperous and diverse for that, even when they appreciate the need for organization and some sort of collective discipline. Multiple vanguards are inevitable.

Of course multiple vanguards are inevitable, but they can arise within singular party-movements. They're just called tendencies.

I think you're asserting a sort of political "consumerism" which has only taken hold after WWII.

This group still awaits your constructively critical participation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205

[syndicat]

It's not a question of "political consumerism" because i'm talking about the active, involved section of the working class. I'm not talking about people being passive followers. People will inevitably create multiple organizations. For one thing, the working class is highly heterogeneious. In the USA we have multiple cultures, due to the legacy of slavery and racism, and waves of immigration. If people from a particular background are more dominant in organization A it may not see things the same way as organization B. Besides, differences about what we are aiming at and what the strategy should be are inevitalbe, as these things are not rocket science and the answers aren't obvious.

In the USA the labor movement has been unable to respond to the capitalist offensive for 4 decades due to the dominance of the paid hierarchy of the business unions.

This bureaucracy arose in the AFL in the late 19th century as representatives tended to monopolize the work of representing and gained experience and skills...how to negotiate, how to organize, public speaking, knowledge about laws and industries, etc. They kept this to themselves, drawing around a circle of cronies who were dependent on them. They created fiefdoms, in which they were dominant, and could persuade the "boys" to fund them high salaries. And now we have 10,000 officials making over $100,000 a year. And this bureaucracy is a dead weight. They do not have the same interests as the rank and file.

We do need to have things like elected shop stewards, and training schools/centers and we can pay some people half-time salaries equal to what they made on their job to do some administrative and organizing and training work. but this bureaucracy needs to be kept to a minimum so that the center of gravity for decision-making lies with the rank and file.

If you have a party that is an electoral party, it will become an electoral machine...I think we've learned that much.

[Agnapostate]

Reforms (not all, but in general) improve the position from which the proletariat can engage in class struggle. Public education, unemployment insurance, workday limits, as well as anti-discrimination legislation objectively increase the capability of the working class for organization and politicization.

Workers who are shackled to the factory for 18 hours a day are going to be hard pressed to politicize. Not saying that it can't happen, but many of them wouldn't have the time or means to do so due to the power that capitalists exert over them.

I think history bears out that revolutions tend to happen when the screws of repression are loosened. Successful revolutions rarely happen as a result of immiserating the working class.

The anti-socialist ignorantly promotes a doctrine of dichotomy between capitalism and the state, despite their currently interdependent existence, but the socialist recognizes that social democracy is a form of capitalism, since it sustains the private ownership and management of the means of production. Peaceful reform through electoral victories and nonviolent direct action might very well facilitate the implementation of socialism in more politically stable countries.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that reforms will inspire a violent revolution, however, and substantial historical evidence that the guns come out when we let the bad times roll. Even the history of U.S. labor activism reveals the major role of socialist tendencies anywhere from 125 to 75 years ago, and the willingness of many to engage in violent struggle against capitalist despots. The pacification of employment relations has put the average Joe on first-name terms with his boss, introducing his family to him at the company picnic. While hatred of bosses is by no means completely marginal, it’s rarely expressed through violence, and through sporadic and criminal violence if it is, not a program to place workplaces under democratic control.

So interventionist reforms have the effect of macroeconomic stabilization in the capitalist economy, which means that the private ownership of the means of production is actually upheld. It is instability that has the effect of inspiring revolutionary challenges to the economic paradigm, not calm. At the same time, reforms do have beneficial effects for workers, but they also constitute a form of psychological appeasement.

The premise behind gambling, particularly the sort on TV game shows, is the accumulation of greater risk alongside greater winnings. It’s irrelevant if a contestant fails to win one million dollars when she would have had nothing anyway, but if the failed bid entails the loss of five hundred thousand dollars, the loss is obviously greater. So while violent revolution may seem attractive enough a prospect at a point when “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains,” the job security provisions and workplace regulations that labor activism won has bred sedentary attitudes, and an unwillingness to sacrifice half a million dollars for an uncertain and unlikely opportunity for a million.

But I’m a consequentialist; I support what works. I’m in favor of the violent overthrow of capitalism in countries and regions where that is feasible at the moment, and opposed to reforms there on the basis that it would be a longer and more uncertain road to socialism. Reforms are all well and good if we recognize that our goal is reformism, as I mentioned. Reformism would generally advance a program of nationalization and institution of democratic management of workplaces and productive resources, and would be most speedily implemented in social democracies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For one thing, the working class is highly heterogeneious.

Then it cannot become a class for itself until it overcomes the hurdles posed by this heterogeneity. Part of overcoming this is the organizational form known as the party-movement, wherein real parties are real movements and vice versa.

I know that's an extremely high threshold for when a class can be for itself, but that's a fact.

[syndicat]

class formation does require increasing unity, and the various sectors of the class understanding the forms of oppressions of other sectors, and developing a movement that addresses the various social problems.

but I see this is as more plausibly coming about through (1) transformation of worker organization into a grassroots social movement form of unionism, and (2) a labor/social movement alliance.

To put this another way, the organizational means for self-liberation of the class is the mass organizations, and a developing class wide alliance of these.

Marta Harnecker makes a distinction between the "party left" and the "social movement left". And i think that the potential for liberation lies with the latter, altho political organizations can play a catalytic and educational role within these movements.

the movements need to acquire a revolutionary outlook and aspiration or self-managed socialism won't be a possibility.

[Die Neue Zeit]

class formation does require increasing unity, and the various sectors of the class understanding the forms of oppressions of other sectors, and developing a movement that addresses the various social problems.

but I see this is as more plausibly coming about through (1) transformation of worker organization into a grassroots social movement form of unionism, and (2) a labor/social movement alliance.

You asked the question in the other thread, "Uh, Jacob, what are the relevant membership numbers of WPA versus the unions?"

It should be noted that what is more relevant is their strategy based on your first point above: revolutionary industrial unionism.

The second point is too much of a New Left hangover. For me, any real party-movement must be based on the working class, but "labour" issues should definitely go past bread and butter issues to address things like industrial democracy and participatory political democracy.


Marta Harnecker makes a distinction between the "party left" and the "social movement left". And i think that the potential for liberation lies with the latter, altho political organizations can play a catalytic and educational role within these movements.

the movements need to acquire a revolutionary outlook and aspiration or self-managed socialism won't be a possibility.

I've read her work Rebuilding the Left and her commentary on the new International. The latter has acknowledged the dead end of the World Social Forum and was spearheaded by parties.

[syndicat]

I agree that the World Social Forum has been a dead end. But this derives to a large extent by its control and manipulation by social democratic parties such as the Brazilian Workers Party and the more bureaucratic NGOs. An alliance has to be worked out through direct links and discussions involving the ranks of these movements.

I'm talking about grassroots social movements developing an alliance.

The reason this has to develop as an alliance is because different sectors of struggle arise among different groups of people who have different forms of oppression they are subject to, or there are aspects of the system they are more knowledgeable about and so on.

I think "industrial unionism" is a misnomer. What's required is class unionism. It was something of a misnomer to refer to the IWW's unionism as "industrial unionism" because they were emphasizing the need for worker solidarity to broaden out, so that whole communities supported struggles, and widening the solidarity within the class, not just among those in a particular industry.

anyway, my organization Workers Solidarity Alliance is revolutionary syndicalist, so we also advocate grassroots, worker controlled solidarity (class) unionism. recognizing the usefulness of a political organization is not the same as saying that it is through a party that the working class comes to power. as we see it, it is thru the mass self-managed solidarity unionism and class wide alliance that this happens.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree that the World Social Forum has been a dead end. But this derives to a large extent by its control and manipulation by social democratic parties such as the Brazilian Workers Party and the more bureaucratic NGOs. An alliance has to be worked out through direct links and discussions involving the ranks of these movements.

While CPGB comrade Mike Macnair has pointed to the presence of the PTB in his polemic against "social movements" (you have yet to join :p ), I do think they're intentionally playing second fiddle (except for hosting functions) and letting the NGOs do the work for them.


I think "industrial unionism" is a misnomer. What's required is class unionism. It was something of a misnomer to refer to the IWW's unionism as "industrial unionism" because they were emphasizing the need for worker solidarity to broaden out, so that whole communities supported struggles, and widening the solidarity within the class, not just among those in a particular industry.

I suggested "industry unionism" to Miles and co. to take into account business terminology (using "industry" as an adjective).


anyway, my organization Workers Solidarity Alliance is revolutionary syndicalist, so we also advocate grassroots, worker controlled solidarity (class) unionism. recognizing the usefulness of a political organization is not the same as saying that it is through a party that the working class comes to power. as we see it, it is thru the mass self-managed solidarity unionism and class wide alliance that this happens.

"Class-wide alliance" is still to me an oxymoron.

[syndicat]

"Class-wide alliance" is still to me an oxymoron.

why? different groups within the working class are subject to different forms of oppression. An African-American woman who works at the post office is oppressed not just as a worker, but also a woman and a black person. The circumstances of life for the black working class are not the same as for other groups within the working class in the USA, and white supremacy is still a major problem from the point of class unity.

Also, you have the specific circumstances of queer folk within the working class, you have the different circumstances facing women, who have more restricted job opportunities and are subject to various forms of sexual harassment, and this is in addition to the different circumstances of the less skilled majority of the working class and the more skilled minority.

My group finds "intersectionality" a useful concept, developed originally by black socialist feminists, to examine the ways class, race and gender intersect, particularly in the lives of working class women of color.

Intersectionality advises us to always consider women and workers of color in thinking in terms of organizing in workplaces and in class specific kinds of contexts, and to never leave out a working class perspective when looking at the circumstances of women and people of color, and so on. This means being sensitive to the different circumstances of different groups.

So when my housing group was getting going in early 2000s we didn't just put forward a "color blind" class analysis of the housing crisis but made an extra effort to talk to activists of color and organizations rooted in communities of color, and we've able been to greatly diversify the membership and leadership of the organization because of this. But that diversification wouldn't have happened without that extra effort.

so the idea is that class formation includes alliance building among the various groups that make up the class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mass strike action subject to manipulation by an invisible minority (hence tiny minority "vanguards") based primarily on bland economic demands and so-called "transitional" reform demands is the political strategy common to Bakuninism-Sorelianism and Trotskyism.A sectarian comment on your part. Mass strike that seized the means of production in Barcelona in 1936 not based on "bland economic demands." "Sorelianism" is a figment of your imagination. Sorel had no connection with syndicalism.

A summary one-liner based on the revolutionary strategy of the Second International center (German "Kautskyans" but also guys like Jules Guesde in France and the pre-RSDLP Iskra tendency) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2489) hardly qualifies as being sectarian.

[syndicat]

i don't find any references to Bakuninism, syndicalism, or Sorel in the linked piece.

[Die Neue Zeit]

35:25 into this video, just after the polemic against reformism at 30:19 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8682919597603842499)

[mikelepore]

Candidates in office can either stick to their guns or enter legislative and/or executive coalitions.

There have been some socialists running for poitical office (and I know they have existed because I met some of them) who were completely dedicated to the idea that, if they were to win, they would have nothing to do but agitate for socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you're position on the new budget proposal?", they would start listing the reasons why we need socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you position on the zoning variance for the town dump?", they would start listing some more reasons why we need socialism. They would do nothing but this throughout the campaign, and, if they were to win, they would do nothing but this while in office. The existence of these kinds of socialist candidates disproves the assertion that some people on this forum make that is's necessarily "reformist" to run for political office. The degree of wisdom in their method is another discussion, but it's established that they are not engaging in reformism.

[mikelepore]

I think "industrial unionism" is a misnomer. What's required is class unionism. It was something of a misnomer to refer to the IWW's unionism as "industrial unionism" because they were emphasizing the need for worker solidarity to broaden out, so that whole communities supported struggles, and widening the solidarity within the class, not just among those in a particular industry.

The term refers to the distinction between craft unionism and industrial unionism. These terms have to do with the classification of each worker when determining which union department each member is supposed to join. Craft unionism uses the type of individual work, while industrial unionism uses the output of the site. For example, in the method of craft unionism, the school nurse is said to work in the medical industry, because of the type of work performed. In the method of industrial unionism, the school nurse is said to work in the education industry, because of the function of the work site. The IWW uses the IU method.

[syndicat]

but the IWW didn't just advocate narrowly what you call "industrial unionism". they advocated that workers in any industry should be prepared to support workers in other industries. they advocated broadening out the solidarity, to the extent feasible, to others in the class. this is class unionism.

if the IWW only advocated "industrial unionism" as you suggest, what differentiates the IWW from the CIO? there are three differences. first, the CIO wasn't anti-capitalist. second, the CIO wasn't advocating class unionism. each "industrial union" was completely autonomous and could "do it's own thing". in the huge post-WW2 strike wave, the CIO unions did nothing to try to build common alliances and common demands, to make the strikes into a general strike. third, the CIO had been put together by the Hillman-Lewis bureaucrats with hierarchical constitutions of the AFL type, with a paid hierarchy from the national union down to the locals, and powers of trusteeship in the nationals and other forms of hierarchical control.

[syndicat]

There have been some socialists running for poitical office (and I know they have existed because I met some of them) who were completely dedicated to the idea that, if they were to win, they would have nothing to do but agitate for socialism.

And how far did they get? Did their organizations have a mass following? Or were these sects running protest campaigns that were completely ignored?

The issue isn't whether isolated and irrelevant campaigns exist but the effect on movements and activists of taking electoral politics seriously.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There have been some socialists running for poitical office (and I know they have existed because I met some of them) who were completely dedicated to the idea that, if they were to win, they would have nothing to do but agitate for socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you're position on the new budget proposal?", they would start listing the reasons why we need socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you position on the zoning variance for the town dump?", they would start listing some more reasons why we need socialism. They would do nothing but this throughout the campaign, and, if they were to win, they would do nothing but this while in office. The existence of these kinds of socialist candidates disproves the assertion that some people on this forum make that is's necessarily "reformist" to run for political office. The degree of wisdom in their method is another discussion, but it's established that they are not engaging in reformism.

Well, I guess that's a more consistent thing to do than, say, Die Linke's stint.

[The parliamentary caucus got kicked out for holding up placards of dead German soldiers, protesting some war vote instead of immediately casting No votes. They casted them once they were let back in by all the other parties, who had voted Yes.]

[mikelepore]

And how far did they get? Did their organizations have a mass following? Or were these sects running protest campaigns that were completely ignored?

In case people couldn't tell who I meant, I was talking about all of the candidates of the Socialist Labor Party of America, from 1892, through the 1980s when they stopped nominating candidates.

We already know that no socialist party in the U.S. has had a mass following, the closest to that ever attained being Victor Berger and Eugene Debs.

I misspoke a bit when I created the impression that they were protest campaigns. The SLP objective was to enact whatever legislation would be necessary, possibly a constitutional amendment, to nullify the property rights of the capitalist class, and to transfer control of the industries to a workers' workplace organization. However, until such time that this would become possible, the primary responsibility of any socialist candidate or office holder would be to use that campaign or office as an educational opportunity, to educate the working class about the principles related to social ownership, including urging people to establish that new workplace organization.


The issue isn't whether isolated and irrelevant campaigns exist but the effect on movements and activists of taking electoral politics seriously.

What you say is important, but the point of MY post was only to correct a misconception about the meaning of a vocabulary word. There are many people on this forum who say that, any time socialists campaign for political office, or make any use of political office, that's "reform." The revleft FAQ also says this. The statement is incorrect, as my example shows.

"Reform" means keeping fundamentally the same social system but with minor modifications. "Revolution" means switching to a fundamentally different social system. The proposed methods for doing either one are not part of either definition. Either one can be peaceful or violent. Either one can be legal or illegal. Either one can be fast or slow.

[mikelepore]

but the IWW didn't just advocate narrowly what you call "industrial unionism". they advocated that workers in any industry should be prepared to support workers in other industries. they advocated broadening out the solidarity, to the extent feasible, to others in the class. this is class unionism.

if the IWW only advocated "industrial unionism" as you suggest, what differentiates the IWW from the CIO? there are three differences. first, the CIO wasn't anti-capitalist. second, the CIO wasn't advocating class unionism. each "industrial union" was completely autonomous and could "do it's own thing". in the huge post-WW2 strike wave, the CIO unions did nothing to try to build common alliances and common demands, to make the strikes into a general strike. third, the CIO had been put together by the Hillman-Lewis bureaucrats with hierarchical constitutions of the AFL type, with a paid hierarchy from the national union down to the locals, and powers of trusteeship in the nationals and other forms of hierarchical control.

I didn't say that the IWW advocates only that one narrow thing. I only addressed the earlier statement that the IWW's use of the phrase "inudstrial unionism" is a "misnomer." In the IWW, which assigns its members to such departments as 410 textiles, 420 furniture, 430 chemicals, 440 metallurgy, etc., the departments refers to production outputs.

[anticap]

The anti-socialist ignorantly promotes a doctrine of dichotomy between capitalism and the state, despite their currently interdependent existence, but the socialist recognizes that social democracy is a form of capitalism, since it sustains the private ownership and management of the means of production. Peaceful reform through electoral victories and nonviolent direct action might very well facilitate the implementation of socialism in more politically stable countries.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that reforms will inspire a violent revolution, however, and substantial historical evidence that the guns come out when we let the bad times roll. Even the history of U.S. labor activism reveals the major role of socialist tendencies anywhere from 125 to 75 years ago, and the willingness of many to engage in violent struggle against capitalist despots. The pacification of employment relations has put the average Joe on first-name terms with his boss, introducing his family to him at the company picnic. While hatred of bosses is by no means completely marginal, it’s rarely expressed through violence, and through sporadic and criminal violence if it is, not a program to place workplaces under democratic control.

So interventionist reforms have the effect of macroeconomic stabilization in the capitalist economy, which means that the private ownership of the means of production is actually upheld. It is instability that has the effect of inspiring revolutionary challenges to the economic paradigm, not calm. At the same time, reforms do have beneficial effects for workers, but they also constitute a form of psychological appeasement.

The premise behind gambling, particularly the sort on TV game shows, is the accumulation of greater risk alongside greater winnings. It’s irrelevant if a contestant fails to win one million dollars when she would have had nothing anyway, but if the failed bid entails the loss of five hundred thousand dollars, the loss is obviously greater. So while violent revolution may seem attractive enough a prospect at a point when “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains,” the job security provisions and workplace regulations that labor activism won has bred sedentary attitudes, and an unwillingness to sacrifice half a million dollars for an uncertain and unlikely opportunity for a million.

But I’m a consequentialist; I support what works. I’m in favor of the violent overthrow of capitalism in countries and regions where that is feasible at the moment, and opposed to reforms there on the basis that it would be a longer and more uncertain road to socialism. Reforms are all well and good if we recognize that our goal is reformism, as I mentioned. Reformism would generally advance a program of nationalization and institution of democratic management of workplaces and productive resources, and would be most speedily implemented in social democracies.

This is a good post because it demonstrates a willingness to discuss difficult questions candidly, which, on this forum, demonstrates bravery.

I remember a communist (some variety of Marxist) once saying that he votes for the most reactionary candidates, while working to establish alternate means of support for those who would have benefited from liberal reforms. That way, he doesn't support the stabilization of capitalism, which takes on a more brutal posture, so workers are less likely to go on picnics with the boss, etc. But the critical part would be getting together to support one another in lieu of those reforms, so people can witness their own power, and be able to exercise it.

I don't know. I guess I'm more inclined to welcome the reforms, because it's less risky (we're talking about people's lives, not a game of chess). But I think maybe I'd rather be inclined the other way. I couldn't help but admire that guy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorelianism" is a figment of your imagination. Sorel had no connection with syndicalism.

Source?

[syndicat]

You should read "Black Flame", which is a history of social anarchism and syndicalism. They dispense with the myth of Sorel there. he had no influence within the CGT. But, look, I've been a syndicalist since the late '60s. No one in this tendency refers to Sorel. It's only opponents of syndicalism, like you, who mention him. Because Sorel became a fascist it's part of the whole song and dance about "syndicalism leading to fascism" which is groundless.

[syndicat]

In the IWW, which assigns its members to such departments as 410 textiles, 420 furniture, 430 chemicals, 440 metallurgy, etc., the departments refers to production outputs.

the IWW has industry-based units, that's true, and so does the CNT in Spain. but membership in either union was in the whole federation, the "units" were not as autonomous as national unions of the AFL are, for example. the idea was to encourage sympathy strikes...this is referred to in the IWW Preamble, to broaden the struggle throughout the cass.

[mikelepore]

the IWW has industry-based units, that's true, and so does the CNT in Spain. but membership in either union was in the whole federation, the "units" were not as autonomous as national unions of the AFL are, for example. the idea was to encourage sympathy strikes...this is referred to in the IWW Preamble, to broaden the struggle throughout the cass.

Right, the IWW departments aren't used as jurisdictions in times of strikes. The original purpose for having the departments is because "we are forming the new society within the shell of the old." It's anticipated that those departments are will be useful on Revolution Day by being able to operate immediately as a new administration, for example, principal administration of the textile industry by the textile workers, IU 410.

[Dimentio]

The problems with reform is that while it increases the opportunity for working people to organise, it also demotivates them from organisation out of the very rational fear that if their protests fail, the state could punish them by withdrawing the privileges they have gained through previous protests. It basically put the social security of workers into the hands of the state, while the state of course is in the hands of the capitalists. The group which is benefitting the most from a large welfare state is the public sector bureaucrats.

The best thing would be if social security rather than being in the hands of the state was in the hands of worker cooperatives or labour unions, and that worker cooperatives and labour unions worked to own land, means of production and large shares of capitalist firms, while being controlled by workers from the inside. That would fundamentally weaken both the state and capital, and give the workers control over the resources they need to be able to sustain social security.

The ideal transitionary society would basically be a society with a very weak state which barely could fund an army and a police force, and large worker-controlled labour unions which would own 50-100% of the national resources.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about transfer programs? Social security could be under the control of workers themselves, but progressive taxation transfers from the state can be arranged.

Even better is my stuff on sovereign socioeconomic governments. ;)

[Proletarian Ultra]

There have been some socialists running for poitical office (and I know they have existed because I met some of them) who were completely dedicated to the idea that, if they were to win, they would have nothing to do but agitate for socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you're position on the new budget proposal?", they would start listing the reasons why we need socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you position on the zoning variance for the town dump?", they would start listing some more reasons why we need socialism. They would do nothing but this throughout the campaign, and, if they were to win, they would do nothing but this while in office. The existence of these kinds of socialist candidates disproves the assertion that some people on this forum make that is's necessarily "reformist" to run for political office. The degree of wisdom in their method is another discussion, but it's established that they are not engaging in reformism.


http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2008/11/ron-paul-1.jpg

If this guy can do it, why not us?

[Dimentio]

What about transfer programs? Social security could be under the control of workers themselves, but progressive taxation transfers from the state can be arranged.

Even better is my stuff on sovereign socioeconomic governments. ;)

I think the taxes has to go directly to the unions or the worker organisations if that was the case. The problem with the state is that it always tend to gravitate between right-wing and left-wing politicians. In short, public opinion reflected through the state is a weak fundament. To build social democracy is like trying to build a skyscraper on sand.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's why I wrote my stuff on sovereign socioeconomic governments in the first place. ;)

They are separate from state apparatuses proper, yet can levy their own taxes.

[gilhyle]

The problem revolutionaries find so difficult to deal with - the problem Max and Engels were so brilliantly good at - is how to fight for reforms as a revolutionary. The sad fact is that the whole additional revolutionary science of the Third and Fourth Internationals of how to fight for revolution as revolutionaries has become (temporarlily) redundant.

[Atlee]

What I am not reading in this thread are the book titles and page numbers of say The Rosa Luxemburg Reader by Hudis and Anderson or Evolutionary Socialism by Eduard Bernstein to actually carry this conversation. We are all fully entitled to our unique opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. This can of course change if anyone here is doing active research and can cite their work.

[robbo203]

There have been some socialists running for poitical office (and I know they have existed because I met some of them) who were completely dedicated to the idea that, if they were to win, they would have nothing to do but agitate for socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you're position on the new budget proposal?", they would start listing the reasons why we need socialism. If someone asks them, "What is you position on the zoning variance for the town dump?", they would start listing some more reasons why we need socialism. They would do nothing but this throughout the campaign, and, if they were to win, they would do nothing but this while in office. The existence of these kinds of socialist candidates disproves the assertion that some people on this forum make that is's necessarily "reformist" to run for political office. The degree of wisdom in their method is another discussion, but it's established that they are not engaging in reformism.

Very good point. People do confuse reformism with electoralism which is not the same thing. Reformism is the advocacy of reform measures enacted by the state ostensibly to ameliorate one or other problem linked to the nature of capitalism itself and how it functions in terms of its profit motive. Electoralism can be opposed to reformism as Mike says. In fact, it is fully possible for a political dictatorship in which an electoral strategy is not available to be reformist in orientation.


I would add that I think it possible to eshew reformism which, by its very nature fatally compromises the revolutionary objective, and considering reforms on their merits from the standpoint of the interests of the working class as a whole. This I believe is the approach of the WSM (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) which seems fairly sensible to me. It (the WSM)
argues that socialists delegates elected to parliament, congress or whatever will be instructed as delegates to vote on reforms according to their merits but never to advocate reforms. The WSM acknowleges that some reforms can benefit workers though of course are always subject to the vagaries of capitalism and can be withdrawn or watered down. Other reforms might actually be harmful to the class as a whole.

However it is not the task of a socialist party to advocate reforms as this puts one on the slippery road downhill to the complete abandonment of revolutuonary aspirations. The fate of the parties of the Second International advocating both a maximum and minumum programme is ample proof of that

[Atlee]

Very good point. People do confuse reformism with electoralism which is not the same thing. Reformism is the advocacy of reform measures enacted by the state ostensibly to ameliorate one or other problem linked to the nature of capitalism itself and how it functions in terms of its profit motive. Electoralism can be opposed to reformism as Mike says. In fact, it is fully possible for a political dictatorship in which an electoral strategy is not available to be reformist in orientation.


I would add that I think it possible to eshew reformism which, by its very nature fatally compromises the revolutionary objective, and considering reforms on their merits from the standpoint of the interests of the working class as a whole. This I believe is the approach of the WSM (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) which seems fairly sensible to me. It (the WSM)
argues that socialists delegates elected to parliament, congress or whatever will be instructed as delegates to vote on reforms according to their merits but never to advocate reforms. The WSM acknowleges that some reforms can benefit workers though of course are always subject to the vagaries of capitalism and can be withdrawn or watered down. Other reforms might actually be harmful to the class as a whole.

However it is not the task of a socialist party to advocate reforms as this puts one on the slippery road downhill to the complete abandonment of revolutuonary aspirations. The fate of the parties of the Second International advocating both a maximum and minumum programme is ample proof of that

On this note I challenge anyone here to make a thread: "Election 2012"

From there, name not just a presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but the whole cabinet and have this created into a United Left ticket. That every person here who can, then will, run for any office open as a socialist. The numbers and campaign alone will push the media to pay attention to the revolution or reform depending on either the votes or mass movement.

[Tribune]

In the interests of not trying to repeat exactly what others have written:

Reform preserves the structure of oppression, and can be repealed. See abortion, in America. See the brief expansion and then rapid reduction of civil liberties in England, France and the States.

Revolution, whilst riskier and more likely to meet armed, hostile reaction, does not begin from a position of compromise with oppression.

[Atlee]

In the interests of not trying to repeat exactly what others have written:

Reform preserves the structure of oppression, and can be repealed. See abortion, in America. See the brief expansion and then rapid reduction of civil liberties in England, France and the States.

Revolution, whilst riskier and more likely to meet armed, hostile reaction, does not begin from a position of compromise with oppression.

Anything reform or revolution can be pulled back, changed, or defeated i.e. The Hundred Flowers (China), French Revolution (which became an imperial state), Stalinization (USSR and state capitalism), but what cannot be is the jinn from the bottle. Once something gets out which is important to the hearts, minds and souls of humanity and has a chance to spread it is wild fire. Keep the heat of the flame close and either reform or revolution will come of it and this will be the unity of direction and not overly division of the flame which burns within.

[Tribune]

Anything reform or revolution can be pulled back, changed, or defeated i.e. The Hundred Flowers (China), French Revolution (which became an imperial state), Stalinization (USSR and state capitalism), but what cannot be is the jinn from the bottle. Once something gets out which is important to the hearts, minds and souls of humanity and has a chance to spread it is wild fire. Keep the heat of the flame close and either reform or revolution will come of it and this will be the unity of direction and not overly division of the flame which burns within.

(emphasis mine)

There are no viable communist fronts in any Western nation. One hundred years ago, there were hundreds.

Reformism sapped the heat and heart of European and American leftism - and no wildfire ensued.

[Atlee]

(emphasis mine)

There are no viable communist fronts in any Western nation. One hundred years ago, there were hundreds.

Reformism sapped the heat and heart of European and American leftism - and no wildfire ensued.

Ah yes, the blame game... this argument or perspective goes no where and does nothing.

Stalin did this... Social democrats that... If Mao only had... We never... Way back when in the time machine... In another country... Culture... Religion...

We have all read this before, now is the time to think anew and to look forward. Those who live in the past die in the past.

[Tribune]

Ah yes, the blame game... this argument or perspective goes no where and does nothing.

Stalin did this... Social democrats that... If Mao only had... We never... Way back when in the time machine... In another country... Culture... Religion...

We have all read this before, now is the time to think anew and to look forward. Those who live in the past die in the past.

Describing what occurred is not engaging in blame. If I only note that John lost his leg, I'm not ascribing blame to any person for his loss.

[Atlee]

Describing what occurred is not engaging in blame. If I only note that John lost his leg, I'm not ascribing blame to any person for his loss.

Scroll back up to read the blame, "Reformism sapped..." so explain in more detail what you were not blaming. I would like to understand it is you actually meant to tell us.

[Tribune]

Scroll back up to read the blame, "Reformism sapped..." so explain in more detail what you were not blaming. I would like to understand it is you actually meant to tell us.

You really don't know the difference between a description and an attribution of blame?

[Atlee]

You really don't know the difference between a description and an attribution of blame?

I don't care how you thought about it. I am the one reading it. I read "blame". Understanding each other must be clear as this is the first step to respectful work. I read "blame" and it is now your duty to correct this image I have until we are speaking the same language.

[Tribune]

I don't care how you thought about it. I am the one reading it. I read "blame". Understanding each other must be clear as this is the first step to respectful work. I read "blame" and it is now your duty to correct this image I have until we are speaking the same language.

If you read "blame," then you're reading what you want to read, so that you can joust at windmills in fields of burning straw.

If I describe event B as a consequence of event A, I am not assigning blame to A. I'm just describing cause and effect.

Reformism had effects. To note this is not to lay blame.

[Atlee]

Reformism had effects. To note this is not to lay blame.

Then what are the "effects" that have "sapped"? This is an obvious bias.

[NGNM85]

I dislike the term 'reformism'. I think it's started to lose all meaning and just become a slander that can be applied to anybody we disagree with or dislike. Like the tendency in the punk scene to label other people a "sellout." I also think that tactics are essentially dictated by circumstances. In China, or Russia any substantial social change would probably necessitate violence because they are police states. However, in the west, we live under different circumstances. For example, in Massachusetts we decriminalized cannabis. It's not legalization, which is what I really wanted, but it's drastically better than it was before. That was acheived through conventional channels. So, I say you change things as much as you can in the circumstances you've got, until you hit a wall, and then you change tactics. But, I think it's really circumstance dependent.

Second, I think this attitude that any interaction or participation through conventional channels like voting, for example, is totally unacceptable is sorta self-defeating and one-dimensional thinking. What would have been improved by not supporting the measure to decriminalize cannabis? Would I be better off having my street cred meanwhile godknows how many people get arrested for a victimless crime? That doesn't make any sense to me.

In other words;
“..the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this illegitimate institution. So, if you’re concerned with the people, let’s be concrete, let’s take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of…extensive popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That’s’ under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can’t seem to understand that they are to support that. …meaning put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable…and purely totalitarian.
…If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you’ll support the state sector at this point, recognizing that in the long term it’s illegitimate.
..In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though in limited ways. If that’s’ removed we’d go back to a…dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that’s’ hardly a step towards liberation.”
-"On Anarchism", Chomsky, 2005

[Tribune]

Then what are the "effects" that have "sapped"? This is an obvious bias.

Christ on a stick. People aren't fungible, so that they can be revolutionaries and reformists at once. They cannot be treated as such, because human experience is not exchangeable. Stating this is not expressing the bias you think I have. It's okay for you to admit you misread me. I won't tell anyone.

All the same -

If the state ameliorates their conditions enough to forestall agitation, people don't end up revolutionaries. Given a choice between some presumed minor gain and the risks of revolt, I think the historical record is clear: people will accept security and the compromise, because most people know that imprisonment, isolation and death suck.

That's the part of the equation ideologues seem to ignore - that the people in power have it because they use it. Because they can use it. I think it's fair to conclude that a significant portion of any ruled population knows the outcome of resisting the cops, mouthing off to the boss, approaching the politician without pre-approval, or performing any of the criminalized political acts which get one thrown in the clink.

Contrary to wishful thinking and sectarian, narrow belief - most people will endure more than they ought, to avoid ostracism, punishment, suffering and death.

Awful conditions don't automatically breed revolutionaries, because the social and economic environment often precludes outright resistance to abuse. Faced with a choice between feeding their children or standing up nearly alone against power, quite a number of ordinary people will choose the option which doesn't end up with them imprisoned and their children hungry.

This is why state players allow for reform. Because it ameliorates. Because it's almost invariably topical, surface deep and easy to loop-hole. Because reform puts the state on the side of the angels, and makes the uncompromising easier to cast as "extremists." Because it depends upon a false narrative of either/or, either be part of a "fix," or be a dangerous extremist.

Because it keeps control in the hands of those who already have it, at little cost to them, and with little risk of outcry when someone finally figures out that it was all smoke and mirrors.

[mikelepore]

Reformism is the advocacy of reform measures enacted by the state ostensibly to ameliorate one or other problem linked to the nature of capitalism itself and how it functions in terms of its profit motive.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, the left generally does not agree with us.

Many writers here say that it's not reformism as long as "revolutionary change too" is embedded somewhere in the list of reform suggestions. The typical form that it takes is a document called "what we want" followed by a long list of proposals to reform capitalism, 1, 2, 3, ..., then, somewhere way down the list, it says something like this: "43. And we also want socialism."

Robbo203's brand of Marxism (worldsocialism.org, worldincommon.org) and my own brand of Marxism (deleonism.org), unlike in several ways, are similar in at least this one respect: we both call such a platform "reformist", consider it to be incapable of moving society toward a classless condition, and consider it counterproductive because it is a distraction from necessary lessons to be learned.

Many people at revleft would deny our conclusion, and would object to us, "what do you mean by calling them 'reformist'? Didn't you notice that line where, in addition to all those reform ideas, they said that they also want socialism?"

My answer: It's reformist because the general presentation is evidence of (and it perpetuates in others) the false belief that socialism is to be achieved in incremental steps related to repairing capitalism's individual defects.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I dislike the term 'reformism'. I think it's started to lose all meaning and just become a slander that can be applied to anybody we disagree with or dislike.

It's not just the left that's debasing "reformism" and "reform," but also the right and the center. Health care "reform" was anything but, and Wall Street "reform" is anything but.

[southernmissfan]

To throw in my two cents, it seems that the idea of reform might be outdated. Can the working class effectively gain any real reforms at this point anymore? While it was to some extent certainly practical to fight for say, social security or shorter work days decades ago, is it even possible now? Capitalists have been rolling back gains made by the working class and it seems to me that this is what would be the cause of revolution. When the capitalist system begins declining and the ruling class can no longer afford to make concessions, the class struggle becomes more intense. It's not simply worse conditions = more struggle, it's when it is no longer possible for the working class to effectively acquire concessions from the capitalists and when previous gains are repealed as capitalism declines. It's in this situation, when workers realize that the only option is revolution, that tremendous struggle begins.

It's not just an issue of putting band-aids on a bullet wound, it's that we can't/won't be able to even get band-aids!

I do not pretend to be particularly educated on Marxism or revolutionary leftism, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Be careful. Trotsky proclaimed the impending end of British imperialism to be "the death agony of capitalism."