Consensus on progressivism and such?

[Ehakamanda]

So what are all of your thoughts on progressive politics, social democracy, and things of the sort? Do you think that it's a good step or should we avoid it because it causes people to be too 'happy with the system' so to speak?

[Chimurenga.]

social democracy always seems to lead right back to capitalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is just basically a question about reformism.

In general, one should work for reforms not for their own sake (as progressives and contemporary social democrats would want), but because they permit us to take our project to a higher level.

For example, yes we work towards spreading literacy and education in say some community. Not because we think these are inherently good things (although they are) but because they give individuals the tools for fight for even more improvements in their conditions. Other times, the organizing around instituting a reform can provide the basis on which to do more organizing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think our attitude towards these kinds of things depends on where the class struggle is at any given point. I think in the US if a mass broad-left or democratic-socialist group was organized and made a principled stand against the 2 parties and against neo-liberalism (and in favor of reformist capitalism) then that would be a sign that consciousness is moving in our direction. It would actually be good fro the radical left too because there would be a larger and more organized audience for our politics and tactics.

In places like France or Brazil where borad-left parties actually win elections and go into coalition governments and so on, the radical left needs to take a more critical stance and expose how their reforms and half-measures are inadequate and can potentially lead to disaster for the left and working people. Many of these parties by compromising with the capitalists open the door for fascist movements when disillusioned middle class people and workers see the socialists following the same neoliberal path as the capitalist parties.

[Raightning]

Reformism should be approached like any other capitalist grouping or idea. When it is in the interests of leftists to band with reformists for a common cause, it should be done; when it is not, it is not.

Reformism itself is a dead-end, because it accepts the false inevitably of eternal capitalism, and rejects any sort of real change because of a simple-minded, short-sighted fear of it. Most times, too, the causes of reformists (and this is particularly when they are in a position of power) will contradict the causes of anti-capitalists.

On some occasions, however, they are quite in line with our interests; usually for different reasons, but they are fighting for the same thing. For example, some reformists push for, say, the abolition of university fees; the left can work with them in this situation, because although our reasons are different (they want it in some false name of 'meritocracy', and to boost the amount of dehumanised 'labour' they have to play with; we want it in order to build a revolutionary intellectual vanguard, and to push for a working class takeover of such institutions), we share a mutual interest.

Of course, it must be noted that the revolutionary left must never allow reformism to compromise its character, and this is the most important thing to remember. Almost any formal coalition - outside or inside of governing bodies - will lead to a reformist character ursurping the revolutionary party. We must come to destroy capitalist institutions, not be part of them.

Is reformism itself, and reformism in government, a positive thing? No, but not because it ‘saves capitalism’ or anything of the sort. Reformism does not necessarily lead to that, especially given what it usually represents in government – a betrayal of the working class by their institutions, which can push onwards a more revolutionary spirit. Reformism being good or bad is nothing to do with it hindering revolution; it's just bad because it's as willing to assail the working class in the name of capitalist 'pragmatism' as anyone else. It can even be potentially worse, as it can abuse its status as 'worker's representatives' to impose even more misery than traditional out-and-out capitalists could get away with. Look at the British Labour Party of Ramsay MacDonald up to 1931, for example.

Reformism does in itself often represent a heightening of class consciousness; the success of such groups comes about when workers both do not trust the bourgeoise and do not wish to be governed by the bourgeoise. It is just that though - a representation. It is no replacement for genuine anti-capitalism.

To boil it down, the left stance to reformism must be this: love reform, hate reformism.

[¿Que?]

Even in a so called social Democracy, the worker is alienated from his labor. So long as the working classes do not directly control the means of production, this will be the case.