Michael Albert's Parecon and reformist strategy

[StockholmSyndrome]

I found it incredibly astounding that Wayne Price made the very misconception that he wrote about, right before he wrote about it! He confused the difference between liberalism and socialism with the difference beween reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism. According to Wayne Price, the strategy of "permeating centers of power to bring change from above" is a "liberal" strategy. This guy clearly just wants to label all reformists as liberals who do not want to bring about a new society.

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=comment/reply/4627#comment-form

[Dimentio]

Parecon has one fault. It only accounts for the intensity of the labour.

If I spend 24 hours in a row making a cuckoo clock out of stone, it still would be worth less than an actual functioning clock which took a machine 1 hour to produce.

[StockholmSyndrome]

The topic of the thread is not "Pro vs anti-parecon". It is whether or not you think it is fair to call a reformist strategy for achieving socialism involving militant grassroots pressure from below along with "permeating centers of power" at the electoral level liberal, as in pro-capitalist and anti-socialist.

[Thug Lessons]

The topic of the thread is not "Pro vs anti-parecon". It is whether or not you think it is fair to call a reformist strategy for achieving socialism involving militant grassroots pressure from below along with "permeating centers of power" at the electoral level liberal, as in pro-capitalist and anti-socialist.

Liberalism isn't an all-or-nothing thing. "They have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well". All reformists are liberals because they have faith in the the parliamentary democratic system to achieve their goals.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Liberalism isn't an all-or-nothing thing. "They have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well". All reformists are liberals because they have faith in the the parliamentary democratic system to achieve their goals.

You sound silly quoting Mao. His definition of liberal seems to be "somebody I don't like for this and that personality trait that he/she has".

Here's one from the same text:
"They apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves."--Sound's a bit like everybody on Revleft to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

All reformists are liberals because they have faith in the the parliamentary democratic system to achieve their goals.
"Faith" seems a very specific choice of words, and I'm not convinced that it's a fair one.

[syndicat]

if the aim is to somehow create socialism, then it's social-democratic, I guess, not "liberal". the idea of "permeating the centers of power" was a classic and quintessential fabian approach. but it's been used by Communist Parties also (as by the CPE in Spain during the civil war).

it's incapable of getting beyond a society based on class domination and exploitation because it accepts the continued existence of those very structures.

[RED DAVE]

The topic of the thread is not "Pro vs anti-parecon". It is whether or not you think it is fair to call a reformist strategy for achieving socialism involving militant grassroots pressure from below along with "permeating centers of power" at the electoral level liberal, as in pro-capitalist and anti-socialist.Yes, in practice, all the ideological wrapping paper notwithstanding, it's liberalism.

There is no reformist strategy for achieving socialism. Such as strategy completely misunderstands the nature of the state which is to be "reformed." The bourgeois state, the target of reformist demands, exists for the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. No amount of reform can change this.

Any serious reforms that could threaten the nature of the state (say a demand that workers have a majority on boards of directors) would potentially destroy it and would lead to a huge capitalist reaction, including an armed reaction. And since reformists have no concept of a revolutionary movement, that have no movement to destroy the state.

RED DAVE

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, in practice, all the ideological wrapping paper notwithstanding, it's liberalism.

There is no reformist strategy for achieving socialism. Such as strategy completely misunderstands the nature of the state which is to be "reformed." The bourgeois state, the target of reformist demands, exists for the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. No amount of reform can change this.

Any serious reforms that could threaten the nature of the state (say a demand that workers have a majority on boards of directors) would potentially destroy it and would lead to a huge capitalist reaction, including an armed reaction. And since reformists have no concept of a revolutionary movement, that have no movement to destroy the state.

RED DAVE
You seem to be confusing "lacks a viable route to socialism" with "is a liberal". There's a distinction there, surely?

[RED DAVE]

You seem to be confusing "lacks a viable route to socialism" with "is a liberal". There's a distinction there, surely?What distinction?

(1) It has been abundantly clear for 100 years that there is no reformist route to socialism.

(2) Social Democrats, or reformists, have been systematically involved in the propping up of capitalism.

(3) So why should we pretend that these people are anything but liberals?

(4) It might be said that what we have here is a distinction without a difference.

(5) Now if you want to say that social democracy, because it is a tendency within the labor movement, is different from liberalism, which is a tendency within the capitalist class, you can get a little traction, but in 2011, the difference has largely disappeared.

RED DAVE

[Tim Finnegan]

What distinction?

(1) It has been abundantly clear for 100 years that there is no reformist route to socialism.

(2) Social Democrats, or reformists, have been systematically involved in the propping up of capitalism.

(3) So why should we pretend that these people are anything but liberals?

(4) It might be said that what we have here is a distinction without a difference.

(5) Now if you want to say that social democracy, because it is a tendency within the labor movement, is different from liberalism, which is a tendency within the capitalist class, you can get a little traction, but in 2011, the difference has largely disappeared.
Well, I would draw a distinction between Social Democracy and Reformist Socialism. They certainly share similar origins, to an extent, but they fractured pretty signficantly- if not always explicitly- in the inter-war period. One cannot, if one is properly informed, sit Neil Kinnock and Tony Benn side by side and say "I see no difference between the two". So, yes, I would say that social democrats are to all extent and purposes mere left-liberals, but that is precisely because they are not reformist socialists, not because only revolutionaries are permitted to call themselves "socialist".

[StockholmSyndrome]

The bourgeois state, the target of reformist demands, exists for the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. No amount of reform can change this.

If I take my soup bowl, fill it up with water, and drink out of it, it is now a cup.;)

[Demogorgon]

Calling reformist socialism "liberal" is ridiculous. I know Americans tend to use the word liberal pretty narrowly to refer to the centre left and soft progressivism but that is not how the word is normally used. Liberalism broadly speaking is the ideology of capitalism. In the past it was actually revolutionary given that capitalism did overthrow feudalism. These days it seeks to preserve capitalism, how can it possibly be reformist when it seeks to preserve capitalism rather than reform it away?

[RED DAVE]

Well, I would draw a distinction between Social Democracy and Reformist Socialism.In practice, especially in 2011, there is no difference.


They certainly share similar origins, to an extent, but they fractured pretty signficantly- if not always explicitly- in the inter-war period.Can you point to a significant difference in practice -- a significant difference?


One cannot, if one is properly informed, sit Neil Kinnock and Tony Benn side by side and say "I see no difference between the two".What, in fact, was the difference, in practice?


So, yes, I would say that social democrats are to all extent and purposes mere left-liberals, but that is precisely because they are not reformist socialists, not because only revolutionaries are permitted to call themselves "socialist".One more time, show us any real difference.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The bourgeois state, the target of reformist demands, exists for the purpose of perpetuating capitalism. No amount of reform can change this.
If I take my soup bowl, fill it up with water, and drink out of it, it is now a cup.;)Nice aphorism, but bullshit politics. The bourgeois state is, as Marx called it "the executive committee of the ruling class." It cannot be turned into a proletarian state. It has to be replaced/destroyed.

RED DAVE

[Tim Finnegan]

...One more time, show us any real difference.
Reformist socialists support class struggle- strikes, occupations, workers taking over workplaces, etc.- while social democrats do not. As in my example, Benn supported militant unionism and the formation of workers cooperatives, while Kinnock merely wished to sustain the "post-war consensus".

Now, granted, they're not so many in number these days, but that cannot and should not be reduced "they'm all libruls, pa!" It requires a tad more thought than that.

[syndicat]

i agree with Red Dave that there's no real difference between social democracy and "reformist socialism."

I think there is a difference, however, between liberalism, populism, and social democracy. Social democracy should be understood as political parties that were built originally on the basis of the organized labor movement, and with at least a sizeable, usually majoritarian, commitment to some kind of socialist value system...originally.

However, the history of European social democracy also shows a tendency for these parties to degenerate back into liberalism. As they tend to become dominated by professional politicians, these politicians have a stake in breaking from too close a relationship to the unions in order to be better able to appeal to the middle classes. Consider the evolution of the UK Labour Party for example. The PSOE in Spain is a thoroughly neoliberal organization these days in its politics, to give another example. And that's an organization that espoused violent proletarian revolution in 1934-36.

Populism is especially relevant in understanding politics in Latin America. Due to the doleful legacy of Iberian military autocracy in Latin America, and its close relationship to a ruling economic oligarchy, there was often a tendency for the middle classes to be radicalized due to their effective exclusion from political power or having any say in governance. This led to various political leaderships espousing radical rhetoric, and even leading revolutionary movements, as in Mexico, or the Democratic Action in Venezuela in 1940s to '80s. I would place Chavez in this populist camp. This is distinguished from the Brazilian Workers Party, which, due to its laborist origins, is a genuine Latin American social democratic party.