Why are communists de facto maximalists?

[Lyev]

Hello all,
as it says in the title, I am confused on this.
In an era of relatively low class struggle - like the one we're in now - what is the point in making demands for the overthrow of capitalism itself? On the other hand, of course the old social-democracy, making minimalist demands for gradual improvement of worker's lives then using this as a basis to create a mass party leads straight into the pitfall of reformism, right? So what programme do we adopt in a period like this? Also, in the programme of the French worker's party, which Marx wrote himself, how can the demand for the dictatorship of the proletariat constitute a minimalist demand? Thanks

[chegitz guevara]

It's kind of a misinterpretation. The minimum program was what we plan to carry out as soon as we have power,not the reforms we fight for within the system. The assumption was that going from political power to full communism would be rather disruptive and probably not work real well. War communism seems to lend credence to that view.

On the other hand, the minimum program doesn't seem to have gotten us much in the way of results either.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

War communism seems to lend credence to that view.

That was carried out in its own way, in the backward remnants of the Czarist Russian empire. The conditions we're dealing with today are much different.

[OhYesIdid]

- what is the point in making demands for the overthrow of capitalism itself? Thanks

See, now I'm the one who's confused. Why wouldn't you demand the overthrow of capitalism? Haven't we already established progressive liberalism as just another form of reactionary politics?

[Dunk]

I disagree that we live in a time of "relatively low class struggle".

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's kind of a misinterpretation. The minimum program was what we plan to carry out as soon as we have power,not the reforms we fight for within the system. The assumption was that going from political power to full communism would be rather disruptive and probably not work real well. War communism seems to lend credence to that view.

On the other hand, the minimum program doesn't seem to have gotten us much in the way of results either.

Comrade, could your organization hold conventions once every six months instead of once a year? That way, the platform can be updated.

[chegitz guevara]

It's every two years.

[Q]

Like Chegitz said the minimum programme is about the working class taking power, not "gradual improvements". It carries demands that are designed to form the working class as a collective entity that has the potential of taking over power in society. It is a radical democratic programme for that reason that carries out the "patient work" of building the movement, arguably a task that is on the agenda once more. The minimum and the maximum are closely interconnected as the whole programme describes the transition from capitalism to communism and the tasks needed to achieve this.

As for its "inherent reformism", it is noteworthy that the RSDLP under Lenin carried out a revolution on the basis of a programme that was designed on the basis of the SPD Erfurt programme and was also min-max in design. The programme is in itself not a cause of revisionism, the influence of the labour bureaucracy - a priviledged layer within the movement that has material interests in the continuation of capitalism - has always been the real cause of betrayals. This was the reason why Bernstein eventually watered down the programme with his "the movement is everything, the goal nothing".

[Die Neue Zeit]

FYI, while Bernstein watered down the programme, he unlike the tred-iunionisty focused on the political aspect of the Erfurt Program, such as when he agitated for militias.

There is room for the Orthodox-minimum, Marx-minimum, directional / genuinely transitional, and maximalist programs in a unified program.


It's every two years.

Even within the scope of reforms to be achieved within the system, there's Bastard Keynesianism and then there's radical reform.