Damn, am I a reformist anarchist?

[Working Person]

I mean, it's obvious that all hierarchical institutions need to be dismantled for the good of humankind.
But, in the mean time, am I a dick for also wanting to build equality and dignity as far as possible within the structures that exist? If I want a drastic shift, then I also want more equality when we get there.
Is this even a tenable position? I've lurked long enough to know that liberals and reformists are apparently weak scum who are barely better than the right. But come on, a move left is a move left.

[Luisrah]

I mean, it's obvious that all hierarchical institutions need to be dismantled for the good of humankind.
But, in the mean time, am I a dick for also wanting to build equality and dignity as far as possible within the structures that exist? If I want a drastic shift, then I also want more equality when we get there.
Is this even a tenable position? I've lurked long enough to know that liberals and reformists are apparently weak scum who are barely better than the right. But come on, a move left is a move left.

Of course. Suppose you have the power to make a reform that will bring good things for the workers. You can either do it, or not.

Just because you aren't a reformist, you're not going to do it? Of course you're going to do it, it benefits the workers.

[GPDP]

A revolutionary fights for the workers' interests and seeks to improve their current lot in life as part of the class struggle, while ultimately working toward transcending the current system, culminating in working class revolution. For revolutionaries, fighting for reforms is but a tactic, a minimum program leading to a revolutionary end.

Reformists see reform as an end in itself. Therein lies the crucial difference.

[Broletariat]

Here's the thing. You're not in a position to actually enact reforms, unless you happen to be a bourgeois politician.

So long as you're fighting for working-class interests, reforms will naturally follow as the bourgeois scramble to vent off revolutionary steam.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

am I a dick for also wanting to build equality and dignity as far as possible within the structures that exist? If I want a drastic shift, then I also want more equality when we get there.
You need to be more specific. From what I've interpreted, I'm assuming you meant you support things like higher-wages, universal health-care, and so forth. If that is what you mean, that's not bad at all. Yes, I would love the revolution to happen as soon as possible, but while it's not here, I see no problem with seeking to implement universal healthcare and give more money to those who don't receive it. However, it shouldn't be treated as a means to an end, like Liberals think it is. It still doesn't get to the root of the problem. It helps the working-class in the short-run, but in the end, we want to go past that.

[syndicat]

Fighting for reforms is part of the process of struggle thru which a revolutionary mass movement is developed. Peope learn thru struggle and these struggles are necessarily going to be for something short of revolution so long as the power of the working class is limited due to the limited state of organization and outlook and militancy at present.

Fighting for reforms isn't what "reformism" means. Reformism is about the way that reforms are fought for. If they're fought for thru electoral politics, routinized collective bargaining by bureaucratic unions, lobbying...that's reformism. But reforms can be fought for through mass actions, strikes, mass protests.

[eric922]

Fighting for reforms is part of the process of struggle thru which a revolutionary mass movement is developed. Peope learn thru struggle and these struggles are necessarily going to be for something short of revolution so long as the power of the working class is limited due to the limited state of organization and outlook and militancy at present.

Fighting for reforms isn't what "reformism" means. Reformism is about the way that reforms are fought for. If they're fought for thru electoral politics, routinized collective bargaining by bureaucratic unions, lobbying...that's reformism. But reforms can be fought for through mass actions, strikes, mass protests. Can't reforms be fought for in a revolutionary way through elections, though? I mean what if a mass group of workers decided to elect on of their own to office and achieve reforms that way, or even support one of the more radical American politicians like Dennis Kunich or Bernie Sanders?

[#FF0000]

Can't reforms be fought for in a revolutionary way through elections, though? I mean what if a mass group of workers decided to elect on of their own to office and achieve reforms that way, or even support one of the more radical American politicians like Dennis Kunich or Bernie Sanders?

No. The reforms in themselves aren't important. How the struggle for the reforms is carried out is the important thing.

[syndicat]

Can't reforms be fought for in a revolutionary way through elections, though? I mean what if a mass group of workers decided to elect on of their own to office and achieve reforms that way, or even support one of the more radical American politicians like Dennis Kunich or Bernie Sanders?

the problem with the resort to elections is that it tends to demobilize people. consider the way the union bureaucrats in Wisconsin have used the recall as a way to discourage things like strikes as a way of fighting the austerity and anti-labor attacks of the Repubs.

what's necessary to have a process that activates and changes people in large numbers is that you have to have a way for them to be the agents of the change, a way for them to be active.

[Working Person]

I'm assuming you meant you support things like higher-wages, universal health-care, and so forth. If that is what you mean, that's not bad at all. Yes, I would love the revolution to happen as soon as possible, but while it's not here, I see no problem with seeking to implement universal healthcare and give more money to those who don't receive it. However, it shouldn't be treated as a means to an end, like Liberals think it is. It still doesn't get to the root of the problem. It helps the working-class in the short-run, but in the end, we want to go past that.

Thank you, you're right and this is exactly what I've been thinking about. I work in the charity world, and that means I don't get to be a Front-Line Anarchist like I would want to. I try to push hard left every chance I get, but hose chances may not always involve the more fun kinds of action.

So, I do what I can to support the half-measures of the state (health care, labor rights), and I do what little I can to fight the real problems.

It brings me joy to see the mass protests in Wis. and other states. A general strike would bring me more joy, and a demonstration by those who are already fucked, the laid of, the marginalized, the "unemployable," that would be incredible.

Why are the ones WITH jobs the ones fighting, and what can I do?

[smk]

do what you think is right. who cares if you are labeled a reformist if that is what you believe to be the best solution.
people discredit reformism essentially because for one reason or another, it hasn't worked in the past. they try to apply inductive reasoning masked as deductive reasoning by pointing out problems which may be inherent to reformism.
however, using the same inductive reasoning, it would be pretty easy to discredit revolution. show me one successful revolution which resulted in a communist society lasting until today. I could probably make up reasons why revolutions are bound to fail if I felt like it.
therefore, you must think long and hard on this issue to decide for yourself.

[personally, I see revolution as the most sure way to end oppression. however, I don't see why reform cant meet the same ends. it is just pretty near impossible]

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I mean, it's obvious that all hierarchical institutions need to be dismantled for the good of humankind.
But, in the mean time, am I a dick for also wanting to build equality and dignity as far as possible within the structures that exist? If I want a drastic shift, then I also want more equality when we get there.
Is this even a tenable position? I've lurked long enough to know that liberals and reformists are apparently weak scum who are barely better than the right. But come on, a move left is a move left.

If it's obvious to you that all hierarchical institutions need to be dismantled then no I don't think you are a reformist. Of course revolution is a necessity to all who want to end wage labour and bring about a classless society but fighting for reforms through struggle is not reformist. To be a reformist you'd have to argue for working within parliamentary politics, and ultimately believe that Capitalism can be reformed for the better.